quence of the destruction of provisions by the late hurricanes; but we lost the opportunity of shewing that we were inhuman, and had not the satisfaction of starving either of these islands into a surrender.

Their attempt on St. Eustatius had been more successful, and it seemed to fill ministers as well as officers with transport, that they had been able to conquer a people that did not resist, and plunder them when they surrendered to their mercy. Mr. Burke concluded with a solemn appeal to the House, whether it was fit that the legislature of Great Britain should be the first to plunge Europe into all the horrors of barbarity, and institute a system of devastation, which would not only bring disgrace, but in all probability ruin upon ourselves. He wished to bring the matter properly before the House, that they might be fully possessed of the facts before they proceeded to a decision; for he sincerely wished them to be deliberate, to be impartial, to be disinterested. It was a question as important as any one that had ever come before them, for it was from their conduct that Europe was to learn the system of Great Britain, and by which they were to be forced to regulate their own: he therefore moved,

"That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies of all proclamations, memorials, orders, and instructions, and of all official correspondence from and to any of his majesty's ministers, relative to the disposition of the property belonging to the States General and to individuals, inhabiting or interested in the places or territories taken from the said States General in the West Indies."

The motion was supported by Mr. T. Stanley, Mr. Thomas Townshend, Mr. Byng, Mr. Fox, and other members of the opposition, who seemed to contend with the honourable mover, in representing the transactions at St. Eustatius, as the most impolitic, the most disgraceful, and the most dangerous of any that were ever recorded in the history of this country. Lord George Germain, and Mr. Dundas, the lord advocate of Scotland, were, in point of argument, the principle opposers of the motion.

Mr. BURKE concluded the debate with a speech in which, with his usual force of argument, mixed with powerful wit, he answered every thing that had been advanced in opposition to his motion. The mode of reasoning that had been adopted, he said, gave him at least this consolation: it shewed him that ministers were ashamed of the orders which they had given, and could not treat the question fairly. Where there was shame there was hope. They saw and felt the danger of their conduct, and were anxious to throw doubt upon it, wishing to conceal that it originated from their instructions, and leaving the army and navy responsible for the disgrace, and for the consequences. He said there was not one argument that deserved a serious reply. The honourable captain who spoke early in the debate *, confined himself to an argument on the propriety of the navy sharing in booty captured on shore, in common with the army. Surely, in all joint expeditions it was a thing clearly known and established, that they shared agreeably to the arrangement made by themselves. But was this a reason for sharing in the illegal booty? for plundering where they subdued? for becoming the tyrants instead of the governors of the territory which they invaded? Surely not. The noble lord who had followed him †, had entered more largely into the question; and he had been answered as fully by his honourable friend ‡; all the argument that he had advanced was, that the capture of St. Eustatius was a new one, different from that of Grenada and from every other; and therefore the conduct observed on this occasion was not to be measured by others. In what respects did it differ? It was well pointed out by his honourable friend, that it differed only in circumstances; which ought to have rendered the property more sacred, because, as he had said before, there wanted the very essence of war, reciprocity; and consequently the inhabitants were entitled to protection by the most powerful

of claims.

* Captain John Luttrell. + Lord George Germain. + Mr. Fox.

The learned lord advocate had advanced some arguments truly singular. He had told the House, that they ought not to comply with the motion, because, if they were to come to a resolution that the proceedings had been criminal, they would effectually condemn one or other of the parties, since it must be either the commanders or the ministers that were guilty. The caution of the learned lord was very laudable. The subsequent evidence would be short; establish the facts by the production of the papers, and his majesty's ministers can lie no longer concealed; have mercy then on his majesty's ministers; you cannot decide on the question of policy without involving the question of guilt; the safety of the ministers depends on your rejection of the motion; and therefore you cannot, in this instance, consult the benefit of your country, since a nearer and dearer object is to be preserved; the object of our gratitude, as he is the author of our political being, the man in whom we live and move, and from whom all the good things of this life are derived; he is to be destroyed by the success of the motion; and therefore save the minister, and let the empire take care of itself. This was the true language of the learned lord; a sort of language to which they were pretty much accustomed of late, and which was always found to succeed to admiration. It was always the conclusion of every harangue, whatever was the beginning: when argument was exhausted; when evasion failed; when law had no more quibbles to confound, nor eloquence to confuse: "Oh, save the noble lord!" is still the last. He trusted that this argument would not always prevail, when it came to this short issue; whether we must part from the minister or from the empire; and he be lieved that we did not want much in our journey to that period; then the noble lord in the blue ribbon would have a woeful proof of the instability of that friendship which was founded in interest, begun without esteem, and continued without affection.

* Mr. Dundas.

Mr. Burke took notice of the light manner in which the learned lord had spoken of the calamities which had been sudered at St. Eustatius; calamities unparalleled in the history of modern war, and which would leave a melancholy proof behind them, that however the lights of philosophy might teach man to bear miseries, they had not yet taught Britons to forbear to inflict them. It was light matter, then, in the opinion of the learned lord, and to be considered merely as a matter of course, incident to war, and inseparable from the capture of an island, to pronounce a sentence of beggary upon a whole people; to separate the most tender relations of nature; the husband from the wife, and the parent from the child; to tear asunder all the ties of a community, the numerous branching affections of a happy society; to divide them at once, and, by one fatal stroke of a conqueror's sword, cut that Gordian knot which linked them together by a social chain; to pronounce a sentence of partial banishment, more severe for not being general; and to hurry them in one rude moment to countries where they must not only be aliens, but beggars: all this, in the learned lord's conception, was no more than the common consequences of war, which commanders might inflict without dishonour, and the conquered ought to submit to without complaint.

Having with equal poignancy commented on other arguments urged by the learned lord, Mr. Burke returned to the real question before the House, and called upon gentlemen to be serious, for it was a serious moment. The predicament was solemn. We must not sport with consequences so dreadful, nor avoid a question so necessary to be determined on broad, impartial ground, for the sake of saving a minister, or of supporting a party. If retaliation was to be dreaded, it was better surely to prevent than to punish it. Heaven knew we were not in a situation in which we held the power of punishment in our hand; struggling for our existence, we had to court the kindness and lenity, not the resentment and retaliation of nations, that we might by our sufferings gain a friend, if we could not command one

by our power, nor secure one by our respect. In short, if either empire or character was dear to us as a people; if we were not degraded in sentiment as well as in rank; if we were not grown barbarous as well as desperate by our calamities, we must by a resolution of parliament atone for the misconduct either of our commanders or of our government. If we must fall, let us at least perish with honour. Let us not, with the loss of independence, lose also our good name as a people. Let us not, in the last moments of our existence, so far forget the true road to glory, as to outrage the enemy we cannot overthrow. If the difficulties of our situation are daily increasing, let us see what reinforcement we may gain from hope; if not, what resolution from despair. By noble and strenuous enterprizes, we may prevail and triumph; the nations will not suffer us to be crushed, if we preserve our virtue. Providence, approving of our exertions, will stretch forth the powerful arm to save; and if we fail, we shall die lamented; even our enemies will do us justice; and history will applaud our

name.

The House divided on Mr. Burke's motion: Yeas 86: Noes 160. So it passed in the negative.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES

STATE OF PENSACOLA RELIEF. OF GIBRALTAR, &c.

May 21.

THE 'HE House being in a committee of supply, Sir Charles Cocks opened the extraordinary services of the Ordnance for the current year, and moved that the sum of 252,104%. 38.4d. be granted for that purpose. Upon this occasion,

Mr. BURKE spoke for some time in a humorous style on the present ordnance extraordinaries: he said the first