The first objection was nugatory. It was not in the order of time to urge such an objection. The point of taxation had repeatedly been given up, even by the Ministers themselves. To make that an obstacle, which had been already yielded as of no avail, was to conjure up the phantom of an objection, for the purpose of combating the substance of truth. The right of taxation had, from the first, been chimerical. Expedients to obtain an acknowledgment of that right had been several ways tried. Taking money without the consent of the people was so fundamentally wrong, that the more we consider it, the more we must be convinced that we have no right to tax America. No subtlety of lawyers can subvert this truth; nothing can be more directly in point than the example of Ireland. Ireland had been the place chosen for a trial of skill, because Ireland stood in so similar a predicament with America; that an acquiescence in the matter of taxation would afford a precedent to Ministers for coercing America with right on their side. Yet, notwithstanding all the ductile arts of Government; notwithstanding the advantages resulting from a great Court Lord, sent over Lord-Lieutenant to that kingdom, and a military Secretary, the Commons could not be prevailed on to advance a single step beyond the usual track. It was found impossible to persuade the managers of the business to let the term of “Parliament” be foisted into the Address: not but that the advantages held out were considerable, for assurances had been given by the servants of the Crown that no bad use would be made of the concession. On the contrary, let the American war cost what it would, Ireland should never be called on to contribute a shilling towards defraying the expense. From this it was too plain who were to be the unhappy sufferers under the burden of this ruinous and unnatural war. The rejection of the proposal evinced the extreme caution of Ireland not to afford a colourable pretext for the exercise of a right, the existence of which she formally disclaimed. Hence the precedent, so industriously laboured for, was not so happily created as Ministry could have wished; and hence the point of taxation had been yielded, because the arguments of subtlety were not sufficient for its support. The point of taxation having been given up, for what were we longer to contend? And if there was nothing of a substantial nature for which a contest should be continued, peace should be immediately embraced, as the only eligible alternative.

Admitting the necessity of peace, what prevented but that we should set about the work of accommodation? Should the idea of treating with a Congress obstruct our procedure in pacifick measures? There was a time when American Congresses were highly respected by Government. When Lord Halifax, Mr. George Grenville, Mr. Oswald, and other able men sat at the Board of Trade, an American Congress had been constituted by their advice; the measure met their ideas. What wise men once approved, deserved better treatment than hasty reprobation: If it derogated not from, the dignity of Parliament to treat with the Congress, it remained only to consider what were the grounds of conciliation afforded in the Petition from the Delegates. His Majesty was besought “to recall his troops;” which could only be construed as a prayer for the suspension of arms. “A repeal of sundry acts were solicited.” The acts alluded to could only mean those which struck at the fisheries, at the trade, and at the American charters, added to that infamous Canada bill, which sacrificed the law, the liberty, and the religion of England., to French law, French despotism, and Popish superstitition. The Americans had talked of the repeal of the acts passed since 1763. The noble Lord conceived this proposition to contain no more than that the Colonists wished for the repeal of the “burdensome parts of those acts.” An absolute and unconditional repeal, it would neither be wise in the one party to ask, nor prudent in the other party to grant. So far as the custom-house laws in America were necessary to the due regulation of trade, and the maintenance of our monopoly, he should be for supporting them.

Admitting Ministry thus far advanced in a plan of conciliation; as a suspension of hostilities would carry the appearance of peace, a restoration of charters would wear the aspect of returning liberty; both measures would be considered by the Americans as evincing a desire of accommodation. Thus far, then, the Petition afforded grounds of conciliation. Were these grounds adopted, he pledged himself to the House, that he would be answerable with his life Great Britain might afterwards dictate terms for herself. This proposition surely met the ideas of those who were most strenuous in asserting the supremacy of this country; for could there be a more exalted instance of supremacy, than that of dictating like conquerors, and being obeyed like sovereigns? The misfortune was, that as in some cases Ministry supposed facts which were untrue, for the sake of the consequences; on the present occasion salutary truths had been deemed fictitious, lest their adoption should have led to the pursuit of conciliatory measures. Acts which had been passed in direct opposition to the citizens of London, were frequently prefaced by a preamble, setting forth “that, in consideration of the solicitations of his Majesty’s faithful citizens, it had been thought necessary to enact such and such particulars.” Such was the recent case of the ac1. for the Adelphi embankment, though the city of London straggled against it, as a violent proceeding of partiality to the invaders of their property and of injustice to them. To put an end to the destructive ravages of civil war, by opening a door of reconciliation, Ministry would have been forgiven, had they supposed even a non-existing case; yet when au-thentick vouchers stared them in the face, they shunned conviction by questioning the sincerity of those who sued for peace.

The object of contention ought not now to be, whether we obtained the full completion of our desires; but whether, in the given situation of things, we could prudently neglect such grounds of conciliation as were afforded in the Petition. A wish to conciliate being once evinced, there were other plans which merited notice. Among those, he could not but give the preference to that of the Earl of Chatham.Nor was this influenced by any private motive; it would be vain and preposterous in him to insinuate that his connection with that noble Earl was anything but a political one. The disparity of their years rendered private friendship unattainable. He considered the Earl of Chatham yet as the greatest ornament of the two Houses, in which he had shone with such unrivalled lustre, the most efficient servant of the Crown, and, while he had life in him, the nerve of Great Britain. A plan from such a man, that had been mentioned with approbation by one of our most ancient and respectable Colonies, Virginia; that contained the real substantial points, without subtlety or refinement, which this country ought to aim at, was, in his opinion, the most eligible. The proposals held forth in Lord North’s motion (divested of the insidious purpose under which they had been couched) would call for attention. To appropriate the trade revenue for the support of a colonial establishment was judicious. It interested the people in the prosecution of their trade, and it taught them to inspect into the application of their moneys. Other plans had been framed by persons in the other House, devised with ingenuity and wisdom : plans to the same purpose had been proposed without doors, which deserved attention; for it must be narrow-minded bigotry, which could suppose sense confined to the walls of Parliament. But whenever Ministry set about conciliation in earnest, they would find a very great difficulty in adjusting matters respecting the forces which were to remain in America. The late disputes had engendered violent animosities on both sides. Time only could abate the fervour of hatred, or meliorate dislike into esteem. The brown and red coats would not consort together hereafter, and not all the stratagems of Government would make strife subside, and mutual amity prevail.

Talking, however, about plans of conciliation, when nothing conciliatory was meant, profited little. Ministry had predeterminded on their measures, and Parliament was only assembled to give them the colour of legality. The doctrine now advanced by those in office was, “that the money should be furnished before the mode of expenditure was ascertained.” If Ministers were questioned as to the measures they intended to pursue, the answer returned was, “that the King had concerted his measures, but they were not to be divulged.” Thus the hereditary counsellors of the nation were left to debate without information, or yield assent to measures inimical to the interests of the kingdom. Thus much only could be gathered : a most pernicious system of warfare was meant to be pursued; an army of seventy thousand men was to be raised; Hanoverians had sailed for Gibraltar and Port-Mahon. The three regiments destined