I Agree with the Honourable Gentleman^* who ſpoke laſt, that this ſubject is not new in this Houſe. Very diſagreeably to this Houſe, very unfortunately to this Nation, and to the peace and proſperity of this whole Empire, no topic has been more familiar to us. For nine long years, ſeſſion after ſeſſion, we have been laſhed round and round this miſerable circle of occaſional arguments and temporary expedients. I am ſure our heads muſt turn, and our ſtomachs nauſeate with them. We have had them in every ſhape; we have looked at them in every point of view. Invention is ex⯑hauſted; reaſon is fatigued; experience has given judgement; but obſtinacy is not yet conquered.

The Hon. Gentleman has made one endeavour more to diverſify the form of this diſguſting argument. He has thrown out a ſpeech com⯑poſed almoſt entirely of challenges. Challenges are ſerious things; and as he is a man of prudence as well as reſolution, I dare ſay he has very well weighed thoſe challenges before he delivered them. I had long the happineſs to ſit at the ſame ſide of the Houſe, and to agree with the Hon. Gentleman on all the American queſtions. My ſen⯑timents, I am ſure, are well known to him; and I thought I had been perfectly acquainted with his. Though I find myſelf miſta⯑ken, he will ſtill permit me to uſe the privilege of an old friend⯑ſhip; he will permit me to apply myſelf to the Houſe under the ſanction of his authority; and, on the various grounds he has meaſured out, to ſubmit to you the poor opinions which I have formed, upon a matter of importance enough to demand the fulleſt conſideration I could beſtow upon it.

He has ſtated to the Houſe two grounds of deliberation; one narrow and ſimple, and merely confined to the queſtion on your paper: the other more large and more complicated; comprehending the whole ſeries of the parliamentary proceedings with regard to [3] America, their cauſes, and their conſequences. With regard to the latter ground, he ſtates it as uſeleſs, and thinks it may be even dan⯑gerous, to enter into ſo extenſive a field of enquiry. Yet, to my ſur⯑prize, he had hardly laid down this reſtrictive propoſition, to which his authority would have given ſo much weight, when directly, and with the ſame authority, he condemns it; and declares it abſolutely neceſſary to enter into the moſt ample hiſtorical detail. His zeal has thrown him a little out of his uſual accuracy. In this perplexity what ſhall we do, Sir, who are willing to ſubmit to the law he gives us? He has reprobated in one part of his ſpeech the rule he had laid down for debate in the other; and, after narrowing the ground for all thoſe who are to ſpeak after him; he takes an excurſion himſelf, as unbounded as the ſubject and the extent of his great abilities.

Sir, When I cannot obey all his laws, I will do the beſt I can. I will endeavour to obey ſuch of them as have the ſanction of his example; and to ſtick to that rule, which, though not conſiſtent with the other, is the moſt rational. He was certainly in the right when he took the matter largely. I cannot prevail on my⯑ſelf to agree with him in his cenſure of his own conduct. It is not, he will give me leave to ſay, either uſeleſs or dangerous. He aſſerts, that retroſpect is not wiſe; and the proper, the only proper, ſubject of enquiry is, ‘"not how we got into this difficulty, but how we are to get out of it."’ In other words, we are, according to him, to conſult our invention, and to reject our experience. The mode of deliberation he recommends is diametrically oppoſite to every rule of reaſon, and every principle of good ſenſe eſtabliſhed amongſt mankind. For, that ſenſe and that reaſon, I have always underſtood, abſolutely to preſcribe, whenever we are involved in difficulties from the meaſures we have purſued, that we ſhould take a ſtrict review of thoſe meaſures, in order to correct our errors if they ſhould be corrigible; or at leaſt to avoid a dull uniformity in miſchief, and the unpitied calamity of being repeatedly caught in the ſame ſnare.

Sir, I will freely follow the Hon. Gentleman in his hiſto⯑rical diſcuſſion, without the leaſt management for men or meaſures, further than as they ſhall ſeem to me to deſerve it. But before I [4] go into that large conſideration, becauſe I would omit nothing that can give the Houſe ſatisfaction, I wiſh to tread the narrow ground to which alone the Hon. Gentleman, in one part of his ſpeech has ſo ſtrictly confined us.

He deſires to know, whether, if we were to repeal this tax, agreeably to the propoſition of the Hon. Gentleman who made the motion, the Americans would not take poſt on this con⯑ceſſion, in order to make a new attack on the next body of taxes; and whether they would not call for a repeal of the duty on wine as loudly as they do now for the repeal of the duty on tea? Sir, I can give no ſecurity on this ſubject. But I will do all that I can, and all that can be fairly demanded. To the experience which the Hon. Gentleman reprobates in one inſtant, and reverts to in the next; to that experience, without the leaſt wavering or heſita⯑tion on my part, I ſteadily appeal; and would to God there was no other arbiter to decide on the vote with which the Houſe is to conclude this day.

When Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in the year 1766, I affirm, firſt, that the Americans did not in conſequence of this meaſure call upon you to give up the former parliamentary revenue which ſubſiſted in that Country; or even any one of the articles which compoſe it. I affirm alſo, that when, departing from the maxims of that repeal, you revived the ſcheme of taxation, and thereby filled the minds of the Coloniſts with new jealouſy, and all ſorts of apprehenſions, then it was that they quarreled with the old taxes, as well as the new; then it was, and not till then, that they queſtioned all the parts of your legiſlative power; and by the battery of ſuch queſtions have ſhaken the ſolid ſtructure of this Empire to its deepeſt foundations.

Of thoſe two propoſitions I ſhall, before I have done, give ſuch convincing, ſuch damning proof, that however the contrary may be whiſpered in circles, or bawled in news-papers, they never more will dare to raiſe their voices in this Houſe. I ſpeak with great confidence. I have reaſon for it. The Miniſters are with me. They at leaſt are convinced that the repeal of the Stamp Act had [5] not, and that no repeal can have, the conſequences which the Hon. Gentleman who defends their meaſures is ſo much alarmed at. To their conduct, I refer him for a concluſive anſwer to his objection. I carry my proof irreſiſtibly into the very body of both Miniſtry and Parliament; not on any general reaſoning growing out of collateral matter, but on the conduct of the Hon. Gentleman's miniſterial friends on the new revenue it⯑ſelf.

The Act of 1767, which grants this ten duty, ſets forth in its preamble, that it was expedient to raiſe a revenue in America, for the ſupport of the civil government there as well as for purpoſes ſtill more extenſive. To this ſupport the Act aſſigns ſix branches of du⯑ties. About two years after this Act paſſed, the Miniſtry, I mean the preſent Miniſtry, thought it expedient to repeal five of the duties, and to leave (for reaſons beſt known to themſelves) only the ſixth ſtand⯑ing. Suppoſe any perſon, at the time of that repeal, had thus ad⯑dreſſed the Miniſter^*, ‘"Condemning, as you do, the repeal of the Stamp Act, Why do you venture to repeal the duties upon glaſs, paper, and painters colours? Let your pretence for the repeal be what it will, are you not thoroughly convinced, that your conceſſions will produce, not ſatisfaction, but inſolence in the Americans; and that the giving up theſe taxes will neceſſitate the giving up of all the reſt?"’ This objection was as palpable then as it is now; and it was as good for preſerving the five duties as for retaining the ſixth. Beſides, the Miniſter will recollect, that the repeal of the Stamp Act had but juſt preceded his repeal; and the ill policy of that meaſure (had it been ſo impolitic as it has been repreſented), and the miſchiefs it produced, were quite recent. Upon the principles therefore of the Hon. Gentleman, upon the principles of the Miniſter himſelf, the Miniſter has nothing at all to anſwer. He ſtands condemned by himſelf, and by all his aſſociates old and new, as a deſtroyer, in the firſt truſt of finance, of the revenues; and in the firſt rank of honour, as a betrayer of the dignity of his Country.

Moſt men, eſpecially great men, do not always know their well-wiſhers. I come to reſcue that Noble Lord out of the hands [6] of thoſe he calls his friends; and even out of his own. I will do him the juſtice, he is denied at home. He has not been this wicked or imprudent man. He knew that a repeal had no ten⯑dency to produce the miſchiefs which give ſo much alarm to his Honourable friend. His work was not bad in its principle, but imperfect in its execution; and the motion on your paper preſſes him only to compleat a proper plan, which, by ſome unfortunate and unaccountable error, he had left unfiniſhed.

I hope, Sir, the Hon. Gentleman who ſpoke laſt, is tho⯑roughly ſatisfied, and ſatisfied out of the proceedings of Miniſtry on their own favourite Act, that his fears from a repeal are ground⯑leſs. If he is not, I leave him, and the Noble Lord who ſits by him, to ſettle the matter, as well as they can, together; for if the repeal of American taxes deſtroys all our government in America—He is the man!—and he is the worſt of all the repealers, becauſe he is the laſt.

But I hear it rung continually in my ears, now and formerly,—‘"the Preamble! what will become of the Preamble, if you repeal this Tax?"’—I am ſorry to be compelled ſo often to expoſe the calamities and diſgraces of Parliament. The preamble of this law, ſtanding as it now ſtands, has the lie direct given to it by the proviſionary part of the Act; if that can be called proviſionary which makes no proviſion. I ſhould be afraid to expreſs myſelf in this manner, eſpecially in the face of ſuch a formidable array of ability as is now drawn up before me, compoſed of the antient houſehold troops of that ſide of the Houſe, and the new recruits from this, if the matter were not clear and indiſputable. Nothing but truth could give me this firmneſs; but plain truth and clear evidence can be beat down by no ability. The Clerk will be ſo good as to turn to the Act, and to read this favourite preamble.

[7]You have heard this pompous performance. Now where is the revenue which is to do all theſe mighty things? Five ſixths re⯑pealed—abandoned—ſunk—gone—loſt for ever. Does the poor ſolitary tea duty ſupport the purpoſes of this preamble? Is not the ſupply there ſtated as effectually abandoned as if the tea duty had periſhed in the general wreck? Here, Mr. Speaker, is a precious mockery—a preamble without an act—taxes granted in order to be repealed—and the reaſons of the grant ſtill carefully kept up! This is raiſing a revenue in America! This is pre⯑ſerving dignity in England! If you repeal this tax in compliance with the motion, I readily admit that you loſe this fair preamble. Eſtimate your loſs in it. The object of the act is gone already; and all you ſuffer is the purging the Statute-book of the oppro⯑brium of an empty, abſurd, and falſe recital.

It has been ſaid again and again, that the five Taxes were re⯑pealed on commercial principles. It is ſo ſaid in the paper in my hand^*; a paper which I conſtantly carry about; which I have often uſed, and ſhall often uſe again. What is got by this paltry pretence of commercial principles I know not; for, if your govern⯑ment in America is deſtroyed by the repeal of Taxes, it is of no conſequence upon what ideas the repeal is grounded. Repeal this Tax too upon commercial principles if you pleaſe. Theſe principles will ſerve as well now as they did formerly. But you know that, either your Objection to a repeal from theſe ſuppoſed conſequences has no validity, or that this pretence never could remove it. This commercial motive never was believed by any man, either in Ame⯑rica, which this Letter is meant to ſoothe, or in England, which it is meant to deceive. It was impoſſible it ſhould. Becauſe every man, in the leaſt acquainted with the detail of Commerce, muſt know, that ſeveral of the articles on which the Tax was repealed were fitter objects of Duties than almoſt any other articles that could poſſibly be choſen; without compariſon more ſo, than the Tea that was left taxed; as infinitely leſs liable to be eluded by contraband. The Tax upon Red and White Lead was of this na⯑ture. You have, in this kingdom, an advantage in Lead, that [8] amounts to a monopoly. When you find yourſelf in this ſituation of advantage, you ſometimes venture to tax even your own export. You did ſo, ſoon after the laſt war; when, upon this principle, you ventured to impoſe a duty on Coals. In all the articles of Ame⯑rican contraband trade who ever heard of the ſmuggling of Red Lead, and White Lead? You might, therefore, well enough, with⯑out danger of contraband, and without injury to Commerce (if this were the whole conſideration) have taxed theſe commodities. The ſame may be ſaid of Glaſs. Beſides ſome of the things taxed were ſo trivial, that the loſs of the objects themſelves and their utter annihilation out of American Commerce, would have been comparatively as nothing. But is the article of Tea ſuch an object in the Trade of England, as not to be felt, or felt but ſlightly, like White Lead, and Red Lead, and Painters Colours? Tea is an object of far other importance. Tea is perhaps the moſt im⯑portant object, taking it with its neceſſary connections, of any in the mighty circle of our Commerce. If commercial principles had been the true motives to the Repeal, or had they been at all attended to, Tea would have been the laſt article we ſhould have left taxed for a ſubject of controverſy.

Sir, it is not a pleaſant conſideration; but nothing in the world can read ſo awful and ſo inſtructive a leſſon, as the conduct of Miniſtry in this buſineſs, upon the miſchief of not having large and liberal ideas in the management of great affairs. Never have the ſer⯑vants of the ſtate looked at the whole of your complicated intereſts in one connected view. They have taken things, by bits and ſcraps, ſome at one time and one pretence, and ſome at another, juſt as they preſſed, without any ſort of regard to their relations or de⯑pendencies. They never had any kind of ſyſtem, right or wrong; but only invented occaſionally ſome miſerable tale for the day, in order meanly to ſneak out of difficulties, into which they had proudly ſtrutted. And they were put to all theſe ſhifts and devices, full of meaneſs and full of miſchief, in order to pilfer piecemeal a repeal of an act, which they had not the generous courage, when they found and felt their error, honourably and fairly to diſclaim. By ſuch management, by the irreſiſtible operation of feeble coun⯑cils, ſo paltry a ſum as three-pence in the eyes of a financier, ſo [9] inſignificant an article as tea in the eyes of a philoſopher, have ſhaken the pillars of a Commercial Empire that circled the whole globe.

Do you forget that, in the very laſt year, you ſtood on the precipice of general bankruptcy? Your danger was indeed great. You were diſtreſſed in the affairs of the Eaſt India Company; and you well know what ſort of things are involved in the compre⯑henſive energy of that ſignificant appellation. I am not called upon to enlarge to you on that danger, which you thought proper yourſelves to aggravate, and to diſplay to the world with all the pa⯑rade of indiſcreet declamation. The monopoly of the moſt lucrative trades, and the poſſeſſion of imperial revenues, had brought you to the verge of beggary and ruin. Such was your repreſentation—ſuch, in ſome meaſure, was your caſe. The vent of Ten Millions of pounds of this commodity, now locked up by the operation of an injudicious Tax, and rotting in the warehouſes of the Company, would have prevented all this diſtreſs, and all that ſeries of deſperate meaſures which you thought yourſelves obliged to take in conſequence of it. America would have furniſhed that vent, which no other part of the world can furniſh but America; where Tea is next to a neceſſary of life; and where the demand grows upon the ſupply. I hope our dear-bought Eaſt India Committees have done us at leaſt ſo much good, as to let us know, that without a more extenſive ſale of that article our Eaſt India revenues and acquiſitions can have no certain connection with this country. It is through the American trade of Tea that your Eaſt India conqueſts are to be prevented from cruſhing you with their burthen. They are ponderous indeed; and they muſt have that great country to lean upon, or they tumble upon your head. It is the ſame folly that has loſt you at once the benefit of the Weſt and of the Eaſt. This folly has thrown open folding-doors to contraband; and will be the means of giving the profits of the trade of your colonies, to every nation but yourſelves. Never did a people ſuffer ſo much for the empty words of a preamble. It muſt be given up. For on what prin⯑ciple does it ſtand? This famous revenue ſtands, at this hour, on all the debate, as a deſcription of revenue not as yet known in all the comprehenſive (but too comprehenſive!) vocabulary of finance—a [10] preambulary tax. It is indeed a tax of ſophiſtry, a tax of pedantry, a tax of diſputation, a tax of war and rebellion, a tax for any thing but benefit to the impoſers, or ſatisfaction to the ſubject.

Well! but whatever it is, gentlemen will force the Coloniſts to take the Teas. You will force them? has ſeven years ſtruggle been yet able to force them? O but it ſeems ‘"we are in the right.—The tax is trifling—in effect it is rather an exoneration than an impoſition; three-fourths of the duty formerly payable on teas exported to America is taken off; the place of col⯑lection is only ſhifted; inſtead of the retention of a ſhilling from the draw-back here, it is three-pence cuſtom paid in America."’ All this, Sir, is very true. But this is the very folly and miſchief of the act. Incredible as it may ſeem, you know, that you have deliberately thrown away a large duty which you held ſecure and quiet in your hands, for the vain hope of getting one three-fourths leſs, through every hazard, through certain litigation, and poſſibly through war.

The manner of proceeding in the duties on paper and glaſs im⯑poſed by the ſame act, was exactly in the ſame ſpirit. There are heavy exciſes on thoſe articles when uſed in England. On export theſe exciſes are drawn back. But inſtead of withholding the draw-back, which might have been done, with eaſe, without charge, without poſſibility of ſmuggling; and inſtead of applying the money (money already in your hands) according to your plea⯑ſure, you began your operations in finance by flinging away your revenue; you allowed the whole draw-back on export, and then you charged the duty, (which you had before diſcharged,) payable in the Colonies; where it was certain the collection would devour it to the bone; if any revenue were ever ſuffered to be collected at all. One ſpirit pervades and animates the whole maſs.

Could any thing be a ſubject of more juſt alarm to America, than to ſee you go out of the plain high road of finance, and give up your moſt certain revenues and your cleareſt intereſts, merely for the ſake of inſulting your Colonies? No man ever doubted that the commodity of tea could bear an impoſition of three-pence. But [11] no commodity will bear three-pence, or will bear a penny, when the general feelings of men are irritated, and two millions of people are reſolved not to pay. The feelings of the Colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain. Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden when called upon for the payment of twenty ſhillings. Would twenty ſhillings have ruined Mr. Hamp⯑den's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty ſhillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a ſlave. It is the weight of that preamble, of which you are ſo fond, and not the weight of the duty, that the Americans are unable and unwill⯑ing to bear.

It is then, Sir, upon the principle of this meaſure, and nothing elſe, that we are at iſſue. It is a principle of political expediency. Your act of 1767 aſſerts, that it is expedient to raiſe a revenue in America; your act of 1769, which takes away that revenue, contra⯑dicts the act of 1767; and, by ſomething much ſtronger than words, aſſerts, that it is not expedient. It is a reflexion upon your wiſdom to perſiſt in a ſolemn parliamentary declaration of the expediency of any object, for which, at the ſame time, you make no ſort of proviſion. And pray, Sir, let not this circumſtance eſcape you; it is very ma⯑terial; that the preamble of this act, which we wiſh to repeal, is not declaratory of a right, as ſome gentlemen ſeem to argue it; it is only a recital of the expediency of a certain exerciſe of a right ſuppoſed already to have been aſſerted; an exerciſe you are now contending for by ways and means, which you confeſs, though they were obeyed, to be utterly inſufficient for their purpoſe. You are there⯑fore at this moment in the aukward ſituation of fighting for a phan⯑tom; a quiddity; a thing that wants, not only a ſubſtance, but even a name; for a thing, which is neither abſtract right, nor profitable enjoyment.

They tell you, Sir, that your dignity is tied to it. I know not how it happens, but this dignity of yours is a terrible incumbrance to you; for it has of late been ever at war with your intereſt, your equity, and every idea of your policy. Shew the thing you con⯑tend for to be reaſon; ſhew it to be common ſenſe; ſhew it to be the means of attaining ſome uſeful end; and then I am content to allow it what dignity you pleaſe. But what dignity is derived from [12] the perſeverance in abſurdity is more than ever I could diſcern. The Hon. Gentleman has ſaid well—indeed, in moſt of his general obſervations I agree with him—he ſays, that this ſubject does not ſtand as it did formerly. Oh, certainly not! every hour you con⯑tinue on this ill-choſen ground, your difficulties thicken on you; and therefore my concluſion is, remove from a bad poſition as quickly as you can. The diſgrace, and the neceſſity of yielding, both of them, grow upon you every hour of your delay.

But will you repeal the act, ſays the Hon. Gentleman, at this inſtant when America is in open reſiſtance to your authority, and that you have juſt revived your ſyſtem of taxation? He thinks he has driven us into a corner. But thus pent up, I am content to meet him; becauſe I enter the liſts ſupported by my old authority, his new friends, the miniſters themſelves. The Hon. Gentleman remembers, that about five years ago as great diſturbances as the preſent prevailed in America on account of the new taxes. The mi⯑niſters repreſented theſe diſturbances as treaſonable; and this Houſe thought proper, on that repreſentation, to make a famous addreſs for a revival, and for a new application of a ſtatute of H. VIII. We beſought the King, in that well-conſidered addreſs, to enquire into treaſons, and to bring the ſuppoſed traytors from America to Great Britain for trial. His Majeſty was pleaſed graciouſly to promiſe a compliance with our requeſt. All the attempts from this ſide of the Houſe to reſiſt theſe violences, and to bring about a repeal, were treated with the utmoſt ſcorn. An apprehenſion of the very conſequences now ſtated by the Hon. Gentleman, was then given as a reaſon for ſhutting the door againſt all hope of ſuch an alteration. And ſo ſtrong was the ſpirit for ſupporting the new taxes, that the ſeſſion concluded with the following remarkable declaration. After ſtating the vigorous meaſures which had been purſued, the Speech from the throne proceeds:

[13]After this no man dreamt that a repeal under this miniſtry could poſſibly take place. The Hon. Gentleman knows as well as I, that the idea was utterly exploded by thoſe who ſway the Houſe. This Speech was made on the ninth day of May, 1769. Five days after this Speech, that is, on the 13th of the ſame month, the public Circular Letter, a part of which I am going to read to you, was written by Lord Hillſborough, Secretary of State for the Colonies. After reciting the ſubſtance of the King's Speech, he goes on thus:

Here, Sir, is a canonical book of miniſterial ſcripture; the general epiſtle to the Americans. What does the gentleman ſay to it? Here a repeal is promiſed; promiſed without condition; and while your authority was actually reſiſted. I paſs by the public promiſe of a Peer relative to the repeal of taxes by this Houſe. I paſs by the uſe of the King's name in a matter of ſupply, that ſacred and reſerved right of the Commons. I conceal the ridiculous figure of Parlia⯑ment, hurling its thunders at the gigantic rebellion of America; and then five days after, proſtrate at the feet of thoſe aſſemblies we [14] affected to deſpiſe; begging them, by the Intervention of our mini⯑ſterial ſureties, to receive our ſubmiſſion; and heartily promiſing amendment. Theſe might have been ſerious matters formerly; but we are grown wiſer than our fathers. Paſſing, therefore, from the conſtitutional conſideration to the mere policy, does not this Letter imply, that the idea of taxing America for the purpoſe of revenue is an abominable project; when the Miniſtry ſuppoſe none but factious men, and with ſeditious views, could charge them with it? does not this Letter adopt and ſanctify the American diſtinction of taxing for a revenue? does it not formally reject all future tax⯑ation on that principle? does it not ſtate the miniſterial rejection of ſuch principle of taxation, not as the occaſional, but the conſtant opinion of the King's ſervants? does it not ſay (I care not how conſiſtently), but does it not ſay, that their conduct with regard to America has been always governed by this policy? It goes a great deal further. Theſe excellent and truſty ſervants of the King, juſtly fearful leſt they themſelves ſhould have loſt all credit with the world, bring out the image of their gracious Sovereign from the inmoſt and moſt ſacred ſhrine, and they pawn him, as a ſe⯑curity for their promiſes. ‘"His Majeſty relies on your prudence and fidelity for ſuch an explanation of his meaſures."’ Theſe ſentiments of the Miniſter, and theſe meaſures of his Majeſty, can only relate to the principle and practice of taxing for a revenue; and accordingly Lord Botetourt, ſtating it as ſuch, did with great propriety, and in the exact ſpirit of his inſtructions, endeavour to remove the fears of the Virginian aſſembly, leſt the ſentiments, which it ſeems (unknown to the world) had always been thoſe of the Miniſters, and by which their conduct in reſpect to America had been governed, ſhould by ſome poſſible revolution, favourable to wicked American taxers, be hereafter counteracted. He ad⯑dreſſes them in this manner.

A glorious and true character! which (ſince we ſuffer his Mi⯑niſters with impunity to anſwer for his ideas of taxation) we ought to make it our buſineſs to enable his Majeſty to preſerve in all its luſtre. Let him have character, ſince ours is no more! Let ſome part of government be kept in reſpect!

This Epiſtle was not the Letter of Lord Hillſborough ſolely; though he held the official pen. It was the letter of the noble Lord upon the floor^†, and of all the King's then Miniſters, who (with I think the exception of two only) are his Miniſters at this hour. The very firſt news that a Britiſh Parliament heard of what it was to do with the duties which it had given and granted to the King, was by the publication of the votes of American aſ⯑ſemblies. It was in America that your reſolutions were pre-declared. It was from thence that we knew to a certainty, how much exactly, and not a ſcruple more nor leſs, we were to repeal. We were un⯑worthy to be let into the ſecret of our own conduct. The aſſem⯑blies had confidential communications from his Majeſty's confidential ſervants. We were nothing but inſtruments. Do you, after this, wonder that you have no weight and no reſpect in the Colonies? After this, are you ſurprized, that Parliament is every day and every where loſing (I feel it with ſorrow, I utter it with reluctance) that reveren⯑tial affection, which ſo endearing a name of authority ought ever to [16] carry with it; that you are obeyed ſolely from reſpect to the bayo⯑net; and that this Houſe, the ground and pillar of freedom, is itſelf held up only by the under-pinning and clumſy buttreſſes of arbitrary power?

If this dignity, which is to ſtand in the place of juſt policy and common ſenſe, had been conſulted, there was a time for preſerving it, and for reconciling it with any conceſſion. If in the ſeſſion of 1768, that ſeſſion of idle terror and empty menaces, you had, as you were often preſſed to do, repealed theſe taxes, then your ſtrong operations would have come juſtified and enforced, in caſe your conceſſions had been returned by outrages. But, prepoſte⯑rouſly you began with violence; and before terrors could have any effect, either good or bad, your miniſters immediately begged pardon, and promiſed that repeal to the obſtinate Americans which they had refuſed in an eaſy, good-natured, complying Britiſh Parliament. The aſſemblies which had been publicly and avowedly diſſolved for their contumacy, are called together to receive your ſubmiſſion. Your miniſterial directors bluſtered like tragic tyrants here; and then went mumping with a ſore leg in America, cant⯑ing, and whining, and complaining of faction which repreſented them as friends to revenue in the Colonies. I hope nobody in this Houſe will hereafter have the impudence to defend American taxes in the name of Miniſtry. The moment they do, with this letter of attorney in my hand, I will tell them, in the authoriſed terms, they are wretches, ‘"with factious and ſeditious views; ene⯑mies to the peace and proſperity of the Mother Country and the Colonies," and ſubverters "of the mutual affection and confidence on which the glory and ſafety of the Britiſh Empire depend."’

After this letter the queſtion is no more on propriety or dignity. They are gone already. The faith of your Sovereign is pledged for the political principle. The general declaration in the Letter goes to the whole of it. You muſt therefore either abandon the ſcheme of taxing; or you muſt ſend the Miniſters tarred and feathered to America, who dared to hold out the Royal Faith for a renun⯑ciation of all taxes for revenue. Them you muſt puniſh, or this faith you muſt preſerve. The preſervation of this faith is of more conſequence than the duties on red lead, or white lead, or on broken glaſs, or atlas ordinary, or demi-fine, or blue-royal, or baſtard, [17] or fool's-cap, which you have given up, or the three-pence on tea which you retained. The Letter went ſtampt with the public au⯑thority of this kingdom. The inſtructions for the Colony govern⯑ment go under no other ſanction; and America cannot believe, and will not obey you, if you do not preſerve this channel of com⯑munication ſacred. You are now puniſhing the Colonies for acting on diſtinctions, held out by that very Miniſtry which is here ſhining in riches, in favour, and in power; and urging the pu⯑niſhment of the very offence, to which they had themſelves been the tempters.

Sir, if reaſons reſpecting ſimply your own commerce, which is your own convenience, were the ſole grounds of the repeal of the five duties why does Lord Hillſborough, in diſclaiming in the name of the King and Miniſtry their ever having had an intent to tax for revenue, mention it as the means ‘"of reeſtabliſhing the confidence and affection of the Colonies?"’ Is it a way of ſoothing others, to aſſure them that you will take good care of yourſelf? The medium, the only medium, for regaining their affection and confidence is, that you will take off ſomething oppreſſive to their minds. Sir, the Letter ſtrongly enforces that idea; for though the repeal of the taxes is promiſed on commercial principles, yet the means of counteracting ‘"the inſinuations of men with factious and ſeditious views,"’ is by a diſclaimer of the intention of taxing for revenue, as a conſtant inva⯑riable ſentiment and rule of conduct in the government of America.

I remember that the noble Lord on the floor, not in a former debate to be ſure (it would be diſorderly to refer to it, I ſuppoſe I read it ſome where), but the noble Lord was pleaſed to ſay, that he did not conceive how it could enter into the head of man to im⯑poſe ſuch taxes as thoſe of 1767. I mean thoſe taxes which he voted for impoſing, and voted for repealing; as being taxes, contrary to all the principles of commerce, laid on Britiſh Manufactures.

I dare ſay the noble Lord is perfectly well read, becauſe the duty of his particular office requires he ſhould be ſo, in all our revenue laws; and in the policy which is to be collected out of them. Now, Sir, when he had read this act of American re⯑venue, and a little recovered from his aſtoniſhment, I ſuppoſe [18] he made one ſtep retrograde (it is but one) and looked at the act, which ſtands juſt before in the Statute Book. The American revenue act is the forty-fifth chapter; the other to which I refer, is the forty-fourth of the ſame ſeſſion. Theſe two acts are both to the ſame purpoſe; both revenue acts; both taxing out of the kingdom; and both taxing Britiſh manufactures exported. As the 45th is an act for raiſing a revenue in America, the 44th is an act for raiſing a revenue in the Iſle of Man. The two acts perfectly agree in all reſpects, except one. In the act for taxing the Iſle of Man, the noble Lord will find (not, as in the American act, four or five articles) but almoſt the whole body of Bri⯑tiſh manufactures, taxed from two and an half to fifteen per cent. and ſome articles, ſuch as that of ſpirits, a great deal higher. You did not think it uncommercial to tax the whole maſs of your manufactures, and, let me add, your agriculture too; for, I now recollect, Britiſh corn is there alſo taxed up to ten per cent. and this too in the very head-quarters the very citadel of ſmuggling, the Iſle of Man. Now will the noble Lord condeſcend to tell me why he repealed the taxes on your manufactures ſent out to Ame⯑rica, and not the taxes on the manufactures exported to the Iſle of Man? The principle was exactly the ſame, the objects charged in⯑finitely more extenſive, the duties without compariſon higher. Why? why, notwithſtanding all his childiſh pretexts, becauſe the taxes were quietly ſubmitted to in the Iſle of Man; and becauſe they raiſed a flame in America. Your reaſons were political, not commercial. The repeal was made, as Lord Hillſborough's Letter well expreſſes it, to regain‘"the confidence and affection of the Colonies, on which the glory and ſafety of the Britiſh Empire depend."’ A wiſe and juſt motive ſurely, if ever there was ſuch. But the miſchief and diſhonour is, that you have not done what you had given the Colonies juſt cauſe to expect, when your mi⯑niſters diſclaimed the idea of taxes for a revenue. There is nothing ſimple, nothing manly, nothing ingenuous, open, deciſive, or ſteady in the proceding, with regard either to the continuance or the repeal of the taxes. The whole has an air of littleneſs and fraud. The article of tea is ſlurred over in the Circular Letter, as it were by accident—nothing is ſaid of a reſolution either to keep that tax, or to give it up. There is no fair dealing in any part of the tranſaction.

[19]If you mean to follow your true motive and your public faith, give up your tax on tea for raiſing a revenue, the principle of which has, in effect, been diſclaimed in your name; and which produces you no advantage; no, not a penny. Or, if you chooſe to go on with a poor pretence inſtead of a ſolid reaſon, and will ſtill adhere to your cant of commerce, you have ten thouſand times more ſtrong commercial reaſons for giving up this duty on tea, than for abandoning the five others that you have already renounced.

The American conſumption of teas is annually, I believe, worth 300,000 l. at the leaſt farthing. If you urge the American violence as a juſtification of your perſeverance in enforcing this tax, you know that you can never anſwer this plain queſtion—Why did you repeal the others given in the ſame act, whilſt the very ſame violence ſubſiſted?—But you did not find the violence ceaſe upon that occaſion.—No! becauſe the conceſſion was far ſhort of ſatis⯑fying the principle which Lord Hillſborough had abjured; or even the pretence on which the repeal of the other taxes was announced: and becauſe, by enabling the Eaſt India Company to open a ſhop for defeating the American reſolution not to pay that ſpecific tax, you manifeſtly ſhewed a hankering after the principle of the act which you formerly had renounced. Whatever road you take leads to compliance with this motion. It opens to you at the end of every viſto. Your commerce, you policy, your promiſes, your reaſons, your pretences, your conſiſtency, your inconſiſtency—all jointly oblige you to this repeal.

But ſtill it ſticks in our throats, if we go ſo far, the Americans will go farther.—We do not know that. We ought, from expe⯑rience, rather to preſume the contrary. Do we not know for certain, that the Americans are going on as faſt as poſſible, whilſt we refuſe to gratify them? Can they do more, or can they do worſe, if we yield this point? I think this conceſſion will rather fix a turnpike to prevent their further progreſs. It is impoſſible to anſwer for bodies of men. But I am ſure the natural effect of fidelity, clemency, kindneſs in governors, is peace, good-will, order, and [20] eſteem, on the part of the governed. I would certainly, at leaſt, give theſe fair principles a fair trial; which, ſince the making of act to this hour, they never have had.

Sir, the Hon. Gentleman having ſpoken what he thought neceſſary upon the narrow part of the ſubject, I have given him, I hope, a ſatisfactory anſwer. He next preſſes me by a variety of direct challenges and oblique reflexions to ſay ſomething on the hiſtorical part. I ſhall therefore, Sir, open myſelf fully on that important and delicate ſubject; not for the ſake of telling you a long ſtory (which, I know, Mr. Speaker, you are not particularly fond of), but for the ſake of the weighty inſtruction that, I flatter myſelf, will neceſſarily reſult from it. It ſhall not be longer, if I can help it, than ſo ſerious a matter requires.

Permit me then, Sir, to lead your attention very far back; back to the act of navigation; the corner-ſtone of the policy of this country with regard to its colonies. Sir, that policy was, from the beginning, purely commercial; and the commercial ſyſtem was wholly reſtrictive. It was the ſyſtem of a monopoly. No trade was let looſe from that conſtraint, but merely to enable the Coloniſts to diſpoſe of what, in the courſe of your trade, you could not take; or to enable them to diſpoſe of ſuch articles as we forced upon them, and for which, without ſome degree of liberty, they could not pay. Hence all your ſpecific and detailed enumerations: hence the innumerable checks and counter-checks: hence that infinite variety of paper chains by which you bind together this complicated ſyſtem of the Colonies. This principle of com⯑mercial monopoly runs through no leſs than twenty-nine Acts of Parliament, from the year 1660 to the unfortunate period of 1764.

In all thoſe acts the ſyſtem of commerce is eſtabliſhed, as that, from whence alone you propoſed to make the Colonies contribute (I mean directly and by the operation of your ſuperintending le⯑giſlative power) to the ſtrength of the empire. I venture to ſay, that during that whole period, a parliamentary revenue from thence was never once in contemplation. Accordingly in all the number of laws paſſed with regard to the Plantations, the [21] words which diſtinguiſh revenue laws, ſpecifically as ſuch, were, I think, premeditately avoided. I do not ſay, Sir, that a form of words alters the nature of the law, or abridges the power of the lawgiver. It certainly does not. However title, and formal preambles are not always idle words; and the lawyers frequently argue from them. I ſtate theſe facts to ſhew, not what was your right, but what has been your ſettled policy, Our revenue laws have uſually a title, purporting their being grants, and the words give and grant uſually precede the enacting parts. Although duties were impoſed on America in Acts of King Charles the Second, and in Acts of King William, no one title of giving ‘"an aid to His Majeſty,"’ or any other of the uſual titles to revenue acts, was to be found in any of them till 1764, nor were the words ‘"give and grant"’ in any preamble until the 6th of George the Second. However the title of this Act of George the Second, notwithſtanding the words of donation, conſiders it merely as a regulation of trade, ‘"An Act for the better ſecur⯑ing of the trade of His Majeſty's Sugar Colonies in America."’ This Act was made on a compromiſe of all, and at the expreſs deſire of a part, of the Colonies themſelves. It was therefore in ſome meaſure with their conſent; and having a title directly pur⯑porting no more than a commercial regulation, and being in truth nothing more, the words were paſſed by, at a time when no jealouſy was entertained, and things were little ſcrutinized. Even Governor Barnard in his ſecond printed letter, dated in 1763, gives it as his opinion, that ‘"it was an act of prohibition, not of revenue."’ This is certainly true; that no act avowedly for the purpoſe of re⯑venue, and with the ordinary title and recital taken together, is found in the ſtatute book until the year I have mentioned; that is the year 1764. All before this period ſtood on commercial regu⯑lation and reſtraint. The ſcheme of a Colony revenue by Britiſh authority appeared therefore to the Americans in the light of a great innovation; the words of Governor Barnard's ninth letter, written in Nov. 1765, ſtate this idea very ſtrongly;‘"it muſt," ſays he, "have been ſuppoſed, ſuch an innovation as a parliamentary taxation, would cauſe a great alarm, and meet with much oppoſition in moſt parts of America; it was quite new to the people, and had no viſible bounds ſet to it."’ After ſtating the weakneſs of govern⯑ment [22] there, he ſays,‘"was this a time to introduce ſo great a no⯑velty as a parliamentary inland taxation in America?"’ Whatever the right might have been, this mode of uſing it was abſolutely new in policy and practice.

Sir, they who are friends to the ſchemes of American revenue ſay, that the commercial reſtraint is full as hard a law for America to live under. I think ſo too. I think it, if uncompenſated, to be a condition of as rigorous ſervitude as men can be ſubject to. But America bore it from the fundamental act of navi⯑gation until 1764.—Why? Becauſe men do bear the inevitable conſtitution of their original nature with all its infirmities. The act of navigation attended the Colonies from their infancy, grew with their growth, and ſtrengthened with their ſtrength. They were confirmed in obedience to it, even more by uſage than by law. They ſcarcely had remembered a time when they were not ſubject to ſuch reſtraint. Beſides, they were indemnified for it by a pecuniary compenſation. Their monopoliſt happened to be one of the richeſt men in the world. By his immenſe capital (primarily employed, not for their benefit, but his own), they were enabled to proceed with their fiſheries, their agriculture, their ſhip⯑building (and their trade too within the limits), in ſuch a manner as got far the ſtart of the ſlow languid operations of unaſſiſted na⯑ture. This capital was a hot-bed to them. Nothing in the hiſ⯑tory of mankind is like their progreſs. For my part, I never caſt an eye on their flouriſhing commerce, and their cultivated and commodious life, but they ſeem to me rather antient nations grown to perfection through a long ſeries of fortunate events, and a train of ſucceſsful induſtry, accumulating wealth in many centuries, than the Colonies of yeſterday; than a ſet of miſerable out-caſts, a few years ago, not ſo much ſent as thrown out, on the bleak and barren ſhore of a deſolate wilderneſs three thouſand miles from all civilized intercourſe.

All this was done by England, whilſt England purſued trade and forgot revenue. You not only acquired commerce, but you actu⯑ally created the very objects of trade in America; and by that crea⯑tion you raiſed the trade of this kingdom at leaſt four-fold. Ame⯑rica [23] had the compenſation of your capital, which made her bear her ſervitude. She had another compenſation, which you are now going to take away from her. She had, except the commercial reſtraint, every characteriſtic mark of a free people in all her internal concerns. She had the image of the Britiſh conſtitution. She had the ſubſtance. She was taxed by her own repreſentatives. She choſe moſt of her own magiſtrates. She paid them all. She had in effect the ſole diſpoſal of her own internal government. This whole ſtate of commercial ſervitude and civil liberty taken together, is certainly not perfect freedom; but comparing it with the ordi⯑nary circumſtances of human nature, it was an happy and a liberal condition.

I know, Sir, that great and not unſucceſsful pains have been taken to inflame our minds by an outcry, in this Houſe and out of it, that in America the act of navigation neither is, or ever was, obeyed. But if you take the Colonies through, I affirm, that its authority never was diſputed; that it was no where diſputed for any length of time; and on the whole, that it was well obſerved. Wherever the Act preſſed hard, many individuals indeed evaded it. This is nothing. Theſe ſcattered individuals never denied the law, and never obeyed it. Juſt as it happens whenever the laws of trade, whenever the laws of revenue, preſs hard upon the people in Eng⯑land; in that caſe all your ſhores are full of contraband. Your right to give a monopoly to the Eaſt India Company, your right to lay immenſe duties on French brandy, are not diſputed in England. You do not make this charge on any man. But you know that there is not a creek from Pentland Frith to the Iſle of Wight, in which they do not ſmuggle immenſe quantities of teas, Eaſt India goods, and brandies. I take it for granted, that the authority of Gov. Bernard in this point is indiſputable. Speaking of theſe laws, as they regarded that part of America now in ſo unhappy a condition, he ſays, ‘"I believe they are no where better ſupported than in this Province; I do not pretend that it is entirely free from a breach of theſe laws; but that ſuch a breach, if diſcovered, is juſtly puniſhed."’ What more can you ſay of the obedience to any laws in any Country? An obedience to theſe laws formed the acknowledgement; inſtituted by yourſelves, for your ſuperiority; and was the payment you originally impoſed for your protection.

[24]Whether you were right or wrong in eſtabliſhing the Colonies on the principles of commercial monopoly, rather than on that of re⯑venue, is at this day a problem of mere ſpeculation. You cannot have both by the ſame authority. To join together the reſtraints of an univerſal internal and external monopoly, with an univerſal internal and external taxation, is an unnatural union; perfect un⯑compenſated ſlavery. You have long ſince decided for yourſelf and them; and you and they have proſpered exceedingly under that deciſion.

This nation, Sir, never thought of departing from that choice until the period immediately on the cloſe of the laſt war. Then a ſcheme of government new in many things ſeemed to have been adopted. I ſaw, or thought I ſaw, ſeveral ſymptoms of a great change, whilſt I ſat in your gallery, a good while before I had the honour of a ſeat in this Houſe. At that period the neceſſity was eſtabliſhed of keeping up no leſs than twenty new regiments, with twenty colonels capable of ſeats in this Houſe. This ſcheme was adopted with very general applauſe from all ſides, at the very time that, by your conqueſts in America, your danger from foreign at⯑tempts in that part of the world was much leſſened, or indeed rather quite over. When this huge encreaſe of military eſtabliſhment was reſolved on, a revenue was to be found to ſupport ſo great a burthen. Country gentlemen, the great patrons of occonomy, and the great reſiſters of a ſtanding armed force, would not have entered with much alacrity into the vote for ſo large and ſo expenſive an army, if they had been very ſure, that they were to continue to pay for it. But hopes of another kind were held out to them; and in particular, I well remember, that Mr. Townſhend, in a brilliant harangue on this ſubject, did dazzle them, by playing before their eyes the image of a revenue to be raiſed in America.

Here began to dawn the firſt glimmerings of this new Colony ſyſtem. It appeared more diſtinctly afterwards, when it was de⯑volved upon a perſon to whom, on other accounts, this Country owes very great obligations. I do believe, that he had a very ſeri⯑ous deſire to benefit the public. But with no ſmall ſtudy of the detail, [25] he did not ſeem to have his view, at leaſt equally, carried to the total circuit of its affairs. He generally conſidered his objects in lights that were rather too detached. Whether the buſineſs of an American revenue was impoſed upon him altogether; whether it was entirely the reſult of his own ſpeculation; or what is more pro⯑bable, that his own ideas rather coincided with the inſtructions he had received; certain it is, that, with the beſt intentions in the world, he firſt brought this fatal ſcheme into form, and eſtabliſhed it by act of parliament.

No man can believe, that at this time of day I mean to lean on the venerable memory of a great man, whoſe loſs we deplore in common. Our little party-differences have been long ago com⯑poſed; and I have acted more with him, and certainly with more pleaſure with him, than ever I acted againſt him. Undoubtedly Mr. Grenville was a firſt-rate figure in this country. With a maſculine underſtanding, and a ſtout and reſolute heart, he had an application undiſſipated and unwearied. He took public buſineſs, not as a duty which he was to fulfil, but as a pleaſure he was to en⯑joy; and he ſeemed to have no delight out of this Houſe, except in ſuch things as ſome way related to the buſineſs that was to be done within it. If he was ambitious, I will ſay this for him, his ambi⯑tion was of a noble and generous ſtrain. It was to raiſe himſelf, not by the low pimping politics of a court, but to win his way to power, through the laborious gradations of public ſervice; and to ſecure to himſelf a well-earned rank in Parliament, by a thorough knowledge of its conſtitution, and a perfect practice in all its buſineſs.

Sir, if ſuch a man fell into errors, it muſt be from defects not intrinſical; they muſt be rather ſought in the particular habits of his life; which, though they do not alter the ground-work of character, yet tinge it with their own hue. He was bred in a pro⯑feſſion. He was bred to the law, which is, in my opinion, one of the firſt and nobleſt of human ſciences; a ſcience which does more to quicken and invigorate the underſtanding, than all the other kinds of learning put together; but it is not apt, except in perſons very happily born, to open and to liberalize the mind [26] exactly in the ſame proportion. Paſſing from that ſtudy he did not go very largely into the world; but plunged into buſineſs; I mean into the buſineſs of office; and the limited and fixed methods and forms eſtabliſhed there. Much knowledge is to be had un⯑doubtedly in that line; and there is no knowledge which is not valuable. But it may be truly ſaid, that men too much converſant in office, are rarely minds of remarkable enlargement. Their habits of office are apt to give them a turn to think the ſubſtance of buſi⯑neſs not to be much more important than the forms in which it is conducted. Theſe forms are adapted to ordinary occaſions; and therefore perſons who are nurtured in office do admirably well, as long as things go on in their common order; but when the high roads are broken up, and the waters out, when a new and troubled ſcene is opened, and the file affords no precedent, then it is that a greater knowledge of mankind, and a far more extenſive compre⯑henſion of things, is requiſite than ever office gave, or than office can ever give. Mr. Grenville thought better of the wiſdom and power of human legiſlation than in truth it deſerves. He conceived, and many conceived along with him, that the flouriſhing trade of this country was greatly owing to law and inſtitution, and not quite ſo much to liberty; for but too many are apt to believe re⯑gulation to be commerce, and taxes to be revenue. Among regu⯑lations, that which ſtood firſt in reputation was his idol. I mean the act of navigation. He has often profeſſed it to be ſo. The policy of that act is, I readily admit, in many reſpects well under⯑ſtood. But I do ſay, that if the act be ſuffered to run the full length of its principle, and is not changed and modified according to the change of times and the fluctuation of circumſtances, it muſt do great miſchief, and frequently even defeat its own purpoſe.

After the war, and in the laſt years of it, the trade of Americ [...] had encreaſed far beyond the ſpeculations of the moſt ſanguine imagination. It ſwelled out on every ſide. It filled all its proper channels to the brim. It overflowed with a rich redundance, and breaking its banks on the right and on the left, it ſpread out upon ſome places where it was indeed improper, upon others where it was only irregular. It is the nature of all greatneſs not to be exact; and great trade will always be attended with conſiderable abuſes. [27] The contraband will always keep pace in ſome meaſure with the fair trade. It ſhould ſtand as a fundamental maxim, that no vul⯑gar precaution ought to be employed in the cure of evils, which are cloſely connected with the cauſe of our proſperity. Perhaps this great perſon turned his eye ſomewhat leſs than was juſt, to⯑wards the incredible increaſe of the fair trade; and looked with ſomething of too exquiſite a jealouſy towards the contraband. He certainly felt a ſingular degree of anxiety on the ſubject; and even began to act from that paſſion earlier than is commonly ima⯑gined. For whilſt he was firſt lord of the admiralty, though not ſtrictly called upon in his official line, he preſented a very ſtrong memorial to the lords of the treaſury; (my lord Bute was then at the head of the board) heavily complaining of the growth of the illicit commerce in America. Some miſchief happened even at that time from this over-earneſt zeal. Much greater happened afterwards when it operated with greater power in the higheſt department of the finances. The bonds of the act of navigation were ſtraitned ſo much, that America was on the point of having no trade, either contraband or legitimate. They found, under the conſtruction and execution then uſed, the act no longer tying but actually ſtrangling them. All this coming with new enumerations of commodities; with regulations which in a manner put a ſtop to the mutual coaſting intercourſe of the Colonies; with the appoint⯑ment of courts of admiralty under various improper circumſtances; with a ſudden extinction of the paper currencies; with a compul⯑ſory proviſion for the quartering of ſoldiers, the people of America thought themſelves proceeded againſt as delinquents, or at beſt as people under ſuſpicion of delinquency; and in ſuch a manner, as they imagined, their recent ſervices in the war did not at all merit. Any of theſe innumerable regulations, perhaps, would not have alarmed alone; ſome might be thought reaſonable; the multitude ſtruck them with terror.

But the grand manoeuvre in that buſineſs of new regulating the colonies, was the 15th act of the fourth of George III.; which, beſides containing ſeveral of the matters to which I have juſt al⯑luded, opened a new principle: and here properly began the ſecond period of the policy of this country with regard to the Colonies; [28] by which the ſcheme of a regular plantation parliamentary revenue was adopted in theory, and ſettled in practice. A revenue not ſub⯑ſtituted in the place of, but ſuperadded to, a monopoly; which monopoly was enforced at the ſame time with additional ſtrictneſs, and the execution put into military hands.

This act, Sir, had for the firſt time the title of‘"granting duties in the Colonies and Plantations of America;"’ and for the firſt time it was aſſerted in the preamble, that it was juſt and neceſſary that a revenue ſhould be raiſed there." Then came the technical words of ‘"giving and granting;"’ and thus a complete American re⯑venue act was made in all the forms, and with a full avowal of the right, equity, policy, and even neceſſity of taxing the Colonies, without any formal conſent of theirs. There are contained alſo in the preamble to that act theſe very remakable words—the Com⯑mons, &c.—‘"being deſirous to make ſome proviſion in the preſent Seſſion of Parliament towards raiſing the ſaid revenue."’ By theſe words it appeared to the Colonies, that this act was but a beginning of ſorrows; that every ſeſſion was to produce ſomething of the ſame kind; that we were to go on from day to day, in charging them with ſuch taxes as we pleaſed, for ſuch a military force as we ſhould think proper. Had this plan been purſued, it was evident that the provincial aſſemblies, in which the Americans felt all their portion of importance, and beheld their ſole image of freedom were ipſo facto annihilated. This ill proſpect before them ſeemed to be boundleſs in extent, and endleſs in duration. Sir, they were not miſtaken. The Miniſtry valued themſelves when this act paſſed, and when they gave notice of the Stamp Act, that both of the duties came very ſhort of their ideas of American taxation. Great was the applauſe of this meaſure here. In England we cried out for new taxes on America, whilſt they cried out that they were nearly cruſhed with thoſe which the war and their own grants had brought upon them.

Sir, it has been ſaid in the debate, that when the firſt American revenue act, (the act in 1764, impoſing the port duties) paſſed, the Americans did not object to the principle. It is true they touched it but very tenderly. It was not a direct attack. They [29] were, it is true, as yet novices; as yet unaccumſtomed to direct at⯑tacks upon any of the rights of Parliament. The duties were port duties, like thoſe they had been accuſtomed to bear; with this difference, that the title was not the ſame, the preamble not the ſame, and the ſpirit altogether unlike. But of what ſervice is this obſervation to the cauſe of thoſe that make it? It is a full refutation of the pretence for their preſent cruelty to America; for it ſhews, out of their own mouths, that our Colonies were backward to enter into the preſent vexatious and ruinous controverſy.

There is alſo another circulation abroad, (ſpread with a malig⯑nant intention, which I cannot attribute to thoſe who ſay the ſame thing in this houſe) that Mr. Grenville gave the Colony agents an option for their aſſemblies to tax themſelves, which they had re⯑fuſed. I find that much ſtreſs is laid on this, as a fact. However, it happens neither to be true nor poſſible. I will obſerve firſt, that Mr. Grenville never thought ſit to make this apology for himſelf in the innumerable debates that were had upon the ſubject. He might have propoſed to the Colony agents, that they ſhould agree in ſome mode of taxation as the ground of an Act of Parliament. But he never could have propoſed that they ſhould tax themſelves on requiſition, which is the aſſertion of the day. Indeed, Mr. Grenville well knew, that the Colony agents could have no gene⯑ral powers to conſent to it; and they had no time to conſult their aſſemblies for particular powers, before he paſſed his firſt revenue act. If you compare dates, you will find it impoſſible. Burthened as the agents knew the Colonies were at that time, they could not give the leaſt hope of ſuch grants. His own favourite gover⯑nour was of opinion that the Americans were not then taxable objects.

‘"Nor was the time leſs favourable to the equity of ſuch a taxation. I don't mean to diſpute the reaſonableneſs of America contributing to the charges of Great Britain when ſhe is able; nor, I believe, would the Americans themſelves have diſputed it, at a proper time and ſeaſon. But it ſhould be conſidered, that the American governments themſelves have, in the proſecution of the late war, contracted very large debts; which it will take ſome years to pay off, and in the mean time occaſion [30] very burdenſome taxes for that purpoſe only. For inſtance, this govern⯑ment, which is as much before-hand as any, raiſes every year 37,500l. ſterling for ſinking their debt, and muſt continue it for four years longer at leaſt before it will be clear."’

Theſe are the words of Governor Bernard's Letter to a member of the old miniſtry, and which he has ſince printed. Mr. Gren⯑ville could not have made this propoſition to the agents for another reaſon. He was of opinion, which he has declared in this Houſe an hundred times, that the Colonies could not legally grant any revenue to the Crown; and that infinite miſchiefs would be the conſequence of ſuch a power. When Mr. Grenville had paſſed the firſt revenue act, and in the ſame ſeſſion had made this Houſe come to a reſolution for laying a ſtamp-duty on America, between that time and the paſſing the ſtamp-act into a law, he told a conſiderable and moſt reſpectable merchant, a member of this Houſe, whom I am truly ſorry I do not now ſee in his place, when he repreſented againſt this proceeding, that if the ſtamp-duty was diſliked, he was willing to exchange it for any other equally productive; but that if he objected to the Americans being taxed by Parliament, he might ſave them the trouble of the diſcuſſion, as he was determined on the meaſure. This is the fact, and, if you pleaſe, I will mention a very unqueſtionable authority for it.

Thus, Sir, I have diſpoſed of this falſehood. But falſehood has a perennial ſpring. It is ſaid, that no conjecture could be made of the diſlike of the Colonies to the principle. This is as untrue as the other. After the reſolution of the Houſe, and before the paſſing of the ſtamp-act, the Colonies of Maſſachuſet's Bay and New York did ſend remonſtrances, objecting to this mode of par⯑liamentary taxation. What was the conſequence? They were ſuppreſſed; they were put under the table; notwithſtanding an order of council to the contrary, by the miniſtry which com⯑poſed the very council that had made the order; and thus the Houſe proceeded to its buſineſs of taxing without the leaſt regular knowledge of the objections which were made to it. But to give that Houſe its due, it was not over deſirous to receive informa⯑tion, [31] or to hear remonſtrance. On the 15th of February, 1765, whilſt the ſtamp-act was under deliberation, they refuſed with ſcorn even ſo much as to receive four petitions preſented from ſo reſpectable Colonies as Connecticut, Rhode Iſland, Virginia, and Carolina; beſides one from the traders of Jamaica. As to the Colonies, they had no alternative left to them, but to diſobey; or to pay the taxes impoſed by that Parliament which was not ſuffered, or did not ſuffer itſelf, even to hear them remonſtrate upon the ſubject.

This was the ſtate of the Colonies before his Majeſty thought fit to change his miniſters. It ſtands upon no authority of mine. It is proved by uncontrovertible records. The Hon. Gentleman has deſired ſome of us to lay our hands upon our hearts and an⯑ſwer to his queries upon the hiſtorical part of this conſideration; and by his manner (as well as my eyes could diſcern it) he ſeemed to addreſs himſelf to me.

Sir, I will anſwer him as clearly as I am able, and with great openneſs: I have nothing to conceal. In the year ſixty-five, being in a very private ſtation, far enough from any line of buſi⯑neſs, and not having the honour of a ſeat in this Houſe, it was my fortune, unknowing and unknown to the then miniſtry, by the intervention of a common friend, to become connected with a very noble perſon, and at the head of the Treaſury department. It was indeed in a ſituation of little rank and no conſequence, ſuitable to the mediocrity of my talents and preten⯑ſions. But a ſituation near enough to enable me to ſee, as well as others, what was going on; and I did ſee in that noble perſon ſuch ſound principles, ſuch an enlargement of mind, ſuch a clear and ſagacious ſenſe, and ſuch unſhaken fortitude, as have bound me, as well as others much better than me, by an inviolable attach⯑ment to him from that time forward. Sir, Lord Rockingham very early in that ſummer received a ſtrong repreſentation from many weighty Engliſh merchants and manufacturers, from governors of provinces and commanders of men of war, againſt almoſt the whole of the American commercial regulations: and particularly with regard to the total ruin which was threatened to the Spaniſh trade. I believe, Sir, the noble Lord ſoon ſaw his way in this [32] buſineſs. But he did not raſhly determine againſt acts which it might be ſuppoſed were the reſult of much deliberation. However, Sir, he ſcarcely begun to open the ground, when the whole veteran body of office took the alarm. A violent outcry of all (except thoſe who knew and felt the miſchief) was raiſed againſt any alte⯑ration. On one hand, his attempt was a direct violation of treaties and public law.—On the other, the Act of Navigation and all the corps of trade laws were drawn up in array againſt it.

The firſt ſtep the noble Lord took, was to have the opinion of his excellent, learned, and ever lamented friend the late Mr. Yorke, then attorney general, on the point of law. When he knew that formally and officially, which in ſubſtance he had known before, he immediately diſpatched orders to redreſs the grievance. But I will ſay it for the then miniſter, he is of that conſtitution of mind, that I know he would have iſſued, on the ſame critical occaſion, the very ſame orders, if the Acts of Trade had been, as they were not, directly againſt him; and would have chearfully ſubmitted to the equity of Parliament for his indem⯑nity.

On the concluſion of this buſineſs of the Spaniſh trade, the news of the troubles, on account of the ſtamp-act, arrived in England. It was not until the end of October that theſe accounts were received. No ſooner had the ſound of that mighty tempeſt reached us in England, than the whole of the then oppoſition, inſtead of feeling humbled by the unhappy iſſue of their meaſures, ſeemed to be infinitely elated, and cried out, that the miniſtry, from envy to the glory of their predeceſſors, were prepared to repeal the ſtamp-act. Near nine years after, the Hon. Gentleman takes quite oppoſite ground, and now challenges me to put my hand to my heart, and ſay, whether the miniſtry had reſolved on the repeal till a conſider⯑able time after the meeting of Parliament. Though I do not very well know what the Hon. Gentleman wiſhes to infer from the admiſſion, or from the denial, of this fact, on which he ſo earneſtly adjures me; I do put my hand on my heart, and aſſure him, that they did not come to a reſolution directly to repeal. They weighed this matter as its difficulty and importance required. They con⯑ſidered [33] maturely among themſelves. They conſulted with all who could give advice or information. It was not determined until a little before the meeting of Parliament; but it was determined, and the main lines of their own plan marked out before that meeting. Two queſtions aroſe (I hope I am not to go into a narrative troubleſome to the Houſe)

[A cry of, Go on, go on.]

The firſt of the two conſiderations was, whether the repeal ſhould be total, or whether only partial; taking out every thing burthen⯑ſome and productive, and reſerving only an empty acknowledgement, ſuch as a ſtamp on cards or dice. The other queſtion was, On what principle the act ſhould be repealed? On this head alſo two prin⯑ciples were ſtarted. One, that the legiſlative rights of this country, with regard to America, were not entire, but had certain reſtrictions and limitations. The other principle was, that taxes of this kind were contrary to the fundamental principles of commerce on which the Colonies were founded; and contrary to every idea of political equity; by which equity we are bound, as much as poſſible, to extend the ſpirit and benefit of the Britiſh conſtitution to every part of the Britiſh dominions. The option, both of the meaſure and of the principles of repeal, was made before the ſeſſion; and I wonder how any one can read the King's Speech at the opening of that ſeſſion, without ſeeing in that Speech both the repeal and the declaratory act very ſufficiently crayoned out. Thoſe who cannot ſee this can ſee nothing.

Surely the Hon. Gentleman will not think that a great deal leſs time than was then employed, ought to have been ſpent in delibe⯑beration; when he conſiders that the news of the troubles did not arrive till towards the end of October. The Parliament ſat to fill the vacancies on the 14th day of December, and on buſineſs the 14th of the following January.

Sir, a partial repeal, or, as the bon ton of the court then was, a modification would have ſatisfied a timid, unſyſtematic, procraſti⯑nating miniſtry, as ſuch a meaſure has ſince done ſuch a miniſtry. [34] A modification is the conſtant reſource of weak undeciding minds. To repeal by a denial of our right to tax in the preamble (and this too did not want adviſers), would have cut, in the heroic ſtyle, the Gordian knot with a ſword. Either meaſure would have coſt no more than a day's debate. But when the total repeal was adopted; and adopted on principles of policy, of equity, and of commerce; this plan made it neceſſary to enter into many and difficult meaſures. It became neceſſary to open a very large field of evidence commenſurate to theſe extenſive views. But then this labour did knights ſervice. It opened the eyes of ſeveral to the true ſtate of the American affairs; it enlarged their ideas; it removed prejudices; and it conciliated the opinions and affections of men. The noble Lord, who then took the lead in adminiſtration, my Hon. Friend^* under me, and a Right Hon. Gentleman^† (if he will not reject his ſhare, and it was a large one of this buſineſs) exerted the moſt laudable induſtry in bringing before you the fulleſt, moſt impartial, and leaſt-garbled body of evidence that ever was produced to this Houſe. I think the enquiry laſted in the Committee for ſix weeks; and at its concluſion this Houſe, by an independent, noble, ſpirited, and unexpected majority; by a ma⯑jority that will redeem all the acts ever done by majorities in Par⯑liament; in the teeth of all the old mercenary Swiſs of ſtate, in deſpite of all the ſpeculators and augurs of political events, in de⯑fiance of the whole embattled legion of veteran penſioners and practiſed inſtruments of a court, gave a total repeal to the ſtamp⯑act, and (if it had been ſo permitted) a laſting peace to this whole empire.

I ſtate, Sir, theſe particulars, becauſe this act of ſpirit and for⯑titude has lately been, in the circulation of the ſeaſon, and in ſome hazarded declamations in this Houſe, attributed to timi⯑dity. If, Sir, the conduct of miniſtry, in propoſing the repeal, had ariſen from timidity with regard to themſelves, it would have been greatly to be condemned. Intereſted timidity diſgraces as much in the cabinet, as perſonal timidity does in the field. But timidity, with regard to the well-being of our country, is heroic [35] virtue. The noble Lord who then conducted affairs, and his worthy collegues, whilſt they trembled at the proſpect of ſuch diſtreſſes as you have ſince brought upon yourſelves, was not afraid ſteadily to look in the face that glaring and dazzling influence at which the eyes of eagles have blenched. He looked in the face one of the ableſt, and, let me ſay, not the moſt ſcrupulous op⯑poſitions, that perhaps ever was in this Houſe, and withſtood it; unaided by, even one of, the uſual ſupports of adminiſtration. He did this when he repealed the ſtamp-act. He looked in the face a perſon he had long reſpected and regarded, and whoſe aid was then particularly wanting; I mean Lord Chatham. He did this when he paſſed the declaratory act.

It is now given out, for the uſual purpoſes, by the uſual emiſ⯑ſaries, that Lord Rockingham did not conſent to the repeal of this act until he was bullied into it by Lord Chatham; and the reporters have gone ſo far as publickly to aſſert, in an hundred companies, that the Hon. Gentleman under the gallery^*, who pro⯑poſed the repeal in the American committee, had another ſett of reſolutions in his pocket directly the reverſe of thoſe he moved. Theſe artifices of a deſperate cauſe are, at this time, ſpread abroad, with incredible care, in every part of the town, from the higheſt to the loweſt companies; as if the induſtry of the circula⯑tion were to make amends for the abſurdity of the report.

Sir, whether the noble Lord is of a complexion to be bullied by Lord Chatham, or by any man, I muſt ſubmit to thoſe who know him. I confeſs, when I look back to that time, I conſider him as placed in one of the moſt trying ſituations in which, perhaps, any man ever ſtood. In the Houſe of Peers there were very few of the miniſtry, out of the noble Lord's own particular connexion, (except Lord Egmont, who acted, as far as I could diſcern, an honour⯑able and manly part,) that did not look to ſome other future arrangement, which warped his politicks. There were in both houſes new and menacing appearances, that might very naturally drive any other, than a moſt reſolute miniſter, from his meaſure, [36] or from his ſtation. The houſehold troops openly revolted. The allies of miniſtry (thoſe, I mean, who ſupported ſome of their meaſures, but refuſed reſponſibility for any) endeavoured to under⯑mine their credit, and to take ground that muſt be fatal to the ſuccceſs of the very cauſe which they would be thought to coun⯑tenance. The queſtion of the repeal was brought on by miniſtry in the Committee of this Houſe, in the very inſtant when it was known that more than one court negotiation was carrying on with the heads of the oppoſition. Every thing, upon every ſide, was full of traps and mines. Earth below ſhook; heaven above menaced; all the elements of miniſterial ſafety were diſ⯑ſolved. It was in the midſt of this chaos of plots and counter⯑plots; it was in the midſt of this complicated warfare againſt public oppoſition and private treachery, that the firmneſs of that noble Perſon was put to the proof. He never ſtirred from his ground; no, not an inch. He remained fixed and determined, in principle, in meaſure, and in conduct. He practiſed no ma⯑nagements. He ſecured no retreat. He ſought no apology.

I will likewiſe do juſtice, I ought to do it, to the Hon. Gentle⯑man who led us in this Houſe^*. Far from the duplicity wickedly charged on him, he acted his part with alacrity and reſolution. We all felt inſpired by the example he gave us, down even to myſelf, the weakeſt in that phalanx. I declare for one, I knew well enough (it could not be concealed from any body) the true ſtate of things; but, in my life, I never came with ſo much ſpi⯑rits into this Houſe. It was a time for a man to act in. We had powerful enemies; but we had faithful and determined friends; and a glorious cauſe. We had a great battle to fight; but we had the means of fighting; not as now, when our arms are tied behind us. We did fight that day and conquer.

I remember, Sir, with a melancholy pleaſure, the ſituation of the Hon. Gentleman^* who made the motion for the repeal; in that criſis, when the whole trading intereſt of this empire crammed into your lobbies, with a trembling and anxious expectation, waited, [37] almoſt to a winter's return of light, their fate from your reſolu⯑tions. When, at length, you had determined in their favour, and your doors, thrown open, ſhewed them the figure of their deli⯑verer in the well-earned triumph of his important victory, from the whole of that grave multitude there aroſe an involuntary burſt of gratitude and tranſport. They jumped upon him like children on a long abſent father. They clung about him as captives about their redeemer. All England, all America joined in his applauſe. Nor did he ſeem inſenſible to the beſt of all earthly rewards, the love and admiration of his fellow-citizens. Hope elevated and joy brightened his creſt. I ſtood near him; and his face, to uſe the expreſſion of the Scripture of the firſt martyr,‘"his face was as if it had been the face of an angel."’ I do not know how others feel; but if I had ſtood in that ſituation, I never would have exchanged it for all that kings in their profuſion could beſtow. I did hope, that that day's danger and honour would have been a bond to hold us all together for ever. But, alas! that, with other pleaſing viſions, is long ſince vaniſhed.

Sir, this act of ſupreme magnanimity has been repreſented, as if it had been a meaſure of an adminiſtration, that, having no ſcheme of their own, took a middle line, pilfered a bit from one ſide and a bit from the other. Sir, they took no middle lines. They dif⯑fered fundamentally from the ſchemes of both parties; but they preſerved the objects of both. They preſerved the authority of Great Britain. They preſerved the equity of Great Britain. They made the declaratory act; they repealed the ſtamp act. They did both fully; becauſe the declaratory act was without qualification; and the repeal of the ſtamp act total. This they did in the ſitua⯑tion I have deſcribed.

Now, Sir, what will the adverſary ſay to both theſe acts? If the principle of the declaratory act was not good, the principle we are contending for this day is monſtrous. If the principle of the repeal was not good, why are we not at war for a real ſub⯑ſtantial effective revenue? If both were bad; why has this miniſtry incurred all the inconveniences of both and of all ſchemes? Why [38] have they enacted, repealed, enforced, yielded, and now attempt to enforce again?

Sir, I think I may as well now, as at any other time, ſpeak to a certain matter of fact not wholly unrelated to the queſtion under your conſideration. We, who would perſuade you to revert to the antient policy of this kingdom, labour under the effect of this ſhort current phraſe, which the court leaders have given out to all their corps, in order to take away the credit of thoſe who would prevent you from that frantic war you are going to wage upon your Colonies. Their cant is this; ‘"All the diſ⯑turbances in America have been created by the repeal of the Stamp Act."’ I ſuppreſs for a moment my indignation at the falſehood, baſeneſs, and abſurdity of this moſt audacious aſſertion. Inſtead of remarking on the motives and character of thoſe who have iſſued it for circulation, I will clearly lay before you the ſtate of America, antecedently to that repeal; after the repeal; and ſince the renewal of the ſchemes of American taxation.

It is ſaid, that the diſturbances, if there were any, before the repeal, were ſlight; and without difficulty or inconvenience might have been ſuppreſſed. For an anſwer to this aſſertion I will ſend you to the great author and patron of the Stamp Act, who certainly meaning well to the authority of this Country, and fully apprized of the ſtate of that, made, before a repeal was ſo much as agitated in this Houſe, the motion which is on your Journals; and which, to ſave the Clerk the trouble of turning to it, I will now read to you. It was for an amendment to the addreſs of the 17th of December 1765,

Here was certainly a diſturbance preceding the repeal; ſuch a diſturbance as Mr. Grenville thought neceſſary to qualify by the name of an inſurrection, and the epithet of a rebellious force: terms much ſtronger than any, by which, thoſe who then ſupported his motion, have ever ſince thought proper to diſtinguiſh the ſubſequent diſturbances in America. They were diſturbances which ſeemed to him and his friends to juſtify as ſtrong a promiſe of ſupport, as hath been uſual to give in the beginning of a war with the moſt powerful and declared enemies. When the accounts of the American Go⯑vernors came before the Houſe, they appeared ſtronger even than the warmth of public imagination had painted them; ſo much ſtronger, that the papers on your table bear me out in ſaying, that all the late diſturbances, which have been at one time the Mini⯑ſter's motives for the repeal of five out of ſix of the new court taxes, and are now his pretences for refuſing to repeal that ſixth, did not amount—why do I compare them? no, not to a tenth part of the tumults and violence which prevailed long before the repeal of that act.

Miniſtry cannot refuſe the authority of the commander in chief General Gage, who, in his Letter of the 4th of November, from New York, thus repreſents the ſtate of things:

[40]It is remarkable, Sir, that the perſons who formerly trumpeted forth the moſt loudly, the violent reſolutions of aſſemblies; the univerſal inſurrections; the ſeizing and burning the ſtamped papers; the forcing ſtamp officers to reſign their commiſſions under the gallows; the rifling and pulling down of the houſes of magiſtrates; and the expulſion from their country of all who dared to write or ſpeak a ſingle word in defence of the powers of parliament; theſe very trumpeters are now the men that repreſent the whole as a mere trifle; and chooſe to date all the diſturbances from the repeal of the ſtamp act, which put an end to to them. Hear your officers abroad, and let them refute this ſhameleſs falſehood, who, in all their correſpondence, ſtate the diſturbances as owing to their true cauſes, the diſcontent of the people, from the taxes. You have this evidence in your own archives—and it will give you com⯑pleat ſatisfaction; if you are not ſo far loſt to all parliamentary ideas of information, as rather to credit the lye of the day, than the records of your own Houſe.

Sir, this vermin of court reporters, when they are forced into day upon one point, are ſure to burrow in another; but they ſhall have no refuge: I will make them bolt out of all their holes. Con⯑ſcious that they muſt be baffled, when they attribute a precedent diſturbance to a ſubſequent meaſure, they take other ground almoſt as abſurd, but very common in modern practice, and very wicked; which is, to attribute the ill effect of ill-judged conduct to the arguments which had been uſed to diſſuade us from it. They ſay, that the oppoſition made in parliament to the ſtamp act at the time of its paſſing, encouraged the Americans to their reſiſtance. This has even formally appeared in print in a regular volume, from an advocate of that faction, a Dr. Tucker. This Dr. Tucker is already a dean, and his earneſt labours in this vineyard will, I ſup⯑poſe, raiſe him to a biſhoprick. But this aſſertion too, juſt like the reſt, is falſe. In all the papers which have loaded your table; in all the vaſt crowd of verbal witneſſes that appeared at your bar, witneſſes which were indiſcriminately produced from both ſides of the Houſe; not the leaſt hint of ſuch a cauſe of diſturbance has ever appeared. As to the fact of a ſtrenuous oppoſition to the [41] ſtamp act, I ſat as a ſtranger in your gallery when the act was under conſideration. Far from any thing inflammatory, I never heard a more languid debate in this Houſe. No more than two or three gentlemen, as I remember, ſpoke againſt the act, and that with great reſerve and remarkable temper. There was but one diviſion in the whole progreſs of the bill; and the minority did not reach to more than 39 or 40. In the Houſe of Lords I do not recollect that there was any debate or diviſion at all. I am ſure there was no proteſt. In fact, the affair paſſed with ſo very, very little noiſe, that in town they ſcarcely knew the nature of what you were do⯑ing. The oppoſition to the bill in England never could have done this miſchief, becauſe there ſcarcely ever was leſs of oppoſition to a bill of conſequence.

Sir, the agents and diſtributors of falſehoods have, with their uſual induſtry, circulated another lye of the ſame nature with the former. It is this, that the diſturbances aroſe from the account which had been received in America of the change in the miniſtry. No longer awed, it ſeems, with the ſpirit of the former rulers, they thought themſelves a match for what our calumniators chooſe to qualify by the name of ſo feeble a miniſtry as ſucceeded. Feeble in one ſenſe theſe men certainly may be called; for with all their efforts, and they have made many, they have not been able to reſiſt the diſtempered vigour, and inſane alacrity with which you are ruſh⯑ing to your ruin. But it does ſo happen, that the falſity of this circu⯑lation is (like the reſt) demonſtrated by indiſputable dates and records.

So little was the change known in America, that the letters of your governors, giving an account of theſe diſturbances long after they had arrived at their higheſt pitch, were all directed to the Old Miniſtry, and particularly to the Earl of Halifax, the ſecretary of ſtate correſponding with the Colonies, without once in the ſmalleſt degree intimating the ſlighteſt ſuſpicion of any miniſterial revolu⯑tion whatſoever. The miniſtry was not changed in England until the tenth day of July 1765. On the 14th of the preceding June, Governor Fauquier from Virginia writes thus; and writes thus to the Earl of Halifax: ‘"Government is ſet at defiance, not having ſtrength enough in her hands to enforce obedience to the laws of the [42] community.—The private diſtreſs, which every man feels, encreaſes the general diſſatisfaction at the duties laid by the Stamp Act, which breaks out, and ſhews itſelf upon every trifling occaſion."’ The general diſſatisfaction had produced ſome time before, that is, on the 29th of May, ſeveral ſtrong public reſolves againſt the Stamp Act; and thoſe reſolves are aſſigned by Governor Bernard, as the cauſe of the inſurrections in Maſſachuſet's Bay, in his letter of the 15th of Auguſt, ſtill addreſſed to the Earl of Halifax; and he con⯑tinued to addreſs ſuch accounts to that Miniſter quite to the 7th of September of the ſame year. Similar accounts, and of as late a date, were ſent from other governors, and all directed to Lord Halifax. Not one of theſe letters indicates the ſlighteſt idea of a change either known, or even apprehended.

Thus are blown away the infect race of courtly falſehoods! thus periſh the miſerable inventions of the wretched runners for a wretched cauſe, which they have fly-blown into every weak and rotten part of the country, in vain hopes that when their maggots had taken wing, their importunate buzzing might ſound ſome⯑thing like the public voice!

Sir, I have troubled you ſufficiently with the ſtate of America before the repeal. Now I turn to the Hon. Gentleman who ſo ſtoutly challenges us, to tell, whether, after the repeal, the Pro⯑vinces were quiet? This is coming home to the point. Here I meet him directly; and anſwer moſt readily, They were quiet. And I, in my turn, challenge him to prove when, and where, and by whom, and in what numbers, and with what violence, the other laws of trade, as gentlemen aſſert, were violated in con⯑ſequence of your conceſſion? or that even your other revenue laws were attacked? But I quit the vantage ground on which I ſtand, and where I might leave the burthen of the proof upon him: I walk down upon the open plain, and undertake to ſhew, that they were not only quiet, but ſhewed many unequivocal marks of acknowledge⯑ment and gratitude. And to give him every advantage, I ſelect the obnoxious Colony of Maſſachuſet's Bay, which at this time (but without hearing her) is ſo heavily a culprit before parliament—I will ſelect their proceedings even under circumſtances of no ſmall [43] irritation. For, a little imprudently I muſt ſay, Governor Bernard mixed in the adminiſtration of the lenitive of the repeal no ſmall acrimony ariſing from matters of a ſeparate nature. Yet ſee, Sir, the effect of that lenitive, though mixed with theſe bitter ingre⯑dients; and how this rugged people can expreſs themſelves on a meaſure of conceſſion.

Would to God that this temper had been cultivated, managed, and ſet in action! other effects than thoſe which we have ſince felt would have reſulted from it. On the requiſition for compenſation to thoſe who had ſuffered from the violence of the populace, in the ſame addreſs they ſay, ‘"The recommendation enjoined by Mr. Secre⯑tary Conway's Letter, and in conſequence thereof made to us, we will embrace the firſt convenient opportunity to conſider and act upon."’ They did conſider; they did act upon it. They obeyed the requi⯑ſition. I know the mode has been chicaned upon; but it was ſub⯑ſtantially obeyed; and much better obeyed, than I fear the parlia⯑mentary requiſition of this ſeſſion will be, though enforced by all your rigour, and backed with all your power. In a word, the damages of popular fury were compenſated by legiſlative gravity. Almoſt every other part of America in various ways demonſtrated their gratitude. I am bold to ſay, that ſo ſudden a calm recovered after ſo violent a ſtorm is without parallel in hiſtory. To ſay that no other diſturbance ſhould happen from any other cauſe is folly. But as far as appearances went, by the judicious ſacrifice of one law, you procured an acquieſcence in all that remained. After this ex⯑perience, nobody ſhall perſuade me, when an whole people are concerned, that acts of lenity are not means of conciliation.

I hope the Hon. Gentleman has received a fair and full anſwer to his queſtion.

[44]I have done with the third period of your policy; that of your repeal; and the return of your ancient ſyſtem, and your antient tran⯑quillity and concord. Sir, this period was not as long as it was happy. Another ſcene was opened, and other actors appeared on the ſtage. The ſtate, in the condition I have deſcribed it, was delivered into the hands of Lord Chatham—a great and celebrated name; a name that keeps the name of this country reſpectable in every other on the globe. It may be truly called,

Sir, the venerable age of this great man, his merited rank, his ſuperior eloquence, his ſplendid qualities, his eminent ſervices, the vaſt ſpace he fills in the eye of mankind; and, more than all the reſt, his fall from power, which, like death, canonizes and ſanctifies a great character, will not ſuffer me to cenſure any part of his conduct. I am afraid to flatter him; I am ſure I am not diſpoſed to blame him. Let thoſe who have betrayed him by their adulation, inſult him with their malevolence. But what I do not preſume to cenſure, I may have leave to lament. For a wiſe man, he ſeemed to me at that time, to be governed too much by general maxims. I ſpeak with the freedom of hiſtory, and I hope without offence. One or two of theſe maxims, flowing from an opinion not the moſt indulgent to our unhappy ſpecies, and ſurely a little too general, led him into meaſures that were greatly miſchievous to himſelf; and for that reaſon, among others, perhaps fatal to his country; meaſures, the effects of which, I am afraid, are for ever inurable. He made an adminiſtration, ſo checkered and ſpeckled; he put together a piece of joinery, ſo croſsly indented and whimſically dovetailed; a cabinet ſo variouſly inlaid; ſuch a piece of diverſified Moſaic; ſuch a teſſelated pave⯑ment without cement; here a bit of black ſtone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers, kings friends and republicans; whigs and tories; treacherous friends and open enemies: that it was indeed a very curious ſhow; but utterly unſafe to touch, and un⯑ſure to ſtand on. The colleagues whom he had aſſorted at the ſame boards, ſtared at each other, and were obliged to aſk, ‘"Sir, your name?—Sir, you have the advantage of me—Mr. Such a [45] one—I beg a thouſand pardons.—"’ I venture to ſay, it did ſo happen, that perſons had a ſingle office divided between them, who had never ſpoke to each other in their lives; until they found themſelves, they knew not how, pigging together, heads and points, in the ſame truckle-bed^*.

Sir, in conſequence of this arrangement, having put ſo much the larger part of his enemies and oppoſers into power, the confuſion was ſuch, that his own principles could not poſſibly have any effect or influence in the conduct of affairs. If ever he fell into a fit of the gout, or if any orher cauſe withdrew him from public cares, principles directly the contrary were ſure to predominate. When he had executed his plan, he had not an inch of ground to ſtand upon. When he had accompliſhed his ſcheme of admini⯑ſtration, he was no longer a miniſter.

When his face was hid but for a moment, his whole ſyſtem was on a wide ſea, without chart or compaſs. The gentlemen, his particular friends, who, with the names of various departments of miniſtry, were admitted, to ſeem, as if they acted a part under him, with a modeſty that becomes all men, and with a confidence in him, which was juſtified even in its extravagance by his ſuperior abili⯑ties, had never, in any inſtance, preſumed upon any opinion of their own. Deprived of his guiding influence, they were whirled about, the ſport of every guſt, and eaſily driven into any port; and as thoſe who joined with them in manning the veſſel were the moſt directly oppoſite to his opinions, meaſures, and character, and far the moſt artful and moſt powerful of the ſet, they eaſily prevailed, ſo as to ſeize upon the vacant, unoccupied, and derelict minds of his friends; and inſtantly they turned the veſſel wholly out of the courſe of his policy. As if it were to inſult as well as to betray him, even long before the cloſe of the firſt ſeſſion of his adminiſtration, when every thing was publickly tranſacted, and with great parade in his name, they made an act, declaring it highly juſt and expedient to raiſe a revenue in America. For even then, Sir, even before this ſplendid orb was entirely ſet, and while the Weſtern horizon was in a [46] blaze with his deſcending glory, on the oppoſite quarter of the heavens aroſe another luminary, and, for his hour, became lord of the aſcendant.

This light too is paſſed and ſet for ever. You underſtand, to be ſure, that I ſpeak of Charles Townſhend, officially the re-producer of this fatal ſcheme; whom I cannot even now re⯑member without ſome degree of ſenſibility. In truth, Sir, he was the delight and ornament of this houſe, and the charm of every private ſociety which he honoured with his preſence. Perhaps there never aroſe in this country, nor in any country, a man of a more pointed and finiſhed wit; and (where his paſſions were not concerned) of a more refined, exquiſite, and penetrating a judgment. If he had not ſo great a ſtock, as ſome have had who flouriſhed formerly, of knowledge long treaſured up, he knew better by far, than any man I ever was acquainted with, how to bring together within a ſhort time, all that was neceſſary to eſtabliſh, to illuſtrate, and to decorate that ſide of the queſtion he ſupported. He ſtated his matter ſkilfully and powerfully. He particularly excelled in a moſt luminous explanation, and diſplay of his ſubject. His ſtyle of argument was neither trite and vulgar, nor ſubtle and abſtruſe. He hit the houſe juſt between wind and water.—And not being troubled with too anxious a zeal for any matter in queſtion, he was never more tedious, or more earneſt, than the pre-conceived opinions, and preſent temper of his hearers required; to whom he was always in perfect uniſon. He conformed exactly to the temper of the houſe; and he ſeemed to guide, becauſe he was always ſure to follow it.

I beg pardon, Sir, if when I ſpeak of this and of other great men, I appear to digreſs in ſaying ſomething of their characters. In this eventful hiſtory of the revolutions of America, the characters of ſuch men are of much importance. Great men are the guide-poſts and land-marks in the ſtate. The credit of ſuch men at court, or in the nation, is the ſole cauſe of all the publick meaſures. It would be an invidious thing, (moſt foreign I truſt to what you think my diſpoſition) to remark the errors into which the authority of great [47] names has brought the nation, without doing juſtice at the ſame time to the great qualities, whence that authority aroſe. The ſubject is inſtructive to thoſe who wiſh to form themſelves on what⯑ever of excellence has gone before them. There are many young members in the houſe (ſuch of late has been the rapid ſucceſſion of publick men) who never ſaw that prodigy Charles Townſhend; nor of courſe know what a ferment he was able to excite in every thing by the violent ebullition of his mixed virtues and failings. For failings he had undoubtedly—many of us remember them; we are this day conſidering the effect of them. But he had no failings which were not owing to a noble cauſe; to an ardent, generous, perhaps an immoderate paſſion for Fame; a paſſion which is the inſtinct of all great ſouls. He wor⯑ſhiped that goddeſs whereſoever ſhe appeared; but he paid his par⯑ticular devotions to her in her favourite habitation, in her choſen temple, the Houſe of Commons. Beſides the characters of the in⯑dividuals that compoſe our body, it is impoſſible, Mr. Speaker, not to obſerve, that this houſe has a collective character of its own. That character too, however imperfect, is not unamiable. Like all great public collections of men, you poſſeſs a marked love of virtue, and an abhorence of vice. But among vices, there is none, which the houſe abhors in the ſame degree with obſtinacy. Obſti⯑nacy, Sir, is certainly a great vice; and in the changeful ſtate of political affairs it is frequently the cauſe of great miſchief. It hap⯑pens, however, very unfortunately, that almoſt the whole line of the great and maſculine virtues, conſtancy, gravity, magnanimity, fortitude, fidelity, and firmneſs, are cloſely allied to this diſagree⯑able quality, of which you have ſo juſt an abhorrence; and in their exceſs, all theſe virtues very eaſily fall into it. He, who paid ſuch a punctilious attention to all your feelings, certainly took care not to ſhock them by that vice which is the moſt diſguſtful to you.

That fear of diſpleaſing thoſe who ought moſt to be pleaſed, be⯑trayed him ſometimes into the other extreme. He had voted, and in the year 1766, had been an advocate for the Stamp Act. Things and the diſpoſition of mens minds were changed. In ſhort, the Stamp Act began to be no favourite in this houſe. He therefore attended at the private meeting, in which the reſolutions [48] moved by a Right Honourable Gentleman, were ſettled; reſolutions leading to the repeal. The next day he voted for that repeal; and he would have ſpoken for it too, if an illneſs, (not as was then given out a political) but to my knowledge, a very real illneſs, had not prevented it.

The very next ſeſſion, as the faſhion of this world paſſeth away, the repeal began to be in as bad an odour in this houſe as the Stamp Act had been in the ſeſſion before. To conform to the temper which began to prevail, and to prevail moſtly amongſt thoſe moſt in power, he declared, very early in the Winter, that a revenue muſt be had out of America. Inſtantly he was tied down to his engagements by ſome, who had no objection to ſuch ex⯑periments, when made at the coſt of perſons for whom they had no particular regard. The whole body of courtiers drove him onward. They always talked as if the king ſtood in a ſort of hu⯑miliated ſtate, until ſomething of the kind ſhould be done.

Here this extraordinary man, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, found himſelf in great ſtraits. To pleaſe univerſally was the ob⯑ject of his life; but to tax and to pleaſe, no more than to love and to be wiſe, is not given to men. However he attempted it. To render the tax palatable to the partizans of American reve⯑nue, he made a preamble ſtating the neceſſity of ſuch a revenue. To cloſe with the American diſtinction, this revenue was an external or port-duty; but again, to ſoften it to the other party, it was a duty of ſupply. To gratify the coloniſts, it was laid on Britiſh manufactures; to ſatisfy the merchants of Britain, the duty was trivial, and (except that on tea, which touched only the devoted Eaſt India Company) on none of the grand objects of commerce. To counterwork the American contraband, the duty on tea was reduced from a ſhilling to three-pence. But to ſecure the favour of thoſe who would tax America, the ſcene of collection was changed, and, with the reſt, it was levied in the Colonies. What need I ſay more? This fine-ſpun ſcheme had the uſual fate of all exquiſite policy. But the original plan of the duties, and the mode of executing that plan, both aroſe ſingly and ſolely from a love of our applauſe. He was truly the child of the houſe. He never thought, did, or [49] ſaid any thing but with a view to you. He every day adapted himſelf to your diſpoſition; and adjuſted himſelf before it, as at a looking-glaſs.

He had obſerved (indeed it could not eſcape him) that ſeveral perſons, infinitely his inferiors in all reſpects, had formerly rendered themſelves conſiderable in this houſe by one method alone. They were a race of men (I hope in God the ſpecies is extinct) who, when they roſe in their place, no man living could divine, from any known adherence to parties, to opinions, or to principles; from any order or ſyſtem in their politics; or from any ſequel or connection in their ideas, what part they were going to take in any debate. It is aſtoniſhing how much this uncertainty, eſpecially at critical times, called the attention of all parties on ſuch men. All eyes were fixed on them, all ears open to hear them; each party gaped, and looked alternately for their vote, almoſt to the end of their ſpeeches. While the Houſe hung in this uncertainty, now the Hear-hims roſe from this ſide—now they re-bellowed from the other; and that party to whom they fell at length from their tremulous and dancing balance, always received them in a tempeſt of applauſe. The fortune of ſuch men was a temptation too great to be reſiſted by one, to whom, a ſingle whiff of incenſe withheld gave much greater pain, than he received de⯑light, in the clouds of it, which daily roſe about him from the prodigal ſuperſtition of innumerable admirers. He was a candi⯑date for contradictory honours; and his great aim was to make thoſe agree in admiration of him who never agreed in any thing elſe.

Hence aroſe this unfortunate act, the ſubject of this day's debate; from a diſpoſition which, after making an American revenue to pleaſe one, repealed it to pleaſe others, and again revived it in hopes of pleaſing a third, and of catching ſomething in the ideas of all.

This revenue act of 1767, formed the fourth period of American policy. How we have fared ſince then—what woeful variety of ſchemes have been adopted; what enforcing, and what repealing; what bullying, and what ſubmitting; what doing, and undoing; what ſtraining, and what relaxing; what aſſemblies diſſolved for not obeying, and called again without obedience; what troops ſent out [50] to quell reſiſtance, and on meeting that reſiſtance, recalled; what ſhiftings, and changes, and jumblings of all kinds of men at home, which left no poſſibility of order, conſiſtency, vigour, or even ſo much as a decent unity of colour in any one public meaſure.—It is a tedious, irkſome taſk. My duty may call me to open it out ſome other time;^* on a former occaſion I tried your temper on a part of it; for the preſent I ſhall forbear.

After all theſe changes and agitations, your immediate ſituation upon the queſtion on your paper is at length brought to this. You have an act of parliament, ſtating, that ‘"it is expedient to raiſe a revenue in America."’ By a partial repeal, you have an⯑nihilated the greateſt part of that revenue, which this preamble declares to be ſo expedient. You have ſubſtituted no other in the place of it. A ſecretary of ſtate has diſclaimed, in the king's name, all thoughts of ſuch a ſuſtitution in future. The principle of this diſclaimer goes to what has been left, as well as what has been re⯑pealed. The tax which lingers after its companions, (under a pre⯑amble declaring an American revenue expedient, and for the ſole purpoſe of ſupporting the theory of that preamble) militates with the aſſurance authentically conveyed to the Colonies; and is an ex⯑hauſtleſs ſource of jealouſy and animoſity. On this ſtate, which I take to be a fair one; not being able to diſcern any grounds of honour, advantage, peace, or power, for adhering, either to the act or to the preamble, I ſhall vote for the queſtion which leads to the repeal of both.

If you do not fall in with this motion, then ſecure ſomething to fight for, conſiſtent in theory and valuable in practice. If you muſt employ your ſtrength, employ it to uphold you in ſome honourable right, or ſome profitable wrong. If you are apprehenſive that the con⯑ceſſion recommended to you, though proper, ſhould be a means of drawing on you further but unreaſonable claims,—why then employ your force in ſupporting that reaſonable conceſſion againſt thoſe un⯑reaſonable demands. You will employ it with more grace; with better effect; and with great probable concurrence of all the quiet and rational people in the provinces; who are now united with, and hurried away by the violent; having indeed different diſpoſi⯑tions, [51] but a common intereſt. If you apprehend that on a conceſ⯑ſion you ſhall be puſhed by metaphyſical proceſs to the extreme lines, and argued out of your whole authority, my advice is this; when you have recovered, your old, your ſtrong, your tenable poſition; then face about—ſtop ſhort—do nothing more—reaſon not at all—oppoſe the antient policy and practice of the empire, as a rampart againſt the ſpeculations of innovators on both ſides of the queſtion; and you will ſtand on great, manly, and ſure ground. On this ſolid baſis fix your machines, and they will draw worlds to⯑wards you.

Your miniſters, in their own and his Majeſty's name, have al⯑ready adopted the American diſtinction of internal and external du⯑ties. It is a diſtinction, whatever merit it may have, that was ori⯑ginally moved by the Americans themſelves; and I think they will acquieſce in it, if they are not puſhed with too much logic and too little ſenſe, in all the conſequences. That is, if external taxation be underſtood, as they and you underſtand it when you pleaſe, to be not a diſtinction of Geography, but of policy; that it is a power for regulating trade, and not for ſupporting eſtabliſh⯑ments. The diſtinction, which is as nothing with regard to right, is of moſt weighty conſideration in practice. Recover your old ground, and your old tranquillity—try it—I am perſuaded the Americans will compromiſe with you. When confidence is once reſtored, the odious and ſuſpicious ſummum jus, will periſh of courſe. The ſpirit of practicability, of moderation, and mutual convenience, will never call in Geometrical exactneſs as the arbi⯑trator of an amicable ſettlement. Conſult and follow your experience. Let not the long ſtory with which I have exerciſed your patience, prove fruitleſs to your intereſts.

For my part, I ſhould chooſe (if I could have my wiſh) that the propoſition of the ^*Honourable Gentleman for the repeal, could go to America without the attendance of the penal bills. Alone I could almoſt anſwer for its ſucceſs. I cannot be certain of its reception in the bad company it may keep. In ſuch heterogeneous aſſortments, the moſt innocent perſon will loſe the effect of his innocency. [52] Though you ſhould ſend out this angel of peace, yet you are ſend⯑ing out a deſtroying angel too; and what would be the effect of the confliſt of theſe two adverſe ſpirits, or which would predomi⯑nate in the end, is what I dare not ſay: whether the lenient meaſures would cauſe American paſſion to ſubſide, or the ſevere would increaſe its fury—All this is in the hand of Providence; yet now, even now, I ſhould confide in the prevailing virtue, and efficacious operation of lenity, though working in darkneſs, and in chaos, in the midſt of all this unnatural and turbid combination. I ſhould hope it might produce order and beauty in the end.

Let us, Sir, embrace ſome ſyſtem or other before we end this ſeſſion. Do you mean to tax America, and to draw a productive revenue from thence? If you do, ſpeak out: name, fix, aſcertain this revenue; ſettle its quantity; define its objects; provide for its collection; and then fight when you have ſomething to fight for. If you murder—rob! If you kill, take poſſeſſion; and do not appear in the character of madmen, as well as aſſaſſins, violent, vindictive, bloody, and tyrannical, without an object. But may better counſels guide you!

Again, and again, revert to your old principles—ſeek peace and enſure it—leave America, if ſhe has taxable matter in her, to tax herſelf. I am not here going into the diſtinctions of rights, nor attempting to mark their boundaries. I do not enter into theſe me⯑taphyſical diſtinctions; I hate the very ſound of them. Leave the Americans as they antiently ſtood, and theſe diſtinctions, born of our unhappy conteſt, will die along with it. They, and we, and their and our anceſtors, have been happy under that ſyſtem. Let the memory of all actions, in contradiction to that good old mode, on both ſides, be extinguiſhed for ever. Be content to bind America by laws of trade; you have always done it. Let this be your reaſon for binding their trade. Do not burthen them by taxes; you were not uſed to do ſo from the beginning. Let this be your reaſon for not taxing. Theſe are the arguments of ſtates and kingdoms. Leave the reſt to the ſchools; for there only they may be diſcuſſed with ſafety. But if, intemperately, unwiſely, fatally, you ſophiſticate and poiſon the very ſource of government, by [53] urging ſubtle deductions, and conſequences odious to thoſe you govern, from the unlimited and illimitable nature of ſupreme ſove⯑reignty, you will teach them by theſe means to call that ſovereignty itſelf in queſtion. When you drive him hard, the boar will ſurely turn upon the hunters. If that ſovereignty and their freedom cannot be reconciled, which will they take? they will caſt your ſove⯑reignty in your face. No body will be argued into ſlavery. Sir, let the gentlemen on the other ſide call forth all their ability; let the beſt of them get up, and tell me, what one character of liberty the Americans have, and what one brand of ſlavery they are free from, if they are bound in their property and in⯑duſtry, by all the reſtraints you can imagine on commerce, and at the ſame time are made pack-horſes of every tax you chooſe to im⯑poſe, without the leaſt ſhare in granting them? When they bear the burthens of unlimited monopoly, will you bring them to bear the burthens of unlimited revenue too? The Engliſhman in America will feel that this ſlavery—that it is legal ſlavery, will be no compenſation, either to his feelings or his underſtanding.

A Noble Lord^*, who ſpoke ſome time ago, is full of the fire of in⯑genuous youth; and when he has modeled the ideas of a lively ima⯑gination by further experience, he will be an ornament to his country in either houſe. He has ſaid, that the Americans are our children; and how can they revolt againſt their parent? He ſays, that if they are not free in their preſent ſtate, England is not free; becauſe Mancheſter, and other conſiderable places, are not repreſented. So then, becauſe ſome towns in England are not re⯑preſented, America is to have no repreſentative at all. They are "our children;" but when children aſk for bread, we are not to give a ſtone. Is it becauſe the natural reſiſtance of things, and the various mutations of time, hinders our government, or any ſcheme of government, from being any more than a ſort of approximation to the right, is it therefore that the Colonies are to recede from it infinitely? When this child of ours wiſhes to aſſimilate to its parent, and to reflect with a true filial reſemblance the beauteous counte⯑nance of Britiſh liberty; are we to turn to them the ſhameful parts of our conſtitution? are we to give them our weakneſs for [54] their ſtrength; our opprobium for their glory; and the ſlough of ſlavery, which we are not able to work off, to ſerve them for their freedom?

If this be the caſe, aſk yourſelves this queſtion, will they be content in ſuch a ſtate of ſlavery? If not, look to the conſe⯑quences. Reflect how you are to govern a people, who think they ought to be free, and think they are not. Your ſcheme yields no revenue; it yields nothing but diſcontent, diſorder, diſobe⯑dience; and ſuch is the ſtate of America, that after wading up to your eyes in blood you could only end juſt where you begun; that is, to tax where no revenue is to be found, to—my voice fails me; my inclination indeed carries me no further—all is con⯑fuſion beyond it.

Well, Sir, I have recovered a little, and before I ſit down I muſt ſay ſomething to another point with which gentlemen urge us. What is to become of the declaratory act aſſerting the en⯑tireneſs of Britiſh legiſlative authority, if we abandon the practice of taxation?

For my part I look upon the rights ſtated in that act, exactly in the manner in which I viewed them on its very firſt propoſition, and which I have often taken the liberty, with great humility, to lay before you. I look, I ſay, on the imperial rights of Great Britain, and the pri⯑vileges which the Coloniſts ought to enjoy under theſe rights, to be juſt the moſt reconcileable things in the world. The Parliament of Great Britain ſits at the head of her extenſive empire in two ca⯑pacities: one as the local legiſlature of this iſland, providing for all things at home, immediately, and by no other inſtrument than the executive power.—The other, and I think her nobler capacity is what I call her imperial character; in which, as from the throne of heaven ſhe ſuperintends all the ſeveral inferior legiſlatures, and guides, and controls them all without annihilating any. As all theſe provincial legiſlatures are only co-ordinate to each other, they ought all to be ſubordinate to her, elſe they can neither preſerve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual juſtice, nor effectually afford mutual aſſiſtance. It is neceſſary to coerce the negligent, to re⯑ſtrain [55] the violent, and to aid the weak and deficient, by the over⯑ruling plenitude of her power. She is never to intrude into the place of the others, whilſt they are equal to the common ends of their inſtitution. But in order to enable parliament to anſwer all theſe ends of provident and beneficent ſuperintendance, her powers muſt be boundleſs. The gentlemen who think the powers of par⯑liament limited, may pleaſe themſelves to talk of requiſitions. But ſuppoſe the requiſitions are not obeyed? What! Shall there be no reſerved power in the empire, to ſupply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and diſſipate the whole? We are engaged in war—the Secre⯑tary of State calls upon the Colonies to contribute—ſome would do it, I think moſt would chearfully furniſh whatever is demanded—one or two, ſuppoſe, hang back, and eaſing themſelves, let the ſtreſs of the draft lie on the others—ſurely it is proper, that ſome authority might legally ſay—‘"Tax yourſelves for the common ſupply, or parliament will do it for you."’ This backwardneſs was, as I am told, actually the caſe of Pennſylvania for ſome ſhort time towards the beginning of the laſt war, owing to ſome internal diſſentions in the Colony. But, whether the fact were ſo, or otherwiſe, the caſe is equally to be provided for by a competent ſovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power; nor ever uſed in the firſt inſtance. This is what I meant, when I have ſaid at various times, that I conſider the power of taxing in parliament as an inſtrument of empire, and not as a means of ſupply.

Such, Sir, is my idea of the conſtitution of the Britiſh Empire, as diſtinguiſhed from the conſtitution of Britain; and on theſe grounds I think ſubordination and liberty may be ſufficiently recon⯑ciled through the whole; whether to ſerve a refining ſpeculatiſt, or a factious demagogue, I know not; but enough ſurely for the caſe and happineſs of man.

Sir, whilſt we held this happy courſe, we drew more from the Colonies than all the impotent violence of deſpotiſm ever could ex⯑tors from them. We did this abundantly in the laſt war. It has never been once denied—and what reaſon have we to imagine that the Colonies would not have proceeded in ſupplying government as liberally, if you had not ſtepped in and hindered them from contri⯑buting, [56] by interrupting the channel in which their liberality flowed with ſo ſtrong a courſe; by attempting to take, inſtead of being ſa⯑tisfied to receive. Sir William Temple ſays, that Holland has loaded itſelf with ten times the impoſitions which it revolted from Spain, rather than ſubmit to. He ſays true. Tyranny is a poor provider. It knows neither how to accumulate, nor how to extract.

I charge therefore to this new and unfortunate ſyſtem the loſs not only of peace, of union, and of commerce, but even of revenue, which its friends are contending for.—It is morally certain, that we have loſt at leaſt a million of free grants ſince the peace. I think we have loſt a great deal more; and that thoſe who look for a re⯑venue from the Provinces, never could have purſued, even in that light, a courſe more directly repugnant to their purpoſes.

Now, Sir, I truſt I have ſhewn, firſt on that narrow ground which the Hon. Gentleman meaſured, that you are like to loſe no⯑thing by complying with the motion, except what you have loſt already. I have ſhewn afterwards, that in time of peace you flou⯑riſhed in commerce, and when war required it, had ſufficient aid from the Colonies, while you purſued your antient policy; that you threw every thing into confuſion when you made the ſtamp act; and that you reſtored every thing to peace and order when you repealed it. I have ſhewn that the revival of the ſyſtem of taxation has produced the very worſt effects; and that the partial repeal has produced, not partial good, but univerſal evil. Let theſe conſider⯑ations, founded on facts, not one of which can be denied, bring us back to your reaſon by the road of your experience.

I cannot, as I have ſaid, anſwer for mixed meaſures; but ſurely this mixture of lenity would give the whole a better chance of ſuc⯑ceſs. When you once regain confidence, the way will be clear be⯑fore you. Then you may enforce the act of navigation when it ought to be enforced. You will yourſelves open it where it ought ſtill further to be opened. Proceed in what you do, whatever you do, from policy, and not from rancour. Let us act like men, let us act like ſtateſmen. Let us hold ſome ſort of conſiſtent conduct [57] —It is agreed that a revenue is not to be had in America. If we loſe the profit, let us get rid of the odium.

On this buſineſs of America I confeſs I am ſerious, even to ſadneſs. I have had but one opinion concerning it ſince I ſat, and before I ſat, in Parliament. The noble Lord^* will, as uſual, probably, attribute the part taken by me and my friends in this buſineſs, to a deſire of getting his places. Let him enjoy this happy and original idea. If I deprived him of it, I ſhould take away moſt of his wit, and all his argument. But I had rather bear the brunt of all his wit, and indeed blows much heavier, than ſtand anſwerable to God for embracing a ſyſtem that tends to the deſtruction of ſome of the very beſt and faireſt of his works. But I know the map of England, as well as the noble Lord^*, or as any other perſon; and I know that the way I take is not the road to preferment. My ex⯑cellent and honourable friend under me on the floor^†, has trod that road with great toil for upwards of twenty years toge⯑ther. He is not yet arrived at the noble Lord's deſtination. However, the tracks of my worthy friend are thoſe I have ever wiſhed to follow; becauſe I know they lead to honour. Long may we tread the ſame road together; whoever may accompany us, or whoever may laugh at us on our journey! I honeſtly and ſolemnly declare, I have in all ſeaſons adhered to the ſyſtem of 1766, for no other reaſon, than that I think it laid deep in your trueſt intereſts—and that, by limiting the exerciſe, it fixes on the firmeſt foundations, a real, conſiſtent, well-grounded authority in parliament. Until you come back to that ſyſtem, there will be no peace for England.