stand an instant; certainly not. The mode adopted was ingenious and plausible. The King, by his prerogative, pretends to no such right; he is no farther concerned than as one of the branches of the legislature in asserting it. By whom are subjects to be taxed? By parliament alone. If, then, parliament is solely vested with the power of levying taxes, who shall deny that power, or refuse to pay those taxes? But here it is clearly perceivable, that a constitutional power is misapplied in the most gross manner, and that, too, on an idea the most preposterous that ever entered into the mind of man.

America, say the friends of this argument, is represented in England; that is, the name of representation is held out, while no essential quality of representation is preserved. The repeal of the Stamp Act, however, put an end to this solemn mockery of every appearance of common sense and common justice; virtual representation was given up; and the next year a more rational, though an equally unjust claim, was set up, the curious distinction between internal and external taxation. The supremacy of this country, the monopoly of the trade of America, were to be secured; but by what means? By port-duties, for the purpose of raising a revenue. Here, it is plain, the principle was the same, though the mode was varied. Who could вау, if you laid on one duty and it had been acquiesced in, but you might lay on a hundred, and that to any extent, and on what commodities you pleased? The principle of both was equally erroneous; no alternative remained, but that the colonies should tax themselves, or be slaves. These, he said, were his sentiments from the beginning, as well when he had the honour of a seat in the other House, as now, and he should die in them. He was conscious that they were equally just, expedient, and constitutional. I protest, said he, I have acted throughout uprightly, to the best of my judgment; and I appeal to God for the sincerity of my declarations, to whom I hold myself accountable for my public as well as private conduct.

The English constitution binds no man, farther than by his own consent; and I fairly apply the argument to legislation as well as taxation. His lordship, from speculative reasoning, adverted to facts; and shewed, in a variety of instances, the cruelty, folly, injustice, and even irreligious conduct of ministers. These several charges he maintained, by a retro

spect to their several measures. Amongst the most leading of those, were the Acts of coercion, passed during the four last years; and, as the epitome of the whole, that infamous Bill the Quebec Act, by which the bloody and senseless superstitions of the church of Rome were established in so wide an extent of the British empire; and our Protestant colonies, as it were, hemmed in on every side by a people inimical to them on account of religion. This preference given to strangers and Papists, who, by the Act alluded to, were rendered rivals to them, though no other provocation had been given, was sufficient, in his opinion, to alienate the affections of the colonies from the parent state; but it was no more than a leading feature in that system of despotism, introduced into our counsels since the commencement of the present reign. A system designed to procure submission in every instance in which executive government was concerned. A submission in religious, as well as civil matters, and all made subservient to the will of the governors, not the happiness, prosperity, or confidence of the governed. Absolute supremacy, and absolute submission, were the great objects of the reigning politics for some years past; but, thank God! that system, however seemingly permanent, was at the eve of a sudden dissolu tion. Its fate was on the point of being determined: and while he was up, he could not avoid congratulating their lordships and his country, that in the midst of their calamity, they had the consolation to reflect, that the resistance of America would be the great means of prolonging those national liberties which, in point of constitutional effect, though not of form, had been nearly extinguished, and must in the end have been overthrown, but for the exalted virtues and heroic spirit of their brethren on the other side of the Atlantic. He did not rise to make a personal attack upon ministers. He lamented the cause of his rising in some particulars as much as any noble lord present. Ministers, he presumed, may have been deluded or misled themselves. He reproached none. If some had acted from motives of pride or false ambition, he did not accuse nor insult the m in their ideal schemes of folly; they were sufficiently humbled; pride had had a fall. If any had conceived high expectations of conquest, it was needless to emind them that they had ingloriously failed. And if

they were synonimous terms. Who, then, were to be the real negociators, or the in

The Duke of Richmond called upon some of the King's servants to explain to the House the reasons of their silence, and why they had abandoned all their former high-sounding terms of the supremacy of parliament, and unconditional submission, and now came to sue to America for peace? Such a silence, he observed, was unprecedented in the annals of parliament.

The Earl of Suffolk replied, that he did not hear any thing specially urged against the Bills; when he did, it would be time enough for him to combat the objection.

The Duke of Richmond rose again, he said, to deprive the noble earl of the benefit of this apology. He had little more expectations of peace being effected by the present Bills, than from any of the preceding measures adopted by ministers. He was convinced, that nothing solid was intended; that the Bills were framed with a design to divide America on one side, and to keep up appearances with those who supported the measures of government here at home. He did not assert this on any vague, speculative imagination, that ministers, though they had changed their measures, still retained their former sentiments; he reasoned from the Bills themselves. The preamble of the commissioners Bill was the strongest evidence of the truth of what he asserted. It said, that all the troubles had originated in misrepresentation of what? Of the very doctrines contained in the Bill itself, which maintained the supremacy of this country in its fullest extent. He said, though there existed no other objection to the measure, the vesting in the crown the appointment of the commissioners was sufficient to defeat the whole scheme, allowing government to be perfectly sincere. It was ridiculous, in this instance, to separate the crown from ministers:

The noble duke read the Declaration of American Independence by the Congress; and after commenting on it paragraph by paragraph, appealed to ministers, whether they meant to concede the several points therein set forth, or subscribe to the general assertions therein contained? This Declaration asserted, that the King was a tyrant; complained that troops had been sent and quartered among them without their consent; that the Admiralty courts were a grievance; that Acts suspending those of their respective assemblies had been passed in the British parliament; that the King having acted tyrannically, they had justly withdrawn themselves from his allegiance; that the judges enjoying their offices during pleasure, were thereby rendered dependent on the crown, &c. In short, his grace, at the end of every sentence, put the question to ministers, whether in any, all, or which instance, they would instruct their commissioners to assent, acknowledge, or ratify, on the part of the king and parliament, those several assertions and claims?

After condemning that part of the Declaration, which branded the King as a tyrant, for whose virtues, he said, he entertained the highest opinion, his grace proceeded to shew the reasons why so indecent and disrespectful a language was adopted by the Congress. This was no other but the very improper and unconstitutional use which had been made of the King's name from the beginning, and previous to the present unhappy contest. He affirmed that this was evident, in almost every measure which ministers thought fit to adopt. Out of a great number, he should select two, and submit to their lordships, whether the charge was well founded. The first was in the circu

not permit him, that of moving the previous question, to get rid of the resolutions. No, the noble earl then at the head of the American department, had the modesty himself to move an adjournment.

lar letter, written by the noble lord (Hillsborough) at the head of the American department, dated Whitehall, 13th of May, 1769, in which that noble lord, in behalf of himself and the other members of the cabinet, promised not in the name of the parliament, but in that of the King: "His Majesty's present administration-his Majesty's present servants-his Majesty relies upon your prudence and fidelity-it is his Majesty's intention, &c. that no further taxes for the purpose of raising a revenue shall be laid on the colonies." Here, said his grace, the King's word was specially pledged for what he could not constitutionally perform. It was not competent to the King to lay on, or remit any tax; when, therefore, the promise came to be performed, the colonies looked to their sovereign for the performance of it; but ministers having shifted, by so doing rendered themselves further irresponsible; and this may account in some measure for the very unbecoming language which pervades the whole performance I have been reading. Again, in consequence of the same circular letter, in which is contained this remarkable expression, to the several governors, "The King trusts to a full and explicit explanation of his sentiments;" what did lord Botetourt tell the council and House of Assembly of the colony of Virginia, in support of the promises contained in the said letter? Nothing less than" that his Majesty would rather forfeit his crown, than keep it by deceit."

After asserting, that his Majesty had lost the affection of his American subjects, by the daring, perfidious, and unconstitutional language of ministers, he said he would state a remarkable instance of the temerity of one of them. He said, the Journals of the House would be the most undoubted documents in proof of what he was about to state. It was on the 18th of May, 1770, when the very same administration as that which now directed the affairs of this country were in power, that he moved several Resolutions, expressing a censure of the same noble lord (Hillsborough) and that on the very specific ground, chiefly, which he had now stated.* What was the conduct of the noble lord? Very different indeed from that of the noble earl at the head of the Admiralty on a recent occasion. He did not desire, as that noble earl did, the friendly aid of his noble friend (lord Gower) to do what his own delicacy would

His grace said, as to the whole measure, he feared it would miscarry, for the reasons already assigned. This being his opinion, if his advice was taken, he would recommend to withdraw the troops. America still retained an affection for this country. He had great reason to believe, that it would be the interest of the colonies to give us a preference in point of comSuch a commercial intercourse merce. would be no less advantageous to them than to us. The experience of the last two or three years shewed, they could not do without British commodities; they had them, though through new channels; and one of the most intelligent merchants in the city (Mr. Glover) assured him, that whether friends or enemies, they could not supply themselves with several of the commodities they wanted, so well elsewhere. It was certainly the interest of both countries to live on terms of amity. If his advice were taken, sooner than hazard a farther continuance of the war, he would recommend to declare America.independent, because he feared we must consent to it at last; however, if it was the sense of the House, that the experiment of treaty should be tried, he had no objection. If, on the other hand, Ame. rica should prove implacable from the cruelties she had suffered, and the injuries she had sustained, and should make a commercial treaty with France in preference to England, even in that case, he would much rather withdraw the troops, and leave that country to act according to its own pleasure, than continue the war, in order to recover what we had lost by our own imprudence and pernicious counsels.

The Earl of Hillsborough said, that the noble duke had made a personal attack upon him, by no means well founded. He never used the King's name in an improper, unconstitutional manner; he appealed in particular to the letter now mentioned, and begged it might be read. [It was read by the clerk.] He complained how cruelly and unjustly he had been attacked; and appealed to their lordships, whether there was a single passage in that letter, which could justify the imputation thrown upon him by the noble duke, of his mentioning the measures proposed by the King's servants, as solely the King's measures, or

personally ascribable to him. He never wished to shelter his conduct, as a minister, behind the name of a king. Those who acted with him knew the contrary. If any doubt remained, relative to the fair interpretation of that letter, its true comment must be the King's speech, which accompanied it, and was inclosed in it. In that his Majesty's sentiments, relative to the affairs of America, were laid open; and it could hardly be supposed, that ministers would, or that governors dare pledge themselves, for any measure contradictory to that speech.

His lordship affirmed, that he never entertained a second opinion respecting America. He always thought, and should ever think, that the supreme power of the empire was vested in the legislature of this country; and if a difference of opinion, upon the principle of those Bills, should cause a division, he should give one more proof that he had not deserted his principles. He said, that nothing but necessity could justify the present Bills, and that too of such a nature, as caused a necessity of concealing it. He had every reason to think that administration had not deserted their principles, though they had changed their measures; and that while they proposed the present, they proposed them with shame. They blushed when they found themselves compelled, as it were, to adopt them, and that from reasons which, perhaps, could not be properly or safely declared. He blushed himself, nay more, he felt for the honour of his much-injured country, which had, on the present occasion, felt this the most disgraceful day she ever experienced. On the whole, however, such as the Bills were, he should not oppose them, unless the mere question of principle should come into discussion, and bring on a division; because, be our misfortunes what they may, which he chiefly attributed to a want of alacrity, firmness, and decision of the ministers, he would rather confide in the present ministers than any other.

The Duke of Richmond contended, that the first passage in the circular letter personally referred to the King, as an individual distinguished from his servants; and when the intentions of the King's ministers, of not meaning to lay further taxes for the purpose of raising a revenue, and to repeal the port duties upon commercial principles follow, the King's servants are therein described as only acting by the order, and under the influence of their

sovereign; but if any doubt remained of the true import and political construction of the speech and the letter, the private instructions which accompanied both might be easily guessed by that passage in lord Botetourt's speech to the council and house of burgesses of the province of Virginia, where his lordship tells them, " that his Majesty would rather forfeit his crown, than keep it by deceit." It was, therefore, the delusion and deceit of ministers, which the Congress in their declaration of independence, mistakenly imputed to the King. It was upon this ground that his Majesty was first dethroned from the dominion he held over their hearts and affections. This was the circumstance on which, he presumed, more than any other, the people of America withdrew their allegiance. If ministers had acted cruelly, if parliament had acted oppressively, the right of the crown could never have come into controversy. The farthest they ever pretended to go, was to say, "we shall readily submit to be governed by the same king, but we will be bound by no laws which we do not consent to, no government we cannot controul." They took the ma ter up upon principles of genuine Whiggism, as distinguished from Toryism. The Tories of 1688 said, the king had abdicated; the Whigs, that he had deserted his crown, and thereby left the people at liberty to establish what form of government they pleased. So, in the present instance, as soon as the King made war upon the whole body of his subjects in America, they began to reason like the Whigs of England. They said, though unjustly, that he was a tyrant; that he had deserted the government, and forfeited his dominion over them as sovereign, and that of course they were at liberty to institute another in its stead.

The Earl of Suffolk answered the point of inconsistency, charged on him and the rest of the King's servants, in relation to the present Bills. He said, it was a new doctrine in politics, which was supposed to bind a man to the same conduct in all possible situations. He always understood that ministers, indeed all men, suited and shaped their conduct to circumstances, events and exigencies. Were it otherwise, no person would be a free agent; he would, indeed, possess the powers of discrimination and judgment to no purpose, if he was forbid the exercise of them, and only permitted to retain the liberty of acting wrong. He was free to acknowledge