afked, whether the clause in question was ever intended to be put in execution?' It was answered, 'No, there was no such intention.' I asked then, and I ask now, 'What was the use of making laws that were never to be executed?' To make useless and infignificant laws, is not to exercise authority, but to degrade it; it is a vain, idle, and infolent parade of legislation: and yet, my Lords, would to God the four last shameful and miferable years had been employed in making such laws as these! this wretched country might still have been safe, and perhaps once more might have been happy. But, my Lords, let us for a moment confider to whom this power of prescribing Articles of Faith is to be confided: undoubtedly this holy depofit cannot fail to be lodged where we have placed every thing else that is great and good-the honor, the interest, the strength, and revenues of the nation-ALL are placed in the keeping of the MINISTRY. Perhaps, my Lords, there might be Ministers, to whose management none who have the least value for their religion would choose to confide it. One might naturally ask a Minifter for a good pension, or a good contract, or a place at Court; but hardly any one would think of making interest with them for a place in HEAVEN. What I now say applies only to future bad Minifters, for of the present Adminiftration I most firmly believe that they are

2

fully as capable of defining Articles of Faith as of directing the Councils of the State. The ruling party is always very liberal in bestowing the title of Schifmatic and Heretic on those who differ from them in religion, and in representing them as dangerous to the State. My Lords, the contrary is the truth. Those who are uppermoft, and have the power, are the men who do the mifchief, while the Schifmatics only fuffer and com-" plain. Ask, who has brought the affairs of this country into the present calamitous state? Who are the men that have plundered and depopulated Bengal? Who are they that have turned a whole continent, inhabited by friends and kindred, into our bitterest enemies? Yes! they who have shorn the strength and cut off the right arm of Britain, were all members of the ESTABLISHED CHURCH, all orthodox men. I am not afraid of those tender and scrupulous confciences who are overcautious of profeffing or believing too much; if they are fincerely in the wrong, I forgive their errors, and respect their integrity. The men I am afraid of, are the men who believe every thing, and subscribe every thing, and who VOTE for every thing."-Upon the whole, it appears but too evident, that the final fuccess of the bill, from which the objectionable clause was not fuffered to be expunged, must be attributed not to the candor and equity of the Court, but to the general spirit and temper

1

4

temper of the times, which were at this period happily and strongly at variance with the spirit of persecution and intolerance.

A far more doubtful and difficult subject of discussion presented itself, in contemplating the state political and commercial of the kingdom of Ireland; which, by the continuance of the present ruinous war, was now reduced to the most extreme and urgent distress. Lord Newhaven, in concert with various other respectable members particularly connected with that kingdom, attempted to revive the propofitions of the last year with some new modifications, but without effect. At length it was carried by a small majority to repeal that clause in the Act of Navigation in favor of Ireland, by which ships coming from the West Indies were compelled to bring their cargoes directly to England. But this indulgence being opposed by the commercial cities of England, on a subsequent motion for the House to resolve itself into a Committee, the Minifter declared himself adverse to the measure, and it was finally loft by a majority of four voices.

A third motion by Mr. Fox, "for the removal of the Earl of Sandwich from his Majesty's person and councils for ever, was negatived by 221 voices to 118. The HOWES, impatient of the obloquy thrown upon them by the partisans of the Court, had earnestly folicited a parliamentary enquiry into their conduct in America; to which the

Minifter

Minister at length very reluctantly afsented. A multitude of papers were in consequence laid upon the table; and the House resolving itself into a Committee of Enquiry, Lord Cornwallis, Sir Charles Grey, Sir Guy Carleton, and various other officers of high reputation who had ferved in America, were examined at the bar of the House; and the result of a long and tedious investigation was in general, "That the force fent to America was at no time equal to the subjugation of that continent; that the people of America were almost unanimous in their enmity and refiftance to Great Britain; that the nature of the country was beyond any other difficult and impracticable for military operations; and that there was no fairer profpect of fuccess, in any subsequent attempt at conquest, than in those which had been already made." On the 29th of June 1779, the Committee was fuddenly diffolved without coming to a fingle resolution on any part of the business.

In the House of Lords, the Earl of Briftol moved an Address to the King, fimilar to that of Mr. Fox, for the removal of the Earl of Sandwich. His Lordship supported this motion in a speech containing a very extensive display of political and professional knowledge. This Nobleman affirmed, " that about seven millions more money had been allotted for the support and increase of our Navy during the last seven years, than in any former equal period; and that, dur

ing this time, the decrease and decline of the navy had been in an inverse ratio to the excess of the expenditure. While such has been the unbounded liberality of Parliament; what, exclaimed the Noble Lord, is become of our navy? or, if there is no navy, what is become of our money ?" The motion was rejected by 78 voices to 39. Notwithstanding these repeated acquittals, the reputation of Lord Sandwich fuffered not a little, by this fucceffion of attacks, in the estimation of the public. A short time before the prorogation, a Royal Message was fomewhat unexpectedly delivered to both Houses, on a fubject of the higheft importance, informing them, that a Manifesto had been presented to his Majesty by the Count d'Almodovar, Ambassador of the King of Spain, containing a declaration of hoftility on the part of the Catholic King, who had in consequence ordered his Ambassador to depart without taking leave. The disclosure of this alarming event, so long predicted by the Minority, called forth all their powers of eloquence and invective. The Minifters were reminded of their blindness, obstinacy, and incredulity on this subject-of the contempt with which they had treated every warning of danger-and of their repeated and triumphant declarations " that Spain could have no interest in joining our enemies-Spain had colonies of her own, and would not set so bad an example as to afford