come necessary to issue press-warrants, the persons compelled by the clause to enter would be liable to be pressed. So that, in that view of the matter, this bill creates no new hardship. Suppose, my Lords, that we should be inclined to alter or modify this clause, as the noble Duke seems desirous : you would not, it may be presumed, after you had those men in your power, put them in a situation again to resist you. What, then, are you to do? In the case of prisoners taken in a foreign war, we know they are brought home and confined in prison, and detained here till a peace ensues, or they are exchanged upon cartel during the continuance of the war; but in the present case, the matter being new, and no provision being made, and in fact in the event of a want of men, the persons found aboard British ships being liable to be pressed, I am of opinion the clause on these several grounds is entirely unobjectionable. I am much obliged to your Lordships for the indulgence you have shown, by hearing me so patiently. I shall not detain your Lordships much longer. I shall only say a word or two to the point urged by the first noble Duke who spoke in this debate. That noble Duke says that a storm is gathering in the North; that his Majesty’s Ministers should not trust to the assurances of foreign Courts; and that we ought not, prosecuting this war against our rebellious subjects, to render ourselves, by a misplaced confidence in those assurances, defenceless at home, and liable to be surprised or attacked by our natural enemies, I do not pretend to say exactly what may be the effect of the present disputes in the North; but I will tell the noble Duke that we do not trust to the assurances of foreign Powers; and that if such a measure should happen to be necessary, we shall be able, at a very short warning, to fit out a fleet and send it into the Baltick; and further, that by the present plan of operations, we shall not have a single line-of-battle ship in America, as three fifty-gun ships will be sent to replace the three line-of-battle ships now serving on that station; and that, consequently, we shall have such a formidable force at home, ready to act upon any emergency that may rise during the progress of this business, as will not only be fully sufficient to protect ourselves against any attack our enemies might meditate, but likewise to adopt such other measures of vigour and effect as the particular state of affairs in Europe might render necessary or expedient.

The Earl of Shelburne. In whatever view this bill, both in principle and the mode of enforcing that principle, presents itself, it appears to me to be fraught with every accumulated species of impolicy and injustice. I shall, in the few observations I propose to make on it, deliver my mind freely; on this, however, as on all former occasions, looking upon myself at liberty to alter my opinion and to regulate my judgment merely on the merits of the matter under debate, combined with its own particular circumstances, not by any collateral motives which do not properly relate to the question before me. The first matter that forces its way to your Lordships’ consideration, on perusing this bill, is the principle, which appears to me no less cruel than impolitick. It is, as has been well observed in the course of this debate, and to which I have not as yet heard a rational answer, to the last degree cruel and unjust, because it involves the innocent in one common punishment with the guilty. It is impolitick, because it will throw the people into a state of desperation, and of necessity force them to take up arms in their own defence; so that it will have the double effect of transforming your friends, such as have hitherto continued so, into the most inveterate enemies; and inspiring both friends and foes with the most enthusiastick and desperate resolutions of resisting a coercion that leaves them no other alternative but submission to the most abject state of slavery, or of ending in their complete destruction, unless they should prevail in the contest. But, my Lords, I have a stronger objection to the principle of the bill than even that I have now stated. It proceeds on the idea that America is in rebellion to the just authority of this country. I deny it. I contend that they have been in part, if not entirely forced to take up arms in defence of their property, which has been attempted, by the acts of this Legislature, to be wrested unjustly out of their hands. They have been taxed by the British Parliament for the purpose of raising a revenue. They have been thereby deprived of the inalienable privilege of a British subject—that of voting away his money, of judging of the quantum, and of the propriety of entirely withholding it, should he not approve of the uses or purposes to which it may be intended to be applied. Besides this general unquestionable ground I have now stated, taxation has been attempted to be carried into effect contrary to the usual mode, to the ancient usage of requisition. I therefore contend, that the principle of the bill is ill-founded and unjust in the first concoction; and therefore that the idea is false on which it proceeds; for the Colonists are not in a state of rebellion, but are armed in support of their just, their inalienable and constitutional rights, thus openly invaded and attacked.

The noble Earl in office has assigned every reason for inserting the clause in this bill which has been objected to by the noble Duke, but what appears to me to be at the first blush the most obvious. His Lordship says, that in a foreign war we secure all prisoners which fall into our hands in prison; but that we shall not know how to dispose of those which may be taken on the present case, as no provision has been made in the bill for that purpose. But if the noble Earl will permit me, I will tell him what appears the true motive for inserting that clause—a mere wanton act of feminine revenge, a mere love of cruelty and oppression. But let us pass over that consideration, and turn to the means proposed in the bill itself, for ensuring its operation. This I take to be framed, too, on other grounds than those of merely rewarding merit. On a former occasion the noble Earl, though he did not positively assure us, gave us the strongest hopes that we should be able to man our Navy without pressing; but finding it impracticable, the noble Earl and his brethren in office have had recourse to this method of dividing the prizes taken among the captors, in order to avoid the unpopular mode of pressing, or of disclosing to the publick that, our seamen are as averse to this service as our landsmen have already proved themselves. I believe the. noble Earl distinguished himself in a warm opposition, during the Spanish war in 1741, and assisted in carrying the measure against the Minister, for dividing the captures taken from the enemy among the captors. Lord Bath was at the head of that opposition; and I believe the noble Earl does not forget that the great argument then used in both Houses was, that such an encouragement became absolutely necessary; for as the merchants’ wages were so much higher than the pay allowed by Government, such a stimulative to enter aboard the King’s ships would be the only, best, and most probable means of speedily manning our Navy upon any sudden emergency. This, my Lords, cannot be said to be the case at present; no such reason can now be assigned; for I believe the merchants’ wages are rather lower than usual; at least I am well informed they have not been raised for some time past. I do not know that dividing the prizes in the manner usually adopted among the captors, is perfectly right at any time; but as it is the only reason that has been ever assigned, and that it does not at present exist, I must confess, that that, with the circumstances attending it, is another reason why I am against this bill. I should think myself justified in passing over the matter I am now about mentioning to your Lordships, as not directly applying to the subject-matter of this debate, if I did not think it of the most material consequerice; I mean the two resolutions agreed to in the other House relative to the Colony of Nova-Scotia. As we cannot procure any information in this House, I am under the necessity of seeking it wherever I can find it. In this votes of the House of Commons, I find that they have resolved, that no other duties or customs shall be paid for any goods or merchandise imported into the Colony of Nova-Scotia but what is expressed in the second resolution; and that in the second resolution, that is resolved, not to exceed eight per cent. ad valorem, on all foreign commodities. Now, my Lords, on those resolutions, two matters very sensibly strike me: first, the smallness of the revenue for which, it seems, we are contending; and, secondly, the direct invasion of the Act of Navigation, expressed in the second resolution, which states the duty of eight per cent. to be upon foreign commodities imported from the place of their growth. This last, in my opinion, is directly cutting up that great palladium of our commerce, that great source of all the advantages we now happily enjoy, as the first commercial and trading nation in Europe;for the spirit and letter on which the whole of that law is founded, are, that no article or commodity shall be directly imported into the Colonies from the place