this House? The noble Lord says that I ought and am bound to confine myself to the immediate subject of debate; and that I am disorderly, and deserve the censure of your Lordships, should I violate the usual mode of debating questions in this House. In this I perfectly agree with his Lordship; but I should be much obliged to the noble Lord to direct me how to proceed, so as to debate, and yet entirely keep clear of the subject. For instance, I should particularly thank him if he would instruct me how to express my dislike to the bill, without pointing out the grounds and motives of that dislike. I think the bill, in its principle and all its parts, unjust, impolitick, and inexpedient: how, then, can I support my assertion, but by arguing against its impolicy, injustice, and inexpediency? But, says the noble Lord, though you oppose the bill, and disapprove of it, you should not arraign acts of Parliament; you should not question nor condemn the acts of King, Lords and Commons; for so long as they remain and continue to be the law of the land, it is indecent and unparliamentary to find fault with them. Does his Lordship mean to push this doctrine as far as it will go; or does he wish to employ it only to a particular purpose, to answer that of the present debate? In either event, I fancy his Lordship will find himself much mistaken. For instance, I say the present bill is cruel, oppressive, and tyrannick. I contend, that the resistance made by the Colonists is in consequence of other acts equally oppressive, cruel, and tyrannick; and thus I prove that this resistance is not rebellion, but that the Americans are resisting acts of violence and injustice; consequently, that such resistance is neither treason nor rebellion; but is perfectly justifiable in every possible, political, and moral sense. The noble Lord seems desirous of calling the censure of the House on me. If I have been disorderly, I am ready to abide by the sense of it. I think I have not; and, relying on that opinion, I neither withdraw nor retract my former expressions; and am very ready to indulge his Lordship, by taking the sense of the House, whether or not I deserve its censure.

The Earl of Denbigh. As an old member of this House, I think, with the noble Lord who spoke early in this debate, that the expression of the noble Duke is extremely reprehensible and disorderly. The noble Duke may, it is true, deliver his opinion freely on the question immediately before the House, be it what it may; but I contend that he is bound to confine himself solely to that, and not to go out of it. Nor is any Lord, in debate, warranted in charging an act of the King, Lords and Commons, with tyranny and injustice. If this licentious use of the freedom of debate were indulged, it is impossible to say where it might stop. Any noble Lord might rise in his place, and affirm that his Majesty was an usurper, and that George III had no right to the crown of this realm. I contend, therefore, that by the laws and Constitution of this realm, any expression may be as well justified, under the claim of exercising the privilege of speech, as that America is not in rebellion, or that resistance to the acts of the British Parliament is no more than resistance to the most wanton acts of tyranny and oppression; and I do openly contend, that those who defend rebellion, are themselves little better than rebels; and that there is very little difference between the traitor and he who openly or privately abets treason.

The Duke of Richmond. The noise your Lordships have heard has reached below the bar, and must convince you that the noble Earl who spoke last has been heard there. But I will tell his Lordship, that I am not to be intimidated or deterred from my duty by loud words. Such exertions of mere sound will not prevent me from punctually performing my duty. The noble Earl says I have explained away my meaning. I believe his Lordship would not have maintained such an assertion if he knew properly the difference between explaining and explaining away. The noble Earl, as a collateral proof of his knowledge of the forms and orders of this House, says he is an old member. I believe I am almost as old a member as his Lordship; at least, I have sat near twenty years here; and I cannot be persuaded that I have offended against any established rule or form of this House. As to the point of explaining away my meaning, I must remind his Lordship, that I do not mean to retract anything I have said; and if he has properly attended to my explanation, he will be convinced that what I asserted at both times substantially correspond with each other; if he should think otherwise, I now take the opportunity of informing the noble Earl that I strictly adhere to the first expressions I used, and am ready to abide the sense of your Lordships, who are to determine whether or not I have transgressed. As to the expression of traitor, the noble Earl has so freely applied, I believe there are no traitors in this House now-a-days.

The Earl of Sandwich. I am an older member of this House than either the noble Duke or noble Earl. I have sat here these seven-and-thirty years, and am happy in testifying, since my first knowledge of Parliament, that I never saw the debates in this House conducted with greater propriety and decorum during my acquaintance with it, than in the course of this business respecting America. I am, my Lords, extremely unhappy when I am witness to such altercations as these; they always impede publick business, answer no one substantial or beneficial purpose whatever, and are only productive of ill-humour. As to the point of order, if I may be permitted to state my pretensions, as one of the old, if not the oldest member of this House, I have always seen it observed, as a constant rule of debate, never to condemn any act of Parliament unless on a motion for its repeal. In every other respect, I am of opinion that the noble Duke was perfectly justifiable, so long as he confined himself to the subject-matter of the bill; but I, at the same time, contend, that he has no right to go out of the question to investigate or deliver his sentiments upon points not under the consideration of the House. As some objections have been stated against this bill which immediately apply to the business of the department over which I have the honour to preside, I look upon myself particularly called upon to give every satisfaction in my power.

Two objections have been stated against the present bill by the two noble Dukes who have opposed its commitment. The first noble Duke complains of the injustice of this bill, because it gives the spoils taken from the enemy to the captors. Is this unusual? I am sure it is not. It has been so during the last two wars carried on by this country. I do not know of a more meritorious set of men than our seamen, nor more deserving of every degree of publick encouragement; besides the general motives of executing their duty with attention and punctuality, the prospect of sharing the captures among the officers and seamen will be a very great means of speedily manning our Navy without expense. It has likewise been much relied on by the noble Lords in opposition that this bill confounds the innocent with the guilty; but I believe your Lordships will perceive that very few can be classed in the former description, as the terrours of the Continental and Provincial Congresses have compelled almost every man in that country to take a decided part. I shall not detain your Lordships at this late hour of the night, by going into a long detail of proofs; I shall only mention two instances, to satisfy your Lordships of the cruel and cowardly disposition of the Americans, by stating to your Lordships that they have even tarred and feathered three women, and have put an innocent free negro to death, attended with every circumstance of cruelty and baseness. The free negro’s name was Jerry, and he was worth several hundred pounds. This man, in an unguarded minute, said, if any of the King’s ships came to that quarter, or the port where he resided, that he would pilot them safely up. This being reported to the Committee, a mock tribunal was appointed to try him, and he was acquitted for want of evidence. Not satisfied with this first attempt on the man’s life, another negro, not a free one, was suborned to repeat the charge, on which the unhappy man was condemned and executed, though the evidence of the slave should not have, according to the Colony laws, been received against a free man. There was another particular circumstance happened relative to this horrid affair, which was, that although the negro recanted every syllable he had sworn against Jerry, and owned that all he said on the trial was a lie, yet Jerry was nevertheless put to death.

The noble Duke who spoke last seems to lament greatly the cruelty of obliging such seamen as are taken aboard the American vessels to enter his Majesty’s ships of war. For my part, I think very differently from the noble Duke. Instead of an instance of cruelty or oppression, I think it is doing them rather a favour; as you put them into instant pay. Besides, though this bill were never passed, if we should want seamen to man our Navy, and it should become