Sir Edward Newenham spoke on the same side of the question, and observed, if they voted against America, whenever matters were decided, the Americans would remember it, and not take a yard of our linen, nor send us any of their flour, in any extremity.

Sir John Blaquiere replied, that the address was only to testify our loyalty, and nothing further; that the original dispute was now lost in the consequences; that he was not empowered to call the Americans by any other name than that of Rebels; that no supply would be asked or expected on their account; and that, on the Scottish rebellion, and all other wars, the Commons always addressed to declare their loyalty. He added, that any mention in the English House of a right to tax Ireland was only the rash opinion of some individuals, not that of Government, and was wrong-founded; and this address would be of great effect to end the quarrel, when the Rebels found they could have no countenance from hence.

Mr. Conolly spoke again, adding, that the promise made at the augmentation, of leaving twelve thousand men always here, for our defence, was now broken.

Mr. Yelverton said he expected a different motion from the gentleman who made it; that he could not call the Americans rebels, without at the same time allowing the right and authority of the British Parliament to tax them; and no slavery can be more perfect than to be taxed where men are not represented. He dwelt on the same arguments with Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Ogle, and said he would agree to the amendment, rather than the original address; but had rather every thing relative to America should be totally omitted.

Mr. Dennis Daly observed, that the idea of taxing Ireland was to be found in the King’s speech at the opening of the last sessions of Parliament; but, indeed, they might permit Ireland to have one, whilst the members would be tools to fleece the publick.

Mr. Hussey Burgh said the motion was too sudden, and they had not time to determine. No money could be voted without passing through a phalanx of Committees; but here a vote of the utmost consequence to their liberties was urged in a moment. It might be a feather in the cap of the Minister, but it had a poisoned dart to the interests of Ireland joined to it. Gentlemen might argue on declarations against taxing Ireland; but should thirty thousand English swords enforce that doctrine, the eloquence of gentlemen would be but a weak defence against them. On what authority could they vote the Americans rebels? On none but newspapers; and he hoped the right honourable gentleman would move, that the proper officers (printers' devils) should lay them before the House.

Mr. Bushe said such an address would most infallibly produce a requisition for a supply to enforce the war against America; and if we agree to it, the next step will be to tax Ireland in the British Commons.

Mr. Hussey Burgh agreed it would be best to leave out the entire mention of America.

Mr. James Brown spoke against the amendment.

The question was put, and the House divided: Ayes, for the amendment, forty-nine; noes, against it, ninety nine.

Mr. Gardiner then moved, that the whole clause relative to the Americans should be expunged.

Colonel Brown opposed it, and said the whole troubles there arose from a speech of Lord Chatham’s, which was as unintelligible as St. Athanasius’s Creed.

The House divided: Ayes, for keeping the clause, ninety; noes, for expunging it, fifty.

Captain Wilson, just before the question was put, said, no reward the King could give could satisfy his conscience, if he voted for the clause.

Mr. Hussey Burgh then opposed the promise of granting for arrears, and moved the question for adjournment, on which the House divided: Ayes, for adjournment, thirty nine; noes, against it, eighty-two.

Mr. Charles Bingham agreed to add the word unavoidable before arrears; and then the House agreed to the address, and a Committee was appointed to draw it up.

Colonel Ross moved an address to the Lord Lieutenant; which was carried; and the House adjourned, as it was near twelve o’clock.

Wednesday, October 11, 1775.

The Resolutions for the Address, read last night, having been committed, Sir Charles Effingham reported from the Committee the Address pursuant thereto; which was read, first entire, then paragraph by paragraph.

When the clause relative to the Americans, which had been yesterday the chief bone of contention, was read again, Mr. John Hatch proposed to leave it entirely out; but since the great majority on the former question for that purpose sufficiently showed him that it was necessary to take some notice of the American troubles, and to testify to the King the loyalty of the Commons, he wished gentlemen would agree to another clause which he had framed, and he hoped would satisfy every member. This clause imported “to assure His Majesty of the unalterable loyalty of his Irish subjects, who would be ready to testify their hearty attachment to his person and Government, in all his just rights, and the support of his legal authority, whensoever his Government shall be disturbed in any, even the most distant part of his Dominions.”

Though this clause seemed to answer every intention, yet many gentlemen adhered firmly to the words of the address, which were a transcript of those in the speech from the throne; and a debate ensued, which was carried on with great eloquence. The arguments of the preceding day were recapitulated, with very few additional reasons; for indeed the subject had been then sufficiently canvassed, and need not be repeated here. Such as were either new, or set in a different light, were to the following purport:

The eagerness with which gentlemen who supported the original address insisted on the very words, and so strenuously opposed any alteration, though they carry the same meaning, seems to evince that some particular design was couched under them; that it was intended, doubtless, to convey an approbation of those Ministers whose counsels had caused and increased the troubles in America, and now breathe nothing but terrour to its people. These counsels might be fatal, and to approve them indiscriminately, with out sufficient grounds, (and no evidence was before the House,) would only assist the British Ministry to deceive the people, and blind the King. It was said this address was intended only to demonstrate the loyalty of the Commons; and a right honourable gentleman (Sir John Blaquiere ) had declared there was no supply to be asked now, in consequence of this testimony. Perhaps none might be asked now, but in all probability it soon may; and then it might be told they had pledged themselves to the King to assist him against the Rebels. But it seemed evident this clause was inserted for another particular purpose. Lord Chatham had said, in the British Parliament, that Ireland, to a man, was in favour of the Americans; and this address was intended as a reply to that speech, and to insinuate that it was the general sense of the Irish Nation, expressed by their Representatives, that the Americans were in actual rebellion. But it was well known many gentlemen in the House were of a contrary opinion, as well as the generality of the people without doors. An honourable gentleman (Mr. Solicitor-General) had yesterday mentioned the Proclamation, and mentioned pains and penalties hanging over those who should act contrary thereto. But members of Parliament were not to be intimidated by such words from a freedom of speech and a freedom of discussion; for proclamations are of no avail, unless sanctified by law—their intent is not to make law, but to declare and promulgate what the law is. The present dispute is not between Ireland and the Colonies, with whom she has no connection, but between Great Britain and her Colonies; and it would be as absurd to take a part, as it would be if they were told a rebellion was broke out in the East-Indies. It was, indeed, an important subject, as great as ever came before any Senate; but it would be highly imprudent to interfere. Is it not clear it would deprive them of their chartered rights? and if resistance against those who would tear their liberties from them is deemed rebellion, all honest men would be rebels; that those who say this clause is only to show loyalty and zeal, deceive the House. It is more—it is to decide that the Americans are rebels, without any means of judging clearly they are so. It is evident they had a tax imposed on

*