their own boundaries, whom it will now coft us millions to diflodge from the very center of fome of our best settlements?

AMERICA then is the fole object of the war, and every honeft man, who hath eyes to fee, and ears to hear, must conclude that it must be fupported in America; nay, that our whole force, all that we can poffibly fpare from our own defence and fafety at home, ought to be exerted there, till the laft perfidious Frenchman be killed or driven away; that in one great effort we might foon recover what we have loft, and fecure our dominions there for the future. Inftead of this, what have we done, and are about to do? we are to hire a hundred and forty thousand men in Germany and Ruffia to fight upon the continent; God knows why, or with whom! and we have fent two miferable battalions to recover our colonies. Can this be reconciled to wisdom, to virtue, to concern for our country? is there the leaft degree of common fenfe or fanity in fuch measures? the caufe of the war still fubfifts, and is the fame as ever; but the object is changed, transferred from west to east, from ourselves to pretended friends and ufelefs allies and ftrangers; God knows where ! America is no longer the thing we fight for, fome other intereft is fatally set up diftant from Great Britain, and, as far as the pole, from her

concerns.

Is this a measure of union? is this to eftablish our intereft between King and people? will this produce

L 4

produce unanimity? the want of which is fo loudly complained of by the efpoufers of these measures; because the true lovers of their country cannot confpire in its deftruction. Is

there then no stability in our councils, no steadinefs in our conduct, that we would rush blindly and desperately into a war, and lofe fight of the object of it, even before it be declared? what will all the world, friends and foes think of us? that the measure of our wickednefs or folly is full, and will foon make us fall an eafy prey. Therefore are our enemies tame and quiet; therefore they lie hid while we exert our strength, and wait only till we wantonly expose our weaknefs, before they ftrike. Situated as they and we are, they cannot, it appears, they cannot hurt us, they cannot reach us, while they lie at our mercy; but we are fuch champions, we not only throw down the gauntlet of defiance (which we may do very fafely) but we caft off our armour and fhield of defence; we cross the water naked to meet them and put both in their power. What can be the cause of this fatal infatuation? is there any man fo wickedly fond of power, as to fet up and fupport this ftandard of divifion and difcord? that cares not what ruin he brings on his country, fo he bear fway in it? fuch men,

if any fuch there are, would do well to confider, even for their own fakes (it would be vain to talk to them upon any other motive) that power fo fet up, can never laft long: a morning infect that muft die with the fetting

fun !

fun! What avails it, who rules the helm, if the fhip finks?

AND yet there are men who avow these measures, argue for them, write for them. I have feen a pamphlet wrote in the character of a member, and I believe it is no feigned character; not only in justification of them, but of himself for fupporting them in contradiction to his former fentiments and conduct. 1 muft beg leave to take notice of a few of his principal arguments, to fhew how wretchedly men of fenfe difpute, when against their own judgment and confcience they contend, not for truth, but vindication: how lame, how laboured are all those reasonings that are brought to fupport a bad cause, or a tottering character! when truth and facts cry aloud against us, what avails a written defence? our actions muft fpeak for us; men will regard what we do, not what we say if we are not justified by these, our characters must fink, though like Cæfar falling, we cover them with an excuse, that we may fall more decently. But let us fee:

He fets out with charging upon those, who ftand up for their country in oppofition to these fatal measures, the abfurdity of fuppofing that we are at no time, and in no cafe whatever, to enter into any engagements on the continent. This is very unfair: for I am perfuaded, no man in his fenfes ever said, or thought so, seriously. On the contrary, I believe that all men think it fight we should at all times have alliances there.

But

But here lies the fallacy: the honourable gentleman, or the noble Lord (for I should be forry not to give him his title) endeavours to pass upon us treaties of fubfidy, and the hireing foreign armies for alliances. Surely they are widely different. Alliances, where the advantages are in any degree mutual, give strength to both fides; whereas by fubfidies we act only on our own ftrength; which we exhauft without securing a friend: like a man who buys a beauty; he is not his own when he has paid for her. As well might we call our fervants to whom we pay wages our friends, as those powers to whom we pay fubfidies, our allies; they will all alike quit their old mafters, and run to new for a new intereft or more wages. Have they not always done fo? does not all history tell us they have? the little German Princes more particularly have for ever shifted fides, and changed their mafters? what reafon is there to think they will not do fo now, and for ever do fo? could we form alliances with great powers; who would act with us upon equal terms, who would at least endeavour to defend themfelves; this would be negotiating to good purpose, fuch allies we ought to affift to the utmoft of our ability. But we are exerting not our ftrength, but our laft agonies, in defence of a country, that never yet sent a single regiment, upon her own bottom, to our affiftance, or the fupport of the common caufe. This is the alliance that cofts us fo dearly!

BUT

BUT we have alliances; Hanover has alliances; and is fafe, not only in the general protection of the Germanic body; but in alliance of mutual defence with the Queen of Hungary and other powers, who muft and will affift upon any attack; so that she enjoys a much greater degree of fecurity than any other ftate in Germany: fo that there is not the leaft call for this prodigality and fuper-errogation in Great Britain.

ANOTHER argument produced, is this; that our greatest and wifeft princes have ever engaged on the continent, and difpofed of large fums of money there to great advantage, and particularly Queen Elizabeth; and, on the contrary, that in the weakest and most inglorious reigns we withdrew ourselves from all connexion and concern with the other powers of Europe. This is neither truly, nor fairly stated: Queen Elizabeth disposed of feveral fums of money, but not large ones, very prudently and advantageoufly. When her intereft called upon her fo to do, fhe advanced money to Prince Cafimir, the Duke of Anjou, the Hugonots, the Dutch, and Henry IV. of France; but it was after they had made the greateft efforts for themselves, and were no longer able to ftruggle alone; when they were expiring under the oppreffion of those powers, who might afterwards have fallen upon England, and who she knew intended it. Then it was fhe fent those timely falutary aids that faved both them and herself: but then he did

not