be influenced by motives of purity, and looking at affairs through the medium of prejudice, instill into others those erroneous notions which they themselves had imbibed, and which they firmly believed. At any rate, it must be agreed on all hands, that a vast number of the loyalists had been deluded by this country, and had risked every thing in our cause; to such men the nation owed protection, and its honour was pledged for their security at all hazards. How far any description of the refugees merited the titles of vipers and traitors bestowed on them by the honourable gentleman who moved the Address, he would leave the world to imagine. He saw no use, however, in abusing and vilifying those whom we had shamefully abandoned. He took notice of Mr. Powys's attack upon that side of the House for the coalition stated to have been formed that day, and maintained that there was nothing heterogeneous in such an alliance, if any such had been formed,-which he was yet to learn. He bid those who held such an opinion look at the treasury-bench at that moment, and see the learned lord advocate (Mr. Dundas) sitting between the chancellor of the exchequer and the secretary of state. He reminded the House of the frequent speeches of the latter, in opposition to that administration which the learned lord had on all occasions supported; and after creating some laughter at the expence of the present administration, reverted to his original argument, that the peace was disadvantageous and disgraceful. In answer to Mr. Powys's declaration, that the noble lord in the blue ribbon was the cause of it, he said, it by no means followed that we must submit to any terms, because the war had been calamitous and unfortunate. The success of the last campaign gave us vantage ground, and we had a right either to have conceded less or to have maintained more. The debate lasted till near eight o'clock in the morning, when the House divided on the original Address: Yeas 208: Noes 224. The amendments were consequently carried by a majority of 16. COALITION BETWEEN MR. Fox AND LORD NORTH. March 31, IN consequence of the censure passed on the peace by the resolutions of the House of Commons on the 21st of February, the Earl of Shelburne quitted his office of first commissioner of the treasury, and the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Pitt, declared publicly in the House, that he only held his place till a successor should be appointed to fill it. A ministerial interregnum ensued, which lasted till the beginning of April; during which time the kingdom remained in a state of great disorder; without any responsible government at home, the finances neglected, the military establishments unreduced, and the negocia tions with foreign powers, which the critical conjuncture of affairs rendered peculiarly important, entirely at a stand. On the 31st of March, the Earl of Surrey moved an Address to his majesty, beseeching him to form an efficient administration. In the course of the debate which took place in consequence of this motion, Mr. BURKE rose, and, in a full, clear, and manly way, vindicated the parliamentary conduct he had observed for a period of eighteen years. He said he had constantly voted on the same side with those noble and firm supporters of the constitution, the house of Cavendish, and he trusted he always should. He had been blamed for joining in the coalition; he however made no doubt but a time would come when he should have it in his power to convince those persons that now railed so bitterly against it, that they were entirely wrong, and were doing more hurt to their country than they imagined. It was absurd to say that the coalition could not act because they differed on some points. Had he not differed, on the Middlesex election, respecting equal representation, &c. &c. with his right honourable friend (Mr. Fox), and yet would any man say they could not act together on other grand points? Undoubtedly they could, and it would be found that coali tion was the only means that could be resorted to in order to form an administration upon a firm and broad basis. The Earl of Surrey consented to withdraw his motion, with an understanding that it was to be renewed in three days. The day after this debate, a negociation was again opened with the Duke of Portland, and on the 2d of April a new administration was announced.* * The following is a list of the new administration: Members of the cabinet. First Lord of the Treasury - Duke of Portland. Secretary of State for the Home Department - Lord North. Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord John Cavendish. First Lord of the Admiralty-Lord Viscount Keppel. Lord Privy Seal - Earl of Carlisle. Not of the Cabinet. Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal— Lord Lough- Paymaster of the Forces-Edmund Burke, Esq. Attorney-General-James Wallace, Esq. Secretaries to the Treasury-Rich. Brinsley Sheridan, Esq. Richard Speaker of the House of Lords - Earl of Mansfield. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland - Earl of Northington, Secretary to ditto-William Windham, Esq. WILLIAMS'S DIVORCE BILL. March 27. THIS day the House resolved itself into a committee on Williams's divorce bill. A conversation took place on the clause inserted in the Upper House, on the motion of Lord Ashburton, the purport of which was, that the children born after the separation of the husband and wife should not be entitled to any share of the husband's property, unless the said children should be able to prove their legitimacy. Mr. Fox, in an able speech, arraigned this clause as an act of great injustice to the children, and moved that it should be rejected. Mr. BURKE opposed the motion. He argued, that the illegitimacy of the children was as clearly established as the adultery; and thence he inferred the propriety of bastardizing the offspring, in justice to a much-injured husband, who would otherwise be subjected to great inconveniences for twenty-one years; and perhaps have, afterwards, the additional mortification of finding it put out of his power, by the death of his witnesses, to prove the children illegitimate. He defended the clause in question, and said, it would not put the children in a worse situation than they would be without it; for being declared illegitimate, either by law or by a special act of parliament, they must in either case be deprived of any claim on Mr. Williams. He went farther, in order to shew the hardships that gentleman must suffer if the clause should not pass. It was a maxim in law, pater est quem nuptiæ demonstrant;' but he would not generally subscribe to that maxim: for when a woman lived in open adultery, and had children, the probability in reason was that they belonged to the adulterer, and not to the husband, even though the latter should occasionally have access to the wife. With this opinion, he must think that Mr. Williams ought to be pronounced by the bill not to be the father of children, whom no one in that committee believed to be his. 6 Mr. Burke went on to state the arbitrary nature of our law respecting parental authority, and the disposing of landed property, in not dividing it equally among the children of a parent, but giving it to the eldest son. He entered into a curious but abstruse disquisition of the nature of our laws and customs with regard to husbands and wives, and their power over their children. He mentioned the municipal law respecting divorces; and stated that the Romans did not marry, nor understand the economy of marriage, for a long time; that they allowed of divorces, but the condition of them was, that the parties divorced were never to marry again, but to be condemned to perpetual celibacy. He reasoned upon this for some time, and said the bill was, as his right honourable friend had stated, an appeal to them, partly of a legislative, and partly of a judicial nature. There were, however, more parties to be considered than the three mentioned by his right honourable friend. It was not only the case of Mr. Williams, his wife, and children, but of the lady, whoever she might be, that Mr. Williams might hereafter marry. Would they, then, divorce Mr. Williams from his unfortunate marriage, and yet entail upon him for twenty-one years all the worst consequences of that marriage? Would they oblige him to take home to his parental arms the bastards of his most mortal enemy? to have them for twenty-one years under his eye, the monuments of his shame, the pledges of his disgrace? Let the committee think upon the cruelty, the injustice of such conduct. Let them feel for Mr. Williams; let them consider how he was to marry again under such circumstances. Mr. Burke put these appeals to the humanity of the House with great force and address, and contended, that the evidence which had proved the adultery of Mrs. Williams, and entitled Mr. Williams to a divorce à vinculo matrimonii, likewise proved the children bastards, and warranted the House to pronounce them such. He feared his right honourable friend had learned some of his style of reasoning upon the present question from what he |