amongst mankind. For, that fenfe and that reafon, I have always understood, abfolutely 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 fame fnare.

Sir, I will freely follow the hon. Gentleman in his hiftorical difcuffion, without the leaft management for men or measures, further than as they fhall feem to me to deferve it. But before I go into that large confideration, becaufe I would omit nothing that can give the house fatisfaction, I wish to tread the narrow ground to which alone the hon. Gentleman, in one part of his Speech has fo ftrictly confined us.

He defires to know, whether, if we were to repeal this tax, agreeably to the propofition of the hon. Gentleman who made the motion, the Americans would not take poft on this conceffion, 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 fecurity on this fubject. 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 inftant, and reverts to in the next; to that experience, without the leaft wavering or hesitation on my part, I fteadily 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When Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in the year 1766, I affirm, first, that the Americans did not in confequence of this measure call upon you to give up the former parliamentary revenue which fubfifted in that country; or even any one of the articles which compofe it. I affirm allo, 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 forts of apprehenfions, 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 fuch questions have fhaken the folid ftructure of this Empire to its deepest foundations.

Of those two propofitions I fhall, before I have done, give such convincing, fuch 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 houfe. I fpeak with great confidence. I have reason for it. The minifters are with me.

They

(7)

They at least are convinced that the repeal of the Stamp Act had not, and that no repeal can have, the confequences which the hon. Gentleman who defends their measures is fo much alarmed at. To their conduct, I refer him for a conclufive answer to his objection. I carry my proof irrefiftibly into the very body of both Miniftry and Parliament: not on any general reasoning growing out of collateral matter, but on the conduct of the hon. Gentleman's minifterial friends on the new revenue itself.

The act of 1767, which grants this tea duty, fets forth in its preamble, that it was expedient to raife a revenue in America, for the fupport of the civil government there as well as for purposes ftill more extenfive. To this fupport the act affigns fix branches of duties. About two years after this act paffed, the miniftry, I mean the prefent miniftry, thought it expedient to repeal five of the duties, and to leave (for reasons best known to themfelves) only the fixth ftanding. Suppofe any perfon, at the time of that repeal, had thus addreffed the minifter,* "Condemning, as you do, the re66 peal of the Stamp Act, Why do you venture to repeal the du "ties upon glass, paper and painters colours? Let your pretence "for the repeal be what it will, are you not thoroughly convinc "ed, that your conceffions will produce, not fatisfaction, but in"folence in the Americans; and that the giving up these taxes "will neceffitate the giving up of all the reft ?" This objection was as palpable then as it is now; and it was as good for preferv.! ing the five duties as for retaining the fixth. Befides, the minifter will recollect, that the repeal of the Stamp Act had but juft preceded his repeal; and the ill policy of that measure (had it been fo impolitic as it has been reprefented) and the mifchiefs it produced, were quite recent. Upon the principles therefore of the hon. Gentleman, upon the principles of the minifter himself, the minifter has nothing at all to answer. He ftands condemned by himself, and by all his affociates old and new, as a destroyer, in the first truft of finance, of the revenues; and in the first rank of honour, as a betrayer of the dignity of his country. mogadi

Moft men, especially great men, do not always know their well-wifhers. I come to refcue that noble Lord out of the hands 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 tendency to produce the mifchiefs which give fo much alarm to his honour. ble friend. His work was not bad in its principle, but imperfect in its execution; and the motion on your paper preffes him only

* Lord North, then Chancellor of the Exchequer,

to

to compleat a proper plan, which, by some unfortunate and unaccountable error, he had left unfinished.

I hope, Sir, the hon. Gentleman who spoke laft, is thorough ly fatished, and satisfied out of the proceedings of ministry on their own favourite, act, that his fears from a repeal are groundlefs. If he is not, I leave him, and the noble Lord who fits by him, to feule the matter, as well as they can, together; for if the repeal of American taxes destroys all our government in Amerida He is the man!-and he is the worst of all the repealers, because he is the laft.

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 forry to be compelled so often to expofe the calamities and difgraces of parliament. The preamble of this law, standing as it now stands, has the lie direct given to it by the provifionary part of the act: if that can be called provi fionary which makes no provifion. I should be afraid to exprefs myself in this manner, especially in the face of fuch a formidable array of ability as is now drawn up before me, composed of the antient houfhold troops of that side of the house, and the new re cruits from this, if the matter were not clear and indifputable. Nothing but truth could give me this firmness; but plain and alear evidence can be beat down by no ability. The clerk will be fo good as to turn to the act, and to read, this favourite preamble

Whereas it is expedient that a revenue fhould be raised in your Ma jefty's Dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate provifion for defraying the charge of the adminiftration of justice, and fupport of civil government, in fuch provinces where it fhall be found neceffary; and towards further defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and fecuring the faid dominions.

You have heard this pompous performance. Now where is the revenue which is to do all those mighty things? Five fixths repealed abandonedfunk -gone- loft for ever. Does the poor folitary tea duty fupport the purposes of this preamble P Is not the fupply there flated 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 fill carefully kept up! This is raifing a revenue in America!! This is pre ferving dignity in England! If you repeal this tax incomplis ance with the motion, I readily admit that you lofe this fair preamble. Eftimate your lofs in it. The object of the aft is gone al ready; and all you fuffer is the purging the ftatute-book of the opprobrium of an empty, abfurd, and falfe recital

It

It has been faid again and again, that the five taxes were repealed on commercial principles. It is fo faid in the paper in my hand: a paper which I conftantly carry about; which I have often used, and fhall often ufe again. What is got by this paltry pretence of commercial principles I know not; for, if your government in America is deftroyed by the repeal of Taxes, it is of no confequence upon what ideas the repeal is grounded. Repeal this tax too upon commercial principles if you please. These principles will ferve as well now as they did formerly. But you know that, either your objection to a repeal from these fuppofed confequences has no validity, or that this pretence never could remove it. This commercial motive never was believed by any man, either in America, which this letter is meant to foothe, or in England, which it is meant to deceive. It was impoffible it fhould. Because every man, in the least acquainted with the detail of commerce, must know, that feveral of the articles on which the tax was repealed, were fitter objects of duties than almost any other articles that could poffibly be chofen; without comparison more fo, 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 nature. You have, in this kingdom, an advantage in Lead, that amounts to a monopoly. When you find yourself in this fituation of advantage, you sometimes venture to tax even your own export. You did so, soon after the laft war; when, upon this principle, you ventured to impose a duty on coals.In all the articles of American contraband trade who ever heard of the fmuggling of red Lead, and white Lead ? You might, there fore, well enough, without danger of contraband, and without injury to commerce (if this were the whole confideration) have taxed thefe commodities. The fame may be faid of glafs. Besides fome of the things taxed were fo trivial, that the lofs of the obs jects themselves and their utter annihilation of American commerce, would have been comparatively as nothing. But is the article of tea fuch an object in the trade of England, as not to be felt, or felt but flightly, like white Lead, and red Lead, and Painters colours? Tea is an object of far other importance. Tea is perhaps the most important object, taking it with its necessary connections, of any in the mighty circle of our commerce. If com mercial principles had been the true motives to the repeal, or had they been at all attended to, tea would have been the last ar ticle we should have left taxed for a subject of controversyper Las Sir, it is not a pleasant confideration; but nothing in the world

" can

* Lord Hillsborough's Circular Letter to the Governors of the Colonies cons cerning the Repeal of fome of the Duties laid in the Act of 1767.

for the fake of infulting your colonies? No manever doubted that the commodity of tea could bear an impofition of three-pence. But 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 refolved 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 fhillings. Would twenty fhillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! But the payment of half twenty Thillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a llave. It is the weight of that preamble, of which you are fo fond, and not the weight of the duty, that the Americans are unable and unwilling to bear,

1

It is then, Sir, upon, the principle of this measure, and nothing elfe, that we are at iffue. It is a principle of political expediency. Your act of 1767 afferts, that it (is expedient to raife a revenue in America; your act of 1769, which takes away that revenue, contradicts the act of 17673 and, by fomething much stronger than words, afferts, that it is not expedient. It is a reflection upon your wisdom to perfift in a folemn parliamentary declaration of the expediency of any object, for which, at the fame time, you make no fort of provifion. And pray, Sir, let not this circum ftance escape you; it is very material; 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 exercife of a right fuppofed already to have been al ferted; an exercise you are now contending for by ways and means, which you confefs, though they were obeyed, to be utterly infufficient for their purpose. You are therefore at this moment in the aukward fituation of fighting for a phantom; a quiddity; a a thing that wants, not only a fubftance, but even a name; for a thing, which is neither abstract right, nor profitable enjoyment.

1

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 intereft, your equity, and every idea of your policy. Shew the thing you contend for to be reafon; fhew it to be common sense; fhew it to be the means of attaining fome useful end; and then I am content to allow it what dignity you pleafe. But what dignity is derived from the perfeverance in abfurdity is more than ever I could difcern. The Hon. gentleman has faid well indeed, in most of his general obfervations I agree, with him-he fays, that this fubject does not ftand as it did formerly. Oh, certainly not!

every