same opinion I was then; I thought that the power of par­doning in the lump was a prerogative inherent in the Crown from the earliest date of the Constitution. I knew such a power had been uniformly exercised by the successive Mo-narchs of this realm, from the Conquest to this day. I knew, likewise, that as they have exercised it themselves, so they have frequently delegated it to others. And on this head I have only to add, that his Majesty’s Ministers were so well satisfied of the power itself, and the competency of the Crown to delegate it, that a noble Lord [Dartmouth] near me, in some successive stage of the bill, moved an alteration in the preamble, for the purpose of reserving that power. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion, that his Majesty might have granted pardons, as well to individuals as in the lump to whole Provinces, if that act had never passed. The learned Lord, from the nature of the commission, has raised arguments and drawn conclusions on the objects to which it may or can be legally directed. This, my Lords, will greatly depend on circumstances, and the prudence and abilities of those to whom the execution of the commission is entrusted. It may be presumed they can have nothing to fear, if they perform their duty faithfully. It can hardly be supposed, that they will incur the displeasure of Parliament, for acting up to their instructions; and it is still less probable that they will risk the censure of both Parliament and their Sovereign, by any improper exercise or abuse of their powers. The learned Lord is at a great loss to know the precise meaning of the phrase “well-disposed;” and the legal definition of that other phrase of being “in the King’s peace.” For my part, I am at no loss to comprehend the meaning of both these expressions; the first plainly importing a disposition in any Province, town, or district, to return to their allegiance, and recognise the supreme legislative authority of this coun­try; and the other, a proclamation, on such recognition and acknowledgment on the part of the persons authorized by the act, to declare such Colony or Province to be in the King’s peace; that is, to be deemed to be under the pro­tection of the laws, and be restored to all the privileges of peaceful and dutiful subjects.

My Lords, something very unusual, I mean the extent it has been carried this night, has happened on the present occasion. I could not help observing, in the course of the debate, that almost every matter connected with the affairs of America has been amply discussed, but the very proposi­tion your Lordships have been convened to consider. The Port duties laid on in 1767, and the partial repeal in 1769, have been much dwelt on: there is not a syllable relative to either in the motion. A noble Duke who spoke early in the debate, [Duke of Richmond,] has gone into the state of the navy very largely: there is nothing about the navy in the motion. Another noble Duke has talked a great deal of convicts and vagrants: the motion is quite silent on that head. A fourth, [Lord Shelburne,] endeavoured to prove that the work imputed to Montcalm was a forgery; the same noble Lord found fault with the military arrangements in Ireland: subjects totally unconnected with the motion. And the learned Lord who spoke last, [Lord Camden,] harangued on the improper interference of Government in the affaire of the East-India Company: all matters totally foreign to the immediate subject now before you.

I had no intention when I came into the House, of taking any part in this debate; but as I have been called up, I shall say a few words, but mean to confine myself merely to the motion. I am cautious of delivering my sentiments in this House, because whatever is said here is wafted instantly to America. The arguments are either too frequently miscon­ceived, or misstated; besides there are many things which come out in debate, that are of little consequence and trifling in themselves, and are rendered still more ridiculous in print. I, therefore, clearly unite in sentiments with the noble Earl [Lord Temple] who spoke so ably and so like a true friend to his country, the other night, that little is to be said, and much remains to be done; for that nothing passes within these walls that does not make its way to the other side of the Atlantick, and has been converted to the purposes of counteracting the measures to which it related.

It has been much insisted on this day, that the present is a legislative war, and, therefore, that bis Majesty is bound up from exercising his prerogative, and that the matter has been committed to Parliament. Supposing this to be strictly true, has not the act alluded to created the very power under which the Commissioners are to act? Supposing it otherwise, will the Crown be denied the exercise of its in­herent prerogative in the present instance only, where it is most wanted? But, my Lords, the distinction of a legisla­tive war is perfectly new. Was not the war relative to the succession, and several others of the same kind, legislative wars? May not every war be called so, which has been carried on by the express desire or consent of Parliament? I do not, indeed, recollect one carried on since the Revolu­tion without that sanction.

This country, my Lords, has now arrived at a very tre­mendous crisis, just commencing a war of a nature entirely new; a war that must necessarily be very expensive, and the issue of which no man can foretell. It is true, that the kingdom will in a great measure be left defenceless; that we can have no certainty that France or Spain will long preserve their present pacifick dispositions; that we have been reduced to the necessity of hiring foreign troops, and sending to the ports of other kingdoms for transports. But how, my Lords, were these circumstances to be avoided? America has rebelled; America is in arms—not defensively, but offensively; even if we were willing to cease hostilities, they are not. We must therefore act with vigour, and we must at least show ourselves determined to surmount their opposition. Happy would it be for us, if any means could be devised of ending the quarrel without bloodshed; but does the present motion tend to such an effect? Without proposing to save a shilling of the enormous expense the nation has been at, in providing and equipping the arma­ments to be sent out this year to America, it agrees that the troops should proceed; but when they shall arrive at the place of their respective destinations, they are to remain with their arms folded, inactive, and unemployed. What then? Commissioners are to treat with the Congress; they are to prepare a petition of grievances, which the petitioners are to bring to England. The Congress will laugh in their sleeves at our folly; they will reprint their declaration of war under a new title, for that states what they term their grievances. We shall lose a campaign, of which they will take care to avail themselves, and the next spring we shall have the whole to begin again. This, my Lords, would, I conceive, be the issue of the present motion; I therefore oppose it, as nugatory, ill-timed, and ineffectual.

Lord Camden. I shall not trouble your Lordships at this late hour of the night, in making observations on the many curious matters your Lordships have been now entertained with. I cannot help, however, making one remark, which personally applies to the learned Lord; that is, his saying very little to the question, and a great deal on other subjects, according to his Lordship’s language, not at all connected with the present motion. I shall confine myself to that part of his Lordship’s speech which relates to the power of grant­ing pardons. The learned Lord surely misunderstood me, if he imagined that 1 questioned the King’s power to par­don. No, my Lords; what 1 contended was, what I pledge myself to your Lordships I shall be able to prove, that the King cannot pardon in the lump, without the aid of Parlia­ment, offences against the State; much less can he pardon or agree to any terms short of the claims and conditions which Parliament have defined to be the true basis of con­ciliation. The noble Lord, by the pains he has taken to defend the act; seems to be the father rather than the casual defender of it. He says that the Commissioners will take care not to transgress the limits of their commissions. Will his Lordship, or any other noble Lord in this House, rise and tell me, that the latter extends an inch farther than the mere power of granting pardons, on terms of submission, by the people of America laying down their arms, and throwing themselves unconditionally at the feet of this country? This, then, being the true state of the case, it brings me to the point I set out from; which is, that the present motion is become necessary, to prevent the further effusion of human blood, and as the means of putting an end to a war which must inevitably bring on the destruction of either, if not of both countries; it will supply the defect of the bill I have been now commenting on; it will be the means of draw­ing forth specifications from the parties, of their respective claims, and will consequently lay a foundation for treaty, which can be the only safe road to peace and conciliation; whereas the clause in the Capture Act is nugatory and delu­sive. It leaves the matter just as it found it, according to