ONE:Gates replied that he was well aware that General Burgoyne's army was reduced to the last extremity; that it had lost the greater part of its men by repeated defeats, sickness, etc., together with their artillery, horses, and ammunition; that their retreat was cut off, and, therefore, he could listen to nothing but an absolute surrender. Burgoyne said he would never admit that his retreat was cut off whilst he had arms in his hands; and Gates, who knew that Clinton was on his march, and might soon alter the whole face of things, was only too anxious to have Burgoyne's army out of the way. After some preliminaries, therefore, to save appearances, on the 16th it was agreed that the British should march out of their camp with all the honours of war; should deposit their cannon on the banks of the Hudson, and there pile their arms at the command of their own officers; that the troops, of whatever nation they might be composed, should retire in all security and honour to Boston, where they should be provided with all necessary comforts until they embarked for England, under condition of not serving against the United States again during that war; that the Canadians should be allowed to return in all honour to their own country; and that in no case should officers be separated from their own men. These were not such terms as are usually granted to conquered armies; and the reason was, that Clinton was every day drawing nearer. Scarcely were these terms agreed on, when this fact became known to Burgoyne. For a moment he hesitated whether he should sign the contract; but, on consultation with his officers, he felt himself bound in honour to ratify it, and accordingly, the next morning, the 17th of October, the deed was signed, and the troops, marching out, grounded their arms.During the discussion of this question, Sir George Savile brought forward another. This was a Bill for relieving Catholics, by repealing the penalties and disabilities imposed by the 10th and 11th of King William III. The hardships sought to be removed were these:��The prohibition of Catholic priests or Jesuits teaching their own doctrines in their own churches, such an act being high treason in natives and felony in foreigners; the forfeitures by Popish heirs of their property who received their education abroad, in such cases the estates going to the nearest Protestant heir; the power given to a Protestant to take the estate of his father, or next kinsman, who was a Catholic, during his lifetime; and the debarring all Catholics from acquiring legal property by any other means than descent. Dunning declared the restrictions a disgrace to humanity, and perfectly useless, as they were never enforced; but Sir George Savile said that was not really the fact, for that he himself knew Catholics who lived in daily terror of informers and of the infliction of the law. Thurlow, still Attorney-General, but about to ascend the woolsack, promptly supported the Bill; and Henry Dundas, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, lamented that it would afford no relief to his own country. These Acts did not affect Scotland, as they had been passed before the union; but Scotland had a similar Act passed by its own Parliament, and he promised to move for the repeal of this Scottish Act in the next Session. In the Commons there was an almost total unanimity on the subject; and in the Lords, the Bishop of Peterborough was nearly the only person who strongly opposed it. He asked that if, as it was argued, these Acts were a dead letter, why disturb the dead?

Duis bibendum diam non erat facilaisis tincidunt. Fusce leo neque, lacinia at tempor vitae, porta at arcu.
Vestibulum varius non dui at pulvinar. Ut egestas orci in quam sollicitudin aliquet.