prove much of that; but, Sir, to take away the trade from the town of Boston, is surely a severe punishment. Would it not be a rigorous measure to take away the trade of the Thames, for instance, and direct the merchandise to be landed at Gravesend? I call this Bill most unjust, for is it not fundamentally unjust to prevent the parties who have offended from being heard in their defence? Justice, Sir, is not to be measured, by geographical lines nor distances. Every man, Sir, is authorized to be a magistrate, to put a stop to disturbances which he perceives to be committed against his Majesty's peace; but did you expect that the People who were not present at such disturbances, would be equally punished for not aiding and assisting in putting an end to those riots which they never saw or heard of? This, Sir, is surely the doctrine of devils, to require men to be present in every part of America wherever a riot happens: but this Bill involves those who have never in the least been guilty; and then you again say, that the disturbances which did happen ought to have been immediately put a stop to by the People of Boston, and that they were bound to preserve the good order of the town; but, Sir, I have too much reverence for the image of God to conceive that the honorable gentleman (Mr. Welbore Ellis) does really and truly imbibe such a doctrine. He then read part of Colonel Leslie's letter, No. 45, wherein the Colonel said, that neither the Governor, nor the Council, nor any of the custom-house officers, have ever yet applied to me for any assistance; if they had, I could most certainly have put a stop to all their riot and violences, but not without some bloodshed, and firing upon their town, and killing many innocent People. Why, Sir, did not the Governor at once send for this assistance? Was it contrary to, or do you think he would have broke through his instructions, if he had endeavoured, by such ways and means, to preserve the public peace, and prevent violences from being committed? The fault of this Governor ought not to be the means of punishment for the innocent. You have found that there was no Government there. Why did not the Governor exercise his authority? Why did not the ships execute their duty? What was the reason they did not act? Why is not Mr. Hancock, and the chief People, who are known, punished, and not the innocent involved with the guilty in one universal calamity? You, surely, Sir, cannot have power to take away the trade of a port, and call it privilege! Why was not your force that was present applied to quell the disturbances? How came they to be so feeble and inactive? How are you sure that the orders and frigates which you now send will act better? I cannot think this, by any means, a prudent measure, in blocking up one port after another; the consequence will be dreadful, and I am afraid destructive; you will draw a foreign force upon you, perhaps, at a time when you little expect it; I will not say where that will end; I will be silent upon that head, and go no further; but think, I conjure you, of the consequence. Again, Sir, in one of the clauses of the Bill you proscribe the property of the People to be governed and measured by the will of the Crown. This is a ruinous and dangerous principle to adopt. There is an universal discontent throughout all America, from an internal bad Government. There are but two ways to govern America; either to make it subservient to all your laws, or to let it govern itself by its own internal policy. I abhor, the measure of taxation where it is only for a quarrel, and not for a revenue; a measure that is teazing and irritating without any good effect; but a revision of this question will one day or other come, wherein I hope to give my opinion. But this is the day, then, that you wish to go to war with all America, in order to conciliate that country to this; and to say that America shall be obedient to all the laws of this country. I wish to see a new regulation and plan of a new legislation in that country, not founded upon your laws and statutes here, but grounded upon the vital principles of English liberty.

Mr. Grey Cooper said, he could not agree in the doctrines laid down by the honorable gentleman who spoke last, that the Bill was unjust or unwise; it was, in his opinion, a temperate and prudent law, to preserve the trade of this country, and protect the peace of America; he was sorry to find that honorable gentleman in particular should be upbraiding Government for not making use of military force; nor should he have expected that such a proposition would have come from him. It has been said that the Americans cannot be heard in their own defence before this measure takes effect. Look at the papers on the table, where you see the resolutions of their public meetings ordered to be sent over here, that we might be acquainted with them. After such a defiance, can it be expected, that they would come over here to be heard, and say any thing at your bar but what they had already told you, and sent to you expressly in the papers on your table, where they refuse a direct obedience to all your laws? It is asked again, Sir, whether the individuals are not to be punished when they are found out? I apprehend, Sir, that this measure by no means excuses the guilty persons from being brought to condign punishment. The Black Act of this country is a similar case with regard to this Bill, where the hundred are fined in the penalty of £200 for not suppressing the offences mentioned in that Act, such as cutting down trees, breaking banks, and other misdemeanors. The whole hundred, in this case, are not present at the commission of the crime, yet they are punished for it; nor does that fine excuse the criminal from being particularly punished, where the aggressor can be found out. The Bill before you is a law for the protection of trade; it is a mild measure, if they obey it; if they oppose it, the result of it will only make the punishment. The resolves at Boston I consider as direct issue against the Declaratory Act; they clearly proved a determined resolution in the Americans to oppose every law of this country; but the Bostonians alone have carried into execution what others have only resolved. This Bill, Sir, I look upon to be the act of a father chastising his son on one line, and restoring the trade and peace of America on the other, and therefore I highly approve of the measure.

Mr. Anthony Bacon said there was not a port in New-England but what had sufficient ware-houses for the reception of all the merchandise of Great Britain.

Governor Pownall said, that he had always been of opinion, that internal taxes could not legally be laid, but that he agreed in external ones; that there wanted a revision of the general laws relating to America; he said he wished that the Tea Duty was repealed, but he did not think this the proper time or season to adopt the measure. There ought also to be a review of the Governments; the Americans have a real love for Government; they love order and peace, [here the House laughed;] he said, I do aver that they love peace, for I look upon this to be the act of the mob, and not of the People, and wait but a little it will regulate itself.

The Lord Advocate said, the question had been very fully argued, and he should give his hearty affirmative to the Bill.

Lord John Cavendish spoke a few words against the Bill, and said, he should give his negative to its passing in its present form.

Mr. T. Townshend spoke also against the Bill, and said, he should be against its passing into a law.

Mr. Sawbridge said, the offence of destroying the tea was done in the night time, and not tempore diurno; that this was an ex-post-facto law, and that the law of the Black Act, which had been mentioned, was not in force before the offence was committed; that as far as that, or any other precedent participated of this law, so far they were most iniquitous; that it was an act of cowardice in the Minister to come to Parliament to ask for that which had been allowed, and was in the power of the Crown to order and direct: he meant, he said, the removal of the custom-house officers, and other things mentioned in that Act, the preservation of the peace, and the executive authority in that country. All these might have been done by the Crown, without applying to Parliament, but the Minister was timorous of proceeding himself, and wanted to skulk behind the protection of the Legislature.

Lord North said, he rose to explain himself, and was sorry to commit an offence to the House at that hour of the night, and especially as it would be to the disturbance of the neighbourhood, who are totally innocent, [alluding to the charge that had been made by Mr. Sawbridge, that the innocent People in the town of Boston would suffer equally with the offenders;] not am I, Sir, ashamed, at any time to take shelter under the Legislature. The honorable gentleman says, the Minister might do certain things,