[Lord North] is Mr. Adams. And there is a gentleman there I can suppose to be Mr. Hancock-I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, (bowing to the Speaker,) you are Mr. Hancock. Now, I will suppose all these great men got together; and our Dr. Franklin to take up the defence of the Colonies, with all that wit and eloquence of which he is master. I will only suggest the topicks upon which he would talk. [Here Sir George put all the strongest words and arguments in defence of America into the mouth of this supposed Dr. Franklin, and went on in the same manner with the other supposed persons.]

Sir Grey Cooper insisted that the surest means of amicably adjusting the differences between the two countries, and settling their respective rights on a solid basis, would be to show that any concession on our part proceeded from our love of justice, not from any dread of the resistance we might probably meet with in the execution of our designs; the stronger we were, therefore, the more dignity and effoct our negotiations would have.

Lord Ossory was for the motion. He disapproved of the dangerous experiment of fomenting a civil war, and the obstinacy, if not worse, of prosecuting it at so great a risk, and at such enormous expense.

Mr. Henry Dundas was against America, and in support of the power of the State, and the supreme legislative authority of Parliament.

Lord John Cavendish was for the motion, and severe upon the Ministers, particularly upon the want of union among themselves. He said it was one day peace, another war; one day it was the commerce only of America that was worth preserving; next day everything was to be sacrificed to the supreme, undefined authority of Parliament; and the last day, (upon the land tax,) he perceived the Minister returned to his former ground, and absolutely and expressly contended for the right of taxation, the exercise of that right, and that, too, for the purpose of raising a revenue, in order to lighten the burdens of this country.

The Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick was for the motion. He declared his good opinion of the gentlemen in Administration, with whom he had acted till that day; that he now must differ from them, because he was convinced their measures were ruinous, and the object impracticable.

Mr. Adam was against the motion, Mr. Sawbridge for it, and Colonel Onslow against it.

Mr. T. Townshend was for the motion. He arraigned and condemned Administration in severe terms.

Governour Pownall was sorry that the House had gone into the question of the right of taxation on a proposition which, waiving that question, was moved solely on the ground of expediency. The gentleman who moved it had studiously avoided touching upon the right, and yet the House had been now near seven hours talking upon a subject which had nothing to do with the question of the day. He was sorry to find that this discussion had been carried on with mutual reproaches of parties. So long (said he) as the House will dwell upon this point, and so long as parties shall be, as they always are on this point, more solicitous to discriminate their own principles, to defend the rectitude and consistency of their particular line of conduct, in reprobation of that of others, we never can come to any real settlement of this matter.

It seems now, at length, high time to say something to the matter proposed, and to the real question before you. He said if he had risen earlier in the day to speak, he should have followed the honourable gentleman through the whole of his reasoning, as well as examined the proposition with which he concluded; but now, after so long a debate, and at so late an hour, he should confine himself simply to the proposition. In the stating of it, he begged the attention of the gentleman, that, if he misstated it, he might be corrected.

The honourable gentleman has stated this business as lying in three lines of consideration, or three plans, on which it might be taken up. The first was direct war; the second, a mixture of war and negotiation; and, thirdly, his plan of concession previous to all treaty, that is, concessions made as preliminaries to peace. The first part of his speech endeavours to prove that war was impracticable; his second part was taken up to show that the mixed plan, as he calls it, must be a series of fruitless perplexities. He says it was necessary to dispose of these two ideas first, that he might make way for the third-his own plan. In his manner of doing it he has justified the propriety of moving the previous question; because, sir, if his plan cannot be considered till the next plan, which he supposes to be the Minister’s plan, is disposed of, we ought to know, first, what that plan is, and not be satisfied with his disposing of a phantom of his own raising, which he supposes to be that plan. The speech from the Throne informs us that there is some plan of pacification: we may take assurance that the Ministers must lay that before us; according, therefore, to the honour able gentleman’s own method prescribed, we must dispose of that before we can come to the consideration of his plan. But if there was not that reason, from his own idea of the method of proceeding, I cannot but think it decent to consider, first, that plan, (of which the speech from the Throne has given the first notice,) and not to suffer it to be anticipated by the intervention of any previous plan. If that gentleman had, on any occasion, given notice that he would offer to the House propositions on any particular subject, and if, after such notice, any other gentleman should endeavour to anticipate him by getting a previous day, I would certainly, in such case, move the previous question on that gentleman’s motion, as I shall on this of the honourable gentleman to-day.

He says, sir, such is the state of this American business that we must either change their sentiments by negotiation, or subdue the rising spirit; that we cannot subdue the spirit which is up by war; that we cannot change it by any negotiation which, while war lasts, we can enter into; we must, therefore, previously make concessions; we must disavow our declaration, repeal our acts, sue for peace, and the Americans will give it to us on his plan; we must previously regain their confidence “by removing the ground of difference,” On the plan he proposes, we shall restore the former unsuspecting confidence of the Colonies. This, sir, is the very question now before you. Let us, then, consider the concessions which he proposes, and examine, by the best rule and only judge in this case, experience, what effect these concessions will have. He says that as the Americans did, on the repeal of the Stamp Act, resign themselves to their unsuspecting confidence, and were perfectly satisfied, so will they now, if his plan is adopted; and he has read from the Journals of the Congress their words as his authority : but as he has not read all their words, nor all the sentence, let us see how the whole stands: “After the repeal of the Stamp Act, (say they,) having again resigned ourselves to our ancient unsuspicious affections for the parent State, and anxious to avoid any controversy with her, in hopes of a favourable alteration in sentiments and measures towards us, we did not press our objections against the above-mentioned statutes made subsequent to that repeal.” So far, then, it appears, from having no suspicions, they had objections; objections to acts passed subsequent to the repeal; and these acts are specified in their resolves and proceedings to be acts of 1766-the Declaratory Act, and the act for granting duties in lieu of others repealed. When, sir, instead of alterations of sentiments and measures towards them, one law was made, (proposed by this gentleman’s friends,) declaring a power to bind them in all cases whatsoever; and one other, reciting that although it was proper to repeal certain rates and duties on account of their inexpediency, yet it was necessary to grant others in lieu of them to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be paid into the Exchequer and reserved for the future disposal of Parliament; their content vanished, they relapsed into their suspicions, they began to come forward with their objections, and the New-York Petition was the first symptom of this. But, sir, they not only were not, in fact, but they could not, on the principles from which they opposed our system, be content. They objected to all laws laying duties for the express purpose of a revenue. The 6th George III., chapter 52, granted duties to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be paid as a revenue into the Exchequer, and to be there at the disposal of Parliament. Many laws, prior to this period, gave and granted duties, and appropriated them to the purpose of a revenue.

We have heard much of the Act of Navigation; and, by some mistake, gentlemen under that idea refer to the Act of Trade of the 25th Car. II. The Act of Navigation directs that all the commerce of the Colonies shall be carried on in British shipping, and enumerates a certain number of articles

*