was convinced their measures were ruinous, and the object impracticable. friend. His neighbour, (lord G. Germain) is general Putnam. His next neighbour (lord North) is Mr. Adams. And there is a gentleman there, I can suppose to be Mr. Hancock-I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, (bowing to the Speaker) you are Mr. Hancock. Now I will suppose all these great men got together; and our Dr. Franklin to take up the defence of the colonies, with all that wit and eloquence of which he is master. I will only suggest the topics upon which he would talk. Here sir George put all the strongest words and arguments in defence of America, into the mouth of this supposed Dr. Franklin, and went on in the same manner with the other supposed persons. Sir Grey Cooper insisted, that the surest means of amicably adjusting the differences between the two countries, and settling their respective rights on a solid basis, would be to show, that any concession on our part proceeded from our love of justice, not from dread of the resistance we might meet with in the execution of our designs; the stronger we were, there fore, the more dignity and effect our negociations would have. Lord Ossory was for the motion. He disapproved of the dangerous experiment of fomenting a civil war, and the obstinacy, if not worse, of prosecuting it at so great a risk, and at such enormous expence. Mr. Henry Dundas was against America, and in support of the power of the state, and the supreme legislative authority of parliament. Mr. Adam was against the motion, Mr. Sawbridge for it, and colonel Onslow against it. Mr. T. Townshend was for the motion. He arraigned and condemned administration in severe terins, Governor Pownall was sorry that the House had gone into the question of the right of taxation, on a proposition, which waving that question, was moved solely on the ground of expediency. The gen tleman who moved it had studiously avoided touching upon the right, and yet the House had been now near seven hours talking upon a subject, which had nothing to do with the question of the day. He was sorry to find, that this discussion had been carried on with mutual reproaches of parties. So long, said he, as the House will dwell upon this point, and so long as parties shall be, as they always are on this point, more solicitous to discriminate their own principles, to defend the rectitude and consistency of their particular line of conduct, in reprobation of that of others, we never can come to any real settlement of this matter. rected. It seems now, at length, high time to say something to the real question before you. He said if he had risen earlier in the day to speak, he should have followed the hon. gentleman through the whole of his reasoning, as well as examined the proposition with which he concluded; but now, after so long a debate, and at so late an hour, he should confine himself simply to the proposition. In the stating of it, Lord John Cavendish was for the mo- he begged the attention of the gentleman, tion, and severe upon the ministers, parti-that if he mis-stated it, he might be cor cularly upon the want of union among themselves. He said, it was one day The hon. gentleman has stated this peace, another war; one day it was the business as lying in three lines of consider. commerce only of America that was worth ation, or three plans, on which it might be preserving; next day every thing was to taken up. The first was direct war; the be sacrificed to the supreme, undefined second, a mixture of war and negociation; authority of parliament; and the last day, and, thirdly, his plan of concession, pre (upon the land tax) he perceived the mi-vious to all treaty; that is, concessions nister returned to his former ground, and absolutely and expressly contended for the right of taxation, the exercise of that right, and that too for the purpose of raising a revenue, in order to lighten the burthens of this country. The Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick was for the motion. He declared his good opinion of the gentlemen in administration, with whom he had acted till that day; that he now must differ from them, because he made as preliminaries to peace. The first part of his speech endeavours to prove, that war was impracticable; his second part was taken up to shew, that the mixt plan, as he calls it, must be a series of fruitless perplexities. He says, it was ne cessary to dispose of these two ideas first, that he might make way for the third, his own plan. In his manner of doing it, he has justified the propriety of moving the previous question; because, Sir, if his plan cannot be considered till the next plan, which he supposes to be the minister's plan, is disposed of, we ought to know, first, what that plan is, and not be satisfied with his disposing of a phantom of his own raising, which he supposes to be that plan. The speech from the throne informs us, that there is some plan of pacification: we may take assurance, that the ministers must lay that before us; according, therefore, to the hon. gentleman's own method prescribed, we must dispose of that before we can come to the consideration of his plan. But if there was not that reason, from his own idea of the method of proceeding, I cannot but think it decent to consider, first, that plan, of which the speech from the throne has given the first notice, and not to suffer it to be anticipated by the intervention of any previous plan. If that gentleman had on any occasion given notice that he would offer to the House propositions on any particular subject, and if after such notice, any other gentlemen should endeavour to anticipate him, by getting a previous day, I would certainly, in such case, move the previous question on that gentleman's motion, as I shall on this of the hon. gentleman to-day. He says, Sir, such is the state of this American business, that we must either change their sentiments by negociation, or subdue the rising spirit; that we cannot subdue the spirit which is up, by war; that we cannot change it by any negociation, which, while war lasts, we can enter into; we must therefore previously make concessions; we must disavow our decla. ration; repeal our acts; sue for peace, and the Americans will give it to us, on his plan; we must previously regain their confidence," by removing the ground of the difference:" on the plan he proposes, we shall restore the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies. This, Sir, is the very question now before you. Let us, then, consider, the concessions which he proposes, and examine, by the best rule and only judge in this case, experience, what effect these concessions will have? He says, that as the Americans did, on the repeal of the Stamp Act, resign themselves to their unsuspecting confidence, and were perfectly satisfied, so will they now, if his plan is adopted; and he has read from the journals of the Congress, their words as his authority: but as he has not read all their words, nor all the sentence, let us see how the whole stands. "After the repeal of the Stamp Act," say they, "having again resigned ourselves to our ancient unsuspicious affections for the parent state, and anxious to avoid any controversy with her, in hopes of a favourable alteration in sentiments and measures towards us, we did not press our objections, against the above mentioned statutes made subsequent to that repeal." So far then, it appears from having no suspicions, they had objections; objections to Acts passed subsequent to he repeal; and these Acts are specified in their resolves and proceedings to be acts of 1766; the Declaratory Act, and the Act for granting duties in lieu of others repealed. When, Sir, instead of alterations of sentiments and measures towards them, one law was made, proposed by this gentleman's friends, declaring a power to bind them in all cases whatsoever; and one other, reciting, that although it was proper to repeal, certain rates and duties on account of their inexpediency, yet it was necessary to grant others in lieu of them, to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be paid into the exchequer and reserved for the future dis posal of parliament; their content vanished, they relapsed into their suspicions, they began to come forward with their objec tions, and the New York petition was the first symptom of this. But, Sir, they not only were not, in fact, but they could not on the principles from which they opposed our system, be, content. They objected to all laws laying duties for the express purpose of a revenue. The 6th Geo. 3, c. 52, granted duties to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be paid as a reve nue into the exchequer, and to be there at the disposal of parliament. Many laws prior to this period, gave and granted duties, and appropriated them to the pur pose of revenue. We have heard much of the Act of Navigation, and by some mistake, gentlemen under that idea refer to the Act of Trade of the 25th Car. 2. The Act of Navigation directs that all the commerce of the colonies shall be carried on in British shipping, and enumerates a certain number of articles of the produce of the plantations which are to be brought to England only. The Act of Trade says, that there shall be answered and paid to your majesty, if bond shall not be first given to bring such commodities to England, the rates there specified. Here we find the precise idea of duties laid as a regulation of trade. But in 1696, in king William's reign, we find for the first time, these duties converted into a revenue; they are directed to be paid whether bond be given or not. Revenue officers, under the directions of the Lord High Treasurer, are established. If therefore we are to repeal all Acts which grant duties as revenue, in 1696, not in 1764, was the system changed. If therefore on that principle we go back to 1763, we must of necessity go back to 1672. But lest gentlemen should doubt whether duties granted to his Majesty were ever before 1764 appropriated to revenue, let them refer to the Civil List Act, of the 1st of Geo, 1, there they will find that the plantation duties, which by the 25th Car. 2. " were granted to his majesty, his heirs and successors for ever, shall be brought and paid into the receipt of the exchequer, for the purposes in this Act expressed," namely, the forming a fund for the civil list. But, Sir, before this time the tax of six-pence a month laid upon all American seamen, and always paid by them, was laid in king William's time, for the purpose of augmenting the revenues of Greenwich Hospital. The Americans require the repeal of the Post-office Act, of the 5th Geo. 3; that act, Sir, laid no new duties, it made new regulations; but it was the Post-office Act of the 10th Anne, which granted duties in America for the purpose of enabling her majesty to carry on the war. It appears therefore, as they were not, so they could not, be content with what was done in 1766. demand of the repeal of all the Acts of revenue and restriction since 1763; specify particularly the Declaratory Law, and the Revenue Act of 1766. After having recited fifteen heads of grievances, hear what they say in their own words: "But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that parliament of right bind us in all cases whatsoever. What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power?" Upon the effect which this plan has had last year, we may fairly put the issue of the effect that may be expected from it this year, especially when this year we find in the preliminaries of the Congress, the removal of the troops as well as concessions; which does not make part of this gentleman's plan. Whatever expectations that gentleman may have of confidence from the Americans, in conse quence of this plan, he may be assured, that while the Americans are very willing to avail themselves of the assistance of him and his friends, other persons will have their confidence. The gentleman and his friends bid as low as they can in con. science go; but others have bid lower: some are ready to go back to 1763; others think you should still go farther. The Americans expect that we should go farther; for see on what ground they put themselves, when they ask only the repeal of the revenue and restrictive laws passed since 1763. Take it in their own words: themselves at present to the consideration of such rights as have been infringed since the year 1763, postponing the further consideration of the general state of American rights to a future day." But to come to the precise proposition" Resolved, That the Congress do confine of this day. It is a proposal of a Bill formed on the resolutions which the gentleman moved last year; and that proposition, although grounded first, on the complaint which the Americans make of their grievances; second, on the declaration of their rights; and third on the plan of the preliminaries which they throw out; although they require, as such preliminary, that we should go back to 1763, -that proposition does not extend to a full remedy of their grievances, and to their idea of their rights; it does not go even to 1763, it goes only back to 1766. It is very ready to repeal every Act, except the Acts of the administration of that gentleman's friends. The Declaratory Act is not to be repealed. The Revenue Act of the 6th Geo. 3, is not to be repealed. Let us first see what the effect of this plan of concession made last year, was: it came last year in resolutions, it is now formed into a Bill. Why, Sir, since this plan was proposed, the Congress, reiterating their From the first spring of this sad business, having been for modes of policy in preference to measures of force, I have always thought, and invariably said, that your system called for revision and amend ment; I have been against all partial concession and repeals. I think it should be laid on some basis, which is solid and may be permanent; on such whereon the liberties of America being fixed, the sovereignty of the empire might be established. Repeals upon every partial complaint, and concessions upon every clamour, is not the way; this would produce nothing but endless successions of quarrels, and patching up of those quarrels. Induciæ, bellum, pax rursum. It should be taken up on some great and general system. And such I now expect, and shall therefore, although I give no negative, move the previous question on any parts of a scheme moved on partial grounds, that of previous concessions. But to consider the purport of the Bill itself. Although it is grounded on the complaints of the American grievances, and of the violation of their rights, it does not go to the redress and remedy. They complain of laws, laying duties, and granting them for the express purpose of revenue; yet it goes only back to 1766. You have seen that the remedy to be real and efficient must carry us back to 1672. They complain of the Admiralty jurisdiction: now that, Sir, is as old as the Act of Navigation. By that Act, ships navigated contrary to law were to be seized, might be brought to the court of Admiralty in England, on the express principle, that there should be no party juries. For the ease, and not the aggrieving of the subject, courts of Admiralty were afterwards established in the colonies, and all this system stood established before the period of 1764. To my argument it is nothing how far this is right or wrong, grievous or otherwise but the Americans complain of it as a grievance; and if the Bill which is to redress their grievance, and to concede to their complaints, must go to the bottom; if it means or hopes to gain their confidence-this Bill does not go far enoughthere are others who are willing to go further. : On this ground, he said, that the present proposition would not produce the effect it proposed; that it was but a part of a system proposed as an expedient, or rather an experiment to a partial purpose. On the assurance that this business of America would be now taken up on some great and general system in the whole, and the Speech had announced some plan, which from the method adopted by the hon. gentleman should be disposed of first, he moved the previous question. Lord George Germaine said, as he had held but one conduct in this American business, as he had been direct and explicit in that conduct, he now entered into office on the same principles, on the same line of conduct, and he hoped he should be always found decisive, direct, and firm in it. On the point of the legislative authority of this country, he should always maintain that sovereignty which was established and founded on the constitution. On the point of taxation, although he should never concede the right, he should never § object to the withholding the exercise of it, if other modes could be adopted. But if we are to have no peace, unless we give up the right, the contest is brought to a fair issue; we are equal to the contest; our internal resources are great; and we can never despair of that assistance which we may want. Gentlemen call for answers to several questions: I stand forth, as far as my judgment can, and my advice goes, to give an answer. Are we, say some gentlemen, to give up taxation? Are we to have no American revenue? I do hope we shall; I trust we shall draw a revenue from America. Whether that shall be by the exercise of our right of taxation, or whether by any other mode, I do not think material. If the Americans, willing to join their aid to the common supply, and willing to share our common burthens with us, can propose any mode which will make them easy, which will remove their fears and jealousies, I shall be ready to adopt it. I wish they were in the situation of the year 1763, if the government of this country was so likewise. If our present system is wrong, let us avow it; consider and rectify it. They have a right to every liberty which they can enjoy, consistent with the sovereignty and supremacy of this country. Let them be happy. Nobody can wish them more so than I do. But I have never changed my opinion as to the legislative supremacy of this country. What I have always held, I now stand in office to maintain. To the questions; What force is necessary? What do you mean to send? I answer, that the officers serving on the spot, those especially commanding, are the proper judges. What they, upon a full state of the service, think necessary, as far as my advice can go, shall be sent; not to be insulted. Such forces as are necessary to restore, maintain, and establish the power of this country in America, will not be wanting. Much has been said about the plan of sending commissioners. My idea of that measure is, that they should not only have power to pardon, but to inquire into grievances; and if the Americans, returning to a sense of their duty, should offer terms (not with arms in their hands) they should be empowered to consider, and on their submission, to take off those penal restrictions under which, from the nature of their conduct, the Americans now lie. If, by opening a door to retreat, the crown tries to induce them to lay down their arms, what can it do more? If they persist in their appeal to force, the force of the country must be exerted. The spirit of this country will go along with me in that idea, to suppress, to crush such rebellious resistance. As to the gentleman's proposition, I think it has been fully proved, that it would not answer the expectation of those in America, whose confidence he meant to gain; that it does not go so far as they expected; nor so far as some here would go; and previous concessions, as gratuitous preliminaries, whether accepted or not, without any thing offered on their part, would put us on worse ground, and remove the matter still further from the conciliation he proposes. I am therefore ready to give my negative to it, or rather, to join in the previous question. those penal and restrictive Acts which have been indefinite as to the term of their operation should be repealed, and the matter and purport of them thrown into one general Act, framed to be enforced during the continuance of the war. The hon. gentleman has in his Bill proposed to empower the King to call a congress in Ame rica. He has that power: has done it before, and may do it at any time. Besides, the proposed Bill confines the power of the crown to treat only with the Congress, therefore his Majesty can treat with nobody else, if there were any persons disposed to offer terms of submission. A little before 4 o'clock in the morning the previous question was put "that the question be now put." The House di vided. The Noes went forth. With infi-YEAS Mr. Fox was for the motion, and very severe upon administration. nite wit and readiness, he gave a description of the Treasury-bench, beginning with Mr. Ellis, and ending with Mr. Cornwall, by a single epithet, happily narking the characters of each of them, with fine satire, and without the least breach of de General Conway replied to the last speaker, and shewed, in a variety of instances, the futility of his arguments. Lord North. I declare, that if I thought the motion would procure that conciliation which the hon. gentleman who made it has held out, I should be staggered. But it has appeared that this line of concession will not procure it; and it has been clearly marked to you, that this line is not sufficient. Therefore were I of opinion with the hon. mover as to repealing all the Acts he mentions, as I am as to some of them, these concessions would not procure the end he proposes, but put us upon still worse ground, and remove us farther from any conciliation this country can agree to. I think, for instance, that So it passed in the negative. Debate in the Commons on bringing in the American Prohibitory Bill.] Nov. 20. Lord North rose and moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill, to prohibit all trade and intercourse with the colonies of New Hampshire, Massachuset's Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties on Delaware, Maryland, Virgi nia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, during the continuance of the present rebellion within the said colonies respectively; for repealing an Act, made in the 14th of his present Majesty, to dis continue the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and mer chandize, at the town and within the har bour of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay; and also two Acts, made in the last session of parliament, for restrain. ing the trade and commerce of the colo nies in the said Acts respectively mentioned; and to enable his Majesty to ap point commissioners, and to issue procla mations in the cases and for the purposes therein to be mentioned." His lordship explained the necessity of restraining the Americans from all trade during the present rebellion, and the justice there would be in immediately taking off the restraint from such colony wherein it might cease; that the Boston Port Act, and the Acts passed last year, being framed upon other |