1807.] 
deeply interefted in meafures which, if 
puriued, muft quickly prove the means 
ef procuring for them princely fortunes, 
were thofe who chiefly fupported coer: 
cive propofitions, Thefe gentlemen and 
their connexions, with the whole race of 
money-jobbers, contractors, &c. he be- 
lieved, formed no fmall part of the in- 
dependent majorities which had been fo 
loudly echoed both within and without 
doors, Af precipitating this country into 
a cruel, expentive, and unnatural civil 
war.” 
He further obferved, “‘ that the war, 
if carried on, would not only be a war 
of heavy expence ¢ aud long continuance, 
but would be attended with circumttances 
ef cruelty, civil rage, and devaftation, 
hitherto unprecedented in the annals of 
mankind. We withed not only to rob 
the Americans of their property, and 
make them flaves to fight our battles, 
but we made war on them in a manner 
that would thock the moft barbarous na- 
tions, by firing their towns, and turning 
the wretched inhabitants to perifh in 
cold, want, and nakednefs. 
«Byen fill more: This barbaric rage 
was not only directed againit our enemies, 
but againft our warmett and moft zealous 
friends. The fact was mftanced in the 
late conflagration of the loyal town of 
Norfolk in Virginia, as Adiminiftration 
had fo fre equently called it; which was re- 
duced to afhes by the wanton and un- 
provoked aét of one of our naval com- 
manders. Such a deed was not lefs in- 
coniiftent with every fentiment of huma~ 
nity, than contrary to every rule of good 
policy. It would turn the whole Conti- 
nent, as well friends as foes, into the 
moft ‘implacable and inveterate ees 5 
it would incenfe our friends, and. renc 
our foes at once fierce, defperate, cr ei 
and unrelenting; it difgraced our arms ; 
it would render us defpifed and abhorred, 
and remaim an indelible blot on the dig ro 
nity and honour of the Englith nation.” 
in 1781, when the Earl of Shelburne 
(the late Marquis of Lanfdowne) moved 
an addrets to the King’s fpeech,. propo- 
fing {uch ceuntels to be laid at the royal 
fect, as might excite the efforts, point: 
the arms, and command the confidence 
of his Majetty’s loyal fubjects, he was 
ably feconded by the fubject of the pre- 
fent Memoir. He obferved, that we 
owed the then ignominious fituation of 
our affairs, to the fame caule from which 
the private misfortunes of individuals 
frequently procecded—to folly It was 
ewing to the wretched iviten of covern-~ 
aneat which had been early ado ipted iW 
Memoirs of the late Duke of Richmond: 
53. 
the reign of his Majefty, and which firft 
gave rife to that abominable title, to that 
odious diftine tion, of a King’s friend, as 
if a man could not act in perfonal oppo- 
fition to Government, without proving a 
perfonal enemy to his Majetty. 
His Grace then proceeded to touch 
upon two topics relative to his own con- 
duct, which toon after occalioned. no 
final devree of fenfation. 
Having applauded the propofition of 
the ngble Earl, be remarked, “ that it 
was the duty of ‘their Lordfhips to fugeett 
falutary advice to the Crown, and to 
ftand up as atlertors of the rights of the 
people ; but he thought that there was 
but little profpect of giving fuch advice 
with effect, unlets the original principles 
of the conftitution were reftored.” 
He contended, “ that, at prefent, not 
even one-feyenth part of the people were 
reprefented, while all the remainder had 
ng concern whatever, either virtually or 
individually, in the management of their: 
own affairs; which,” he alfo added, “ their 
Lordthips well knew the conttitution of 
this country, as originally framed, gave 
them a right to poflefs.” 
He then appealed to the Houfe, whe- 
ther many of the Peers of Parliament did 
not name the members for feveral bo- 
roughs, and whether the reprefentatives 
were not chofen by the management of 
two or three burgefles? “ Was that the 
fort of reprefentation deiigned by the 
conftitution? Undoubtedly “it, was not, 
Were this poimt reformed, we might ex-— 
pect to fee the country capable of re- 
gaining fome portion of its former Bia 
ne{s.” 
After maintaining that the nation was 
geverned by clerks, “and not by Miifters, 
he adverted to the ttate of the. fortifica- 
tions at home. [lis Grace particularly 
inttanced thote erected on Dover Heights, 
and Chatham Lines; declaring, “ as a 
military man, that, notwithftanding the 
immente charge of ereciing them, they 
were the moft abfurd and ineffectual that 
could poflibly be advifed; a difgrace to 
all other kinds of ancient or modern for- 
tifications, and even the butt of ridicule 
for the boys at Woolwich. The thick- 
nefs of the parapet was no more than 
feven feet ; and every perfon who was in 
the leaft converfant in the rudiments of 
fortification mufi know, that the proper 
thickuels of a parapet, cannon-proof, was 
never lefs than eighteen feet. Such mere 
paper-works would be all knocked to 
pieces at che firit fire, were guus brought 
to bear upon them,” 
The minority | on this occafion amount- 
ed 
