bsurdity and a meanness; and that no future friendship
could be hoped from a people who, though descended from us and bound to
us by the strong ties of community of descent, language, and religion,
had united themselves with the most ancient, inveterate, and most
powerful of all our enemies. At the same time war was advocated, it was
suggested that Chatham, the scourge of the house of Bourbon, was the
proper man to occupy the post held by Lord North at such a crisis.
But Lord North did not coincide in this opinion. He expressed a total
disregard to office, but contended that the interest of the empire, as
well as his own reputation, demanded that he should still sit at the
helm of the state. The original address was carried by a large majority,
and in the house of lords an amendment to the address was negatived by
a majority of sixty-eight against twenty-five. Addresses were also
returned from both houses to a royal message intimating his majesty's
intention of calling out the militia.

INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF THE NAVY.

Previous pages show that there had already been debates on the state
of the navy. Now that a war with France was inevitable the subject was
brought prominently forward; especially in the house of lords. On the
13th of March, Lord Howard of Effingham moved a series of resolutions
explaining the condition of the navy during the last eight years; the
number of ships broken up, built, or repaired; and the precise condition
and expense of the ordnance. In moving these resolutions, Lord Howard
spoke of the necessity of economy, and accused the first lord of the
admiralty with gross mismanagement. Lord Sandwich, who had been assailed
on previous occasions when the same subject was introduced, now made a
long and able defence. The British naval force, he said, at that moment
consisted of three hundred and seventy-three ships of all rates, which
was a force double to that which England had in her possession half a
century before. In drawing the comparison or the present state of the
navy with its condition in 1727, he adduced arguments highly favourable
to his own administration; but notwithstanding this, the opposition were
very violent in their language towards him. He was even threatened with
the vengeance of the people, who, it was said, would rise and tear him
to pieces, as the Dutch had treated De Witt. The debate was tumultous,
but the motions were all negatived.

MOTION FOR EXCLUDING