of contradictions, this Ministry have sent out Commissioners to give up taxation and all expectation of a revenue, and to make peace without any notion of conditions. So far from expecting that the Rebels should lay down their arms, they are to treat; I will not use the word “confer”—I detest all quibbles, unworthy the lowest pettyfogging attorney— they are to treat with Rebels, whether they lay down their arms, or meet them in arms and array of arms. He then, with much wit, described these double Commissioners, warring and treating, offering pardons both general and special when they were beat, and plundering and carrying fire and devastation into those quarters where they were to give peace.

Mr. Vyner declared, that the landed gentlemen came into these measures in support of the sovereignty of the realm, and in expectation of a revenue from America in aid of the common burden; the refusal of which was the first step to revolt in the Americans, and the establishing of which was the fixed and determined object of the war. That, in these expectations, they had cheerfully come into the granting every supply which had been demanded; had fixed upon their estates a four shillings tax in the pound, which must last forever; but he now found they had been amused; that they had been led into a fine scrape; for all these were now to be given up without consulting, without even communication with Parliament. That it was now time to be explicit; it was now time to declare, that they could not go on any further with such Ministers, unless they abided by the plan which these Ministers first held out to them, and on which the country gentlemen joined them.

Lord North said taxation was not to be given up: it was to be enforced; but whether at present, or hereafter, was a point of policy which the Commissioners would learn, by sounding the people upon the spot.

Mr. Fox. According to the noble Lord’s explanation, Lord Howe and his brother are to be sent out as spies, not as Commissioners; that if they cannot get on shore, they are to sound upon the coasts. On the point of taxation, the ingenuity of the noble Lord has now reconciled what gentlemen might think absolute contradiction. Parliament, on one hand, pledged by Lord Hillsborough, and the Royal word on the other were pledged by Lord Botetourt from the seat of Government, that no future tax shall be levied; and this promise is to be kept sacred. Yet the country gentlemen are promised a revenue. The tea duty—the only tax you have—makes no revenue. Yet a revenue must be had from America; and if the Americans will not of themselves give a revenue, we must tax them, says that sweet essence of wisdom the Conciliatory motion. Lord Hillsborough’s letter and Lord Botetourt’s speech, have promised, even by sacred word, that we never shall lay any future taxes. But a revenue must be had, and we must tax. The object, therefore, of the war is the tea tax, which neither does or ever will raise any revenue. But it is a tax, and therefore, according to the noble Lord’s logick, we tax them. But it is no new tax, and therefore we keep our word. There cannot be a tax without a revenue, and therefore the country gentlemen must be satisfied, for if it does not raise so much as they expect, that is not the noble Lord’s fault. And upon this curious bead-roll of syllogisms, we are to prosecute a ruinous war, or to make a shameful peace. He then ridiculed the inconsistency of the two plans of war and treaty, and the difference of rebellions.

Mr. Adam objected to the motion; blamed the whole conduct of Lord North; and gave, as his reason for opposing the motion, that he conceived, if the noble Lord should affect to give way to it, it would be only to gain a previous sanction to a plan which, in the situation, and under the circumstances, to which he had, by his conduct, brought the affairs of this country, it was, perhaps, right he should try, in order to extricate himself; but that Parliament, which had no share in the conduct which brought matters to this pass, ought to have no concern in this shift. He, for his part, would never agree to anything which should preclude him, or might preclude Parliament, from a full liberty of censuring the conduct of the noble Lord when it came to be compared in the issue, with the effect of which it must be the cause, and for which it must be responsible. He therefore desired that the Minister might either stand or fall by his own measures.

Mr. T. Townshend observed that Parliament had talked in a high strain against America; but what Parliament thought or resolved one way or the other, was of very little consequence, for Administration would act just as they liked. Parliament, instead of taking the lead, was at length degraded into a mere engine of Government, one day to bully, another to conciliate, and the next, he foresaw, would be to sue for terms to America. Such was the case a few years back, in the case of Lord Hillsborough’s circulatory letter to the Colonies: while Parliament was asserting the supremacy of this country, and the unlimited, unconditional right of taxation over America, this letter contained the most specifick declaration that no tax whatever should ever be laid on that country. He said, however, that the letter was productive of much worse consequences than barely contradicting the sense of Parliament; a British Administration was no longer to be relied on, for the solemn engagement for his Majesty to three millions of his subjects was no sooner made than it was shamefully violated. What dependance, then, could America have on any future promise? How could she trust to the sincerity of our professions, when all Administration had to do would be to get Parliament to overrule them, or remove the Minister under whose immediate directions the faith of the nation had been pledged? This was precisely the case with the letter in question. America rested satisfied with the assurances it contained; and when the system was to be changed, the Minister was removed, and his engagement on the part of this nation set at nought, as a mere unauthorized act of office.

Mr. Powys thought that a noble Lord’s expression, of unconditional submission, ought to be explained.

Lord George Germaine denied that he ever said he should require an unconditional submission. He did say, that he never wished to see the Government of this country treating with its Colonies while they were at arms against it. He then quoted the act of Parliament, and reasoning from that, showed that whatever turn might be given, or what constructions might be made from particular or vague expressions, the fact was, that no commission nor instructions, formed on the basis of that act, could ever mean to send out Commissioners to treat with Rebels in arms. The powers of the commission empowered the Commissioners to restore either whole Colonies, or any bodies of them, or even individuals, to the King’s peace, whenever they returned to their duty. The Commanders, both by sea and land, were to carry on war against Rebels in arms; how, then, could they treat with them? If there appeared, in any one Colony or individual, a desire of returning to duty; if they or he could be received into the King’s peace and have pardon, the commission enables the Commissioners to confer, and to encourage such dispositions in order to give peace. Thus far the noble Lord on the same bench [Lord North] is justified in what he said. But he did not, he never could mean that the Commissioners were to treat on the terms of the submission of the Colonies, on the terms of their duty to the supreme legislature, or on the right of taxation. This legislature cannot, the act of Parliament does not, give up the sovereignty of the supreme legislature; cannot and does not give up the right of taxation. No instruction can authorize any one ever to treat about these objects. And unless we give up all these, a revenue, some way or other, must be had from America, as from a part, in common aid of the whole. This was what the noble Lord intended, and this, I venture to say, as pledging the noble Lord’s opinion.

Colonel Barrè;. The noble Lord says that the Commissioners cannot treat till the Rebels have laid down their arms. Does the act of Parliament mention any conditions upon which, laying down their arms, they are to be received into the King’s peace? Has the noble Lord mentioned any conditions? What, then, signifies all these distinctions in debate? In fact, their submission must be unconditional.

Governour Johnstone closed the debate by insisting upon it that the noble Lord [Lord George Germaine] had, in express terms, required unconditional submission. That the Lord in the blue ribbon [Lord North] was for treaty and conciliation almost on any conditions, so that Great Britain could derive any advantage from it. That these opinions were totally and absolutely irreconcilable. What might be