proper that Mr. Penn, who was acquainted with the handwriting of those persons, should he called to prove it.

The Earl of Dartmouth replied, that if that was the main purpose for which Mr. Penn was to be called, his examination would answer no end; the paper lying on the table being nothing more than a copy of an original in his office.

The Duke of Richmond insisted still that Mr. Penn’s examination would be equally proper, whether the original paper was immediately before the House, or in his Lordship’s office; for, when that gentleman came to be examined at the bar, all that would be desired from him was to know if the paper delivered by him to the noble Lord at the head of the American Department was really signed by the persons whose names were thereunto annexed; that fact once ascertained, the proof would be complete, as their Lordships would then be satisfied that the copy now read was a faithful one, by the assurances given by the noble Lord who had the original in his possession.

Lord Lyttelton spoke chiefly to the point of order, and the numerous inconveniences that must arise if the present motion should be carried, and established into a precedent on future occasions. He said if their Lordships, when summoned to deliberate and debate on any important question, should be surprised by extraneous matter, and witnesses called to the bar to be examined, on points which might introduce other subjects into discussion, it would at once destroy that order and gravity for which their usual course of proceeding was known so eminently to excel; in short it would create that kind of confusion and uncertainty, which, wherever it prevails, is so derogatory to the wisdom and despatch of business, in a deliberative assembly. As for the other part of the precedent, that of calling for viva voce proof, to authenticate petitions presented to their Lordships, it was a matter he would never assent to; because, in his opinion, such a condition would be intolerable, and, in many cases, impracticable; for, it would amount to this, that every petition, from any part of the empire, which should in future be presented to that House, whether from the most distant part of the kingdom, from Ireland, America, or the East-Indies, must be authenticated by evidence at their Lordships’ bar, in some instances to authenticate its contents, and, in others, to prove the handwriting of the persons who may be supposed to sign it. His Lordship was, however, of opinion, that although it would not be proper to examine Mr. Penn, in the manner now moved for, it was competent for any Lord in that House, upon due notice, to call for any person or persons who he might imagine would impart such lights as promised to lead to an elucidation of the subject on which he meant to frame his motion.

The Duke of Richmond observed, that the noble Lords who declared themselves adverse to the motion, on the ground that it was contrary to the usual mode of proceeding in that House, and would establish a precedent which might in future be an impediment to applications to them, in their legislative, deliberative, or judicial capacities, in the way of petition, he hoped would be satisfied, when he assured them that no question was intended to be put to Mr. Penn, on which he did not desire it to be previously understood, that any noble Lord might be at liberty to rise and object to it. He said that matters which had fallen from several noble Lords in the course of the debate, and the great unwillingness some of them had shown to have Mr. Penn examined, made him feel the urgent necessity of such an examination; because it proved that they dreaded the consequences of such an inquiry, as fatal to the measures they were now hurrying Parliament and the nation blindly and inconsiderately to adopt. For his part, he had not the honour of being personally acquainted with Mr. Penn; but, from the gentleman’s religion, the great interest he had in the event of the present unhappy disputes with America, and as proprietor of one of the richest Provinces of that continent, he knew no man who, from religious principles, political moderation, and thorough knowledge of the dispositions of the people of that country, would be more likely to give that sort of information which the House ought to wish to obtain, and which every true lover of his country, he was confident, would endeavour to trace to its most remote sources.

The Duke of Grafton, rejecting the mere matter of order, as unworthy of their Lordships’ consideration, said he was extremely sorry to observe such conduct pursued on the other side of the House. The noble Duke who made the motion had pressed it with all imaginable candour; lie had even gone so far as to promise for himself, and, in some measure, to pledge the good faith of his friends, that if any question which should, in the course of the proposed examination, seem to be improper, an unconditional objection from any noble Lord would be deemed sufficient reason for “his Grace to desist. The aversion to any mode of inquiry, and the fixed resolution to reject every kind of information which might promise to lead to the knowledge of the state of that country, manifested this day, suggested to him very strong fears; fears that the same fatal measures which directed the counsels of last year, were determined still to be pursued. He was very much surprised to hear the same language adopted on the present occasion, though the ruinous and fatal consequences which were produced by the same arguments and the same mistaken counsels of last session, were now so sensibly felt. Another reason for the proposed examination, and which, he flattered himself, when the circumstances were recalled to their Lordships’ minds, would have a proper weight with Administration, was the declaration of a noble Lord high in office, [Lord Gower,] who, on the first day of the session, ingenuously owned he had been deceived, and attributed all the miscarriages of the last summer, and all the evils which now seem to be suspended over the head of this devoted country, to a want of full and genuine information. Such, then, being the case, as stated by one noble Lord, and confirmed by almost every one who spoke on the same side, and such being the evidence proposed this day to be given at your Lordships’ bar, how is it possible that your Lordships can hesitate an instant on the choice, though experience had not taught you the necessity of such an inquiry? But when experience has taught you the fatal consequences of your former mistakes, how is it possible that your Lordships can refuse the aid of the lights now offered to be held out to you?

Earl Gower said it was unparliamentary and extremely improper to refer to any words spoken in a former debate, particularly on a different question. He was, however, glad of an opportunity of explaining a matter which had been industriously misrepresented without doors, as if his words had imported an actual designed deceit put upon him, with intent to mislead. Administration. Nothing, he solemnly affirmed, was farther from his thoughts; when he said he had been deceived, he meant, that those on whose informations and reasonings Administration rested, had themselves been misinformed in point of fact; or, in reasoning on the fact so represented, had been mistaken in their conclusions. This was the utmost extent his saying he was deceived went to; and he would appeal to their Lord-ships, if there was anything more difficult than to reason on the state and disposition of a country. It was matter of opinion on either side, in which every man was more or less liable to err; when, therefore, he said he was deceived, he begged their Lordships to understand him in the sense he had now explained himself, and in no other. The noble Duke [of Grafton] had thrown out another insinuation directly contrary to the former, at least in consequence : that his Grace had asserted their Lordships had been made to decide on their mutilated and garbled accounts, which was, in fact, saying that Administration had intelligence, but purposely held it back. He would appeal to the candour and recollection of the noble Duke, if, on a former occasion, he did not himself condemn the impropriety of laying the information before the House, in the exact state it was received, when probably such a conduct would be productive of so many fatal consequences, no less than endangering the lives and properties of those, whether Englishmen or natives, who have, through this contest, been the professed and steady friends of this country. The word “garbled,” therefore, as applied to the conduct of Administration, was, in his opinion, a very improper word. Garbled, according to its usual reception, meant an omission of everything which might inform their Lordships properly on the subject; and bringing forward only such parts of the information as would answer the particular purpose of those who had an interest in suppressing the real sense of the writer or informant. This he understood to be the true import of the word “garble;” a sense in which it was never more improperly applied; for Administration had all along