to the disputes then subsisting. Not that I would be understood to say that America was not the true cause of the war then undertaken; I am certain she was. A vulgar opinion prevailed that we armed in defence of Hanover; the contrary was certainly the case. Whatever form the war might have afterwards assumed, the preservation of America was what originally brought us into it. At the conclusion of the peace, the inconveniences which have since arisen were then partly foreseen; but they were, however, balanced with a suitable degree of wisdom against those which might have been produced by embracing the other part of the alternative. If Canada was restored to France, it would have laid a foundation for future disputes, and future wars; it would have been the source of endless contention between both nations. This was the precise state of the case previous to the laying on the Stamp Act. An idea then prevailed that America, from her increased power and ability to pay, should contribute to alleviate the burdens she had been instrumental in loading this country with. I shall not pretend to say how proper such a measure might have been. As things have since turned out, I am sorry the Stamp Act ever passed: however, no person at the time so much as offered to say a word against it. The next year the Declaratory Law was passed without any opposition. In a year after, the noble and learned Lord who spoke last, being then at the head of his Majesty’s Councils, and presiding on the Woolsack, was present when the Port Duties were laid on, and never said a word against them. I am sorry they were ever laid on. Much about the same time, the act for extending the Act of Henry VIII, relative to the trial of persons for offences committed out of the realm, was passed: the same learned Lord retained his former situation, and the noble Duke, who made the motion this day, then presiding at the head of the Treasury, were both in the Cabinet, and not a word was said then against the measure. I am sorry that bill was passed. And, lastly, the very bill the learned Lord hath this day bestowed so many hard names upon, relative to stopping up the port of Boston, was passed without any manner of opposition. Of the succeeding acts I shall say nothing, but that, if the others were justifiable, I think the latter were equally so. I do not pretend to state the matter accurately, but as well as my memory is able to assist me. I do not think that America complains of particular injuries so much as she does of the violation of her rights. If I do not mistake, in one place the Congress sum up the whole of their grievances in the passage of the Declaratory Act, which asserts the supremacy of Great Britain, or the power of making laws for America in all cases whatsoever. That is the true bone of contention. They positively deny the right, not the mode of exercising it. They would allow the King of Great Britain a nominal sovereignty over them, but nothing else. They would throw off the dependancy on the Crown of Great Britain, but not on the person of the King, whom they would render a cypher. In fine, they would stand in relation to Great Britain as Hanover now stands; or, more properly speaking, as Scotland stood towards England previous to the treaty of Union. His Lordship then entered into a variety of detailed reasonings, to show that the views of America were directed to independence; that Great Britain could not concede without relinquishing the whole, which, he supposed, was not intended; and that, consequently, any measure of conciliation, in the present situation of affairs, and the declared intentions of America, would answer no end but furnishing her with grounds to erect new claims on, or to hold out terms of pretended obedience and submission.

The Earl of Shelburne. I do not pretend, particularly at this late hour, to follow the noble and learned Lord over the very wide circuit he has taken. So much, however, I can affirm, that were I as well satisfied as his Lordship seems to be that America aims ultimately at independence, I should be one of the first in this House who would be for adopting the most firm and decisive measures; not having yet brought myself to approve of the very extraordinary proposition, of breaking off all political or commercial connection with that country. His Lordship has stated the case of Ireland, as applying to the subject of the present unhappy disputes, and was pleased to allude to something which dropped from me the last night on that subject, inferring from thence, that as Ireland is a subordinate kingdom, dependant on the Crown of Great Britain, the true dependance of America is thereby clearly marked out, as distinguished from those claims of America which maintain that their obedience and submission reach no further than to the mere person of the Prince upon the throne. Taking the premises to be true, I perfectly coincide with his Lordship; for I always have, and ever shall think, that both Ireland and America are subordinate to this country; but I shall likewise retain my former opinion, that they have rights, the free and unimpaired exercise of which should be preserved inviolate. The principal, the fundamental right, is that of granting their own money. The Irish have always exercised that right uninterrupted; so has America till very lately; and that this invaluable privilege is going to be wrested from her, I take to be the true grievance; remove that away, and everything, I dare say, will soon return into its former channel. I do not here promise to meet the ideas of every person on the other side of the Atlantick indiscriminately. There may be some factious, ambitious, turbulent spirits there. I would be understood to speak here of the prevailing governing dispositions of both countries. There may, on the other hand, be many people in this country so mistaken as to desire a revenue; but what I mean is, that if the claim of taxation was fairly relinquished, without reservation, I am confident the supremacy of the British Parliament would be acknowledged and acquiesced in by America, and peace between both countries be once more happily restored.

The noble and learned Lord speaks something concerning a coalition, or union of opinion on some leading points. I find myself in an awkward situation. I do not, for my part, wish to become a member of Administration. I am an independent man, and mean to continue so; but if any general plan should be adopted, I should, in the first instance, put in my claim to restrain the power and mode of exercising the constitutional plan of Royal requisition, so as to prevent the Crown, or the Ministers for the time being, from employing it to purposes of finance and patronage, which might tend to throw still more weight and influence into the hands of Government, already grown much too formidable and powerful. The fatal effects of this increased strength in the Crown has been severely felt in another kingdom. It was to guard against it, in some measure, that the Act of King William passed for limiting the army serving in Ireland to twelve thousand men. Though the army, till very lately, was continued at that number, other means were devised to employ the power of the Crown in that country, to purposes operating nearer home. It is, therefore, on the hint now thrown out by the learned and noble Lord, that I lay in my claim thus early to avert, or rather to totally provide preventatives against, the mischiefs to be dreaded from increasing the power of the Crown, on the footing of any plan of conciliation which may be proposed and agreed on ultimately between Great Britain and America. The noble and learned Lord will, I trust, excuse me, when I set him right relative to a fact, which he has misstated or forgot. His Lordship says the Boston Port Bill passed without any opposition. I beg leave to remind his Lordship, that it was warmly opposed: that I, among several other Lords who entertained similar sentiments, testified our disapprobation in the warmest and most decisive terms; nor shall I ever be reconciled to that bill, nor the Charter Bill that accompanied it. They were both founded in manifest injustice: to punish men unheard in one instance, and to create a forfeiture, without any delinquency proved in the other, were such acts as must continue to disgrace our statute books till they are repealed.

I trust your Lordships will indulge me with a word or two to the question. The noble Earl in the blue ribbon, who spoke early in the debate, and the noble Lord lately in office, speak as if such information as that now desired, was not only improper to be given, but even indecent and unparliamentary to be asked. I protest to your Lordships I never heard till this night so extraordinary an idea maintained. In the first place, their arguments prove the vary reverse: they prove, that all secrecy will be nugatory, for that the Rebels are better informed than the King’s troops. But taking the fact to be directly otherwise, what would their reasoning amount to? Keep everything a profound secret; if anything, at least anything material, transpires, our schemes will be defeated. Now, for my part, I by no means approve of such a mode of proceeding, even if engaged