them, without their consent; which tax was to be paid into the British Treasury, and not to centre in the Colonies themselves. The resistance against such taxation ought no more be styled rebellion than that at the time of the Revolution, which was brought about by resisting against oppressions. These arguments were principally used by Mr. Hatch, Mr. Chapman, Mr. French, Mr. George Montgomery, Mr. Barry Barry, Mr. Ogle, &c, &c.

On the other side, it was urged by Mr. Hellen, Captain Josephson, Colonel Burton, and Mr. Carleton, that the words in the address were proper. His Majesty had acquainted the House with the most material and important occurrence that had happened since the last session of Parliament; and hoped that, whilst the American subjects had departed from their duty, his subjects of Ireland would lay their hearts at the foot of the throne, and testify their loyalty and their intention to support his just rights and legal authority. Could they refuse to do that? This was all that was expected, and less they could not do with any degree of duty and consistency. The amendment implied a doubt that the Americans were in rebellion; but can there be a doubt? Is not America in open war against the King’s forces? Is not all civil order dissolved? Is not the ad ministration of the Colonies in the hands of usurpers? In this case our silence would be deemed an approbation of their measures. A neutrality is impossible; as it would be impolitick to be maintained, as it would affront both. The Irish must declare; and for whom is it most just, most prudent to declare? For Britain, who was breaking down the barriers against our trade, encouraging our manufactures, and extending our commerce; or America, who had refused to trade with us? The Proclamation was not with out sufficient authority—it was legalized by the resolutions of both the Lords and Commons—and the Earl of Chat ham’s speech was not held of that consequence to be contradicted expressly by an address of that House, for many of his speeches were more famous for their boldness than their veracity.

Mr. Hussey Burgh had hitherto been silent, and had been employed in framing a fresh clause, as he thought that proposed by Mr. Hatch went too far. It promised assistance against any disturbances, which this Country was not able to afford. He communicated his amendment to that gentleman, who consented to withdraw that which he had made. Mr. Hussey Burgh then moved for the adoption of his clause, which was, “to assure His Majesty of their concern to hear that his Government has been disturbed by any dissensions in America; but they had a firm reliance on the wisdom, justice, and mercy, of His Majesty’s counsels, to terminate them in the manner that would be most advantageous to the whole of his Dominions.”

This motion raised a fresh debate, in which most of the former ground was trod over again. Col. Brown urged the necessity of contradicting the assertion of Lord Chatham.

Mr. Gardiner said the British Ministry were acting like those rash practitioners who prescribe immediate amputation, when any inflammation or gangrene comes on, which might be cured by gentler means; and that agreeing with the words of the original clause would carry us far there than we were aware.

Captain Hamilton gave a long detail of the proceedings of the different Administrations, from Mr. Grenville to Lord North; said the last war was merely an American war, as it was undertaken solely on their account; inveighed strongly against their ingratitude and their behaviour in regard to the tea, and concluded they were absolutely rebels.

Mr. Holmes spoke in favour of the address; and Mr. Dillon declared he should be against the amendment, as he was against making any mention at all of the Americans.

Mr. Hussey Burgh expressed his terrour of the consequences that would result from joining to an address which supported sanguinary measures, and urged a vindictive Ad ministration to proceed to the last extremities. If the Americans were brought on their knees to the Minister, as had been the favourite expression, they could expect nothing but slavery. A conqueror, when he held his sword over the head of the vanquished, has, indeed, been known to spare his life, but never to give him liberty. To keep the subdued Colonies in a state of subjection would require a large standing Army; and these troops would be ready, whenever required, to come over and destroy the liberties of the other subjects. Ireland would then be enslaved, since those who are slaves themselves are the fittest to en slave others; and Great Britain itself would then become only the seat of a wide-extended despotism. It is evident Britain has not relinquished her design of destroying the rights of this Kingdom; she has torn off already one of the valuable privileges of a free nation, an appeal to the House of Lords; and the book written by Molyneux, in defence of Irish rights, was burnt by the hands of the common hangman. They only wait an opportunity, and it would be wrong to give them the least handle for one. An honourable gentleman (Captain Jephson ) has called the Americans the offspring of convicts, the outcasts of this Country. Many of them are so; but why this cruel insult on persons guilty of no crime? The law spared the lives of their forefathers, who were criminals; but it is tenfold cruelty to destroy their guiltless children. Many gentlemen have doubtless undertaken to do, as it is called, the King’s business in the House, and are to be properly considered for it; but this is the Minister’s business, and ought to have an extra charge.

Sir John Blaquiere replied, and repeated that no supply was wanted in consequence of this address. He urged, that the acts in favour of Ireland were resolved on before the war broke out in America, and therefore not held out as any inducement to this expression of loyalty; that it would shortly appear that twenty-five thousand Pounds per annum had been saved on the military establishment, and near eighty thousand Pounds on contingencies; there fore, the King well deserved any dutiful expressions.

Mr. Conolly and Mr. Yelverton replied, in behalf of the amendment. The latter said a proffer of loyal hearts would soon bring on a supply for the American war, as it was well known the Irish never gave their hearts without their hands; that the Ministry were acting the wish of Caligula. They had cut off the rights of thirteen or four teen Colonies at once; Ireland would be next, and then, when liberty had but one neck, that too would be lopped off at one stroke.

Mr. Prime Serjeant and Mr. Solicitor-General dwelt on the impropriety of the address; and the question being put on agreeing to the amendment, the House divided: Ayes, fifty-two; noes, ninety-two.

When the question was put on the original clause, Mr. Dillon opposed it, and the House divided a second time: Ayes, ninety; noes, fifty-four. Majority for the clause, thirty-six.

Thus the Address was agreed to, as was that to the Lord Lieutenant, reported by Colonel Ross.

Thursday, October 12, 1775.

Captain Wilson said, that as his knowledge of American politicks was only derived from newspapers, he was convinced, as such authority had heretofore been deemed unworthy the attention of the House, of his incompetence to discuss the subject although he was fixed in his sentiments; for which reason he did not take a part in the debate yesterday. He said that it had been much complained of, that gentlemen too often came into the House predetermined how they, would vote, let the arguments be, on either side, however cogent; but that he thought on some occasions it was expedient and necessary for gentlemen who did not make politicks their entire study. To support his position, he said, that the variety of contradictory assertions which often happened in the House, must, on subjects of importance, unavoidably bewilder the understanding of many. For instance, that he had heard it asserted that the greatest part of His Majesty’s Colonies were now in a state of rebellion, and, on the other hand, that they were only contending for their natural rights, in opposition to a tyrannick Ministry. He heard it said, that the American proceedings were abhorred by almost all His Majesty’s subjects; and that he had heard it insisted, that an infinite majority of the Protestants of Ireland wished then) an emancipation from their oppression, as the probable consequence of the Ministry issuing their design on America must be the inevitable vassalage of Ireland. That he had heard it insinuated that a great man, well known in the