right, and to perceive that those designs were defeated; and that an improper influence, originating whence it might, or in Whatever manner, made very little difference. As to the point of advice, in relation to coercive measures, he very frankly declared himself to be equally strenuous: for all conciliating means having proved ineffectual, he thought it high time for the mother country to exert her authority, or forever relinquish it. If the task be difficult now, what must it be in a few years time? Parliament must be obeyed, or it must not; if it be obeyed, then who shall resist its determinations? If it be not, then we may as well at once give up every claim of authority over America. I should scorn (said he) to be present in this House, and sit still without freely declaring my sentiments. I should scorn to continue one of his Majesty's Ministers, and not advise coercive measures, when I was so firmly and fully convinced of their necessity; and I take a particular pride in avowing those sentiments, and mean steadily to abide by them at all events. His Lordship then proceeded to comment on the proceedings of the Congress, in relation to their disapprobation of certain Acts of Parliament, particularly the four or five last adverted to at that meeting. He defended them all and contended, that the Boston Port Bill, if the obstinacy of the Bostonians had not prevented it, would have executed itself, as a satisfaction for the dédommagement done to the East India Company, would have at once put the Port of Boston on its former footing, and have of course made an opening for a complete reconciliation. He insisted strongly that the mother country should never relax till America confessed her supremacy; and that as soon as America had dutifully complied, she would meet with every indulgence consistent with the real interest 6f both countries; but that any concession on our parts, till the right on which all our pretensions were founded, was allowed, would be to the last degree impolitick, pusillanimous, and absurd. He supposed, he said, that the noble Earl would be alone in his opinion, that this country had not the; right to tax America. The right implied, according to him, the necessity of the exercise of it. He thought it a duty incumbent on Administration to pursue their object of subduing the refractory, rebellious' Americans; and avowed the Ministerial resolution of enforcing obedience by arms.*

The Earl of Shelburne began with renouncing all personal engagements whatever; and solemnly declared, that he adopted the sentiments of the noble Earl of Chatham, solely on account of their wisdom, justice, and propriety. He said, the specious language of the supremacy of the British Legislature, the interests of Great Britain, of her authority over the Colonies, &c., was artfully held out to delude and deceive both Parliament and people; it was intended to operate on every degree of men; the very Cobler is, he said, swelled up with his own importance, as being a party in a contest with those on the other side, who are as artfully represented to be ready to throw off all obedience, who are described to be traitors, vagabonds, and rebels, guilty of the most flagrant baseness and ingratitude. But surely there is not a noble Lord within these walls-there is not a man without—who does pot instantly perceive the notorious fallacy of such a misrepresentation. No man can be at a loss to know, that a majority of both Houses, however constituted, are the Nation; that that majority is led and directed by an Administration consisting of four or five persons; and those again, by one man. Let us, therefore, hear no more of the People, the Parliament, or Great Britain; but consider the issue as simply depending between the parties thus described, between Administration on one side, and all America on the other. He then proceeded to animadvert on the several Acts of the last session respecting America; and contended, without reserve, that the Boston Port Bill did not execute itself, nor was ever meant so to do: for supposing the dédommagement to be repaired, and the injury sustained by the East India Company compensated, what did the Act say? Why, that when his Majesty should think the Bostonians had returned to their obedience, and peace and good government fully established, his Majesty might open the Port on such conditions as he thought proper; and appoint such places for the landing and shipping of goods within the said Port and Harbour as he pleased. Here he highly arraigned the unconstitutional policy which dictated that part of the Act, and wantonly lodged a power in the King and Council, which Parliament, if it regarded its own honour, should have never parted with. He condemned, in general, the madness, injustice, and infatuation of coercing the Americans into a blind and servile submission; and repeated what had been received in the most ludicrous manner, on a former occasion, that a tipstaff would execute the Acts better than a military force consisting of one hundred thousand men.

Lord Lyttelton set out with complimenting the noble Earl who spoke first in the debate, on his great political wisdom, his extensive talents, and the fruits of both, the glorious successes of the late war, which must deservedly crown him with immortal laurels. He grounded his arguments chiefly on the legislative supremacy of the British Parliament. He ridiculed the absurd idea of an inactive right, when there was the most apparent and urgent necessity for exercising it. It would be madness in the extreme, not directly to assert, or forever relinquish it. He could not at all agree with the noble Earl in his encomiums on the Continental Congress; for so far from applauding their wisdom, &c, he contended that the whole of their deliberations and proceedings breathed the spirit of unconstitutional independency and open rebellion. His Lordship pointed to the particular language of some of their Resolu-

Whatever, difference of opinion in the Cabinet might have produced an apparent Irresolution previous to the recess, it now became evident that measures were finally settled with respect to America. Though the Military and Naval strength was not increased, a plan of coercion seemed to be determined on. The language of the Lords in Administration was high and decisive. They condemned the conduct of the Americans In the strongest and most unreserved terms; and justified all the acts of Administration, and all the late Laws, without exception, They insisted that all conciliating means having proved ineffectual, it was high time for the mother country to assert her authority or forever to relinquish it. If the task be difficult now, what must, it be in. few years? Parliament must be obeyed, or it must not; if it be obeyed, who shall resist its determinations? If it be not, it is better at once to give up every claim of authority over America. The supremacy of the British Legislature cannot be disputed; and the idea of an inactive right, when there is the most urgent necessity for its exercise, is absurd ridiculous, If we give way on the present occasion, from mistaken notions of present advantages in trade and commerce, such a concession will infallibly defeat its own object; for it is plain that the Navigation Act, and all other regulatory Acts, which form the great basis; on which those advantages rest, and the true interests of both countries depend, will fall a victim to the interested and ambitious views of America In a word, it was declared that the mother country should never relax, till America confessed her supremacy; and it was avowed,. To be the Ministerial resolution to enforce obedience by arms

In this debate it did not appear that the Lords in the minority were fully agreed on the propriety of recalling the Troops. Some Lords who were the most earnest for peace, did not think it at all just or wise to leave those who had risked their lives in favour of the claims of this country, however ill-founded or improperly exercised, as unprotected victims to the range of an armed and incensed populace; and that too, before any previous stipulations were made for their safety. They thought that if proper concessions were; made, the Troops then at Boston were not to numerous enough to raise an alarm on account of a supposed ill-faith in keeping them up and could by no means prevent the restoration of peace. It was wrong at first to send the force; but it might be dangerous to recall it before that was accomplished. They, however, supported the motion because it looked towards that great object; and because, they said, they thought any thing better than a perseverance in hostility. In argument, it was denied that lenient moans had been ineffectually tried with the Colonies; and, on the contrary, insisted that they had been continually irritated by a series of absurd, contradictory, wanton, and oppressive measures. That the proscription of Boston, untried and unheard, whereby thirty thousand, people were consigned to famine and beggary for the alleged crimes of a few, was an injustice and cruelty scarcely to be paralleled. That, as if it had been done to inflame them to madness, and to keep hostility always in their eyes, an Army, merely of irritation, as it evidently could answer no other purpose, was sent amongst them. That, unfortunately, passion, obstinacy, and ill-will, under the direction of inability and ignorance, had been made the principles for governing a free people. That America only wants to have safety in property, and personal liberty; and the desire of independency was falsely charged on her. It was also insisted on that the Colonies never denied or questioned the Acts of Navigation, except when excited to it by injury.

That the specious language of the supremacy of the British Legislature, the interests of Great Britain, of her authority over the Colonies, and other phrazes equally sounding, was artfully held out to deceive and delude both Parliament and people; they wore pompous words, and might swell the importance of the meanest mechanick; but they would neither prevent the miseries of a civil war, preserve our commerce, nor restore our Colonies, if once lost

After a pretty long debate for that House, the question was rejected by a vast majority, there appearing, upon a division, no less than sixty-eight who opposed, to eighteen only, who supported, the motion. This division was rendered remarkable, by having a Prince of the blood, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, for the first time in the minority

This decisive victory restored the confidence of the Minister, and. perhaps encouraged him to; measures in the other House, which he would not otherwise have hazarded.—Ann. Regis.