ture, contrary to their repeated declarations, I cannot approve; I shall therefore bend the whole force of my argument to the original cause of quarrel-taxation. evidently upon Tory and arbitrary principles. Let us, therefore, at length, return back to those glorious maxims of universal liberty established by our great deliverer king William the 3rd-that friend to mankind; to whom we owe that this nation, by adhering heretofore to those maxims, had become the most powerful and illustrious on earth; and by whose wisdom the sceptre of this empire has been placed in the hands of the family who now wield it; which may they ever do with honour and perfect safety, whilst they remain enthroned in the hearts of all the loyal, free-born, independent, and whiggish subjects throughout Great-Britain, Ireland, and America! Mr. William Adam spoke against the motion. He recurred to first principles; said he was a Whig; declared his readiness to support the constitution of GreatBritain, in which America was included; spoke of the doctrine of resistance; declared the Americans never had a legal power of resistance in their constitution. Mr. Scott represented the dangers of a civil war, but pressed the necessity of violent measures on the present occasion. Governor Johnstone. Before you pronounce this dreadful sentence upon a meritorious, sober, and industrious people, I hope the House will indulge me with a few words in discharge of the duty I owe myself, and likewise with a view of transmitting my character fair to posterity, when those black scenes shall be examined without prejudice. The great and only secret yet found out, for preserving the liberties of mankind from the encroachments of that power which is necessary for the executive in large kingdoms, is the power of the purse. This was the subject of contention in the civil wars of Charles 1. It is this privilege alone which makes the House of Commons respectable: this is the point which Hampden obtained for us! And I leave every one acquainted with the history of those memorable times, to deter mine in his own mind, whether we should ever have enjoyed this blessing, if he had tamely paid the tax, and had not resisted? From this power we derive the certainty of assembling the representatives of the people; by this redress of grievances may precede supplies; and the security that the exercise will not be abused is derived from hence, that the House cannot impose on others what they are not to feel themselves. By the principles of the constitution, every man should be represented; but the deviation from a rule, too nice for practice, is safely borne, because the interest of every particular member remains as a pledge, that no individual can be over-burthened: when this security is removed, there is no longer any safety for those to whom the fact does not apply. What is the case respecting the Americans? Does any member feel himself affected by the impositions he shall lay on them? Nay, does not the contrary principle prevail? The more he shall burthen America, the more he will relieve himself. Judge Hobert says, "If an act of parliament was made constituting a man a judge in his own cause, it would be void by the law of nature." Yet such is the precise situation in which we contend we ought to be placed, respecting the Americans, and for the denial of which we are ready to condemn our fellow-subjects to all the tortures enacted by the laws of treason. The real question before us is, upon the proper measures to be pursued respecting our fellow-subjects in America. In order to judge of this, we must consider the real cause of dispute. I say, the substantial difference turns upon the right of taxation. Most of the advocates on the other side have endeavoured to slur this point, and alledge, that the claims of the Americans extend far beyond this article, and that the Act of Navigation itself is in danger. But it is impossible for a judicious mind to read the material papers, and not to see that this is illusory. The congress has Let us look round, and view the fate of expressly told us, they are willing to ac- different states that have yielded or prequiesce in those laws which secure to us served the privileges for which the Amethe monopoly of their trade, as necessary ricans contend. So soon as the cortes in the mutual connection; and the in- lost this power, their slavery was complete. structions from Philadelphia, on which the Portugal has now no vestige of this pallaproceedings of the congress are chiefly dium-Here is tyranny supreme! In formed, avow these doctrines in more full France, where the traces are left, (as in and explicit terms. This method of con- the pais d'etat) their happiness is distindemning men by inference and conjec-guishable from the misery of other parts. In Britain we are yet free, because we retain it. In Holland, Switzerland, and the other states of Europe, they are more or less so as they preserve it. What are the circumstances that distinguish and protect the British colonies from those of other nations? The representatives of the people met in general assembly, and the trial by jury. If the system of taxation, by the parliament of Great Britain, takes place, what being can be so credulous as to expect the assemblies of the people will ever meet; and it is confessed, that admiralty courts, disclaiming trials by jury, are necessary to enforce this species of taxation. Here, then, are all the essential privileges of an Englishman dependent on this question, and the real interest of the state is no way concerned in the contrary scale, since the prosperity of the colonies must ever prove the riches and glory of England. Nothing but the absurd pride, or narrow ignorance of the present administration, can be thrown into it. When once this system takes place, we shall then feel the tyranny and oppression of governors, with all their train of dependents, as in the provinces of Rome, which are now quoted as an example. Thus much supposing the Americans right in the dispute (as I believe they are); but supposing them wrong, I shall now state their excuse, and see what heart can condemn them, and retain any claims to humanity. The question concerning the right to tax the colonies, though clear to those who are accustomed to think deeply on the principles of free governments, is difficult to common apprehensions. Montesquieu has observed, "that in despotism every thing ought to depend on two or three ideas." As for instance, is there any thing so fit to solve this dispute, as the unity of the British empire, the supremacy of the legislative authority of Great Britain, the omnipotence of parliament? Is there any man so ignorant, after having heard those sounding words, as not clearly to comprehend the whole of the controversy? Plodding, thinking creatures, who are accustomed to consider the complicated privileges in a free government, from whence the harmony of the whole springs, may be puzzled; but men who have never disturbed their repose with such dry considerations, can have no doubt on the matter; be that as it may, certain it is, that the discussion of this most important question was debated in this assembly by the greatest abilities, after the fullest information that ever accompanied any political question. The decision was in favour of the Americans; the Stamp Act was repealed. I admit that principles of expediency are alleged as the reason, in the preamble of the Bill; but the men who boldly denied, during this discussion, the power of taxing the colonies, as constitutionally existing in the Commons of Great Britain, namely, lord Chatham and lord Camden, (men of as extraordinary talents as ever adorned society) the one was made prime minister, the other was created a peer, and lord high chancellor of Great Britain, the keeper of the King's conscience! What American could have retained any doubt of his cause in the mind of his Majesty, or the nation, after such a decision? The Compromising Act soon followed (for the sake of gratifying a party) violating all the principles of commerce and policy in the lump-giving draw-backs here, exacting duties there, committing the power and authority of the nation on subjects which never could produce any effectual revenue, and this in a manner that all men of sense must ever condemn. When the Americans saw by this act of parliament, that the great question was likely again to return upon them, in the progress of time, through the greediness, ignorance, or caprice of statesmen, they met the position in its sly, circuitous, questionable shape; they recurred to their old principles; they revolted against the preamble; they transmitted petitions; and all failing, they entered into non-importation agreements: this produced lord Hillsborough's circular letter, which I will repeat again and again, till a contrary conduct is pursued; for no satisfactory answer can be given about it, while the present doctrines are avowed. The Americans, thus fortified in their opinions concerning the point of taxation, are unanimous against our power from Nova Scotia to Georgia. If there be any doubt on this fact, why not call governor Eden? We are told he lately arrived; it would have been becom ing to have produced him: but I call on his relations, friends, or any man, to contradict me in this assertion," that the Americans are unanimous against this power of taxation." They are resolved to resist; and since you have placed them in situation, where they must either be rebels or slaves, the blame must lie with those who have drove them to this dilemma. In discussing the question of resistance, the gentlemen on the other side have great advantages. We stand on difficult ground, since, from its nature, it never can be defined, or admitted as lawful. The first officer of the crown has fairly expressed my ideas on the subject. The principle should never be extinguished in any government, much less in a free country; the occasion must ever be referred to the general feelings of mankind. Now, if depriving a trading town of its commerce -if cutting off whole societies from the benefit of the element which God has given them if proceeding to deprive them of the fishery, their subsistence-if altering their charter and annihilating all their rights, without hearing them in their defence-if establishing in its stead, a new form of government, which leaves all things in confusion-if erecting a system But the noble lord alleges, "that yieldof tyranny in their neighbourhood, and es- ing the point of taxation would not now tablishing (not tolerating) all the absurdi- do." This is conjecture on his part: but ties of the Roman Catholic religion-trial at least it would produce this good effect, by jury dismissed-Habeas Corpus de- we should divide the Americans; we nied the representatives of the people should unite men in this country, and go determined useless-inferior duties levied to the contest with better hopes of success. by act of parliament-in short, precedents The proofs the noble lord gives for his for the violation of every thing we hold opinion are several indiscreet acts of difmost sacred in this country: I say, if acts ferent meetings since the late confusion in like these can vindicate resistance, the America. Such detail never affects me. Americans can quote them, and God and I think no conclusions can be drawn from the world must judge between us. For | them. In all civil wars, when the people my own part, I consider, with lord So- are let loose to reason on government, a mers, that ، treason against the constitu- | thousand absurd doctrines are broached. tion is the first species of that crime." Let us apply this to our own country: let Acts of parliament are sacred things, and us remember all the ridiculous circum. yet they may be so made, grinding the stances which Hudibras has painted better face of mankind, that human nature will than I can. But should the great cause revolt at their severity. Dudley and of liberty, in which our ancestors were Empson were hanged for acting-accord- engaged, suffer from such circumstances? ing to act of parliament. To their feelings we may trust; on the reasoning of the multitude there is little dependance. For my own part, I think with cardinal De Retz, that " any number above one hundred is at best but a mere mob." [Here the House felt the expres sions as too strong.]-It never could be my intention to apply the rule to this House, long trained in form and discipline, though sometimes there are doctrines and proceedings, even here, that would surprize a stranger into this belief. what difficulties may not disgust, irritation, and all the horrors of civil war, engender? While the justice and moderation of this country are blotted from the face of the earth, and the accumulated expence, when the springs of riches are cut off, must shake public credit to the very centre. The noble lord has hinted, "if repealing the tea tax would do, he would yield that," and he speaks even faintly on the power of taxation. If these are his principles, we are yet more inexcusable. We are going to punish men for maintaining what we are ready to yield, and to engage the nation in endless expence, for the sake of a quiddity. Since whether renounced on the principles of expediency or right, the satisfaction must be equally complete to the Americans. I have now stated the arguments which should induce you to pause at least before you take this irretrievable step. I shall examine next the consequences. Suppose we should succeed in subduing the Americans, is it not clear from henceforward that we must govern them by military force? Must not our army be increased in proportion? While his Majesty retains the power of moving his troops from one part of his dominions to another, can there be any safety for the liberties of this country? If the mortification begins at the extremities, will it not soon communicate to the centre? Every man acquainted with the history of nations must foresee the consequences. If we fail in the attempt, which is the happiest event that can occur, [VOL. XVIII.] But the noble lord says, "Why not petition first, and acknowlege the right, and then we will grant freely." Have they not petitioned? Is there a means of sup plication and protestation they have not tried? I am convinced they went to the crown merely as a mode of introducing [S] their petition here. Now you deny hearing their agents. An hon. gentleman in administration says, "he wished we had heard their petitions." Do not then condemn them for not petitioning, till you have declared your resolution to hear them. Can it be expected the Americans will act on the inuendos of a minister? If you mean fair, why not declare your intentions by some binding act? After the East India Company, who will trust you? You invited them to petition, under hopes and declarations, and afterwards made use of this very petition, to deprive them both of their money and their privileges. In the ceded islands you invited men to settle under the royal proclamation, and then levied 4 per cent. on their produce, which procedure has lately been condemned in the courts of law. In Canada you have been guilty of a greater violation, as liberty is dearer than property. Here you have despised the royal proclamation, and forfeited your engagements to mankind. I repeat it again, what man or society of men can trust you? The next objection to the Americans is the congress. This is now termed an illegal meeting. Government here, lay by with great expectation, waiting their resolves. If they had been favourable to their views, or had any untoward circumstances broke their union, we should have had much eulogium on the congress. Now they have come to resolves favourable to the liberties of mankind, all is abuse. I do not know by what law (except that of common sense) mankind can be regulated on these occasions. What kind of meeting can that be called, which was held in this place at the Revolution? Aldermen and old members of parliament mixing in consultation. The necessity on these occasions gives rise to the case. You wished to know the sense of the people of America: was ever the judgment of a people so fairly taken? First the occasion is promulgated: the people chuse representatives: these chuse deputies; the deputies in congress publish their proceedings, each member returns to his respective colony, where his conduct is again approved: No place, no pension, no bribe, to influence his election, or bias his vote. But even as to the legality, the manner of meeting is not new; government itself called a congress in the last war, to apportion the quotas of men and troops. One gentleman has said, "that our sifuation is quite new, and there is no ex ample in history to direct our steps." I say there is a case directly similar, but we are too conceited to profit from such experience. Philip the 2nd and his seventeen provinces are the counterpart of what we are acting. The debates in his council on the sending the duke of Alva into the Netherlands, are applicable in every part. He was advised by two sensible men, to repair thither himself, and hear the complaints of his people, before he came to such rash resolves: but the majority said, as in this case, that his glory was compromised. It was not religion only, but taxing without consent of their states, that brought matters to the last extremity: the duke of Alva, it is true, was victorious every where at first, but his cruelties were but sowing the serpent's teeth. The gueux, the beggars of the Briel, esteemed at that time infinitely more despicable than the New Englandmen are represented, gave the first shock to the power of Spain. In comparing the probability of events, can any man say Great Britain has such a prospect of victory in the contest, as Spain might then have expected? yet we know the event, and how that mighty empire was rent in pieces. The present resolution hurries us into that situation, from which there is no retreating. It obliges the Americans immediately to act. By declaring them in rebellion, they must have recourse to arms; all negociation is cut off. I think the word rebellion' both impolitic and unjusti fiable. I beg to know what paper on your table can vindicate that term? The first law officer of the crown said, "a number of men committing treason was rebellion." I differ from him in the definition: according to my conception of the phrase, they must be in military array, to effect some military purpose. One hundred men coining money are not in rebellion, though committing treason. Insurrecticns to pull down inclosures is not rebellion, though deemed a constructive levying war. In the case of Purchase and Dammaree, for pulling down the Meeting houses*, they were convicted of treason, but no one ever thought of say ing the confederates or associates were in rebellion. I think we should be very cau tious how we criminate bodies of men on such intelligence. I dare say the noble lord has been deceived himself: but this I affirm, he has hitherto constantly deceived See Howell's State Trials, vol. 15, p. 521. the colonies, according to the number of inhabitants." His lordship says, “we pay about 25s. a head, and they pay about 6d." Who is there so unacquainted with political arithmetic as not to know that the small sum people pay in taxation is often a proof of their poverty, and the large sum a proof of their prosperity, by demonstrating the riches from the greatness of the consumption? Let this kind of reasoning be applied to Ireland and Scotland, where we know the multitude to be poor in comparison to the inhabitants of London, whom we know to be rich; besides, if the colonist does not pay in palpable cash from his own hand, does not he pay all the taxes on the four millions of manufactures he receives, and part of those taxes on the raw materials he sends hither? this House. It appears to me that no intelligence from general Gage can be depended on. I beg the House will attend particularly to what I now say, before they engage their lives and fortunes. It appears general Gage has regularly deceived administration. No event has turned out as he foretold, or gave reason to hope: the next letter constantly contradicts the expectations raised by the former. He seems never to have known what they were about-no doubt grossly imposed on himself-but the facts are undeniable. When he first arrived, he writes, the mal-contents were abashed, and the friends of government would soon appear. Next, his expectations from the assembly were disappointed, and he dissolves them in surprise: then, there would be no congress; next, though there would be a congress, they would differ and disagree: in short, led on, and leading others by vain expectations, till the last letter, which announces a total disaffection, and which I believe to be the true state of the provinces. Singling out the province of Massachuset's Bay, can answer no purpose, but to expose our partiality. It is the cause of all, and the other colonies can never be so mean as first to encourage and then desert them before the general right is settled. The noble lord talks next of stopping their fisheries; but he says, "the Act is only to be temporary." Does the noble lord think he can turn the channels of trade as easily as he can turn the majorities of this House? To explain the idea, Supposing the New England fisheries stopt, their utensils must waste and destroy. But, will the English merchant madly in crease his stock, and fit out new ships, if the Act is merely temporary? If it is perpetual, the people in America are ruined. The consequence is, that the French must in the end reap the benefit of all this strange policy. We are constantly stating the great obligation we have conferred on the colonies by our former behaviour towards them: if it was ever so good, we can claim no merit from hence in private or public concerns, to do injury in future. They do not complain of your former behaviour, but they say, you have altered this very system from whence you would now derive their submission. There are two arguments of the noble lord which I must remark upon before I sit down; the first is, "the comparative view of taxation between this country and The other argument is still more extraordinary. The noble lord says, "if we fail in our attempt of forcing America, we shall still be in the same situation we are in at present." What! after our armies have been disgraced, our fellow subjects destroyed, all the irritation of a civil war, public confidence, and fair opinion lost! does the noble lord think he will be in the same situation himself? I really speak it with regret; for personally I have much regard for the noble lord, and particularly because I perceive, from his faint manner of stating his propositions, that they are not the dictates of his own mind, and that they are forced on him. I cannot see my other memorandums, and therefore I shall conclude by heartily concurring with the noble lord who moved for the recommitment of this Address. Sir Robert Smythe spoke of two kinds of connexion which the Americans had with Great Britain. The first, as emigrants, they had a political connection: the commercial connexion was next in order. If we had stopped to hear the merchants' petition, it was just the same as if we had stopped the measures of government against the rebels, when they were in the heart of the kingdom, to hear petitions from Preston and Manchester: he was therefore for proceeding. Mr. Burke applied his argument to that prevalent idea, which alone, he said, can make one honest man the advocate for ministerial measures, namely, that the Americans attack the sovereignty of this country. He said, the Americans do not attack the sovereignty itself, but a certain exercise and use of that sovereignty. He |