people of New England that the Fishery should be given up; the intentions he wished to impress being only, that the present Bill was not a bill of commercial regulation, but of coercion; which, as soon as the ends proposed were attained, would certainly be repealed, leaving Parliament, nevertheless, to take the matter up on motives of policy.

The Earl of Radnor, not at all satisfied with this explanation, adhered to his former opinion, and declared that he could not, in conscience, give his vote in favour of a Bill, obedience to which was to be purchased on the implied conditions of sacrificing the most important branch of commerce belonging to the British Empire.

The Duke of Grafton said, he had not the least difficulty in giving his vote on the present occasion, as it did not, in his opinion, rest on the question so much agitated an both sides of the House; the question of taxation so improperly introduced into the debate. The present Bill, he insisted, was founded on the principle of retaliation and punishment, for an outrage as daring as it was unprovoked, still further heightened and aggravated by a resistance to all lawful authority, and almost a positive avowal of a total independence on the mother country. On those grounds the propriety of the present Bill could only be fairly argued; and the motives of retaliation in one instance, and a withholding the benefits only due to a dutiful and obedient conduct in the other, were what had determined him to give his vote that the Bill should be committed. His Grace next disclaimed all ideas of taxation and commercial regulation, as being clearly out of the question. He observed, that a noble Lord in Administration (the Earl of Suffolk) had very improperly imputed all the present confusions to the repeal of the Stamp Act. I was the person, said his Grace, who framed those Resolutions, and had the honour to propose them to a Committee of this House, on which the Bill for that repeal was afterwards formed, brought in, and passed. I was then the advocate, and still take a particular pride in being the steady friend of America. The delicacy of my situation then, as well as now, will not permit me satisfactorily to explain the motives which led to that repeal, nor the consequent very disagreeable circumstances which succeeded it, and perhaps now regulate my conduct; but this, however, I am at liberty to declare, that the argument so confidently urged, that America contributes nothing towards the common support, however plausibly maintained, or forcibly expressed, is a fallacious one. I affirm, she does contribute largely to the publick burthens, in the great consumption of our Manufactures; and I should be very sorry to see, that what appears now a speculative composition, liable to be controverted, should ever come to be demonstrably, nay actually, proved. Will any noble Lord, at all conversant with the trade and commerce of this country, contend that we are not enabled to pay the great load of taxes we labour under, by the vast increase of our Exports to that Continent; or that the various articles of Leather, &c., and in short all exciseable commodities exported to that country, as well as the innumerable benefits derived to every part of the three Kingdoms, by the circuitous commerce carried on with it, is not, in reality, a very great augmentation to our revenue, and to every substantial purpose, answers the end of an actual tax, unaccompanied by any of the disagreeable consequences that never fail to attend laying burthens on the people, and collecting it? A noble and learned Lord, (Camden) seemed to take it for granted that all thoughts of conciliation are laid aside; and that this Bill is no less than a positive declaration of war on our part. I beg leave to differ from the learned Lord. I rejoice, said the Duke, that, in speaking before so numerous an audience, I can describe the true state of this transaction, and prevent its crossing the Atlantic in improper colours. When the noble Earl (Chatham) proposed his Bill, could such a Bill be expected? Could any man imagine a person of his wisdom and experience, (and I have all respect for his abilities, but would speak even if he were present with the same freedom I now do) of his Parliamentary experience, would propose a Bill which must involve us in fatal disputes with the Commons; a Bill which was to repeal nine Acts of Parliament, and many of them revenue Acts? But let his plan have been what it would, it was not spurned from this House; it is yet in this House; it now lies on your table. I believe that America will trust to the parental disposition of this country, where she has many strenuous friends, among whom I number myself one of the warmest. I trust, therefore, that she will not blindly rush on her own destruction, and thereby prevent them from serving her, but return to her obedience, as the surest means of obtaining a reparation for any injuries she may have sustained. On the whole, therefore, I sincerely hope that the present Bill will have the desired effect; that our fellow-subjects in America will wisely and dutifully return to their obedience; and, that as in the present year 1775, we are prosecuting just measures to bring about so desirable an end, so in the year 1776, we may be employed in manifesting the most ample proofs of our removing all cause, or almost possibility of the return of the same evils, by ascertaining their rights and the constitutional power of this country, on the most fair, equitable, and permanent foundations. It was my task on a former occasion; and I shall, with pleasure, in the year 1776, as a strenuous friend to the just claims of America, unremittingly labour in the same cause.

The Marquis of Rockingham observed that a noble Lord (Dudley) had objected to the accounts of the American Exports of 1764, now lying on the table, as well as that given by a witness at their Lordships' bar, (Mr. Watson) and drew a conclusion from the method of obtaining them, one being made up from unsigned papers, and the other from false entries; that they were both erroneous, and consequently that every deduction drawn from such premises must be equally fallacious and undeserving of the least degree of credit or attention. To this his Lordship answered, that for the purpose he employed those supposed facts, it was totally immaterial whether they were correct or not; the Exports, for instance, might be £2,700,000, or only £2,000,000; the argument either way was equally good. All he meant to prove by stating them was to shew the vast increase of our trade to America, from a comparative state of it at different periods. The errour, his Lordship said, was uniform; it existed at all times, or not at all. Thus the Custom House entries, said the annual Exports in 1704, were of foreign Goods £17,000, and of home £54,000, in all £71,000; in 1754, £180,000; in 1764, in ten years, more than double; and in the last nine years again, nearly in the same proportion, the Exports being between seven and eight hundred thousand Pounds to New England alone. His Lordship concluded with observing, that some noble Lords, who formerly entertained an opinion of the propriety of the Stamp Act, seemed to have since altered their sentiments. He, therefore, called upon them to declare their minds freely, and not to act under any restraint: for he was ready and willing to unload them to such a burthen, and bear the whole of the blame on his own shoulders; trusting, on the other hand, if it proved a wise measure, that he might be entitled to claim the merit thus abandoned.

Lord Camden rose to explain, in reply to what had fallen from the last noble Duke who spoke in the debate. He begged leave to correct a mistake of his Grace's, relative to the reception Lord Chatham's conciliatory Bill met with, and to recall to the memory of the House the manner of its total rejection. When the noble Lord who brought it in had explained the purposes of the Bill, and delineated its great outlines, he apologized for the matter it contained, and the awkward dress it appeared in; beseeching, at the same time, the attention, indulgence, and assistance of the House, to amend it in matter and form, so as to suit it to the magnitude and importance of the objects to which it was meant to be directed. What was the immediate consequence? said his Lordship. A noble Lord in Administration, (Lord Dartmouth) remarkable for his candour, consented that the Bill should lie on the table, to be taken up on some future day, in order to consider it maturely, as it contained such an infinity of matter; but on a sudden another noble Lord, high in office, (Lord Sandwich) strenuously opposed it, and moved for a total rejection, refusing it even the cold compliment or ceremonial, of letting it lie on the table for twenty-four hours. His Grace has a kind of answer to this; he says, "though the Bill was not permitted to go to a second reading, it was never totally rejected, it is still before the House, and may be still brought under its cognizance." This I absolutely deny. The Bill, though on your Lordships' table, is now