Colonies, we prepare our ships and our troops to attack them. It has been the language of a noble Lord, that when America is at our feet, we Will forgive them, and tax them; but let me recommend lenient measures, and to go cap in hand to your subjects; if you do not, you will ruin them. The great Minister of this country (Lord Chatham) always went cap in hand to all: his measures were lenient and palliative; but we have now adopted another system. In one House of Parliament we have passed the Rubicon," in the other delenda est Carthago." [He gave a history here of the different state of finance in which France was; that it was superior in every degree to this country; that their establishments were lower in point of expense; and that France was more ready and fit to go to war than we were; and that during these troubles with our Colonies, France would not lie quiet;]—But I see nothing, said he, in the present measures but inhumanity, injustice, and wickedness; and I fear that the hand of Heaven will fall down on this country with the same degree of vengeance.

Mr. S. Fox. I rise, Sir, with an utter detestation and abhorrence of the present measures. It is asserted by many gentlemen, that these measures are adopted to keep up the regard of the People, but I can by no means acquiesce in that; all these Bills have no qualities relative to those lenient measures. As to the second Bill, it has a most wanton and wicked purpose; we are either to treat the Americans as subjects or as rebels. If we treat them as subjects, the Bill goes too far; if as rebels, it does not go far enough. They have never yet submitted, and I trust they never will. We have refused to hear the parties in their defence, and we are going to destroy their charter without knowing the constitution of their Government. I am utterly against such measures as these, which can tend to nothing but to raise disturbance and rebellion.

The Marquis of Carmarthen. I do not mean to trespass long at this hour of the night; but there is not a person in the world a stranger to the practices carried on in America, with a direct intention to throw off their dependance on this country. The opposition which they fomented, was not made on account of the tax, but a systematic measure of opposition to every part of the law of this country. It might have been thought by sober-minded People, that the repeal of the Stamp Act would have brought them back to a sense of their duty: but, alas! Sir, it had a contrary effect. [He read an extract of a letter from Governor Bernard, setting forth, that "upon coercive measures being adopted in this country, the Americans seemed to give an acquiescence; but whenever lenient once were the system of Administration, they have always been turbulent and riotous."] It has been observed, Sir, by an honorable gentleman (Colonel Barré) that a great Minister (Lord Chatham) proceeded upon cap-in-hand measures. I do not agree with him on that point, as I never heard that Minister celebrated for that part of his character. I always understood that his measures were deemed spirited and vigorous, and that he was the farthest man in the world from making use of cap-in-hand measures; his character was of a far different nature. But I refer the House to all the panegyrics that have been passed on that noble Lord, for confirming what I say. But, Sir, the time may soon come, when that noble Lord will have an opportunity, in the other House of Parliament, to adopt and make use of those cap-in-hand measures which the honorable gentleman has just now attributed to him, as a part of his character; but I strongly believe his system will be of a different kind.

Mr. St. John. I rise, Sir, to take up a few minutes of the House's time, and to make a few observations upon what has been said, It has been stated that this Bill is taking away all the rights of the Americans in one day, and that it is a total destruction of their charter. What is this, Sir, but a gross misrepresentation of Parliamentary proceedings? I hold it, Sir, imprudent to meddle with chartered rights, but in cases where the rights of that charter are exercised to the detriment and injury of the People. Sir, Parliament has saved America from the jaws of tyranny, by amending their constitution; and to say that we have no right to alter their Government for such purpose, appears to me the highest absurdity; we are perpetually altering and ameliorating our own constitution, upon emergencies; is there then no emergency at this present Instant, when your officers are obliged to take shelter in your castle; when the magistrates refuse to execute their authority to keep the peace; when your ships are plundered, and your trade obstructed; and whenever a person endeavours to reform the constitution of that country, he incurs nought but pains and penalties? Is it no defect, that the inhabitants, when they meet to choose their officers of the town, that they determine upon points that go to the very vitals of the constitution? Not to correct these deficiencies in their constitution, but to give up the points which they contend for, would be a base surrender of the rights of posterity. It has been said, this law is partial, but that that partiality is applicable only to the People of Boston, who have been the ringleaders of the whole disturbances; that it is slow, I agree, because measures of this sort, when adopted on the line of security, proceed with an attentive step. But I cannot agree that the measure is hostile; if it is, it is hostility adopted for the prevention of bloodshed. Have we not been provoked to this from the manifold injuries which this country has received? It is not, Sir, the strength of America that we dread; they have neither men, army, nor navy. What then have we to fear—do we dread the loss of our trade? No, Sir, the avarice of the Americans will prevent that. They threaten us with not paying their debts; but I am afraid, if we give way to them, they will not allow that they owe us any: however, Sir, let us not proceed weakly nor violently, but with resolution and firmness. I approve of the system that is adopted; and with regard to a fair and impartial trial in that country, I think it not only improbable but impossible; I therefore wish well to the present Bill.

Mr. Byng. I am sorry, Sir, to find that we are not now proceeding in our judicial capacity, but in our legislative one; I could wish that we instilled into the measure more judgement, and less of our power. It is said this measure is adopted to prevent bloodshed; is it then that you send armies there for that purpose? It has been said, that Parliament has bowed its head to every Minister as often as measure have been adopted. It bowed when the Stamp Act was made! It bowed when it was repealed! I wish, however, in this present instance, it would for once not be quite so civil. It has been said, that these Bills are for amending the constitution. Will gentlemen call that amendment a good one, which directs, that the Judges' places shall be at the disposed of the Crown? Surely not. It has been said, Sir, that there has been treason and traitors, but that the traitors are not known. There can be no treason without traitors, therefore endeavour to find out the traitors first, that they may be punished, to save the destruction of an innocent People. but the same argument that operates for its continuance for an hour, will operate equally for its perpetuity.

Mr. Rigby. I rise, Sir, only just to contradict an opinion which has been imbibed, that in the debate the other day, I wished to tax Ireland. I only used it as an argument in my speech to tax America, but never expressed a hint that it was proper to tax it. It also been observed, that I treated requisition in a ridiculous light; I did so; and I think any requisition to the Americans their quota of their taxes, would be both ridiculous and ineffectual. But the honorable gentleman's (Mr. Barré) ideas of requisition, go no further than furnishing provision for a regiment. The honorable gentleman has taken three or four days to consider of my speech, in order to give it an answer. I say stand and deliver, to the Americans, just as much as I say to my constituents, when I give my vote to passing the Land Tax Bill; but the honorable gentleman was very desirous to have a fling at me. I desire, Sir, to support the present Ministry, because I regard them; because I have respect for their abilities and resolution. That great Minister, Sir, who has been so much famed for cap-in-hand measures, did make his country too big for any one, even himself, to govern. There is not a symptom that any of the People out of doors are displeased with our measures; but I am told quite the contrary. America, at this instant, is in a state of down-right anarchy; let us give it a Government. I always, Sir,