Constitution. An honourable gentleman observed, that not above sixty or seventy people had signed the Devonshire address. I must tell that gentleman that he has been egregiously misinformed; for I can assure this House that nineteen out of twenty of the principal resident representatives of the property of the County signed that address. It is perpetually asked, how country gentlemen (whom it seems the fashion of some gentlemen in this House to ridicule, though I believe they would be very glad of their support) can again trust an Administration that has so often deceived them? For one, sir, I answer, that they never have deceived me; but if I had been deceived, I had been deceived under the sanction of the gravest and most respectable authorities of this House; under the sanction of that learned gentleman himself, who, during the last session, when Administration applied to Parliament to strengthen the hands of Government, compared the disturbances then existing in the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay to the riots that had often happened at different times in different parts of England, which had been suppressed with a very trifling, if not without any assistance of a military force. Would not, therefore, that gentleman and his friends have treated it as the most ridiculous, the most absurd, the most extravagant, the wildest of all wild doctrines, if Administration had proposed to Parliament to send out a force adequate to the conquest of a whole continent,—to do what? Why, to suppress a few insignificant riots in the Massachusetts Province, such as the honourable gentleman told you that you have had fifty times in this country, and which have been suppressed without any military aid at all. I again repeat, I have not been deceived by Administration, for I did not think the force competent; but because a competent force was not sent out last year, I do not think it good sense or good argument to oppose the sending out a competent one this year; nor should I think, if at this time I withdrew my weak support from Administration, 1 should the next year have a right to accuse Administration for the ill success of measures, if they should succeed ill, when I had done everything in my power, by my opposition, to prevent their execution.

Mr. Dunning apologized for the mistake he had been under, respecting the Address from the Devonshire Militia.

Mr. T. Townshend called on the Ministers to know where the Russian troops were to be sent, as it was asserted in the other House not to America; and now, by Mr. Rigby, not to England: he supposed to Ireland. He said that innovations in the Militia were dangerous, because every standing oppressive force in Europe began with a harmless Militia. He detested the politicks of Administration, while he compassionated the unhappy Americans, who had been provoked to resistance by the late acts. In his opinion, the necessity of imbodying the Militia of any part of the kingdom could only be justified by local causes; that if there was a rebellion in Scotland, or in Wales, he should vote for the imbodying of the Scotch or Welch Militia, but not otherwise; and that he differed in opinion from an honourable member [Mr. Rigby] who had asserted he knew but of one kind of rebellion. He instanced the rebellion of 1745, when the town of Manchester (who had now sent up an address, flattering the Ministry, and abusing the gentlemen in Opposition) took an ostensible part against the present family.

Sir Thomas Egerton defended the town of Manchester. Said he had signed their address, which did not contain any abuse upon the gentlemen in Opposition.

Mr. Burke observed, that the Manchester address was not singular in the indecency of its language, but that all the Ministerial addresses spoke of those who had endeavoured to prevent the civil war in which this country was unhappily now plunged through the ruinous and destructive measures pursued by Administration, in the most scurrilous and illiberal manner; that the gentleman who defended Manchester stood in the same predicament with many others who had signed what they never read, and therefore were astonished when they afterwards heard the language of the addresses—language, he said, which disgraced the name of Britons; in which the good nature of Englishmen and the manners of gentlemen, were totally forgotten; and which, though procured by courtiers, contained nothing characteristick of them but the most ignoble servility, and the most unmerciful encouragement of barbarous, blood-thirsty measures. There were two other addresses which called loudly for the censure of that House: the address from the First Battalion of the Devonshire Militia, and the address from the University of Oxford. These he termed the Addresses Military and Ecclesiastick; addresses from persons who, at all times, and on all occasions, were debarred constitutionally from meddling with the politicks of the country. He descanted largely on the first, showing the impropriety of the Militia, or any armed body, soliciting to be employed against their fellow-subjects. With regard to the latter, he almost charged Lord North with having not only seen it before it was presented to the King, but with having altered the composition of it; and if the noble Lord avowed the propriety of the University of Oxford (a body of learned and religious men) interfering with politicks, advising a civil war, and calling those that opposed it rebels and traitors, the freedom of this country was dead, her liberty was no more. He painted in strong colours the situation of the heads of a University, who, he declared, ought by no means to instil political principles into the minds of those who were not sufficiently matured, who knew too little of the world to be able to judge of their propriety, and to distinguish between sound policy and destructive expedients. Every man, he observed, must feel the violent error of such conduct. He had himself a son at the University, and he could not approve of that son’s being told by grave men that his father was an abetter of rebels. He concluded with declaring, that the noble Lord ought not only to have abstained from taking part in the formation of that address, but that he ought to have rejected it when it was sent to him, and prevented it from being presented.

Sir William Bagot related the origin of the Stafford address : he had seen the address from London to the Electors of Great Britain, and as he was not willing that the gentlemen of the County should be seduced by it, he supported at the sessions an address, containing sentiments very different from the London address, only one person, whom the House well knew, [Mr. Wooldridge,] objecting to it.

Captain Luttrell. When the last votes in favour of the Address (which I considered to be destructive to the liberties of America) passed this House, I thought we might take leave of every ray of hope, that peace and good fellowship would again subsist between our Colonies and this country. I, however, felt this consolation, that uninfluenced by selfish views, or by the political interest of any man or set of men whatsoever, I had discharged my duty agreeably to my conscience, and the best of my abilities; and as I could not prevent, I had only to lament the future progress of this unnatural war. But, sir, in consequence of what fell from the noble Lord, I hold it a duty incumbent on me to offer to the House such intelligence as I have received from America, that I may not be comprehended among the number of those gentlemen the noble Lord supposes to be inclined to conceal from him, or the publick, what they have reason to believe is the true and general sentiments of the Americans.

Sir, a noble Lord has communicated to us the private information he has received from a General officer at Boston. A right honourable member in my eye acknowledged the receipt of a letter from an ever-memorable Colonel, the substance of which amounted to little more than this, that he lamented they had been mistaken in their ideas of the Provincial army. Sir, my information comes not from a military man, but from a friend of mine, whose family remains in this country, and who went to America for the recovery of his health. Sir, he is of a nation that will hardly be suspected of taking part in this rebellion; he is a man of good sense, sound judgment, quick discernment, some philosophy, and much candour; he is known to many members of this House, having been a candidate for a seat in Parliament. I value his information, because I believe it authentick. And that I may not be supposed to state it partially, as what he says of America is comprised in a few lines, I will, with leave of the House, read them.

[Here Captain Luttrell read a letter from New-York, dated the beginning of September, which affirms, “That the people there aim not at independence, but are generally determined to die, rather than to submit to the arbitrary claim of taxation, though they are informed the French, their natural enemies, have offered assistance against them.”]

Now, sir, if the information conveyed to America be