manufactory, that we could hear of, but that of making spurs; and the cream of the jest is, that not a single pair, as a commercial article, was ever sent to Africa; at the same time many other measures were pursued, very singular methods taken, and absolute untruths asserted as facts, to mislead the legislature, in order, as it is supposed, to prevent the forts and settlements being put upon a proper establishment, that were all as inconsistent as the Rippon petition. It was at that period boldly advanced at the bar of the house of Commons, and with great industry propagated among the members, that the forts in _Africa_ were only useful, as marks of possession and sovereignty; which, if true, why has 19,565_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._ sterling been expended in building part of a fort at _Anamaboa_, to the 30th June, 1756, as appears by the African committee’s accounts to that time, when the further building of that fort was put under the direction of the board of ordnance[3]? which sum has been since paid by the public more than the annual grant of 10,000_l._ then insisted as sufficient for the support of the forts. But we have been informed, those prevaricating advocates have since altered their opinion, and think it a very inadequate sum for such purpose: and it appears by the votes of the honourable house of Commons, application has been made to parliament to enlarge the annual grant; and there was granted for the year 1761, 13,000_l._ and for the year 1762, the like sum, by which it is conjectured the said advocates have found it absolutely necessary that the forts ought to be kept in a better state than that of marks of _possession_ and _sovereignty_ only. But that cannot be done, when we consider in what manner the money granted by parliament to the African committee, is appropriated in Africa, which the government never receives any account of. The great argument made use of to the then ministers[4], to obtain a dissolution of the late African company, by the advocates for the present system, was, that 10,000_l._ was quite adequate and sufficient for the support and maintenance of the forts. This, we believe, was one of the strongest reasons for those ministers adopting their scheme, which had as much truth in it, as many other assertions at that time made use of.