ignorant whether he acted right or wrong? to receive instructions from such of your Lordships as are conversant in military affairs, to know whether the whole of the British dominion in America is, or is not, to be under the absolute command of a foreign mercenary, at the head of twelve thousand hirelings? But supposing his Lordship should tell me, that the supreme command is vested in the Commander-in-Chief, though he be a junior officer: will he assure me that the matter has been so understood by the Landgrave of Hesse, or that his General is apprized of it? Or, lastly, will his Lordship inform me whether sufficient provision has been made in case of death, or any other accident, to supply the vacancy with a succession of other officers, who may be eventually called to the command, by commission granted for the purpose; and that the Prince and his General have been acquainted with this eventual arrangement, and have acquiesced in it? I think it proper, before I sit down, to allude to one circumstance, in which I took a part, but in which I was most egregiously deceived; I mean the vote I gave respecting the Massachusetts-Bay Charter Bill. To induce me to give that vote, I was informed that the alteration of the Charter was at the express desire of the merchants and a great majority of the people of property and consequence inhabiting that Province. I have since discovered that I was deceived; for that at the time, as well as since, the contrary was the fact. It has been, indeed, the uniform practice, since the commencement of this business, to give false information, or proceed on none. I have, therefore, only to declare, that I would never have given my sanction to that law, if I had not been led into error by a false state of the matter; and though I unhappily fell into the snare laid for me, I am now free to declare, that the law for altering the Charter of Massachusetts-Bay was in every respect oppressive, impoliticly and unconstitutional; and if coupled with the claim of taxation, I am fully justified in maintaining, that as one leaves the subject no property, the other deprives him of every natural and political right; and that they are both equally destructive of the inalienable privileges of an Englishman, and the natural rights to which all mankind are entitled, if not stripped from them by fraud, force, or injustice.

The Earl of Suffolk. I presume the noble Duke in the blue ribbon misunderstood what I said; for I do not presume his Grace had any intention of misrepresenting my words. I did not say or mean, that I had any doubt whether the Commander-in-Chief, though a junior officer, had a right to command the Hessian General. I positively and unconditionally asserted he had, and only referred to the noble Lords present, conversant in military affairs, in proof of that assertion. As to the other point the noble Duke alluded to, the same rule which prevails in respect of the Commander-in-Chief, will of course take place in the person who may be appointed, or happen to succeed him.

The Earl of Sandwich. I did not intend to trouble your Lordships on the present occasion, had I not been particularly called on by the noble Duke who made the motion; and to set another noble Duke [of Manchester] right, respecting some points on which he seems to be misinformed. My noble relation has informed your Lordships, that the town of Norfolk, in Virginia, has been burnt and destroyed, and has accompanied his narrative with several exaggerated circumstances attending that affair. I will tell the noble Duke how the matter really happened. One of our ships-of-war, being in great distress for water, sailed to Norfolk in order to procure it, and applied to the inhabitants, who, instead of complying with the common dictates of humanity, fired on the flag of truce, and killed or wounded two or three of our men. This occasioned what afterwards happened, and caused the town to be burnt. I do not believe it is yet burnt. The inhabitants of Norfolk were so cruel and barbarous, that the whole crew must have perished for want of fresh water, had it not been for the relief they procured by the distillation of salt-water. It was not the man-of-war’s men that burnt Norfolk; it was the inhabitants themselves. The Norfolk people set fire to the town; that is, the fire from the man-of-war set fire to part of it, and the inhabitants burnt the rest. The noble Duke who made the motion has entertained your Lordships a great while relative to the appointing and superseding of officers. His Grace has adverted to me frequently in the course of his observations. I will tell the noble Duke, that he is mistaken in his facts and conjectures. Admiral Graves was not dismissed nor recalled; nor was there the least objection to his conduct as an officer; on the contrary, his Majesty, to show the good opinion he entertains of his services, has appointed him a Vice-Admiral. As to Admiral Shuldham being superseded in the supreme command, he never imagined that he was to command in chief. He only succeeded Admiral Graves; and as the service was to be extended and carried on upon a larger scale, it became necessary that more Admirals than one should be employed; not that I know that Admiral Shuldham means to remain on the American station. I assure the noble Duke that the appointment of Lord Howe did not originate with me, though I think him a very deserving officer; I was not, however, overruled in the Cabinet; for, understanding that his Lordship wished for the command, I was happy in having an opportunity of gratifying his desires, and furthering the appointment of so able and deserving an officer. The noble Duke says that the’ servants of the Crown who support the measures now pursuing against America, secretly disapprove of them, and express their disapprobation of them in private company. I do not pretend to say what company the noble Duke keeps, who so confidentially impart their opinions to him; but this I will venture to affirm, that I converse both publickly and privately with them all. And yet I never heard one of them express the least disapprobation whatever of the present measures. The noble Duke says, that though we have ships, we have not men sufficient to man them. In this he is equally mistaken; for out of the whole complement of able seamen necessary for the twenty guard-ships, there are only five hundred wanting. And I will add another piece of intelligence, no less fatal to another’ argument made use of by his Grace, which is, that so far from the men being averse to the service, this very deficiency in the complement of the guard-ships has arisen from a most uncommon alacrity in the men to serve on the American station, the greatest part of those who enter choosing to serve in the fleet now destined for that county in preference to staying at home. On the whole, the five hundred men deficient of the stated complement aboard the guard-ships could be procured in a few days, which, with the ordinary seamen and landmen; would enable the twenty guard-ships, that are all of the line-of-battle, to proceed to sea in the course of a week; and suppose any difficulty should arise, we should procure more than sufficient at the shortest notice; so that, taking it in either light, we are prepared for any sudden event or emergency whatever.

Viscount Townshend. I believe the noble Duke’s solicitude relative to whom the command would devolve on in case of the death of the Commander-in-Chief, is totally unnecessary, as I take it the next senior officer would succeed of course. I remember this was the case during the late war in America. First a noble Lord, a member of this House, [Lord London,] had the chief command; afterwards General Abercromby; and though Colonel Stanwix was the next senior officer when Sir Jeffery Amherst was appointed Commander-in-Chief, the supreme command immediately vested in Sir Jeffery as a matter of course.

The Earl of Shelburne. An insinuation, my Lords, has been thrown out, in order to give a sanction to the present measures, that a certain noble Earl, [of Chatham,] whom I do not this day see in his place, has changed his former opinions respecting them; but I will venture to affirm, without any direct information on that head, that it is equally groundless and ill-founded. I am sure I can answer so far as to say, that in the several conversations he has done me the honour to hold with me on the subject, nothing leading or even tending that way has ever escaped him; besides, his motion, and the consequent step taken by his Lordship, which remain on your Lordships’ Journals, put the matter beyond doubt or uncertainty. His plan, since the commencement of this business, has been conciliation, not coercion. So much has been already said on the subject of the treaties;, that I shall trouble you very little, further than to express my astonishment at a language which has been held this day in relation to the employment of foreigners. It creates double wonder, when coming from the supporters of the present measures, against whose professed system of policy it militates in the most marked contradiction. The doctrine is shortly this: when you have any extensive operations of war to carry on, keep your own pen at home, employed in