And the question being put, That the said clause be brought up;

It passed in the negative.

A motion was then made, and the question being put, That the Bill do pass,

The House divided. The yeas went forth:

So it was resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered, That Sir Grey Cooper do carry the Bill to the Lords, and desire their concurrence therein.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, December 12, 1775.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons by Sir Grey Cooper, and others:

With a Bill intituled “An Act to prohibit all Trade and Intercourse with the Colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower Counties on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, during the continuance of the present Rebellion within the said Colonies respectively; for repealing an Act, made in the fourteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, to discontinue the Landing and Discharging, Lading or Shipping of Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, at the Town or within the Harbour of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts-Bay; and also two Acts, made in the last session of Parliament, for restraining the Trade and Commerce of the Colonies in the said Acts respectively mentioned; and to enable his Majesty, or any person or persons appointed and authorized by his Majesty, to grant Pardons, and to issue Proclamations, in the cases and for the purposes therein mentioned;” to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

The said Bill was read the first time.

Ordered, That the said Bill be printed.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time on Friday next; and that the Lords be summoned.

Friday, December 15, 1775.

The Order of the Day, for the second reading of the Bill, being read:

The Bill was accordingly read a second time.

It was then moved, “To commit the Bill.”

The Duke of Manchester said: I rise, my Lords, to give a negative to this bill, because, with all the attention I have been able to bestow in considering and examining its contents, I cannot discover on what ground of policy, justice, or expediency, it can be fairly supported. I must observe that the manner of hurrying, and the season of the year at which this bill has been introduced into Parliament, in remarkable thin Houses, at a time, I will maintain, when no business of importance ought to be brought under your Lordships’ consideration, unless in cases of the most urgent necessity, is to me one very great objection to sending it to a Committee. If we examine this bill, my Lords, we shall find the great principle of it to be founded in the most aggravated injustice. We shall find it involving the innocent and guilty in one common punishment; and, above all, we must lament to see publick and parliamentary encouragement given to the subjects of one part of this great empire to rob, destroy, and pillage the other. Looking, again, to the sanction of the bill, and to what is virtually to force it into operation, we find one of the fundamentals of this Constitution invaded. The unhappy people are not only destined to destruction, they are likewise to be robbed and plundered; and, to insure the execution of the measure, the plunder is to be shared among those who are to be employed to effect this barbarous business. The matter I allude to, my Lords, is that clause which authorizes the seizure of every species of American property which may be found floating on the sea, or in their ports and harbours; and shares the spoils thus taken among the captors. This, my Lords, I will maintain, is a direct violation of that yet sacred palladium of our liberties, the Bill of Rights; a palladium which it is not in your Lordships’ power to alter, violate, or abridge, without an open and direct invasion of the Constitution. That invaluable, inalienable, and constitutional law, my Lords, enacts that the property of no subject of this realm shall be seized or confiscated without previous trial or conviction. Is that the case here? Will any of your Lordships say that the clause of this bill which gives the seizure to the captors is not the most violent outrage on property that can possibly be conceived? In the first instance, the ships, goods, &c., are seized and turned over to the Admiralty Court, where they are condemned of course. Thus, at one instant the mischief is done, and the means of obtaining justice completely defeated. Part of my leisure hours, my Lords, I dedicate to reading; and since this bill made its appearance in the other House, I have looked into books the most likely to instruct me on this head, to see if history could furnish me with a precedent of a similar nature; I found but one that bore the least resemblance, and that was the conduct of the second Emperor of China of the Tartar race, who issued an edict directing that all the inhabitants on the sea-coasts should burn and destroy their towns and their shipping. The edict was punctually and rigorously executed, and several thousand people lost their lives in the cruel devastation. This matter now alluded to applies equally to the justice and policy of the bill. My Lords, I think it is impossible to hear or read of the present struggle of America in resisting the oppressions she daily suffers, and the accumulated honours with which she is threatened, and not be highly interested in the event. I feel similar impressions, but in a stronger degree, to those made on me in reading of the actions of Alexander, as described by Quintus Curtius, or the issue of the battle of Pharsalia, where Csar gave the world a master. It is impossible, while the scene is yet passing, not to be deeply affected in the event of the present measures. My Lords, I should be obliged to any of the noble Lords in Administration to rise and inform me what is the true ground on which they mean to rest the motives of this ruinous and unnatural war. Is it for a revenue? No; that has been disclaimed by them in this House on the first day of the present session; and it has been since frequently and openly avowed that no revenue is expected. “It is (said they) no object; and if it were, for the present such a scheme would be impracticable and impolitick. We want America only to acknowledge a constitutional dependancy on this country, an acknowledgment of the power of this Legislature; and we then wish to give them perfect security and full enjoyment of their subordinate constitutional rights.” Does such a language as I have now repeated, comport with the principles and apparent intentions of this bill? Are any offers held out to induce the Americans to return to their duty, and acknowledge their subordinate dependancy? Is the claim of taxation given up, or even suspended, in order to remove the apprehensions such a claim has justly excited in that country? No, my Lords, the whole question lies at issue, as when the differences first arose, and war, as against alien enemies, is, by this bill, denounced and publickly declared, without a single syllable of conciliation or concession; and that with an express intention of supporting, in the most unqualified manner, every one claim hitherto set up by this country over that. When a rebellion raged in the northern part of this Island—a rebellion fomented and carried on against the establishment in Church and State—no such prohibition as the present was thought on. Many of the people in that part of the kingdom remained firm and loyal. In such a case, an act of this nature would be impolitick and unjust. We have been told frequently, by several noble Lords on the other side of the House, that great numbers of people in America continue friends to Government. Why, then, punish them? Why adopt such a plan of indiscriminate injustice? Why involve the innocent and guilty in one general judgment? This bill may establish in future a claim, at least an expectation, which I dare say your Lordships do not foresee. Suppose, my Lords, another rebellion should break out in the northern or southern part of this Island: would not the soldiery, in such a case, have as good a right to expect the plunder and confiscations consequent on the reduction of the rebels, as the seamen are given by this bill? I see no reason that they should not. It would operate as an encouragement, and every motive would apply in one case that can possibly operate in the other. Every argument that can be urged in behalf of the innocent and unoffending part of the inhabitants of America,