fore, that there was no appearance of illegality in its origin; it was also moderate in its exercise; it affected not a necessary of life, and left the American consumer of a foreign luxury in a much better situation than any subject in Great Britain. But admitting that the people of Boston, either from their own notions of the matter, or from prejudices instilled into them, thought the duty upon Tea an oppression, it surely was incumbent on them to have presented a Memorial or Petition to Parliament; not to have invaded private property with violence, nor to have treated the sovereign Legislature of Great Britain with insolence and contempt. Reparation ought long ago to have been made for these offences; and it is in order to obtain it that I understand. Adminis6tration think themselves under a necessity of adopting coercive measures as the only means to bring about a lasting union.

As a learned Lord, (Camden) in the course of this debate, has taken occasion to censure the two Acts which passed in The last session, after the Boston Port Bill; I will beg your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words to each of them First, as to the Bill for the impartial administration of justice in Massachusetts Bay; was I to take my idea of this Bill from what has fallen from the learned Lord, that by coupling it with the Statute of Henry the Eighth, it gave a full power to bring the Americans over here to butcher them in the King's Bench, I should conclude that it was a Bill empowering Administration to tear any obnoxious person from his wife and family, and carry him to a foreign judicature to answer for crimes said to be committed in his own country; whereas, in truth, it is a Bill of mercy, as well as of justice, giving security to persons acting under legal powers, that they shall not, in the discharge of their duty, be subject to the resentment of a factious and deluded populace, who neither acknowledge the laws, nor the authority of the Magistrate; besides the Bill is temporary, and respects only the present tumultuous state of the Province.

As to the other Bill, for altering the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, which the same learned Lord represents as an exorbitant abuse of Parliamentary power, I will only say, That, an alteration, full as material, in that very Charter, was made by King William immediately after the Revolution. Shall it then be said, in this House, that it is an abuse of power for the present King, sitting in his Parliament, to do an act similar to what King William, that great restorer of British freedom, did by the advice of his Council only; though that Council was composed of men that loved liberty as well, and hazarded as much in the preservation of it, as any set of Patriots before or since.

As to the Papers upon your Lordships' table, it appears from them to be the general opinion of all those who, either from their office or their situation, are capable of judging what will be the probable effect of it, that a steady perseverance to support the rights of the Legislature will, in the end, bring the Americans to a just sense of their duty and their interest. It will then be time for tenderness and forgiveness. May I not add, it will then be time for indulgence even to popular prejudices, and that idea they are so fond of, the right of taxing themselves. But was Great Britain tamely to submit to the indignities that have been put upon her, her condescension would defeat its very purpose, and be treated as a meanness and timidity. It might, indeed, procure peace; but it would be only drawing ashes over the embers that would still be burning underneath, or, like the act of an unskilful Surgeon, who heals the wound outwardly, while it is still left festering within.

I shall, therefore, give my vote for this Address; not because I love coercive measures, though, to a certain degree, they may become necessary. I approve of it rather, because it takes the middle way, so much recommended by the noble and learned Lord; for the steadiness is the means, yet reconciliation is avowedly the end proposed. Reconciliation is what I shall never lose sight of; and I am persuaded that, could your Lordships be induced to join unanimously in this Address, it would speedily bring about what all your Lordships are desirous of, the peace, harmony, and lasting prosperity of the British Empire.

The Duke of Richmond observed, that he thought it was extremely improper for the Right Reverend Bench to take any part on the present occasion, or to be at all accessary to the shedding of the blood of their fellow-creatures and fellow-subjects. It would be much fitter, if they interfered at all, to act as mediators, than as persecutors; more consistent with the principles they professed to teach; but much more particularly suited to the sacred functions they were called to discharge. He said, that by the specimen now given, he should not be surprised to see the lawn sleeves upon those benches stained with the blood of their innocent and oppressed countrymen on the other side the Atlantic.

The Duke of Manchester animadverted with great energy on the very indecent and unprecedented attack made by a noble Lord, early in the debate, (Lord Lyttelton) on all those who happened to differ with him. He said it was a pretty method of convincing an adversary, to tell him that his opposition to measures was founded in the worst motives; and that all who entertained contrary sentiments to his own, were weak and wicked Counsellors. Such language had been always discountenanced, and he hoped would always meet with the strongest marks of discouragement and disapprobation in that House, as it would otherwise banish all sober deliberation and free discussion from within those walls; and introduce, in their stead, the most improper personalities and disgraceful altercations.

Lord Lyttelton endeavoured to exculpate himself from the charges of the two noble Dukes, He said, any thing severe he might have dropped respecting a noble and learned Lord on the other side, was only upon certain suppositions. He had not, however, changed his opinion relative to the true interpretation of treason; nor could he bring himself to subscribe to his Lordships definition of it; as the more he thought on the subject, or heard it argued, the fuller he was satisfied that America was in rebellion. He said he had a very high authority to support him, (Lord Chief Justice Foster) and a real friend to liberty, who enumerates several species of treason, besides those expressly denned by the Statute of the twenty-fifth of Edward the Third, and lays it down as law, though a consultation to levy war, in which the person of the King is not meant to be injured, may appear not to be treason within the Statute of Edward the Third, yet that an overt act of one species of treason may be good evidence to prove an intention to commit the other,

Lord Mansfield assured the House that he had not given the least intimation to the noble Lord of what, he now urged; but that it was nevertheless the general doctrine laid down by those who had written on the subject. He was personally acquainted with the great law authority now quoted, who assured him he was present in Court at the trial of the offenders in Queen Anne's time, who pulled down the Meeting Houses, and that Holt, Chief Justice, and the rest of the Court agreed that evidence of an overt act of one species of treason, was sufficient proof of an overt act of another species of treason.

Lord Camden still retained his former sentiments; he entered into a warm eulogium on the learned Judge alluded to; insisted the doctrine now imputed to him was not his; offered to meet the noble and learned Lord on the other side on that ground; and remarked that the intended object of the language held this day, was to bring the unhappy Americans to England, to be tried under the Act of Henry the Eighth, and have them butchered in the King's Bench. Early in the debate Lord Mansfield having said that the Ministers of the Church of England were persecuted by the fanatics of Boston, and other parts of New-England, Lord Camden reprehended him very severely for using such inflammatory language.

The Earl of Dartmouth closed the debate. He said that he approved of the measure; that America would be tenderly and gently treated, if they would return to their obedience; that he was directed by his own judgment, not by Lord Mansfield's; and that he believed Lord Mansfield was totally unconnected with the present Administration.*

* This extraordinary debate was attended with some singular circumstances. A great law Lord, who had been so severe in his charge against the Americans, condemned also, in the most explicit and unreserved terms, (to the great surprise of most of his auditors,) the measure of laying on the Duties, in the year 1767, which he declared to be the most absurd and pernicious that could be devised, and the cause of all our present and impending evils. If this declaration was unexpected, the acknowledgment that followed was more so. Three great Lords who were at that time Cabinet Counsellors, and held the first offices in the state, declared separately in their; places, that they had no share in that measure, nor had ever given it any approbation; and two of them