in a more flourishing condition. I am sure they never were; and one good reason may be assigned why the American trade in general should have been brisker, for some time past, than usual, because the people in America, foreseeing the consequences of the non-importation and non-exportation agreement, provided accordingly, which caused an increased demand. I have made it my business to inquire, and, from the most authentick information, have no doubt of the truth of what I affirm. The noble Duke has therefore mistaken my meaning. Nay, further, the very nail-making business has not yet felt any stagnation; at least the people employed in that business have had yet no reason to complain. But, my Lords, saying this, I am to inform your Lordships that that may not much longer continue to be the case; for I believe the fact truly is, that the great nail manufacturers, long since the demand has slackened, have still continued to employ their men; the business as respecting the journeymen has, of course, been equally brisk. But, my Lords, there may be a time when the inconvenience, or rather the impracticability, of such a conduct may arrive— I mean when the great manufacturers can no longer, with justice to themselves, accumulate a commodity for which they have no vent. It is to guard against the consequence such a period would produce, I now say that Administration would do well to interpose, and endeavour to find the journeymen employment.

Lord Camden. The noble Lord who so severely animadverted on my conduct respecting certain opinions maintained by me in the course of my speech, having offered so little immediately directed to combat the justice and truth of those opinions, I might well stand excused in your Lordships’ judgment, as well as my own, in not rising to reply to them, if I were not doubtful it might be construed into pusillanimity, or a conviction that I had acted improperly, and was resolved to submit to the noble Lord’s censure in silence. When, therefore, the noble Lord makes a general charge of inconsistency against me, I tell him that I think I am perfectly consistent; that I might assert one thing as an Englishman, and resist it as an American. The noble Lord says it is indecent and unparliamentary to arraign an act of Parliament, unless it be on a motion for its repeal. I never knew any such rule of debate observed in either House of Parliament. If there be, I contend that it is essentially destructive to the freedom of debate, and shall never be observed by me till I am fairly tied up by a vote of your Lordships to that purpose. But if the rule were a good one, only see how it would operate in the present case: the question substantially before us is, Whether or not the acts of the British Parliament respecting America be founded in justice, and be consonant to the principles of this Constitution. Frame ten, or ten thousand, motions, they will come at last to this question. What, then, is the purport of the noble Lord’s argument? I allow the true question relates solely to the justice and wisdom of those acts; you may say anything else you please, but on them you must be silent. I appeal to your Lordships if this be not the natural and obvious meaning of the censure attempted to be passed on my words, and the restraint that would be the consequence, should your Lordships think I deserved it. No, my Lords, till I am fairly precluded from exercising my right, as a Peer of this House, of declaring my sentiments openly, of discussing every subject submitted to my consideration with freedom, I shall never be prevented from performing my duty by any threats, however warmly and eagerly supported, or secretly suggested. I do assure your Lordships that I am heartily tired of the ineffective struggle I am engaged in. I would thank any of your Lordships who should procure a vote to be passed for silencing me. It would be a favour more grateful than any other it would be in the power of your Lordships to bestow; but until that vote has received your Lordships’ sanction, I must still think, and shall uniformly continue to assert, that Great Britain was the first aggressor; that most, if not all, the acts were founded in oppression; and that, if I were an American, I should resist to the last such manifest exertions of tyranny, violence, and injustice. When I arraign those acts, I would willingly draw a line, distinguishing those which have created the present troubles from those that preceded them; because the latter, I am authorized to say, did not directly operate, though undoubtedly they laid the foundation for the former. Saying this, however, I contend that there has not been a single step nor consequence throughout this whole business that did not originate from the principle of laying taxes on America for the purpose of raising a revenue. That, my Lords, is the great grievance, the source and parent of every other. But coming more immediately to the matter I rose to explain: Tea was sent to Boston, under the idea, as was pretended, of enforcing a commercial regulation; the tea was destroyed by a number of men in disguise, assisted by a mad rabble—an act, at the time, disavowed by the whole Province in their legislative and constitutional capacity; and never, from that day to this, offered to be justified, either in writing or discourse. How did Great Britain act on this occasion? Without making any demand of reparation; without making a single inquiry, or calling for a single evidence to prove the delinquency of a single inhabitant of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, you shut up its port, you deprived thousands of the means of living, of the fruits of their honest industry, though you were convinced they disapproved of the act as much as yourselves. Besides, you robbed people of their property by rendering their landed estates, their houses, wharves, &c., useless. If this was not injustice the most wanton in its nature, and the most aggravated in its circumstances that was ever exercised in a free, nay, in a despotick country, I am sure I know not what tyranny or despotism is. Such was the complexion of your next act—that of stripping the Province of its charter, without previously proving that the powers delegated by it were abused and legally forfeited; in fine, without examination or inquiry of any kind whatever. And lastly, that last inhuman act of endeavouring to starve half a million of people into compliance, and thereby involving the guilty and innocent in one common punishment.

These, my Lords, are some of the few reasons why I think that Great Britain has been the aggressor; that she has been cruel, oppressive, unjust, and unrelenting; and these, my Lords, are the motives which would induce me, were I an American, to resist them as the most open and dangerous attacks upon my liberty, property, and, in short, everything I held dear as a freeman.

Lord Mansfield. My Lords, I did not intend to speak to the question, for you will perceive by my voice that I am not well. If, therefore, I should not express myself so clearly as I could wish, I will trust to your indulgence. The question before your Lordships is simply, Whether it will be proper to give the papers now called for. If the giving them to the House will be productive of no inconvenience, and give necessary information, I think the motion should be complied with. On the other hand, if the motion will answer no one good purpose, and may possibly disclose matter proper to be kept secret, I think the desired information ought to be withheld. These, my Lords, are the objects of the motion; but I perceive the debate has taken a very different turn. The question at large has forced itself into discussion, and, I foresee, ever will, till it is decided one way or the other. The bad consequences of planting Northern Colonies were early predicted. Sir Josiah Child foretold, before the Revolution, that they would, in the end, prove our rivals in power, commerce, and manufactures. Davenant, adopting the same ideas, foresaw what has since happened; he foresaw that whenever America found herself of sufficient strength to contend with the mother country, she would endeavour to form herself into a separate and independent State. This has been the constant object of New-England almost from her earliest infancy. Their struggles, in the reign of King William, compelled that Prince to recall their former charter, and give them a new one; and, towards the conclusion of his reign, to get an act passed that no law enacted in the Colonies should be valid, if contrary to any law at the time existing in England. Those disputes scarce subsided from that day to this. I remember, in 1733, Mr. Talbot (afterwards Chancellor) proposed a set of resolutions in the House of Commons, in which the nature of the disputes then subsisting were directly pointed at, and similar doctrines to those maintained at present by the British Parliament fully asserted. So matters continued till 1756, when a new Administration was formed, brought about by a coalition; in effecting which I had the honour of being an instrument. I remember, at that time the Ministry were extremely unwilling to engage in a war on account of America; and, I believe, would have avoided it, if some circumstances had not intervened which gave another turn

*