of Alva into the Netherlands, are applicable in every part. He was advised by two sensible men, to repair thither himself and hear the complaints of his people, before he came to such rash resolves; but the majority said, as in this case, that his glory was compromised. It was not religion only, but taxing without the consent of their states, that brought matters To the last extremity. The Duke of Alva, it is true, was victorious every where at first, but his cruelties were but sowing the serpent's teeth. The gueux, the beggars of the Briel, esteemed at that time infinitely more despicable than the New England men are represented, gave the first shock to the power of Spain. In comparing the probability of events, can any man say Great Britain has such a prospect of victory in the contest, as Spain might then have expected? Yet we know the event, and how that mighty Empire was rent in pieces. The present Resolution, hurries us into that situation, from which there is no retreating. It obliges the Americans immediately to act. By declaring them in rebellion, they must have recourse to arms; all negotiation is cut off. I think the word "rebellion" both impolitick and unjustifiable. I beg to know what Paper on your table can vindicate that term? The first Law Officer of the Crown said, "a number of men committing treason was rebellion." I differ from him in the definition. According to my conception of the phrase, they must be in military array, to effect some military purpose. One hundred men coining money, are not hi rebellion, though committing treason. Insurrections to pull down enclosures, is not rebellion, though deemed a Constructive levying war. In the case of Purchase and Dammaree, for pulling down the Meeting Houses,*they were convicted of treason, but no one ever thought of saying the confederates or associates were in rebellion. I think we should be very cautious how we criminate bodies of men on such intelligence. I dare say the noble Lord has been deceived himself; but this I affirm, he has hitherto constantly deceived this House. It appears to me that no intelligence from General Gage can be depended on. I beg the House will attend particularly to what I now say, before they engage their lives and fortunes. It appears General Gage has regularly deceived Administration. No event has turned out as he foretold, or gave reason to hope; the next letter constantly contradicts the expectations raised by the former. He seems never to have known what they were about—no doubt grossly imposed on himself, but the facts are undeniable. When he first arrived, he writes, the mal-contents were abashed, and the friends of Government would soon appear. Next, his expectations from the Assembly were disappointed, and he dissolves them in surprise; then, there would be no Congress; next, though there Would be a Congress, they would differ and disagree. In short, led on, and leading others by vain expectations, till the last letter, which announces a total disaffection, and which I believe to be the true state of the Provinces.

Singling out the Province of Massachusetts Bay, can answer no purpose, but to expose our partiality. It is the cause of all, and, the other Colonies can never be so mean as first to encourage, and then desert them, before the general right is settled.

The noble Lord talks next of stopping their Fisheries; but he says, "the Act is only to be temporary." Does the noble Lord think he can turn the channels of trade as easily as tie can turn the majorities of this House? To explain the idea, supposing the New England Fisheries stopped, their utensils must waste and destroy. But, will the English Merchant madly increase his stock, and fit out new Ships, if the Act is merely temporary? If it is perpetual, the people in America are ruined. The consequence is, that the French must in the end reap the benefit of all this strange policy.

We are constantly stating the great obligation we have conferred on the Colonies by our former behaviour towards them; if it was ever so good, we can claim no merit from hence private or publick concerns, to do injury in future. They do not complain of your former behaviour, but they say, you have altered this very system from whence you would now derive their submission.

There are two arguments of the noble Lord which I must remark upon before I sit down; the first is, "the comparative view of taxation between this country and the "See Howell's State Trials, vol. 15, p. 521.

"Colonies, according to the number of inhabitants." His Lordship says, "we pay about twenty-five Shillings a head, and they pay about six Pence." Who is there so unacquainted with political arithmetick, as not to know that the small sum people pay in taxation is often a proof of their poverty, and the large sum a proof of their prosperity, by demonstrating the riches from the greatness of the consumption? Let this kind of reasoning be applied to Ireland and Scotland, where we know the multitude to be poor in comparison to the inhabitants of London, whom we know to be rich; besides, if the Colonist does not pay in palpable cash from his own hand, does not he pay" all the taxes on the four millions of Manufactures he receives, and part of those taxes on the raw materials he sends hither?

The other argument is still more extraordinary. The noble Lord says, "if we fail in our attempt of forcing America, we shall still be in the same situation we are in at "present." What! after our Armies have been disgraced, our fellow-subjects destroyed, all the irritation of a civil war, publick confidence, and fair opinion lost! does the noble Lord think he will be in the same situation himself? I really speak it with regret; for personally I have much regard for the noble Lord, and particularly because I perceive from his faint manner of stating his propositions, that they are not the dictates of his own mind, and that they are forced on him.

I cannot see my other memorandums, and therefore I shall conclude by heartily concurring with the noble Lord who moved for the recommitment of this Address.

Sir Robert Smythe spoke of two kinds of connection which the Americans had with Great Britain, The first, as emigrants, they had a political connection; the commercial connection was next in order. If we had stopped to hear the Merchants' Petition, it was just the same as if we had stopped the measures of Government against the rebels, when they were in the heart of the Kingdom, to hear Petitions from Preston and Manchester: he was therefore for proceeding.

Mr. Burke applied his argument to that prevalent idea, which alone, he said, can make one honest man the advocate for Ministerial measures, namely, that the Americans attack the sovereignty of this country. He said, the Americans do not attack the sovereignty itself, but a certain exercise and use of that sovereignty. He stated, that no tyranny itself found a justification in the mere plea of their unlimited authority. He stated seven acts of tyranny, which justified resistance. He shewed, that the cause of the late rebellions at home, and those disturbances in America, differed widely; that the trade of the country was little affected by those rebellions; that our trade at present is the primary object; that the object of that rebellion was to set an unnatural tyrant on the throne; that he feared the Americans were now what we were then; and were struggling that an insufferable tyranny should not be established over them. He represented the delusion practised by Ministry, who in all speeches argue that Boston alone was in rebellion, and that it was an affair with Boston only; but he shewed that all America was concerned, from clear and positive facts. He proved, that from one end of the Continent to the other, the like resistance had been found; and he pressed the independent Members to consider that; for he said, if people were once convinced that the mischief was so wide, they would think a little more seriously what might have been the cause of so general discontent, and might wish to apply other remedies than fire or sword. He said, that their definition of rebellion was the oddest he had ever heard; it must be the destruction of Tea; but burning Tea was not in their definition rebellion; for such a place had burnt it; that spoiling it in damp vaults was not in their definition; for it had been so treated in such a place. Now, to answer their definition of rebellion, Tea must be drowned like a puppy-dog; and even that was not quite enough; it must be drowned, and drowned at Boston. This was the definition of rebellion. He exerted himself to deprecate the shameless tyranny we exercised. He abhorred political as much as be did religious persecution. His heart seemed engaged. He mentioned with horrour the idea of tearing a man from his family and friends the other side the Atlantic, and tearing his heart out in Smithfield, styling it the heart of a Traitor, because he would