themselves would point out any mode by which they would bear their share of the burden and give their aid to the common defence. The purport of the clause respecting the Commission, had been very well explained the other day by a noble Lord, [George Germaine,] that it meant, besides the granting of pardons, that they should inquire into any matter of change of circumstances in which the Colonies were now, from the time they were when the laws were made: if there were any matter of real grievance or oppression, that could be remedied to their benefit or to the common interests; that they were to have the power of judging whether any part or a whole Colony were returned to that state of obedience, that they might declare that Colony or part to be in peace, upon which the restrictions in the present bill were so formed as to cease. He found that what he said the other night, under a state of fatigue and indisposition, had led people to conceive he was so far tired out with this business, that his administration was drawing to a period; he therefore begged to repeat what he always had said—how happy he should be to decline the arduous task to which he might, perhaps, in point of abilities, be unequal; yet in point of good intentions, he had no other end in view, no not for a moment in any time, but the publick service; meaning at all times to conduct it with the least burden to the publick; on those occasions where severity was necessary, to alleviate that, as much as the common safety would permit; and to withhold it, whenever the publick safety did not absolutely require it. That there were two grounds, upon which every Minister ought to stand: the first was, that the King had an undoubted right of naming his own servants; the second, which formed the happiness of this country, that if the people by their representatives did really disapprove the measures of any Minister, to that degree that they would not go along with him, the King, however he might approve such Minister, could not carry on business by him, and must part with him. That this business of quarrel with the Colonies about taxation, was begun and prepared for him before he engaged in it as a Minister; that he took it up, not when it was a question whether it was right to tax the Colonies or not, but when they disputed our having any such right, and at a time when this country was determined not to give it up: as he engaged when this dispute was actually begun, he was bound to see it through; and if the Colonies, by appealing to arms, had made war the medium, although peace was the only point he ever retained in his view, he must pursue it through that medium. Being thus engaged, he did declare, that unless the King dismissed him, or a majority of the House, disapproving his conduct, desired his dismission, he would not give up the conduct of this business to anybody else. As to the means of conducting the war, he declared there never was any idea of raising or employing the negroes or the Indians, until the Americans themselves had first applied to them; that General Carleton did then apply to them; and even then, it was only for the defence of his own Province. As to the events of the war, things wore a much better aspect at present than a litttle while ago; that Halifax was now absolutely safe; that there were indeed two expeditions against Canada, but he did hope that Canada would not fall into the hands of the Rebels. He would almost venture to say that Quebeck was safe; but he begged the House would not understand him as promising that; his own opinion was, that it would not fall into the hands of the Rebels.

Mr. Fox said, that this proposition was cutting off and destroying all trade with America. If the noble Lord’s other measures had not done it this would effectually. Though they had not at present the manufacturers at their door, he prophesied they would have them next year. The true intention of this bill was, to break up the manufacturers, who, through want of subsistence, would be obliged to inlist, and thus the noble Lord thought he should recruit that army which would not otherwise be recruited. That as the noble Lord had now proposed repealing three oppressive acts, he begged to ask him, as a man of honour and a gentleman, whether he did not wish that he had adopted the opinion of the noble Duke, [of Grafton,] who was first Lord of the Treasury when the repeal of the tea duty was moved in that House, and supported it? He repeated, there were differences of opinions amongst persons high in office at that time; and he asked the noble Lord [Lord North] whether he did not now wish he had been of opinion with those who were for repealing that duty, because they saw, and therefore wished to avoid, that chain of misfortunes which the continuance of it bad drawn after it? He said the propositions of peace held forth in the proposed bill, like those of last year, were delusive, and were introduced with no other view than to mislead this country into vindictive measures, to gratify the diabolical dispositions of a set of Ministers who, by their oppressive measures, were held in abhorrence throughout America; that after having once attempted insidiously to divide the Colonies, it was the height of folly, and showed the weakness of a desperate junto, to renew a pitiful artifice which could have no other effect than to expose the abject state of this House, and to render the British Legislature contemptible in the sight of all Europe. The great success, he said, that is expected to follow from the offers of peace to fishing towns and hamlets, has already been laughed at by the body of American confederates; and the ruin with which the Colonies are threatened in case of resistance, they will hold in equal derision, because they know that, while they continue firm, those threats can never be carried into execution against them. The system of despotism formed by the junto will, by the proposed bill, be rendered incontrovertible: those among the Delegates who still entertain sentiments favourable to Government, will be struck dumb. The bill reduces the contest to this alternative, either submit implicitly to the mercy of your known and avowed enemies, or prepare yourselves for war. Will a powerful and brave people, the descendants of Englishmen, whose ancestors bled for liberty, hesitate a moment which to choose, submission or the sword? Is there a gentleman in this House, is there a Briton born, who, in like circumstances, would hesitate a moment which to choose? Why, then, irritate a spirited people to rise in arms against deliberate acts denouncing vengeance, tinselled over with the flimsy gilding of an insidious peace! Why continue to provoke your fellow-subjects by bill after bill, all uniformly tending to render them desperate, in order to furnish a handle for exercising the most cruel, arbitrary, and tyrannical acts against them? He concluded with observing, that no gentleman could give his sanction to this motion as it now stood, without being conscious of voting for a declaration of war; yet for the sake of his country, for the sake of America, and as a prelude to peace, he was willing to go so far with the noble Lord who proposed the motion, as the repeal of the three acts therein mentioned, and therefore moved the following amendment: To leave out from the word “Bill” to the words “for repealing,” and to leave out from the words “respectively mentioned,” to the end of the question.

Sir George Hay said, that the question was not now about a declaration of war, for war was already declared on the part of the rebellious Provinces; that the great consideration at present was, how best to terminate a war in which we have been involuntarily involved; that the bill proposed appeared to him to be the only possible means by which the obstinacy of the Americans could be overcome; that invitation being rejected, coercion became the necessary consequence; that it was unjust to charge the rebellion of the Americans to the measures of Administration, as no measures had been pursued but by the advice and concurrence of Parliament; that nothing could give colour to rebellion, or, if you will, to resistance, unless an unconstitutional power had been exerted, or a constitutional power in an arbitrary way; that a violation of the Constitution could not be pretended, nor any undue use made of lawful authority; that if any of the laws made for the government of the Colonies in their infancy were now become inapplicable and burdensome to them in their more advanced state, those laws might be revised, and if found oppressive, altered or repealed; but that could not possibly, he said, be attempted while the Colonies, with arms in their hands, defied the authority of the legislature by whom those laws were enacted. Even the acts of trade might be somewhat relaxed. If the monopoly of trade cannot be maintained or secured, the Colonies might be encouraged in all manufactures not injurious to this country, and they might be obliged or compelled to take from us our manufactures; but these were matters for a time of peace, not for the present, when we are engaged in a question of power; until that was settled, it was nonsense to talk of our making regulations,