While I am up, my Lords, you will give me leave to say a few words to the general question. The noble Earl, so lately one of his Majesty’s Secretaries of State, has informed us, that we are in a state of war, that secrecy is of course necessary. I deny that we are. Peace is still within our power; nay, we may command it. A suspension of arms on our part, if adopted in time, will secure it for us; and, I may add, on our own terms. From which it is plain, as we have been the original aggressors in this business, if we obstinately persist, we are fairly answerable for all the consequences. I again repeat, what I often urged before, that I was against this unnatural war from the beginning. I was equally against every measure from the instant the first tax was proposed to this minute. When, therefore, it is insisted, that we aim only to defend and enforce our own rights, I positively deny it. I contend that America has been driven, by cruel necessity, to defend her rights from the united attacks of violence, oppression, and injustice. I contend, that America has been indisputably aggrieved. Perhaps, as a domineering Englishman, wishing to enjoy the ideal benefit of such a claim, I might urge it with earnestness, and endeavour to carry my point; but if, on the other hand, I resided in America, that I felt or was to feel the effects of such manifest injustice, I certainly should resist the attempt with that degree of ardour so daring a violation of what should be held dearer than life itself ought to enkindle in the breast of every freeman. Here, my Lords, I speak as an American, or as one residing in America, who, finding himself deprived of his liberty, and his property attacked, would resist, and with all his might repel the aggressor. On the other hand, as living in this country, and subject to the laws of it, I always have, and I hope always shall, pay a proper obedience to them. But, my Lords, pursuing the ideas of a native American, or a person residing in that country, what must be the sense they feel of the repeated injuries that have for a succession of years past been heaped on them? To have their property, under the idea of asserting a right to tax them, voted away by one act of Parliament, and their charters, under an idea of the supreme authority of the British Legislature, swept away by another vote of Parliament? Thus depriving them, or rather claiming a right to dispose of every single shilling they are worth, without one of them being represented by the persons pretending to exercise this right; and thus stripping them of their natural rights, growing out of the Constitution, confirmed by charter and recognised by every branch of the Legislature, without examination, or even without hearing. I will fairly appeal to your Lordships, if there be one among you who could submit to such intolerable oppressions; nay further, if you would not all unite as one man, were you in such a situation, to oppose the execution of so lawless and unjust a power. I do not mean, my Lords, to go through the whole of this business: I reserve that for some future day. I dare say I shall have many opportunities; and I pledge myself to your Lordships, on that day, that I will prove Great Britain has been the aggressor; that America has only acted on the defensive; and that, were I an American, and wanted a proper sense of the injuries attempted to be exercised towards me, I should only think them justifiable so far as I wanted spirit to resist, and was conscious to myself that I was undeserving the enjoyment of any privilege that I was mean, cowardly, or abject enough to tamely relinquish.

Lord Lyttelton, after objecting to the motion, on the ground that it would be the means of conveying information to the Rebels, remarked with some severity on the conduct of the noble and learned Lord who spoke last. But if the present motion be objectional on the ground it now stands, unconnected with any other, how much more strongly ought you to resist it, when the learned Lord informs you that it is to be followed by several more of a similar nature. This being clearly the real intention of the noble Duke who made the motion, I trust, if any doubt remained relative to the confined view of the question, as it simply stands before your Lordships, that this information will be a sufficient motive with you to reject it in the first instance. The noble and learned Lord, digressing from the question immediately before us, entered into a general view of matters of a much more important and weighty nature. His Lordship tells you, that Parliament were the first aggressors; that the Americans are indisputably aggrieved. Is this, my Lords, a language fit to be endured within these walls? Are you to suffer the acts of the British Legislature, declared by the King, Lords, and Commons, to be branded with almost every opprobrious term that can possibly be conceived? The noble and learned Lord tells you that the Parliament has acted unjustly, oppressively, nay, tyrannically; that the Americans are justified in their resistance; that if he was an American, or resided there, he would be one of the first to resist. I will venture to affirm to your Lordships, that if he was there, he could not effect the thousandth part of the mischief we may fairly presume what he has said this day will produce; for you may rest assured that there is not a syllable of his speech that will not get into the newspapers, and consequently make its way to America. They will in those accounts find the speech of a most learned and eminent lawyer, famed in his profession, confirming them in every sentiment of rebellion and resistance to the authority of the mother country. They will find the Legislature of Great Britain charged with tyranny, oppression, and usurpation. They will find themselves branded as cowards, poltroons, and tame, abject slaves, unworthy of the liberties they enjoy, if they do not resist. The noble and learned Lord, while he sets up to be so strong an advocate for liberty, says something I do not well comprehend, unless it be with a view still the more completely to blacken and vilify this country. His Lordship tells you, as an overbearing and domineering Englishman, he should like to triumph and trample on the liberties of America. I do not pretend to exactly say what his native impulses may be in that respect; but I will venture to assert, that he thinks very differently from the majority of this House, and the majority of this nation: neither of which want to invade the rights of America, much less trample on its liberties. The noble Lord says, in the same breath, that, as an American, he would resist such an invasion. But as it is not the intention of Great Britain to do the one, so I trust she will never desist, till she obtains a full and complete obedience and submission to the exercise of her constitutional power. On a former occasion, having only said that those who were for supporting the unnatural claims of America were, in fact, surrendering the rights of the British Parliament into the hands of our rebellious subjects, I remember I was called to order, and severely reprehended by one or two noble Lords on the other side. In my opinion I was substantially right; but allowing it to be otherwise, how much more blameworthy is it for the learned Lord to rise and condemn acts of Parliament, the laws of the land, and the constitutional sense of the whole nation? I trust the noble and learned Lord already sees the impropriety of his conduct; how very unparliamentary it is; how disrespectful to the body of which he is a member; how injurious to Parliament at large; but, above all, that he will think of the consequence, and, in time, retract his words; otherwise he may be assured those exceptional, those mischievous expressions will shortly be echoed through all the papers, and be wafted over the Atlantick to rebellious America by the first conveyance. Should the noble and learned Lord refuse to retract, I shall be in the judgment of your Lordships, whether or not, to avoid the consequence I have pointed out, he should not be obliged to explain himself, according to the usual and established mode of Parliamentary proceeding.

Viscount Dudley. I think the noble and learned Lord has transgressed every rule of debate I ever remember to have seen observed in this House. Not satisfied with condemning the measures of Administration in general, he tells you very plainly that America has been oppressed, and that Great Britain are the aggressors. He contends that resistance is justifiable, and that our ultimate views are views of tyranny and despotism. This, I confess, is speaking pretty plainly; but I presume his Lordship does not mean, by such palpable misrepresentations, to persuade us to adopt his opinions; on the contrary, I am satisfied that America, in this contest, only aims at independence; and that every concession we may be induced to make will only lay a foundation for new claims. In the course of this business, I have observed that much stress has been laid by the noble Lords on the other side of the House, that should our present disputes with America be spun out to any length, our manufactures must be ruined. Now, my Lords, I must inform you of two facts: one is, if that were the case, no person would feel the effects sooner than myself; the other,