MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.
The new parliament met on the 29th of November when the king signified his pleasure that the commons should elect a speaker to be presented on the next day for his approbation. Sir Fletcher Norton was unanimously re-elected, and on the following day his majesty opened the session with a speech in the usual form. The leading topic in this speech was the rebellious spirit displayed in America. His Majesty remarked: “It gives me much concern that I am obliged at the opening of this parliament, to inform you that a most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to the law still unhappily prevails in the province of Massachusets Bay, and has, in divers parts of it, broke forth in fresh violences of a very criminal nature. These proceedings have been countenanced and encouraged in others of my colonies, and unwarrantable attempts have been made to obstruct the commerce of this country by unlawful combinations. I have taken such measures and given such orders as I judged most proper and effectual for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the last session of the late parliament, for the protection and security of the commerce of my subjects, and for the restoring and preserving peace, order, and good government in the province of Massachusets Bay; and you may depend upon my firm and steadfast resolution to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of this legislature over all the dominions of my crown: the maintenance of which I consider as essential to the dignity, the safety, and the welfare of the British empire; assuring myself that, while I act upon these principles, I shall never fail to receive your assistance and support.” In conclusion, his majesty recommended both houses to proceed with temper and unanimity in their resolutions, in order that his subjects in every part of his dominions might be taught by their example to preserve a due reverence for the laws, and a just sense of the blessings of the British constitution.
In the debate on the address in the commons, an amendment was proposed on the part of the opposition, to the effect that his majesty would be pleased to communicate the whole intelligence received from America, and to lay all letters, orders, and instructions relating to the late transactions before parliament. This was opposed by Lord North, who argued that it was not a proper time for entering into a discussion on the subject, since matters were in a state of suspense, He said that a reconcilliation was highly desirable, but as no terms of concession had been made by the Americans, it could not be expected that England would offer terms of submission. On the opposition benches the conduct of the late parliament in passing the American acts was severely censured, and the prime-minister was taunted with the failure of those acts from which he had augured such great and beneficial effects. The amendment, however, was negatived by a majority of 264 against 73, and the original address carried. Opposition shared the same fate in the lords. The Duke of Richmond moved an amendment similar to that in the commons, and a hot debate took place in consequence, but it was lost by a majority of 63 against 13. Nine of the minority entered a strong protest against the address—the first ever made upon an address—which concluded with these words: “Whatever may be the mischievous designs or the inconsiderate temerity, which leads others to this desperate course, we wish to be known as persons who have ever disapproved of measures so pernicious in their past effects and their future tendency; and who are not in haste, without inquiry or information, to commit ourselves in declarations which may precipitate our country into all the calamities of a civil war.”
It might have been expected that ministers, having apparently made up their minds to pursue coercive measures, would have prepared to meet the alternative of war with an efficient force. Ministers, however, seem to have been as impotent in execution as they were magnanimous in resolve. Instead of increasing the forces, they left the estimates to be entirely formed upon a peace establishment: continuing the army as it was and actually reducing the navy by 4000 men; leaving only 16,000 for the service of the ensuing year. The country felt a difficulty in reconciling this conduct of the ministers with the speech from the throne, and vehement debates took place in both houses on the subject. Lord Sandwich, however, asserted that our navy establishment, small as it was, would be sufficient to reduce the colonies to obedience, as the power, courage, and discipline of the Americans were by no means so formidable as had been represented, and as was generally supposed. Their very numbers, he said, would only add to the facility of their defeat when brought into action. Beyond this, the commons did little more before the Christmas recess than receive petitions which had been got up by Franklin and his agents in the North, and counter petitions which were concocted through the agency of Adam Smith, Dr. Roebuck, and others who seem to have been set to work by ministers, although they pretended some surprise when they were presented. In the house of lords, in the meantime, one important resolution had passed on the motion of the Duke of Manchester. This was to admit not only the members of the house of commons, but also other strangers, to hear the debates of the upper house. This put an end to a bitter contention which had existed between the lords and commons for four years.
