he would be under the necessity, as the only means left, of moving the previous question, which would open a door for taking into consideration the general state of the petitioners grievances.

It was further urged, in supporting the motion for the previous question, that the papers which had been laid before them by the ministers, were so manifestly defective, and avowedly curtailed, that no certain information could be derived from them of the real state of the objection which they were going to decide; that in such a situation, they should accept with pleasure that information, which if it had not been voluntarily of fered, it would have been their duty to have sought, at any expence, whether of time or otherwise; that if the papers had been even in their original state, without garbling or mutilation, still, there was no species of information relative to the colonies, to which the merchants were not more competent, and less liable to imposition through ignorance, or to impose upon others through prejudice, than the public officers employed by the crown; of which, if there was any doubt before, the erroneous opinions, false ideas, and misrepresentation of facts, upon which the fatal acts of the last parliament were founded, afforded too melancholy an experience. That the express prayer of the petitioners being, that they might be heard before any resolution was taken respecting America, the refusal of this act of justice, or of even suffering the petitions to be presented, was a proceeding of the most unwarrantable nature, and directly subversive of the most sacred rights

of the subject. They summed up their arguments by concluding, that justice in regard to individuals, policy with regard to the public, and decorum with regard to themselves, required that they should admit the petitions; and that a refusal of them was no less, than a denial of justice.

On the other side, some of the Lords spoke tenderly with respect to the merchants; said they deserved every mark of attention and respect which was consistent with the interests of the empire at large; that although their grievances were imaginary, their complaints were deserving of indulgence. It was, however, to be hoped, that when they maturely considered that the steps now taking were to prevent the return of such evils in future, they would not only chearfully acquiesce in the wisdom of parliament in the present instance, but be gratefully thankful hereafter; for if the supremacy of the legislature was once given up, their trade, commerce, and every possible advantage accruing from them, would soon be annihilated. It was therefore to be hoped, that the merchants would, on the present occasion, submit to a temporary inconvenience, or even to a shortlived distress, to insure the most permanent and lasting benefits; and manifest that degree of magnanimity, which a sense of their own interests, founded in submission and acquiescence to the wisdom of parliament, must, upon mature consideration and past experience, most certainly suggest.

Thus far, the debate was confined to the subject of the previous question; but with respect to the original motion, it branched out

far

of

far more extensively: The ques tions of treason, rebellion and constructive treasons, were deeply entered into by two great Law Lords, one of whom has long been at the head of one of the first departments in his profession, the chief court of criminal justice; and the other, within a few years, the highest of ficer under the crown. As these learned Lords differed totally, both in their legal and political opinions and sentiments, a long debate was carried on, with great eagerness, warmth, and ability between them; in which a vast stock of professional, as well as general learning, was displayed on both sides. On the one, the Americans were pronounced to be in absolute rebellion; while a rich and most fertile imagination, had an opportunity of exerting all its ingenuity, in traversing the almost inextricable mazes constructive treasons; from whence were drawn such stores of inferences, déductions, conclusions, and distinctions, as were not easily developed or separated, when in volved in the splendor of a most powerful cloquence. The learned Lord on the other side, with equal abilities, as full a share of legal knowledge, and an eloquence not inferior to any, stuck close to the letter of the law, and as absolutely denied the charge made upon the Americans. He rested the whole ground of argument upon the statute of the 25 Edward III. and would admit of no species of treason but what was therein described, nor of any constructive treason that was not already clearly established by precedents in the courts, founded upon that basis. It is much to be Jamented, that with all the boasted excellency of our constitution, a question of so vast a magnitude, as

to include in its consequences the lives, fortunes, and honours of all the subjects of this empire, should still remain involved in such obscurity, as not only to admit of a difference of opinion, but that even the great oracles of the faw are bewildered in its darkness.

With respect to the immediate question, it was insisted on the one side, that we were reduced to the alternative of adopting the most effectual and coercive measures, or of relinquishing for ever all claim of dominion and sovereignty over the colonies; that no medium could possibly be devised, which would exclude the inevitable consequence of either system absolutely prevailing; for that, on the one hand, the supremacy of the British legislature must be complete, entire, and unconditional; or, on the other, the colonies must be free and independent: that all enquiry about the tight or expediency of taxation was now fruitless'; taxation was no longer the question; it was only the prétence of American disobe dience and resistance; all their acts strike at the superintending power of the legislature; that was their real grievance: and a repeal of any å one of those laws which they complained of, would be a renunciation of all sovereignty for ever. That it was an absurdity of the most monstrous kind, to suppose that they had a right distinct from the le gislature in any one particular, and not in all; if they had such a right, the defence of it would justify resistance; and to contend that subjects had a right to resist the government, was a doctrine which could not be maintained on any principles of civil government, reason, experience, or common sense.

As

As to the petitioners, it was not doubted but they were aggrieved; it might be granted, that all their allegations were well founded, and that they laboured under great and singular distresses; it was as little to be doubted, that the landed gentlemen, the merchants,, manufacturers, mechanics, and every order of men in the nation, would all heavily feel, in their several situations, the threatened calamities. But these were circumstances that did not interfere with the motion; they are a part of the evils incident to mankind, which may be deplored but cannot be avoided. The events of war are ever uncertain; its calamities great, and undefined; we may be defeated; we may lose that sovereignty we are struggling to retain, but these are the inevitable conditions of warfare: nor are they more grievous in the present instance than in others. The question now under consideration is, whether, allowing all the inconveniencies, difficulties, and dangers that are supposed, and taking into full contemplation every possible contingency that human foresight and prudence could suggest, we should relinquish our rights, or resolve, at all events, resolutely to persist in their exertion?

On the other side, the madness of entering into a civil war, merely to cover and support a series of ministerial violence, misconduct, and misrule, with the ruin and destruction that must inevitably attend such unnatural cruelty and injustice, were painted in the strongest colours. The learned Lord, who had asserted the Amèricans to be in rebellion, was severely reprehended; it was said, that with all his legal knowledge and ability, he had not

been able, in any degree, to support the charge, and that such cruel and inflammatory representations, at this alarming crisis, were very unbecoming the gravity and dignity of his situation, and the several high relations he stood in to the state. It was shewn, that as commerce was the source of our wealth and our power, and its destruction the inevitable consequence of persevering in the present insane and pernicious measures; so we were running headlong into a civil war, and at the same time cutting off, irretrievably, the means which enabled us to support any; the consequence of which, in the natural course of things, must be our falling an open and defenceless prey to the first bold invader. It was also asserted, that every engine had been, employed, and every art too suc cessfully essayed, to render the landed interest a party in this ruinous work, and to lead it into the fatal error of considering itself as distinct from the commercial; as if the latter could sustain any injury which the former must not equally feel. But, it was asked, what rose the value of the lands, but commerce? What supported commerce but the lands?their interests being as inseparable as the benefits they derived from each other were mutual and reciprocal.

It was asserted, that the violent matter of the dangerous address before them, was highly aggravated by the unusual and violent manner in which it was attempted to be precipitated through the House; that they were not to be allowed the interposition of a moment's' time for recollection or deliberation, before they were to be driven headlong into a declaration of civil

war.

war. A conference was held with the Comnions; an address, which took in subjects of such a nature and magnitude as to strike the mind with dread and horror, presented; all extraneous information, although offered, positively refused; all petitions, arbitrarily rejected; and the whole of this most awful business, received, debated, and intended to be concluded in a single day; that no legal grounds were laid, either in argument or in fact, to shew that a rebellion, properly so called, existed in the province of Massachusett's Bay, when the papers of the latest date, and from whence alone they derived their information, were written; that the overt acts, to which the species of treason affirmed in the address ought to be applied, were not established, nor any offenders marked out; but a general mass of the acts of turbulence, said to be done at various times and places, and of various natures, were all thrown together to make out one general constructive treason; nor was there any sort of proof of the continuance of any unlawful force, from whence it could be inferred that a rebellion was at the presenr time existing.

It was further contended, that the cases of constructive treason had been already so far extended by the judges, and the distinctions upon them were so nice and subtle, that no wise man would wish to increase their number, or to add to their authority; much less ought so high an authority as the two Houses of Parliament, without the clearest evidence of uncontroverted overtacts, to denounce so cruel a judgment, as a declaration of rebellion, against a great body of the people;

a declaration, in every view of it, big with the most horrible and direful consequences; and which, if confirmed by that House, will from that instant authorise every species of rapine, plunder, massacre, and persecution.

This extraordinary debate was attended with some singular circumstances. A great Law Lord, who had been so severe in his charge against the Americans, condemned also, in the most explicit and unreserved terms, (to the great surprize of most of his auditors) the measure of laying on the duties in the year 1767, which he declared to be the most absurd and pernicious that could be devised, and the cause of all our present and impending evils. If this declaration was unexpected, the acknowledgment that followed was still more so. Three great Lords, who were at that time cabinet counsellors, and held the first offices in the state, declared separately in their places, that they had no share in that measure, nor had ever given it any approbation; and two of them condemned it in express terms, while the third, who was still in high office, did not by any means pretend to support it. It seems they were in some way over-ruled. But the manner in which a measure of ministry was carried against the opinion of ministers was not explained.

It cannot be wondered, that such a disclosure relative to a matter, which had already convulsed the whole empire, and was still more to be dreaded in, its future consequences, should excite the most general amazement, mixed with a great share of indignation and regret in particulars. The fatal and over-ruling secret influence, which,

as

as they said, had so long guided and marred all the public affairs of the nation, was accordingly deplored and animadverted upon in different parts of the House.

In the course of the heat, which sprung from much collateral matter that was thrown in upon this occasion, a series of arraignment, justification, assertion, denial, animadversion, and recrimination took place, in which many things passed, that were either new in that House, or extraordinary in their nature. The learned Lord, who had condemned the measure of laying on the American duties in the year 1767, was himself, partly by implication, and in part directly, charged with having a principal share in those secret counsels, which had been stigmatized as the most obnoxious and ruinous to the nation; notwithstanding his repeated declaration, that he had not acted as an efficient cabinet counsellor for several years. These charges were urged and opposed with a degree of asperity, and a harshness of personal altercation, not often heard in that House; with violent threats on the one side, and general defiance' on the other.

At length, the previous question being put, according to the noble Marquis's motion, at 40 minutes past one o'clock in the morning, was lost by a prodigious majority, the numbers, including the proxies, being 104, to 29, only, who supported the previous question. The main question being then put, whe ther to agree with the Commons in the address, by inserting the words necessary to fill up the blank, it was carried in the affirmative, by something near the same majority.

Both the previous question, and the main question, were, howeyer, each of them productive of a.separate protest, which were signed by eighteen Lords, who conclude their reasons of dissent in the following words: "Because the means of enforcing the authority of the British legislature, is confided to persons, of whose capacity for that purpose, from abundant experience, we have reason to doubt; and who have hitherto used no effectual means of conciliating or of redu-. cing those who oppose that authority: this appears in the constant failure of all their projects, the insufficiency of all their information, and the disappointment of all the hopes, which they have for severat years held out to the public. Parliament has never refused any of their proposals, and yet our affairs have proceeded daily from bad to worse, until we have been brought, srep by step, to that state of confu sion, and even civil violence, which was the natural result of these desperate measures.

We therefore protest against an address, amounting to a declaration f war, which is founded on no proper parliamentary information; which was introduced by refusing to suffer the presentation of petitions against it, (although it be the undoubted right of the subject to present the same); which followed the rejection of every mode of conciliation; which holds out no substantial offer of redress of grievances; and which promises support to those ministers who have inflamed America, and grossly misconducted the affairs of GreatBritain."

CHAP.