The Earl of Denbigh observed, that the title of the paper rendered it inadmissible. It was called a Memorial: now, Memorials are presented from one crowned head to another; but as to a Memorial from an American Assembly, it was unheard of, and ought not to be read.

Earl Gower added, that the title given to the paper was suspicious: a Petition from the same Assembly had been, presented to the King, the Colonies not denying the supreme rights of his Majesty; a Remonstrance to the Commons; and now a Memorial to the Lords. They dropped the usual word Petition, lest, from that, it should be imagined that they acknowledged the supreme power of those branches of the Legislature; upon this account, therefore, the contents of it ought to be opened to the House.

The Duke of Manchester replied, that if the House insisted on his performing the office of Clerk he would submit, but till then he should decline reading it; and as to Opening the subject of it, he had done it already.

The Earl of Hillsborough said, that the Orders of the House were not to be dispensed with; a Lord was not allowed to present a Petition, unless he opened the purport of it; that the noble Duke reading it in his place, as a part of his speech, would be accepted by the House; or if the Duke thought that it would be too great a burden for him to read it himself, then the Clerk might stand by his Grace, and read the Memorial, as a part of his speech.

The Duke of Richmond ridiculed this idea. What, my Lords, the Clerk go and stand by a Lord, and read a paper, as a part of that Lord's speech! Very pretty, truly! Why, then, we need not, any of us, be at the trouble of making speeches; we need only get our speeches written for us, and have the Clerk read them; we may, then, any of us, prove as eloquent as the noble Earl himself. Objections have been made to the term Memorial, as if belonging to Sovereigns, and denying our rights: that is very strange, surely; when it is well known every Ensign in the Army, who has objections to the treatment he receives, has the right of presenting a Memorial to the King; I think, therefore, there is nothing in the term derogatory to the dignity of this House.

The Earl of Sandwich contended, that the noble Duke had been repeatedly called on to open the contents of the Memorial, but would not comply; for as to telling the House, merely, it was a complaint of grievances, that was not satisfactory; as this was the case, he moved, as an amendment the Duke of Manchester's motion, to insert alter "Memorial" these words: "the contents thereof not haying been opened."

The Duke of Richmond observed, that this amendment threw a reflection on the noble Duke who brought in the Memorial, which would be highly unjust: that, in his opinion, the contents had been opened; that is, the principal part of the Memorial, the prayer of it, which was, for a redress of grievances; therefore, if the amendment was accepted, he must move another, to do justice to the noble Duke, by an explanation of how far he had opened it; and moved to add the concluding words of the Memorial, which the Duke of Manchester had read.

Earl Gower said, that the noble mover had not opened the contents; for merely saying it was for a redress of grievances, and reading the concluding words, was saying nothing, unless he mentioned what those grievances were: a friend of the House of Stuart might petition for the redress of a grievance; and that grievance might be the want of the Throne; thus, if the particulars are not mentioned, we can judge of nothing.

Lord Camden stated the great injustice of not allowing a Lord to open the contents of a Petition in any way he thought proper; there could be but two ways, one forcing him to read the whole, which was a drudgery they could not think of; the other, touching the heads of it: now, if a Lord is to open the contents particularly, and upon that opening the fate of the Petition is to depend, then it must depend upon the capacity and abilities of the individual who does it, which would be throwing a negative upon Petitions in general. But he was so great a friend to Petitions being received and read, let them come from whom they might, and under whatever name, that throwing these obstructing upon them must be very mischievous. That the amendment in favour of the noble Duke was highly reasonable, and ought to be accepted.

Lord Mansfield attempted to shew, that a Lord must open the contents of a Petition, and that the Duke had not done it.

The Earl of Shelburne reminded the House, that when the City of London presented their Remonstrance to the King, lawyers were consulted upon the legality of not receiving it; yet so highly was the right of a subject to petition thought of, that it was determined it must be received, under whatever name.

The Earl of Effingham. The turn which this debate has taken, makes it unnecessary for me to remark on any thing which, in the course of it, has fallen from any noble Lord; but as I wish to call your Lordships' attention rather to the subject matter, than to the form and manner, of the paper offered to you, I hope I shall stand excused, if I treat the latter as trifling, when put in competition with the salutary or dreadful effects of admitting or rejecting the means, now in your hands, of restoring harmony to this distracted Empire. What may be the fate of the amendment proposed, I know not; but I fear it is too easily to be guessed, from the complexion of the House, what will be that of the Memorial. If any thing, my Lords, can add to the reluctance with which I, at any time, trouble your Lordships, it is a consciousness of my own inability to treat this subject as it ought to be treated. Indeed, the importance of it is such, as would deter me from entering into it at all, did I not think that, in the precarious situation in which this country stands at present, it is the duty of every man to avow his principles and sentiments with firmness and integrity. The indulgence which I have before experienced, encourages me to expect again, from your candour, that attention, which I have not, like many among your Lordships, the abilities to command. I confess I wish to avoid the discussion of our right to such a power as we are contending for; that is to say, a power of taxing a set of subjects who are not represented among us, and who have full power to tax themselves in the ordinary and constitutional manner. Were any particular Province, among the Americans, to refuse grants of money in proportion to others, or to commit any act in abuse of their Charters, I think that supreme controlling power, which the Province in question allows in its full extent, would give us the charge, "Ne quid detrimenti, res capiat publica." And in that case, my Lords, almost the whole Empire would be united against the wrong-headed few, who would be soon brought to reason. But I am satisfied that, Without such necessity, we have no more right to exercise the power of taxation in that country, than a Roman Dictator had to begin his office with a declaration, that his power should be perpetual, and was necessary in the ordinary business of Government. Therefore, my Lords, whatever has been done by the Americans, I must deem the mere consequence of our unjust demands. They have come to you with fair arguments, you have refused to hear them; they make the most respectful remonstrances, you answer them with bills of pains and penalties; they know they ought to be free, you tell them they shall be slaves. Is it, then, a wonder, if they say, in despair, "for the short remainder of our lives, we will be free!" Is there one among your Lordships, who, in a situation similar to that which I have described, would not resolve the same? If there could be such a one, I am sure he ought not to be here. To bring the history down to the present scene. Here are two armies in presence of each other; armies of brothers, and countrymen; each dreading the event, yet each Feeling that it is in the power of the most trifling accident, a private dispute, a drunken affray in any publick house in Boston; in short, a nothing, to cause the sword to be drawn, and to plunge the whole country into all the horrours of blood, flames, and parricide. In this dreadful moment, a set of men more wise and moderate than the rest, exert themselves to bring us all to reason. They state their claims and their grievances; nay, if any thing can be proved by law and history, they prove them. They propose oblivion, they make the first concessions; we treat them with contempt, we prefer poverty, blood, and servitude, to wealth, happiness, and liberty. My Lords, I should think myself guilty of offering an insult to your Lordships, if I presumed to suppose there was any amongst you who could think of what was expedient, when once it appeared