still less might be beneficial. I would treat, and get what I could with their consent, but I would sooner give up every claim to America than continue an unjust and cruel civil war. ""*

The amendment was rejected by 97 to 28.

We see in this debate the elements of a fresh difference between Lord Chatham and the Rockingham Whigs. It was further manifested by the declarations made at a later period by Lord Shelburne on the one side and by Mr. Fox on the other. On the 5th of March, 1778, Lord Shelburne declared that "he would never consent that America should be independent. The idea he ever entertained of the connexion between the two countries was that they should have one friend, one enemy, one purse, and one sword, and that Great Britain should superintend the interests of the whole, as the great controlling power. That the two countries should have but one will, though the means of expressing that will might be different, distinct, and varied. It was once optional, and still possible, and he would never adopt any scheme which would go to dissever our colonies from us." To make his meaning free from all obscurity, he declared emphatically, "the sun of Great Britain is set, and we shall no longer be a powerful or respectable people the moment that the independency of America is agreed to by our Government."+

On the 10th of April, 1778, on Mr. Powys's motion, "That the powers of the commissioners appointed to treat with America be enlarged, and that they be authorized to declare the Americans absolutely and for ever independent," Mr. Fox said, "He had formed a decided opinion upon the present question, and if he should happen to differ * "Parliamentary History," vol. xix. † Ibid. p. 850. VOL. I.

M

in his sentiments from a venerable character whom he honoured and revered (Lord Chatham), the committee would give him credit that no early prejudice, no childish pique, directed his judgment or influenced his mind. He had considered this matter abstracted from every other object, and his judgment was formed upon logical as well as natural reasoning and deduction. The dependency of America he thought it impossible, from our situation, as well as from the nature of the object, for us to regain. She had joined with France in an amicable and commercial treaty. The latter had recognised her independency, and both were bound in gratitude to defend one another against our resentment on the one hand, or our attempt to break the alliance on the other. If by concession or coercion we should attempt to recover the dependency of America, we should have the powers of France and America, and perhaps Spain, to encounter. If we should attempt to punish France for recognising the independency of America, America would join her, and we should have, in either case, two, if not three powers to combat. It was probable that the greatest part of Europe would join in the recognition. Gratitude on the one hand, and obligation on the other, would unite them in one bond, and we should experience the joint efforts of all, if we attacked one. If, on the contrary, the committee agreed to the motion, and thereby recognised the independency of America, we should be no longer bound to punish the European powers, who had already, or who might do the same; and we should probably secure a larger share of the commerce of the Americans by a perpetual alliance on a federal foundation, than by a nominal dependence."*

Whatever may have been the expediency of Lord Chat* "Parliamentary History," vol. xix. p. 1082.

ham's original proposition, that taxes for revenue should be . given up, and duties for regulation of trade retained, it was clear that at this time peace was not to be obtained by compromise. Not even the veneration in which the name of Chatham was justly held, could have made such an arrangement possible. The Americans had made up their minds to independence, and would not have agreed to submission on any terms. When Lord North proposed the conciliatory bills, Washington wrote thus to a member of Congress: "Nothing short of independence, it appears to me, can possibly do. A peace on any other terms would, if I may be allowed the expression, be a peace of war. The injuries we have received from the British nation were so unprovoked, and have been so great and so many, that they can never be forgotten. Besides the feuds, the jealousies, the animosities that would ever attend a union with them, besides the importance, the advantages which we should derive from an unrestricted commerce, our fidelity as a people, our gratitude, our character as men, are opposed to a coalition with them as subjects; but, in case of the last extremity, were we easily to accede to terms of dependence, no nation, upon future occasions, let the oppressions of Britain be ever so flagrant and unjust, would interfere for our relief, or at most they would do it with a cautious reluctance, and upon conditions most probably that would be hard, if not dishonourable to us."*

In this division of opinion there can be little doubt that the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Fox were in the right. The march of General Burgoyne showed the general enthusiasm of New England in the cause of independence; the little progress made by General Howe in the south proved *Sparks's "Life of Washington," vol. i. p. 287.

that Washington might be driven back, but could not be destroyed. Lord Chatham and Lord Shelburne were mistaken in thinking that with the loss of America the sun of England would set for ever. Seven years of unavailing contest, and seventy-five years of the greatness of the British empire after separation, have proved the wisdom of the advice which the Rockingham Whigs gave to their country. Mr. Fox said truly, that commerce with America on friendly terms would serve us better than a nominal dependence. Experience has proved the truth of his assertion. The trade between Great Britain and America has increased at least fivefold since the separation. Not all the jealousy of the mercantile system, not all the prohibitions to which Lord Chatham adhered, nor all the taxes which the financial genius of Mr. Grenville could have devised, could have furnished to Great Britain any advantages to be compared with the profits of unrestricted intercourse founded on the sense of mutual benefits, and the amity of two great independent States.

CHAPTER X.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT-WAR WITH FRANCE-PROGRESS OF AFFAIRS IN AMERICA-NEGOTIATIONS-DEATH OF CHATHAM.

1778.

Soon after the meeting of Parliament, Colonel Luttrell, complaining that in a certain morning paper he had been grossly misrepresented, informed the House that for his future safety and protection he was determined to move that the Standing Order of the House for excluding strangers from the gallery should be strictly enforced.

Mr. Fox laid down the true doctrine of publicity on this occasion. He said: "That he was convinced the true and only method of preventing misrepresentation was by throwing open the gallery, and making the debates and decisions of the House as public as possible. There was less danger of misrepresentation in a full company than in a thin one, as there would be a greater number of persons to give evidence against the misrepresentation. The shutting of the gallery could not prevent the proceedings of the House from finding their way to public view; for, during a certain period, when the gallery was kept empty, the debates were printed, let the manner of obtaining them be what it might, and, in fact, the public had a right to know what passed in Parliament."

On the 2nd of February Mr. Fox, in a committee on the