business, which is to come on again on Friday. I accidentally met Lord Dartmouth yesterday morning at Mr. Wilmot's. Without entering into the particular measures in question, he stated, with great fairness and with very little reserve, the difficulties of his situation, the unalterableness of his principles, and his determination to cover America from the present storm, to the utmost of his power, even to repealing the act; which I urged to him as the most expedient step, the first moment he could bring his colleagues to listen to such a measure. This, together with Lord North's language, which Colonel Barré tells me was of a moderate cast, leads me to hope the further measures will not be so hostile as was expected.[1]
| · | · | · | · | · | · |
April 4th, 1774.
"The Port Bill underwent a fuller, and by all accounts a fairer, discussion on Tuesday in the House of Lords than it did in the House of Commons. The debate took a general turn; and Lord Camden, in his reply to Lord Mansfield, met the question fully, and even as near the extent of his former principles as he could well do. The remarkable features of the day were the notorious division among the Ministry, which was very near avowed, some calling what passed in Boston commotion, others open rebellion, a more than disregard to Lord Dartmouth, and somewhat of the same sort towards Lord North. Lord Mansfield took upon himself a considerable lead: alleged that it was the last overt act of high treason, proceeding from over-lenity and want of foresight; that it was, however, the luckiest event that could befall this country, for that all might be recovered; compensation to the India Company he regarded as no object of the bill; that if this Act passed, we should be passed the Rubicon; that the Americans would then know that we should temporize no longer; and if it passed with tolerable unanimity, Boston would submit, and all would pass sine cæde.
"The House allowed me very patiently, though
- ↑ Shelburne to Chatham, March 15th, 1774.
