Mr. Sawbridge said, he rose again, just to blame the Minister for being timid in doing his duty without the authority of Parliament. He was very certain, he said, that there were three things in the Bill; that there was this, and this, and this thing, which the Minister, might have done without skulking behind the Legislative authority for shelter; that indeed the fourth, of stopping up their port, he believed it was proper to apply to Parliament for; but he was very certain that this, and this, and this, might have been done without the aid of Parliament.

Lord North. Sir, I have been formerly blamed for being the only ostensible Minister of this country. I am now charged with not coming forth and doing the duty of an acting Minister without applying to Parliament. I never, Sir, am ashamed to have the sanction and direction of Parliament as the rule and guide of my conduct; but, Sir, if I had done, as the honorable gentleman who spoke last, wishes me to have done, this, and this, and this, I had done nothing, unless I had come to Parliament for that, and that, then the main object, what the honorable gentleman thinks I ought to have come to Parliament for, and without that, he allows I should do nothing; but however he may wish me to have done this, and this, and this, of my own head as a Minister, the honorable gentleman, (fond as he is, and always has been, of prerogative,) would have disagreed to my proceeding, and objected against it.

The Bill was then Passed without a division.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

SATURDAY, March 26, 1774.

A Message was brought up from the House of Commons, by Mr. Cooper, and others,

With a Bill intituled, "An Act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, or merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the first time:

Ordered, That the said Bill be read a second time, or Monday next, and the Lords be summoned.

MONDAY, March 28, 1774.

The Lord Wycombe presented to the House, the following Petition of Stephen Sayer, and others, Natives of America;

The same was read by the Clerk, as follows:

To the Right Honorable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of several Natives of America, showeth:

That your Petitioners, being Natives of his Majesty's Dominions in America, are deeply interested in every proceeding of this right honorable House, which touches the life, liberty, or property, of any person or persons in the said Dominions.

That your Petitioners conceive themselves and their fellow subjects to be entitled to the rights of natural justice, and to the common law of England, as their unalienable birthright; that they apprehend it to be an invariable rule of natural justice, that no man shall be condemned unheard and that, according to law, no person or persons can be judged without being called upon to answer, and being permitted to hear the evidence against them, and to make their defence.

That it is therefore with the deepest concern, they understand that there is now before this right honorable House, a Bill of Pains and Penalties, to be inflicted on the

but the douceurs of the Court have been dealt with so cautious a hand of late, and so accurate an inspection into the merits of the candidates, that many officious pretenders have retired into the vale of discontent, dispirited, unbefriended, and defeated; common observers do not readily trace the various transactions and refinements which the patriotic character undergoes before it can be ripened into modern maturity; a retrospect into certain promotions will confirm the truth of this assertion, and it is as demonstrable to the full, that the twinges of the political gout are as severe and incurable as the corporal.

I shall now, Sir, with steady attention garble those passages in the honorable gentleman's speech, which never would have attracted my notice, but for the influence it seems to have had over the minds of some very narrow connoisseurs hero. It is with the strictest deferences to the sage politicians in this part of the world, that I offer a few remarks. I will then first warn those who entertain so high an opinion of it, to weigh maturely the arguments it contains; they will then find other doctrines blended with those they so warmly adopt, rather unfavourable to the sticklers for a commonwealth. The elegant modesty of his exordium would have merited applause, had we not discerned its excessive decline through the whole course of the debate. He is not unacquainted with the elaborate logic of the ancients, nor insensible that eloquence on all subjects, has strong pretensions to literary esteem, for he aims at profound sagacity in developing the principles of moral philosophy.

"I now venture to predict to this House, that the effect of the present Bill must be productive of a General Confederacy to resist the power of this county. It is irritating, tempting, nay! inviting men to those deeds by ineffectual expedients, the abortions of an undecisive mind, incapable of comprehending the chain of consequences which must result from such a law. I am not one of those, who believe that distant Provinces can be retained in their duty, by preaching or enchantments; I believe that force or power, conducted with wisdom, are the means of securing regular obedience under every establishment; but that such force should never be applied to any degree of rigour, unless it shall carry the general approbation of mankind in the execution."

If the melancholy prospect of affairs, heightened by alarms from the Indians on the frontiers, presents to our view, evident symptoms of commercial decline here, which is the greatest mart for trade in the Colony; I cannot imagine, that thinking men would be so mad, as to form a general revolt. If courts of justice agree to annihilate themselves, it must be wholly, cannot be conditionally. Can this consist with the loyalty and good manners we profess for the Prince, or that virtuous fortitude which combines society in an indissoluble union? Can acts of injustice obtain the sanction of unanimous consent? How abstracted and refined is the gentleman's reasoning, to anticipate the general approbation of mankind, as if in an ingenious combination of speculative sentiments, could destroy that dispensing power which is the master-wheel, or that discerning policy which is interwoven in the frame of all Governments. He goes on—

"But after the highest characters in the State had declared against the right of this country, to impose taxes on America for the purpose of raising a revenue; after the general voice of the Senate had concurred in repealing the Stamp Act, upon that principle, after those men who had maintained these doctrines had been promoted by his Majesty, to the first stations in the administration of civil and judicial affairs; there is much mitigation to be pleaded in favour of the Americans from those circumstances, (allowing them in an error at present,) that every man must feel the height of cruelty by enforcing maxims with any degree of severity at first, before due warning is given."

When men grow adepts in the theory of rebellion, and form schemes to emancipate themselves from the control of the laws; when they consider all requisitions from Britain, as unjust, all acts of Parliament as tyrannical, the mode of punishment must be extraordinary; the levy of one pound irritates as much as one thousand; and as to the conduct of certain members in the House of Commons, I cannot think their principles impeachable, who advise the promotion of the patriotic zealots, if their preferment could restore the peace and harmony of the State. I do not mean to impeach the member's know, ledge of agriculture; yet, I think the comparison relative to sewing wheat bears a very far-fetched analogy to the Bostonians punishment. Most of the remarks relative to the event of the Act, are too vague to afford any insight to the most prying observer. How are the People to cloth and support themselves during the execution of his Quixotte schemes? He is confounded in his own ingenious doubts, and leaves the arduous task of unravelling all to the good natured world. But what gleams of consolation do they derive from the following assertions: "If the Government of this country is resisted in America, my opinion is, instead of removing the seat of Government in the Colony, and forcing the elements to bend to our will, (which is impossible,) that an effectual force should be carried to the heart of the Colony resisting, to crush rebellion in the bud, before a General Confederacy can be formed." So that you see this great man is not an invincible proselyte to moderate measures, but would chastise in cases of urgent necessity.

Can tumultuous meetings remedy the defects of law ? Is there not a discretionary power in the civil police to summon the posse comitatus? Has it not been deemed strictly legal in Britain, to strengthen that body by military aid, on great emergencies? But when men, in high offices of civil trust, connived at the base resolves of an immaculate body of select citizens; the Governor could not consistently with his duty interfere, without infringing those rights they pretended they met to secure; had he taken any steps at all, he must have suppressed the whole meeting; and their heart-felt groans for expiring liberty would have re-echoed to the inmost recess of his palace. His inter-position would not have been official, and they never would have allowed the greatness of the emergency to supersede the force of their chartered rights. His reasons for repealing the Tea Duty, are exceedingly futile; he thinks it cannot be vindicated; a dogmatical assertion, of a similar stamp and spirit with the rest. His remarks upon inherent privileges are ridiculous. Can any charter grant destroy the fabric of that Government which gave it birth; at any rate, the precedent would be far more ignominious for Great Britain to yield to America, than America to testify her allegiance to Britain. The disputes and litigations which the Bostonians have brought upon themselves, they must abide by the consequences of. They have baffled the expediency of the wisest laws; such crimes are heinous, and richly deserve capital punishment. If the People of Boston act with discretion, they may receive continual improvements in trade; let them comply in time, and earnestly seize this grand criterion, to distinguish their real, from their pretended friends, and the happy consequences resulting from such a timely avowal of their allegiance, and cemented by the constant practice of virtue and good manners, will discover a firm zeal for their Prince, a virtuous fortitude in themselves, and be an eternal memorial of that discerning policy which is the essential characteristic of a free and loyal People.

OBSERVATOR

Norfolk Borough, June 30th, 1774.