directly contrary effect. Those Powers would soon conclude that a nation which had not power or force sufficient to coerce its own members, would be no longer a formidable enemy. They would look upon you as an abject, tame, mercenary people, who, from a mere love of lucre, would consent to sacrifice all the pride, dignity, and superior interest of yourselves and posterity, rather than suffer a temporary inconvenience, or forego for a while the advantages derived from a commercial intercourse with your Colonies. They, in fine, would look on you as a nation of merchants, from whom nothing was to be feared; totally emptied of that spirit of warfare on every proper occasion—that martial ardour, native prowess, and thirst of fame, which have hitherto rendered you justly formidable and terrible to your enemies. Therefore I contend, my Lords, that it is doubly incumbent on you to exert yourselves, even as a means of keeping your natural enemies and ambitious neighbours in that state of awe and reverence towards you which will be always one of the best bulwarks of the national safety, and your own domestick tranquillity.

My Lords, though I wish sincerely that America, should she persist obstinately to resist the constitutional and equitable claims of this country, may be compelled to acknowledge them, yet I do not desire that the people of that country should be abridged of their ancient privileges—such, I mean, as are consistent with the common interests of both countries; such as it is proper for us to grant or confirm, and for them to retain or enjoy; and whenever they return to a proper sense of their duty, I shall very readily give my support to any plan which may be the most likely to heal the unhappy wounds that have been already given, and for receiving them once more into the bosom of the mother country. The noble Duke has bestowed the hardest names he could possibly invent on this bill; and, to show the folly as well as injustice of it, asks what it is we are contending for. Says the noble. Duke, the claim of taxation has been given up; it has been relinquished on the idea of its impracticability and inexpediency. I deny it. I contend it never has. And we know that the main support given to it in the other House, as well as to the general measures respecting America, was on the supposition that a revenue is expected to be obtained from America, towards alleviating part of the heavy burdens at present borne by this country. We know these are the wishes and sentiments of the country gentlemen in the other House—men of the most independent principles and most ample fortunes in the kingdom. I will not pretend to say to what amount or in what mode America ought to be compelled to contribute. Perhaps, in their present state and condition, the assistance they would be able to give to the mother country would be but small; but I insist a foundation ought to be laid in the first instance, which should keep a proportion with their abilities; and that it should be framed with a particular view to that object, so as to oblige them to share the burdens, in proportion as they shared and enjoyed the advantages of this Government. I do not pretend to point out the properest or most expedient mode of executing this plan: whether by taxes or customs, commercial duties, or by requisition. Those are questions of policy that do not interfere with the principle it is our business first to establish—the principle of compelling them to acknowledge the right; afterwards it will be time enough to look to the policy and the most expedient means of effectually carrying it into execution, under the consideration of the general interests of the empire, as well as to the local circumstances applying to the particular situation of either or both countries.

The Duke of Richmond. I entirely agree with the noble Duke, who rose to oppose the committing of this bill, in every particular opinion he delivered on it. I think it a most unjust, oppressive, and tyrannical measure. It will be therefore understood, my Lords, that in the course of what I shall offer against any clause, which, on account of its cruelty and injustice, may strike me more particularly, that when I dwell on that point, I by no means approve of those other parts on which I shall forbear to animadvert, or perhaps slightly pass over.

I perceive, my Lords, that this bill is a formal denunciation of war against the Colonies; and, on that ground, is not to be combatted with arguments only applicable to a state of tranquillity, or even some sorts and degrees of civil disorder. Though I totally disapprove of such a war, and the principle on which it is entered into, I am ready to confess that many things are justifiable in such a state of things, on which the most obdurate and inhuman minds would contemplate with horrour in any other. I know that it is looked upon not only justifiable and gallant, but an act of meritorious duty, for an officer or soldier to disguise himself in woman’s clothes, and, in that disguise, to stab a sentinel on his post. I know, too, that men of the highest and most exalted honour have not scrupled to come at secrets under the sacred seal of confidence, and turn the information to the destruction of their enemies, when it was believed that those acts of horrour and treachery promised to be means of promoting the designs, and furthering the views and success of their friends, and the cause they were engaged in. But, my Lords, where no view of this kind can be answered, where no one desirable purpose can be obtained, I shall always oppose an act of wanton cruelty, and, I may add, on this occasion, of impolicy; as I will venture to predict, it will only exasperate those against whom it is intended, and render them more desperate, determined, and enraged, against their merciless persecutors and oppressors. It is the clause I have now under my eye, for compelling such persons as may be taken in the ships and vessels described in this bill, to enter on board his Majesty’s ships-of-war. Such a compulsion is, in my opinion, a most aggravated act of cruelty. You not only strip them of their property, but by violence force them, at the peril of capital punishment, to serve you, as being under the act of Parliament for regulating our naval forces, and thus make them liable to suffer as deserters, contrary to the established usage observed in respect of men pressed into his Majesty’s service. You even do worse: you compel them to fight against their fathers, brothers, and nearest relations; and that, too, contrary to the conviction of their own consciences; and should they refuse to execute the barbarous service with rigour and punctuality, you are then authorized, by the law just mentioned, to shoot them for a breach of duty. This, my Lords, if I had no other objection to the bill, I must confess, operates very forcibly on my mind; and I would recommend to the noble Lords in Administration, to amend or totally omit this clause in the committee, and not, by a wanton, unnecessary act of power, add to the horrours consequent on a war of so cruel and barbarous a nature. I beg leave to remind your Lordships once more, that I do not mean, by pointing to this clause, to give any sanction to any one part of the bill. All I would wish is, to intimate to its friends and supporters that this bloody clause, this provision of wanton barbarity, even on their own principles, is totally unnecessary. The noble Lord says, the present measures pursuing against America are popular, and that Opposition have taken up, for once, the unpopular side of the question. I fairly assent, in part, to the noble Lord’s assertion; for I believe the people were never more divided in their sentiments than at present. But while I allow this, I do not assent to the assertion in the latitude the noble Lord has stated it. In the words of a noble Lord in a former debate, [Lord Camden,] we have scarcely seen an address that has not spawned a petition. We have been told by several noble Lords in Administration, that America, too, is divided. And I believe it may be; at least we have many reasons to believe that they are far from being unanimous. What will, in all probability, be the consequence of this bill, but at once to put an end to all divisions, and to render them unanimous? Yet suppose the contrary: will not this bill involve those who think this country in the right—those who have retained their loyalty, and remained firm in their obedience—in one common punishment with the most determined, open, and violent enemies and opposers of the British Parliament? The former will be liable to have their ships seized, their goods and merchandises confiscated, their persons pressed, as well as the latter. Besides, I believe this clause is contrary to the usual mode adopted in regard to persons pressed to serve aboard in his Majesty’s ships-of-war, who are never subjected to capital punishments for desertion. The noble Lord has given, as a proof of the general opinion of the people respecting this war, and particularly those concerned in the West-India trade, that if the ruin of the West-India Islands was to be a consequence of it, the people of a borough in his neighbourhood (the town of Bewdley) would never have taken the part they have done; a town which his Lordship says carries on a twelfth part of the