212 APPENDIX TO BRITISH COUNTER CASE. 



attachments, surely had some claim on our affection. But what were 

 not the claims of those, who, in conformity to their allegiance, their 

 cheerful obedience to the voice of Parliament, their confidence in the 

 proclamation of our generals, invited under every assurance of mili- 

 tary, parliamentary, political, and affectionate protection, espoused, 

 with the hazard of their lives, and the forfeiture of their properties, 

 the cause of Great Britain? Were these deserving of being excluded 

 from that ray of protection which was held out by the fifth article, in 

 favour of those loyalists who had not drawn the sword in our defence? 

 By this, there was a provision made for them, which promised a 

 species of retribution and protection. The Congress are earnestly to 

 recommend it to the legislatures of the respective States to provide 

 for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which had 

 been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects; and also of the 

 estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the 

 possession of His Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms 

 against the United States. Every other description are to have the 

 liberty of going into part of the United States, and there remain with- 

 out being molested for the space of twelve months, in their endeavours 

 to obtain the restitution of their confiscated properties. Is this agree- 

 able to the spirit of conciliation, which on the return of peace should 

 universally prevail? Who, then, possessed of the least particle of 

 humanity, but must anticipate the miseries these brave and patriotic 

 men must feel from our resigning them to poverty and wretchedness ? 

 I cannot but feel for men thus sacrificed for their bravery and prin- 

 ciples. They have exposed their lives, endured an age of hardships, 

 deserted their interests, forfeited their possessions, lost their connec- 

 tions, and ruined their families, in our cause. Could not all this 

 waste of human enjoyment excite our desire of protecting them from 

 that state of misery with which the implacable resentment of the 

 States have desired to punish their loyalty to their sovereign, and 

 their attachment to their mother country? If we had not espoused 

 their cause from a principle of affection and gratitude, we should, at 

 least, have protected them, to have preserved our own honour. If 

 not tender of their feelings, we should have been tender of our own 

 character. Never was the honour of a nation so grossly abused as 

 in the desertion of those men, who are now exposed to every punish- 

 ment that desertion and poverty can inflict. Nothing can excuse our 

 not having insisted upon a stipulation in their favour, but evident im- 

 possibility. But where appears this impossibility ? I would, for the 

 honour of my country, that there had been an impossibility of stipu- 

 lation in their favour; then their miseries would not have been aggra- 

 vated by the reflection of our ingratitude. But to me such a stipu- 

 lation appears to have been too practicable for my approbation of this 

 treaty. Could not all the surrenders we have so liberally made to 

 America, give us that pretence for reciprocity in favour of these un- 

 happy loyalists? Could not the surrender of Charlestown, of New 

 York, of Rhode Island, and Penobscot, purchase the security of these 

 deserving people? Was Congress not sufficiently sensible of debility 

 of internal resource to prosecute the war? Had she the temerity to 

 have persevered in a war, rather than have given up this opportunity 

 of exercising her implacable and impolitic resentment? I term it 

 impolitic; for it will establish their character as a vindictive people. 

 It would have become the interests as well as the character of a newly- 



