been otherwise, what was the purport of this clay’s motion, but that the acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, its repeated addresses to the Throne, his Majesty’s own most solemn declarations, were to be superseded, in order to make way to the commands, not addresses, of the rebellious Americans? Those, audacious Rebels, who came and endeavoured to impose on his Majesty with insidious, traitorous, false expressions of loyalty to him, and of obedience to the British Parliament, while they in the same breath appeal to the people of Great Britain and Ireland, abuse the Parliament, deny their power, invite their fellow-subjects to make a common cause of it. and thus at once endeavour to involve every part of this great empire in one general scene of rebellion and bloodshed, in order to resist that very Parliament for which they pretend to profess such perfect obedience and submission. Are these the men you would treat with? Is this the cause the pretended friends of this country would endeavour to defend? Or would you, by agreeing with this motion, relinquish your domination over those worst of Rebels, and tamely submit to transfer the seat of empire from Great Britain to America?

The Duke of Manchester reprehended the last noble speaker, in very severe terms, for the improper liberties he had taken with such of their Lordships as differed in opinion from him, by charging them with a design to surrender the liberties of their country to America: such imputations (he affirmed) were aimed at the freedom of debate; they were indecent; they were unparliamentary; they deserved the marked displeasure of the House; and he would venture to affirm they were, as applied on the present occasion, not true. He said, however, he was not surprised at some of the circumstances attending his Lordship’s speech. They suggested occurrences though not very unexpected, yet rather out of the common road; but however that might be, he would venture to assert that his Lordship’s conduct on the first day of the session would not shortly be forgotten. His Grace, besides, entered into a general view of the question, and made several observations on the folly of involving this great empire in all the certain expense and horrors of a civil war, without any one single advantage, now the claim of taxation had been relinquished as totally impracticable.

The Earl of Effingham observed, on the scarcity of recruits, that from his own knowledge, there was a backwardness prevailed amongst the people to inlist in those regiments destined for America. The fact being admitted, the real disposition of the people was at once apparent; and, in the judgment of the noble Lord, the prevalent inclination of the mass of the people was a certain criterion, which should determine the conduct of Ministers.

Lord Cathcart professed himself to be so totally unconnected with men, and so entirely unprejudiced as to measures, that, could he conjecture the party most likely to promote the real welfare of the empire, he would join in support of their plans. Much had been said about peace, and the debilitated situation of Great Britain had been urged to evince the necessity of a speedy accommodation. Admitting England to be in the worst plight imaginable, the noble Lord recollected a period when her distresses were equal. Although many Peers in the House might remember the rebellion in 1745, the noble speaker had at that time drawn his sword against the rebels. Their successes at Derby had thrown the kingdom into consternation; the whole interest of the country was assemblaged in one stake, and risked on the event of the battle of Culloden. Happily, the casualties of war turned out favourable for England. But what contributed most to the welfare of the empire? The assistance so willingly afforded by all ranks of people. Ministry acquired vigour in proportion as they were entrusted with power. A tone of firmness strengthened all their measures; and thus, by one decisive stroke, England was snatched from destruction; the machinations of France were overturned, and the Pretender (a tool to France) was obliged to flee from that country which he had been taught to consider as his patrimonial inheritance. The same efforts of the people in support of Government, would at this time prevail. Ministry should be assisted, not impeded in their measures.

The Earl of Sandwich defended Lord Lyttelton. He said whoever opposed the present system of measure pursued by Administration respecting America, were in fact about to surrender the right of Parliament to its rebellious subjects. He was the oldest Peer in that House, at least, the Peer who had sat longest in it, and might of course be presumed to be pretty well acquainted with its orders and usages. He flattered himself he was, and could assure their Lordships there was nothing in the words but what might be fully justified; there was nothing in them deserving the severe animadversion made on them by the noble Duke: for they were in every respect parliamentary, and consonant to the modes of expression adopted in that House. When the noble Lords on that side tell the members of Administration that they are corrupt, incapable, or inattentive, that they have formed the very worst designs against the liberties and the Constitution of their country, we never, on this side, rise up to tell them that this is unparliamentary and indecent; no, we endeavour to convince them of their mistakes by defending ourselves and refuting their charges : and shall we, in return, be precluded from charging their Lordships, not with an act of criminality; for 1 contend that the words may otherwise be fairly and obviously explained. I may tell any noble Lord in this House that he is surrendering the rights of Parliament, while I directly acquit him of any such intention. I shall never stand by and hear such a doctrine maintained without endeavouring to detect its fallacy. I therefore think, so far from reprehension, the noble Lord deserves the greatest commendations and thanks, both from your Lordships and his country, for so ably defending and asserting the rights of the British Parliament and the supreme legislative authority of the mother country. I think I never before heard such a speech delivered by any body, and I am proud to testify my perfect approbation by affirming it was the finest ever delivered within these walls. His Lordship observed that the noble Lords in Opposition might be very sincere. They might imagine that the only method to secure the power and grandeur of Great Britain would be to render America independent; but he hoped their Lordships would excuse him from supposing that their zeal, however genuine, had hurried them such extraordinary lengths, or into such a scene of obstinate and invincible error: and permit him to attribute those extravagant doctrines to their true cause—a mere struggle for power. He was sorry to say they had proved too successful in their endeavours; and, by the unnatural encouragement and countenance they had given to the absurd, monstrous claims of our rebellious subjects in America, had made what first must have been the inevitable consequence of unanimity, now appear, if not hazardous, at least difficult, alarming, and expensive. Such a struggle might attain the main object for which it was set on foot; but he begged leave to remind their Lordships, that although they should prevail, and thereby supplant the present Administration, they must take such a victory with all its consequences; they must at once render up the rights of this country into the hands of the Colonists; they must disgrace and lower it in the eyes of all Europe; and, to complete the whole, they must consent to the total ruin and destruction of its commerce.

His Lordship next animadverted on the language of the noble Lords on the opposite side; that Great Britain, as the first step towards a conciliation, should determine on certain specifick terms which she is willing to agree: to. Let us, said his Lordship, see what this language means. I dare say there are many noble Lords in this House, who have served his Majesty abroad in the capacity of foreign Ministers: I think I see several this instant myself. I believe the noble Duke who made the motion was among the number, and has of course some knowledge of the arts of negotiation: 1 shall therefore trust to their knowledge of what I am about to offer on this head. Supposing, then, that Great Britain and America were two sovereign independent States, treating on equal terms: what is the mode that custom prescribes in such cases, but that certain preliminaries are first agreed on, and then a suspension of arms takes place? What is it that is contended for by the present motion and by its supporters? Begin with a suspension, and then proceed to treat on preliminaries. This, surely, is a new mode of negotiation, such a mode, I will venture to say, as never entered into the head of any man in the least acquainted with publick business. I would, therefore, seriously recommend it to the broachers of this species of treaty-making, either to peruse proper books before they again expose themselves on that subject, or procure