52 Memoirs of the late Duke of scion 
niftration, by way of elucidating this re- 
mark : 
* T remember,” faid his Grace, “ at 
that period a Bull was brought into this 
Nae to prevent the members from be- 
* {ereened for therr debts. I heartily 
auasatd to this Bill upon principle, and 
had the honour of being joined by the 
Noble Lord at the head of the Treafury. 
On the divition, the Noes, as ufual, went 
below the bar; when, milling their lead- 
er, they turned fhort, and were much 
furprifed to fee him on the other fide. 
‘The late Charles Townshend,” added he 
“ remarked on a fimilar circumftance 
he would hold two to one that, in lefs 
than a year,.thofe very members who 
had then divided againft him, would 
creep under the table to join him ; and 
had he been taken up, he would have 
won his wager.” 
On the 7th of February in the fame 
year, during a debate on the American 
afiairs, his Grace complained “ of the 
inflammatory and ill-grounded reprefen- 
tations of alearned and noble Lerd (Earl 
Mansfield), who bad laboured all in his 
power to miilead the Houle, by endea- 
Vouring to prove that the Colonies were 
in rebellion ; an affertion,” it was added, 
“in-every point of view, big with the 
moti horrible and direful confequences ; ‘ 
an: affertion which, as foon as fan¢tified 
by a vote of both Houtes, authorifed 
every fpecies of rapme, plunder, maf- 
facre, and perfeecution whatever.” 
A Prelate (Dr. John Winckcliffe, then 
Bithop of Peterborough) having fpoken 
foon after in favour of coercion, ‘the fame 
Nobleman rofe to obferve, “ that he 
thought it was extremely i improper for the 
Right Reverend Bench to take -any part 
on the prefent oecution, or to be at all 
acceflory to the fhedding of the blood of 
their fellow-creatures and fellow-fubjeéis. 
Jt would be much fitter, if they interfered 
at all, to act as mediators, rather than 
as pcrfecutors; more conbietit with the 
principles they profefied to teach, and 
alfo more particularly fuited to the ee 
functions they were called upon to dif 
charge.” He added, “ that, by the {pe- 
cimien now given, he thould not be fur- 
prifed to fee the lawn-fleeves upon thofe 
benches, ttained with the blood of their 
innocent and oppreffed countrymen on 
the other fide bf the Atlantic.” 
On the opening of the next feffion, 
(26th of October, 1775), the fpinit and 
numbers of the Oppofition feem to. have 
increafed, and the Prelate above-men- 
tioned acceded to the amendment to the 
freech, propofed by the Marquis of Rock- 
ingham. The Duke of Richmond on this 
[ Feb, 1, 
occafion, again reminded the Adminiftra- 
tion of the fate that awaited the country: 
in confequence of their perfeverence. 
He at the fame time-inftanced the action 
at Bunker’s Hill, as a proof of the bra-— 
very of the Atnericans, denied the fupe- 
riority of numbers to have been on their 
fide, and oblerved, “‘ that he never re- 
collected any other inftance where lines 
had been forced, and no prifoners taken 
but fuch as were wounded.” 
Having remarked foon after, © that he 
did not think the people of America in 
rebellion, but merely refiitmg aéts of 
the moft unexampled ‘cruelty and oppref- 
fion,” the Earl of Denbigh rofe, and 
« openly contended, that thofe who de- 
fended rebellion, were themfelves little 
better than rebels; and that there was 
very little difference between the traitor 
and he who openly or privately abetted 
treafon.” In reply to this he was told 
by the noble Duke, “ that he was ot to 
be intimidated or deterred from his duty 
by loud words, and that he would not 
retract a fingle iota he had uttered on this 
occafion.” 
On the 5th of March, 1776, the Duke 
of Richmond moved, ‘ That an humble 
addrefs be prefented to his Majefty, pray~ 
ing that he would be gracioully, pleatea 
to countermand the march of the troops 
of Hefle, Hanau, and Brunfwick, and 
likewile give directions for an immediate 
fufpention of hofiilities in America, in 
order to lay a foundation for a happy and 
perinanent reconciliation between the 
contending parties of this diftracted ems 
pire.’ 
In the courfe of this debate he ob- 
ferved, among a variety of other parti- 
culars, that a very ingenious gentleman 
(Mr. Mauduit) had coniputed, during the | 
German war, that every French, fcalp 
coft the nation ten thoufand pounds ; 
and he wifhed noble Lords to edlimate, 
by the fame rule, what an Americon 
{calp would coft, reckoning, 17,000 fo- 
reiners at the rate of one millioy anda 
half per annum. 
“ Much firefs, he underftood, had been 
laid on the jultice and popularity of the 
prefent meatures; he ithould- not, how- 
ever, debate that fubject now. It was 
faid that the independent part of the na- 
tion was for them; but, for his part, he 
quettioned the affertion firongly, in the 
extent it was contended for. In the 
other Houfe, he was informed that the ~ 
avy (Sir Gilbort El - 
Treafurer of the N 
liot), and the Paymatier of the Forces 
(Mr. Rigby), the one deriving his fup- 
port. and confequence trom the Cabinet, 
and the other from his partys and: hoth 
, 
‘ - deeply 
