In his History of the World, he says, “that they are seditious, unfaithful, disobedient, devourers and destroyers of all places and countries whither they are drawn, as being held by no other bond than their own commodity. Yea, that which is most fearful among such hirelings is, that they have often, and in time of greatest extremity, not only refused to fight in the defence of those who have entertained them, but revolted to the contrary part, to the utter ruin of those Princes and States who have trusted them.”

My Lords, great stress hath been laid, in the course of this debate, on the comparative riches and strength of Great Britain and America, from which a conclusion has been drawn in our favour, and a consequence from that conclusion, that we must in the end prove victorious. I deny the fact, the conclusion, and the consequence raised upon it. That we possess more of the precious metals than the people of America I will readily grant; but that the materials for decorating Palaces, or that administer to the luxuries or elegancies of life are so much real riches, or that they constitute the real and efficient strength of a nation, is a doctrine I never can subscribe to; particularly when you have a people to contend with who prefer real liberty to the empty shadow, and who despise those baubles and trinkets, when compared with the substantial and rational benefits of civil society and domestick happiness. The native produce and industry of a country, I am bold to affirm, are what constitute its real opulence. The people of America have always been in possession of one; and the present inhuman and oppressive measures you have adopted will necessarily teach them the other. The policy of former times was, to improve the native advantages of the people of America to a twofold purpose: to encourage them to the raising raw materials for our own manufactures, or as objects of foreign commerce; and to render them as dependant as possible on this country for all the wrought conveniences of life. This was the inexhaustible mine from which this country was wont to draw her resources. The immense profits derived from such a commercial intercourse were the taxes we drew from that country; and those only will ever be the substantial, constitutional benefits which can or ought to be derived from the legislative authority claimed by this country. What will be the consequence of this mad, bloody war? You will teach America industry and frugality. You will necessitate them to wear their own rough manufactures. You will create an emulation for excellence and improvement; and, by shutting them out from your own ports, you will compel them to explore those of foreign nations. In fine, you will point out to them the advantages of a foreign commerce, of a frugal habit of living, but, above all, the sweets of industry, directed to the establishment of new manufactures, and the improvement of old ones.

I would recommend to your Lordships to seriously consider the grounds of the present quarrel, and the object meant in the end to be attained by it. Has it not originated in taxation? and is it not now gravely asserted, that the tax is virtually relinquished, but that a war of conquest, or an acknowledgment of an unconditional submission on their part, is the only alternative now left? What, then, is the true effect of this language, but that the present is a war of conquest? For the noble Earl with the white staff [Talbot] has told you, that this country ought never to recede, till America has consented to an unconditional submission; and, consequently, that our subjects in that country are to be reduced to a state of absolute slavery, or to be forever separated and cut off from the dominion of the British empire.

But, my Lords, referring back to the old question of taxation, (for that I look upon to be the true and efficient ground of the present contest,) what does that question present to your Lordships’ consideration? Why, that in the course of the present campaign you will have run in debt ten millions, which is more than you have been able to discharge in the course of a thirteen years’ peace; and if all your measures of conquest should succeed, that you will probably, at the end of another year or two, be thirty millions worse than when you first began, and will be in the absolute possession of a ruined, desolated country, which, so far from being able to contribute to the discharge of your burdens, will become an additional one for a series of years to come. It has been urged, that none of these consequences will happen; that America, when she perceives that we are ultimately determined, will submit, and that of course our expenses will cease with the cause that gave them birth. I should think there was something in this argument, if conciliation, not conquest, was intended; if the claims of America were patiently heard, and maturely considered; but is their one of your Lordships who seriously believes that those people will ever consent to lay down their arms till vanquished, if no terms of conciliation or accommodation are held out to them? The idea is preposterous, and I am certain is not believed or expected by those who urge it. On the whole, my Lords, I am heartily for agreeing with the noble Duke’s motion, because it will afford time for Administration to treat; it will give his Majesty an opportunity of putting a stop to the further effusion of human blood; it will strengthen the hands of Government, should America refuse such terms as Britain may consistently offer, and America reasonably and securely accept; and it will be the means of laying, on foundations of strength and security, the greatness, opulence, and perfect union of the British empire, whether considered as one body, or in respect to its several constituent parts.

Viscount Weymouth. The noble Duke in the blue ribbon, and the noble Lord who spoke last, happened to be both in Administration at the time the act was passed which laid on the duties that were the original cause of all the present disturbances. It is somewhat extraordinary that they should now complain of their own acts, and come before your Lordships to condemn measures which, for anything that appears to the contrary, originated from themselves, or at least received their sanction.

The Duke of Grafton. I confess I occupied a very high and responsible post in Administration when the duties in 1767 were laid upon tea, paper, painters’ colours, and glass. I am, however, extremely well pleased to have an opportunity ef explaining what yet has not been effectually cleared up. In that year, when the extraordinary expenses incurred on account of America were laid before the House of Commons, the House rose as one man almost, and insisted that that country should contribute to the burdens brought on by the military establishment there; and a motion was made for bringing in a bill for that purpose. I strenuously opposed the measure, as big with the consequences it has since unfortunately produced. I spoke to my friends upon the occasion, but they all united in opinion that the tide was too strong to expect to either stem or turn it, so as to prevent whatever might be offered in that shape from passing into a law. Finding that all my efforts would be vain, I was compelled to submit, but was resolved, as far as lay in my power, to prevent the effect; and while I gave way, to do it in such a manner as would cause least harm. I accordingly proposed the tea duty as the most palatable; because, though it answered the main purpose of those with whom taxation was a favourite measure, it was doing America an immediate benefit, for I procured the shilling a pound duty to be taken off, and three-pence to be laid on it in lieu thereof; so that, in fact, it was nine-pence a pound saving to America. However, the attempt was received in America as I expected it would: it immediately caused disturbances and universal dissatisfaction. In 1769, therefore, I moved in the Cabinet for a repeal, and was out-voted (if I recollect right) by a majority of one. This, therefore, was the part I took in this fatal business. When the partial repeal was agreed to in Council, I entreated and conjured my brethren in office to give up this paltry revenue; but, as I said before, I was overruled.

Lord Camden. For my part I was not in Council, or did not attend in Cabinet at the time this fatal measure was concerted; and as soon as I was apprised of the tendency of it, I expressed my hearty disapprobation.

Viscount Weymouth. The noble Duke says, he was outvoted in the Cabinet, and that there are some noble Lords now present who took an active part on that occasion. The noble Duke is very right; I was present, and am free to declare, that I was one of the members of the Cabinet who gave my vote for having the tea duty retained, and am not ashamed to own it. The noble Duke forgets there was no majority, or casting voice; the numbers were equal. The other noble Lord’s apology is the most extraordinary that I ever heard; his Lordship says, he was not present at the time it happened to be debated in Council. Will the noble Lord pretend to excuse himself as a Cabinet Counsellor on that ground? Or if he could, can he pretend to defend himself