[
369]
prejudged the case, and, if it had been adopted,
would have pledged parliament in advance to the policy of coercion.
Grafton opposed the amendment, purposely avoiding the merits of the question till the house should be properly possessed of it by the production of papers.
Of these, Dartmouth added that the most important related to
New-York, and had been received within four or five days.
Rockingham was dumb.
Shelburne alone, unsupported by a single peer, intimated plainly his inclination for a repeal of the law. ‘Before we resolve upon rash measures,’ said he, ‘we should consider first the expediency of the law, and next our power to enforce it. The wisest legislators have been mistaken.
The laws of
Carolina, though planned by
Shaftesbury and
Locke, were found impracticable, and are now grown obsolete.
The
Romans planted colonies to increase their power; we to extend our commerce.
Let the regiments in
America, at
Halifax, or
Pensacola, embark at once upon the same destination, and no intervening accident disappoint the expedition, what could be effected against colonies so populous, and of such magnitude and extent?
The colonies may be ruined first, but the distress will end with ourselves’
But
Halifax,
Sandwich,
Gower, even Temple,
Lyttelton, and
Bedford, firmly supported the amendment of
Suffolk.
‘Protection, without dependence and obedience,’ they joined in saying,
is a solecism in politics.
The connection between Great Britain and her colonies is that of parent and child.
For the parent not to correct the undutiful child would argue weakness.
The duty to enforce obedience cannot be given up, because the
