THE WORKS

OF

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

EDMUND BURKE

IN TWELVE VOLUMES

VOLUME THE SECOND

[Illustration: Burke Coat of Arms. ]

LONDONJOHN C. NIMMO14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W. C. MDCCCLXXXVII

CONTENTS OF VOL. II. 

SPEECH ON AMERICAN TAXATION, April 19, 1774 1

SPEECHES ON ARRIVAL AT BRISTOL AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE POLL, October 13 and November 3, 1774 81

SPEECH ON MOVING RESOLUTIONS FOR CONCILIATION WITH AMERICA, March 22, 1775 99

LETTER TO THE SHERIFFS OF BRISTOL, ON THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA, April 3, 1777 187

TWO LETTERS TO GENTLEMEN OF BRISTOL, ON THE BILLS DEPENDING IN PARLIAMENT RELATIVE TO THE TRADE OF IRELAND, April 23 and May 2, 1778 247

SPEECH ON PRESENTING TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS A PLAN FOR THE BETTER SECURITY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT, AND THE ECONOMICAL REFORMATION OF THE CIVIL AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS, February 11, 1780 265

SPEECH AT BRISTOL PREVIOUS TO THE ELECTION, September 6, 1780 365

SPEECH AT BRISTOL ON DECLINING THE POLL, September 9, 1780 425

SPEECH ON MR. FOX'S EAST INDIA BILL, December 1, 1783 431

A REPRESENTATION TO HIS MAJESTY, MOVED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 14, 1784 537

SPEECH

ON

AMERICAN TAXATION. 

APRIL 19, 1774. 

PREFACE. 

The following speech has been much the subject of conversation, and thedesire of having it printed was last summer very general. The means ofgratifying the public curiosity were obligingly furnished from the notesof some gentlemen, members of the last Parliament. 

This piece has been for some months ready for the press. But a delicacy, possibly over-scrupulous, has delayed the publication to this time. Thefriends of administration have been used to attribute a great deal ofthe opposition to their measures in America to the writings published inEngland. The editor of this speech kept it back, until all the measuresof government have had their full operation, and can be no longeraffected, if ever they could have been affected, by any publication. 

Most readers will recollect the uncommon pains taken at the beginning ofthe last session of the last Parliament, and indeed during the wholecourse of it, to asperse the characters and decry the measures of thosewho were supposed to be friends to America, in order to weaken theeffect of their opposition to the acts of rigor then preparing againstthe colonies. The speech contains a full refutation of the chargesagainst that party with which Mr. Burke has all along acted. In doingthis, he has taken a review of the effects of all the schemes whichhave been successively adopted in the government of the plantations. Thesubject is interesting; the matters of information various andimportant; and the publication at this time, the editor hopes, will notbe thought unseasonable. 

SPEECH. 

 During the last session of the last Parliament, on the 19th of April, 1774, Mr. Rose Fuller, member for Rye, made the following motion:--

 "That an act made in the seventh year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation from this kingdom of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthenware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations, might be read. "

 And the same being read accordingly, he moved, --

 "That this House will, upon this day sevennight, resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the duty of three-pence per pound weight upon tea, payable in all his Majesty's dominions in America, imposed by the said act; and also the appropriation of the said duty. "

 On this latter motion a warm and interesting debate arose, in which Mr. Burke spoke as follows. 

Sir, --I agree with the honorable gentleman[1] who spoke last, that thissubject is not new in this House. Very disagreeably to this House, veryunfortunately to this nation, and to the peace and prosperity of thiswhole empire, no topic has been more familiar to us. For nine longyears, session after session, we have been lashed round and round thismiserable circle of occasional arguments and temporary expedients. I amsure our heads must turn and our stomachs nauseate with them. We havehad them in every shape; we have looked at them in every point of view. Invention is exhausted; reason is fatigued; experience has givenjudgment; but obstinacy is not yet conquered. 

The honorable gentleman has made one endeavor more to diversify the formof this disgusting argument. He has thrown out a speech composed almostentirely of challenges. Challenges are serious things; and as he is aman of prudence as well as resolution, I dare say he has very wellweighed those challenges before he delivered them. I had long thehappiness to sit at the same side of the House, and to agree with thehonorable gentleman on all the American questions. My sentiments, I amsure, are well known to him; and I thought I had been perfectlyacquainted with his. Though I find myself mistaken, he will still permitme to use the privilege of an old friendship; he will permit me to applymyself to the House under the sanction of his authority, and, on thevarious grounds he has measured out, to submit to you the poor opinionswhich I have formed upon a matter of importance enough to demand thefullest consideration I could bestow upon it. 

He has stated to the House two grounds of deliberation: one narrow andsimple, and merely confined to the question on your paper; the othermore large and more complicated, --comprehending the whole series of theParliamentary proceedings with regard to America, their causes, andtheir consequences. With regard to the latter ground, he states it asuseless, and thinks it may be even dangerous, to enter into so extensivea field of inquiry. Yet, to my surprise, he had hardly laid down thisrestrictive proposition, to which his authority would have given so muchweight, when directly, and with the same authority, he condemns it, anddeclares it absolutely necessary to enter into the most ample historicaldetail. His zeal has thrown him a little out of his usual accuracy. Inthis perplexity, what shall we do, Sir, who are willing to submit to thelaw he gives us? He has reprobated in one part of his speech the rule hehad laid down for debate in the other, and, after narrowing the groundfor all those who are to speak after him, he takes an excursion, himself, as unbounded as the subject and the extent of his greatabilities. 

Sir, when I cannot obey all his laws, I will do the best I can. I willendeavor to obey such of them as have the sanction of his example, andto stick to that rule which, though not consistent with the other, isthe most rational. He was certainly in the right, when he took thematter largely. I cannot prevail on myself to agree with him in hiscensure 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 inquiry, is "not how we gotinto 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 ourexperience. The mode of deliberation he recommends is diametricallyopposite to every rule of reason and every principle of good senseestablished amongst mankind. For that sense and that reason I havealways understood absolutely to prescribe, whenever we are involved indifficulties from the measures we have pursued, that we should take astrict review of those measures, in order to correct our errors, if theyshould be corrigible, --or at least to avoid a dull uniformity inmischief, and the unpitied calamity of being repeatedly caught in thesame snare. 

Sir, I will freely follow the honorable gentleman in his historicaldiscussion, without the least management for men or measures, furtherthan as they shall seem to me to deserve it. But before I go into thatlarge consideration, because I would omit nothing that can give theHouse satisfaction, I wish to tread the narrow ground to which alone thehonorable gentleman, in one part of his speech, has so strictly confinedus. 

He desires to know, whether, if we were to repeal this tax, agreeably tothe proposition of the honorable gentleman who made the motion, theAmericans would not take post on this concession, in order to make a newattack on the next body of taxes; and whether they would not call for arepeal of the duty on wine as loudly as they do now for the repeal ofthe duty on tea. Sir, I can give no security on this subject. But I willdo all that I can, and all that can be fairly demanded. To the_experience_ which the honorable gentleman reprobates in one instant andreverts to in the next, to that experience, without the least waveringor hesitation on my part, I steadily appeal: and would to God there wasno other arbiter to decide on the vote with which the House is toconclude 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 callupon you to give up the former Parliamentary revenue which subsisted inthat country, or even any one of the articles which compose it. I affirmalso, that, when, departing from the maxims of that repeal, you revivedthe scheme of taxation, and thereby filled the minds of the colonistswith new jealousy and all sorts of apprehensions, then it was that theyquarrelled with the old taxes as well as the new; then it was, and nottill then, that they questioned all the parts of your legislative power, and by the battery of such questions have shaken the solid structure ofthis empire to its deepest foundations. 

Of those two propositions I shall, before I have done, give suchconvincing, such damning proof, that, however the contrary may bewhispered in circles or bawled in newspapers, they never more will dareto raise their voices in this House. I speak with great confidence. Ihave reason for it. The ministers are with me. _They_ at least areconvinced that the repeal of the Stamp Act had not, and that no repealcan have, the consequences which the honorable gentleman who defendstheir measures is so much alarmed at. To their conduct I refer him for aconclusive answer to his objection. I carry my proof irresistibly intothe very body of both Ministry and Parliament: not on any generalreasoning growing out of collateral matter, but on the conduct of thehonorable gentleman's ministerial friends on the new revenue itself. 

The act of 1767, which grants this tea-duty, sets forth in its preamble, that it was expedient to raise a revenue in America for the support ofthe civil government there, as well as for purposes still moreextensive. To this support the act assigns six branches of duties. Abouttwo years after this act passed, the ministry, I mean the presentministry, thought it expedient to repeal five of the duties, and toleave (for reasons best known to themselves) only the sixth standing. Suppose any person, at the time of that repeal, had thus addressed theminister:[2] "Condemning, as you do, the repeal of the Stamp Act, why doyou venture to repeal the duties upon glass, paper, and painters'colors? Let your pretence for the repeal be what it will, are you notthoroughly convinced that your concessions will produce, notsatisfaction, but insolence in the Americans, and that the giving upthese taxes will necessitate the giving up of all the rest?" Thisobjection was as palpable then as it is now; and it was as good forpreserving the five duties as for retaining the sixth. Besides, theminister will recollect that the repeal of the Stamp Act had but justpreceded his repeal; and the ill policy of that measure, (had it been soimpolitic as it has been represented, ) and the mischiefs it produced, were quite recent. Upon the principles, therefore, of the honorablegentleman, upon the principles of the minister himself, the minister hasnothing at all to answer. He stands condemned by himself, and by all hisassociates old and new, as a destroyer, in the first trust of finance, of the revenues, --and in the first rank of honor, as a betrayer of thedignity of his country. 

Most men, especially great men, do not always know their well-wishers. Icome to rescue that noble lord out of the hands of those he calls hisfriends, and even out of his own. I will do him the justice he is deniedat home. He has not been this wicked or imprudent man. He knew that arepeal had no tendency to produce the mischiefs which give so much alarmto his honorable friend. His work was not bad in its principle, butimperfect in its execution; and the motion on your paper presses himonly to complete a proper plan, which, by some unfortunate andunaccountable error, he had left unfinished. 

I hope, Sir, the honorable gentleman who spoke last is thoroughlysatisfied, and satisfied out of the proceedings of ministry on their ownfavorite act, that his fears from a repeal are groundless. If he is not, I leave him, and the noble lord who sits by him, to settle the matter aswell as they can together; for, if the repeal of American taxes destroysall our government in America, --he is the man!--and he is the worst ofall the repealers, because he is the last. 

But I hear it rung continually in my ears, now and formerly, --"Thepreamble! what will become of the preamble, if you repeal this tax?"--Iam sorry to be compelled so often to expose the calamities and disgracesof Parliament. The preamble of this law, standing as it now stands, hasthe lie direct given to it by the provisionary part of the act: if thatcan be called provisionary which makes no provision. I should be afraidto express myself in this manner, especially in the face of such aformidable array of ability as is now drawn up before me, composed ofthe ancient household troops of that side of the House and the newrecruits from this, if the matter were not clear and indisputable. Nothing but truth could give me this firmness; but plain truth andclear evidence can be beat down by no ability. The clerk will be so goodas to turn to the act, and to read this favorite preamble. 

"Whereas it is _expedient_ that a revenue should be raised in yourMajesty's dominions in America, for making a more _certain_ and_adequate_ provision for defraying the charge of the _administration ofjustice and support of civil government_ in such provinces where itshall be found necessary, and towards _further defraying_ the expensesof _defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions_. "

You have heard this pompous performance. Now where is the revenue whichis to do all these mighty things? Five sixthsrepealed, --abandoned, --sunk, --gone, --lost forever. Does the poorsolitary tea-duty support the purposes of this preamble? Is not thesupply there stated as effectually abandoned as if the tea-duty hadperished in the general wreck? Here, Mr. Speaker, is a preciousmockery:--a preamble without an act, --taxes granted in order to berepealed, --and the reasons of the grant still carefully kept up! This israising a revenue in America! This is preserving dignity in England! Ifyou repeal this tax, in compliance with the motion, I readily admit thatyou lose this fair preamble. Estimate your loss in it. The object of theact is gone already; and all you suffer is the purging the statute-bookof the opprobrium of an empty, absurd, and false recital. 

It has been said again and again, that the five taxes were repealed oncommercial principles. It is so said in the paper in my hand:[3] a paperwhich I constantly carry about; which I have often used, and shalloften use again. What is got by this paltry pretence of commercialprinciples I know not; for, if your government in America is destroyedby the _repeal of taxes_, it is of no consequence upon what ideas therepeal is grounded. Repeal this tax, too, upon commercial principles, ifyou please. These principles will serve as well now as they didformerly. But you know that either your objection to a repeal from thesesupposed consequences has no validity, or that this pretence never couldremove it. This commercial motive never was believed by any man, eitherin America, which this letter is meant to soothe, or in England, whichit is meant to deceive. It was impossible it should: because every man, in the least acquainted with the detail of commerce, must know thatseveral of the articles on which the tax was repealed were fitterobjects of duties than almost any other articles that could possibly bechosen, --without comparison more so than the tea that was left taxed, asinfinitely less liable to be eluded by contraband. The tax upon red andwhite lead was of this nature. You have in this kingdom an advantage inlead that amounts to a monopoly. When you find yourself in thissituation of advantage, you sometimes venture to tax even your ownexport. 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 Americancontraband trade, who ever heard of the smuggling of red lead and whitelead? You might, therefore, well enough, without 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 objectsthemselves, and their utter annihilation out of American commerce, wouldhave been comparatively as nothing. But is the article of tea such anobject in the trade of England, as not to be felt, or felt but slightly, like white lead, and red lead, and painters' colors? Tea is an object offar other importance. Tea is perhaps the most important object, takingit with its necessary connections, of any in the mighty circle of ourcommerce. If commercial principles had been the true motives to therepeal, or had they been at all attended to, tea would have been thelast article we should have left taxed for a subject of controversy. 

Sir, it is not a pleasant consideration, but nothing in the world canread so awful and so instructive a lesson as the conduct of ministry inthis business, upon the mischief of not having large and liberal ideasin the management of great affairs. Never have the servants of the statelooked at the whole of your complicated interests in one connected view. They have taken things by bits and scraps, some at one time and onepretence, and some at another, just as they pressed, without any sort ofregard to their relations or dependencies. They never had any kind ofsystem, right or wrong; but only invented occasionally some miserabletale for the day, in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties intowhich they had proudly strutted. And they were put to all these shiftsand devices, full of meanness and full of mischief, in order to pilferpiecemeal a repeal of an act which they had not the generous courage, when they found and felt their error, honorably and fairly to disclaim. By such management, by the irresistible operation of feeble councils, so paltry a sum as three-pence in the eyes of a financier, soinsignificant an article as tea in the eyes of a philosopher, haveshaken 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 ofgeneral bankruptcy? Your danger was indeed great. You were distressed inthe affairs of the East India Company; and you well know what sort ofthings are involved in the comprehensive energy of that significantappellation. I am not called upon to enlarge to you on that danger, which you thought proper yourselves to aggravate, and to display to theworld with all the parade of indiscreet declamation. The monopoly of themost lucrative trades and the possession of imperial revenues hadbrought you to the verge of beggary and ruin. Such was yourrepresentation; such, in some measure, was your case. The vent of tenmillions of pounds of this commodity, now locked up by the operation ofan injudicious tax, and rotting in the warehouses of the Company, wouldhave prevented all this distress, and all that series of desperatemeasures which you thought yourselves obliged to take in consequence ofit. America would have furnished that vent, which no other part of theworld 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 EastIndia 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 Indiarevenues and acquisitions can have no certain connection with thiscountry. It is through the American trade of tea that your East Indiaconquests are to be prevented from crushing you with their burden. Theyare ponderous indeed; and they must have that great country to leanupon, or they tumble upon your head. It is the same folly that has lostyou at once the benefit of the West and of the East. This folly hasthrown open folding-doors to contraband, and will be the means of givingthe profits of the trade of your colonies to every nation butyourselves. Never did a people suffer so much for the empty words of apreamble. It must be given up. For on what principle does it stand? Thisfamous revenue stands, at this hour, on all the debate, as a descriptionof revenue not as yet known in all the comprehensive (but toocomprehensive!) vocabulary of finance, --_a preambulary tax_. It is, indeed, a tax of sophistry, a tax of pedantry, a tax of disputation, atax of war and rebellion, a tax for anything but benefit to the imposersor satisfaction to the subject. 

Well! but whatever it is, gentlemen will force the colonists to take theteas. You will force them? Has seven years' struggle been yet able toforce them? Oh, but it seems "we are in the right. The tax istrifling, --in effect it is rather an exoneration than an imposition;three fourths of the duty formerly payable on teas exported to Americais taken off, --the place of collection is only shifted; instead of theretention of a shilling from the drawback here, it is three-pence custompaid in America. " All this, Sir, is very true. But this is the veryfolly and mischief of the act. Incredible as it may seem, you know thatyou have deliberately thrown away a large duty, which you held secureand quiet in your hands, for the vain hope of getting one three fourthsless, through every hazard, through certain litigation, and possiblythrough war. 

The manner of proceeding in the duties on paper and glass, imposed bythe same act, was exactly in the same spirit. There are heavy excises onthose articles, when used in England. On export, these excises are drawnback. But instead of withholding the drawback, which might have beendone, with ease, without charge, without possibility of smuggling, andinstead of applying the money (money already in your hands) according toyour pleasure, you began your operations in finance by flinging awayyour revenue; you allowed the whole drawback on export, and then youcharged the duty, (which you had before discharged, ) payable in thecolonies, where it was certain the collection would devour it to thebone, --if any revenue were ever suffered to be collected at all. Onespirit pervades and animates the whole mass. 

Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America than to seeyou go out of the plain highroad of finance, and give up your mostcertain revenues and your clearest interest, merely for the sake ofinsulting your colonies? No man ever doubted that the commodity of teacould bear an imposition of three-pence. But no commodity will bearthree-pence, or will bear a penny, when the general feelings of men areirritated, and two millions of people are resolved not to pay. Thefeelings of the colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain. Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden, when called upon forthe payment of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on theprinciple it was demanded, would have made him a slave. It is the weightof that preamble, of which you are so fond, and not the weight of theduty, that the Americans are unable and unwilling to bear. 

It is, then, Sir, upon the _principle_ of this measure, and nothingelse, 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 inAmerica; your act of 1769, which takes away that revenue, contradictsthe act of 1767, and, by something much stronger than words, assertsthat it is not expedient. It is a reflection upon your wisdom to persistin 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 material, --thatthe preamble of this act which we wish to repeal is not _declaratory ofa right_, as some gentlemen seem to argue it: it is only a recital ofthe _expediency_ of a certain exercise of a right supposed already tohave been asserted; an exercise you are now contending for by ways andmeans which you confess, though they were obeyed, to be utterlyinsufficient for their purpose. You are therefore at this moment in theawkward situation of fighting for a phantom, --a quiddity, --a thing thatwants, not only a substance, but even a name, --for a thing which isneither abstract right nor profitable enjoyment. 

They tell you, Sir, that your dignity is tied to it. I know not how ithappens, but this dignify of yours is a terrible incumbrance to you; forit has of late been ever at war with your interest, your equity, andevery idea of your policy. Show the thing you contend for to be reason, show it to be common sense, show it to be the means of attaining someuseful end, and then I am content to allow it what dignity you please. But what dignity is derived from the perseverance in absurdity is morethan ever I could discern. The honorable gentleman has saidwell, --indeed, in most of his _general_ observations I agree withhim, --he says, that this subject does not stand as it did formerly. Oh, certainly not! Every hour you continue on this ill-chosen ground, yourdifficulties thicken on you; and therefore my conclusion is, remove froma bad position as quickly as you can. The disgrace, and the necessity ofyielding, both of them, grow upon you every hour of your delay. 

But will you repeal the act, says the honorable gentleman, at thisinstant, when America is in open resistance to your authority, and thatyou have just revived your system of taxation? He thinks he has drivenus into a corner. But thus pent up, I am content to meet him; because Ienter the lists supported by my old authority, his new friends, theministers themselves. The honorable gentleman remembers that about fiveyears ago as great disturbances as the present prevailed in America onaccount of the new taxes. The ministers represented these disturbancesas treasonable; and this House thought proper, on that representation, to make a famous address for a revival and for a new application of astatute of Henry the Eighth. We besought the king, in thatwell-considered address, to inquire into treasons, and to bring thesupposed traitors from America to Great Britain for trial. His Majestywas pleased graciously to promise a compliance with our request. All theattempts from this side of the House to resist these violences, and tobring about a repeal, were treated with the utmost scorn. Anapprehension of the very consequences now stated by the honorablegentleman was then given as a reason for shutting the door against allhope of such an alteration. And so strong was the spirit for supportingthe new taxes, that the session concluded with the following remarkabledeclaration. After stating the vigorous measures which had been pursued, the speech from the throne proceeds:--

"You have assured me of your _firm_ support in the _prosecution_ ofthem. Nothing, in my opinion, could be more likely to enable thewell-disposed among my subjects in that part of the world effectually todiscourage and defeat the designs of the factious and seditious than thehearty concurrence of every branch of the legislature in the resolutionof _maintaining the execution of the laws in every_ part of mydominions. "

After this no man dreamt that a repeal under this ministry couldpossibly take place. The honorable gentleman knows as well as I, thatthe idea was utterly exploded by those who sway the House. This speechwas made on the ninth day of May, 1769. Five days after this speech, that is, on the thirteenth of the same month, the public circularletter, a part of which I am going to read to you, was written by LordHillsborough, Secretary of State for the Colonies. After reciting thesubstance of the king's speech, he goes on thus:--

"I can take upon me to assure you, notwithstanding insinuations to thecontrary from men with _factious and seditious views_, that hisMajesty's _present administration have at no time entertained a designto propose to Parliament to lay any further taxes upon America, for thepurpose of_ RAISING A REVENUE; and that it is at present their intentionto propose, the next session of Parliament, to take off the duties uponglass, paper, and colors, upon consideration of such duties _having beenlaid contrary to the true principles of commerce_. 

"These have _always_ been, and _still are_, the sentiments of _hisMajesty's present servants_, and by which their conduct _in respect toAmerica has been governed. _ And _his Majesty_ relies upon your prudenceand fidelity for such an explanation of _his_ measures as may tend toremove the prejudices which have been excited by the misrepresentationsof those who are enemies to the peace and prosperity of Great Britainand her colonies, and to reëstablish that mutual _confidence andaffection_ upon which the glory and safety of the British empiredepend. "

Here, Sir, is a canonical boot of ministerial scripture: the generalepistle to the Americans. What does the gentleman say to it? Here arepeal is promised, --promised without condition, --and while yourauthority was actually resisted. I pass by the public promise of a peerrelative to the repeal of taxes by this House. I pass by the use of theking's name in a matter of supply, that sacred and reserved right of theCommons. I conceal the ridiculous figure of Parliament hurling itsthunders at the gigantic rebellion of America, and then, five daysafter, prostrate at the feet of those assemblies we affected todespise, --begging them, by the intervention of our ministerial sureties, to receive our submission, and heartily promising amendment. These mighthave been serious matters formerly; but we are grown wiser than ourfathers. Passing, therefore, from the Constitutional consideration tothe mere policy, does not this letter imply that the idea of taxingAmerica for the purpose of revenue is an abominable project, when theministry suppose none but _factious_ men, and with seditious views, could charge them with it? does not this letter adopt and sanctify theAmerican distinction of _taxing for a revenue_? does it not formallyreject all future taxation on that principle? does it not state theministerial rejection of such principle of taxation, not as theoccasional, but the constant opinion of the king's servants? does it notsay, (I care not how consistently, ) but does it not say, that theirconduct with regard to America has been _always_ governed by thispolicy? It goes a great deal further. These excellent and trustyservants of the king, justly fearful lest they themselves should havelost all credit with the world, bring out the image of their gracioussovereign from the inmost and most sacred shrine, and they pawn him as asecurity for their promises:--"_His Majesty_ relies on your prudence andfidelity for such an explanation of _his_ measures. " These sentiments ofthe minister and these measures of his Majesty can only relate to theprinciple and practice of taxing for a revenue; and accordingly LordBotetourt, stating it as such, did, with great propriety, and in theexact spirit of his instructions, endeavor to remove the fears of theVirginian assembly lest the sentiments which it seems (unknown to theworld) had _always_ been those of the ministers, and by which _their_conduct _in respect to America had been governed_, should by somepossible revolution, favorable to wicked American taxers, be hereaftercounteracted. He addresses them in this manner:--

"It may possibly be objected, that, as his Majesty's presentadministration are _not immortal_, their successors may be inclined toattempt to undo what the present ministers shall have attempted toperform; and to that objection I can give but this answer: that it is myfirm opinion, that the plan I have stated to you will certainly takeplace, and that it will never be departed from; and so determined am Iforever to abide by it, that I will be content to be declared infamous, if I do not, to the last hour of my life, at all times, in all places, and upon all occasions, exert every power with which I either am or evershall be legally invested, in order to obtain and _maintain_ for thecontinent of America that _satisfaction_ which I have been authorized topromise this day by the _confidential_ servants of our gracioussovereign, who to my certain knowledge rates his honor so high _that hewould rather part with his crown than preserve it by deceit_. "[4]

A glorious and true character! which (since we suffer his ministers withimpunity to answer for his ideas of taxation) we ought to make it ourbusiness to enable his Majesty to preserve in all its lustre. Let himhave character, since ours is no more! Let some part of government bekept in respect!

This epistle was not the letter of Lord Hillsborough solely, though heheld the official pen. It was the letter of the noble lord upon thefloor, [5] and of all the king's then ministers, who (with, I think, theexception of two only) are his ministers at this hour. The very firstnews that a British Parliament heard of what it was to do with theduties which it had given and granted to the king was by the publicationof the votes of American assemblies. It was in America that yourresolutions were pre-declared. It was from thence that we knew to acertainty how much exactly, and not a scruple more nor less, we were torepeal. We were unworthy to be let into the secret of our own conduct. The assemblies had _confidential_ communications from his Majesty's_confidential_ servants. We were nothing but instruments. Do you, afterthis, wonder that you have no weight and no respect in the colonies?After this are you surprised that Parliament is every day and everywherelosing (I feel it with sorrow, I utter it with reluctance) thatreverential affection which so endearing a name of authority ought everto carry with it? that you are obeyed solely from respect to thebayonet? and that this House, the ground and pillar of freedom, isitself held up only by the treacherous underpinning and clumsybuttresses of arbitrary power?

If this dignity, which is to stand in the place of just policy andcommon 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 wereoften pressed to do, repealed these taxes, then your strong operationswould have come justified and enforced, in case your concessions hadbeen returned by outrages. But, preposterously, you began with violence;and before terrors could have any effect, either good or bad, yourministers immediately begged pardon, and promised that repeal to theobstinate Americans which they had refused in an easy, good-natured, complying British Parliament. The assemblies, which had been publiclyand avowedly dissolved for _their_ contumacy, are called together toreceive _your_ submission. Your ministerial directors blustered liketragic tyrants here; and then went mumping with a sore leg in America, canting, and whining, and complaining of faction, which represented themas friends to a revenue from the colonies. I hope nobody in this Housewill hereafter have the impudence to defend American taxes in the nameof ministry. The moment they do, with this letter of attorney in myhand, I will tell them, in the authorized terms, they are wretches "withfactious and seditious views, " "enemies to the peace and prosperity ofthe mother country and the colonies, " and subverters "of the mutualaffection and confidence on which the glory and safety of the Britishempire depend. "

After this letter, the question is no more on propriety or dignity. Theyare gone already. The faith of your sovereign is pledged for thepolitical principle. The general declaration in the letter goes to thewhole of it. You must therefore either abandon the scheme of taxing, oryou must send the ministers tarred and feathered to America, who daredto hold out the royal faith for a renunciation of all taxes for revenue. Them you must punish, or this faith you must preserve. The preservationof this faith is of more consequence than the duties on _red lead_, or_white lead_, or on broken _glass_, or _atlas-ordinary_, or _demy-fine_, or _blue-royal_, or _bastard_, or _fools cap_, which you have given up, or the three-pence on tea which you retained. The letter went stampedwith the public authority of this kingdom. The instructions for thecolony government go under no other sanction; and America cannotbelieve, and will not obey you, if you do not preserve this channel ofcommunication sacred. You are now punishing the colonies for acting ondistinctions held out by that very ministry which is here shining inriches, in favor, and in power, and urging the punishment of the veryoffence to which they had themselves been the tempters. 

Sir, if reasons respecting simply your own commerce, which is your ownconvenience, were the sole grounds of the repeal of the five duties, whydoes Lord Hillsborough, in disclaiming in the name of the king andministry their ever having had an intent to tax for revenue, mention itas the means "of reëstablishing the confidence and affection of thecolonies?" Is it a way of soothing _others_, to assure them that youwill take good care of _yourself_? The medium, the only medium, forregaining their affection and confidence is that you will take offsomething oppressive to their minds. Sir, the letter strongly enforcesthat idea: for though the repeal of the taxes is promised on commercialprinciples, yet the means of counteracting the "insinuations of men withfactious and seditious views" is by a disclaimer of the intention oftaxing for revenue, as a constant, invariable sentiment and rule ofconduct in the government of America. 

I remember that the noble lord on the floor, not in a former debate tobe sure, (it would be disorderly to refer to it, I suppose I read itsomewhere, ) but the noble lord was pleased to say, that he did notconceive how it could enter into the head of man to impose such taxes asthose of 1767: I mean those taxes which he voted for imposing, and votedfor repealing, --as being taxes, contrary to all the principles ofcommerce, laid on _British manufactures_. 

I dare say the noble lord is perfectly well read, because the duty ofhis 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, whenhe had read this act of American revenue, and a little recovered fromhis astonishment, I suppose he made one step retrograde (it is but one)and looked at the act which stands just before in the statute-book. TheAmerican revenue act is the forty-fifth chapter; the other to which Irefer is the forty-fourth of the same session. These two acts are bothto the same purpose: both revenue acts; both taxing out of the kingdom;and both taxing British manufactures exported. As the forty-fifth is anact for raising a revenue in America, the forty-fourth is an act forraising a revenue in the Isle of Man. The two acts perfectly agree inall respects, except one. In the act for taxing the Isle of Man thenoble lord will find, not, as in the American act, four or firearticles, but almost the _whole body_ of British manufactures, taxedfrom two and a half to fifteen per cent, and some articles, such as thatof spirits, a great deal higher. You did not think it uncommercial totax the whole mass of your manufactures, and, let me add, youragriculture too; for, I now recollect, British corn is there also taxedup to ten per cent, and this too in the very head-quarters, the verycitadel of smuggling, the Isle of Man. Now will the noble lordcondescend to tell me why he repealed the taxes on your manufacturessent out to America, and not the taxes on the manufactures exported tothe Isle of Man? The principle was exactly the same, the objects chargedinfinitely more extensive, the duties without comparison higher. Why?Why, notwithstanding all his childish pretexts, because the taxes werequietly submitted to in the Isle of Man, and because they raised a flamein America. Your reasons were political, not commercial. The repeal wasmade, as Lord Hillsborough's letter well expresses it, to regain "theconfidence and affection of the colonies, on which the glory and safetyof the British empire depend. " A wise and just motive, surely, if everthere was such. But the mischief and dishonor is, that you have not donewhat you had given the colonies just cause to expect, when yourministers disclaimed the idea of taxes for a revenue. There is nothingsimple, nothing manly, nothing ingenuous, open, decisive, or steady, inthe proceeding, with regard either to the continuance or the repeal ofthe taxes. The whole has an air of littleness and fraud. The article oftea 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 itup. There is no fair dealing in any part of the transaction. 

If you mean to follow your true motive and your public faith, give upyour tax on tea for raising a revenue, the principle of which has, ineffect, been disclaimed in your name, and which produces you noadvantage, --no, not a penny. Or, if you choose to go on with a poorpretence instead of a solid reason, and will still adhere to your cantof commerce, you have ten thousand times more strong commercial reasonsfor giving up this duty on tea than for abandoning the five others thatyou 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 ajustification of your perseverance in enforcing this tax, you know thatyou can never answer this plain question, --Why did you repeal the othersgiven in the same act, whilst the very same violence subsisted?--But youdid not find the violence cease upon that concession. --No! because theconcession was far short of satisfying the principle which LordHillsborough had abjured, or even the pretence on which the repeal ofthe other taxes was announced; and because, by enabling the East IndiaCompany to open a shop for defeating the American resolution not to paythat specific tax, you manifestly showed a hankering after the principleof the act which you formerly had renounced. Whatever road you takeleads to a compliance with this motion. It opens to you at the end ofevery visto. Your commerce, your policy, your promises, your reasons, your pretences, your consistency, your inconsistency, --all jointlyoblige you to this repeal. 

But still it sticks in our throats, if we go so far, the Americans willgo farther. --We do not know that. We ought, from experience, rather topresume the contrary. Do we not know for certain, that the Americans aregoing on as fast as possible, whilst we refuse to gratify them? Can theydo more, or can they do worse, if we yield this point? I think thisconcession will rather fix a turnpike to prevent their furtherprogress. It is impossible to answer for bodies of men. But I am surethe natural effect of fidelity, clemency, kindness in governors ispeace, good-will, order, and esteem, on the part of the governed. Iwould certainly, at least, give these fair principles a fair trial;which, since the making of this act to this hour, they never have had. 

Sir, the honorable gentleman having spoken what he thought necessaryupon the narrow part of the subject, I have given him, I hope, asatisfactory answer. He next presses me, by a variety of directchallenges and oblique reflections, to say something on the historicalpart. I shall therefore, Sir, open myself fully on that important anddelicate 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 sakeof the weighty instruction that, I flatter myself, will necessarilyresult from it. It shall not be longer, if I can help it, than soserious a matter requires. 

Permit me then, Sir, to lead your attention very far back, --back to theAct of Navigation, the cornerstone of the policy of this country withregard to its colonies. Sir, that policy was, from the beginning, purelycommercial; and the commercial system was wholly restrictive. It was thesystem of a monopoly. No trade was let loose from that constraint, butmerely to enable the colonists to dispose of what, in the course of yourtrade, you could not take, --or to enable them to dispose of sucharticles as we forced upon them, and for which, without some degree ofliberty, they could not pay. Hence all your specific and detailedenumerations; hence the innumerable checks and counterchecks; hence thatinfinite variety of paper chains by which you bind together thiscomplicated system of the colonies. This principle of commercialmonopoly runs through no less than twenty-nine acts of Parliament, fromthe year 1660 to the unfortunate period of 1764. 

In all those acts the system of commerce is established as that fromwhence alone you proposed to make the colonies contribute (I meandirectly and by the operation of your superintending legislative power)to the strength of the empire. I venture to say, that, during that wholeperiod, a Parliamentary revenue from thence was never once incontemplation. Accordingly, in all the number of laws passed with regardto the plantations, the words which distinguish revenue lawsspecifically 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 thepower of the lawgiver. It certainly does not. How ever, titles andformal preambles are not always idle words; and the lawyers frequentlyargue from them. I state these facts to show, 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 andgrant_" usually precede the enacting parts. Although duties were imposedon America in acts of King Charles the Second, and in acts of KingWilliam, no one title of giving "an aid to his Majesty, " or any other ofthe usual titles to revenue acts, was to be found in any of them till1764; nor were the words "give and grant" in any preamble until thesixth of George the Second. However, the title of this act of George theSecond, notwithstanding the words of donation, considers it merely as aregulation of trade; "An act for the better securing of the trade of hisMajesty's sugar colonies in America. " This act was made on a compromiseof 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 titledirectly purporting only a _commercial regulation_, and being in truthnothing more, the words were passed by, at a time when no jealousy wasentertained, and things were little scrutinized. Even Governor Bernard, 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 certainlytrue, that no act avowedly for the purpose of revenue, and with theordinary title and recital taken together, is found in the statute-bookuntil the year I have mentioned: that is, the year 1764. All before thisperiod stood on commercial regulation and restraint. The scheme of acolony revenue by British authority appeared, therefore, to theAmericans in the light of a great innovation. The words of GovernorBernard's ninth letter, written in November, 1765, state this idea verystrongly. "It must, " says he, "have been supposed _such an innovation asa Parliamentary taxation_ would cause a great _alarm_, and meet withmuch _opposition_ in most parts of America; it was _quite new_ to thepeople, and had no _visible bounds_ set to it. " After stating theweakness of government there, he says, "Was this a time to introduce _sogreat a novelty_ as a Parliamentary inland taxation in America?"Whatever the right might have been, this mode of using it was absolutelynew in policy and practice. 

Sir, they who are friends to the schemes of American revenue say, thatthe commercial restraint is full as hard a law for America to liveunder. I think so, too. I think it, if uncompensated, to be a conditionof as rigorous servitude as men can be subject to. But America bore itfrom the fundamental Act of Navigation until 1764. Why? Because men dobear the inevitable constitution of their original nature with all itsinfirmities. The Act of Navigation attended the colonies from theirinfancy, grow with their growth, and strengthened with their strengthThey 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 suchrestraint. Besides, they were indemnified for it by a pecuniarycompensation. Their monopolist happened to be one of the richest men inthe world. By his immense capital (primarily employed, not for theirbenefit, but his own) they were enabled to proceed with their fisheries, their agriculture, their shipbuilding, (and their trade, too, within thelimits, ) in such a manner as got far the start of the slow, languidoperations of unassisted Nature. This capital was a hot-bed to them. Nothing in the history of mankind is like their progress. For my part, Inever cast an eye on their flourishing commerce, and their cultivatedand commodious life, but they seem to me rather ancient nations grown toperfection through a long series of fortunate events, and a train ofsuccessful industry, accumulating wealth in many centuries, than thecolonies of yesterday, --than a set of miserable outcasts a few yearsago, not so much sent as thrown out on the bleak and barren shore of adesolate wilderness three thousand miles from all civilized intercourse. 

All this was done by England whilst England pursued trade and forgotrevenue. You not only acquired commerce, but you actually created thevery objects of trade in America; and by that creation you raised thetrade of this kingdom at least fourfold. America had the compensation ofyour capital, which made her bear her servitude. She had anothercompensation, which you are now going to take away from her. She had, except the commercial restraint, every characteristic mark of a freepeople in all her internal concerns. She had the image of the BritishConstitution. She had the substance. She was taxed by her ownrepresentatives. She chose most of her own magistrates. She paid themall. She had in effect the sole disposal of her own internal government. This whole state of commercial servitude and civil liberty, takentogether, is certainly not perfect freedom; but comparing it with theordinary circumstances of human nature, it was an happy and a liberalcondition. 

I know, Sir, that great and not unsuccessful pains have been taken toinflame our minds by an outcry, in this House, and out of it, that inAmerica the Act of Navigation neither is or never was obeyed. But if youtake the colonies through, I affirm that its authority never wasdisputed, --that it was nowhere disputed for any length of time, --and, onthe whole, that it was well observed. Wherever the act pressed hard, many individuals, indeed, evaded it. This is nothing. These scatteredindividuals never denied the law, and never obeyed it. Just as ithappens, whenever the laws of trade, whenever the laws of revenue, presshard upon the people in England: in that case all your shores are fullof contraband. Your right to give a monopoly to the East India Company, your right to lay immense duties on French brandy, are not disputed inEngland. You do not make this charge on any man. But you know thatthere is not a creek from Pentland Frith to the Isle of Wight in whichthey do not smuggle immense quantities of teas, East India goods, andbrandies. I take it for granted that the authority of Governor Bernardin this point is indisputable. Speaking of these laws, as they regardedthat part of America now in so unhappy a condition, he says, "I believethey are nowhere better supported than in this province: I do notpretend that it is entirely free from a breach of these laws, but thatsuch a breach, if discovered, is justly punished. " What more can you sayof the obedience to any laws in any country? An obedience to these lawsformed the acknowledgment, instituted by yourselves, for yoursuperiority, and was the payment you originally imposed for yourprotection. 

Whether you were right or wrong in establishing the colonies on theprinciples of commercial monopoly, rather than on that of revenue, is atthis day a problem of mere speculation. You cannot have both by the sameauthority. To join together the restraints of an universal internal andexternal monopoly with an universal internal and external taxation is anunnatural union, --perfect, uncompensated slavery. You have long sincedecided for yourself and them; and you and they have prosperedexceedingly under that decision. 

This nation, Sir, never thought of departing from that choice until theperiod immediately on the close of the last war. Then a scheme ofgovernment, new in many things, seemed to have been adopted. I saw, orthought I saw, several symptoms of a great change, whilst I sat in yourgallery, a good while before I had the honor of a seat in this House. At that period the necessity was established of keeping up no less thantwenty new regiments, with twenty colonels capable of seats in thisHouse. This scheme was adopted with very general applause from allsides, at the very time that, by your conquests in America, your dangerfrom foreign attempts in that part of the world was much lessened, orindeed rather quite over. When this huge increase of militaryestablishment was resolved on, a revenue was to be found to support sogreat a burden. Country gentlemen, the great patrons of economy, and thegreat resisters of a standing armed force, would not have entered withmuch alacrity into the vote for so large and so expensive an army, ifthey had been very sure that they were to continue to pay for it. Buthopes of another kind were held out to them; and in particular, I wellremember that Mr. Townshend, in a brilliant harangue on this subject, did dazzle them by playing before their eyes the image of a revenue tobe raised in America. 

Here began to dawn the first glimmerings of this new colony system. Itappeared more distinctly afterwards, when it was devolved upon a personto whom, on other accounts, this country owes very great obligations. Ido believe that he had a very serious desire to benefit the public. Butwith no small study of the detail, he did not seem to have his view, atleast equally, carried to the total circuit of our affairs. He generallyconsidered his objects in lights that were rather too detached. Whetherthe business of an American revenue was imposed upon himaltogether, --whether it was entirely the result of his own speculation, or, what is more probable, that his own ideas rather coincided with theinstructions he had received, --certain it is, that, with the bestintentions 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 thevenerable memory of a great man, whose loss we deplore in common. Ourlittle party differences have been long ago composed; and I have actedmore with him, and certainly with more pleasure with him, than ever Iacted against him. Undoubtedly Mr. Grenville was a first-rate figure inthis country. With a masculine understanding, and a stout and resoluteheart, he had an application undissipated and unwearied. He took publicbusiness, not as a duty which he was to fulfil, but as a pleasure he wasto enjoy; and he seemed to have no delight out of this House, except insuch things as some way related to the business that was to be donewithin it. If he was ambitious, I will say this for him, his ambitionwas of a noble and generous strain. It was to raise himself, not by thelow, pimping politics of a court, but to win his way to power throughthe laborious gradations of public service, and to secure himself awell-earned rank in Parliament by a thorough knowledge of itsconstitution and a perfect practice in all its business. 

Sir, if such a man fell into errors, it must be from defects notintrinsical; they must be rather sought in the particular habits of hislife, which, though they do not alter the groundwork of character, yettinge it with their own hue. He was bred in a profession. He was bred tothe law, which is, in my opinion, one of the first and noblest of humansciences, --a science which does more to quicken and invigorate theunderstanding than all the other kinds of learning put together; but itis not apt, except in persons very happily born, to open and toliberalize the mind exactly in the same proportion. Passing from thatstudy, he did not go very largely into the world, but plunged intobusiness, --I mean into the business of office, and the limited and fixedmethods and forms established there. Much knowledge is to be had, undoubtedly, in that line; and there is no knowledge which is notvaluable. But it may be truly said, that men too much conversant inoffice are rarely minds of remarkable enlargement. Their habits ofoffice are apt to give them a turn to think the substance of businessnot to be much more important than the forms in which it is conducted. These forms are adapted to ordinary occasions; and therefore persons whoare nurtured in office do admirably well as long as things go on intheir common order; but when the high-roads are broken up, and thewaters out, when a new and troubled scene is opened, and the fileaffords no precedent, then it is that a greater knowledge of mankind, and a far more extensive comprehension of things is requisite, than everoffice gave, or than office can ever give. Mr. Grenville thought betterof the wisdom and power of human legislation than in truth it deserves. He conceived, and many conceived along with him, that the flourishingtrade of this country was greatly owing to law and institution, and notquite so much to liberty; for but too many are apt to believe regulationto be commerce, and taxes to be revenue. Among regulations, that whichstood first in reputation was his idol: I mean the Act of Navigation. Hehas often professed it to be so. The policy of that act is, I readilyadmit, in many respects well understood. But I do say, that, if the actbe suffered to run the full length of its principle, and is not changedand modified according to the change of times and the fluctuation ofcircumstances, it must do great mischief, and frequently even defeat itsown purpose. 

After the war, and in the last years of it, the trade of America hadincreased far beyond the speculations of the most sanguine imaginations. It swelled out on every side. It filled all its proper channels to thebrim. It overflowed with a rich redundance, and breaking its banks onthe right and on the left, it spread out upon some places where it wasindeed improper, upon others where it was only irregular. It is thenature of all greatness not to be exact; and great trade will always beattended with considerable abuses. The contraband will always keep pacein some measure with the fair trade. It should stand as a fundamentalmaxim, that no vulgar precaution ought to be employed in the cure ofevils which are closely connected with the cause of our prosperity. Perhaps this great person turned his eyes somewhat less than was justtowards the incredible increase of the fair trade, and looked withsomething of too exquisite a jealousy towards the contraband. Hecertainly felt a singular degree of anxiety on the subject, and evenbegan to act from that passion earlier than is commonly imagined. Forwhilst he was First Lord of the Admiralty, though not strictly calledupon in his official line, he presented a very strong memorial to theLords 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 inthe highest department of the finances. The bonds of the Act ofNavigation were straitened so much that America was on the point ofhaving no trade, either contraband or legitimate. They found, under theconstruction and execution then used, the act no longer tying, butactually strangling them. All this coming with new enumerations ofcommodities, with regulations which in a manner put a stop to the mutualcoasting intercourse of the colonies, with the appointment of courts ofadmiralty under various improper circumstances, with a sudden extinctionof the paper currencies, with a compulsory provision for the quarteringof soldiers, --the people of America thought themselves proceeded againstas delinquents, or, at best, as people under suspicion of delinquency, and in such a manner as they imagined their recent services in the wardid not at all merit. Any of these innumerable regulations, perhaps, would not have alarmed alone; some might be thought reasonable; themultitude struck them with terror. 

But the grand manoeuvre in that business of new regulating the colonieswas the fifteenth act of the fourth of George the Third, which, besidescontaining several of the matters to which I have just alluded, opened anew principle. And here properly began the second period of the policyof this country with regard to the colonies, by which the scheme of aregular plantation Parliamentary revenue was adopted in theory andsettled in practice: a revenue not substituted in the place of, butsuperadded to, a monopoly; which monopoly was enforced at the same timewith additional strictness, and the execution put into military hands. 

This act, Sir, had for the first time the title of "granting duties inthe colonies and plantations of America, " and for the first time it wasasserted in the preamble "that it was _just_ and _necessary_ that arevenue should be raised there"; then came the technical words of"giving and granting. " And thus a complete American revenue act was madein all the forms, and with a full avowal of the right, equity, policy, and even necessity, of taxing the colonies, without any formal consentof theirs. There are contained also in the preamble to that act thesevery remarkable words, --the Commons, &c. , "being desirous to make _some_provision in the _present_ session of Parliament _towards_ raising thesaid revenue. " By these words it appeared to the colonies that this actwas but a beginning of sorrows, --that every session was to producesomething of the same kind, --that we were to go on, from day to day, incharging them with such taxes as we pleased, for such a military forceas we should think proper. Had this plan been pursued, it was evidentthat the provincial assemblies, in which the Americans felt all theirportion of importance, and beheld their sole image of freedom, were_ipso facto_ annihilated. This ill prospect before them seemed to beboundless in extent and endless in duration. Sir, they were notmistaken. The ministry valued themselves when this act passed, and whenthey gave notice of the Stamp Act, that both of the duties came veryshort of their ideas of American taxation. Great was the applause ofthis measure here. In England we cried out for new taxes on America, whilst they cried out that they were nearly crushed with those whichthe war and their own grants had brought upon them. 

Sir, it has been said in the debate, that, when the first Americanrevenue act (the act in 1764, imposing the port-duties) passed, theAmericans did not object to the principle. It is true they touched itbut very tenderly. It was not a direct attack. They were, it is true, asyet novices, --as yet unaccustomed to direct attacks upon any of therights of Parliament. The duties were port-duties, like those they hadbeen accustomed to bear, --with this difference, that the title was notthe same, the preamble not the same, and the spirit altogether unlike. But of what service is this observation to the cause of those that makeit? It is a full refutation of the pretence for their present cruelty toAmerica; for it shows, out of their own mouths, that our colonies werebackward to enter into the present vexatious and ruinous controversy. 

There is also another circulation abroad, (spread with a malignantintention, which I cannot attribute to those who say the same thing inthis House, ) that Mr. Grenville gave the colony agents an option fortheir assemblies to tax themselves, which they had refused. I find thatmuch stress is laid on this, as a fact. However, it happens neither tobe true nor possible. I will observe, first, that Mr. Grenville neverthought fit to make this apology for himself in the innumerable debatesthat were had upon the subject. He might have proposed to the colonyagents, that they should agree in some mode of taxation as the ground ofan act of Parliament. But he never could have proposed that they shouldtax themselves on requisition, which is, the assertion of the day. Indeed, Mr. Grenville well knew that the colony agents could have nogeneral powers to consent to it; and they had no time to consult theirassemblies for particular powers, before he passed his first revenueact. If you compare dates, you will find it impossible. Burdened as theagents knew the colonies were at that time, they could not give theleast hope of such grants. His own favorite governor was of opinion thatthe Americans were not then taxable objects. 

"Nor was the time less favorable to the _equity_ of such a taxation. Idon't mean to dispute the reasonableness of America contributing to thecharges of Great Britain, _when she is able_; nor, I believe, would theAmericans themselves have disputed it at a _proper time and season_. Butit should be considered, that the American governments themselves have, in the prosecution of the late war, contracted very large debts, whichit will take some years to pay off, and in the mean time occasion very_burdensome taxes for that purpose_ only. For instance, this government, which is as much beforehand as any, raises every year 37, 500_l. _sterling for sinking their debt, and must continue it for four yearslonger at least before it will be clear. "

These are the words of Governor Bernard's letter to a member of the oldministry, and which he has since printed. 

Mr. Grenville could not have made this proposition to the agents foranother reason. He was of opinion, which he has declared in this Housean hundred times, that the colonies could not legally grant any revenueto the crown, and that infinite mischiefs would be the consequence ofsuch a power. When Mr. Grenville had passed the first revenue act, andin the same session had made this House come to a resolution for layinga stamp-duty on America, between that time and the passing the Stamp Actinto a law he told a considerable and most respectable merchant, amember of this House, whom I am truly sorry I do not now see in hisplace, when he represented against this proceeding, that, if thestamp-duty was disliked, he was willing to exchange it for any otherequally productive, --but that, if he objected to the Americans beingtaxed by Parliament, he might save himself the trouble of thediscussion, 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 aperennial spring. It is said that no conjecture could be made of thedislike of the colonies to the principle. This is as untrue as theother. After the resolution of the House, and before the passing of theStamp Act, the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New York did sendremonstrances objecting to this mode of Parliamentary taxation. What wasthe consequence? They were suppressed, they were put under the table, notwithstanding an order of Council to the contrary, by the ministrywhich composed the very Council that had made the order; and thus theHouse proceeded to its business of taxing without the least regularknowledge of the objections which were made to it. But to give thatHouse its due, it was not over-desirous to receive information or tohear remonstrance. On the 15th of February, 1765, whilst the Stamp Actwas under deliberation, they refused with scorn even so much as toreceive four petitions presented from so respectable colonies asConnecticut, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Carolina, besides one from thetraders of Jamaica. As to the colonies, they had no alternative left tothem but to disobey, or to pay the taxes imposed by that Parliament, which was not suffered, or did not suffer itself, even to hear themremonstrate upon the subject. 

This was the state of the colonies before his Majesty thought fit tochange his ministers. It stands upon no authority of mine. It is provedby uncontrovertible records. The honorable gentleman has desired some ofus to lay our hands upon our hearts and answer to his queries upon thehistorical part of this consideration, and by his manner (as well as myeyes 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 veryprivate station, far enough from any line of business, and not havingthe honor of a seat in this House, it was my fortune, unknowing andunknown to the then ministry, by the intervention of a common friend, tobecome connected with a very noble person, and at the head of theTreasury Department. It was, indeed, in a situation of little rank andno consequence, suitable to the mediocrity of my talents andpretensions, --but a situation near enough to enable me to see, as wellas others, what was going on; and I did see in that noble person suchsound principles, such an enlargement of mind, such clear and sagacioussense, and such unshaken fortitude, as have bound me, as well as othersmuch better than me, by an inviolable attachment to him from that timeforward. Sir, Lord Rockingham very early in that summer received astrong representation from many weighty English merchants andmanufacturers, from governors of provinces and commanders of men-of-war, against almost the whole of the American commercial regulations, --andparticularly with regard to the total ruin which was threatened to theSpanish trade. I believe, Sir, the noble lord soon saw his way in thisbusiness. But he did not rashly determine against acts which it might besupposed were the result of much deliberation. However, Sir, he scarcelybegan to open the ground, when the whole veteran body of office took thealarm. A violent outcry of all (except those who knew and felt themischief) was raised against any alteration. On one hand, his attemptwas a direct violation of treaties and public law; on the other, the Actof Navigation and all the corps of trade-laws were drawn up in arrayagainst it. 

The first step the noble lord took was, to have the opinion of hisexcellent, learned, and ever-lamented friend, the late Mr. Yorke, thenAttorney-General, on the point of law. When he knew that formally andofficially which in substance he had known before, he immediatelydispatched orders to redress the grievance. But I will say it for thethen minister, he is of that constitution of mind, that I know he wouldhave issued, on the same critical occasion, the very same orders, if theacts of trade had been, as they were not, directly against him, andwould have cheerfully submitted to the equity of Parliament for hisindemnity. 

On the conclusion of this business of the Spanish trade, the news of thetroubles on account of the Stamp Act arrived in England. It was notuntil the end of October that these accounts were received. No soonerhad the sound of that mighty tempest reached us in England, than thewhole of the then opposition, instead of feeling humbled by the unhappyissue of their measures, seemed to be infinitely elated, and cried out, that the ministry, from envy to the glory of their predecessors, wereprepared to repeal the Stamp Act. Near nine years after, the honorablegentleman takes quite opposite ground, and now challenges me to put myhand to my heart and say whether the ministry had resolved on the repealtill a considerable time after the meeting of Parliament. Though I donot very well know what the honorable gentleman wishes to infer from theadmission or from the denial of this fact on which he so earnestlyadjures 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 matteras its difficulty and importance required. They considered maturelyamong themselves. They consulted with all who could give advice orinformation. It was not determined until a little before the meeting ofParliament; but it was determined, and the main lines of their own planmarked out, before that meeting. Two questions arose. (I hope I am notgoing 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 betotal, or whether only partial, --taking out everything burdensome andproductive, and reserving only an empty acknowledgment, such as a stampon cards or dice. The other question was, on what principle the actshould be repealed. On this head also two principles were started. One, that the legislative rights of this country with regard to America werenot entire, but had certain restrictions and limitations. The otherprinciple was, that taxes of this kind were contrary to the fundamentalprinciples of commerce on which the colonies were founded, and contraryto every idea of political equity, --by which equity we are bound as muchas possible to extend the spirit and benefit of the British Constitutionto every part of the British dominions. The option, both of the measureand of the principle of repeal, was made before the session; and Iwonder how any one can read the king's speech at the opening of thatsession, without seeing in that speech both the repeal and theDeclaratory Act very sufficiently crayoned out. Those who cannot seethis can see nothing. 

Surely the honorable gentleman will not think that a great deal lesstime than was then employed ought to have been spent in deliberation, when he considers that the news of the troubles did not arrive tilltowards the end of October. The Parliament sat to fill the vacancies onthe 14th day of December, and on business the 14th of the followingJanuary. 

Sir, a partial repeal, or, as the _bon-ton_ of the court then was, a_modification_, would have satisfied a timid, unsystematic, procrastinating ministry, as such a measure has since done such aministry. A modification is the constant resource of weak, undecidingminds. To repeal by a denial of our right to tax in the preamble (andthis, too, did not want advisers) would have cut, in the heroic style, the Gordian knot with a sword. Either measure would have cost no morethan a day's debate. But when the total repeal was adopted, and adoptedon principles of policy, of equity, and of commerce, this plan made itnecessary to enter into many and difficult measures. It became necessaryto open a very largo field of evidence commensurate to these extensiveviews. But then this labor did knights' service. It opened the eyes ofseveral to the true state of the American affairs; it enlarged theirideas; it removed prejudices; and it conciliated the opinions andaffections of men. The noble lord who then took the lead inadministration, my honorable friend[6] under me, and a right honorablegentleman[7] (if he will not reject his share, and it was a large one, of this business) exerted the most laudable industry in bringing beforeyou the fullest, most impartial, and least garbled body of evidence thatever was produced to this House. I think the inquiry lasted in thecommittee for six weeks; and at its conclusion, this House, by anindependent, noble, spirited, and unexpected majority, by a majoritythat will redeem all the acts ever done by majorities in Parliament, inthe teeth of all the old mercenary Swiss of state, in despite of all thespeculators and augurs of political events, in defiance of the wholeembattled legion of veteran pensioners and practised instruments of acourt, gave a total repeal to the Stamp Act, and (if it had been sopermitted) a lasting peace to this whole empire. 

I state, Sir, these particulars, because this act of spirit andfortitude has lately been, in the circulation of the season, and in somehazarded declamations in this House, attributed to timidity. If, Sir, the conduct of ministry, in proposing the repeal, had arisen fromtimidity with regard to themselves, it would have been greatly to becondemned. Interested timidity disgraces as much in the cabinet aspersonal timidity does in the field. But timidity with regard to thewell-being of our country is heroic virtue. The noble lord who thenconducted affairs, and his worthy colleagues, whilst they trembled atthe prospect of such distresses as you have since brought uponyourselves, were not afraid steadily to look in the face that glaringand dazzling influence at which the eyes of eagles have blenched. Helooked in the face one of the ablest, and, let me say, not the mostscrupulous oppositions, that perhaps ever was in this House; andwithstood it, unaided by even one of the usual supports ofadministration. He did this, when he repealed the Stamp Act. He lookedin the face a person he had long respected and regarded, and whose aidwas then particularly wanting: I mean Lord Chatham. He did this when hepassed the Declaratory Act. 

It is now given out, for the usual purposes, by the usual emissaries, that Lord Rockingham did not consent to the repeal of this act until hewas bullied into it by Lord Chatham; and the reporters have gone so faras publicly to assert, in an hundred companies, that the honorablegentleman under the gallery, [8] who proposed the repeal in the Americancommittee, had another set of resolutions in his pocket, directly thereverse of those he moved. These artifices of a desperate cause are atthis time spread abroad, with incredible care, in every part of thetown, from the highest to the lowest companies; as if the industry ofthe circulation were to make amends for the absurdity of the report. 

Sir, whether the noble lord is of a complexion to be bullied by LordChatham, 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 themost trying situations in which, perhaps, any man ever stood. In theHouse of Peers there were very few of the ministry, out of the noblelord's own particular connection, (except Lord Egmont, who acted, asfar as I could discern, an honorable and manly part, ) that did not lookto some other future arrangement, which warped his politics. There werein both Houses new and menacing appearances, that might very naturallydrive any other than a most resolute minister from his measure or fromhis station. The household troops openly revolted. The allies ofministry (those, I mean, who supported some of their measures, butrefused responsibility for any) endeavored to undermine their credit, and to take ground that must be fatal to the success of the very causewhich they would be thought to countenance. The question of the repealwas brought on by ministry in the committee of this House in the veryinstant when it was known that more than one court negotiation wascarrying on with the heads of the opposition. Everything, upon everyside, was full of traps and mines. Earth below shook; heaven abovemenaced; all the elements of ministerial safety were dissolved. It wasin the midst of this chaos of plots and counterplots, it was in themidst of this complicated warfare against public opposition and privatetreachery, 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 anddetermined, in principle, in measure, and in conduct. He practised nomanagements. He secured no retreat. He sought no apology. 

I will likewise do justice--I ought to do it--to the honorable gentlemanwho led us in this House. [9] Far from the duplicity wickedly charged onhim, he acted his part with alacrity and resolution. We all feltinspired by the example he gave us, down even to myself, the weakest inthat phalanx. I declare for one, I knew well enough (it could not beconcealed from anybody) the true state of things; but, in my life, Inever came with so much spirits into this House. It was a time for a_man_ to act in. We had powerful enemies; but we had faithful anddetermined friends, and a glorious cause. We had a great battle tofight; but we had the means of fighting: not as now, when our arms aretied behind us. We did fight that day, and conquer. 

I remember, Sir, with a melancholy pleasure, the situation of thehonorable gentleman[10] who made the motion for the repeal: in thatcrisis, when the whole trading interest of this empire, crammed intoyour lobbies, with a trembling and anxious expectation, waited, almostto a winter's return of light, their fate from your resolutions. When atlength you had determined in their favor, and your doors thrown openshowed them the figure of their deliverer in the well-earned triumph ofhis important victory, from the whole of that grave multitude therearose an involuntary burst of gratitude and transport. They jumped uponhim like children on a long absent father. They clung about him ascaptives about their redeemer. All England, all America, joined in hisapplause. Nor did he seem insensible to the best of all earthly rewards, the love and admiration of his fellow-citizens. _Hope elevated and joybrightened his crest_. I stood near him; and his face, to use theexpression of the Scripture of the first martyr, "his face was as if ithad been the face of an angel. " I do not know how others feel; but if Ihad stood in that situation, I never would have exchanged it for allthat kings in their profusion could bestow. I did hope that that day'sdanger and honor would have been a bond to hold us all together forever. But, alas! that, with other pleasing visions, is long since vanished. 

Sir, this act of supreme magnanimity has been represented as if it hadbeen 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 theother. Sir, they took _no_ middle lines. They differed fundamentallyfrom the schemes of both parties; but they preserved the objects ofboth. They preserved the authority of Great Britain; they preserved theequity of Great Britain. They made the Declaratory Act; they repealedthe Stamp Act. They did both _fully_: because the Declaratory Act was_without qualification_; and the repeal of the Stamp Act _total_. Thisthey did in the situation I have described. 

Now, Sir, what will the adversary say to both these acts? If theprinciple of the Declaratory Act was not good, the principle we arecontending for this day is monstrous. If the principle of the repeal wasnot good, why are we not at war for a real, substantial, effectiverevenue? If both were bad, why has this ministry incurred all theinconveniences of both and of all schemes? why 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 certainmatter of fact not wholly unrelated to the question under yourconsideration. We, who would persuade you to revert to the ancientpolicy of this kingdom, labor under the effect of this short currentphrase, which the court leaders have given out to all their corps, inorder to take away the credit of those who would prevent you from thatfrantic war you are going to wage upon your colonies. Their cant isthis: "All the disturbances in America have been created by the repealof the Stamp Act. " I suppress for a moment my indignation at thefalsehood, baseness, and absurdity of this most audacious assertion. Instead of remarking on the motives and character of those who haveissued it for circulation, I will clearly lay before you the state ofAmerica, antecedently to that repeal, after the repeal, and since therenewal 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 beensuppressed. For an answer to this assertion I will send you to the greatauthor and patron of the Stamp Act, who, certainly meaning well to theauthority of this country, and fully apprised of the state of that, made, before a repeal was so much as agitated in this House, the motionwhich is on your journals, and which, to save the clerk the trouble ofturning to it, I will now read to you. It was for an amendment to theaddress of the 17th of December, 1765. 

"To express our just resentment and indignation at the _outrageoustumults and insurrections_ which have been excited and carried on inNorth America, and at the resistance given, by _open_ and _rebellious_force, to the execution of the laws in that part of his Majesty'sdominions; to assure his Majesty, that his faithful Commons, animatedwith the warmest duty and attachment to his royal person andgovernment, . . . Will firmly and effectually support his Majesty in allsuch measures as shall be necessary for preserving and securing thelegal dependence of the colonies upon this their mother country, " &c. , &c. 

Here was certainly a disturbance preceding the repeal, --such adisturbance as Mr. Grenville thought necessary to qualify by the name ofan _insurrection_, and the epithet of a _rebellious_ force: terms muchstronger than any by which those who then supported his motion have eversince thought proper to distinguish the subsequent disturbances inAmerica. They were disturbances which seemed to him and his friends tojustify as strong a promise of support as hath been usual to give in thebeginning of a war with the most powerful and declared enemies. When theaccounts of the American governors came before the House, they appearedstronger even than the warmth of public imagination had painted them: somuch stronger, that the papers on your table bear me out in saying thatall the late disturbances, which have been at one time the minister'smotives for the repeal of five out of six of the new court taxes, andare now his pretences for refusing to repeal that sixth, did notamount--why do I compare them?--no, not to a tenth part of the tumultsand violence which prevailed long before the repeal of that act. 

Ministry cannot refuse the authority of the commander-in-chief, GeneralGage, who, in his letter of the 4th of November, from New York, thusrepresents the state of things:--

"It is difficult to say, from the _highest to the lowest_, who has notbeen _accessory_ to this _insurrection_, either by writing, or _mutualagreements_ to oppose the act, by what they are pleased to term alllegal opposition to it. Nothing effectual has been proposed, either toprevent or quell the tumult. _The rest of the provinces are in the samesituation_, as to a positive refusal to take the stamps, and threateningthose who shall take them _to plunder and murder them_; and this affairstands _in all the provinces_, that, unless the act from its own natureenforce itself, nothing but a _very_ considerable military force can doit. "

It is remarkable, Sir, that the persons who formerly trumpeted forth themost loudly the violent resolutions of assemblies, the universalinsurrections, the seizing and burning the stamped papers, the forcingstamp officers to resign their commissions under the gallows, therifling and pulling down of the houses of magistrates, and the expulsionfrom their country of all who dared to write or speak a single word indefence of the powers of Parliament, --these very trumpeters are now themen that represent the whole as a mere trifle, and choose to date allthe disturbances from the repeal of the Stamp Act, which put an end tothem. Hear your officers abroad, and let them refute this shamelessfalsehood, who, in all their correspondence, state the disturbances asowing to their true causes, the discontent of the people from the taxes. You have this evidence in your own archives; and it will give youcomplete satisfaction, if you are not so far lost to all Parliamentaryideas of information as rather to credit the lie of the day than therecords of your own House. 

Sir, this vermin of court reporters, when they are forced into day uponone point, are sure to burrow in another: but they shall have no refuge;I will make them bolt out of all their holes. Conscious that they mustbe baffled, when they attribute a precedent disturbance to a subsequentmeasure, they take other ground, almost as absurd, but very common inmodern practice, and very wicked; which is, to attribute the ill effectof ill-judged conduct to the arguments which had been used to dissuadeus from it. They say, that the opposition made in Parliament to theStamp Act, at the time of its passing, encouraged the Americans to theirresistance. This has even formally appeared in print in a regular volumefrom an advocate of that faction, --a Dr. Tucker. This Dr. Tucker isalready a dean, and his earnest labors in this vineyard will, I suppose, raise him to a bishopric. But this assertion, too, just like the rest, is false. In all the papers which have loaded your table, in all thevast crowd of verbal witnesses that appeared at your bar, witnesseswhich were indiscriminately produced from both sides of the House, notthe least hint of such a cause of disturbance has ever appeared. As tothe fact of a strenuous opposition to the Stamp Act, I sat as a strangerin your gallery when the act was under consideration. Far from anythinginflammatory, I never heard a more languid debate in this House. No morethan two or three gentlemen, as I remember, spoke against the act, andthat with great reserve and remarkable temper. There was but onedivision in the whole progress of the bill; and the minority did notreach to more than 39 or 40. In the House of Lords I do not recollectthat there was any debate or division at all. I am sure there was noprotest. In fact, the affair passed with so very, very little noise, that in town they scarcely knew the nature of what you were doing. Theopposition to the bill in England never could have done this mischief, because there scarcely ever was less of opposition to a bill ofconsequence. 

Sir, the agents and distributors of falsehoods have, with their usualindustry, circulated another lie, of the same nature with the former. Itis this: that the disturbances arose from the account which had beenreceived in America of the change in the ministry. No longer awed, itseems, with the spirit of the former rulers, they thought themselves amatch for what our calumniators choose to qualify by the name of sofeeble a ministry as succeeded. Feeble in one sense these men certainlymay be called: for, with all their efforts, and they have made many, they have not been able to resist the distempered vigor and insanealacrity with which you are rushing to your ruin. But it does so happen, that the falsity of this circulation is (like the rest) demonstrated byindisputable dates and records. 

So little was the change known in America, that the letters of yourgovernors, giving an account of these disturbances long after they hadarrived at their highest pitch, were all directed to the _old ministry_, and particularly to the _Earl of Halifax_, the Secretary of Statecorresponding with the colonies, without once in the smallest degreeintimating the slightest suspicion of any ministerial revolutionwhatsoever. The ministry was not changed in England until the 10th dayof July, 1765. On the 14th of the preceding June, Governor Fauquier, from Virginia, writes thus, --and writes thus to the Earl ofHalifax:--"Government is set at _defiance_, not having strength enoughin her hands to enforce obedience to the laws of the community. --Theprivate distress, which every man feels, increases the _generaldissatisfaction_ at the duties laid by the _Stamp Act_, which breaks outand shows itself upon every trifling occasion. " The generaldissatisfaction had produced some time before, that is, on the 29th ofMay, several strong public resolves against the Stamp Act; and thoseresolves are assigned by Governor Bernard as the cause of the_insurrections_ in Massachusetts Bay, in his letter of the 15th ofAugust, still addressed to the Earl of Halifax; and he continued toaddress such accounts to that minister quite to the 7th of September ofthe same year. Similar accounts, and of as late a date, were sent fromother governors, and all directed to Lord Halifax. Not one of theseletters indicates the slightest idea of a change, either known or evenapprehended. 

Thus are blown away the insect race of courtly falsehoods! Thus perishthe miserable inventions of the wretched runners for a wretched cause, which they have fly-blown into every weak and rotten part of thecountry, in vain hopes, that, when their maggots had taken wing, theirimportunate buzzing might sound something like the public voice!

Sir, I have troubled you sufficiently with the state of America beforethe repeal. Now I turn to the honorable gentleman who so stoutlychallenges us to tell whether, after the repeal, the provinces werequiet. This is coming home to the point. Here I meet him directly, andanswer most readily, _They were quiet_. And I, in my turn, challenge himto prove when, and where, and by whom, and in what numbers, and withwhat violence, the other laws of trade, as gentlemen assert, wereviolated in consequence of your concession, or that even your otherrevenue laws were attacked. But I quit the vantage-ground on which Istand, and where I might leave the burden of the proof upon him: I walkdown upon the open plain, and undertake to show that they were not onlyquiet, but showed many unequivocal marks of acknowledgment andgratitude. And to give him every advantage, I select the obnoxiouscolony of Massachusetts Bay, which at this time (but without hearingher) is so heavily a culprit before Parliament: I will select theirproceedings even under circumstances of no small irritation. For, alittle imprudently, I must say, Governor Bernard mixed in theadministration of the lenitive of the repeal no small acrimony arisingfrom matters of a separate nature. Yet see, Sir, the effect of thatlenitive, though mixed with these bitter ingredients, --and how thisrugged people can express themselves on a measure of concession. 

"If it is not now in our power, " (say they, in their address to GovernorBernard, ) "in so full a manner as will be expected, to show ourrespectful gratitude to the mother country, or to make a dutiful, affectionate return to the indulgence of the King and Parliament, itshall be no fault of ours; for this we intend, and hope shall be ablefully to effect. "

Would to God that this temper had been cultivated, managed, and set inaction! Other effects than those which we have since felt would haveresulted from it. On the requisition for compensation to those who hadsuffered from the violence of the populace, in the same address theysay, --"The recommendation enjoined by Mr. Secretary Conway's letter, andin consequence thereof made to us, we shall embrace the first convenientopportunity to consider and act upon. " They did consider; they did actupon it. They obeyed the requisition. I know the mode has been chicanedupon; but it was substantially obeyed, and much better obeyed than Ifear the Parliamentary requisition of this session will be, thoughenforced by all your rigor 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 theirgratitude. I am bold to say, that so sudden a calm recovered after soviolent a storm is without parallel in history. To say that no otherdisturbance should happen from any other cause is folly. But as far asappearances went, by the judicious sacrifice of one law you procured anacquiescence in all that remained. After this experience, nobody shallpersuade me, when an whole people are concerned, that acts of lenity arenot means of conciliation. 

I hope the honorable gentleman has received a fair and full answer tohis question. 

I have done with the third period of your policy, --that of your repeal, and the return of your ancient system, and your ancient tranquillity andconcord. Sir, this period was not as long as it was happy. Another scenewas opened, and other actors appeared on the stage. The state, in thecondition I have described it, was delivered into the hands of LordChatham, a great and celebrated name, --a name that keeps the name ofthis country respectable in every other on the globe. It may be trulycalled

 Clarum et venerabile nomen Gentibus, et multum nostræ quod proderat urbi. 

Sir, the venerable age of this great man, his merited rank, his superioreloquence, his splendid qualities, his eminent services, the vast spacehe fills in the eye of mankind, and, more than all the rest, his fallfrom power, which, like death, canonizes and sanctifies a greatcharacter, will not suffer me to censure any part of his conduct. I amafraid to flatter him; I am sure I am not disposed to blame him. Letthose who have betrayed him by their adulation insult him with theirmalevolence. But what I do not presume to censure I may have leave tolament. For a wise man, he seemed to me at that time to be governed toomuch by general maxims. I speak with the freedom of history, and I hopewithout offence. One or two of these maxims, flowing from an opinion notthe most indulgent to our unhappy species, and surely a little toogeneral, led him into measures that were greatly mischievous to himself, and for that reason, among others, perhaps fatal to hiscountry, --measures, the effects of which, I am afraid, are foreverincurable. He made an administration so checkered and speckled, he puttogether a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsicallydovetailed, a cabinet so variously inlaid, such a piece of diversifiedmosaic, such a tessellated pavement without cement, --here a bit of blackstone and there a bit of white, patriots and courtiers, king's friendsand republicans, Whigs and Tories, treacherous friends and openenemies, --that it was, indeed, a very curious show, but utterly unsafeto touch and unsure to stand on. The colleagues whom he had assorted atthe same boards stared at each other, and were obliged to ask, --"Sir, your name?"--"Sir, you have the advantage of me. "--"Mr. Such-a-one. "--"Ibeg a thousand pardons. "--I venture to say, it did so happen thatpersons had a single office divided between them, who had never spoketo each other in their lives, until they found themselves, they knew nothow, pigging together, heads and points, in the same truckle-bed. [11]

Sir, in consequence of this arrangement, having put so much the largerpart of his enemies and opposers into power, the confusion was such thathis own principles could not possibly have any effect or influence inthe conduct of affairs. If over he fell into a fit of the gout, or ifany other cause withdrew him from public cares, principles directly thecontrary were sure to predominate. When he had executed his plan, he hadnot an inch of ground to stand upon. When he had accomplished his schemeof administration, he was no longer a minister. 

When his face was hid but for a moment, his whole system was on a widesea without chart or compass. The gentlemen, his particular friends, who, with the names of various departments of ministry, were admitted toseem as if they acted a part under him, with a modesty that becomes allmen, and with a confidence in him which was justified even in itsextravagance by his superior abilities, had never in any instancepresumed upon any opinion of their own. Deprived of his guidinginfluence, they were whirled about, the sport of every gust, and easilydriven into any port; and as those who joined with them in manning thevessel were the most directly opposite to his opinions, measures, andcharacter, and far the most artful and most powerful of the set, theyeasily prevailed, so as to seize upon the vacant, unoccupied, andderelict minds of his friends, and instantly they turned the vesselwholly out of the course of his policy. As if it were to insult as wellas to betray him, even long before the close of the first session of hisadministration, when everything was publicly transacted, and with greatparade, in his name, they made an act declaring it highly just andexpedient to raise a revenue in America. For even then, Sir, even beforethis splendid orb was entirely set, and while the western horizon was ina blaze with his descending glory, on the opposite quarter of theheavens arose another luminary, and for his hour became lord of theascendant. 

This light, too, is passed and set forever. You understand, to be sure, that I speak of Charles Townshend, officially the reproducer of thisfatal scheme, whom I cannot even now remember without some degree ofsensibility. In truth, Sir, he was the delight and ornament of thisHouse, and the charm of every private society which he honored with hispresence. Perhaps there never arose in this country, nor in any country, a man of a more pointed and finished wit, and (where his passions werenot concerned) of a more refined, exquisite, and penetrating judgment. If he had not so great a stock as some have had, who flourishedformerly, of knowledge long treasured up, he knew, better by far thanany man I ever was acquainted with, how to bring together within a shorttime all that was necessary to establish, to illustrate, and to decoratethat side of the question he supported. He stated his matter skilfullyand powerfully. He particularly excelled in a most luminous explanationand display of his subject. His style of argument was neither trite andvulgar, nor subtle and abstruse. He hit the House just between wind andwater. And not being troubled with too anxious a zeal for any matter inquestion, he was never more tedious or more earnest than thepreconceived opinions and present temper of his hearers required, towhom he was always in perfect unison. He conformed exactly to the temperof the House; and he seemed to guide, because he was always sure tofollow it. 

I beg pardon, Sir, if, when I speak of this and of other great men, Iappear to digress in saying something of their characters. In thiseventful history of the revolutions of America, the characters of suchmen are of much importance. Great men are the guideposts and landmarksin the state. The credit of such men at court or in the nation is thesole cause of all the public measures. It would be an invidious thing(most foreign, I trust, to what you think my disposition) to remark theerrors into which the authority of great names has brought the nation, without doing justice at the same time to the great qualities whencethat authority arose. The subject is instructive to those who wish toform themselves on whatever of excellence has gone before them. Thereare many young members in the House (such of late has been the rapidsuccession of public men) who never saw that prodigy, Charles Townshend, nor of course know what a ferment he was able to excite in everything bythe violent ebullition of his mixed virtues and failings. For failingshe had undoubtedly, --many of us remember them; we are this dayconsidering the effect of them. But he had no failings which were notowing to a noble cause, --to an ardent, generous, perhaps an immoderatepassion for fame: a passion which is the instinct of all great souls. Heworshipped that goddess, wheresoever she appeared; but he paid hisparticular devotions to her in her favorite habitation, in her chosentemple, the House of Commons. Besides the characters of the individualsthat compose our body, it is impossible, Mr. Speaker, not to observethat this House has a collective character of its own. That character, too, however imperfect, is not unamiable. Like all great publiccollections of men, you possess a marked love of virtue and anabhorrence of vice. But among vices there is none which the House abhorsin the same degree with _obstinacy_. Obstinacy, Sir, is certainly agreat vice; and in the changeful state of political affairs it isfrequently the cause of great mischief. It happens, however, veryunfortunately, that almost the whole line of the great and masculinevirtues, constancy, gravity, magnanimity, fortitude, fidelity, andfirmness, are closely allied to this disagreeable quality, of which youhave so just an abhorrence; and, in their excess, all these virtues veryeasily fall into it. He who paid such a punctilious attention to allyour feelings certainly took care not to shock them by that vice whichis the most disgustful to you. 

That fear of displeasing those who ought most to be pleased betrayed himsometimes into the other extreme. He had voted, and, in the year 1765, had been an advocate for the Stamp Act. Things and the disposition ofmen's minds were changed. In short, the Stamp Act began to be nofavorite in this House. He therefore attended at the private meeting inwhich the resolutions moved by a right honorable gentleman were settled:resolutions leading to the repeal. The next day he voted for thatrepeal; and he would have spoken for it, too, if an illness (not, as wasthen 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, therepeal began to be in as bad an odor in this House as the Stamp Act hadbeen in the session before. To conform to the temper which began toprevail, 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 noobjection to such experiments, when made at the cost of persons for whomthey had no particular regard. The whole body of courtiers drove himonward. They always talked as if the king stood in a sort of humiliatedstate, until something of the kind should be done. 

Here this extraordinary man, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, foundhimself in great straits. To please universally was the object of hislife; but to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, isnot given to men. However, he attempted it. To render the tax palatableto the partisans of American revenue, he made a preamble stating thenecessity of such a revenue. To close with the American distinction, this revenue was _external_ or port-duty; but again, to soften it to theother party, it was a duty of _supply_. To gratify the _colonists_, itwas laid on British manufactures; to satisfy the _merchants of Britain_, the duty was trivial, and (except that on tea, which touched only thedevoted East India Company) on none of the grand objects of commerce. Tocounterwork the American contraband, the duty on tea was reduced from ashilling to three-pence; but to secure the favor of those who would taxAmerica, the scene of collection was changed, and, with the rest, itwas levied in the colonies. What need I say more? This fine-spun schemehad the usual fate of all exquisite policy. But the original plan of theduties, and the mode of executing that plan, both arose singly andsolely from a love of our applause. He was truly the child of the House. He never thought, did, or said anything, but with a view to you. Heevery day adapted himself to your disposition, and adjusted himselfbefore 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 renderedthemselves considerable in this House by one method alone. They were arace of men (I hope in God the species is extinct) who, when they rosein their place, no man living could divine, from any known adherence toparties, to opinions, or to principles, from any order or system intheir politics, or from any sequel or connection in their ideas, whatpart they were going to take in any debate. It is astonishing how muchthis uncertainty, especially at critical times, called the attention ofall parties on such men. All eyes were fixed on them, all ears open tohear them; each party gaped, and looked alternately for their vote, almost to the end of their speeches. While the House hung in thisuncertainty, now the _hear-hims_ rose from this side, now theyrebellowed from the other; and that party to whom they fell at lengthfrom their tremulous and dancing balance always received them in atempest of applause. The fortune of such men was a temptation too greatto be resisted by one to whom a single whiff of incense withheld gavemuch greater pain than he received delight in the clouds of it whichdaily rose about him from the prodigal superstition of innumerableadmirers. He was a candidate for contradictory honors; and his great aimwas, to make those agree in admiration of him who never agreed inanything else. 

Hence arose this unfortunate act, the subject of this day's debate: froma disposition which, after making an American revenue to please one, repealed it to please others, and again revived it in hopes of pleasinga 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 woful variety of schemes have beenadopted; what enforcing, and what repealing; what bullying, and whatsubmitting; what doing, and undoing; what straining, and what relaxing;what assemblies dissolved for not obeying, and called again withoutobedience; what troops sent out to quell resistance, and, on meetingthat resistance, recalled; what shiftings, and changes, and jumblings ofall kinds of men at home, which left no possibility of order, consistency, vigor, or even so much as a decent unity of color, inanyone public measure--It is a tedious, irksome task. My duty may callme to open it out some other time; on a former occasion[12] I tried yourtemper on a part of it; for the present I shall forbear. 

After all these changes and agitations, your immediate situation uponthe question on your paper is at length brought to this. You have an actof Parliament stating that "it is _expedient_ to raise a revenue inAmerica. " By a partial repeal you annihilated the greatest part of thatrevenue which this preamble declares to be so expedient. You havesubstituted no other in the place of it. A Secretary of State hasdisclaimed, in the king's name, all thoughts of such a substitution infuture. The principle of this disclaimer goes to what has been left, aswell as what has been repealed. The tax which lingers after itscompanions (under a preamble 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, andis an exhaustless source of jealousy and animosity. On this state, whichI take to be a fair one, --not being able to discern any grounds ofhonor, advantage, peace, or power, for adhering, either to the act or tothe preamble, I shall vote for the question which leads to the repeal ofboth. 

If you do not fall in with this motion, then secure something to fightfor, consistent in theory and valuable in practice. If you must employyour strength, employ it to uphold you in some honorable right or someprofitable wrong. If you are apprehensive that the concessionrecommended to you, though proper, should be a means of drawing on youfurther, but unreasonable claims, --why, then employ your force insupporting that reasonable concession against those unreasonabledemands. You will employ it with more grace, with better effect, andwith great probable concurrence of all the quiet and rational people inthe provinces, who are now united with and hurried away by theviolent, --having, indeed, different dispositions, but a common interest. If you apprehend that on a concession you shall be pushed bymetaphysical process to the extreme lines, and argued out of your wholeauthority, my advice is this: when you have recovered your old, yourstrong, your tenable position, then face about, --stop short, --do nothingmore, --reason not at all, --oppose the ancient policy and practice of theempire as a rampart against the speculations of innovators on both sidesof the question, --and you will stand on great, manly, and sure ground. On this solid basis fix your machines, and they will draw worlds towardsyou. 

Tour ministers, in their own and his Majesty's name, have alreadyadopted the American distinction of internal and external duties. It isa distinction, whatever merit it may have, that was originally moved bythe Americans themselves; and I think they will acquiesce in it, if theyare not pushed with too much logic and too little sense, in all theconsequences: that is, if external taxation be understood, as they andyou understand it, when you please, to be not a distinction ofgeography, but of policy; that it is a power for regulating trade, andnot for supporting establishments. The distinction, which is as nothingwith regard to right, is of most weighty consideration in practice. Recover your old ground, and your old tranquillity; try it; I ampersuaded the Americans will compromise with you. When confidence isonce restored, the odious and suspicious _summum jus_ will perish ofcourse. The spirit of practicability, of moderation, and mutualconvenience will never call in geometrical exactness as the arbitratorof an amicable settlement. Consult and follow your experience. Let notthe long story with which I have exercised your patience prove fruitlessto your interests. 

For my part, I should choose (if I could have my wish) that theproposition of the honorable gentleman[13] for the repeal could go toAmerica without the attendance of the penal bills. Alone I could almostanswer for its success. I cannot be certain of its reception in the badcompany it may keep. In such heterogeneous assortments, the mostinnocent person will lose the effect of his innocency. Though you shouldsend out this angel of peace, yet you are sending out a destroying angeltoo; and what would be the effect of the conflict of these two adversespirits, or which would predominate in the end, is what I dare not say:whether the lenient measures would cause American passion to subside, orthe severe would increase its fury, --all this is in the hand ofProvidence. Yet now, even now, I should confide in the prevailing virtueand efficacious operation of lenity, though working in darkness and inchaos, in the midst of all this unnatural and turbid combination: Ishould hope it might produce order and beauty in the end. 

Let us, Sir, embrace some system or other before we end this session. Doyou mean to tax America, and to draw a productive revenue from thence?If you do, speak out: name, fix, ascertain this revenue; settle itsquantity; define its objects; provide for its collection; and thenfight, when you have something to fight for. If you murder, rob; if youkill, take possession; and do not appear in the character of madmen aswell as assassins, violent, vindictive, bloody, and tyrannical, withoutan object. But may better counsels guide you!

Again, and again, revert to your old principles, --seek peace and ensueit, --leave America, if she has taxable matter in her, to tax herself. Iam not here going into the distinctions of rights, nor attempting tomark their boundaries. I do not enter into these metaphysicaldistinctions; I hate the very sound of them. Leave the Americans as theyanciently stood, and these distinctions, born of our unhappy contest, will die along with it. They and we, and their and our ancestors, havebeen happy under that system. Let the memory of all actions incontradiction to that good old mode, on both sides, be extinguishedforever. Be content to bind America by laws of trade: you have alwaysdone it. Let this be your reason for binding their trade. Do not burdenthem by taxes: you were not used to do so from the beginning. Let thisbe your reason for not taxing. These are the arguments of states andkingdoms. Leave the rest to the schools; for there only they may bediscussed with safety. But if, intemperately, unwisely, fatally, yousophisticate and poison the very source of government, by urging subtledeductions, and consequences odious to those you govern, from theunlimited and illimitable nature of supreme sovereignty, you will teachthem by these means to call that sovereignty itself in question. Whenyou drive him hard, the boar will surely turn upon the hunters. If thatsovereignty and their freedom cannot be reconciled, which will theytake? They will cast your sovereignty in your face. Nobody will beargued into slavery. Sir, let the gentlemen on the other side call forthall their ability; let the best of them get up and tell me what onecharacter of liberty the Americans have, and what one brand of slaverythey are free from, if they are bound in their property and industry byall the restraints you can imagine on commerce, and at the same time aremade pack-horses of every tax you choose to impose, without the leastshare in granting them. When they bear the burdens of unlimitedmonopoly, will you bring them to bear the burdens of unlimited revenuetoo? The Englishman in America will feel that this is slavery: that itis _legal_ slavery will be no compensation either to his feelings or hisunderstanding. 

A noble lord, [14] who spoke some time ago, is full of the fire ofingenuous youth; and when he has modelled the ideas of a livelyimagination by further experience, he will be an ornament to his countryin either House. He has said that the Americans are our children, andhow can they revolt against their parent? He says, that, if they are notfree in their present state, England is not free; because Manchester, and other considerable places, are not represented. So, then, becausesome towns in England are not represented, America is to have norepresentative at all. They are "our children"; but when children askfor bread, we are not to give a stone. Is it because the naturalresistance of things, and the various mutations of time, hinders ourgovernment, or any scheme of government, from being any more than a sortof approximation to the right, is it therefore that the colonies are torecede from it infinitely? When this child of ours wishes to assimilateto its parent, and to reflect with a true filial resemblance thebeauteous countenance of British liberty, are we to turn to them theshameful parts of our constitution? are we to give them our weakness fortheir strength, our opprobrium for their glory, and the slough ofslavery, which we are not able to work off, to serve them for theirfreedom?

If this be the case, ask yourselves this question: Will they be contentin such a state of slavery? If not, look to the consequences. Reflecthow you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free, andthink they are not. Your scheme yields no revenue; it yields nothing butdiscontent, disorder, disobedience: and such is the state of America, that, after wading up to your eyes in blood, you could only end justwhere 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 confusion beyond it. 

Well, Sir, I have recovered a little, and before I sit down I must saysomething to another point with which gentlemen urge us. What is tobecome of the Declaratory Act, asserting the entireness of Britishlegislative authority, if we abandon the practice of taxation?

For my part, I look upon the rights stated in that act exactly in themanner in which I viewed them on its very first proposition, and which Ihave often taken the liberty, with great humility, to lay before you. Ilook, I say, on the imperial rights of Great Britain, and the privilegeswhich the colonists ought to enjoy under these rights, to be just themost reconcilable things in the world. The Parliament of Great Britainsits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities. One as thelocal legislature of this island, providing for all things at home, immediately, and by no other instrument than the executive power. Theother, and I think her nobler capacity, is what I call her _imperialcharacter_; in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends allthe several inferior legislatures, and guides and controls them allwithout annihilating any. As all these provincial legislatures are onlycoördinate to each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her; elsethey can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual justice, noreffectually afford mutual assistance. It is necessary to coerce thenegligent, to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak and deficient, by the overruling plenitude of her power. She is never to intrude intothe place of the others, whilst they are equal to the common ends oftheir institution. But in order to enable Parliament to answer all theseends of provident and beneficent superintendence, her powers must beboundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited mayplease themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitionsare not obeyed? What! shall there be no reserved power in the empire, tosupply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole?We are engaged in war, --the Secretary of State calls upon the coloniesto contribute, --some would do it, I think most would cheerfully furnishwhatever is demanded, --one or two, suppose, hang back, and, easingthemselves, let the stress of the draft lie on the others, --surely it isproper that some authority might legally say, "Tax yourselves for thecommon Supply, or Parliament will do it for you. " This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania for some short timetowards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internaldissensions in that 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 firstinstance. This is what I meant, when I have said, at various times, that I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an instrument ofempire, and not as a means of supply. 

Such, Sir, is my idea of the Constitution of the British Empire, asdistinguished from the Constitution of Britain; and on these grounds Ithink subordination and liberty may be sufficiently reconciled throughthe whole, --whether to serve a refining speculatist or a factiousdemagogue I know not, but enough surely for the ease and happiness ofman. 

Sir, whilst we hold this happy course, we drew more from the coloniesthan all the impotent violence of despotism ever could extort 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 haveproceeded in supplying government as liberally, if you had not steppedin and hindered them from contributing, by interrupting the channel inwhich their liberality flowed with so strong a course, --by attempting totake, instead of being satisfied to receive? Sir William Temple says, that Holland has loaded itself with ten times the impositions which itrevolted from Spain rather than submit to. He says true. Tyranny is apoor provider. It knows neither how to accumulate nor how to extract. 

I charge, therefore, to this new and unfortunate system the loss notonly of peace, of union, and of commerce, but even of revenue, which itsfriends are contending for. It is morally certain that we have lost atleast a million of free grants since the peace. I think we have lost agreat deal more; and that those who look for a revenue from theprovinces never could have pursued, even in that light, a course moredirectly repugnant to their purposes. 

Now, Sir, I trust I have shown, first on that narrow ground which thehonorable gentleman measured, that you are like to lose nothing bycomplying with the motion, except what you have lost already. I haveshown afterwards, that in time of peace you flourished in commerce, and, when war required it, had sufficient aid from the colonies, while youpursued your ancient policy; that you threw everything into confusion, when you made the Stamp Act; and that you restored everything to peaceand order, when you repealed it. I have shown that the revival of thesystem of taxation has produced the very worst effects; and that thepartial repeal has produced, not partial good, but universal evil. Letthese considerations, founded on facts, not one of which can be denied, bring us back to our reason by the road of our experience. 

I cannot, as I have said, answer for mixed measures: but surely thismixture of lenity would give the whole a better chance of success. Whenyou once regain confidence, the way will be clear before you. Then youmay enforce the Act of Navigation, when it ought to be enforced. Youwill yourselves open it, where it ought still further to be opened. Proceed in what you do, whatever you do, from policy, and not fromrancor. Let us act like men, let us act like statesmen. Let us hold somesort of consistent conduct. It is agreed that a revenue is not to be hadin 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. Ihave had but one opinion concerning it, since I sat, and before I sat inParliament. The noble lord[15] will, as usual, probably, attribute thepart taken by me and my friends in this business to a desire of gettinghis places. Let him enjoy this happy and original idea. If I deprivedhim of it, I should take away most of his wit, and all his argument. ButI had rather bear the brunt of all his wit, and indeed blows muchheavier, than stand answerable to God for embracing a system that tendsto 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 otherperson; and I know that the way I take is not the road to preferment. Myexcellent and honorable friend under me on the floor[16] has trod thatroad with great toil for upwards of twenty years together. He is not yetarrived at the noble lord's destination. However, the tracks of myworthy friend are those I have ever wished to follow; because I knowthey lead to honor. Long may we tread the same road together, whoevermay accompany us, or whoever may laugh at us on our journey! I honestlyand solemnly declare, I have in all seasons adhered to the system of1766 for no other reason than, that I think it laid deep in your truestinterests, --and that, by limiting the exercise, it fixes on the firmestfoundations a real, consistent, well-grounded authority in Parliament. Until you come back to that system, there will be no peace for England. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Charles Wolfran Cornwall, Esq. , lately appointed one of the Lords ofthe Treasury. 

[2] Lord North, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. 

[3] Lord Hillsborough's Circular Letter to the Governors of theColonies, concerning the repeal of some of the duties laid in the Act of1767. 

[4] A material point is omitted by Mr. Burke in this speech, viz. _themanner in which the continent received this royal assurance_. Theassembly of Virginia, in their address in answer to Lord Botetourt'sspeech, express themselves thus:--"We will not suffer our present hopes, arising from the pleasing prospect your Lordship hath so kindly openedand displayed to us, to be lashed by the bitter reflection that any_future_ administration will entertain a wish to depart from that _plan_which affords the surest and most permanent foundation of publictranquillity and happiness. No, my Lord, we are sure _our most gracioussovereign_, under whatever changes may happen in his confidentialservants, will remain immutable in the ways of truth and justice, andthat he is _incapable of deceiving his faithful subjects_; and we esteemyour Lordship's information not only as warranted, but even sanctified_by the royal word_. "

[5] Lord North. 

[6] Mr. Dowdeswell. 

[7] General Conway. 

[8] General Conway. 

[9] General Conway. 

[10] General Conway. 

[11] Supposed to allude to the Right Honorable Lord North, and GeorgeCooke, Esq. , who were made joint paymasters in the summer of 1766, onthe removal of the Rockingham administration. 

[12] Resolutions in May, 1770. 

[13] Mr. Fuller. 

[14] Lord Carmarthen. 

[15] Lord North. 

[16] Mr. Dowdeswell

SPEECHES

AT

HIS ARRIVAL AT BRISTOL, AND AT THE

CONCLUSION OF THE POLL. 

1774 EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT. 

We believe there is no need of an apology to the public for offering tothem any genuine speeches of Mr. Burke: the two contained in thispublication undoubtedly are so. The general approbation they met with(as we hear) from all parties at Bristol persuades us that a goodedition of them will not be unacceptable in London; which we own to bethe inducement, and we hope is a justification, of our offering it. 

We do not presume to descant on the merit of these speeches; but as itis no less new than honorable to find a popular candidate, at a popularelection, daring to avow his dissent to certain points that have beenconsidered as very popular objects, and maintaining himself on the manlyconfidence of his own opinion, so we must say that it does great creditto the people of England, as it proves to the world, that, to insuretheir confidence, it is not necessary to flatter them, or to affect asubserviency to their passions or their prejudices. 

It may be necessary to promise, that at the opening of the poll thecandidates were Lord Clare, Mr. Brickdale, the two last members, and Mr. Cruger, a considerable merchant at Bristol. On the second day of thepoll, Lord Clare declined; and a considerable body of gentlemen, who hadwished that the city of Bristol should, at this critical season, berepresented by some gentleman of tried abilities and known commercialknowledge, immediately put Mr. Burke in nomination. Some of them set offexpress for London to apprise that gentleman of this event; but he wasgone to Malton, in Yorkshire. The spirit and active zeal of thesegentlemen followed him to Malton. They arrived there just after Mr. Burke's election for that place, and invited him to Bristol. 

Mr. Burke, as he tells us in his first speech, acquainted hisconstituents with the honorable offer that was made him, and, with theirconsent, he immediately set off for Bristol, on the Tuesday, at six inthe evening; he arrived at Bristol at half past two in the afternoon, onThursday, the 13th of October, being the sixth day of the poll. 

He drove directly to the mayor's house, who not being at home, heproceeded to the Guildhall, where he ascended the hustings, and havingsaluted the electors, the sheriffs, and the two candidates, he reposedhimself for a few minutes, and then addressed the electors in a speechwhich was received with great and universal applause and approbation. 

SPEECH

AT

HIS ARRIVAL AT BRISTOL. 

Gentlemen, --I am come hither to solicit in person that favor which myfriends have hitherto endeavored to procure for me, by the mostobliging, and to me the most honorable exertions. 

I have so high an opinion of the great trust which you have to confer onthis occasion, and, by long experience, so just a diffidence in myabilities to fill it in a manner adequate even to my own ideas, that Ishould never have ventured of myself to intrude into that awfulsituation. But since I am called upon by the desire of severalrespectable fellow subjects, as I have done at other times, I give up myfears to their wishes. Whatever my other deficiencies may be, I do notknow what it is to be wanting to my friends. 

I am not fond of attempting to raise public expectations by greatpromises. At this time, there is much cause to consider, and very littleto presume. We seem to be approaching to a great crisis in our affairs, which calls for the whole wisdom of the wisest among us, without beingable to assure ourselves that any wisdom can preserve us from many andgreat inconveniences. You know I speak of our unhappy contest withAmerica. I confess, it is a matter on which I look down as from aprecipice. It is difficult in itself, and it is rendered more intricateby a great variety of plans of conduct. I do not mean to enter intothem. I will not suspect a want of good intention in framing them. Buthowever pure the intentions of their authors may have been, we all knowthat the event has been unfortunate. The means of recovering our affairsare not obvious. So many great questions of commerce, of finance, ofconstitution, and of policy are involved in this American deliberation, that I dare engage for nothing, but that I shall give it, without anypredilection to former opinions, or any sinister bias whatsoever, themost honest and impartial consideration of which I am capable. Thepublic has a full right to it; and this great city, a main pillar in thecommercial interest of Great Britain, must totter on its base by theslightest mistake with regard to our American measures. 

Thus much, however, I think it not amiss to lay before you, --that I amnot, I hope, apt to take up or lay down my opinions lightly. I haveheld, and ever shall maintain, to the best of my power, unimpaired andundiminished, the just, wise, and necessary constitutional superiorityof Great Britain. This is necessary for America as well as for us. Inever mean to depart from it. Whatever may be lost by it, I avow it. Theforfeiture even of your favor, if by such a declaration I could forfeitit, though the first object of my ambition, never will make me disguisemy sentiments on this subject. 

But--I have ever had a clear opinion, and have ever held a constantcorrespondent conduct, that this superiority is consistent with all theliberties a sober and spirited American ought to desire. I never mean toput any colonist, or any human creature, in a situation not becoming afree man. To reconcile British superiority with American liberty shallbe my great object, as far as my little faculties extend. I am far fromthinking that both, even yet, may not be preserved. 

When I first devoted myself to the public service, I considered how Ishould render myself fit for it; and this I did by endeavoring todiscover what it was that gave this country the rank it holds in theworld. I found that our prosperity and dignity arose principally, if notsolely, from two sources: our Constitution, and commerce. Both these Ihave spared no study to understand, and no endeavor to support. 

The distinguishing part of our Constitution is its liberty. To preservethat liberty inviolate seems the particular duty and proper trust of amember of the House of Commons. But the liberty, the only liberty, Imean is a liberty connected with order: that not only exists along withorder and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them. It inheresin good and steady government, as in its substance and vital principle. 

The other source of our power is commerce, of which you are so large apart, and which cannot exist, no more than your liberty, without aconnection with many virtues. It has ever been a very particular and avery favorite object of my study, in its principles, and in its details. I think many here are acquainted with the truth of what I say. This Iknow, --that I have ever had my house open, and my poor services ready, for traders and manufacturers of every denomination. My favoriteambition is, to have those services acknowledged. I now appear beforeyou to make trial, whether my earnest endeavors have been so whollyoppressed by the weakness of my abilities as to be renderedinsignificant in the eyes of a great trading city; or whether you chooseto give a weight to humble abilities, for the sake of the honestexertions with which they are accompanied. This is my trial to-day. Myindustry is not on trial. Of my industry I am sure, as far as myconstitution of mind and body admitted. 

When I was invited by many respectable merchants, freeholders, andfreemen of this city to offer them my services, I had just received thehonor of an election at another place, at a very great distance fromthis. I immediately opened the matter to those of my worthy constituentswho were with me, and they unanimously advised me not to decline it. They told me that they had elected me with a view to the public service;and as great questions relative to our commerce and colonies wereimminent that in such matters I might derive authority and support fromthe representation of this great commercial city: they desired me, therefore, to set off without delay, very well persuaded that I nevercould forget my obligations to them or to my friends, for the choicethey had made of me. From that time to this instant I have not slept;and if I should have the honor of being freely chosen by you, I hope Ishall be as far from slumbering or sleeping, when your service requiresme to be awake, as I have been in coming to offer myself a candidate foryour favor. 

SPEECH

TO THE

ELECTORS OF BRISTOL, ON HIS BEING DECLARED BY THE SHERIFFS DULY ELECTED ONE OF THEREPRESENTATIVES IN PARLIAMENT FOR THAT CITY, ON THURSDAY, THE 3D OF NOVEMBER, 1774. 

Gentlemen, --I cannot avoid sympathizing strongly with the feelings ofthe gentleman who has received the same honor that you have conferred onme. If he, who was bred and passed his whole life amongst you, --if he, who, through the easy gradations of acquaintance, friendship, andesteem, has obtained the honor which seems of itself, naturally andalmost insensibly, to meet with those who, by the even tenor of pleasingmanners and social virtues, slide into the love and confidence of theirfellow-citizens, --if he cannot speak but with great emotion on thissubject, surrounded as he is on all sides with his old friends, --youwill have the goodness to excuse me, if my real, unaffectedembarrassment prevents me from expressing my gratitude to you as Iought. 

I was brought hither under the disadvantage of being unknown, even bysight, to any of you. No previous canvass was made for me. I was put innomination after the poll was opened. I did not appear until it was faradvanced. If, under all these accumulated disadvantages, your goodopinion has carried me to this happy point of success, you will pardonme, if I can only say to you collectively, as I said to youindividually, simply and plainly, I thank you, --I am obliged to you, --Iam not insensible of your kindness. 

This is all that I am able to say for the inestimable favor you haveconferred upon me. But I cannot be satisfied without saying a littlemore in defence of the right you have to confer such a favor. The personthat appeared here as counsel for the candidate who so long and soearnestly solicited your votes thinks proper to deny that a very greatpart of you have any votes to give. He fixes a standard period of timein his own imagination, (not what the law defines, but merely what theconvenience of his client suggests, ) by which he would cut off at onestroke all those freedoms which are the dearest privileges of yourcorporation, --which the Common Law authorizes, --which your magistratesare compelled to grant, --which come duly authenticated into thiscourt, --and are saved in the clearest words, and with the most religiouscare and tenderness, in that very act of Parliament which was made toregulate the elections by freemen, and to prevent all possible abuses inmaking them. 

I do not intend to argue the matter here. My learned counsel hassupported your cause with his usual ability; the worthy sheriffs haveacted with their usual equity; and I have no doubt that the same equitywhich dictates the return will guide the final determination. I had thehonor, in conjunction with many far wiser men, to contribute a verysmall assistance, but, however, some assistance, to the forming thejudicature which is to try such questions. It would be unnatural in meto doubt the justice of that court, in the trial of my own cause, towhich I have been so active to give jurisdiction over every other. 

I assure the worthy freemen, and this corporation, that, if thegentleman perseveres in the intentions which his present warmth dictatesto him, I will attend their cause with diligence, and I hope witheffect. For, if I know anything of myself, it is not my own interest init, but my full conviction, that induces me to tell you, _I think thereis not a shadow of doubt in the case_. 

I do not imagine that you find me rash in declaring myself, or veryforward in troubling you. From the beginning to the end of the election, I have kept silence in all matters of discussion. I have never asked aquestion of a voter on the other side, or supported a doubtful vote onmy own. I respected the abilities of my managers; I relied on the candorof the court. I think the worthy sheriffs will bear me witness that Ihave never once made an attempt to impose upon their reason, to surprisetheir justice, or to ruffle their temper. I stood on the hustings(except when I gave my thanks to those who favored me with their votes)less like a candidate than an unconcerned spectator of a publicproceeding. But here the face of things is altered. Here is an attemptfor a general _massacre_ of suffrages, --an attempt, by a promiscuouscarnage of _friends_ and _foes_, to exterminate above two thousandvotes, including _seven hundred polled for the gentleman himself who nowcomplains_, and who would destroy the friends whom he has obtained, onlybecause he cannot obtain as many of them as he wishes. 

How he will be permitted, in another place, to stultify and disablehimself, and to plead against his own acts, is another question. The lawwill decide it. I shall only speak of it as it concerns the propriety ofpublic conduct in this city. I do not pretend to lay down rules ofdecorum for other gentlemen. They are best judges of the mode ofproceeding that will recommend them to the favor of theirfellow-citizens. But I confess I should look rather awkward, if I hadbeen _the very first to produce the new copies of freedom_, --if I hadpersisted in producing them to the last, --if I had ransacked, with themost unremitting industry and the most penetrating research, theremotest corners of the kingdom to discover them, --if I were then, allat once, to turn short, and declare that I had been sporting all thiswhile with the right of election, and that I had been drawing out apoll, upon no sort of rational grounds, which disturbed the peace of myfellow-citizens for a month together;--I really, for my part, shouldappear awkward under such circumstances. 

It would be still more awkward in me, if I were gravely to look thesheriffs in the face, and to tell them they were not to determine mycause on my own principles, nor to make the return upon those votes uponwhich I had rested my election. Such would be my appearance to the courtand magistrates. 

But how should I appear to the _voters_ themselves? If I had gone roundto the citizens entitled to freedom, and squeezed them by thehand, --"Sir, I humbly beg your vote, --I shall be eternallythankful, --may I hope for the honor of your support?--Well!--come, --weshall see you at the Council-House. "--If I were then to deliver them tomy managers, pack them into tallies, vote them off in court, and when Iheard from the bar, --"Such a one only! and such a one forever!--he's myman!"--"Thank you, good Sir, --Hah! my worthy friend! thank youkindly, --that's an honest fellow, --how is your good family?"--Whilstthese words were hardly out of my mouth, if I should have wheeled roundat once, and told them, --"Get you gone, you pack of worthless fellows!you have no votes, --you are usurpers! you are intruders on the rights ofreal freemen! I will have nothing to do with you! you ought never tohave been produced at this election, and the sheriffs ought not to haveadmitted you to poll!"--

Gentlemen, I should make a strange figure, if my conduct had been ofthis sort. I am not so old an acquaintance of yours as the worthygentleman. Indeed, I could not have ventured on such kind of freedomswith you. But I am bound, and I will endeavor, to have justice done tothe rights of freemen, --even though I should at the same time be obligedto vindicate the former[17] part of my antagonist's conduct against hisown present inclinations. 

I owe myself, in all things, to _all_ the freemen of this city. Myparticular friends have a demand on mo that I should not deceive theirexpectations. Never was cause or man supported with more constancy, moreactivity, more spirit. I have been supported with a zeal, indeed, andheartiness in my friends, which (if their object had been at allproportioned to their endeavors) could never be sufficiently commended. They supported me upon the most liberal principles. They wished that themembers for Bristol should be chosen for the city, and for their countryat large, and not for themselves. 

So far they are not disappointed. If I possess nothing else, I am sure Ipossess the temper that is fit for your service. I know nothing ofBristol, but by the favors I have received, and the virtues I have seenexerted in it. 

I shall ever retain, what I now feel, the most perfect and gratefulattachment to my friends, --and I have no enmities, no resentments. Inever can consider fidelity to engagements and constancy in friendshipsbut with the highest approbation, even when those noble qualities areemployed against my own pretensions. The gentleman who is not sofortunate as I have been in this contest enjoys, in this respect, aconsolation full of honor both to himself and to his friends. They havecertainly left nothing undone for his service. 

As for the trifling petulance which the rage of party stirs up in littleminds, though it should show itself even in this court, it has not madethe slightest impression on me. The highest flight of such clamorousbirds is winged in an inferior region of the air. We hear them, and welook upon them, just as you, Gentlemen, when you enjoy the serene air onyour lofty rocks, look down upon the gulls that skim the mud of yourriver, when it is exhausted of its tide. 

I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touchedupon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at atime when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he hasthought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poorsentiments on that subject. 

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned muchaltercation and uneasiness in this city"; and he expresses himself (if Iunderstand him rightly) in favor of the coercive authority of suchinstructions. 

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of arepresentative to live in the strictest union, the closestcorrespondence, and the most unreserved communication with hisconstituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; theiropinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is hisduty to sacrifice his repose, his _pleasure_, _his satisfactions_, _totheirs_, --and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer theirinterest to his own. 

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightenedconscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any setof men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, --no, norfrom the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, forthe abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owesyou, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead ofserving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. 

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. Ifthat be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of willupon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. Butgovernment and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and notof inclination; and what sort of reason is that in which thedetermination precedes the discussion, in which one set of mendeliberate and another decide, and where those who form the conclusionare perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear thearguments?

To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is aweighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always torejoice to hear, and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But _authoritative_ instructions, _mandates_ issued, which the member isbound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, thoughcontrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment andconscience, --these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenorof our Constitution. 

Parliament is not a _congress_ of ambassadors from different and hostileinterests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a _deliberative_assembly of _one_ nation, with _one_ interest, that of the whole--wherenot local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but thegeneral good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choosea member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member ofBristol, but he is a member of _Parliament_. If the local constituentshould have an interest or should form an hasty opinion evidentlyopposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member forthat place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavor to give iteffect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject; I have beenunwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful franknessof communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, Ishall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. On thispoint of instructions, however, I think it scarcely possible we ever canhave any sort of difference. Perhaps I may give you too much, ratherthan too little trouble. 

From the first hour I was encouraged to court your favor, to this happyday of obtaining it, I have never promised you anything but humble andpersevering endeavors to do my duty. The weight of that duty, I confess, makes me tremble; and whoever well considers what it is, of all thingsin the world, will fly from what has the least likeness to a positiveand precipitate engagement. To be a good member of Parliament is, let metell you, no easy task, --especially at this time, when there is sostrong a disposition to run into the perilous extremes of servilecompliance or wild popularity. To unite circumspection with vigor isabsolutely necessary, but it is extremely difficult. We are now membersfor a rich commercial _city_; this city, however, is but a part of arich commercial _nation_, the interests of which are various, multiform, and intricate. We are members for that great nation, which, however, isitself but part of a great _empire_, extended by our virtue and ourfortune to the farthest limits of the East and of the West. All thesewide-spread interests must be considered, --must be compared, --must bereconciled, if possible. We are members for a _free_ country; and surelywe all know that the machine of a free constitution is no simple thing, but as intricate and as delicate as it is valuable. We are members in agreat and ancient _monarchy_; and we must preserve religiously the true, legal rights of the sovereign, which form the keystone that bindstogether the noble and well-constructed arch of our empire and ourConstitution. A constitution made up of balanced powers must ever be acritical thing. As such I mean to touch that part of it which comeswithin my reach. I know my inability, and I wish for support from everyquarter. In particular I shall aim at the friendship, and shallcultivate the best correspondence, of the worthy colleague you havegiven me. 

I trouble you no farther than once more to thank you all: you, Gentlemen, for your favors; the candidates, for their temperate andpolite behavior; and the sheriffs, for a conduct which may give a modelfor all who are in public stations. 

FOOTNOTES:

[17] Mr. Brickdale opened his poll, it seems, with a tally of those verykind of freemen, and voted many hundreds of them. 

SPEECH

ON

MOVING HIS RESOLUTIONS FOR CONCILIATION WITH THE COLONIES. 

MARCH 22, 1775. 

I hope, Sir, that, notwithstanding the austerity of the Chair, yourgood-nature will incline you to some degree of indulgence towards humanfrailty. You will not think it unnatural, that those who have an objectdepending, which strongly engages their hopes and fears, should besomewhat inclined to superstition. As I came into the House, full ofanxiety about the event of my motion, I found, to my infinite surprise, that the grand penal bill by which we had passed sentence on the tradeand sustenance of America is to be returned to us from the otherHouse. [18] I do confess, I could not help looking on this event as afortunate omen. I look upon it as a sort of Providential favor, by whichwe are put once more in possession of our deliberative capacity, upon abusiness so very questionable in its nature, so very uncertain in itsissue. By the return of this bill, which seemed to have taken its flightforever, we are at this very instant nearly as free to choose a plan forour American government as we were on the first day of the session. If, Sir, we incline to the side of conciliation, we are not at allembarrassed (unless we please to make ourselves so) by any incongruousmixture of coercion and restraint. We are therefore called upon, as itwere by a superior warning voice, again to attend to America, --to attendto the whole of it together, --and to review the subject with an unusualdegree of care and calmness. 

Surely it is an awful subject, --or there is none so on this side of thegrave. When I first had the honor of a seat in this House, the affairsof that continent pressed themselves upon us as the most important andmost delicate object of Parliamentary attention. My little share in thisgreat deliberation oppressed me. I found myself a partaker in a veryhigh trust; and having no sort of reason to rely on the strength of mynatural abilities for the proper execution of that trust, I was obligedto take more than common pains to instruct myself in everything whichrelates to our colonies. I was not less under the necessity of formingsome fixed ideas concerning the general policy of the British empire. Something of this sort seemed to be indispensable, in order, amidst sovast a fluctuation of passions and opinions, to concentre my thoughts, to ballast my conduct, to preserve me from being blown about by everywind of fashionable doctrine. I really did not think it safe or manly tohave fresh principles to seek upon every fresh mail which should arrivefrom America. 

At that period I had the fortune to find myself in perfect concurrencewith a large majority in this House. Bowing under that high authority, and penetrated with the sharpness and strength of that earlyimpression, I have continued ever since, without the least deviation, in my original sentiments. Whether this be owing to an obstinateperseverance in error, or to a religious adherence to what appears to metruth and reason, it is in your equity to judge. 

Sir, Parliament, having an enlarged view of objects, made, during thisinterval, more frequent changes in their sentiments and their conductthan could be justified in a particular person upon the contracted scaleof private information. But though I do not hazard anything approachingto a censure on the motives of former Parliaments to all thosealterations, one fact is undoubted, --that under them the state ofAmerica has been kept in continual agitation. Everything administered asremedy to the public complaint, if it did not produce, was at leastfollowed by, an heightening of the distemper, until, by a variety ofexperiments, that important country has been brought into her presentsituation, --a situation which I will not miscall, which I dare not name, which I scarcely know how to comprehend in the terms of any description. 

In this posture, Sir, things stood at the beginning of the session. About that time, a worthy member, [19] of great Parliamentary experience, who in the year 1766 filled the chair of the American Committee withmuch ability, took me aside, and, lamenting the present aspect of ourpolitics, told me, things were come to such a pass that our formermethods of proceeding in the House would be no longer tolerated, --thatthe public tribunal (never too indulgent to a long and unsuccessfulopposition) would now scrutinize our conduct with unusualseverity, --that the very vicissitudes and shiftings of ministerialmeasures, instead of convicting their authors of inconstancy and want ofsystem, would be taken as an occasion of charging us with apredetermined discontent which nothing could satisfy, whilst we accusedevery measure of vigor as cruel and every proposal of lenity as weak andirresolute. The public, he said, would not have patience to see us playthe game out with our adversaries; we must produce our hand: it would beexpected that those who for many years had been active in such affairsshould show that they had formed some clear and decided idea of theprinciples of colony government, and were capable of drawing outsomething like a platform of the ground which might be laid for futureand permanent tranquillity. 

I felt the truth of what my honorable friend represented; but I felt mysituation, too. His application might have been made with far greaterpropriety to many other gentlemen. No man was, indeed, ever betterdisposed, or worse qualified, for such an undertaking, than myself. Though I gave so far into his opinion, that I immediately threw mythoughts into a sort of Parliamentary form, I was by no means equallyready to produce them. It generally argues some degree of naturalimpotence of mind, or some want of knowledge of the world, to hazardplans of government, except from a seat of authority. Propositions aremade, not only ineffectually, but somewhat disreputably, when the mindsof men are not properly disposed for their reception; and for my part, Iam not ambitious of ridicule, not absolutely a candidate for disgrace. 

Besides, Sir, to speak the plain truth, I have in general no veryexalted opinion of the virtue of paper government, nor of any politiesin which the plan is to be wholly separated from the execution. But whenI saw that anger and violence prevailed every day more and more, andthat things were hastening towards an incurable alienation of ourcolonies, I confess my caution gave way. I felt this as one of those fewmoments in which decorum yields to an higher duty. Public calamity is amighty leveller; and there are occasions when any, even the slightest, chance of doing good must be laid hold on, even by the mostinconsiderable person. 

To restore order and repose to an empire so great and so distracted asours is, merely in the attempt, an undertaking that would ennoble theflights of the highest genius, and obtain pardon for the efforts of themeanest understanding. Struggling a good while with these thoughts, bydegrees I felt myself more firm. I derived, at length, some confidencefrom what in other circumstances usually produces timidity. I grew lessanxious, even from the idea of my own insignificance. For, judging ofwhat you are by what you ought to be, I persuaded myself that you wouldnot reject a reasonable proposition because it had nothing but itsreason to recommend it. On the other hand, being totally destitute ofall shadow of influence, natural or adventitious, I was very sure, that, if my proposition were futile or dangerous, if it were weakly conceivedor improperly timed, there was nothing exterior to it of power to awe, dazzle, or delude you. You will see it just as it is, and you will treatit just as it deserves. 

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peaceto be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endlessnegotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented fromprinciple, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on thejuridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise markingthe shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peacesought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. Ipropose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the_former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country_, to give permanent satisfaction to your people, --and (far from a schemeof ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same actand by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them toBritish government. 

My idea is nothing more. Refined policy ever has been the parent ofconfusion, --and ever will be so, as long as the world endures. Plaingood intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraudis surely detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in thegovernment of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an healing andcementing principle. My plan, therefore, being formed upon the mostsimple grounds imaginable, may disappoint some people, when they hearit. It has nothing to recommend it to the pruriency of curious ears. There is nothing at all new and captivating in it. It has nothing of thesplendor of the project which has been lately laid upon your table bythe noble lord in the blue riband. [20] It does not propose to fill yourlobby with squabbling colony agents, who will require the interpositionof your mace at every instant to keep the peace amongst them. It doesnot institute a magnificent auction of finance, where captivatedprovinces come to general ransom by bidding against each other, untilyou knock down the hammer, and determine a proportion of payments beyondall the powers of algebra to equalize and settle. 

The plan which I shall presume to suggest derives, however, one greatadvantage from the proposition and registry of that noble lord'sproject. The idea of conciliation is admissible. First, the House, inaccepting the resolution moved by the noble lord, has admitted, notwithstanding the menacing front of our address, notwithstanding ourheavy bill of pains and penalties, that we do not think ourselvesprecluded from all ideas of free grace and bounty. 

The House has gone farther: it has declared conciliation admissible_previous_ to any submission on the part of America. It has even shot agood deal beyond that mark, and has admitted that the complaints of ourformer mode of exerting the right of taxation were not wholly unfounded. That right thus exerted is allowed to have had something reprehensiblein it, --something unwise, or something grievous; since, in the midst ofour heat and resentment, we, of ourselves, have proposed a capitalalteration, and, in order to get rid of what seemed so veryexceptionable, have instituted a mode that is altogether new, --one thatis, indeed, wholly alien from all the ancient methods and forms ofParliament. 

The _principle_ of this proceeding is large enough for my purpose. Themeans proposed by the noble lord for carrying his ideas into execution, I think, indeed, are very indifferently suited to the end; and this Ishall endeavor to show you before I sit down. But, for the present, Itake my ground on the admitted principle. I mean to give peace. Peaceimplies reconciliation; and where there has been a material dispute, reconciliation does in a manner always imply concession on the one partor on the other. In this state of things I make no difficulty inaffirming that the proposal ought to originate from us. Great andacknowledged force is not impaired, either in effect or in opinion, byan unwillingness to exert itself. The superior power may offer peacewith honor and with safety. Such an offer from such a power will beattributed to magnanimity. But the concessions of the weak are theconcessions of fear. When such a one is disarmed, he is wholly at themercy of his superior; and he loses forever that time and those chanceswhich, as they happen to all men, are the strength and resources of allinferior power. 

The capital leading questions on which you must this day decide arethese two: First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what yourconcession ought to be. On the first of these questions we have gained(as I have just taken the liberty of observing to you) some ground. ButI am sensible that a good deal more is still to be done. Indeed, Sir, toenable us to determine both on the one and the other of these greatquestions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be necessaryto consider distinctly the true nature and the peculiar circumstances ofthe object which we have before us: because, after all our struggle, whether we will or not, we must govern America according to that natureand to those circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, not according to abstract ideas of right, by no means according to meregeneral theories of government, the resort to which appears to me, inour present situation, no better than arrant trifling. I shall thereforeendeavor, with your leave, to lay before you some of the most materialof these circumstances in as full and as clear a manner as I am able tostate them. 

The first thing that we have to consider with regard to the nature ofthe object is the number of people in the colonies. I have taken forsome years a good deal of pains on that point. I can by no calculationjustify myself in placing the number below two millions of inhabitantsof our own European blood and color, --besides at least 500, 000 others, who form no inconsiderable part of the strength and opulence of thewhole. This, Sir, is, I believe, about the true number. There is nooccasion to exaggerate, where plain truth is of so much weight andimportance. But whether I put the present numbers too high or too low isa matter of little moment. Such is the strength with which populationshoots in that part of the world, that, state the numbers as high as wewill, whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration ends. Whilst we arediscussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it. Whilst we spendour time in deliberating on the mode of governing two millions, we shallfind we have millions more to manage. Your children do not grow fasterfrom infancy to manhood than they spread from families to communities, and from villages to nations. 

I put this consideration of the present and the growing numbers in thefront of our deliberation, because, Sir, this consideration will make itevident to a blunter discernment than yours, that no partial, narrow, contracted, pinched, occasional system will be at all suitable to suchan object. It will show you that it is not to be considered as one ofthose _minima_ which are out of the eye and consideration of thelaw, --not a paltry excrescence of the state, --not a mean dependant, whomay be neglected with little damage and provoked with little danger. Itwill prove that some degree of care and caution is required in thehandling such an object; it will show that you ought not, in reason, totrifle with so large a mass of the interests and feelings of the humanrace. You could at no time do so without guilt; and be assured you willnot be able to do it long with impunity. 

But the population of this country, the great and growing population, though a very important consideration, will lose much of its weight, ifnot combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your colonies isout of all proportion beyond the numbers of the people. This ground oftheir commerce, indeed, has been trod some days ago, and with greatability, by a distinguished person, [21] at your bar. This gentleman, after thirty-five years, --it is so long since he first appeared at thesame place to plead for the commerce of Great Britain, --has come againbefore you to plead the same cause, without any other effect of timethan that to the fire of imagination and extent of erudition, which eventhen marked him as one of the first literary characters of his age, hehas added a consummate knowledge in the commercial interest of hiscountry, formed by a long course of enlightened and discriminatingexperience. 

Sir, I should be inexcusable in coming after such a person with anydetail, if a great part of the members who now fill the House had notthe misfortune to be absent when he appeared at your bar. Besides, Sir, I propose to take the matter at periods of time somewhat different fromhis. There is, if I mistake not, a point of view from whence, if youwill look at this subject, it is impossible that it should not make animpression upon you. 

I have in my hand two accounts: one a comparative state of the exporttrade of England to its colonies, as it stood in the year 1704, and asit stood in the year 1772; the other a state of the export trade of thiscountry to its colonies alone, as it stood in 1772, compared with thewhole trade of England to all parts of the world (the colonies included)in the year 1704. They are from good vouchers: the latter period fromthe accounts on your table; the earlier from an original manuscript ofDavenant, who first established the Inspector-General's office, whichhas been ever since his time so abundant a source of Parliamentaryinformation. 

The export trade to the colonies consists of three great branches: theAfrican, which, terminating almost wholly in the colonies, must be putto the account of their commerce; the West Indian; and the NorthAmerican. All these are so interwoven, that the attempt to separate themwould tear to pieces the contexture of the whole, and, if not entirelydestroy, would very much depreciate, the value of all the parts. Itherefore consider these three denominations to be, what in effect theyare, one trade. 

The trade to the colonies, taken on the export side, at the beginning ofthis century, that is, in the year 1704, stood thus:--

Exports to North America and the WestIndies £ 483, 265To Africa 86, 665 --------- £ 569, 930

In the year 1772, which I take as a middle year between the highest andlowest of those lately laid on your table, the account was as follows:--

To North America and the West Indies £ 4, 791, 734To Africa 866, 398To which if you add the export tradefrom Scotland, which had in 1704 noexistence 364, 000 ---------- £6, 024, 171

From five hundred and odd thousand, it has grown to six millions. It hasincreased no less than twelve-fold. This is the state of the colonytrade, as compared with itself at these two periods, within thiscentury;--and this is matter for meditation. But this is not all. Examine my second account. See how the export trade to the coloniesalone in 1772 stood in the other point of view, that is, as compared tothe whole trade of England in 1704. 

The whole export trade of England, includingthat to the colonies, in 1704 £6, 509, 000Export to the colonies alone, in 1772 6, 024, 000 --------- Difference £485, 000

The trade with America alone is now within less than 500, 000_l. _ ofbeing equal to what this great commercial nation, England, carried on atthe beginning of this century with the whole world! If I had taken thelargest year of those on your table, it would rather have exceeded. But, it will be said, is not this American trade an unnatural protuberance, that has drawn the juices from the rest of the body? The reverse. It isthe very food that has nourished every other part into its presentmagnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and augmentedmore or less in almost every part to which it ever extended, but withthis material difference: that of the six millions which in thebeginning of the century constituted the whole mass of our exportcommerce the colony trade was but one twelfth part; it is now (as a partof sixteen millions) considerably more than a third of the whole. Thisis the relative proportion of the importance of the colonies at thesetwo periods: and all reasoning concerning our mode of treating them musthave this proportion as its basis, or it is a reasoning weak, rotten, and sophistical. 

Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevail on myself to hurry over this greatconsideration. It is good for us to be here. We stand where we have animmense view of what is, and what is past. Clouds indeed, and darkness, rest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend from this nobleeminence, reflect that this growth of our national prosperity hashappened within the short period of the life of man. It has happenedwithin sixty-eight years. There are those alive whose memory might touchthe two extremities. For instance, my Lord Bathurst might remember allthe stages of the progress. He was in 1704 of an age at least to be madeto comprehend such things. He was then old enough _acta parentum jamlegere, et quæ sit poterit cognoscere virtus_. Suppose, Sir, that theangel of this auspicious youth, foreseeing the many virtues which madehim one of the most amiable, as he is one of the most fortunate men ofhis age, had opened to him in vision, that, when, in the fourthgeneration, the third prince of the House of Brunswick had sat twelveyears on the throne of that nation which (by the happy issue of moderateand healing councils) was to be made Great Britain, he should see hisson, Lord Chancellor of England, turn back the current of hereditarydignity to its fountain, and raise him to an higher rank of peerage, whilst he enriched the family with a new one, --if, amidst these brightand happy scenes of domestic honor and prosperity, that angel shouldhave drawn up the curtain, and unfolded the rising glories of hiscountry, and whilst he was gazing with admiration on the then commercialgrandeur of England, the genius should point out to him a little speck, scarce visible in the mass of the national interest, a small seminalprinciple rather than a formed body, and should tell him, --"Young man, there is America, --which at this day serves for little more than toamuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners, yet shall, before you taste of death, show itself equal to the whole of thatcommerce which now attracts the envy of the world. Whatever England hasbeen growing to by a progressive increase of improvement, brought in byvarieties of people, by succession of civilizing conquests andcivilizing settlements in a series of seventeen hundred years, you shallsee as much added to her by America in the course of a single life!" Ifthis state of his country had been foretold to him, would it not requireall the sanguine credulity of youth, and all the fervid glow ofenthusiasm, to make him believe it? Fortunate man, he has lived to seeit! Fortunate indeed, if he lives to see nothing that shall vary theprospect, and cloud the setting of his day!

Excuse me, Sir, if, turning from such thoughts, I resume thiscomparative view once more. You have seen it on a large scale; look atit on a small one. I will point out to your attention a particularinstance of it in the single province of Pennsylvania. In the year 1704, that province called for 11, 459_l. _ in value of your commodities, native and foreign. This was the whole. What did it demand in 1772! Why, nearly fifty times as much; for in that year the export to Pennsylvaniawas 507, 909_l. _, nearly equal to the export to all the coloniestogether in the first period. 

I choose, Sir, to enter into these minute and particular details;because generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten andraise the subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we speak of thecommerce with our colonies, fiction lags after truth, invention isunfruitful, and imagination cold and barren. 

So far, Sir, as to the importance of the object in the view of itscommerce, as concerned in the exports from England. If I were to detailthe imports, I could show how many enjoyments they procure which deceivethe burden of life, how many materials which invigorate the springs ofnational industry and extend and animate every part of our foreign anddomestic commerce. This would be a curious subject indeed, --but I mustprescribe bounds to myself in a matter so vast and various. 

I pass, therefore, to the colonies in another point of view, --theiragriculture. This they have prosecuted with such a spirit, that, besidesfeeding plentifully their own growing multitude, their annual export ofgrain, comprehending rice, has some years ago exceeded a million invalue. Of their last harvest, I am persuaded, they will export muchmore. At the beginning of the century some of these colonies importedcorn from the mother country. For some time past the Old World has beenfed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would have been adesolating famine, if this child of your old age, with a true filialpiety, with a Roman charity, had not put the full breast of its youthfulexuberance to the mouth of its exhausted parent. 

As to the wealth which the colonies have drawn from the sea by theirfisheries, you had all that matter fully opened at your bar. You surelythought those acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite yourenvy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment has beenexercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised your esteem andadmiration. And pray, Sir, what in the world is equal to it? Pass bythe other parts, and look at the manner in which the people of NewEngland have of late carried on the whale-fishery. Whilst we follow themamong the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating intothe deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, whilstwe are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that theyhave pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that they are atthe antipodes, and engaged under the frozen serpent of the South. Falkland Island, which seemed too remote and romantic an object for thegrasp of national ambition, is but a stage and resting-place in theprogress of their victorious industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat morediscouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the poles. Weknow, that, whilst some of them draw the line and strike the harpoon onthe coast of Africa, others run the longitude, and pursue their giganticgame along the coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by theirfisheries. No climate that is not witness to their toils. Neither theperseverance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor the dexterousand firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever carried this most perilousmode of hardy industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by thisrecent people, --a people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and not yet hardened into the bone of manhood. When I contemplate thesethings, --when I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothingto any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy formby the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has beensuffered to take her own way to perfection, --when I reflect upon theseeffects, when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel all thepride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of humancontrivances melt and die away within me, --my rigor relents, --I pardonsomething to the spirit of liberty. 

I am sensible, Sir, that all which I have asserted in my detail isadmitted in the gross, but that quite a different conclusion is drawnfrom it. America, gentlemen say, is a noble object, --it is an objectwell worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if fighting a people be thebest way of gaining them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to theirchoice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those whounderstand the military art will of course have some predilection forit. Those who wield the thunder of the state may have more confidence inthe efficacy of arms. But I confess, possibly for want of thisknowledge, my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management thanof force, --considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spiritedas this, in a profitable and subordinate connection with us. 

First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but_temporary_. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove thenecessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed which isperpetually to be conquered. 

My next objection is its _uncertainty_. Terror is not always the effectof force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, youare without resource: for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power andauthority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be beggedas alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. 

A further objection to force is, that you _impair the object_ by yourvery endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thingwhich you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in thecontest. Nothing less will content me than _whole America_. I do notchoose to consume its strength along with our own; because in all partsit is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose to be caughtby a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and stillless in the midst of it. I may escape, but I can make no insuranceagainst such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly to breakthe American spirit; because it is the spirit that has made the country. 

Lastly, we have no sort of _experience_ in favor of force as aninstrument in the rule of our colonies. Their growth and their utilityhas been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgencehas been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, iffeeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attemptto mend it, and our sin far more salutary than our penitence. 

These, Sir, are my reasons for not entertaining that high opinion ofuntried force by which many gentlemen, for whose sentiments in otherparticulars I have great respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. Butthere is still behind a third consideration concerning this object, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which oughtto be pursued in the management of America, even more than itspopulation and its commerce: I mean its _temper and character_. 

In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is thepredominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole: and as anardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrestfrom them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think theonly advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty isstronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people ofthe earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, tounderstand the true temper of their minds, and the direction which thisspirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open somewhat more largely. 

First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerlyadored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part ofyour character was most predominant; and they took this bias anddirection the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore notonly devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas andon English principles. Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object; and everynation has formed to itself some favorite point, which by way ofeminence becomes the criterion of their happiness. It happened, youknow, Sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were fromthe earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing. Most of thecontests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right ofelection of magistrates, or on the balance among the several orders ofthe state. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But inEngland it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens andmost eloquent tongues have been exercised, the greatest spirits haveacted and suffered. In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerningthe importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who inargument defended the excellence of the English Constitution to insiston this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to provethat the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments and blindusages to reside in a certain body called an House of Commons: they wentmuch further: they attempted to prove, and they succeeded, that intheory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House ofCommons, as an immediate representative of the people, whether the oldrecords had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains toinculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the peoplemust in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the powerof granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. Thecolonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas andprinciples. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached onthis specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe or might beendangered in twenty other particulars without their being much pleasedor alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, theythought themselves sick or sound. I do not say whether they were rightor wrong in applying your general arguments to their own case. It is noteasy, indeed, to make a monopoly of theorems and corollaries. The factis, that they did thus apply those general arguments; and your mode ofgoverning them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom ormistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well as you, had an interest in these common principles. 

They were further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of theirprovincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are popular in anhigh degree: some are merely popular; in all, the popular representativeis the most weighty; and this share of the people in their ordinarygovernment never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with astrong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chiefimportance. 

If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form ofgovernment, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out orimpaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of thisfree spirit. The people are Protestants, and of that kind which is themost adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is apersuasion not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it. I do notthink, Sir, that the reason of this averseness in the dissentingchurches from all that looks like absolute government is so much to besought in their religious tenets as in their history. Every one knowsthat the Roman Catholic religion is at least coeval with most of thegovernments where it prevails, that it has generally gone hand in handwith them, and received great favor and every kind of support fromauthority. The Church of England, too, was formed from her cradle underthe nursing care of regular government. But the dissenting interestshave sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of theworld, and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim tonatural liberty. Their very existence depended on the powerful andunremitted assertion of that claim. All Protestantism, even the mostcold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalentin our northern colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance:it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestantreligion. This religion, under a variety of denominations agreeing innothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant inmost of the northern provinces, where the Church of England, notwithstanding its legal rights, is in reality no more than a sort ofprivate sect, not composing, most probably, the tenth of the people. Thecolonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrantswas the highest of all; and even that stream of foreigners which hasbeen constantly flowing into these colonies has, for the greatest part, been composed of dissenters from the establishments of their severalcountries, and have brought with them a temper and character far fromalien to that of the people with whom they mixed. 

Sir, I can perceive, by their manner, that some gentlemen object to thelatitude of this description, because in the southern colonies theChurch of England forms a large body, and has a regular establishment. It is certainly true. There is, however, a circumstance attending thesecolonies, which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than inthose to the northward. It is, that in Virginia and the Carolinas theyhave a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any part ofthe world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous oftheir freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind ofrank and privilege. Not seeing there, that freedom, as in countrieswhere it is a common blessing, and as broad and general as the air, maybe united with much abject toil, with great misery, with all theexterior of servitude, liberty looks, amongst them, like something thatis more noble and liberal. I do not mean, Sir, to commend the superiormorality of this sentiment, which has at least as much pride as virtuein it; but I cannot alter the nature of man. The fact is so; and thesepeople of the southern colonies are much more strongly, and with anhigher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to thenorthward. Such were all the ancient commonwealths; such were our Gothicancestors; such in our days were the Poles; and such will be all mastersof slaves, who are not slaves themselves. In such a people, thehaughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifiesit, and renders it invincible. 

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, whichcontributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of thisuntractable spirit: I mean their education. In no country, perhaps, inthe world is the law so general a study. The profession itself isnumerous and powerful, and in most provinces it takes the lead. Thegreater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were lawyers. Butall who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering inthat science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in nobranch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so manybooks as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonistshave now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hearthat they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's "Commentaries" inAmerica as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition veryparticularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the peoplein his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law, --and that in Bostonthey have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade manyparts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness ofdebate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearlythe rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and thepenalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honorable andlearned friend[22] on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say foranimadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that, when great honors and great emoluments do not win over thisknowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary togovernment. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happymethods, it is stubborn and litigious. _Abeunt studia in mores_. Thisstudy renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, readyin defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, moresimple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle ingovernment only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of theprinciple. They augur misgovernment at a distance, and snuff theapproach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. 

The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly lesspowerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in thenatural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean liebetween you and them. No contrivance can prevent the effect of thisdistance in weakening government. Seas roll, and months pass, betweenthe order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of asingle point is enough to defeat an whole system. You have, indeed, winged ministers of vengeance, who carry your bolts in their pounces tothe remotest verge of the sea: but there a power steps in, that limitsthe arrogance of raging passions and furious elements, and says, "So farshalt thou go, and no farther. " Who are you, that should fret and rage, and bite the chains of Nature? Nothing worse happens to you than does toall nations who have extensive empire; and it happens in all the formsinto which empire can be thrown. In large bodies, the circulation ofpower must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. TheTurk cannot govern Egypt, and Arabia, and Kurdistan, as he governsThrace; nor has he the same dominion in Crimea and Algiers which he hasat Brusa and Smyrna. Despotism itself is obliged to truck and huckster. The Sultan gets such obedience as he can. He governs with a loose rein, that he may govern at all; and the whole of the force and vigor of hisauthority in his centre is derived from a prudent relaxation in all hisborders. Spain, in her provinces, is perhaps not so well obeyed as youare in yours. She complies, too; she submits; she watches times. This isthe immutable condition, the eternal law, of extensive and detachedempire. 

Then, Sir, from these six capital sources, of descent, of form ofgovernment, of religion in the northern provinces, of manners in thesouthern, of education, of the remoteness of situation from the firstmover of government, --from all these causes a fierce spirit of libertyhas grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in yourcolonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth: a spirit, that, unhappily meeting with an exercise of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much lesswith theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to consume us. 

I do not mean to commend either the spirit in this excess, or the moralcauses which produce it. Perhaps a more smooth and accommodating spiritof freedom in them would be more acceptable to us. Perhaps ideas ofliberty might be desired more reconcilable with an arbitrary andboundless authority. Perhaps we might wish the colonists to be persuadedthat their liberty is more secure when held in trust for them by us (astheir guardians during a perpetual minority) than with any part of it intheir own hands. But the question is not, whether their spirit deservespraise or blame, --what, in the name of God, shall we do with it? Youhave before you the object, such as it is, --with all its glories, withall its imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, theimportance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all theseconsiderations we are strongly urged to determine something concerningit. We are called upon to fix some rule and line for our future conduct, which may give a little stability to our politics, and prevent thereturn of such unhappy deliberations as the present. Every such returnwill bring the matter before us in a still more untractable form. Forwhat astonishing and incredible things have we not seen already! Whatmonsters have not been generated from this unnatural contention! Whilstevery principle of authority and resistance has been pushed, upon bothsides, as far as it would go, there is nothing so solid and certain, either in reasoning or in practice, that has not been shaken. Until verylately, all authority in America seemed to be nothing but an emanationfrom yours. Even the popular part of the colony constitution derived allits activity, and its first vital movement, from the pleasure of thecrown. We thought, Sir, that the utmost which the discontented colonistscould do was to disturb authority; we never dreamt they could ofthemselves supply it, knowing in general what an operose business it isto establish a government absolutely new. But having, for our purposesin this contention, resolved that none but an obedient assembly shouldsit, the humors of the people there, finding all passage through thelegal channel stopped, with great violence broke out another way. Someprovinces have tried their experiment, as we have tried ours; and theirshas succeeded. They have formed a government sufficient for itspurposes, without the bustle of a revolution, or the troublesomeformality of an election. Evident necessity and tacit consent have donethe business in an instant. So well they have done it, that Lord Dunmore(the account is among the fragments on your table) tells you that thenew institution is infinitely better obeyed than the ancient governmentever was in its most fortunate periods. Obedience is what makesgovernment, and not the names by which it is called: not the name ofGovernor, as formerly, or Committee, as at present. This new governmenthas originated directly from the people, and was not transmittedthrough any of the ordinary artificial media of a positive constitution. It was not a manufacture ready formed, and transmitted to them in thatcondition from England. The evil arising from hence is this: that thecolonists having once found the possibility of enjoying the advantagesof order in the midst of a struggle for liberty, such struggles will nothenceforward seem so terrible to the settled and sober part of mankindas they had appeared before the trial. 

Pursuing the same plan of punishing by the denial of the exercise ofgovernment to still greater lengths, we wholly abrogated the ancientgovernment of Massachusetts. We were confident that the first feeling, if not the very prospect of anarchy, would instantly enforce a completesubmission. The experiment was tried. A new, strange, unexpected face ofthings appeared. Anarchy is found tolerable. A vast province has nowsubsisted, and subsisted in a considerable degree of health and vigor, for near a twelvemonth, without governor, without public council, without judges, without executive magistrates. How long it will continuein this state, or what may arise out of this unheard-of situation, howcan the wisest of us conjecture? Our late experience has taught us thatmany of those fundamental principles formerly believed infallible areeither not of the importance they were imagined to be, or that we havenot at all adverted to some other far more important and far morepowerful principles which entirely overrule those we had considered asomnipotent. I am much against any further experiments which tend to putto the proof any more of these allowed opinions which contribute so muchto the public tranquillity. In effect, we suffer as much at home bythis loosening of all ties, and this concussion of all establishedopinions, as we do abroad. For, in order to prove that the Americanshave no right to their liberties, we are every day endeavoring tosubvert the maxims which preserve the whole spirit of our own. To provethat the Americans ought not to be free, we are obliged to depreciatethe value of freedom itself; and we never seem to gain a paltryadvantage over them in debate, without attacking some of thoseprinciples, or deriding some of those feelings, for which our ancestorshave shed their blood. 

But, Sir, in wishing to put an end to pernicious experiments, I do notmean to preclude the fullest inquiry. Far from it. Far from deciding ona sudden or partial view, I would patiently go round and round thesubject, and survey it minutely in every possible aspect. Sir, if I werecapable of engaging you to an equal attention, I would state, that, asfar as I am capable of discerning, there are but three ways ofproceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which prevails in yourcolonies and disturbs your government. These are, --to change thatspirit, as inconvenient, by removing the causes, --to prosecute it, ascriminal, --or to comply with it, as necessary. I would not be guilty ofan imperfect enumeration; I can think of but these three. Another has, indeed, been started, --that of giving up the colonies; but it met soslight a reception that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a greatwhile upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger, like thefrowardness of peevish children, who, when they cannot get all theywould have, are resolved to take nothing. 

The first of these plans--to change the spirit, as inconvenient, byremoving the causes--I think is the most like a systematic proceeding. It is radical in its principle; but it is attended with greatdifficulties: some of them little short, as I conceive, ofimpossibilities. This will appear by examining into the plans which havebeen proposed. 

As the growing population of the colonies is evidently one cause oftheir resistance, it was last session mentioned in both Houses, by menof weight, and received not without applause, that, in order to checkthis evil, it would be proper for the crown to make no further grants ofland. But to this scheme there are two objections. The first, that thereis already so much unsettled land in private hands as to afford room foran immense future population, although the crown not only withheld itsgrants, but annihilated its soil. If this be the case, then the onlyeffect of this avarice of desolation, this hoarding of a royalwilderness, would be to raise the value of the possessions in the handsof the great private monopolists, without any adequate check to thegrowing and alarming mischief of population. 

But if you stopped your grants, what would be the consequence? Thepeople would occupy without grants. They have already so occupied inmany places. You cannot station garrisons in every part of thesedeserts. If you drive the people from one place, they will carry ontheir annual tillage, and remove with their flocks and herds to another. Many of the people in the back settlements are already little attachedto particular situations. Already they have topped the Appalachianmountains. From thence they behold before them an immense plain, onevast, rich, level meadow: a square of five hundred miles. Over thisthey would wander without a possibility of restraint; they would changetheir manners with the habits of their life; would soon forget agovernment by which they were disowned; would become hordes of EnglishTartars, and, pouring down upon your unfortified frontiers a fierce andirresistible cavalry, become masters of your governors and yourcounsellors, your collectors and comptrollers, and of all the slavesthat adhered to them. Such would, and, in no long time, must be, theeffect of attempting to forbid as a crime, and to suppress as an evil, the command and blessing of Providence, "Increase and multiply. " Suchwould be the happy result of an endeavor to keep as a lair of wildbeasts that earth which God by an express charter has given to thechildren of men. Far different, and surely much wiser, has been ourpolicy hitherto. Hitherto we have invited our people, by every kind ofbounty, to fixed establishments. We have invited the husbandman to lookto authority for his title. We have taught him piously to believe in themysterious virtue of wax and parchment. We have thrown each tract ofland, as it was peopled, into districts, that the ruling power shouldnever be wholly out of sight. We have settled all we could; and we havecarefully attended every settlement with government. 

Adhering, Sir, as I do, to this policy, as well as for the reasons Ihave just given, I think this new project of hedging in population to beneither prudent nor practicable. 

To impoverish the colonies in general, and in particular to arrest thenoble course of their marine enterprises, would be a more easy task. Ifreely confess it. We have shown a disposition to a system of thiskind, --a disposition even to continue the restraint after theoffence, --looking on ourselves as rivals to our colonies, and persuadedthat of course we must gain all that they shall lose. Much mischief wemay certainly do. The power inadequate to all other things is often morethan sufficient for this. I do not look on the direct and immediatepower of the colonies to resist our violence as very formidable. Inthis, however, I may be mistaken. But when I consider that we havecolonies for no purpose but to be serviceable to us, it seems to my poorunderstanding a little preposterous to make them unserviceable, in orderto keep them obedient. It is, in truth, nothing more than the old, and, as I thought, exploded problem of tyranny, which proposes to beggar itssubjects into submission. But remember, when you have completed yoursystem of impoverishment, that Nature still proceeds in her ordinarycourse; that discontent will increase with misery; and that there arecritical moments in the fortune of all states, when they who are tooweak to contribute to your prosperity may be strong enough to completeyour ruin. _Spoliatis arma supersunt_. 

The temper and character which prevail in our colonies are, I am afraid, unalterable by any human art. We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree ofthis fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from anation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates. The language inwhich they would hear you tell them this tale would detect theimposition; your speech would betray you. An Englishman is the unfittestperson on earth to argue another Englishman into slavery. 

I think it is nearly as little in our power to change their republicanreligion as their free descent, or to substitute the Roman Catholic as apenalty, or the Church of England as an improvement. The mode ofinquisition and dragooning is going out of fashion in the Old World, andI should not confide much to their efficacy in the New. The education ofthe Americans is also on the same unalterable bottom with theirreligion. You cannot persuade them to burn their books of curiousscience, to banish their lawyers from their courts of law, or to quenchthe lights of their assemblies by refusing to choose those persons whoare best read in their privileges. It would be no less impracticable tothink of wholly annihilating the popular assemblies in which theselawyers sit. The army, by which we must govern in their place, would befar more chargeable to us, not quite so effectual, and perhaps, in theend, full as difficult to be kept in obedience. 

With regard to the high aristocratic spirit of Virginia and the southerncolonies, it has been proposed, I know, to reduce it by declaring ageneral enfranchisement of their slaves. This project has had itsadvocates and panegyrists; yet I never could argue myself into anyopinion of it. Slaves are often much attached to their masters. Ageneral wild offer of liberty would not always be accepted. Historyfurnishes few instances of it. It is sometimes as hard to persuadeslaves to be free as it is to compel freemen to be slaves; and in thisauspicious scheme we should have both these pleasing tasks on our handsat once. But when we talk of enfranchisement, do we not perceive thatthe American master may enfranchise, too, and arm servile hands indefence of freedom?--a measure to which other people have had recoursemore than once, and not without success, in a desperate situation oftheir affairs. 

Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men arefrom slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom fromthat very nation which has sold them to their present masters, --fromthat nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is theirrefusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffic? An offer of freedomfrom England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an Africanvessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia orCarolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would becurious to see the Guinea captain attempting at the same instant topublish his proclamation of liberty and to advertise his sale of slaves. 

But let us suppose all these moral difficulties got over. The oceanremains. You cannot pump this dry; and as long as it continues in itspresent bed, so long all the causes which weaken authority by distancewill continue. 

 "Ye Gods! annihilate but space and time, And make two lovers happy, "

was a pious and passionate prayer, --but just as reasonable as many ofthe serious wishes of very grave and solemn politicians. 

If, then, Sir, it seems almost desperate to think of any alterativecourse for changing the moral causes (and not quite easy to remove thenatural) which produce prejudices irreconcilable to the late exercise ofour authority, but that the spirit infallibly will continue, and, continuing, will produce such effects as now embarrass us, --the secondmode under consideration is, to prosecute that spirit in its overt acts, as _criminal_. 

At this proposition I must pause a moment. The thing seems a great dealtoo big for my ideas of jurisprudence. It should seem, to my way ofconceiving such matters, that there is a very wide difference, in reasonand policy, between the mode of proceeding on the irregular conduct ofscattered individuals, or even of bands of men, who disturb order withinthe state, and the civil dissensions which may, from time to time, ongreat questions, agitate the several communities which compose a greatempire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinaryideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not knowthe method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people. I cannotinsult and ridicule the feelings of millions of my fellow-creatures asSir Edward Coke insulted one excellent individual (Sir Walter Raleigh)at the bar. I am not ripe to pass sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with magistracies of great authority and dignity, and chargedwith the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title thatI am. I really think that for wise men this is not judicious, for sobermen not decent, for minds tinctured with humanity not mild and merciful. 

Perhaps, Sir, I am mistaken in my idea of an empire, as distinguishedfrom a single state or kingdom. But my idea of it is this: that anempire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whetherthis head be a monarch or a presiding republic. It does, in suchconstitutions, frequently happen (and nothing but the dismal, cold, deaduniformity of servitude can prevent its happening) that the subordinateparts have many local privileges and immunities. Between theseprivileges and the supreme common authority the line may be extremelynice. Of course disputes, often, too, very bitter disputes, and much illblood, will arise. But though every privilege is an exemption (in thecase) from the ordinary exercise of the supreme authority, it is nodenial of it. The claim of a privilege seems rather, _ex vi termini_, toimply a superior power: for to talk of the privileges of a state or of aperson who has no superior is hardly any better than speaking nonsense. Now in such unfortunate quarrels among the component parts of a greatpolitical union of communities, I can scarcely conceive anything morecompletely imprudent than for the head of the empire to insist, that ifany privilege is pleaded against his will or his acts, that his wholeauthority is denied, --instantly to proclaim rebellion, to beat to arms, and to put the offending provinces under the ban. Will not this, Sir, very soon teach the provinces to make no distinctions on their part?Will it not teach them that the government against which a claim ofliberty is tantamount to high treason is a government to whichsubmission is equivalent to slavery? It may not always be quiteconvenient to impress dependent communities with such an idea. 

We are, indeed, in all disputes with the colonies, by the necessity ofthings, the judge. It is true, Sir. But I confess that the character ofjudge in my own cause is a thing that frightens me. Instead of fillingme with pride, I am exceedingly humbled by it. I cannot proceed with astern, assured judicial confidence, until I find myself in somethingmore like a judicial character. I must have these hesitations as long asI am compelled to recollect, that, in my little reading upon suchcontests as these, the sense of mankind has at least as often decidedagainst the superior as the subordinate power. Sir, let me add, too, that the opinion of my having some abstract right in my favor would notput me much at my ease in passing sentence, unless I could be sure thatthere were no rights which, in their exercise under certaincircumstances, were not the most odious of all wrongs and the mostvexatious of all injustice. Sir, these considerations have great weightwith me, when I find things so circumstanced that I see the same partyat once a civil litigant against me in a point of right and a culpritbefore me, while I sit as criminal judge on acts of his whose moralquality is to be decided upon the merits of that very litigation. Menare every now and then put, by the complexity of human affairs, intostrange situations; but justice is the same, let the judge be in whatsituation he will. 

There is, Sir, also a circumstance which convinces me that this mode ofcriminal proceeding is not (at least in the present stage of ourcontest) altogether expedient, --which is nothing less than the conductof those very persons who have seemed to adopt that mode, by latelydeclaring a rebellion in Massachusetts Bay, as they had formerlyaddressed to have traitors brought hither, under an act of Henry theEighth, for trial. For, though rebellion is declared, it is notproceeded against as such; nor have any steps been taken towards theapprehension or conviction of any individual offender, either on ourlate or our former address; but modes of public coercion have beenadopted, and such as have much more resemblance to a sort of qualifiedhostility towards an independent power than the punishment of rebellioussubjects. All this seems rather inconsistent; but it shows howdifficult it is to apply these juridical ideas to our present case. 

In this situation, let us seriously and coolly ponder. What is it wehave got by all our menaces, which have been many and ferocious? Whatadvantage have we derived from the penal laws we have passed, and which, for the time, have been severe and numerous? What advances have we madetowards our object, by the sending of a force, which, by land and sea, is no contemptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothingless. --When I see things in this situation, after such confident hopes, bold promises, and active exertions, I cannot, for my life, avoid asuspicion that the plan itself is not correctly right. 

If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American libertybe, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable, --if theideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or, if applicable, are in thehighest degree inexpedient, what way yet remains? No way is open, butthe third and last, --to comply with the American spirit as necessary, or, if you please, to submit, to it as a necessary evil. 

If we adopt this mode, if we mean to conciliate and concede, let us seeof what nature the concession ought to be. To ascertain the nature ofour concession, we must look at their complaint. The colonies complainthat they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom. They complain that they are taxed in a Parliament in which they are notrepresented. If you mean to satisfy them at all, you must satisfy themwith regard to this complaint. If you mean to please any people, youmust give them the boon which they ask, --not what you may think betterfor them, but of a kind totally different. Such an act may be a wiseregulation, but it is no concession; whereas our present theme is themode of giving satisfaction. 

Sir, I think you must perceive that I am resolved this day to havenothing at all to do with the question of the right of taxation. Somegentlemen startle, --but it is true: I put it totally out of thequestion. It is less than nothing in my consideration. I do not indeedwonder, nor will you, Sir, that gentlemen of profound learning are fondof displaying it on this profound subject. But my consideration isnarrow, confined, and wholly limited to the policy of the question. I donot examine whether the giving away a man's money be a power exceptedand reserved out of the general trust of government, and how far allmankind, in all forms of polity, are entitled to an exercise of thatright by the charter of Nature, --or whether, on the contrary, a right oftaxation is necessarily involved in the general principle oflegislation, and inseparable from the ordinary supreme power. These aredeep questions, where great names militate against each other, wherereason is perplexed, and an appeal to authorities only thickens theconfusion: for high and reverend authorities lift up their heads on bothsides, and there is no sure footing in the middle. This point is the_great Serbonian bog, betwixt Damiata and Mount Casius old, where armieswhole have sunk_. I do not intend to be overwhelmed in that bog, thoughin such respectable company. The question with me is, not whether youhave a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not yourinterest to make them happy. It is not what a lawyer tells me I _may_do, but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do. Is apolitic act the worse for being a generous one? Is no concession proper, but that which is made from your want of right to keep what you grant?Or does it lessen the grace or dignity of relaxing in the exercise of anodious claim, because you have your evidence-room full of titles, andyour magazines stuffed with arms to enforce them? What signify all thosetitles and all those arms? Of what avail are they, when the reason ofthe thing tells me that the assertion of my title is the loss of mysuit, and that I could do nothing but wound myself by the use of my ownweapons?

Such is steadfastly my opinion of the absolute necessity of keeping upthe concord of this empire by a unity of spirit, though in a diversityof operations, that, if I were sure the colonists had, at their leavingthis country, sealed a regular compact of servitude, that they hadsolemnly abjured all the rights of citizens, that they had made a vow torenounce all ideas of liberty for them and their posterity to allgenerations, yet I should hold myself obliged to conform to the temper Ifound universally prevalent in my own day, and to govern two million ofmen, impatient of servitude, on the principles of freedom. I am notdetermining a point of law; I am restoring tranquillity: and the generalcharacter and situation of a people must determine what sort ofgovernment is fitted for them. That point nothing else can or ought todetermine. 

My idea, therefore, without considering whether we yield as matter ofright or grant as matter of favor, is, _to admit the people of ourcolonies into an interest in the Constitution_, and, by recording thatadmission in the journals of Parliament, to give them as strong anassurance as the nature of the thing will admit that we mean forever toadhere to that solemn declaration of systematic indulgence. 

Some years ago, the repeal of a revenue act, upon its understoodprinciple, might have served to show that we intended an unconditionalabatement of the exercise of a taxing power. Such a measure was thensufficient to remove all suspicion and to give perfect content. Butunfortunate events since that time may make something furthernecessary, --and not more necessary for the satisfaction of the coloniesthan for the dignity and consistency of our own future proceedings. 

I have taken a very incorrect measure of the disposition of the House, if this proposal in itself would be received with dislike. I think, Sir, we have few American financiers. But our misfortune is, we are tooacute, we are too exquisite in our conjectures of the future, for menoppressed with such great and present evils. The more moderate among theopposers of Parliamentary concession freely confess that they hope nogood from taxation; but they apprehend the colonists have further views, and if this point were conceded, they would instantly attack the tradelaws. These gentlemen are convinced that this was the intention from thebeginning, and the quarrel of the Americans with taxation was no morethan a cloak and cover to this design. Such has been the language evenof a gentleman[23] of real moderation, and of a natural temper welladjusted to fair and equal government. I am, however, Sir, not a littlesurprised at this kind of discourse, whenever I hear it; and I am themore surprised on account of the arguments which I constantly find incompany with it, and which are often urged from the same mouths and onthe same day. 

For instance, when we allege that it is against reason to tax a peopleunder so many restraints in trade as the Americans, the noble lord[24]in the blue riband shall tell you that the restraints on trade arefutile and useless, of no advantage to us, and of no burden to those onwhom they are imposed, --that the trade to America is not secured by theActs of Navigation, but by the natural and irresistible advantage of acommercial preference. 

Such is the merit of the trade laws in this posture of the debate. Butwhen strong internal circumstances are urged against the taxes, --whenthe scheme is dissected, --when experience and the nature of things arebrought to prove, and do prove, the utter impossibility of obtaining aneffective revenue from the colonies, --when these things are pressed, orrather press themselves, so as to drive the advocates of colony taxes toa clear admission of the futility of the scheme, --then, Sir, thesleeping trade laws revive from their trance, and this useless taxationis to be kept sacred, not for its own sake, but as a counter-guard andsecurity of the laws of trade. 

Then, Sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous in order topreserve trade laws that are useless. Such is the wisdom of our plan inboth its members. They are separately given up as of no value; and yetone is always to be defended for the sake of the other. But I cannotagree with the noble lord, nor with the pamphlet from whence he seems tohave borrowed these ideas concerning the inutility of the trade laws. For, without idolizing them, I am sure they are still, in many ways, ofgreat use to us; and in former times they have been of the greatest. They do confine, and they do greatly narrow, the market for theAmericans. But my perfect conviction of this does not help me in theleast to discern how the revenue laws form any security whatsoever tothe commercial regulations, --or that these commercial regulations arethe true ground of the quarrel, --or that the giving way, in any oneinstance, of authority is to lose all that may remain unconceded. 

One fact is clear and indisputable: the public and avowed origin of thisquarrel was on taxation. This quarrel has, indeed, brought on newdisputes on new questions, but certainly the least bitter, and thefewest of all, on the trade laws. To judge which of the two be the real, radical cause of quarrel, we have to see whether the commercial disputedid, in order of time, precede the dispute on taxation. There is not ashadow of evidence for it. Next, to enable us to judge whether at thismoment a dislike to the trade laws be the real cause of quarrel, it isabsolutely necessary to put the taxes out of the question by a repeal. See how the Americans act in this position, and then you will be able todiscern correctly what is the true object of the controversy, or whetherany controversy at all will remain. Unless you consent to remove thiscause of difference, it is impossible, with decency, to assert that thedispute is not upon what it is avowed to be. And I would, Sir, recommendto your serious consideration, whether it be prudent to form a rule forpunishing people, not on their own acts, but on your conjectures. Surelyit is preposterous, at the very best. It is not justifying your angerby their misconduct, but it is converting your ill-will into theirdelinquency. 

But the colonies will go further. --Alas! alas! when will thisspeculating against fact and reason end? What will quiet these panicfears which we entertain of the hostile effect of a conciliatoryconduct? Is it true that no case can exist in which it is proper for thesovereign to accede to the desires of his discontented subjects? Isthere anything peculiar in this case, to make a rule for itself? Is allauthority of course lost, when it is not pushed to the extreme? Is it acertain maxim, that, the fewer causes of dissatisfaction are left bygovernment, the more the subject will be inclined to resist and rebel?

All these objections being in fact no more than suspicions, conjectures, divinations, formed in defiance of fact and experience, they did not, Sir, discourage me from entertaining the idea of a conciliatoryconcession, founded on the principles which I have just stated. 

In forming a plan for this purpose, I endeavored to put myself in thatframe of mind which was the most natural and the most reasonable, andwhich was certainly the most probable means of securing me from allerror. I set out with a perfect distrust of my own abilities, a totalrenunciation of every speculation of my own, and with a profoundreverence for the wisdom of our ancestors, who have left us theinheritance of so happy a Constitution and so flourishing an empire, and, what is a thousand times more valuable, the treasury of the maximsand principles which formed the one and obtained the other. 

During the reigns of the kings of Spain of the Austrian family, whenever they were at a loss in the Spanish councils, it was common fortheir statesmen to say that they ought to consult the genius of Philipthe Second. The genius of Philip the Second might mislead them; and theissue of their affairs showed that they had not chosen the most perfectstandard. But, Sir, I am sure that I shall not be misled, when, in acase of constitutional difficulty, I consult the genius of the EnglishConstitution. Consulting at that oracle, (it was with all due humilityand piety, ) I found four capital examples in a similar case before me:those of Ireland, Wales, Chester, and Durham. 

Ireland, before the English conquest, though never governed by adespotic power, had no Parliament. How far the English Parliament itselfwas at that time modelled according to the present form is disputedamong antiquarians. But we have all the reason in the world to beassured, that a form of Parliament, such as England then enjoyed, sheinstantly communicated to Ireland; and we are equally sure that almostevery successive improvement in constitutional liberty, as fast as itwas made here, was transmitted thither. The feudal baronage, and thefeudal knighthood, the roots of our primitive Constitution, were earlytransplanted into that soil, and grew and flourished there. MagnaCharta, if it did not give us originally the House of Commons, gave usat least an House of Commons of weight and consequence. But yourancestors did not churlishly sit down alone to the feast of MagnaCharta. Ireland was made immediately a partaker. This benefit of Englishlaws and liberties, I confess, was not at first extended to _all_Ireland. Mark the consequence. English authority and English liberty hadexactly the same boundaries. Your standard could never be advanced aninch before your privileges. Sir John Davies shows beyond a doubt, thatthe refusal of a general communication of these rights was the truecause why Ireland was five hundred years in subduing; and after the vainprojects of a military government, attempted in the reign of QueenElizabeth, it was soon discovered that nothing could make that countryEnglish, in civility and allegiance, but your laws and your forms oflegislature. It was not English arms, but the English Constitution, thatconquered Ireland. From that time, Ireland has ever had a generalParliament, as she had before a partial Parliament. You changed thepeople, you altered the religion, but you never touched the form or thevital substance of free government in that kingdom. You deposed kings;you restored them; you altered the succession to theirs, as well as toyour own crown; but you never altered their Constitution, the principleof which was respected by usurpation, restored with the restoration ofmonarchy, and established, I trust, forever by the glorious Revolution. This has made Ireland the great and flourishing kingdom that it is, and, from a disgrace and a burden intolerable to this nation, has renderedher a principal part of our strength and ornament. This country cannotbe said to have ever formally taxed her. The irregular things done inthe confusion of mighty troubles, and on the hinge of great revolutions, even if all were done that is said to have been done, form no example. If they have any effect in argument, they make an exception to prove therule. None of your own liberties could stand a moment, if the casualdeviations from them, at such times, were suffered to be used as proofsof their nullity. By the lucrative amount of such casual breaches inthe Constitution, judge what the stated and fixed rule of supply hasbeen in that kingdom. Your Irish pensioners would starve, if they had noother fund to live on than taxes granted by English authority. Turn youreyes to those popular grants from whence all your great supplies arecome, and learn to respect that only source of public wealth in theBritish empire. 

My next example is Wales. This country was said to be reduced by Henrythe Third. It was said more truly to be so by Edward the First. Butthough then conquered, it was not looked upon as any part of the realmof England. Its old Constitution, whatever that might have been, wasdestroyed; and no good one was substituted in its place. The care ofthat tract was put into the hands of Lords Marchers: a form ofgovernment of a very singular kind; a strange, heterogeneous monster, something between hostility and government: perhaps it has a sort ofresemblance, according to the modes of those times, to that ofcommander-in-chief at present, to whom all civil power is granted assecondary. The manners of the Welsh nation followed the genius of thegovernment: the people were ferocious, restive, savage, anduncultivated; sometimes composed, never pacified. Wales, within itself, was in perpetual disorder; and it kept the frontier of England inperpetual alarm. Benefits from it to the state there were none. Waleswas only known to England by incursion and invasion. 

Sir, during that state of things, Parliament was not idle. Theyattempted to subdue the fierce spirit of the Welsh by all sorts ofrigorous laws. They prohibited by statute the sending all sorts of armsinto Wales, as you prohibit by proclamation (with something more ofdoubt on the legality) the sending arms to America. They disarmed theWelsh by statute, as you attempted (but still with more question on thelegality) to disarm New England by an instruction. They made an act todrag offenders from Wales into England for trial, as you have done (butwith more hardship) with regard to America. By another act, where one ofthe parties was an Englishman, they ordained that his trial should bealways by English. They made acts to restrain trade, as you do; and theyprevented the Welsh from the use of fairs and markets, as you do theAmericans from fisheries and foreign ports. In short, when thestatute-book was not quite so much swelled as it is now, you find noless than fifteen acts of penal regulation on the subject of Wales. 

Here we rub our hands, --A fine body of precedents for the authority ofParliament and the use of it!--I admit it fully; and pray add likewiseto these precedents, that all the while Wales rid this kingdom like an_incubus_; that it was an unprofitable and oppressive burden; and thatan Englishman travelling in that country could not go six yards from thehighroad without being murdered. 

The march of the human mind is slow. Sir, it was not until after twohundred years discovered, that, by an eternal law, Providence haddecreed vexation to violence, and poverty to rapine. Your ancestors did, however, at length open their eyes to the ill husbandry of injustice. They found that the tyranny of a free people could of all tyrannies theleast be endured, and that laws made against an whole nation were notthe most effectual methods for securing its obedience. Accordingly, inthe twenty-seventh year of Henry the Eighth the course was entirelyaltered. With a preamble stating the entire and perfect rights of thecrown of England, it gave to the Welsh all the rights and privileges ofEnglish subjects. A political order was established; the military powergave way to the civil; the marches were turned into counties. But that anation should have a right to English liberties, and yet no share at allin the fundamental security of these liberties, --the grant of their ownproperty, --seemed a thing so incongruous, that eight years after, thatis, in the thirty-fifth of that reign, a complete and notill-proportioned representation by counties and boroughs was bestowedupon Wales by act of Parliament. From that moment, as by a charm, thetumults subsided; obedience was restored; peace, order, and civilizationfollowed in the train of liberty. When the day-star of the EnglishConstitution had arisen in their hearts, all was harmony within andwithout:--

 Simul alba nautis Stella refulsit, Defluit saxis agitatus humor, Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes, Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto Unda recumbit. 

The very same year the County Palatine of Chester received the samerelief from its oppressions, and the same remedy to its disorders. Before this time Chester was little less distempered than Wales. Theinhabitants, without rights themselves, were the fittest to destroy therights of others; and from thence Richard the Second drew the standingarmy of archers with which for a time he oppressed England. The peopleof Chester applied to Parliament in a petition penned as I shall read toyou. 

"To the king our sovereign lord, in most humble wise shown unto yourmost excellent Majesty, the inhabitants of your Grace's County Palatineof Chester: That where the said County Palatine of Chester is and hathbeen alway hitherto exempt, excluded, and separated out and from yourhigh court of Parliament, to have any knights and burgesses within thesaid court; by reason whereof the said inhabitants have hithertosustained manifold disherisons, losses, and damages, as well in theirlands, goods, and bodies, as in the good, civil, and politic governanceand maintenance of the common wealth of their said country: Andforasmuch as the said inhabitants have always hitherto been bound by theacts and statutes made and ordained by your said Highness, and your mostnoble progenitors, by authority of the said court, as far forth as othercounties, cities, and boroughs have been, that have had their knightsand burgesses within your said court of Parliament, and yet have hadneither knight no burgess there for the said County Palatine; the saidinhabitants, for lack thereof, have been oftentimes touched and grievedwith acts and statutes made within the said court, as well derogatoryunto the most ancient jurisdictions, liberties, and privileges of yoursaid County Palatine, as prejudicial unto the common wealth, quietness, rest, and peace of your Grace's most bounden subjects inhabiting withinthe same. "

What did Parliament with this audacious address?--Reject it as a libel?Treat it as an affront to government? Spurn it as a derogation from therights of legislature? Did they toss it over the table? Did they burnit by the hands of the common hangman?--They took the petition ofgrievance, all rugged as it was, without softening or temperament, unpurged of the original bitterness and indignation of complaint; theymade it the very preamble to their act of redress, and consecrated itsprinciple to all ages in the sanctuary of legislation. 

Here is my third example. It was attended with the success of the twoformer. Chester, civilized as well as Wales, has demonstrated thatfreedom, and not servitude, is the cure of anarchy; as religion, and notatheism, is the true remedy for superstition. Sir, this pattern ofChester was followed in the reign of Charles the Second with regard tothe County Palatine of Durham, which is my fourth example. This countyhad long lain out of the pale of free legislation. So scrupulously wasthe example of Chester followed, that the style of the preamble isnearly the came with that of the Chester act; and, without affecting theabstract extent of the authority of Parliament, it recognizes the equityof not suffering any considerable district, in which the Britishsubjects may act as a body, to be taxed without their own voice in thegrant. 

Now if the doctrines of policy contained in these preambles, and theforce of these examples in the acts of Parliament, avail anything, whatcan be said against applying them with regard to America? Are not thepeople of America as much Englishmen as the Welsh? The preamble of theact of Henry the Eighth says, the Welsh speak a language no wayresembling that of his Majesty's English subjects. Are the Americana notas numerous? If we may trust the learned and accurate Judge Barrington'saccount of North Wales, and take that as a standard to measure therest, there is no comparison. The people cannot amount to above 200, 000:not a tenth part of the number in the colonies. Is America in rebellion?Wales was hardly ever free from it. Have you attempted to govern Americaby penal statutes? You made fifteen for Wales. But your legislativeauthority is perfect with regard to America: was it less perfect inWales, Chester, and Durham? But America is virtually represented. What!does the electric force of virtual representation more easily pass overthe Atlantic than pervade Wales, which lies in your neighborhood? orthan Chester and Durham, surrounded by abundance of representation thatis actual and palpable? But, Sir, your ancestors thought this sort ofvirtual representation, however ample, to be totally insufficient forthe freedom of the inhabitants of territories that are so near, andcomparatively so inconsiderable. How, then, can I think it sufficientfor those which are infinitely greater, and infinitely more remote?

You will now, Sir, perhaps imagine that I am on the point of proposingto you a scheme for a representation of the colonies in Parliament. Perhaps I might be inclined to entertain some such thought; but a greatflood stops me in my course. _Opposuit Natura. _ I cannot remove theeternal barriers of the creation. The thing, in that mode, I do not knowto be possible. As I meddle with no theory, I do not absolutely assertthe impracticability of such a representation; but I do not see my wayto it; and those who have been more confident have not been moresuccessful. However, the arm of public benevolence is not shortened; andthere are often several means to the same end. What Nature hasdisjoined in one way wisdom may unite in another. When we cannot givethe benefit as we would wish, let us not refuse it altogether. If wecannot give the principal, let us find a substitute. But how? where?what substitute?

Fortunately, I am not obliged, for the ways and means of thissubstitute, to tax my own unproductive invention. I am not even obligedto go to the rich treasury of the fertile framers of imaginarycommonwealths: not to the Republic of Plato, not to the Utopia of More, not to the Oceana of Harrington. It is before me, --it is at my feet, --

 "And the rude swain Treads daily on it with his clouted shoon. "

I only wish you to recognize, for the theory, the ancient constitutionalpolicy of this kingdom with regard to representation, as that policy hasbeen declared in acts of Parliament, --and as to the practice, to returnto that mode which an uniform experience has marked out to you as best, and in which you walked with security, advantage, and honor, until theyear 1763. 

My resolutions, therefore, mean to establish the equity and justice of ataxation of America by _grant_, and not by _imposition_; to mark the_legal competency_ of the colony assemblies for the support of theirgovernment in peace, and for public aids in time of war; to acknowledgethat this legal competency has had a _dutiful and beneficial exercise_, and that experience has shown _the benefit of their grants_, and _thefutility of Parliamentary taxation, as a method of supply_. 

These solid truths compose six fundamental propositions. There are threemore resolutions corollary to these. If you admit the first set, you canhardly reject the others. But if you admit the first, I shall be farfrom solicitous whether you accept or refuse the last. I think these sixmassive pillars will be of strength sufficient to support the temple ofBritish concord. I have no more doubt than I entertain of my existence, that, if you admitted these, you would command an immediate peace, and, with but tolerable future management, a lasting obedience in America. Iam not arrogant in this confident assurance. The propositions are allmere matters of fact; and if they are such facts as draw irresistibleconclusions even in the stating, this is the power of truth, and not anymanagement of mine. 

Sir, I shall open the whole plan to you together, with such observationson the motions as may tend to illustrate them, where they may wantexplanation. 

The first is a resolution, --"That the colonies and plantations of GreatBritain in North America, consisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millions and upwards of free inhabitants, have nothad the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights andburgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court ofParliament. "

This is a plain matter of fact, necessary to be laid down, and(excepting the description) it is laid down in the language of theConstitution; it is taken nearly _verbatim_ from acts of Parliament. 

The second is like unto the first, --"That the said colonies andplantations have been made liable to, and bounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and taxes, given and granted by Parliament, though thesaid colonies and plantations have not their knights and burgesses inthe said high court of Parliament, of their own election, to representthe condition of their country; by lack whereof they have beenoftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies, given, granted, andassented to, in the said court, in a manner prejudicial to the commonwealth, quietness, rest, and peace of the subjects inhabiting within thesame. "

Is this description too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak? Does itarrogate too much to the supreme legislature? Does it lean too much tothe claims of the people? If it runs into any of these errors, the faultis not mine. It is the language of your own ancient acts of Parliament. 

 Non meus hic sermo, sed quæ præcepit Ofellus Rusticus, abnormis sapiens. 

It is the genuine produce of the ancient, rustic, manly, home-bred senseof this country. I did not dare to rub off a particle of the venerablerust that rather adorns and preserves than destroys the metal. It wouldbe a profanation to touch with a tool the stones which construct thesacred altar of peace. I would not violate with modern polish theingenuous and noble roughness of these truly constitutional materials. Above all things, I was resolved not to be guilty of tampering, --theodious vice of restless and unstable minds. I put my foot in the tracksof our forefathers, where I can neither wander nor stumble. Determiningto fix articles of peace, I was resolved not to be wise beyond what waswritten; I was resolved to use nothing else than the form of soundwords, to let others abound in their own sense, and carefully to abstainfrom all expressions of my own. What the law has said, I say. In allthings else I am silent. I have no organ but for her words. This, if itbe not ingenious, I am sure is safe. 

There are, indeed, words expressive of grievance in this secondresolution, which those who are resolved always to be in the right willdeny to contain matter of fact, as applied to the present case; althoughParliament thought them true with regard to the Counties of Chester andDurham. They will deny that the Americans were ever "touched andgrieved" with the taxes. If they consider nothing in taxes but theirweight as pecuniary impositions, there might be some pretence for thisdenial. But men may be sorely touched and deeply grieved in theirprivileges, as well as in their purses. Men may lose little in propertyby the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of atrifle on the highway, it is not the twopence lost that constitutes thecapital outrage. This is not confined to privileges. Even ancientindulgences withdrawn, without offence on the part of those who enjoyedsuch favors, operate as grievances. But were the Americans, then, nottouched and grieved by the taxes, in some measure, merely as taxes? Ifso, why were they almost all either wholly repealed or exceedinglyreduced? Were they not touched and grieved even by the regulating dutiesof the sixth of George the Second? Else why were the duties firstreduced to one third in 1764, and afterwards to a third of that third inthe year 1766? Were they not touched and grieved by the Stamp Act? Ishall say they were, until that tax is revived. Were they not touchedand grieved by the duties of 1767, which were likewise repealed, andwhich Lord Hillsborough tells you (for the ministry) were laid contraryto the true principle of commerce? Is not the assurance given by thatnoble person to the colonies of a resolution to lay no more taxes onthem an admission that taxes would touch and grieve them? Is not theresolution of the noble lord in the blue riband, now standing on yourjournals, the strongest of all proofs that Parliamentary subsidiesreally touched and grieved them? Else why all these changes, modifications, repeals, assurances, and resolutions?

The next proposition is, --"That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from other circumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised forprocuring a representation in Parliament for the said colonies. "

This is an assertion of a fact. I go no further on the paper; though, inmy private judgment, an useful representation is impossible; I am sureit is not desired by them, nor ought it, perhaps, by us: but I abstainfrom opinions. 

The fourth resolution is, --"That each of the said colonies hath withinitself a body, chosen, in part or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders, or other free inhabitants thereof, commonly called theGeneral Assembly, or General Court, with powers legally to raise, levy, and assess, according to the several usages of such colonies, duties andtaxes towards defraying all sorts of public services. "

This competence in the colony assemblies is certain. It is proved by thewhole tenor of their acts of supply in all the assemblies, in which theconstant style of granting is, "An aid to his Majesty"; and actsgranting to the crown have regularly, for near a century, passed thepublic offices without dispute. Those who have been pleasedparadoxically to deny this right, holding that none but the BritishParliament can grant to the crown, are wished to look to what is done, not only in the colonies, but in Ireland, in one uniform, unbrokentenor, every session. Sir, I am surprised that this doctrine should comefrom Rome of the law servants of the crown. I say, that, if the crowncould be responsible, his Majesty, --but certainly the ministers, andeven these law officers themselves, through whose hands the acts passbiennially in Ireland, or annually in the colonies, are in an habitualcourse of committing impeachable offences. What habitual offenders havebeen all Presidents of the Council, all Secretaries of State, all FirstLords of Trade, all Attorneys and all Solicitors General! However, theyare safe, as no one impeaches them; and there is no ground of chargeagainst them, except in their own unfounded theories. 

The fifth resolution is also a resolution of fact, --"That the saidgeneral assemblies, general courts, or other bodies legally qualified asaforesaid, have at sundry times freely granted several large subsidiesand public aids for his Majesty's service, according to their abilities, when required thereto by letter from one of his Majesty's principalSecretaries of State; and that their right to grant the same, and theircheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grants, have been at sundrytimes acknowledged by Parliament. "

To say nothing of their great expenses in the Indian wars, and not totake their exertion in foreign ones, so high as the supplies in the year1695, not to go back to their public contributions in the year 1710, Ishall begin to travel only where the journals give me light, --resolvingto deal in nothing but fact authenticated by Parliamentary record, andto build myself wholly on that solid basis. 

On the 4th of April, 1748, [25] a committee of this House came to thefollowing resolution:--

"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, _that it is justand reasonable_, that the several provinces and colonies ofMassachusetts Bay, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island bereimbursed the expenses they have been at in taking and securing to thecrown of Great Britain the island of Caps Breton and its dependencies. "

These expenses were immense for such colonies. They were above200, 000_l. _ sterling: money first raised and advanced on their publiccredit. 

On the 28th of January, 1756, [26] a message from the king came to us, tothis effect:--"His Majesty, being sensible of the zeal and vigor withwhich his faithful subjects of certain colonies in North America haveexerted themselves in defence of his Majesty's just rights andpossessions, recommends it to this House to take the same into theirconsideration, and to enable his Majesty to give them such assistance asmay be _proper reward and encouragement_. "

On the 3d of February, 1756, [27] the House came to a suitableresolution, expressed in words nearly the same as those of the message;but with the further addition, that the money then voted was as an_encouragement_ to the colonies to exert themselves with vigor. It willnot be necessary to go through all the testimonies which your ownrecords have given to the truth of my resolutions. I will only refer youto the places in the journals:--

 Vol. XXVII--16th and 19th May, 1757. 

 Vol. XXVIII. --June 1st, 1758, --April 26th and 30th, 1759, --March 26th and 31st, and April 28th, 1760, --Jan. 9th and 20th, 1761. 

 Vol. XXIX. --Jan. 22d and 26th, 1762, --March 14th and 17th, 1763. 

Sir, here is the repeated acknowledgment of Parliament, that thecolonies not only gave, but gave to satiety. This nation has formallyacknowledged two things: first, that the colonies had gone beyond theirabilities, Parliament having thought it necessary to reimburse them;secondly, that they had acted legally and laudably in their grants ofmoney, and their maintenance of troops, since the compensation isexpressly given as reward and encouragement. Reward is not bestowed foracts that are unlawful; and encouragement is not held out to things thatdeserve reprehension. My resolution, therefore, does nothing more thancollect into one proposition what is scattered through your journals. Igive you nothing but your own; and you cannot refuse in the gross whatyou have so often acknowledged in detail. The admission of this, whichwill be so honorable to them and to you, will, indeed, be mortal to allthe miserable stories by which the passions of the misguided people havebeen engaged in an unhappy system. The people heard, indeed, from thebeginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears:that reason and justice demanded, that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute. How did that fact, of their payingnothing, stand, when the taxing system began? When Mr. Grenville beganto form his system of American revenue, he stated in this House that thecolonies were then in debt two million six hundred thousand poundssterling money, and was of opinion they would discharge that debt infour years. On this state, those untaxed people were actually subject tothe payment of taxes to the amount of six hundred and fifty thousand ayear. In fact, however, Mr. Grenville was mistaken. The funds given forsinking the debt did not prove quite so ample as both the colonies andhe expected. The calculation was too sanguine: the reduction was notcompleted till some years after, and at different times in differentcolonies. However, the taxes after the war continued too great to bearany addition, with prudence or propriety; and when the burdens imposedin consequence of former requisitions were discharged, our tone becametoo high to resort again to requisition. No colony, since that time, ever has had any requisition whatsoever made to it. 

We see the sense of the crown, and the sense of Parliament, on theproductive nature of a _revenue by grant_. Now search the same journalsfor the produce of the _revenue by imposition_. Where is it?--let usknow the volume and the page. What is the gross, what is the netproduce? To what service is it applied? How have you appropriated itssurplus?--What! can none of the many skilful index-makers that we arenow employing find any trace of it?--Well, let them and that resttogether. --But are the journals, which say nothing of the revenue, assilent on the discontent?--Oh, no! a child may find it. It is themelancholy burden and blot of every page. 

I think, then, I am, from those journals, justified in the sixth andlast resolution, which is, --"That it hath been found by experience, thatthe manner of granting the said supplies and aids by the said generalassemblies hath been more agreeable to the inhabitants of the saidcolonies, and more beneficial and conducive to the public service, thanthe mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies in Parliament, to beraised and paid in the said colonies. "

This makes the whole of the fundamental part of the plan. The conclusionis irresistible. You cannot say that you were driven by any necessity toan exercise of the utmost rights of legislature. You cannot assert thatyou took on yourselves the task of imposing colony taxes, from the wantof another legal body that is competent to the purpose of supplying theexigencies of the state without wounding the prejudices of the people. Neither is it true, that the body so qualified, and having thatcompetence, had neglected the duty. 

The question now, on all this accumulated matter, is, --Whether you willchoose to abide by a profitable experience or a mischievous theory?whether you choose to build on imagination or fact? whether you preferenjoyment or hope? satisfaction in your subjects, or discontent?

If these propositions are accepted, everything which has been made toenforce a contrary system must, I take it for granted, fall along withit. On that ground, I have drawn the following resolution, which, whenit comes to be moved, will naturally be divided in a propermanner:--"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the seventhyear of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act forgranting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations inAmerica; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs, upon theexportation from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produceof the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbackspayable on China earthen ware exported to America; and for moreeffectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the saidcolonies and plantations. '--And also, that it may be proper to repeal anact, made in the fourteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time asare therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the harbor ofBoston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America. '--Andalso, that it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenthyear of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for theimpartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questionedfor any acts done by them, in the execution of the law, or for thesuppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the MassachusettsBay, in New England. '--And also, that it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, ' An act for the better regulating the government of theprovince of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England. '--And also, that itmay be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the thirty-fifth yearof the reign of King Henry the Eighth, intituled, 'An act for the trialof treasons committed out of the king's dominions. '"

I wish, Sir, to repeal the Boston Port Bill, because (independently ofthe dangerous precedent of suspending the rights of the subject duringthe king's pleasure) it was passed, as I apprehend, with lessregularity, and on more partial principles, than it ought. Thecorporation of Boston was not heard before it was condemned. Othertowns, full as guilty as she was, have not had their ports blocked up. Even the Restraining Bill of the present session does not go to thelength of the Boston Port Act. The same ideas of prudence, which inducedyou not to extend equal punishment to equal guilt, even when you werepunishing, induce me, who mean not to chastise, but to reconcile, to besatisfied with the punishment already partially inflicted. 

Ideas of prudence and accommodation to circumstances prevent you fromtaking away the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island, as you havetaken away that of Massachusetts Colony, though the crown has far lesspower in the two former provinces than it enjoyed in the latter, andthough the abuses have bean full as great and as flagrant in theexempted as in the punished. The same reasons of prudence andaccommodation have weight with me in restoring the charter ofMassachusetts Bay. Besides, Sir, the act which changes the charter ofMassachusetts is in many particulars so exceptionable, that, if I didnot wish absolutely to repeal, I would by all means desire to alter it;as several of its provisions tend to the subversion of all public andprivate justice. Such, among others, is the power in the governor tochange the sheriff at his pleasure, and to make a new returning officerfor every special cause. It is shameful to behold such a regulationstanding among English laws. 

The act for bringing persons accused of committing murder under theorders of government to England for trial is but temporary. That act hascalculated the probable duration of our quarrel with the colonies, andis accommodated to that supposed duration. I would hasten the happymoment of reconciliation, and therefore must, on my principle, get ridof that most justly obnoxious act. 

The act of Henry the Eighth for the trial of treasons I do not mean totake away, but to confine it to its proper bounds and originalintention: to make it expressly for trial of treasons (and the greatesttreasons may be committed) in places where the jurisdiction of the crowndoes not extend. 

Having guarded the privileges of local legislature, I would next secureto the colonies a fair and unbiased judicature; for which purpose, Sir, I propose the following resolution:--"That, from the time when thegeneral assembly, or general court, of any colony or plantation in NorthAmerica shall have appointed, by act of assembly duly confirmed, asettled salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges ofthe superior courts, it may be proper that the said chief justice andother judges of the superior courts of such colony shall hold his andtheir office and offices during their good behavior, and shall not beremoved therefrom, but when the said removal shall be adjudged by hisMajesty in council, upon a hearing on complaint from the generalassembly, or on a complaint from the governor, or the council, or thehouse of representatives, severally, of the colony in which the saidchief justice and other judges have exercised the said offices. "

The next resolution relates to the courts of admiralty. It isthis:--"That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty orvice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th George theThird, in such a manner as to make the same more commodious to those whosue or are sued in the said courts, and to provide for the more decentmaintenance of the judges of the same. "

These courts I do not wish to take away: they are in themselves properestablishments. This court is one of the capital securities of the Actof Navigation. The extent of its jurisdiction, indeed, has beenincreased; but this is altogether as proper, and is, indeed, on manyaccounts, more eligible, where new powers were wanted, than a courtabsolutely new. But courts incommodiously situated, in effect, denyjustice; and a court partaking in the fruits of its own condemnation isa robber. The Congress complain, and complain justly, of thisgrievance. [28]

These are the three consequential propositions. I have thought of two orthree more; but they come rather too near detail, and to the province ofexecutive government, which I wish Parliament always to superintend, never to assume. If the first six are granted, congruity will carry thelatter three. If not, the things that remain unrepealed will be, I hope, rather unseemly incumbrances on the building than very materiallydetrimental to its strength and stability. 

Here, Sir, I should close, but that I plainly perceive some objectionsremain, which I ought, if possible, to remove. The first will be, that, in resorting to the doctrine of our ancestors, as contained in thepreamble to the Chester act, I prove too much: that the grievance from awant of representation, stated in that preamble, goes to the whole oflegislation as well as to taxation; and that the colonies, groundingthemselves upon that doctrine, will apply it to all parts of legislativeauthority. 

To this objection, with all possible deference and humility, and wishingas little as any man living to impair the smallest particle of oursupreme authority, I answer, that _the words are the words ofParliament, and not mine_; and that all false and inconclusiveinferences drawn from them are not mine; for I heartily disclaim anysuch inference. I have chosen the words of an act of Parliament, whichMr. Grenville, surely a tolerably zealous and very judicious advocatefor the sovereignty of Parliament, formerly moved to have read at yourtable in confirmation of his tenets. It is true that Lord Chathamconsidered these preambles as declaring strongly in favor of hisopinions. He was a no less powerful advocate for the privileges of theAmericans. Ought I not from hence to presume that these preambles are asfavorable as possible to both, when properly understood: favorable bothto the rights of Parliament, and to the privilege of the dependencies ofthis crown? But, Sir, the object of grievance in my resolution I havenot taken from the Chester, but from the Durham act, which confines thehardship of want of representation to the case of subsidies, and whichtherefore falls in exactly with the case of the colonies. But whetherthe unrepresented counties were _de jure_ or _de facto_ bound thepreambles do not accurately distinguish; nor, indeed, was it necessary:for, whether _de jure_ or _de facto_, the legislature thought theexercise of the power of taxing, as of right, or as of fact withoutright, equally a grievance, and equally oppressive. 

I do not know that the colonies have, in any general way, or in any coolhour, gone much beyond the demand of immunity in relation to taxes. Itis not fair to judge of the temper or dispositions of any man or any setof men, when they are composed and at rest, from their conduct or theirexpressions in a state of disturbance and irritation. It is, besides, avery great mistake to imagine that mankind follow up practically anyspeculative principle, either of government or of freedom, as far as itwill go in argument and logical illation. We Englishmen stop very shortof the principles upon which we support any given part of ourConstitution, or even the whole of it together. I could easily, if I hadnot already tired you, give you very striking and convincing instancesof it. This is nothing but what is natural and proper. All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudentact, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; wegive and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and wechoose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants. As we mustgive away some natural liberty, to enjoy civil advantages, so we mustsacrifice some civil liberties, for the advantages to be derived fromthe communion and fellowship of a great empire. But, in all fairdealings, the thing bought must bear some proportion to the purchasepaid. None will barter away the immediate jewel of his soul. Though agreat house is apt to make slaves haughty, yet it is purchasing a partof the artificial importance of a great empire too dear, to pay for itall essential rights, and all the intrinsic dignity of human nature. None of us who would not risk his life rather than fall under agovernment purely arbitrary. But although there are some amongst us whothink our Constitution wants many improvements to make it a completesystem of liberty, perhaps none who are of that opinion would think itright to aim at such improvement by disturbing his country and riskingeverything that is dear to him. In every arduous enterprise, we considerwhat we are to lose, as well as what we are to gain; and the more andbetter stake of liberty every people possess, the less they will hazardin a vain attempt to make it more. These are _the cords of man_. Manacts from adequate motives relative to his interest, and not onmetaphysical speculations. Aristotle, the great master of reasoning, cautions us, and with great weight and propriety, against this speciesof delusive geometrical accuracy in moral arguments, as the mostfallacious of all sophistry. 

The Americans will have no interest contrary to the grandeur and gloryof England, when they are not oppressed by the weight of it; and theywill rather be inclined to respect the acts of a superintendinglegislature, when they see them the acts of that power which is itselfthe security, not the rival, of their secondary importance. In thisassurance my mind most perfectly acquiesces, and I confess I feel notthe least alarm from the discontents which are to arise from puttingpeople at their ease; nor do I apprehend the destruction of this empirefrom giving, by an act of free grace and indulgence, to two millions ofmy fellow-citizens some share of those rights upon which I have alwaysbeen taught to value myself. 

It is said, indeed, that this power of granting, vested in Americanassemblies, would dissolve the unity of the empire, --which was preservedentire, although Wales, and Chester, and Durham were added to it. Truly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this unity means; nor has it ever beenheard of, that I know, in the constitutional policy of this country. Thevery idea of subordination of parts excludes this notion of simple andundivided unity. England is the head; but she is not the head and themembers too. Ireland has ever had from the beginning a separate, but notan independent legislature, which, far from distracting, promoted theunion of the whole. Everything was sweetly and harmoniously disposedthrough both islands for the conservation of English dominion and thecommunication of English liberties. I do not see that the sameprinciples might not be carried into twenty islands, and with the samegood effect. This is my model with regard to America, as far as theinternal circumstances of the two countries are the same. I know noother unity of this empire than I can draw from its example during theseperiods, when it seemed to my poor understanding more united than it isnow, or than it is likely to be by the present methods. 

But since I speak of these methods, I recollect, Mr. Speaker, almost toolate, that I promised, before I finished, to say something of theproposition of the noble lord[29] on the floor, which has been so latelyreceived, and stands on your journals. I must be deeply concerned, whenever it is my misfortune to continue a difference with the majorityof this House. But as the reasons for that difference are my apology forthus troubling you, suffer me to state them in a very few words. I shallcompress them into as small a body as I possibly can, having alreadydebated that matter at large, when the question was before thecommittee. 

First, then, I cannot admit that proposition of a ransom byauction, --because it is a mere project. It is a thing new, unheard of, supported by no experience, justified by no analogy, without example ofour ancestors, or root in the Constitution. It is neither regularParliamentary taxation nor colony grant. _Experimentum in corpore vili_is a good rule, which will ever make me adverse to any trial ofexperiments on what is certainly the most valuable of all subjects, thepeace of this empire. 

Secondly, it is an experiment which must be fatal in the end to ourConstitution. For what is it but a scheme for taxing the colonies in theantechamber of the noble lord and his successors? To settle the quotasand proportions in this House is clearly impossible. You, Sir, mayflatter yourself you shall sit a state auctioneer, with your hammer inyour hand, and knock down to each colony as it bids. But to settle (onthe plan laid down by the noble lord) the true proportional payment forfour or five and twenty governments, according to the absolute and therelative wealth of each, and according to the British proportion ofwealth and burden, is a wild and chimerical notion. This new taxationmust therefore come in by the back-door of the Constitution. Each quotamust be brought to this House ready formed. You can neither add noralter. You must register it. You can do nothing further. For on whatgrounds can you deliberate either before or after the proposition? Youcannot hear the counsel for all these provinces, quarrelling each on itsown quantity of payment, and its proportion to others. If you shouldattempt it, the Committee of Provincial Ways and Means, or by whateverother name it will delight to be called, must swallow up all the time ofParliament. 

Thirdly, it does not give satisfaction to the complaint of the colonies. They complain that they are taxed without their consent. You answer, that you will fix the sum at which they shall be taxed. That is, yougive them the very grievance for the remedy. You tell them, indeed, that you will leave the mode to themselves. I really beg pardon; itgives me pain to mention it; but you must be sensible that you will notperform this part of the compact. For suppose the colonies were to laythe duties which furnished their contingent upon the importation of yourmanufactures; you know you would never suffer such a tax to be laid. Youknow, too, that you would not suffer many other modes of taxation. Sothat, when you come to explain yourself, it will be found that you willneither leave to themselves the quantum nor the mode, nor indeedanything. The whole is delusion, from one end to the other. 

Fourthly, this method of ransom by auction, unless it be _universally_accepted, will plunge you into great and inextricable difficulties. Inwhat year of our Lord are the proportions of payments to be settled? Tosay nothing of the impossibility that colony agents should have generalpowers of taxing the colonies at their discretion, consider, I imploreyou, that the communication by special messages and orders between theseagents and their constituents on each variation of the case, when theparties come to contend together, and to dispute on their relativeproportions, will be a matter of delay, perplexity, and confusion, thatnever can have an end. 

If all the colonies do not appear at the outcry, what is the conditionof those assemblies who offer, by themselves or their agents, to taxthemselves up to your ideas of their proportion? The refractorycolonies, who refuse all composition, will remain taxed only to your oldimpositions, which, however grievous in principle, are trifling as toproduction. The obedient colonies in this scheme are heavily taxed; therefractory remain unburdened. What will you do? Will you lay new andheavier taxes by Parliament on the disobedient? Pray consider in whatway you can do it. You are perfectly convinced, that, in the way oftaxing, you can do nothing but at the ports. Now suppose it is Virginiathat refuses to appear at your auction, while Maryland and NorthCarolina bid handsomely for their ransom, and are taxed to your quota, how will you put these colonies on a par? Will you tax the tobacco ofVirginia? If you do, you give its death-wound to your English revenue athome, and to one of the very greatest articles of your own foreigntrade. If you tax the import of that rebellious colony, what do you taxbut your own manufactures, or the goods of some other obedient andalready well-taxed colony? Who has said one word on this labyrinth ofdetail, which bewilders you more and more as you enter into it? Who haspresented, who can present, you with a clew to lead you out of it? Ithink, Sir, it is impossible that you should not recollect that thecolony bounds are so implicated in one another (you know it by yourother experiments in the bill for prohibiting the New England fishery)that you can lay no possible restraints on almost any of them which maynot be presently eluded, if you do not confound the innocent with theguilty, and burden those whom upon every principle you ought toexonerate. He must be grossly ignorant of America, who thinks, that, without falling into this confusion of all rules of equity and policy, you can restrain any single colony, especially Virginia and Maryland, the central, and most important of them all. 

Let it also be considered, that either in the present confusion yousettle a permanent contingent, which will and must be trifling, andthen you have no effectual revenue, --or you change the quota at everyexigency, and then on every new repartition you will have a new quarrel. 

Reflect besides, that, when you have fixed a quota for every colony, youhave not provided for prompt and punctual payment. Suppose one, two, five, ten years' arrears. You cannot issue a Treasury extent against thefailing colony. You must make new Boston port bills, new restraininglaws, new acts for dragging men to England for trial. You must send outnew fleets, new armies. All is to begin again. From this day forward theempire is never to know an hour's tranquillity. An intestine fire willbe kept alive in the bowels of the colonies, which one time or othermust consume this whole empire. I allow, indeed, that the Empire ofGermany raises her revenue and her troops by quotas and contingents; butthe revenue of the Empire and the army of the Empire is the worstrevenue and the worst army in the world. 

Instead of a standing revenue, you will therefore have a perpetualquarrel. Indeed, the noble lord who proposed this project of a ransom byauction seemed himself to be of that opinion. His project was ratherdesigned for breaking the union of the colonies than for establishing arevenue. He confessed he apprehended that his proposal would not be to_their taste_. I say, this scheme of disunion seems to be at the bottomof the project; for I will not suspect that the noble lord meant nothingbut merely to delude the nation by an airy phantom which he neverintended to realize. But whatever his views may be, as I propose thepeace and union of the colonies as the very foundation of my plan, itcannot accord with one whose foundation is perpetual discord. 

Compare the two. This I offer to give you is plain and simple: the otherfull of perplexed and intricate mazes. This is mild: that harsh. This isfound by experience effectual for its purposes: the other is a newproject. This is universal: the other calculated for certain coloniesonly. This is immediate in its conciliatory operation: the other remote, contingent, full of hazard. Mine is what becomes the dignity of a rulingpeople: gratuitous, unconditional, and not held out as matter of bargainand sale. I have done my duty in proposing it to you. I have, indeed, tired you by a long discourse; but this is the misfortune of those towhose influence nothing will be conceded, and who must win every inch oftheir ground by argument. You have heard me with goodness. May youdecide with wisdom! For my part, I feel my mind greatly disburdened bywhat I have done to-day. I have been the less fearful of trying yourpatience, because on this subject I mean to spare it altogether infuture. I have this comfort, --that, in every stage of the Americanaffairs, I have steadily opposed the measures that have produced theconfusion, and may bring on the destruction, of this empire. I now go sofar as to risk a proposal of my own. If I cannot give peace to mycountry, I give it to my conscience. 

But what (says the financier) is peace to us without money? Your plangives us no revenue. --No! But it does: for it secures to the subject thepower of REFUSAL, --the first of all revenues. Experience is a cheat, andfact a liar, if this power in the subject, of proportioning his grant, or of not granting at all, has not been found the richest mine ofrevenue ever discovered by the skill or by the fortune of man. It doesnot, indeed, vote you £152, 750: 11: 2-3/4ths, nor any other paltrylimited sum; but it gives the strong-box itself, the fund, the bank, from whence only revenues can arise amongst a people sensible offreedom: _Posita luditur arca_. Cannot you in England, cannot you atthis time of day, cannot you, an House of Commons, trust to theprinciple which has raised so mighty a revenue, and accumulated a debtof near 140 millions in this country? Is this principle to be true inEngland and false everywhere else? Is it not true in Ireland? Has it nothitherto been true in the colonies? Why should you presume, that, in anycountry, a body duly constituted for any function will neglect toperform its duty, and abdicate its trust? Such a presumption would goagainst all government in all modes. But, in truth, this dread of penuryof supply from a free assembly has no foundation in Nature. For first, observe, that, besides the desire which all men have naturally ofsupporting the honor of their own government, that sense of dignity, andthat security to property, which ever attends freedom, has a tendency toincrease the stock of the free community. Most may be taken where mostis accumulated. And what is the soil or climate where experience has notuniformly proved that the voluntary flow of heaped-up plenty, burstingfrom the weight of its own rich luxuriance, has ever run with a morecopious stream of revenue than could be squeezed from the dry husks ofoppressed indigence by the straining of all the politic machinery in theworld?

Next, we know that parties must ever exist in a free country. We know, too, that the emulations of such parties, their contradictions, theirreciprocal necessities, their hopes, and their fears, must send them allin their turns to him that holds the balance of the state. The partiesare the gamesters; but government keeps the table, and is sure to be thewinner in the end. When this game is played, I really think it is moreto be feared that the people will be exhausted than that government willnot be supplied. Whereas whatever is got by acts of absolute power illobeyed because odious, or by contracts ill kept because constrained, will be narrow, feeble, uncertain, and precarious. 

 "Ease would retract Vows made in pain, as violent and void. "

I, for one, protest against compounding our demands: I declare againstcompounding, for a poor limited sum, the immense, ever-growing, eternaldebt which is due to generous government from protected freedom. And somay I speed in the great object I propose to you, as I think it wouldnot only be an act of injustice, but would be the worst economy in theworld, to compel the colonies to a sum certain, either in the way ofransom, or in the way of compulsory compact. 

But to clear up my ideas on this subject, --a revenue from Americatransmitted hither. Do not delude yourselves: you can never receiveit, --no, not a shilling. We have experience that from remote countriesit is not to be expected. If, when you attempted to extract revenue fromBengal, you were obliged to return in loan what you had taken inimposition, what can you expect from North America? For, certainly, ifever there was a country qualified to produce wealth, it is India; or aninstitution fit for the transmission, it is the East India Company. America has none of these aptitudes. If America gives you taxableobjects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you at the sametime a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties onthese objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to theBritish revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, shemay, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say inmoderation; for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. Sheought to be reserved to a war; the weight of which, with the enemiesthat we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter ofthe globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially. 

For that service, for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire, my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of thecolonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, fromkindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These areties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let thecolonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with yourgovernment, --they will cling and grapple to you, and no force underheaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let itbe once understood that your government may be one thing and theirprivileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutualrelation, --the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everythinghastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keepthe sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, thesacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen raceand sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towardsyou. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have; the moreardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But, untilyou become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your naturaldignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This is the commodityof price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act ofNavigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and throughthem secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them thisparticipation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originallymade, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. Do not entertainso weak an imagination as that your registers and your bonds, youraffidavits and your sufferances, your cockets and your clearances, arewhat form the great securities of your commerce. Do not dream that yourletters of office, and your instructions, and your suspending clausesare the things that hold together the great contexture of thismysterious whole. These things do not make your government. Deadinstruments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of the Englishcommunion that gives all their life and efficacy to them. It is thespirit of the English Constitution, which, infused through the mightymass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of theempire, even down to the minutest member. 

Is it not the same virtue which does everything for us here in England?Do you imagine, then, that it is the Land-Tax Act which raises yourrevenue? that it is the annual vote in the Committee of Supply whichgives you your army? or that it is the Mutiny Bill which inspires itwith bravery and discipline? No! surely, no! It is the love of thepeople; it is their attachment to their government, from the sense ofthe deep stake they have in such a glorious institution, which gives youyour army and your navy, and infuses into both that liberal obediencewithout which your army would be a base rabble and your navy nothing butrotten timber. 

All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to theprofane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have noplace among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but whatis gross and material, --and who, therefore, far from being qualified tobe directors of the great movement of empire, are not fit to turn awheel in the machine. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men asI have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything, and all in all. Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom;and a great empire and little minds go ill together. If we are consciousof our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place as becomes ourstation and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceedingson America with the old warning of the Church, _Sursum corda!_ We oughtto elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the orderof Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this highcalling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a gloriousempire, and have made the most extensive and the only honorableconquests, not by destroying, but by promoting the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race. Let us get an American revenue as wehave got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that itis; English privileges alone will make it all it can be. 

In full confidence of this unalterable truth, I now (_quod felixfaustumque sit!_) lay the first stone of the Temple of Peace; and I moveyou, --

"That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America, consisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millionsand upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilegeof electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, torepresent them in the high court of Parliament. "

Upon this resolution the previous question was put and carried: for theprevious question, 270; against it, 78. 

 * * * * *

As the propositions were opened separately in the body of the speech, the reader perhaps may wish to see the whole of them together, in theform in which they were moved for. 

"MOVED, "That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America, consisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millionsand upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilegeof electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, torepresent them in the high court of Parliament. "

"That the said colonies and plantations have been made liable to, andbounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and taxes, given andgranted by Parliament, though the said colonies and plantations have nottheir knights and burgesses in the said high court of Parliament, oftheir own election, to represent the condition of their country; _bylack whereof they have been oftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies, given, granted, and amended to, in the said, court, in a mannerprejudicial to the common wealth, quietness, rest, and peace of thesubjects inhabiting within the same_. "

"That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from othercircumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for procuring arepresentation in Parliament for the said colonies. "

"That each of the said colonies hath within itself a body, chosen, inpart or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders, or other freeinhabitants thereof, commonly called the General Assembly, or GeneralCourt, with powers legally to raise, levy, and assess, according to theseveral usages of such colonies, duties and taxes towards defraying allsorts of public services. "[30]

"That the said general assemblies, general courts, or other bodieslegally qualified as aforesaid, have at sundry times freely grantedseveral large subsidies and public aids for his Majesty's service, according to their abilities, when required thereto by letter from oneof his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State; and that their right togrant the same, and their cheerfulness and sufficiency in the saidgrants, have been at sundry times acknowledged by Parliament. "

"That it hath been found by experience, that the manner of granting thesaid supplies and aids by the said general assemblies hath been moreagreeable to the inhabitants of the said colonies, and more beneficialand conducive to the public service, than the mode of giving andgranting aids and subsidies in Parliament, to be raised and paid in thesaid colonies. "

"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the seventh year of thereign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for granting certainduties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowinga drawback of the duties of customs, upon the exportation from thiskingdom, of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said coloniesor plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on China earthenware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing theclandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations. '"

"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year ofthe reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to discontinue, insuch manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing anddischarging, lading or chipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, atthe town and within the harbor of Boston, in the province ofMassachusetts Bay, in North America. '"

"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year ofthe reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the impartialadministration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for anyacts done by them, in the execution of the law, or for the suppressionof riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in NewEngland. '"

"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year ofthe reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the betterregulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay, inNew England. '"

"That it may be proper to explain and amend an act, made in thethirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, intituled, 'Anact for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's dominions. '"

"That, from the time when the general assembly, or general court, of anycolony or plantation in North America, shall have appointed, by act ofassembly duly confirmed, a settled salary to the offices of the chiefjustice and other judges of the superior courts, it may be proper thatthe said chief justice and other judges of the superior courts of suchcolony shall hold his and their office and offices during their goodbehavior, and shall not be removed therefrom, but when the said removalshall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon a hearing on complaintfrom the general assembly, or on a complaint from the governor, or thecouncil, or the house of representatives, severally, of the colony inwhich the said chief justice and other judges have exercised the saidoffices. "

"That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty orvice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th George theThird, in such a manner as to make the same more commodious to those whosue or are sued in the said courts; _and to provide for the mere decentmaintenance of the judges of the same_. "

FOOTNOTES:

[18] The act to restrain the trade and commerce of the provinces ofMassachusetts Bay and New Hampshire, and colonies of Connecticut andRhode Island and Providence Plantation, in North America, to GreatBritain, Ireland, and the British Islands in the West Indies; and toprohibit such provinces and colonies from carrying on any fishery on thebanks of Newfoundland, and other places therein mentioned, under certainconditions and limitations. 

[19] Mr. Rose Fuller. 

[20] "That when the governor, council, and assembly, or general court, of any of his Majesty's provinces or colonies in America shall _propose_to make provision, _according to the condition, circumstances_, and_situation_ of such province or colony, for contributing their_proportion_ to the _common defence_, (such _proportion_ to be raisedunder the authority of the general court or general assembly of suchprovince or colony, and disposable by Parliament, ) and shall _engage_ tomake provision, also for the support of the civil government and theadministration, of justice in such province or colony, it will beproper, _if such proposal shall be approved by his Majesty and the twoHouses of Parliament_, and for so long as such provision shall be madeaccordingly, to forbear, in _respect of such province or colony_, tolevy any duty, tax, or assessment, or to impose any farther duty, tax, or assessment, except only such duties as it may be expedient tocontinue to levy or to impose for the regulation of commerce: the netproduce of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account ofsuch province or colony respectively. "--Resolution moved by Lord Northin the Committee, and agreed to by the House, 27th February, 1775. 

[21] Mr. Glover. 

[22] The Attorney-General. 

[23] Mr. Rice. 

[24] Lord North. 

[25] Journals of the House, Vol. XXV. 

[26] Journals of the House, Vol. XXVII. 

[27] Ibid. 

[28] The Solicitor-General informed Mr. B. , when the resolutions wereseparately moved, that the grievance of the judges partaking of theprofits of the seizure had been redressed by office; accordingly theresolution was amended. 

[29] Lord North. 

[30] The first four motions and the last had the previous question puton them. The others were negatived. 

The words in Italics were, by an amendment that was carried, left out ofthe motion; which will appear in the journals, though it is not thepractice to insert such amendments in the votes. 

A

LETTER

TO

JOHN FARR AND JOHN HARRIS, ESQRS. , SHERIFFS OF THE CITY OF BRISTOL, ON THE

AFFAIRS OF AMERICA. 

1777. 

Gentlemen, --I have the honor of sending you the two last acts which havebeen passed with regard to the troubles in America. These acts aresimilar to all the rest which have been made on the same subject. Theyoperate by the same principle, and they are derived from the very samepolicy. I think they complete the number of this sort of statutes tonine. It affords no matter for very pleasing reflection to observe thatour subjects diminish as our laws increase. 

If I have the misfortune of differing with some of my fellow-citizens onthis great and arduous subject, it is no small consolation to me that Ido not differ from you. With you I am perfectly united. We are heartilyagreed in our detestation of a civil war. We have ever expressed themost unqualified disapprobation of all the steps which have led to it, and of all those which tend to prolong it. And I have no doubt that wefeel exactly the same emotions of grief and shame on all its miserableconsequences, whether they appear, on the one side or the other, in theshape of victories or defeats, of captures made from the English on thecontinent or from the English in these islands, of legislativeregulations which subvert the liberties of our brethren or whichundermine our own. 

Of the first of these statutes (that for the letter of marque) I shallsay little. Exceptionable as it may be, and as I think it is in someparticulars, it seems the natural, perhaps necessary, result of themeasures we have taken and the situation we are in. The other (for apartial suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_) appears to me of a muchdeeper malignity. During its progress through the House of Commons, ithas been amended, so as to express, more distinctly than at first itdid, the avowed sentiments of those who framed it; and the main groundof my exception to it is, because it does express, and does carry intoexecution, purposes which appear to me so contradictory to all theprinciples, not only of the constitutional policy of Great Britain, buteven of that species of hostile justice which no asperity of war whollyextinguishes in the minds of a civilized people. 

It seems to have in view two capital objects: the first, to enableadministration to confine, as long as it shall think proper, those whomthat act is pleased to qualify by the name of _pirates_. Those soqualified I understand to be the commanders and mariners of suchprivateers and ships of war belonging to the colonies as in the courseof this unhappy contest may fall into the hands of the crown. They aretherefore to be detained in prison, under the criminal description ofpiracy, to a future trial and ignominious punishment, whenevercircumstances shall make it convenient to execute vengeance on them, under the color of that odious and infamous offence. 

To this first purpose of the law I have no small dislike, because theact does not (as all laws and all equitable transactions ought to do)fairly describe its object. The persons who make a naval war upon us, inconsequence of the present troubles, may be rebels; but to call andtreat them as pirates is confounding not only the natural distinction ofthings, but the order of crimes, --which, whether by putting them from ahigher part of the scale to the lower or from the lower to the higher, is never done without dangerously disordering the whole frame ofjurisprudence. Though piracy may be, in the eye of the law, a _less_offence than treason, yet, as both are, in effect, punished with thesame death, the same forfeiture, and the same corruption of blood, Inever would take from any fellow-creature whatever any sort of advantagewhich he may derive to his safety from the pity of mankind, or to hisreputation from their general feelings, by degrading his offence, when Icannot soften his punishment. The general sense of mankind tells me thatthose offences which may possibly arise from mistaken virtue are not inthe class of infamous actions. Lord Coke, the oracle of the English law, conforms to that general sense, where he says that "those things whichare of the highest criminality may be of the least disgrace. " The actprepares a sort of masked proceeding, not honorable to the justice ofthe kingdom, and by no means necessary for its safety. I cannot enterinto it. If Lord Balmerino, in the last rebellion, had driven off thecattle of twenty clans, I should have thought it would have been ascandalous and low juggle, utterly unworthy of the manliness of anEnglish judicature, to have tried him for felony as a stealer of cows. 

Besides, I must honestly tell you that I could not vote for, orcountenance in any way, a statute which stigmatizes with the crime ofpiracy these men whom an act of Parliament had previously put out of theprotection of the law. When the legislature of this kingdom had orderedall their ships and goods, for the mere new-created offence ofexercising trade, to be divided as a spoil among the seamen, of thenavy, --to consider the necessary reprisal of an unhappy, proscribed, interdicted people, as the crime of piracy, would have appeared, in anyother legislature than ours, a strain of the most insulting and mostunnatural cruelty and injustice. I assure you I never remember to haveheard of anything like it in any time or country. 

The second professed purpose of the act is to detain in England fortrial those who shall commit high treason in America. 

That you may be enabled to enter into the true spirit of the presentlaw, it is necessary, Gentlemen, to apprise you that there is an act, made so long ago as in the reign of Henry the Eighth, before theexistence or thought of any English colonies in America, for the trialin this kingdom of treasons committed out of the realm. In the year 1769Parliament thought proper to acquaint the crown with their constructionof that act in a formal address, wherein they entreated his Majesty tocause persons charged with high treason in America to be brought intothis kingdom for trial. By this act of Henry the Eighth, _so construedand so applied_, almost all that is substantial and beneficial in atrial by jury is taken away from the subject in the colonies. This is, however, saying too little; for to try a man under that act is, ineffect, to condemn him unheard. A person is brought hither in thedungeon of a ship's hold; thence he is vomited into a dungeon on land, loaded with irons, unfurnished with money, unsupported by friends, threethousand miles from all means of calling upon or confronting evidence, where no one local circumstance that tends to detect perjury canpossibly be judged of;--such a person may be executed according to form, but he can never be tried according to justice. 

I therefore could never reconcile myself to the bill I send you, whichis expressly provided to remove all inconveniences from theestablishment of a mode of trial which has ever appeared to me mostunjust and most unconstitutional. Far from removing the difficultieswhich impede the execution of so mischievous a project, I would heap newdifficulties upon it, if it were in my power. All the ancient, honest, juridical principles and institutions of England are so many clogs tocheck and retard the headlong course of violence and oppression. Theywere invented for this one good purpose, that what was not just shouldnot be convenient. Convinced of this, I would leave things as I foundthem. The old, cool-headed, general law is as good as any deviationdictated by present heat. 

I could see no fair, justifiable expedience pleaded to favor this newsuspension of the liberty of the subject. If the English in the coloniescan support the independency to which they have been unfortunatelydriven, I suppose nobody has such a fanatical zeal for the criminaljustice of Henry the Eighth that he will contend for executions whichmust be retaliated tenfold on his own friends, or who has conceived sostrange an idea of English dignity as to think the defeats in Americacompensated by the triumphs at Tyburn. If, on the contrary, the coloniesare reduced to the obedience of the crown, there must be, under thatauthority, tribunals in the country itself fully competent to administerjustice on all offenders. But if there are not, and that we mustsuppose a thing so humiliating to our government as that all this vastcontinent should unanimously concur in thinking that no ill fortune canconvert resistance to the royal authority into a criminal act, we maycall the effect of our victory peace, or obedience, or what we will, butthe war is not ended; the hostile mind continues in full vigor, and itcontinues under a worse form. If your peace be nothing more than asullen pause from arms, if their quiet be nothing but the meditation ofrevenge, where smitten pride smarting from its wounds festers into newrancor, neither the act of Henry the Eighth nor its handmaid of thisreign will answer any wise end of policy or justice. For, if the bloodyfields which they saw and felt are not sufficient to subdue the reasonof America, (to use the expressive phrase of a great lord in office, ) itis not the judicial slaughter which is made in another hemisphereagainst their universal sense of justice that will ever reconcile themto the British government. 

I take it for granted, Gentlemen, that we sympathize in a proper horrorof all punishment further than as it serves for an example. To whom, then does the example of an execution in England for this Americanrebellion apply? Remember, you are told every day, that the present is acontest between the two countries, and that we in England are at war for_our own_ dignity against our rebellious children. Is this true? If itbe, it is surely among such rebellious children that examples fordisobedience should be made, to be in any degree instructive: for whoever thought of teaching parents their duty by an example from thepunishment of an undutiful son? As well might the execution of afugitive negro in the plantations be considered as a lesson to teachmasters humanity to their slaves. Such executions may, indeed, satiateour revenge; they may harden our hearts, and puff us up with pride andarrogance. Alas! this is not instruction. 

If anything can be drawn from such examples by a parity of the case, itis to show how deep their crime and how heavy their punishment will be, who shall at any time dare to resist a distant power actually disposingof their property without their voice or consent to the disposition, andoverturning their franchises without charge or hearing. God forbid thatEngland should ever read this lesson written in the blood of _any_ ofher offspring!

War is at present carried on between the king's natural and foreigntroops, on one side, and the English in America, on the other, upon theusual footing of other wars; and accordingly an exchange of prisonershas been regularly made from the beginning. If, notwithstanding thishitherto equal procedure, upon some prospect of ending the war withsuccess (which, however, may be delusive) administration prepares to actagainst those as _traitors_ who remain in their hands at the end of thetroubles, in my opinion we shall exhibit to the world as indecent apiece of injustice as ever civil fury has produced. If the prisoners whohave been exchanged have not by that exchange been _virtually pardoned_, the cartel (whether avowed or understood) is a cruel fraud; for you havereceived the life of a man, and you ought to return a life for it, orthere is no parity or fairness in the transaction. 

If, on the other hand, we admit that they who are actually exchangedare pardoned, but contend that you may justly reserve for vengeancethose who remain unexchanged, then this unpleasant and unhandsomeconsequence will follow: that you judge of the delinquency of men merelyby the time of their guilt, and not by the heinousness of it; and youmake fortune and accidents, and not the moral qualities of human action, the rule of your justice. 

These strange incongruities must ever perplex those who confound theunhappiness of civil dissension with the crime of treason. Whenever arebellion really and truly exists, which is as easily known in fact asit is difficult to define in words, government has not entered into suchmilitary conventions, but has ever declined all intermediate treatywhich should put rebels in possession of the law of nations with regardto war. Commanders would receive no benefits at their hands, becausethey could make no return for them. Who has ever heard of capitulation, and parole of honor, and exchange of prisoners in the late rebellions inthis kingdom? The answer to all demands of that sort was, "We can engagefor nothing; you are at the king's pleasure. " We ought to remember, that, if our present enemies be in reality and truth rebels, the king'sgenerals have no right to release them upon any conditions whatsoever;and they are themselves answerable to the law, and as much in want of apardon, for doing so, as the rebels whom they release. 

Lawyers, I know, cannot make the distinction for which I contend;because they have their strict rule to go by. But legislators ought todo what lawyers cannot; for they have no other rules to bind them butthe great principles of reason and equity and the general sense ofmankind. These they are bound to obey and follow, and rather to enlargeand enlighten law by the liberality of legislative reason than to fetterand bind their higher capacity by the narrow constructions ofsubordinate, artificial justice. If we had adverted to this, we nevercould consider the convulsions of a great empire, not disturbed by alittle disseminated faction, but divided by whole communities andprovinces, and entire legal representatives of a people, as fit matterof discussion under a commission of Oyer and Terminer. It is as oppositeto reason and prudence as it is to humanity and justice. 

This act, proceeding on these principles, that is, preparing to end thepresent troubles by a trial of one sort of hostility under the name ofpiracy, and of another by the name of treason, and executing the act ofHenry the Eighth according to a new and unconstitutional interpretation, I have thought evil and dangerous, even though the instruments ofeffecting such purposes had been merely of a neutral quality. 

But it really appears to me that the means which this act employs are atleast as exceptionable as the end. Permit me to open myself a littleupon this subject; because it is of importance to me, when I am obligedto submit to the power without acquiescing in the reason of an act oflegislature, that I should justify my dissent by such arguments as maybe supposed to have weight with a sober man. 

The main operative regulation of the act is to suspend the Common Lawand the statute _Habeas Corpus_ (the sole securities either for libertyor justice) with regard to all those who have been out of the realm, oron the high seas, within a given time. The rest of the people, as Iunderstand, are to continue as they stood before. 

I confess, Gentlemen, that this appears to me as bad in the principle, and far worse in its consequence, than an universal suspension of the_Habeas Corpus_ Act; and the limiting qualification, instead of takingout the sting, does in my humble opinion sharpen and envenom it to agreater degree. Liberty, if I understand it at all, is a _general_principle, and the clear right of all the subjects within the realm, orof none. Partial freedom seems to me a most invidious mode of slavery. But, unfortunately, it is the kind of slavery the most easily admittedin times of civil discord: for parties are but too apt to forget theirown future safety in their desire of sacrificing their enemies. Peoplewithout much difficulty admit the entrance of that injustice of whichthey are not to be the immediate victims. In times of high proceeding itis never the faction of the predominant power that is in danger: for notyranny chastises its own instruments. It is the obnoxious and thesuspected who want the protection of law; and there is nothing to bridlethe partial violence of state factions but this, --"that, whenever an actis made for a cessation of law and justice, the whole people should beuniversally subjected to the same suspension of their franchises. " Thealarm of such a proceeding would then be universal. It would operate asa sort of _call of the nation_. It would become every man's immediateand instant concern to be made very sensible of _the absolute necessity_of this total eclipse of liberty. They would more carefully advert toevery renewal, and more powerfully resist it. These great determinedmeasures are not commonly so dangerous to freedom. They are marked withtoo strong lines to slide into use. No plea, nor pretence, of_inconvenience or evil example_ (which must in their nature be dailyand ordinary incidents) can be admitted as a reason for such mightyoperations. But the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, forexpedients, and by parts. The _Habeas Corpus_ Act supposes, contrary tothe genius of most other laws, that the lawful magistrate may seeparticular men with a malignant eye, and it provides for that identicalcase. But when men, in particular descriptions, marked out by themagistrate himself, are delivered over by Parliament to this possiblemalignity, it is not the _Habeas Corpus_ that is occasionally suspended, but its spirit that is mistaken, and its principle that is subverted. Indeed, nothing is security to any individual but the common interest ofall. 

This act, therefore, has this distinguished evil in it, that it is thefirst _partial_ suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ that has been made. The precedent, which is always of very great importance, is nowestablished. For the first time a distinction is made among the peoplewithin this realm. Before this act, every man putting his foot onEnglish ground, every stranger owing only a local and temporaryallegiance, even negro slaves who had been sold in the colonies andunder an act of Parliament, became as free as every other man whobreathed the same air with them. Now a line is drawn, which may beadvanced further and further at pleasure, on the same argument of mereexpedience on which it was first described. There is no equality amongus; we are not fellow-citizens, if the mariner who lands on the quaydoes not rest on as firm legal ground as the merchant who sits in hiscounting-house. Other laws may injure the community; this dissolves it. As things now stand, every man in the West Indies, every one inhabitantof three unoffending provinces on the continent, every person comingfrom the East Indies, every gentleman who has travelled for his healthor education, every mariner who has navigated the seas, is, for no otheroffence, under a temporary proscription. Let any of these facts (nowbecome presumptions of guilt) be proved against him, and the baresuspicion of the crown puts him out of the law. It is even by no meansclear to me whether the negative proof does not lie upon the personapprehended on suspicion, to the subversion of all justice. 

I have not debated against this bill in its progress through the House;because it would have been vain to oppose, and impossible to correct it. It is some time since I have been clearly convinced, that, in thepresent state of things, all opposition to any measures proposed byministers, where the name of America appears, is vain and frivolous. Youmay be sure that I do not speak of my opposition, which in allcircumstances must be so, but that of men of the greatest wisdom andauthority in the nation. Everything proposed against America is supposedof course to be in favor of Great Britain. Good and ill success areequally admitted as reasons for persevering in the present methods. Several very prudent and very well-intentioned persons were of opinion, that, during the prevalence of such dispositions, all struggle ratherinflamed than lessened the distemper of the public counsels. Findingsuch resistance to be considered as factious by most within doors and byvery many without, I cannot conscientiously support what is against myopinion, nor prudently contend with what I know is irresistible. Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rationalendeavors; and I hope that my past conduct has given sufficientevidence, that, if I am a single day from my place, it is not owing toindolence or love of dissipation. The slightest hope of doing good issufficient to recall me to what I quitted with regret In declining forsome time my usual strict attendance, I do not in the least condemn thespirit of those gentlemen who, with a just confidence in theirabilities, (in which I claim a sort of share from my love and admirationof them, ) were of opinion that their exertions in this desperate casemight be of some service. They thought that by contracting the sphere ofits application they might lessen the malignity of an evil principle. Perhaps they were in the right. But when my opinion was so very clearlyto the contrary, for the reasons I have just stated, I am sure _my_attendance would have been ridiculous. 

I must add, in further explanation of _my_ conduct, that, far fromsoftening the features of such a principle, and thereby removing anypart of the popular odium or natural terrors attending it, I should besorry that anything framed in contradiction to the spirit of ourConstitution did not instantly produce, in fact, the grossest of theevils with which it was pregnant in its nature. It is by lying dormant along time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary powersteals upon a people. On the next unconstitutional act, all thefashionable world will be ready to say, "Your prophecies are ridiculous, your fears are vain, you see how little of the mischiefs which youformerly foreboded are come to pass. " Thus, by degrees, that artfulsoftening of all arbitrary power, the alleged infrequency or narrowextent of its operation, will be received as a sort of aphorism, --andMr. Hume will not be singular in telling us, that the felicity ofmankind is no more disturbed by it than by earthquakes or thunder, orthe other more unusual accidents of Nature. 

The act of which I speak is among the fruits of the American war, --a warin my humble opinion productive of many mischiefs, of a kind whichdistinguish it from all others. Not only our policy is deranged, and ourempire distracted, but our laws and our legislative spirit appear tohave been totally perverted by it. We have made war on our colonies, notby arms only, but by laws. As hostility and law are not very concordantideas, every step we have taken in this business has been made bytrampling on some maxim of justice or some capital principle of wisegovernment. What precedents were established, and what principlesoverturned, (I will not say of English privilege, but of generaljustice, ) in the Boston Port, the Massachusetts Charter, the MilitaryBill, and all that long array of hostile acts of Parliament by which thewar with America has been begun and supported! Had the principles of anyof these acts been first exerted on English ground, they would probablyhave expired as soon as they touched it. But by being removed from ourpersons, they have rooted in our laws, and the latest posterity willtaste the fruits of them. 

Nor is it the worst effect of this unnatural contention, that our _laws_are corrupted. Whilst _manners_ remain entire, they will correct thevices of law, and soften it at length to their own temper. But we haveto lament that in most of the late proceedings we see very few traces ofthat generosity, humanity, and dignity of mind, which formerlycharacterized this nation. War suspends the rules of moral obligation, and what is long suspended is in danger of being totally abrogated. Civil wars strike deepest of all into the manners of the people. Theyvitiate their politics; they corrupt their morals; they pervert even thenatural taste and relish of equity and justice. By teaching us toconsider our fellow-citizens in an hostile light, the whole body of ournation becomes gradually less dear to us. The very names of affectionand kindred, which were the bond of charity whilst we agreed, become newincentives to hatred and rage when the communion of our country isdissolved. We may flatter ourselves that we shall not fall into thismisfortune. But we have no charter of exemption, that I know of, fromthe ordinary frailties of our nature. 

What but that blindness of heart which arises from the frenzy of civilcontention could have made any persons conceive the present situation ofthe British affairs as an object of triumph to themselves or ofcongratulation to their sovereign? Nothing surely could be morelamentable to those who remember the flourishing days of this kingdomthan to see the insane joy of several unhappy people, amidst the sadspectacle which our affairs and conduct exhibit to the scorn of Europe. We behold (and it seems some people rejoice in beholding) our nativeland, which used to sit the envied arbiter of all her neighbors, reducedto a servile dependence on their mercy, --acquiescing in assurances offriendship which she does not trust, --complaining of hostilities whichshe dares not resent, --deficient to her allies, lofty to her subjects, and submissive to her enemies, --whilst the liberal government of thisfree nation is supported by the hireling sword of German boors andvassals, and three millions of the subjects of Great Britain are seekingfor protection to English privileges in the arms of France!

These circumstances appear to me more like shocking prodigies thannatural changes in human affairs. Men of firmer minds may see themwithout staggering or astonishment. Some may think them matters ofcongratulation and complimentary addresses; but I trust your candor willbe so indulgent to my weakness as not to have the worse opinion of mefor my declining to participate in this joy, and my rejecting all sharewhatsoever in such a triumph. I am too old, too stiff in my inveteratepartialities, to be ready at all the fashionable evolutions of opinion. I scarcely know how to adapt my mind to the feelings with which theCourt Gazettes mean to impress the people. It is not instantly that Ican be brought to rejoice, when I hear of the slaughter and captivity oflong lists of those names which have been familiar to my ears from myinfancy, and to rejoice that they have fallen under the sword ofstrangers, whose barbarous appellations I scarcely know how topronounce. The glory acquired at the White Plains by Colonel Rahl has nocharms for me, and I fairly acknowledge that I have not yet learned todelight in finding Fort Kniphausen in the heart of the Britishdominions. 

It might be some consolation for the loss of our old regards, if ourreason were enlightened in proportion as our honest prejudices areremoved. Wanting feelings for the honor of our country, we might then incold blood be brought to think a little of our interests as individualcitizens and our private conscience as moral agents. 

Indeed, our affairs are in a bad condition. I do assure those gentlemenwho have prayed for war, and obtained the blessing they have sought, that they are at this instant in very great straits. The abused wealthof this country continues a little longer to feed its distemper. As yetthey, and their German allies of twenty hireling states, have contendedonly with the unprepared strength of our own infant colonies. ButAmerica is not subdued. Not one unattacked village which was originallyadverse throughout that vast continent has yet submitted from love orterror. You have the ground you encamp on, and you have no more. Thecantonments of your troops and your dominions are exactly of the sameextent. You spread devastation, but you do not enlarge the sphere ofauthority. 

The events of this war are of so much greater magnitude than those whoeither wished or feared it ever looked for, that this alone ought tofill every considerate mind with anxiety and diffidence. Wise men oftentremble at the very things which fill the thoughtless with security. Formany reasons I do not choose to expose to public view all theparticulars of the state in which you stood with regard to foreignpowers during the whole course of the last year. Whether you are yetwholly out of danger from them is more than I know, or than your rulerscan divine. But even if I were certain of my safety, I could not easilyforgive those who had brought me into the most dreadful perils, becauseby accidents, unforeseen by them or me, I have escaped. 

Believe me, Gentlemen, the way still before you is intricate, dark, andfull of perplexed and treacherous mazes. Those who think they have theclew may lead us out of this labyrinth. We may trust them as amply as wethink proper; but as they have most certainly a call for all the reasonwhich their stock can furnish, why should we think it proper to disturbits operation by inflaming their passions? I may be unable to lend anhelping hand to those who direct the state; but I should be ashamed tomake myself one of a noisy multitude to halloo and hearten them intodoubtful and dangerous courses. A conscientious man would be cautioushow he dealt in blood. He would feel some apprehension at being calledto a tremendous account for engaging in so deep a play without any sortof knowledge of the game. It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent passion. The poorest being that crawlson earth, contending to save itself from injustice and oppression, is anobject respectable in the eyes of God and man. But I cannot conceive anyexistence under heaven (which in the depths of its wisdom tolerates allsorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting than animpotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other qualification for power but hisservility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battleswhich he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he cannever exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in orderto render others contemptible and wretched. 

If you and I find our talents not of the great and ruling kind, ourconduct, at least, is conformable to our faculties. No man's life paysthe forfeit of our rashness. No desolate widow weeps tears of bloodover our ignorance. Scrupulous and sober in a well-grounded distrust ofourselves, we would keep in the port of peace and security; and perhapsin recommending to others something of the same diffidence, we shouldshow ourselves more charitable to their welfare than injurious to theirabilities. 

There are many circumstances in the zeal shown for civil war which seemto discover but little of real magnanimity. The addressers offer theirown persons, and they are satisfied with hiring Germans. They promisetheir private fortunes, and they mortgage their country. They have allthe merit of volunteers, without risk of person or charge ofcontribution; and when the unfeeling arm of a foreign soldiery pours outtheir kindred blood like water, they exult and triumph as if theythemselves had performed some notable exploit. I am really ashamed ofthe fashionable language which has been held for some time past, which, to say the best of it, is full of levity. You know that I allude to thegeneral cry against the cowardice of the Americans, as if we despisedthem for not making the king's soldiery purchase the advantage they haveobtained at a dearer rate. It is not, Gentlemen, it is not to respectthe dispensations of Providence, nor to provide any decent retreat inthe mutability of human affairs. It leaves no medium between insolentvictory and infamous defeat. It tends to alienate our minds further andfurther from our natural regards, and to make an eternal rent and schismin the British nation. Those who do not wish for such a separation wouldnot dissolve that cement of reciprocal esteem and regard which can alonebind together the parts of this great fabric. It ought to be our wish, as it is our duty, not only to forbear this style of outrage ourselves, but to make every one as sensible as we can of the impropriety andunworthiness of the tempers which give rise to it, and which designingmen are laboring with such malignant industry to diffuse amongst us. Itis our business to counteract them, if possible, --if possible, to awakeour natural regards, and to revive the old partiality to the Englishname. Without something of this kind I do not see how it is everpracticable really to reconcile with those whose affection, after all, must be the surest hold of our government, and which is a thousand timesmore worth to us than the mercenary zeal of all the circles of Germany. 

I can well conceive a country completely overrun, and miserably wasted, without approaching in the least to settlement. In my apprehension, aslong as English government is attempted to be supported over Englishmenby the sword alone, things will thus continue. I anticipate in my mindthe moment of the final triumph of foreign military force. When thathour arrives, (for it may arrive, ) then it is that all this mass ofweakness and violence will appear in its full light. If we should beexpelled from America, the delusion of the partisans of militarygovernment might still continue. They might still feed theirimaginations with the possible good consequences which might haveattended success. Nobody could prove the contrary by facts. But in casethe sword should do all that the sword can do, the success of their armsand the defeat of their policy will be one and the same thing. You willnever see any revenue from America. Some increase of the means ofcorruption, without ease of the public burdens, is the very best thatcan happen. Is it for this that we are at war, --and in such a war?

As to the difficulties of laying once more the foundations of thatgovernment which, for the sake of conquering what was our own, has beenvoluntarily and wantonly pulled down by a court faction here, I trembleto look at them. Has any of these gentlemen who are so eager to governall mankind shown himself possessed of the first qualification towardsgovernment, some knowledge of the object, and of the difficulties whichoccur in the task they have undertaken?

I assure you, that, on the most prosperous issue of your arms, you willnot be where you stood when you called in war to supply the defects ofyour political establishment. Nor would any disorder or disobedience togovernment which could arise from the most abject concession on our partever equal those which will be felt after the most triumphant violence. You have got all the intermediate evils of war into the bargain. 

I think I know America, --if I do not, my ignorance is incurable, for Ihave spared no pains to understand it, --and I do most solemnly assurethose of my constituents who put any sort of confidence in my industryand integrity, that everything that has been done there has arisen froma total misconception of the object: that our means of originallyholding America, that our means of reconciling with it after quarrel, ofrecovering it after separation, of keeping it after victory, did depend, and must depend, in their several stages and periods, upon a totalrenunciation of that unconditional submission which has taken suchpossession of the minds of violent men. The whole of those maxims uponwhich we have made and continued this war must be abandoned. Nothing, indeed, (for I would not deceive you, ) can place us in our formersituation. That hope must be laid aside. But there is a differencebetween bad and the worst of all. Terms relative to the cause of the warought to be offered by the authority of Parliament. An arrangement athome promising some security for them ought to be made. By doing this, without the least impairing of our strength, we add to the credit of ourmoderation, which, in itself, is always strength more or less. 

I know many have been taught to think that moderation in a case likethis is a sort of treason, --and that all arguments for it aresufficiently answered by railing at rebels and rebellion, and bycharging all the present or future miseries which we may suffer on theresistance of our brethren. But I would wish them, in this grave matter, and if peace is not wholly removed from their hearts, to considerseriously, first, that to criminate and recriminate never yet was theroad to reconciliation, in any difference amongst men. In the nextplace, it would be right to reflect that the American English (whom theymay abuse, if they think it honorable to revile the absent) can, asthings now stand, neither be provoked at our railing or bettered by ourinstruction. All communication is cut off between us. But this we knowwith certainty, that, though we cannot reclaim them, we may reformourselves. If measures of peace are necessary, they must beginsomewhere; and a conciliatory temper must precede and prepare every planof reconciliation. Nor do I conceive that we suffer anything by thusregulating our own minds. We are not disarmed by being disencumbered ofour passions. Declaiming on rebellion never added a bayonet or a chargeof powder to your military force; but I am afraid that it has been themeans of taking up many muskets against you. 

This outrageous language, which has been encouraged and kept alive byevery art, has already done incredible mischief. For a long time, evenamidst the desolations of war, and the insults of hostile laws dailyaccumulated on one another, the American leaders seem to have had thegreatest difficulty in bringing up their people to a declaration oftotal independence. But the Court Gazette accomplished what the abettorsof independence had attempted in vain. When that disingenuouscompilation and strange medley of railing and flattery was adduced as aproof of the united sentiments of the people of Great Britain, there wasa great change throughout all America. The tide of popular affection, which had still set towards the parent country, began immediately toturn, and to flow with great rapidity in a contrary course. Par fromconcealing these wild declarations of enmity, the author of thecelebrated pamphlet which prepared the minds of the people forindependence insists largely on the multitude and the spirit of theseaddresses; and he draws an argument from them, which, if the fact wereas he supposes, must be irresistible. For I never knew a writer on thetheory of government so partial to authority as not to allow that thehostile mind of the rulers to their people did fully justify a change ofgovernment; nor can any reason whatever be given why one people shouldvoluntarily yield any degree of preëminence to another but on asupposition of great affection and benevolence towards them. Unfortunately, your rulers, trusting to other things, took no notice ofthis great principle of connection. From the beginning of this affair, they have done all they could to alienate your minds from your ownkindred; and if they could excite hatred enough in one of the partiestowards the other, they seemed to be of opinion that they had gone halfthe way towards reconciling the quarrel. 

I know it is said, that your kindness is only alienated on account oftheir resistance, and therefore, if the colonies surrender atdiscretion, all sort of regard, and even much indulgence, is meanttowards them in future. But can those who are partisans for continuing awar to enforce such a surrender be responsible (after all that haspassed) for such a future use of a power that is bound by no compactsand restrained by no terror? Will they tell us what they callindulgences? Do they not at this instant call the present war and allits horrors a lenient and merciful proceeding?

No conqueror that I ever heard of has _professed_ to make a cruel, harsh, and insolent use of his conquest. No! The man of the mostdeclared pride scarcely dares to trust his own heart with this dreadfulsecret of ambition. But it will appear in its time; and no man whoprofesses to reduce another to the insolent mercy of a foreign arm everhad any sort of good-will towards him. The profession of kindness, withthat sword in his hand, and that demand of surrender, is one of the mostprovoking acts of his hostility. I shall be told that all this islenient as against rebellious adversaries. But are the leaders of theirfaction more lenient to those who submit? Lord Howe and General Howehave powers, under an act of Parliament, to restore to the king's peaceand to free trade any men or district which shall submit. Is this done?We have been over and over informed by the authorized gazette, that thecity of New York and the countries of Staten and Long Island havesubmitted voluntarily and cheerfully, and that many are very full ofzeal to the cause of administration. Were they instantly restored totrade? Are they yet restored to it? Is not the benignity of twocommissioners, naturally most humane and generous men, some way fetteredby instructions, equally against their dispositions and the spirit ofParliamentary faith, when Mr. Tryon, vaunting of the fidelity of thecity in which he is governor, is obliged to apply to ministry for leaveto protect the King's loyal subjects, and to grant to them, not thedisputed rights and privileges of freedom, but the common rights of men, by the name of _graces_? Why do not the commissioners restore them onthe spot? Were they not named as commissioners for that express purpose?But we see well enough to what the whole leads. The trade of America isto be dealt out in _private indulgences and grants, _--that is, in jobsto recompense the incendiaries of war. They will be informed of theproper time in which to send out their merchandise. From a national, theAmerican trade is to be turned into a personal monopoly, and one set ofmerchants are to be rewarded for the pretended zeal of which another setare the dupes; and thus, between craft and credulity, the voice ofreason is stifled, and all the misconduct, all the calamities of the warare covered and continued. 

If I had not lived long enough to be little surprised at anything, Ishould have been in some degree astonished at the continued rage ofseveral gentlemen, who, not satisfied with carrying fire and sword intoAmerica, are animated nearly with the same fury against those neighborsof theirs whose only crime it is, that they have charitably and humanelywished them to entertain more reasonable sentiments, and not always tosacrifice their interest to their passion. All this rage againstunresisting dissent convinces me, that, at bottom, they are far fromsatisfied they are in the right. For what is it they would have? A war?They certainly have at this moment the blessing of something that isvery like one; and if the war they enjoy at present be not sufficientlyhot and extensive, they may shortly have it as warm and as spreading astheir hearts can desire. Is it the force of the kingdom they call for?They have it already; and if they choose to fight their battles in theirown person, nobody prevents their setting sail to America in the nexttransports. Do they think that the service is stinted for want ofliberal supplies? Indeed they complain without reason. The table of theHouse of Commons will glut them, let their appetite for expense be neverso keen. And I assure them further, that those who think with them inthe House of Commons are full as easy in the control as they are liberalin the vote of these expenses. If this be not supply or confidencesufficient, let them open their own private purse-strings, and give, from what is left to them, as largely and with as little care as theythink proper. 

Tolerated in their passions, let them learn not to persecute themoderation of their fellow-citizens. If all the world joined them in afull cry against rebellion, and were as hotly inflamed against the wholetheory and enjoyment of freedom as those who are the most factious forservitude, it could not, in my opinion, answer any one end whatsoever inthis contest. The leaders of this war could not hire (to gratify theirfriends) one German more than they do, or inspire him with less feelingfor the persons or less value for the privileges of their revoltedbrethren. If we all adopted their sentiments to a man, their allies, thesavage Indians, could not be more ferocious than they are: they couldnot murder one more helpless woman or child, or with more exquisiterefinements of cruelty torment to death one more of their English fleshand blood, than they do already. The public money is given to purchasethis alliance;--and they have their bargain. 

They are continually boasting of unanimity, or calling for it. Butbefore this unanimity can be matter either of wish or congratulation, weought to be pretty sure that we are engaged in a rational pursuit. Frenzy does not become a slighter distemper on account of the number ofthose who may be infected with it. Delusion and weakness produce not onemischief the less because they are universal. I declare that I cannotdiscern the least advantage which could accrue to us, if we were able topersuade our colonies that they had not a single friend in GreatBritain. On the contrary, if the affections and opinions of mankind benot exploded as principles of connection, I conceive it would be happyfor us, if they were taught to believe that there was even a formedAmerican party in England, to whom they could always look for support. Happy would it be for us, if, in all tempers, they might turn their eyesto the parent state, so that their very turbulence and sedition shouldfind vent in no other place than this! I believe there is not a man(except those who prefer the interest of some paltry faction to the verybeing of their country) who would not wish that the Americans shouldfrom time to time carry many points, and even some of them not quitereasonable, by the aid of any denomination of men here, rather than theyshould be driven to seek for protection against the fury of foreignmercenaries and the waste of savages in the arms of France. 

When any community is subordinately connected with another, the greatdanger of the connection is the extreme pride and self-complacency ofthe superior, which in all matters of controversy will probably decidein its own favor. It is a powerful corrective to such a very rationalcause of fear, if the inferior body can be made to believe that theparty inclination or political views of several in the principal statewill induce them in some degree to counteract this blind and tyrannicalpartiality. There is no danger that any one acquiring consideration orpower in the presiding state should carry this leaning to the inferiortoo far. The fault of human nature is not of that sort. Power, inwhatever hands, is rarely guilty of too strict limitations on itself. But one great advantage to the support of authority attends such anamicable and protecting connection: that those who have conferred favorsobtain influence, and from the foresight of future events can persuademen who have received obligations sometimes to return them. Thus, by themediation of those healing principles, (call them good or evil, )troublesome discussions are brought to some sort of adjustment, andevery hot controversy is not a civil war. 

But, if the colonies (to bring the general matter home to us) could seethat in Great Britain the mass of the people is melted into itsgovernment, and that every dispute with the ministry must of necessitybe always a quarrel with the nation, they can stand no longer in theequal and friendly relation of fellow-citizens to the subjects of thiskingdom. Humble as this relation may appear to some, when it is oncebroken, a strong tie is dissolved. Other sort of connections will besought. For there are very few in the world who will not prefer anuseful ally to an insolent master. 

Such discord has been the effect of the unanimity into which so manyhave of late been seduced or bullied, or into the appearance of whichthey have sunk through mere despair. They have been told that theirdissent from violent measures is an encouragement to rebellion. Men ofgreat presumption and little knowledge will hold a language which iscontradicted by the whole course of history. _General_ rebellions andrevolts of an whole people never were _encouraged_, now or at any time. They are always _provoked_. But if this unheard-of doctrine of theencouragement of rebellion were true, if it were true that an assuranceof the friendship of numbers in this country towards the colonies couldbecome an encouragement to them to break off all connection with it, what is the inference? Does anybody seriously maintain, that, chargedwith my share of the public councils, I am obliged not to resistprojects which I think mischievous, lest men who suffer should beencouraged to resist? The very tendency of such projects to producerebellion is one of the chief reasons against them. Shall that reasonnot be given? Is it, then, a rule, that no man in this nation shall openhis mouth in favor of the colonies, shall defend their rights, orcomplain of their sufferings, --or when war finally breaks out, no manshall express his desires of peace? Has this been the law of our past, or is it to be the terms of our future connection? Even looking nofurther than ourselves, can it be true loyalty to any government, ortrue patriotism towards any country, to degrade their solemn councilsinto servile drawing-rooms, to flatter their pride and passions ratherthan to enlighten their reason, and to prevent them from being cautionedagainst violence lest others should be encouraged to resistance? By suchacquiescence great kings and mighty nations have been undone; and if anyare at this day in a perilous situation from rejecting truth andlistening to flattery, it would rather become them to reform the errorsunder which they suffer than to reproach those who forewarned them oftheir danger. 

But the rebels looked for assistance from this country. --They did so, inthe beginning of this controversy, most certainly; and they sought it byearnest supplications to government, which dignity rejected, and by asuspension of commerce, which the wealth of this nation enabled you todespise. When they found that neither prayers nor menaces had any sortof weight, but that a firm resolution was taken to reduce them tounconditional obedience by a military force, they came to the lastextremity. Despairing of us, they trusted in themselves. Not strongenough themselves, they sought succor in France. In proportion as allencouragement here lessened, their distance from this country increased. The encouragement is over; the alienation is complete. 

In order to produce this favorite unanimity in delusion, and to preventall possibility of a return to our ancient happy concord, arguments forour continuance in this course are drawn from the wretched situationitself into which we have been betrayed. It is said, that, being at warwith the colonies, whatever our sentiments might have been before, allties between us are now dissolved, and all the policy we have left is tostrengthen the hands of government to reduce them. On the principle ofthis argument, the more mischiefs we suffer from any administration, themore our trust in it is to be confirmed. Let them but once get us into awar, and then their power is safe, and an act of oblivion passed for alltheir misconduct. 

But is it really true that government is always to be strengthened withthe instruments of war, but never furnished with the means of peace? Informer times, ministers, I allow, have been sometimes driven by thepopular voice to assert by arms the national honor against foreignpowers. But the wisdom of the nation has been far more clear, when thoseministers have been compelled to consult its interests by treaty. We allknow that the sense of the nation obliged the court of Charles theSecond to abandon the _Dutch war_: a war, next to the present, the mostimpolitic which we ever carried on. The good people of Englandconsidered Holland as a sort of dependency on this kingdom; they dreadedto drive it to the protection or subject it to the power of France bytheir own inconsiderate hostility. They paid but little respect to thecourt jargon of that day; nor were they inflamed by the pretendedrivalship of the Dutch in trade, --by the massacre at Amboyna, acted onthe stage to provoke the public vengeance, --nor by declamations againstthe ingratitude of the United Provinces for the benefits England hadconferred upon them in their infant state. They were not moved fromtheir evident interest by all these arts; nor was it enough to tellthem, they were at war, that they must go through with it, and that thecause of the dispute was lost in the consequences. The people of Englandwere then, as they are now, called upon to make government strong. Theythought it a great deal better to make it wise and honest. 

When I was amongst my constituents at the last summer assizes, Iremember that men of all descriptions did then express a very strongdesire for peace, and no slight hopes of attaining it from thecommission sent out by my Lord Howe. And it is not a little remarkable, that, in proportion as every person showed a zeal for the courtmeasures, he was then earnest in circulating an opinion of the extent ofthe supposed powers of that commission. When I told them that Lord Howehad no powers to treat, or to promise satisfaction on any pointwhatsoever of the controversy, I was hardly credited, --so strong andgeneral was the desire of terminating this war by the method ofaccommodation. As far as I could discover, this was the temper thenprevalent through the kingdom. The king's forces, it must be observed, had at that time been obliged to evacuate Boston. The superiority of theformer campaign rested wholly with the colonists. If such powers oftreaty were to be wished whilst success was very doubtful, how came theyto be less so, since his Majesty's arms have been crowned with manyconsiderable advantages? Have these successes induced us to alter ourmind, as thinking the season of victory not the time for treating withhonor or advantage? Whatever changes have happened in the nationalcharacter, it can scarcely be our wish that terms of accommodation nevershould be proposed to our enemy, except when they must be attributedsolely to our fears. It has happened, let me say unfortunately, that weread of his Majesty's commission for making peace, and his troopsevacuating his last town in the Thirteen Colonies, at the same hour andin the same gazette. It was still more unfortunate that no commissionwent to America to settle the troubles there, until several months afteran act had been passed to put the colonies out of the protection of thisgovernment, and to divide their trading property, without a possibilityof restitution, as spoil among the seamen of the navy. The most abjectsubmission on the part of the colonies could not redeem them. There wasno man on that whole continent, or within three thousand miles of it, qualified by law to follow allegiance with protection or submission withpardon. A proceeding of this kind has no example in history. Independency, and independency with an enmity, (which, putting ourselvesout of the question, would be called natural and much provoked, ) was theinevitable consequence. How this came to pass the nation may be one dayin an humor to inquire. 

All the attempts made this session to give fuller powers of peace to thecommanders in America were stifled by the fatal confidence of victoryand the wild hopes of unconditional submission. There was a momentfavorable to the king's arms, when, if any powers of concession hadexisted on the other side of the Atlantic, even after all our errors, peace in all probability might have been restored. But calamity isunhappily the usual season of reflection; and the pride of men will notoften suffer reason to have any scope, until it can be no longer ofservice. 

I have always wished, that as the dispute had its apparent origin fromthings done in Parliament, and as the acts passed there had provoked thewar, that the foundations of peace should be laid in Parliament also. Ihave been astonished to find that those whose zeal for the dignity ofour body was so hot as to light up the flames of civil war should evenpublicly declare that these delicate points ought to be wholly left tothe crown. Poorly as I may be thought affected to the authority ofParliament, I shall never admit that our constitutional rights can everbecome a matter of ministerial negotiation. 

I am charged with being an American. If warm affection towards thoseover whom I claim any share of authority be a crime, I am guilty of thischarge. But I do assure you, (and they who know me publicly andprivately will bear witness to me, ) that, if ever one man lived morezealous than another for the supremacy of Parliament and the rights ofthis imperial crown, it was myself. Many others, indeed, might be moreknowing in the extent of the foundation of these rights. I do notpretend to be an antiquary, a lawyer, or qualified for the chair ofprofessor in metaphysics. I never ventured to put your solid interestsupon speculative grounds. My having constantly declined to do so hasbeen attributed to my incapacity for such disquisitions; and I aminclined to believe it is partly the cause. I never shall be ashamed toconfess, that, where I am ignorant, I am diffident. I am, indeed, notvery solicitous to clear myself of this imputed incapacity; because meneven less conversant than I am in this kind of subtleties, and placedin stations to which I ought not to aspire, have, by the mere force ofcivil discretion, often conducted the affairs of great nations withdistinguished felicity and glory. 

When I first came into a public trust, I found your Parliament inpossession of an unlimited legislative power over the colonies. I couldnot open the statute-book without seeing the actual exercise of it, moreor less, in all cases whatsoever. This possession passed with me for atitle. It does so in all human affairs. No man examines into the defectsof his title to his paternal estate or to his established government. Indeed, common sense taught me that a legislative authority not actuallylimited by the express terms of its foundation, or by its own subsequentacts, cannot have its powers parcelled out by argumentativedistinctions, so as to enable us to say that here they can and therethey cannot bind. Nobody was so obliging as to produce to me any recordof such distinctions, by compact or otherwise, either at the successiveformation of the several colonies or during the existence of any ofthem. If any gentlemen were able to see how one power could be given up(merely on abstract reasoning) without giving up the rest, I can onlysay that they saw further than I could. Nor did I ever presume tocondemn any one for being clear-sighted when I was blind. I praise theirpenetration and learning, and hope that their practice has beencorrespondent to their theory. 

I had, indeed, very earnest wishes to keep the whole body of thisauthority perfect and entire as I found it, --and to keep it so, not forour advantage solely, but principally for the sake of those on whoseaccount all just authority exists: I mean the people to be governed. For I thought I saw that many cases might well happen in which theexercise of every power comprehended in the broadest idea of legislaturemight become, in its time and circumstances, not a little expedient forthe peace and union of the colonies amongst themselves, as well as fortheir perfect harmony with Great Britain. Thinking so, (perhapserroneously, but being honestly of that opinion, ) I was at the same timevery sure that the authority of which I was so jealous could not, underthe actual circumstances of our plantations, be at all preserved in anyof its members, but by the greatest reserve in its application, particularly in those delicate points in which the feelings of mankindare the most irritable. They who thought otherwise have found a few moredifficulties in their work than (I hope) they were thoroughly aware of, when they undertook the present business. I must beg leave to observe, that it is not only the invidious branch of taxation that will beresisted, but that no other given part of legislative rights can beexercised, without regard to the general opinion of those who are to begoverned. That general opinion is the vehicle and organ of legislativeomnipotence. Without this, it may be a theory to entertain the mind, butit is nothing in the direction of affairs. The completeness of thelegislative authority of Parliament _over this kingdom_ is notquestioned; and yet many things indubitably included in the abstractidea of that power, and which carry no absolute injustice in themselves, yet being contrary to the opinions and feelings of the people, can aslittle be exercised as if Parliament in that case had been possessed ofno right at all. I see no abstract reason, which can be given, why thesame power which made and repealed the High Commission Court and theStar-Chamber might not revive them again; and these courts, warned bytheir former fate, might possibly exercise their powers with some degreeof justice. But the madness would be as unquestionable as the competenceof that Parliament which should attempt such things. If anything can besupposed out of the power of human legislature, it is religion; I admit, however, that the established religion of this country has been three orfour times altered by act of Parliament, and therefore that a statutebinds even in that case. But we may very safely affirm, that, notwithstanding this apparent omnipotence, it would be now found asimpossible for King and Parliament to alter the established religion ofthis country as it was to King James alone, when he attempted to makesuch an alteration without a Parliament. In effect, to follow, not toforce, the public inclination, --to give a direction, a form, a technicaldress, and a specific sanction, to the general sense of the community, is the true end of legislature. 

It is so with regard to the exercise of all the powers which ourConstitution knows in any of its parts, and indeed to the substantialexistence of any of the parts themselves. The king's negative to billsis one of the most indisputed of the royal prerogatives; and it extendsto all cases whatsoever. I am far from certain, that if several laws, which I know, had fallen under the stroke of that sceptre, that thepublic would have had a very heavy loss. But it is not the _propriety_of the exercise which is in question. The exercise itself is wiselyforborne. Its repose may be the preservation of its existence; and itsexistence may be the means of saying the Constitution itself, on anoccasion worthy of bringing it forth. 

As the disputants whose accurate and logical reasonings have brought usinto our present condition think it absurd that powers or members of anyconstitution should exist, rarely, if ever, to be exercised, I hope Ishall be excused in mentioning another instance that is material. Weknow that the Convocation of the Clergy had formerly been called, andsat with nearly as much regularity to business as Parliament itself. Itis now called for form only. It sits for the purpose of making somepolite ecclesiastical compliments to the king, and, when that grace issaid, retires and is heard of no more. It is, however, _a part of theConstitution_, and may be called out into act and energy, whenever thereis occasion, and whenever those who conjure up that spirit will chooseto abide the consequences. It is wise to permit its legal existence: itis much wiser to continue it a legal existence only. So truly hasprudence (constituted as the god of this lower world) the entiredominion over every exercise of power committed into its hands! And yetI have lived to see prudence and conformity to circumstances wholly setat nought in our late controversies, and treated as if they were themost contemptible and irrational of all things. I have heard it anhundred times very gravely alleged, that, in order to keep power inwind, it was necessary, by preference, to exert it in those very pointsin which it was most likely to be resisted and the least likely to beproductive of any advantage. 

These were the considerations, Gentlemen, which led me early to think, that, in the comprehensive dominion which the Divine Providence had putinto our hands, instead of troubling our understandings withspeculations concerning the unity of empire and the identity ordistinction of legislative powers, and inflaming our passions with theheat and pride of controversy, it was our duty, in all soberness, toconform our government to the character and circumstances of the severalpeople who composed this mighty and strangely diversified mass. I neverwas wild enough to conceive that one method would serve for the whole, that the natives of Hindostan and those of Virginia could be ordered inthe same manner, or that the Cutchery court and the grand jury of Salemcould be regulated on a similar plan. I was persuaded that governmentwas a practical thing, made for the happiness of mankind, and not tofurnish out a spectacle of uniformity to gratify the schemes ofvisionary politicians. Our business was to rule, not to wrangle; and itwould have been a poor compensation that we had triumphed in a dispute, whilst we lost an empire. 

If there be one fact in the world perfectly clear, it is this, --"thatthe disposition of the people of America is wholly averse to any otherthan a free government"; and this is indication enough to any honeststatesman how he ought to adapt whatever power he finds in his hands totheir case. If any ask me what a free government is, I answer, that, forany practical purpose, it is what the people think so, --and that they, and not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of this matter. If they practically allow me a greater degree of authority over themthan is consistent with any correct ideas of perfect freedom, I ought tothank them for so great a trust, and not to endeavor to prove fromthence that they have reasoned amiss, and that, having gone so far, byanalogy they must hereafter have no enjoyment but by my pleasure. 

If we had seen this done by any others, we should have concluded themfar gone in madness. It is melancholy, as well as ridiculous, to observethe kind of reasoning with which the public has been amused, in order todivert our minds from the common sense of our American policy. There arepeople who have split and anatomized the doctrine of free government, asif it were an abstract question concerning metaphysical liberty andnecessity, and not a matter of moral prudence and natural feeling. Theyhave disputed whether liberty be a positive or a negative idea; whetherit does not consist in being governed by laws, without considering whatare the laws, or who are the makers; whether man has any rights byNature; and whether all the property he enjoys be not the alms of hisgovernment, and his life itself their favor and indulgence. Others, corrupting religion as these have perverted philosophy, contend thatChristians are redeemed into captivity, and the blood of the Saviour ofmankind has been shed to make them the slaves of a few proud andinsolent sinners. These shocking extremes provoking to extremes ofanother kind, speculations are let loose as destructive to all authorityas the former are to all freedom; and every government is called tyrannyand usurpation which is not formed on their fancies. In this manner thestirrers-up of this contention, not satisfied with distracting ourdependencies and filling them with blood and slaughter, are corruptingour understandings: they are endeavoring to tear up, along withpractical liberty, all the foundations of human society, all equity andjustice, religion and order. 

Civil freedom, Gentlemen, is not, as many have endeavored to persuadeyou, a thing that lies hid in the depth of abstruse science. It is ablessing and a benefit, not an abstract speculation; and all the justreasoning that can be upon it is of so coarse a texture as perfectly tosuit the ordinary capacities of those who are to enjoy, and of those whoare to defend it. Far from any resemblance to those propositions ingeometry and metaphysics which admit no medium, but must be true orfalse in all their latitude, social and civil freedom, like all otherthings in common life, are variously mixed and modified, enjoyed in verydifferent degrees, and shaped into an infinite diversity of forms, according to the temper and circumstances of every community. The_extreme_ of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its realfault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere; because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties orsatisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment. Liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed. The degree ofrestraint it is impossible in any case to settle precisely. But it oughtto be the constant aim of every wise public counsel to find out bycautious experiments, and rational, cool endeavors, with how little, nothow much, of this restraint the community can subsist: for liberty is agood to be improved, and not an evil to be lessened. It is not only aprivate blessing of the first order, but the vital spring and energy ofthe state itself, which has just so much life and vigor as there isliberty in it. But whether liberty be advantageous or not, (for I knowit is a fashion to decry the very principle, ) none will dispute thatpeace is a blessing; and peace must, in the course of human affairs, befrequently bought by some indulgence and toleration at least to liberty:for, as the Sabbath (though of divine institution) was made for man, notman for the Sabbath, government, which can claim no higher origin orauthority, in its exercise at least, ought to conform to the exigenciesof the time, and the temper and character of the people with whom it isconcerned, and not always to attempt violently to bend the people totheir theories of subjection. The bulk of mankind, on their part, arenot excessively curious concerning any theories whilst they are reallyhappy; and one sure symptom of an ill-conducted state is the propensityof the people to resort to them. 

But when subjects, by a long course of such ill conduct, are oncethoroughly inflamed, and the state itself violently distempered, thepeople must have some satisfaction to their feelings more solid than asophistical speculation on law and government. Such was our situation:and such a satisfaction was necessary to prevent recourse to arms; itwas necessary towards laying them down; it will be necessary to preventthe taking them up again and again. Of what nature this satisfactionought to be I wish it had been the disposition of Parliament seriouslyto consider. It was certainly a deliberation that called for theexertion of all their wisdom. 

I am, and ever have been, deeply sensible of the difficulty ofreconciling the strong presiding power, that is so useful towards theconservation of a vast, disconnected, infinitely diversified empire, with that liberty and safety of the provinces which they must enjoy, (in opinion and practice at least, ) or they will not be provinces atall. I know, and have long felt, the difficulty of reconciling theunwieldy haughtiness of a great ruling nation, habituated to command, pampered by enormous wealth, and confident from a long course ofprosperity and victory, to the high spirit of free dependencies, animated with the first glow and activity of juvenile heat, and assumingto themselves, as their birthright, some part of that very pride whichoppresses them. They who perceive no difficulty in reconciling thesetempers (which, however, to make peace, must some way or other bereconciled) are much above my capacity, or much below the magnitude ofthe business. Of one thing I am perfectly clear: that it is not bydeciding the suit, but by compromising the difference, that peace can berestored or kept. They who would put an end to such quarrels bydeclaring roundly in favor of the whole demands of either party havemistaken, in my humble opinion, the office of a mediator. 

The war is now of full two years' standing: the controversy of manymore. In different periods of the dispute, different methods ofreconciliation were to be pursued. I mean to trouble you with a shortstate of things at the most important of these periods, in order to giveyou a more distinct idea of our policy with regard to this most delicateof all objects. The colonies were from the beginning subject to thelegislature of Great Britain on principles which they never examined;and we permitted to them many local privileges, without asking how theyagreed with that legislative authority. Modes of administration wereformed in an insensible and very unsystematic manner. But they graduallyadapted themselves to the varying condition of things. What was first asingle kingdom stretched into an empire; and an imperialsuperintendence, of some kind or other, became necessary. Parliament, from a mere representative of the people, and a guardian of popularprivileges for its own immediate constituents, grew into a mightysovereign. Instead of being a control on the crown on its own behalf, itcommunicated a sort of strength to the royal authority, which was wantedfor the conservation of a new object, but which could not be safelytrusted to the crown alone. On the other hand, the colonies, advancingby equal steps, and governed by the same necessity, had formed withinthemselves, either by royal instruction or royal charter, assemblies soexceedingly resembling a parliament, in all their forms, functions, andpowers, that it was impossible they should not imbibe some opinion of asimilar authority. 

At the first designation of these assemblies, they were probably notintended for anything more (nor perhaps did they think themselves muchhigher) than the municipal corporations within this island, to whichsome at present love to compare them. But nothing in progression canrest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown manin the cradle of an infant. Therefore, as the colonies prospered andincreased to a numerous and mighty people, spreading over a very greattract of the globe, it was natural that they should attribute toassemblies so respectable in their formal constitution some part of thedignity of the great nations which they represented. No longer tied toby-laws, these assemblies made acts of all sorts and in all caseswhatsoever. They levied money, not for parochial purposes, but uponregular grants to the crown, following all the rules and principles of aparliament, to which they approached every day more and more nearly. Those who think themselves wiser than Providence and stronger than thecourse of Nature may complain of all this variation, on the one side orthe other, as their several humors and prejudices may lead them. Butthings could not be otherwise; and English colonies must be had on theseterms, or not had at all. In the mean time neither party felt anyinconvenience from this double legislature, to which they had beenformed by imperceptible habits, and old custom, the great support of allthe governments in the world. Though these two legislatures weresometimes found perhaps performing the very same functions, they did notvery grossly or systematically clash. In all likelihood this arose frommere neglect, possibly from the natural operation of things, which, leftto themselves, generally fall into their proper order. But whatever wasthe cause, it is certain that a regular revenue, by the authority ofParliament, for the support of civil and military establishments, seemsnot to have been thought of until the colonies were too proud to submit, too strong to be forced, too enlightened not to see all the consequenceswhich must arise from such a system. 

If ever this scheme of taxation was to be pushed against theinclinations of the people, it was evident that discussions must arise, which would let loose all the elements that composed this doubleconstitution, would show how much each of their members had departedfrom its original principles, and would discover contradictions in eachlegislature, as well to its own first principles as to its relation tothe other, very difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to bereconciled. 

Therefore, at the first fatal opening of this contest, the wisest courseseemed to be to put an end as soon as possible to the immediate causesof the dispute, and to quiet a discussion, not easily settled upon clearprinciples, and arising from claims which pride would permit neitherparty to abandon, by resorting as nearly as possible to the old, successful course. A mere repeal of the obnoxious tax, with adeclaration of the legislative authority of this kingdom, was then fullysufficient to procure peace to _both sides_. Man is a creature of habit, and, the first breach being of very short continuance, the colonies fellback exactly into their ancient state. The Congress has used anexpression with regard to this pacification which appears to me trulysignificant. After the repeal of the Stamp Act, "the colonies fell, "says this assembly, "into their ancient state of _unsuspectingconfidence in the mother country_. " This unsuspecting confidence is thetrue centre of gravity amongst mankind, about which all the parts are atrest. It is this _unsuspecting confidence_ that removes alldifficulties, and reconciles all the contradictions which occur in thecomplexity of all ancient puzzled political establishments. Happy arethe rulers which have the secret of preserving it!

The whole empire has reason to remember with eternal gratitude thewisdom and temper of that man and his excellent associates, who, torecover this confidence, formed a plan of pacification in 1766. Thatplan, being built upon the nature of man, and the circumstances andhabits of the two countries, and not on any visionary speculations, perfectly answered its end, as long as it was thought proper to adhereto it. Without giving a rude shock to the dignity (well or illunderstood) of this Parliament, they gave perfect content to ourdependencies. Had it not been for the mediatorial spirit and talents ofthat great man between such clashing pretensions and passions, we shouldthen have rushed headlong (I know what I say) into the calamities ofthat civil war in which, by departing from his system, we are at lengthinvolved; and we should have been precipitated into that war at a timewhen circumstances both at home and abroad were far, very far, moreunfavorable unto us than they were at the breaking out of the presenttroubles. 

I had the happiness of giving my first votes in Parliament for thatpacification. I was one of those almost unanimous members who, in thenecessary concessions of Parliament, would as much as possible havepreserved its authority and respected its honor. I could not at oncetear from my heart prejudices which were dear to me, and which bore aresemblance to virtue. I had then, and I have still, my partialities. What Parliament gave up I wished to be given as of grace and favor andaffection, and not as a restitution of stolen goods. High dignityrelented as it was soothed; and a benignity from old acknowledgedgreatness had its full effect on our dependencies. Our unlimiteddeclaration of legislative authority produced not a single murmur. Ifthis undefined power has become odious since that time, and full ofhorror to the colonies, it is because the _unsuspicious confidence_ islost, and the parental affection, in the bosom of whose boundlessauthority they reposed their privileges, is become estranged andhostile. 

It will be asked, if such was then my opinion of the mode ofpacification, how I came to be the very person who moved, not only for arepeal of all the late coercive statutes, but for mutilating, by apositive law, the entireness of the legislative power of Parliament, andcutting off from it the whole right of taxation. I answer, Because adifferent state of things requires a different conduct. When the disputehad gone to these last extremities, (which no man labored more toprevent than I did, ) the concessions which had satisfied in thebeginning could satisfy no longer; because the violation of tacit faithrequired explicit security. The same cause which has introduced allformal compacts and covenants among men made it necessary: I mean, habits of soreness, jealousy, and distrust. I parted with it as with alimb, but as a limb to save the body: and I would have parted with more, if more had been necessary; anything rather than a fruitless, hopeless, unnatural civil war. This mode of yielding would, it is said, give wayto independency without a war. I am persuaded, from the nature ofthings, and from every information, that it would have had a directlycontrary effect. But if it had this effect, I confess that I shouldprefer independency without war to independency with it; and I have somuch trust in the inclinations and prejudices of mankind, and so littlein anything else, that I should expect ten times more benefit to thiskingdom from the affection of America, though under a separateestablishment, than from her perfect submission to the crown andParliament, accompanied with her terror, disgust, and abhorrence. Bodiestied together by so unnatural a bond of union as mutual hatred are onlyconnected to their ruin. 

One hundred and ten respectable members of Parliament voted for thatconcession. Many not present when the motion was made were of thesentiments of those who voted. I knew it would then have made peace. Iam not without hopes that it would do so at present, if it were adopted. No benefit, no revenue, could be lost by it; something might possibly begained by its consequences. For be fully assured, that, of all thephantoms that ever deluded the fond hopes of a credulous world, aParliamentary revenue in the colonies is the most perfectly chimerical. Your breaking them to any subjection, far from relieving your burdens, (the pretext for this war, ) will never pay that military force whichwill be kept up to the destruction of their liberties and yours. I risknothing in this prophecy. 

 * * * * *

Gentlemen, you have my opinions on the present state of public affairs. Mean as they may be in themselves, your partiality has made them of someimportance. Without troubling myself to inquire whether I am under aformal obligation to it, I have a pleasure in accounting for my conductto my constituents. I feel warmly on this subject, and I express myselfas I feel. If I presume to blame any public proceeding, I cannot besupposed to be personal. Would to God I could be suspected of it! Myfault might be greater, but the public calamity would be less extensive. If my conduct has not been able to make any impression on the warm partof that ancient and powerful party with whose support I was not honoredat my election, on my side, my respect, regard, and duty to them is notat all lessened. I owe the gentlemen who compose it my most humbleservice in everything. I hope that whenever any of them were pleased tocommand me, that they found me perfectly equal in my obedience. Butflattery and friendship are very different things; and to mislead is notto serve them. I cannot purchase the favor of any man by concealing fromhim what I think his ruin. 

By the favor of my fellow-citizens, I am the representative of anhonest, well-ordered, virtuous city, --of a people who preserve more ofthe original English simplicity and purity of manners than perhaps anyother. You possess among you several men and magistrates of large andcultivated understandings, fit for any employment in any sphere. I do, to the best of my power, act so as to make myself worthy of so honorablea choice. If I were ready, on any call of my own vanity or interest, orto answer any election purpose, to forsake principles (whatever theyare) which I had formed at a mature age, on full reflection, and whichhad been confirmed by long experience, I should forfeit the only thingwhich makes you pardon so many errors and imperfections in me. 

Not that I think it fit for any one to rely too much on his ownunderstanding, or to be filled with a presumption not becoming aChristian man in his own personal stability and rectitude. I hope I amfar from that vain confidence which almost always fails in trial. I knowmy weakness in all respects, as much at least as any enemy I have; and Iattempt to take security against it. The only method which has ever beenfound effectual to preserve any man against the corruption of nature andexample is an habit of life and communication of councils with the mostvirtuous and public-spirited men of the age you live in. Such a societycannot be kept without advantage, or deserted without shame. For thisrule of conduct I may be called in reproach a _party man_; but I amlittle affected with such aspersions. In the way which they call party Iworship the Constitution of your fathers; and I shall never blush for mypolitical company. All reverence to honor, all idea of what it is, willbe lost out of the world, before it can be imputed as a fault to anyman, that he has been closely connected with those incomparable persons, living and dead, with whom for eleven years I have constantly thoughtand acted. If I have wandered out of the paths of rectitude into thoseof interested faction, it was in company with the Saviles, theDowdeswells, the Wentworths, the Bentincks; with the Lenoxes, theManchesters, the Keppels, the Saunderses; with the temperate, permanent, hereditary virtue of the whole house of Cavendish: names, among which, some have extended your fame and empire in arms, and all have fought thebattle of your liberties in fields not less glorious. These, and manymore like these, grafting public principles on private honor, haveredeemed the present age, and would have adorned the most splendidperiod in your history. Where could any man, conscious of his owninability to act alone, and willing to act as he ought to do, havearranged himself better? If any one thinks this kind of society to betaken up as the best method of gratifying low personal pride orambitious interest, he is mistaken, and knows nothing of the world. 

Preferring this connection, I do not mean to detract in the slightestdegree from others. There are some of those whom I admire at somethingof a greater distance, with whom I have had the happiness alsoperfectly to agree, in almost all the particulars in which I havediffered with some successive administrations; and they are such as itnever can be reputable to any government to reckon among its enemies. 

I hope there are none of you corrupted with the doctrine taught bywicked men for the worst purposes, and received by the malignantcredulity of envy and ignorance, which is, that the men who act upon thepublic stage are all alike, all equally corrupt, all influenced by noother views than the sordid lure of salary and pension. The thing I knowby experience to be false. Never expecting to find perfection in men, and not looking for divine attributes in created beings, in my commercewith my contemporaries I have found much human virtue. I have seen not alittle public spirit, a real subordination of interest to duty, and adecent and regulated sensibility to honest fame and reputation. The ageunquestionably produces (whether in a greater or less number than formertimes I know not) daring profligates and insidious hypocrites. Whatthen? Am I not to avail myself of whatever good is to be found in theworld, because of the mixture of evil that will always be in it? Thesmallness of the quantity in currency only heightens the value. They whoraise suspicions on the good on account of the behavior of ill men areof the party of the latter. The common cant is no justification fortaking this party. I have been deceived, say they, by _Titius_ and_Mævius_; I have been the dupe of this pretender or of that mountebank;and I can trust appearances no longer. But my credulity and want ofdiscernment cannot, as I conceive, amount to a fair presumption againstany man's integrity. A conscientious person would rather doubt his ownjudgment than condemn his species. He would say, "I have observedwithout attention, or judged upon erroneous maxims; I trusted toprofession, when I ought to have attended to conduct. " Such a man willgrow wise, not malignant, by his acquaintance with the world. But hethat accuses all mankind of corruption ought to remember that he is sureto convict only one. In truth, I should much rather admit those whom atany time I have disrelished the most to be patterns of perfection thanseek a consolation to my own unworthiness in a general communion ofdepravity with all about me. 

That this ill-natured doctrine should be preached by the missionaries ofa court I do not wonder. It answers their purpose. But that it should beheard among those who pretend to be strong assertors of liberty is notonly surprising, but hardly natural. This moral levelling is a _servileprinciple_. It leads to practical passive obedience far better than allthe doctrines which the pliant accommodation of theology to power hasever produced. It cuts up by the roots, not only all idea of forcibleresistance, but even of civil opposition. It disposes men to an abjectsubmission, not by opinion, which may be shaken by argument or alteredby passion, but by the strong ties of public and private interest. For, if all men who act in a public situation are equally selfish, corrupt, and venal, what reason can be given for desiring any sort of change, which, besides the evils which must attend all changes, can beproductive of no possible advantage? The active men in the state aretrue samples of the mass. If they are universally depraved, thecommonwealth itself is not sound. We may amuse ourselves with talking asmuch as we please of the virtue of middle or humble life; that is, wemay place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never beentried. But if the persons who are continually emerging out of thatsphere be no better than those whom birth has placed above it, whathopes are there in the remainder of the body which is to furnish theperpetual succession of the state? All who have ever written ongovernment are unanimous, that among a people generally corrupt libertycannot long exist. And, indeed, how is it possible, when those who areto make the laws, to guard, to enforce, or to obey them, are, by a tacitconfederacy of manners, indisposed to the spirit of all generous andnoble institutions?

I am aware that the age is not what we all wish. But I am sure that theonly means of checking its precipitate degeneracy is heartily to concurwith whatever is the best in our time, and to have some more correctstandard of judging what that best is than the transient and uncertainfavor of a court. If once we are able to find, and can prevail onourselves to strengthen an union of such men, whatever accidentallybecomes indisposed to ill-exercised power, even by the ordinaryoperation of human passions, must join with that society, and cannotlong be joined without in some degree assimilating to it. Virtue willcatch as well as vice by contact; and the public stock of honest, manlyprinciple will daily accumulate. We are not too nicely to scrutinizemotives as long as action is irreproachable. It is enough (and for aworthy man perhaps too much) to deal out its infamy to convicted guiltand declared apostasy. 

This, Gentlemen, has been from the beginning the rule of my conduct; andI mean to continue it, as long as such a body as I have described canby any possibility be kept together; for I should think it the mostdreadful of all offences, not only towards the present generation, butto all the future, if I were to do anything which could make theminutest breach in this great conservatory of free principles. Those whoperhaps have the same intentions, but are separated by some littlepolitical animosities, will, I hope, discern at last how littleconducive it is to any rational purpose to lower its reputation. For mypart, Gentlemen, from much experience, from no little thinking, and fromcomparing a great variety of things, I am thoroughly persuaded that thelast hopes of preserving the spirit of the English Constitution, or ofreuniting the dissipated members of the English race upon a common planof tranquillity and liberty, does entirely depend on their firm andlasting union, and above all on their keeping themselves from thatdespair which is so very apt to fall on those whom a violence ofcharacter and a mixture of ambitious views do not support through along, painful, and unsuccessful struggle. 

There never, Gentlemen, was a period in which the steadfastness of somemen has been put to so sore a trial. It is not very difficult forwell-formed minds to abandon their interest; but the separation of fameand virtue is an harsh divorce. Liberty is in danger of being madeunpopular to Englishmen. Contending for an imaginary power, we begin toacquire the spirit of domination, and to lose the relish of honestequality. The principles of our forefathers become suspected to us, because we see them animating the present opposition of our children. The faults which grow out of the luxuriance of freedom appear much moreshocking to us than the base vices which are generated from the ranknessof servitude. Accordingly, the least resistance to power appears moreinexcusable in our eyes than the greatest abuses of authority. All dreadof a standing military force is looked upon as a superstitious panic. All shame of calling in foreigners and savages in a civil contest isworn off. We grow indifferent to the consequences inevitable toourselves from the plan of ruling half the empire by a mercenary sword. We are taught to believe that a desire of domineering over ourcountrymen is love to our country, that those who hate civil war abetrebellion, and that the amiable and conciliatory virtues of lenity, moderation, and tenderness to the privileges of those who depend on thiskingdom are a sort of treason to the state. 

It is impossible that we should remain long in a situation which breedssuch notions and dispositions without some great alteration in thenational character. Those ingenuous and feeling minds who are sofortified against all other things, and so unarmed to whateverapproaches in the shape of disgrace, finding these principles, whichthey considered as sure means of honor, to be grown into disrepute, willretire disheartened and disgusted. Those of a more robust make, thebold, able, ambitious men, who pay some of their court to power throughthe people, and substitute the voice of transient opinion in the placeof true glory, will give into the general mode; and those superiorunderstandings which ought to correct vulgar prejudice will confirm andaggravate its errors. Many things have been long operating towards agradual change in our principles; but this American war has done more ina very few years than all the other causes could have effected in acentury. It is therefore not on its own separate account, but because ofits attendant circumstances, that I consider its continuance, or itsending in any way but that of an honorable and liberal accommodation, asthe greatest evils which can befall us. For that reason I have troubledyou with this long letter. For that reason I entreat you, again andagain, neither to be persuaded, shamed, or frighted out of theprinciples that have hitherto led so many of you to abhor the war, itscause, and its consequences. Let us not be amongst the first whorenounce the maxims of our forefathers. 

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, Your most obedient and faithful humble servant, EDMUND BURKE. 

BEACONSFIELD, April 3, 1777. 

P. S. You may communicate this letter in any manner you think proper tomy constituents. 

TWO LETTERS

TO

GENTLEMEN IN THE CITY OF BRISTOL. 

ON THE

BILLS DEPENDING IN PARLIAMENT RELATIVE TO THE TRADE OF IRELAND. 

1778. 

LETTERS. 

TO SAMUEL SPAN, ESQ. , MASTER OF THE SOCIETY OF MERCHANTS ADVENTURERS OFBRISTOL. 

Sir, --I am honored with your letter of the 13th, in answer to mine, which accompanied the resolutions of the House relative to the trade ofIreland. 

You will be so good as to present my best respects to the Society, andto assure them that it was altogether unnecessary to remind me of theinterest of the constituents. I have never regarded anything else sinceI had a seat in Parliament. Having frequently and maturely consideredthat interest, and stated it to myself in almost every point of view, Iam persuaded, that, under the present circumstances, I cannot moreeffectually pursue it than by giving all the support in my power to thepropositions which I lately transmitted to the Hall. 

The fault I find in the scheme is, that it falls extremely short of thatliberality in the commercial system which I trust will one day beadopted. If I had not considered the present resolutions merely aspreparatory to better things, and as a means of showing, experimentally, that justice to others is not always folly to ourselves, I should havecontented myself with receiving them in a cold and silent acquiescence. Separately considered, they are matters of no very great importance. Butthey aim, however imperfectly, at a right principle. I submit to therestraint to appease prejudice; I accept the enlargement, so far as itgoes, as the result of reason and of sound policy. 

We cannot be insensible of the calamities which have been brought uponthis nation by an obstinate adherence to narrow and restrictive plans ofgovernment. I confess, I cannot prevail on myself to take them upprecisely at a time when the most decisive experience has taught therest of the world to lay them down. The propositions in question did notoriginate from me, or from my particular friends. But when things are soright in themselves, I hold it my duty not to inquire from what handsthey come. I opposed the American measures upon the very same principleon which I support those that relate to Ireland. I was convinced thatthe evils which have arisen from the adoption of the former would beinfinitely aggravated by the rejection of the latter. 

Perhaps gentlemen are not yet fully aware of the situation of theircountry, and what its exigencies absolutely require. I find that we arestill disposed to talk at our ease, and as if all things were to beregulated by our good pleasure. I should consider it as a fatal symptom, if, in our present distressed and adverse circumstances, we shouldpersist in the errors which are natural only to prosperity. One cannot, indeed, sufficiently lament the continuance of that spirit of delusion, by which, for a long time past, we have thought fit to measure ournecessities by our inclinations. Moderation, prudence, and equity arefar more suitable to our condition than loftiness, and confidence, andrigor. We are threatened by enemies of no small magnitude, whom, if wethink fit, we may despise, as we have despised others; but they areenemies who can only cease to be truly formidable by our entertaining adue respect for their power. Our danger will not be lessened by ourshutting our eyes to it; nor will our force abroad be increased byrendering ourselves feeble and divided at home. 

There is a dreadful schism in the British nation. Since we are not ableto reunite the empire, it is our business to give all possible vigor andsoundness to those parts of it which are still content to be governed byour councils. Sir, it is proper to inform you that our measures _must behealing_. Such a degree of strength must be communicated to all themembers of the state as may enable them to defend themselves, and tocoöperate in the defence of the whole. Their temper, too, must bemanaged, and their good affections cultivated. They may then be disposedto bear the load with cheerfulness, as a contribution towards what maybe called with truth and propriety, and not by an empty form of words, _a common cause_. Too little dependence cannot be had, at this time ofday, on names and prejudices. The eyes of mankind are opened, andcommunities must be held together by an evident and solid interest. Godforbid that our conduct should demonstrate to the world that GreatBritain can in no instance whatsoever be brought to a sense of rationaland equitable policy but by coercion and force of arms!

I wish you to recollect with what powers of concession, relatively tocommerce, as well as to legislation, his Majesty's commissioners to theUnited Colonies have sailed from England within this week. Whether thesepowers are sufficient for their purposes it is not now my business toexamine. But we all know that our resolutions in favor of Ireland aretrifling and insignificant, when compared with the concessions to theAmericans. At such a juncture, I would implore every man, who retainsthe least spark of regard to the yet remaining honor and security ofthis country, not to compel others to an imitation of their conduct, orby passion and violence to force them to seek in the territories of theseparation that freedom and those advantages which they are not to lookfor whilst they remain under the wings of their ancient government. 

After all, what are the matters we dispute with so much warmth? Do we inthese resolutions _bestow_ anything upon Ireland? Not a shilling. Weonly consent to _leave_ to them, in two or three instances, the use ofthe natural faculties which God has given to them, and to all mankind. Is Ireland united to the crown of Great Britain for no other purposethan that we should counteract the bounty of Providence in her favor?and in proportion as that bounty has been liberal, that we are to regardit as an evil, which is to be met with in every sort of corrective? Tosay that Ireland interferes with us, and therefore must be checked, is, in my opinion, a very mistaken, and a very dangerous principle. I mustbeg leave to repeat, what I took the liberty of suggesting to you in mylast letter, that Ireland is a country in the same climate and of thesame natural qualities and productions with this, and has consequentlyno other means of growing wealthy in herself, or, in other words, ofbeing useful to us, but by doing the very same things which we do forthe same purposes. I hope that in Great Britain we shall always pursue, without exception, _every_ means of prosperity, and, of course, thatIreland _will_ interfere with us in something or other: for either, inorder to _limit_ her, we _must restrain_ ourselves, or we must fall intothat shocking conclusion, that we are to keep our yet remainingdependency under a general and indiscriminate restraint for the merepurpose of oppression. Indeed, Sir, England and Ireland may flourishtogether. The world is large enough for us both. Let it be our care notto make ourselves too little for it. 

I know it is said, that the people of Ireland do not pay the same taxes, and therefore ought not in equity to enjoy the same benefits with this. I had hopes that the unhappy phantom of a compulsory _equal taxation_had haunted us long enough. I do assure you, that, until it is entirelybanished from our imaginations, (where alone it has, or can have, anyexistence, ) we shall never cease to do ourselves the most substantialinjuries. To that argument of equal taxation I can only say, thatIreland pays as many taxes as those who are the best judges of herpowers are of opinion she can bear. To bear more, she must have moreability; and, in the order of Nature, the advantage must _precede_ thecharge. This disposition of things being the law of God, neither you norI _can_ alter it. So that, if you will have more help from Ireland, youmust _previously_ supply her with more means. I believe it will befound, that, if men are suffered freely to cultivate their naturaladvantages, a virtual equality of contribution will come in its owntime, and will flow by an easy descent through its own proper andnatural channels. An attempt to disturb that course, and to forceNature, will only bring on universal discontent, distress, andconfusion. 

You tell me, Sir, that you prefer an union with Ireland to the littleregulations which are proposed in Parliament. This union is a greatquestion of state, to which, when it comes properly before me in myParliamentary capacity, I shall give an honest and unprejudicedconsideration. However, it is a settled rule with me, to make the mostof my _actual situation_, and not to refuse to do a proper thing becausethere is something else more proper which I am not able to do. Thisunion is a business of difficulty, and, on the principles of yourletter, a business impracticable. Until it can be matured into afeasible and desirable scheme, I wish to have as close an union ofinterest and affection with Ireland as I can have; and that, I am sure, is a far better thing than any nominal union of government. 

France, and indeed most extensive empires, which by various designs andfortunes have grown into one great mass, contain many provinces that arevery different from each other in privileges and modes of government;and they raise their supplies in different ways, in differentproportions, and under different authorities: yet none of them are forthis reason curtailed of their natural rights; but they carry on tradeand manufactures with perfect equality. In some way or other the truebalance is found; and all of them are properly poised and harmonized. How much have you lost by the participation of Scotland in all yourcommerce? The external trade of England has more than doubled since thatperiod; and I believe your internal (which is the most advantageous) hasbeen augmented at least fourfold. Such virtue there is in liberality ofsentiment, that you have grown richer even by the partnership ofpoverty. 

If you think that this participation was a loss, commerciallyconsidered, but that it has been compensated by the share which Scotlandhas taken in defraying the public charge, I believe you have not verycarefully looked at the public accounts. Ireland, Sir, pays a great dealmore than Scotland, and is perhaps as much and as effectually united toEngland as Scotland is. But if Scotland, instead of paying little, hadpaid nothing at all, we should be gainers, not losers, by acquiring thehearty coöperation of an active, intelligent people towards the increaseof the common stock, instead of our being employed in watching andcounteracting them, and their being employed in watching andcounteracting us, with the peevish and churlish jealousy of rivals andenemies on both sides. 

I am sure, Sir, that the commercial experience of the merchants ofBristol will soon disabuse them of the prejudice, that they can trade nolonger, if countries more lightly taxed are permitted to deal in thesame commodities at the same markets. You know, that, in fact, you tradevery largely where you are met by the goods of all nations. You even payhigh duties on the import of your goods, and afterwards undersellnations less taxed, at their own markets, and where goods of the samekind are not charged at all. If it were otherwise, you could trade verylittle. You know that the price of all sorts of manufacture is not agreat deal enhanced (except to the domestic consumer) by any taxes paidin this country. This I might very easily prove. 

The same consideration will relieve you from the apprehension youexpress with relation to sugars, and the difference of the duties paidhere and in Ireland. Those duties affect the interior consumer only, and for obvious reasons, relative to the interest of revenue itself, they must be proportioned to his ability of payment; but in all cases inwhich sugar can be an _object of commerce_, and therefore (in this view)of rivalship, you are sensible that you are at least on a par withIreland. As to your apprehensions concerning the more advantageoussituation of Ireland for some branches of commerce, (for it is so butfor some, ) I trust you will not find them more serious. Milford Haven, which is at your door, may serve to show you that the mere advantage ofports, is not the thing which shifts the seat of commerce from one partof the world to the other. If I thought you inclined to take up thismatter on local considerations, I should state to you, that I do notknow any part of the kingdom so well situated for an advantageouscommerce with Ireland as Bristol, and that none would be so likely toprofit of its prosperity as our city. But your profit and theirs mustconcur. Beggary and bankruptcy are not the circumstances which invite toan intercourse with that or with any country; and I believe it will befound invariably true, that the superfluities of a rich nation furnish abetter object of trade than the necessities of a poor one. It is theinterest of the commercial world that wealth should be found everywhere. 

The true ground of fear, in my opinion, is this: that Ireland, from thevicious system of its internal polity, will be a long time before it canderive any benefit from the liberty now granted, or from any thing else. But, as I do not vote advantages in hopes that they may not be enjoyed, I will not lay any stress upon this consideration. I rather wish thatthe Parliament of Ireland may, in its own wisdom, remove theseimpediments, and put their country in a condition to avail itself of itsnatural advantages. If they do not, the fault is with them, and not withus. 

I have written this long letter in order to give all possiblesatisfaction to my constituents with regard to the part I have taken inthis affair. It gave me inexpressible concern to find that my conducthad been a cause of uneasiness to any of them. Next to my honor andconscience, I have nothing so near and dear to me as their approbation. However, I had much rather run the risk of displeasing than of injuringthem, --if I am driven to make such an option. You obligingly lament thatyou are not to have me for your advocate; but if I had been capable ofacting as an advocate in opposition to a plan so perfectly consonant tomy known principles, and to the opinions I had publicly declared on anhundred occasions, I should only disgrace myself, without supporting, with the smallest degree of credit or effect, the cause you wished me toundertake. I should have lost the only thing which can make suchabilities as mine of any use to the world now or hereafter: I mean thatauthority which is derived from an opinion that a member speaks thelanguage of truth and sincerity, and that he is not ready to take up orlay down a great political system for the convenience of the hour, thathe is in Parliament to support his opinion of the public good, and doesnot form his opinion in order to get into Parliament, or to continue init. It is in a great measure for your sake that I wish to preserve thischaracter. Without it, I am sure, I should be ill able to discharge, byany service, the smallest part of that debt of gratitude and affectionwhich I owe you for the great and honorable trust you have reposed inme. 

I am, with the highest regard and esteem, Sir, Your most obedient and humble servant, E. B. 

BEACONSFIELD, 23rd April, 1778. 

 * * * * *

COPY OF A LETTER TO MESSRS. ******* ****** AND CO. , BRISTOL. 

Gentlemen, --

It gives me the most sensible concern to find that my vote on theresolutions relative to the trade of Ireland has not been fortunateenough to meet with your approbation. I have explained at large thegrounds of my conduct on that occasion in my letters to the Merchants'Hall; but my very sincere regard and esteem for you will not permit meto let the matter pass without an explanation which is particular toyourselves, and which I hope will prove satisfactory to you. 

You tell me that the conduct of your late member is not much wonderedat; but you seem to be at a loss to account for mine; and you lamentthat I have taken so decided a part _against_ my constituents. 

This is rather an heavy imputation. Does it, then, really appear to youthat the propositions to which you refer are, on the face of them, somanifestly wrong, and so certainly injurious to the trade andmanufactures of Great Britain, and particularly to yours, that no mancould think of proposing or supporting them, except from resentment toyou, or from some other oblique motive? If you suppose your latemember, or if you suppose me, to act upon other reasons than we chooseto avow, to what do you attribute the conduct of the _other_ members, who in the beginning almost unanimously adopted those resolutions? Towhat do you attribute the strong part taken by the ministers, and, alongwith the ministers, by several of their most declared opponents? Thisdoes not indicate a ministerial job, a party design, or a provincial orlocal purpose. It is, therefore, not so absolutely clear that themeasure is wrong, or likely to be injurious to the true interests of anyplace or any person. 

The reason, Gentlemen, for taking this step, at this time, is but tooobvious and too urgent. I cannot imagine that you forget the great warwhich has been carried on with so little success (and, as I thought, with so little policy) in America, or that you are not aware of theother great wars which are impending. Ireland has been called upon torepel the attacks of enemies of no small power, brought upon her bycouncils in which she has had no share. The very purpose and declaredobject of that original war, which has brought other wars and otherenemies on Ireland, was not very flattering to her dignity, herinterest, or to the very principle of her liberty. Yet she submittedpatiently to the evils she suffered from an attempt to subdue to _your_obedience countries whose very commerce was not open to her. America wasto be conquered in order that Ireland should _not_ trade thither; whilstthe miserable trade which she is permitted to carry on to other placeshas been torn to pieces in the struggle. In this situation, are weneither to suffer her to have any real interest in our quarrel, or tobe flattered with the hope of any future means of bearing the burdenswhich she is to incur in defending herself against enemies which we havebrought upon her?

I cannot set my face against such arguments. Is it quite fair to supposethat I have no other motive for yielding to them but a desire of acting_against_ my constituents? It is for _you_, and for _your_ interest, asa dear, cherished, and respected part of a valuable whole, that I havetaken my share in this question. You do not, you cannot, suffer by it. If honesty be true policy with regard to the transient interest ofindividuals, it is much more certainly so with regard to the permanentinterests of communities. I know that it is but too natural for us tosee our own _certain_ ruin in the _possible_ prosperity of other people. It is hard to persuade us that everything which is _got_ by another isnot _taken_ from ourselves. But it is fit that We should get the betterof these suggestions, which come from what is not the best and soundestpart of our nature, and that we should form to ourselves a way ofthinking, more rational, more just, and more religious. Trade is not alimited thing: as if the objects of mutual demand and consumption couldnot stretch beyond the bounds of our jealousies. God has given the earthto the children of men, and He has undoubtedly, in giving it to them, given them what is abundantly sufficient for all their exigencies: not ascanty, but a most liberal, provision for them all. The Author of ournature has written it strongly in that nature, and has promulgated thesame law in His written word, that man shall eat his bread by his labor;and I am persuaded that no man, and no combination of men, for their ownideas of their particular profit, can, without great impiety, undertaketo say that he _shall not_ do so, --that they have no sort of righteither to prevent the labor or to withhold the bread. Ireland havingreceived no _compensation_, directly or indirectly, for any restraintson their trade, ought not, in justice or common honesty, to be madesubject to such restraints. I do not mean to impeach the right of theParliament of Great Britain to make laws for the trade of Ireland: Ionly speak of what laws it is right for Parliament to make. 

It is nothing to an oppressed people, to say that in part they areprotected at our charge. The military force which shall be kept up inorder to cramp the natural faculties of a people, and to prevent theirarrival to their utmost prosperity, is the instrument of theirservitude, not the means of their protection. To protect men is toforward, and not to restrain, their improvement. Else, what is it morethan to avow to them, and to the world, that you guard them from othersonly to make them a prey to yourself? This fundamental nature ofprotection does not belong to free, but to all governments, and is asvalid in Turkey as in Great Britain. No government ought to own that itexists for the purpose of checking the prosperity of its people, or thatthere is such a principle involved in its policy. 

Under the impression of these sentiments, (and not as wanting everyattention to my constituents which affection and gratitude couldinspire, ) I voted for these bills which give you so much trouble. Ivoted for them, not as doing complete justice to Ireland, but as beingsomething less unjust than the general prohibition which has hithertoprevailed. I hear some discourse as if, in one or two paltry duties onmaterials, Ireland had a preference, and that those who set themselvesagainst this act of scanty justice assert that they are only contendingfor an _equality_. What equality? Do they forget that the whole woollenmanufacture of Ireland, the most extensive and profitable of any, andthe natural staple of that kingdom, has been in a manner so destroyed byrestrictive laws of ours, and (at our persuasion, and on our promises)by restrictive laws of _their own_, that in a few years, it is probable, they will not be able to wear a coat of their own fabric? Is thisequality? Do gentlemen forget that the understood faith upon which theywere persuaded to such an unnatural act has not been kept, --but alinen-manufacture has been set up, and highly encouraged, against them?Is this equality? Do they forget the state of the trade of Ireland inbeer, so great an article of consumption, and which now stands in somischievous a position with regard to their revenue, their manufacture, and their agriculture? Do they find any equality in all this? Yet, ifthe least step is taken towards doing them common justice in theslightest articles for the most limited markets, a cry is raised, as ifwe were going to be ruined by partiality to Ireland. 

Gentlemen, I know that the deficiency in these arguments is made up (notby you, but by others) by the usual resource on such occasions, theconfidence in military force and superior power. But that ground ofconfidence, which at no time was perfectly just, or the avowal of ittolerably decent, is at this time very unseasonable. Late experience hasshown that it cannot be altogether relied upon; and many, if not all, ofour present difficulties have arisen from putting our trust in what mayvery possibly fail, and, if it should fail, leaves those who are hurt bysuch a reliance without pity. Whereas honesty and justice, reason andequity, go a very great way in securing prosperity to those who usethem, and, in case of failure, secure the best retreat and the mosthonorable consolations. 

It is very unfortunate that we should consider those as rivals, whom weought to regard as fellow-laborers in a common cause. Ireland has nevermade a single step in its progress towards prosperity, by which you havenot had a share, and perhaps the greatest share, in the benefit. Thatprogress has been chiefly owing to her own natural advantages, and herown efforts, which, after a long time, and by slow degrees, haveprevailed in some measure over the mischievous systems which have beenadopted. Far enough she is still from having arrived even at an ordinarystate of perfection; and if our jealousies were to be converted intopolitics as systematically as some would have them, the trade of Irelandwould vanish out of the system of commerce. But, believe me, if Irelandis beneficial to you, it is so not from the parts in which it isrestrained, but from those in which it is left free, though not leftunrivalled. The greater its freedom, the greater must be your advantage. If you should lose in one way, you will gain in twenty. 

Whilst I remain under this unalterable and powerful conviction, you willnot wonder at the _decided_ part I take. It is my custom so to do, whenI see my way clearly before me, and when I know that I am not misled byany passion or any personal interest, which in this case I am very sureI am not. I find that disagreeable things are circulated among myconstituents; and I wish my sentiments, which form my justification, may be equally general with the circulation against me. I have the honorto be, with the greatest regard and esteem, Gentlemen, Your most obedient and humble servant, E. B. 

Westminster, May 2, 1778. 

I send the bills. 

SPEECH

ON PRESENTING TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

(ON THE 11TH FEBRUARY, 1780)

A PLAN

FOR

THE BETTER SECURITY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT, AND THEECONOMICAL REFORMATION OF THE CIVIL AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr. Speaker, --I rise, in acquittal of my engagement to the House, inobedience to the strong and just requisition of my constituents, and, Iam persuaded, in conformity to the unanimous wishes of the whole nation, to submit to the wisdom of Parliament "A Plan of Reform in theConstitution of Several Parts of the Public Economy. "

I have endeavored that this plan should include, in its execution, aconsiderable reduction of improper expense; that it should effect aconversion of unprofitable titles into a productive estate; that itshould lead to, and indeed almost compel, a provident administration ofsuch sums of public money as must remain under discretionary trusts;that it should render the incurring debts on the civil establishment(which must ultimately affect national strength and national credit) sovery difficult as to become next to impracticable. 

But what, I confess, was uppermost with me, what I bent the whole forceof my mind to, was the reduction of that corrupt influence which isitself the perennial spring of all prodigality and of alldisorder, --which loads us more than millions of debt, --which takes awayvigor from our arms, wisdom from our councils, and every shadow ofauthority and credit from the most venerable parts of our Constitution. 

Sir, I assure you very solemnly, and with a very clear conscience, thatnothing in the world has led me to such an undertaking but my zeal forthe honor of this House, and the settled, habitual, systematic affectionI bear to the cause and to the principles of government. 

I enter perfectly into the nature and consequences of my attempt, and Iadvance to it with a tremor that shakes me to the inmost fibre of myframe. I feel that I engage in a business, in itself most ungracious, totally wide of the course of prudent conduct, and, I really think, themost completely adverse that can be imagined to the natural turn andtemper of my own mind. I know that all parsimony is of a qualityapproaching to unkindness, and that (on some person or other) everyreform must operate as a sort of punishment. Indeed, the whole class ofthe severe and restrictive virtues are at a market almost too high forhumanity. What is worse, there are very few of those virtues which arenot capable of being imitated, and even outdone in many of their moststriking effects, by the worst of vices. Malignity and envy will carvemuch more deeply, and finish much more sharply, in the work ofretrenchment, than frugality and providence. I do not, therefore, wonderthat gentlemen have kept away from such a task, as well from good-natureas from prudence. Private feeling might, indeed, be overborne bylegislative reason; and a man of a long-sighted and a strong-nervedhumanity might bring himself not so much to consider from whom he takesa superfluous enjoyment as for whom in the end he may preserve theabsolute necessaries of life. 

But it is much more easy to reconcile this measure in humanity than tobring it to any agreement with prudence. I do not mean that little, selfish, pitiful, bastard thing which sometimes goes by the name of afamily in which it is not legitimate and to which it is a disgrace;--Imean even that public and enlarged prudence, which, apprehensive ofbeing disabled from rendering acceptable services to the world, withholds itself from those that are invidious. Gentlemen who are, withme, verging towards the decline of life, and are apt to form their ideasof kings from kings of former times, might dread the anger of a reigningprince;--they who are more provident of the future, or by being youngare more interested in it, might tremble at the resentment of thesuccessor; they might see a long, dull, dreary, unvaried visto ofdespair and exclusion, for half a century, before them. This is nopleasant prospect at the outset of a political journey. 

Besides this, Sir, the private enemies to be made in all attempts ofthis kind are innumerable; and their enmity will be the more bitter, andthe more dangerous too, because a sense of dignity will oblige them toconceal the cause of their resentment. Very few men of great familiesand extensive connections but will feel the smart of a cutting reform, in some close relation, some bosom friend, some pleasant acquaintance, some dear, protected dependant. Emolument is taken from some; patronagefrom others; objects of pursuit from all. Men forced into an involuntaryindependence will abhor the authors of a blessing which in their eyeshas so very near a resemblance to a curse. When officers are removed, and the offices remain, you may set the gratitude of some against theanger of others, you may oppose the friends you oblige against theenemies you provoke. But services of the present sort create noattachments. The individual good felt in a public benefit iscomparatively so small, comes round through such an involved labyrinthof intricate and tedious revolutions, whilst a present personaldetriment is so heavy, where it falls, and so instant in its operation, that the cold commendation of a public advantage never was and neverwill be a match for the quick sensibility of a private loss; and you maydepend upon it, Sir, that, when many people have an interest in railing, sooner or later, they will bring a considerable degree of unpopularityupon any measure. So that, for the present at least, the reformationwill operate against the reformers; and revenge (as against them at theleast) will produce all the effects of corruption. 

This, Sir, is almost always the case, where the plan has completesuccess. But how stands the matter in the mere attempt? Nothing, youknow, is more common than for men to wish, and call loudly too, for areformation, who, when it arrives, do by no means like the severity ofits aspect. Reformation is one of those pieces which must be put at somedistance in order to please. Its greatest favorers love it better in theabstract than in the substance. When any old prejudice of their own, orany interest that they value, is touched, they become scrupulous, theybecome captious; and every man has his separate exception. Some pluckout the black hairs, some the gray; one point must be given up to one, another point must be yielded to another; nothing is suffered to prevailupon its own principle; the whole is so frittered down and disjointed, that scarcely a trace of the original scheme remains. Thus, between theresistance of power, and the unsystematical process of popularity, theundertaker and the undertaking are both exposed, and the poor reformeris hissed off the stags both by friends and foes. 

Observe, Sir, that the apology for my undertaking (an apology which, though long, is no longer than necessary) is not grounded on my want ofthe fullest sense of the difficult and invidious nature of the task Iundertake. I risk odium, if I succeed, and contempt, if I fail. Myexcuse must rest in mine and your conviction of the absolute, urgent_necessity_ there is that something of the kind should be done. If thereis any sacrifice to be made, either of estimation or of fortune, thesmallest is the best. Commanders-in-chief are not to be put upon theforlorn hope. But, indeed, it is necessary that the attempt should bemade. It is necessary from our own political circumstances; it isnecessary from the operations of the enemy; it is necessary from thedemands of the people, whose desires, when they do not militate with thestable and eternal rules of justice and reason, (rules which are aboveus and above them, ) ought to be as a law to a House of Commons. 

As to our circumstances, I do not mean to aggravate the difficulties ofthem by the strength of any coloring whatsoever. On the contrary, Iobserve, and observe with pleasure, that our affairs rather wear a morepromising aspect than they did on the opening of this session. We havehad some leading successes. But those who rate them at the highest(higher a great deal, indeed, than I dare to do) are of opinion, that, upon the ground of such advantages, we cannot at this time hope to makeany treaty of peace which would not be ruinous and completelydisgraceful. In such an anxious state of things, if dawnings of successserve to animate our diligence, they are good; if they tend to increaseour presumption, they are worse than defeats. The state of our affairsshall, then, be as promising as any one may choose to conceive it: itis, however, but promising. We must recollect, that, with but half ofour natural strength, we are at war against confederated powers who havesingly threatened us with ruin; we must recollect, that, whilst we areleft naked on one side, our other flank is uncovered by any alliance;that, whilst we are weighing and balancing our successes against ourlosses, we are accumulating debt to the amount of at least fourteenmillions in the year. That loss is certain. 

I have no wish to deny that our successes are as brilliant as any onechooses to make them; our resources, too, may, for me, be asunfathomable as they are represented. Indeed, they are just whatever thepeople possess and will submit to pay. Taxing is an easy business. Anyprojector can contrive new impositions; any bungler can add to the old. But is it altogether wise to have no other bounds to your impositionsthan the patience of those who are to bear them?

All I claim upon the subject of your resources is this: that they arenot likely to be increased by wasting them. I think I shall be permittedto assume that a system of frugality will not lessen your riches, whatever they may be. I believe it will not be hotly disputed, thatthose resources which lie heavy on the subject ought not to be objectsof preference, --that they ought not to be the _very first choice_, to anhonest representative of the people. 

This is all, Sir, that I shall say upon our circumstances and ourresources: I mean to say a little more on the operations of the enemy, because this matter seems to me very natural in our presentdeliberation. When I look to the other side of the water, I cannot helprecollecting what Pyrrhus said, on reconnoitring the Roman camp:--"Thesebarbarians have nothing barbarous in their discipline. " When I look, asI have pretty carefully looked, into the proceedings of the French king, I am sorry to say it, I see nothing of the character and genius ofarbitrary finance, none of the bold frauds of bankrupt power, none ofthe wild struggles and plunges of despotism in distress, --no lopping offfrom the capital of debt, no suspension of interest, no robbery underthe name of loan, no raising the value, no debasing the substance of thecoin. I see neither Louis the Fourteenth nor Louis the Fifteenth. On thecontrary, I behold, with astonishment, rising before me, by the veryhands of arbitrary power, and in the very midst of war and confusion, aregular, methodical system of public credit; I behold a fabric laid onthe natural and solid foundations of trust and confidence among men, andrising, by fair gradations, order over order, according to the justrules of symmetry and art. What a reverse of things! Principle, method, regularity, economy, frugality, justice to individuals, and care of thepeople are the resources with which France makes war upon Great Britain. God avert the omen! But if we should see any genius in war and politicsarise in France to second what is done in the bureau!--I turn my eyesfrom the consequences. 

The noble lord in the blue ribbon, last year, treated all this withcontempt. He never could conceive it possible that the French ministerof finance could go through that year with a loan of but seventeenhundred thousand pounds, and that he should be able to fund that loanwithout any tax. The second year, however, opens the very same scene. Asmall loan, a loan of no more than two millions five hundred thousandpounds, is to carry our enemies through the service of this year also. No tax is raised to fund that debt; no tax is raised for the currentservices. I am credibly informed that there is no anticipationwhatsoever. Compensations[31] are correctly made. Old debts continue tobe sunk as in the time of profound peace. Even payments which theirtreasury had been authorized to suspend during the time of war are notsuspended. 

A general reform, executed through every _department of the revenue_, creates an annual income of more than half a million, whilst itfacilitates and simplifies all the functions of administration. Theking's _household_--at the remotest avenues to which all reformation hasbeen hitherto stopped, that household which has been the stronghold ofprodigality, the virgin fortress which was never before attacked--hasbeen not only not defended, but it has, even in the forms, beensurrendered by the king to the economy of his minister. No capitulation;no reserve. Economy has entered in triumph into the public splendor ofthe monarch, into his private amusements, into the appointments of hisnearest and highest relations. Economy and public spirit have made abeneficent and an honest spoil: they have plundered from extravaganceand luxury, for the use of substantial service, a revenue of near fourhundred thousand pounds. The reform of the finances, joined to thisreform of the court, gives to the public nine hundred thousand pounds ayear, and upwards. 

The minister who does these things is a great man; but the king whodesires that they should be done is a far greater. We must do justice toour enemies: these are the acts of a patriot king. I am not in dread ofthe vast armies of France; I am not in dread of the gallant spirit ofits brave and numerous nobility; I am not alarmed even at the great navywhich has been so miraculously created. All these things Louis theFourteenth had before. With all these things, the French monarchy hasmore than once fallen prostrate at the feet of the public faith of GreatBritain. It was the want of public credit which disabled France fromrecovering after her defeats, or recovering even from her victories andtriumphs. It was a prodigal court, it was an ill-ordered revenue, thatsapped the foundations of all her greatness. Credit cannot exist underthe arm of necessity. Necessity strikes at credit, I allow, with aheavier and quicker blow under an arbitrary monarchy than under alimited and balanced government; but still necessity and credit arenatural enemies, and cannot be long reconciled in any situation. Fromnecessity and corruption, a free state may lose the spirit of thatcomplex constitution which is the foundation of confidence. On the otherhand, I am far from being sure that a monarchy, when once it is properlyregulated, may not for a long time furnish a foundation for credit uponthe solidity of its maxims, though it affords no ground of trust in itsinstitutions. I am afraid I see in England, and in France, somethinglike a beginning of both these things. I wish I may be found in amistake. 

This very short and very imperfect state of what is now going on inFrance (the last circumstances of which I received in about eight daysafter the registry of the edict[32]) I do not, Sir, lay before you forany invidious purpose. It is in order to excite in us the spirit of anoble emulation. Let the nations make war upon each other, (since wemust make war, ) not with a low and vulgar malignity, but by acompetition of virtues. This is the only way by which both parties cangain by war. The French have imitated us: let us, through them, imitateourselves, --ourselves in our better and happier days. If publicfrugality, under whatever men, or in whatever mode of government, isnational strength, it is a strength which our enemies are in possessionof before us. 

Sir, I am well aware that the state and the result of the French economywhich I have laid before you are even now lightly treated by some whoought never to speak but from information. Pains have not been spared torepresent them as impositions on the public. Let me tell you, Sir, thatthe creation of a navy, and a two years' war without taxing, are a verysingular species of imposture. But be it so. For what end does Neckercarry on this delusion? Is it to lower the estimation of the crown heserves, and to render his own administration contemptible? No! No! He isconscious that the sense of mankind is so clear and decided in favor ofeconomy, and of the weight and value of its resources, that he turnshimself to every species of fraud and artifice to obtain the merereputation of it. Men do not affect a conduct that tends to theirdiscredit. Let us, then, get the better of Monsieur Necker in his ownway; let us do in reality what he does only in pretence; let us turn hisFrench tinsel into English gold. Is, then, the mere opinion andappearance of frugality and good management of such use to France, andis the substance to be so mischievous to England? Is the veryconstitution of Nature so altered by a sea of twenty miles, that economyshould give power on the Continent, and that profusion should give ithere? For God's sake, let not this be the only fashion of France whichwe refuse to copy!

To the last kind of necessity, the desires of the people, I have but avery few words to say. The ministers seem to contest this point, andaffect to doubt whether the people do really desire a plan of economy inthe civil government. Sir, this is too ridiculous. It is impossible thatthey should not desire it. It is impossible that a prodigality whichdraws its resources from their indigence should be pleasing to them. Little factions of pensioners, and their dependants, may talk anotherlanguage. But the voice of Nature is against them, and it will be heard. The people of England will not, they cannot, take it kindly, thatrepresentatives should refuse to their constituents what an absolutesovereign voluntarily offers to his subjects. The expression of thepetitions is, that, "_before any new burdens are laid upon this country, effectual measures be taken by this House to inquire into and correctthe gross abuses in the expenditure of public money_. "

This has been treated by the noble lord in the blue ribbon as a wild, factious language. It happens, however, that the people, in theiraddress to us, use, almost word for word, the same terms as the king ofFrance uses in addressing himself to his people; and it differs only asit falls short of the French king's idea of what is due to his subjects. "To convince, " says he, "our faithful subjects of _the desire weentertain not to recur to new impositions_, until we have firstexhausted all the resources which order and economy can possiblysupply, " &c. , &c. 

These desires of the people of England, which come far short of thevoluntary concessions of the king of France, are moderate indeed. Theyonly contend that we should interweave some economy with the taxes withwhich we have chosen to begin the war. They request, not that you shouldrely upon economy exclusively, but that you should give it rank andprecedence, in the order of the ways and means of this single session. 

But if it were possible that the desires of our constituents, desireswhich are at once so natural and so very much tempered and subdued, should have no weight with an House of Commons which has its eyeelsewhere, I would turn my eyes to the very quarter to which theirs aredirected. I would reason this matter with the House on the mere policyof the question; and I would undertake to prove that an earlydereliction of abuse is the direct interest of government, --ofgovernment taken abstractedly from its duties, and considered merely asa system intending its own conservation. 

If there is any one eminent criterion which above all the restdistinguishes a wise government from an administration weak andimprovident, it is this: "well to know the best time and manner ofyielding what it is impossible to keep. " There have been, Sir, andthere are, many who choose to chicane with their situation rather thanbe instructed by it. Those gentlemen argue against every desire ofreformation upon the principles of a criminal prosecution. It is enoughfor them to justify their adherence to a pernicious system, that it isnot of their contrivance, --that it is an inheritance of absurdity, derived to them from their ancestors, --that they can make out a long andunbroken pedigree of mismanagers that have gone before them. They areproud of the antiquity of their house; and they defend their errors asif they were defending their inheritance, afraid of derogating fromtheir nobility, and carefully avoiding a sort of blot in theirscutcheon, which they think would degrade them forever. 

It was thus that the unfortunate Charles the First defended himself onthe practice of the Stuart who went before him, and of all the Tudors. His partisans might have gone to the Plantagenets. They might have foundbad examples enough, both abroad and at home, that could have shown anancient and illustrious descent. But there is a time when men will notsuffer bad things because their ancestors have suffered worse. There isa time when the hoary head of inveterate abuse will neither drawreverence nor obtain protection. If the noble lord in the blue ribbonpleads, "_Not guilty_, " to the charges brought against the presentsystem of public economy, it is not possible to give a fair verdict bywhich he will not stand acquitted. But pleading is not our presentbusiness. His plea or his traverse may be allowed as an answer to acharge, when a charge is made. But if he puts himself in the way toobstruct reformation, then the faults of his office instantly becomehis own. Instead of a public officer in an abusive department, whoseprovince is an object to be regulated, he becomes a criminal who is tobe punished. I do most seriously put it to administration to considerthe wisdom of a timely reform. Early reformations are amicablearrangements with a friend in power; late reformations are terms imposedupon a conquered enemy: early reformations are made in cool blood; latereformations are made under a state of inflammation. In that state ofthings the people behold in government nothing that is respectable. Theysee the abuse, and they will see nothing else. They fall into the temperof a furious populace provoked at the disorder of a house of ill-fame;they never attempt to correct or regulate; they go to work by theshortest way: they abate the nuisance, they pull down the house. 

This is my opinion with regard to the true interest of government. Butas it is the interest of government that reformation should be early, itis the interest of the people that it should be temperate. It is theirinterest, because a temperate reform is permanent, and because it has aprinciple of growth. Whenever we improve, it is right to leave room fora further improvement. It is right to consider, to look about us, toexamine the effect of what we have done. Then we can proceed withconfidence, because we can proceed with intelligence. Whereas in hotreformations, in what men more zealous than considerate call _makingclear work_, the whole is generally so crude, so harsh, so indigested, mixed with so much imprudence and so much injustice, so contrary to thewhole course of human nature and human institutions, that the verypeople who are most eager for it are among the first to grow disgustedat what they have done. Then some part of the abdicated grievance isrecalled from its exile in order to become a corrective of thecorrection. Then the abuse assumes all the credit and popularity of areform. The very idea of purity and disinterestedness in politics fallsinto disrepute, and is considered as a vision of hot and inexperiencedmen; and thus disorders become incurable, not by the virulence of theirown quality, but by the unapt and violent nature of the remedies. Agreat part, therefore, of my idea of reform is meant to operategradually: some benefits will come at a nearer, some at a more remoteperiod. We must no more make haste to be rich by parsimony than byintemperate acquisition. 

In my opinion, it is our duty, when we have the desires of the peoplebefore us, to pursue them, not in the spirit of literal obedience, whichmay militate with their very principle, --much less to treat them with apeevish and contentious litigation, as if we were adverse parties in asuit. It would, Sir, be most dishonorable for a faithful representativeof the Commons to take advantage of any inartificial expression of thepeople's wishes, in order to frustrate their attainment of what theyhave an undoubted right to expect. We are under infinite obligations toour constituents, who have raised us to so distinguished a trust, andhave imparted such a degree of sanctity to common characters. We oughtto walk before them with purity, plainness, and integrity ofheart, --with filial love, and not with slavish fear, which is always alow and tricking thing. For my own part, in what I have meditated uponthat subject, I cannot, indeed, take upon me to say I have the honor _tofollow_ the sense of the people. The truth is, _I met it on the way_, while I was pursuing their interest according to my own ideas. I amhappy beyond expression to find that my intentions have so far coincidedwith theirs, that I have not had, cause to be in the least scrupulous tosign their petition, conceiving it to express my own opinions, as nearlyas general terms can express the object of particular arrangements. 

I am therefore satisfied to act as a fair mediator between governmentand the people, endeavoring to form a plan which should have both anearly and a temperate operation. I mean, that it should be substantial, that it should be systematic, that it should rather strike at the firstcause of prodigality and corrupt influence than attempt to follow themin all their effects. 

It was to fulfil the first of these objects (the proposal of somethingsubstantial) that I found myself obliged, at the outset, to reject aplan proposed by an honorable and attentive member of Parliament, [33]with very good intentions on his part, about a year or two ago. Sir, theplan I speak of was the tax of twenty-five per cent moved upon placesand pensions during the continuance of the American war. Nothing, Sir, could have met my ideas more than such a tax, if it was considered as apractical satire on that war, and as a penalty upon those who led usinto it; but in any other view it appeared to me very liable toobjections. I considered the scheme as neither substantial, norpermanent, nor systematical, nor likely to be a corrective of evilinfluence. I have always thought employments a very proper subject ofregulation, but a very ill-chosen subject for a tax. An equal tax uponproperty is reasonable; because the object is of the same qualitythroughout. The species is the same; it differs only in its quantity. But a tax upon salaries is totally of a different nature; there can beno equality, and consequently no justice, in taxing them by the hundredin the gross. 

We have, Sir, on our establishment several offices which perform realservice: we have also places that provide large rewards for no serviceat all. We have stations which are made for the public decorum, made forpreserving the grace and majesty of a great people: we have likewiseexpensive formalities, which tend rather to the disgrace than theornament of the state and the court. This, Sir, is the real condition ofour establishments. To fall with the same severity on objects soperfectly dissimilar is the very reverse of a reformation, --I mean areformation framed, as all serious things ought to be, in number, weight, and measure. --Suppose, for instance, that two men receive asalary of 800_l. _ a year each. In the office of one there is nothing atall to be done; in the other, the occupier is oppressed by its duties. Strike off twenty-five per cent from these two offices, you take fromone man 200_l. _ which in justice he ought to have, and you give ineffect to the other 600_l. _ which he ought not to receive. The publicrobs the former, and the latter robs the public; and this mode of mutualrobbery is the only way in which the office and the public can make uptheir accounts. 

But the balance, in settling the account of this double injustice, ismuch against the state. The result is short. You purchase a saving oftwo hundred pounds by a profusion of six. Besides, Sir, whilst you leavea supply of unsecured money behind, wholly at the discretion ofministers, they make up the tax to such places as they wish to favor, orin such new places as they may choose to create. Thus the civil listbecomes oppressed with debt; and the public is obliged to repay, and torepay with an heavy interest, what it has taken by an injudicious tax. Such has been the effect of the taxes hitherto laid on pensions andemployments, and it is no encouragement to recur again to the sameexpedient. 

In effect, such a scheme is not calculated to produce, but to preventreformation. It holds out a shadow of present gain to a greedy andnecessitous public, to divert their attention from those abuses which inreality are the great causes of their wants. It is a composition to stayinquiry; it is a fine paid by mismanagement for the renewal of itslease; what is worse, it is a fine paid by industry and merit for anindemnity to the idle and the worthless. But I shall say no more uponthis topic, because (whatever may be given out to the contrary) I knowthat the noble lord in the blue ribbon perfectly agrees with me in thesesentiments. 

After all that I have said on this subject, I am so sensible that it isour duty to try everything which may contribute to the relief of thenation, that I do not attempt wholly to reprobate the idea even of atax. Whenever, Sir, the incumbrance of useless office (which lies noless a dead weight upon the service of the state than upon its revenues)shall be removed, --when the remaining offices shall be classed accordingto the just proportion of their rewards and services, so as to admit theapplication of an equal rule to their taxation, --when the discretionarypower over the civil list cash shall be so regulated that a ministershall no longer have the means of repaying with a private what is takenby a public hand, --if, after all these preliminary regulations, itshould be thought that a tax on places is an object worthy of the publicattention, I shall be very ready to lend my hand to a reduction of theiremoluments. 

Having thus, Sir, not so much absolutely rejected as postponed the planof a taxation of office, my next business was to find something whichmight be really substantial and effectual. I am quite clear, that, if wedo not go to the very origin and first ruling cause of grievances, we donothing. What does it signify to turn abuses out of one door, if we areto let them in at another? What does it signify to promote economy upona measure, and to suffer it to be subverted in the principle? Ourministers are far from being wholly to blame for the present ill orderwhich prevails. Whilst institutions directly repugnant to goodmanagement are suffered to remain, no effectual or lasting reform _can_be introduced. 

I therefore thought it necessary, as soon as I conceived thoughts ofsubmitting to you some plan of reform, to take a comprehensive view ofthe state of this country, --to make a sort of survey of itsjurisdictions, its estates, and its establishments. Something in everyone of them seemed to me to stand in the way of all economy in theiradministration, and prevented every possibility of methodizing thesystem. But being, as I ought to be, doubtful of myself, I was resolvednot to proceed in an _arbitrary_ manner in any particular which tendedto change the settled state of things, or in any degree to affect thefortune or situation, the interest or the importance, of any individual. By an arbitrary proceeding I mean one conducted by the privateopinions, tastes, or feelings of the man who attempts to regulate. Theseprivate measures are not standards of the exchequer, nor balances of thesanctuary. General principles cannot be debauched or corrupted byinterest or caprice; and by those principles I was resolved to work. 

Sir, before I proceed further, I will lay these principles fairly beforeyou, that afterwards you may be in a condition to judge whether everyobject of regulation, as I propose it, comes fairly under its rule. Thiswill exceedingly shorten all discussion between us, if we are perfectlyin earnest in establishing a system of good management. I therefore laydown to myself seven fundamental rules: they might, indeed, be reducedto two or three simple maxims; but they would be too general, and theirapplication to the several heads of the business before us would not beso distinct and visible. I conceive, then, _First_, That all jurisdictions which furnish more matter of expense, more temptation to oppression, or more means and instruments of corrupt influence, than advantage to justice or political administration, ought to be abolished. 

 _Secondly_, That all public estates which are more subservient to the purposes of vexing, overawing, and influencing those who hold under them, and to the expense of perception and management, than of benefit to the revenue, ought, upon every principle both of revenue and of freedom, to be disposed of. 

 _Thirdly_, That all offices which bring more charge than proportional advantage to the state, that all offices which may be engrafted on others, uniting and simplifying their duties, ought, in the first case, to be taken away, and, in the second, to be consolidated. 

 _Fourthly_, That all such offices ought to be abolished as obstruct the prospect of the general superintendent of finance, which destroy his superintendency, which disable him from foreseeing and providing for charges as they may occur, from preventing expense in its origin, checking it in its progress, or securing its application to its proper purposes. A minister, under whom expenses can be made without his knowledge, can never say what it is that he can spend, or what it is that he can save. 

 _Fifthly_, That it is proper to establish an invariable order in all payments, which will prevent partiality, which will give preference to services, not according to the importunity of the demandant, but the rank and order of their utility or their justice. 

 _Sixthly_, That it is right to reduce every establishment and every part of an establishment (as nearly as possible) to certainty, the life of all order and good management. 

 _Seventhly_, That all subordinate treasuries, as the nurseries of mismanagement, and as naturally drawing to themselves as much money as they can, keeping it as long as they can, and accounting for it as late as they can, ought to be dissolved. They have a tendency to perplex and distract the public accounts, and to excite a suspicion of government even beyond the extent of their abuse. 

Under the authority and with the guidance of those principles Iproceed, --wishing that nothing in any establishment may be changed, where I am not able to make a strong, direct, and solid application ofthose principles, or of some one of them. An economical constitution isa necessary basis for an economical administration. 

First, with regard to the sovereign jurisdictions, I must observe, Sir, that whoever takes a view of this kingdom in a cursory manner willimagine that he beholds a solid, compacted, uniform system of monarchy, in which all inferior jurisdictions are but as rays diverging from onecentre. But on examining it more nearly, you find much eccentricity andconfusion. It is not a _monarchy_ in strictness. But, as in the Saxontimes this country was an heptarchy, it is now a strange sort of_pentarchy_. It is divided into five several distinct principalities, besides the supreme. There is, indeed, this difference from the Saxontimes, --that, as in the itinerant exhibitions of the stage, for want ofa complete company, they are obliged to throw a variety of parts ontheir chief performer, so our sovereign condescends himself to act notonly the principal, but all the subordinate parts in the play. Hecondescends to dissipate the royal character, and to trifle with thoselight, subordinate, lacquered sceptres in those hands that sustain theball representing the world, or which wield the trident that commandsthe ocean. Cross a brook, and you lose the King of England; but you havesome comfort in coming again under his Majesty, though "shorn of hisbeams, " and no more than Prince of Wales. Go to the north, and you findhim dwindled to a Duke of Lancaster; turn to the west of that north, andhe pops upon you in the humble character of Earl of Chester. Travel afew miles on, the Earl of Chester disappears, and the king surprisesyou again as Count Palatine of Lancaster. If you travel beyond MountEdgecombe, you find him ones more in his incognito, and he is Duke ofCornwall. So that, quite fatigued and satiated with this dull variety, you are infinitely refreshed when you return to the sphere of his propersplendor, and behold your amiable sovereign in his true, simple, undisguised, native character of Majesty. 

In every one of these five principalities, duchies, palatinates, thereis a regular establishment of considerable expense and most domineeringinfluence. As his Majesty submits to appear in this state ofsubordination to himself, his loyal peers and faithful commons attendhis royal transformations, and are not so nice as to refuse to nibble atthose crumbs of emoluments which console their petty metamorphoses. Thusevery one of those principalities has the apparatus of a kingdom for thejurisdiction over a few private estates, and the formality and charge ofthe Exchequer of Great Britain for collecting the rents of a countrysquire. Cornwall is the best of them; but when you compare the chargewith the receipt, you will find that it furnishes no exception to thegeneral rule. The Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster do not yield, as I have reason to believe, on an average of twenty years, fourthousand pounds a year clear to the crown. As to Wales, and the CountyPalatine of Chester, I have my doubts whether their productive exchequeryields any returns at all. Yet one may say, that this revenue is morefaithfully applied to its purposes than any of the rest; as it existsfor the sole purpose of multiplying offices and extending influence. 

An attempt was lately made to improve this branch of local influence, and to transfer it to the fund of general corruption. I have on the seatbehind me the constitution of Mr. John Probert, a knight-errant dubbedby the noble lord in the blue ribbon, and sent to search for revenuesand adventures upon the mountains of Wales. The commission isremarkable, and the event not less so. The commission sets forth, that, "upon a report of the _deputy-auditor_" (for there is a deputy-auditor)"of the Principality of Wales, it appeared that his Majesty's landrevenues in the said principality _are greatly diminished_";--and "thatupon a _report_ of the _surveyor-general_ of his Majesty's landrevenues, upon a _memorial_ of the auditor of his Majesty's revenues, _within the said principality_, that his mines and forests have producedvery _little profit either to the public revenue or toindividuals_";--and therefore they appoint Mr. Probert, with a pensionof three hundred pounds a year from the said principality, to trywhether he can make anything more of that very _little_ which is statedto be so _greatly_ diminished. "_A beggarly account of empty boxes_. "And yet, Sir, you will remark, that this diminution from littleness(which serves only to prove the infinite divisibility of matter) was notfor want of the tender and officious care (as we see) of surveyorsgeneral and surveyors particular, of auditors and deputy-auditors, --notfor want of memorials, and remonstrances, and reports, and commissions, and constitutions, and inquisitions, and pensions. 

Probert, thus armed, and accoutred, --and paid, --proceeded on hisadventure; but he was no sooner arrived on the confines of Wales thanall Wales was in arms to meet him. That nation is brave and full ofspirit. Since the invasion of King Edward, and the massacre of thebards, there never was such a tumult and alarm and uproar through theregion of Prestatyn. Snowdon shook to its base; Cader-Idris was loosenedfrom its foundations. The fury of litigious war blew her horn on themountains. The rocks poured down their goatherds, and the deep cavernsvomited out their miners. Everything above ground and everything underground was in arms. 

In short, Sir, to alight from my Welsh Pegasus, and to come to levelground, the _Preux Chevalier_ Probert went to look for revenue, like hismasters upon other occasions, and, like his masters, he found rebellion. But we were grown cautious by experience. A civil war of paper might endin a more serious war; for now remonstrance met remonstrance, andmemorial was opposed to memorial. The wise Britons thought it morereasonable that the poor, wasted, decrepit revenue of the principalityshould die a natural than a violent death. In truth, Sir, the attemptwas no less an affront upon the understanding of that respectable peoplethan it was an attack on their property. They chose rather that theirancient, moss-grown castles should moulder into decay, under the silenttouches of time, and the slow formality of an oblivious and drowsyexchequer, than that they should be battered down all at once by thelively efforts of a pensioned engineer. As it is the fortune of thenoble lord to whom the auspices of this campaign belonged frequently toprovoke resistance, so it is his rule and nature to yield to thatresistance _in all cases whatsoever_. He was true to himself on thisoccasion. He submitted with spirit to the spirited remonstrances of theWelsh. Mr. Probert gave up his adventure, and keeps his pension; and soends "the famous history of the revenue adventures of the bold BaronNorth and the good Knight Probert upon the mountains of Venodotia. "

In such a state is the exchequer of Wales at present, that, upon thereport of the Treasury itself, its _little_ revenue is _greatly_diminished; and we see, by the whole of this strange transaction, thatan attempt to improve it produces resistance, the resistance producessubmission, and the whole ends in pension. [34]

It is nearly the same with the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster. To donothing with them is extinction; to improve them is oppression. Indeed, the whole of the estates which support these minor principalities ismade up, not of revenues, and rents, and profitable fines, but ofclaims, of pretensions, of vexations, of litigations. They areexchequers of unfrequent receipt and constant charge: a system offinances not fit for an economist who would be rich, not fit for aprince who would govern his subjects with equity and justice. 

It is not only between prince and subject that these mock jurisdictionsand mimic revenues produce great mischief. They excite among the peoplea spirit of informing and delating, a spirit of supplanting andundermining one another: so that many, in such circumstances, conceiveit advantageous to them rather to continue subject to vexationthemselves than to give up the means and chance of vexing others. It isexceedingly common for men to contract their love to their country intoan attachment to its petty subdivisions; and they sometimes even clingto their provincial abuses, as if they were franchises and localprivileges. Accordingly, in places where there is much of this kind ofestate, persons will be always found who would rather trust to theirtalents in recommending themselves to power for the renewal of theirinterests, than to incumber their purses, though never so lightly, inorder to transmit independence to their posterity. It is a greatmistake, that the desire of securing property is universal amongmankind. Gaming is a principle inherent in human nature. It belongs tous all. I would therefore break those tables; I would furnish no eviloccupation for that spirit. I would make every man look everywhere, except to the intrigue of a court, for the improvement of hiscircumstances or the security of his fortune. I have in my eye a verystrong case in the Duchy of Lancaster (which lately occupied WestminsterHall and the House of Lords) as my voucher for many of thesereflections. [35]

For what plausible reason are these principalities suffered to exist?When a government is rendered complex, (which in itself is no desirablething, ) it ought to be for some political end which cannot be answeredotherwise. Subdivisions in government are only admissible in favor ofthe dignity of inferior princes and high nobility, or for the support ofan aristocratic confederacy under some head, or for the conservation ofthe franchises of the people in some privileged province. For the twoformer of these ends, such are the subdivisions in favor of theelectoral and other princes in the Empire; for the latter of thesepurposes are the jurisdictions of the Imperial cities and the Hansetowns. For the latter of these ends are also the countries of the States(_Pays d'États_) and certain cities and orders in France. These are allregulations with an object, and some of them with a very good object. But how are the principles of any of these subdivisions applicable inthe case before us?

Do they answer any purpose to the king? The Principality of Wales wasgiven by patent to Edward the Black Prince on the ground on which it hassince stood. Lord Coke sagaciously observes upon it, "That in thecharter of creating the Black Prince Edward Prince of Wales there is a_great mystery_: for _less_ than an estate of inheritance so _great_ aprince _could_ not have, and an _absolute estate of inheritance_ in so_great_ a principality as Wales (this principality being _so dear_ tohim) he _should_ not have; and therefore it was made _sibi et heredibussuis regibus Angliæ_, that by his decease, or attaining to the crown, itmight be extinguished in the crown. "

For the sake of this foolish _mystery_, of what a great prince _could_not have _less_ and _should_ not have _so much_, of a principality whichwas too _dear_ to be given and too _great_ to be kept, --and for no othercause that ever I could find, --this form and shadow of a principality, without any substance, has been maintained. That you may judge in thisinstance (and it serves for the rest) of the difference between a greatand a little economy, you will please to recollect, Sir, that Wales maybe about the tenth part of England in size and population, and certainlynot a hundredth part in opulence. Twelve judges perform the whole ofthe business, both of the stationary and the itinerant justice of thiskingdom; but for Wales there are eight judges. There is in Wales anexchequer, as well as in all the duchies, according to the very best andmost authentic absurdity of form. There are in all of them a hundredmore difficult trifles and laborious fooleries, which serve no otherpurpose than to keep alive corrupt hope and servile dependence. 

These principalities are so far from contributing to the ease of theking, to his wealth, or his dignity, that they render both his supremeand his subordinate authority perfectly ridiculous. It was but the otherday, that that pert, factious fellow, the Duke of Lancaster, presumed tofly in the face of his liege lord, our gracious sovereign, and, _associating_ with a parcel of lawyers as factious as himself, to thedestruction of _all law and order_, and _in committees leading directlyto rebellion_, presumed to go to law with the king. The object isneither your business nor mine. Which of the parties got the better Ireally forget. I think it was (as it ought to be) the king. The materialpoint is, that the suit cost about fifteen thousand pounds. But as theDuke of Lancaster is but a sort of _Duke Humphrey_, and not worth agroat, our sovereign was obliged to pay the costs of both. Indeed, thisart of converting a great monarch into a little prince, this royalmasquerading, is a very dangerous and expensive amusement, and one ofthe king's _menus plaisirs_, which ought to be reformed. This duchy, which is not worth four thousand pounds a year at best to _revenue_, isworth forty or fifty thousand to _influence_. 

The Duchy of Lancaster and the County Palatine of Lancaster answered, Iadmit, some purpose in their original creation. They tended to make asubject imitate a prince. When Henry the Fourth from that stair ascendedthe throne, high-minded as he was, he was not willing to kick away theladder. To prevent that principality from being extinguished in thecrown, he severed it by act of Parliament. He had a motive, such as itwas: he thought his title to the crown unsound, and his possessioninsecure. He therefore managed a retreat in his duchy, which Lord Cokecalls (I do not know why) "_par multis regnis_. " He flattered himselfthat it was practicable to make a projecting point half way down, tobreak his fall from the precipice of royalty; as if it were possible forone who had lost a kingdom to keep anything else. However, it is evidentthat he thought so. When Henry the Fifth united, by act of Parliament, the estates of his mother to the duchy, he had the same predilectionwith his father to the root of his family honors, and the same policy inenlarging the sphere of a possible retreat from the slippery royalty ofthe two great crowns he held. All this was changed by Edward the Fourth. He had no such family partialities, and his policy was the reverse ofthat of Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth. He accordingly againunited the Duchy of Lancaster to the crown. But when Henry the Seventh, who chose to consider himself as of the House of Lancaster, came to thethrone, he brought with him the old pretensions and the old politics ofthat house. A new act of Parliament, a second time, dissevered the Duchyof Lancaster from the crown; and in that line tilings continued untilthe subversion of the monarchy, when principalities and powers fellalong with the throne. The Duchy of Lancaster must have beenextinguished, if Cromwell, who began to form ideas of aggrandizing hishouse and raising the several branches of it, had not caused the duchyto be again separated from the commonwealth, by an act of the Parliamentof those times. 

What partiality, what objects of the politics of the House of Lancaster, or of Cromwell, has his present Majesty, or his Majesty's family? Whatpower have they within any of these principalities, which they have notwithin their kingdom? In what manner is the dignity of the nobilityconcerned in these principalities? What rights have the subject there, which they have not at least equally in every other part of the nation?These distinctions exist for no good end to the king, to the nobility, or to the people. They ought not to exist at all. If the crown (contraryto its nature, but most conformably to the whole tenor of the advicethat has been lately given) should so far forget its dignity as tocontend that these jurisdictions and revenues are estates of privateproperty, I am rather for acting as if that groundless claim were ofsome weight than for giving up that essential part of the reform. Iwould value the clear income, and give a clear annuity to the crown, taken on the medium produce for twenty years. 

If the crown has any favorite name or title, if the subject has anymatter of local accommodation within any of these jurisdictions, it ismeant to preserve them, --and to improve them, if any improvement can besuggested. As to the crown reversions or titles upon the property of thepeople there, it is proposed to convert them from a snare to theirindependence into a relief from their burdens. I propose, therefore, tounite all the five principalities to the crown, and to its ordinaryjurisdiction, --to abolish all those offices that produce an useless andchargeable separation from the body of the people, --to compensate thosewho do not hold their offices (if any such there are) at the pleasure ofthe crown, --to extinguish vexatious titles by an act of shortlimitation, --to sell those unprofitable estates which support uselessjurisdictions, --and to turn the tenant-right into a fee, on suchmoderate terms as will be better for the state than its present right, and which it is impossible for any rational tenant to refuse. 

As to the duchies, their judicial economy may be provided for withoutcharge. They have only to fall of course into the common countyadministration. A commission more or less, made or omitted, settles thematter fully. As to Wales, it has been proposed to add a judge to theseveral courts of Westminster Hall; and it has been considered as animprovement in itself. For my part, I cannot pretend to speak upon itwith clearness or with decision; but certainly this arrangement would bemore than sufficient for Wales. My original thought was, to suppressfive of the eight judges; and to leave the chief-justice of Chester, with the two senior judges; and, to facilitate the business, to throwthe twelve counties into six districts, holding the sessions alternatelyin the counties of which each district shall be composed. But on this Ishall be more clear, when I come to the particular bill. 

Sir, the House will now see, whether, in praying for judgment againstthe minor principalities, I do not act in conformity to the laws that Ihad laid to myself: of getting rid of every jurisdiction moresubservient to oppression and expense than to any end of justice orhonest policy; of abolishing offices more expensive than useful; ofcombining duties improperly separated; of changing revenues morevexatious than productive into ready money; of suppressing offices whichstand in the way of economy; and of cutting off lurking subordinatetreasuries. Dispute the rules, controvert the application, or give yourhands to this salutary measure. 

Most of the same rules will be found applicable to my secondobject, --_the landed estate of the crown_. A landed estate is certainlythe very worst which the crown can possess. All minute and dispersedpossessions, possessions that are often of indeterminate value, andwhich require a continued personal attendance, are of a nature moreproper for private management than public administration. They arefitter for the care of a frugal land-steward than of an office in thestate. Whatever they may possibly have been in other times or in othercountries, they are not of magnitude enough with us to occupy a publicdepartment, nor to provide for a public object. They are already givenup to Parliament, and the gift is not of great value. Common prudencedictates, even in the management of private affairs, that all dispersedand chargeable estates should be sacrificed to the relief of estatesmore compact and better circumstanced. 

If it be objected, that these lands at present would sell at a lowmarket, this is answered by showing that money is at a high price. Theone balances the other. Lands sell at the current rate; and nothing cansell for more. But be the price what it may, a great object is alwaysanswered, whenever any property is transferred from hands that are notfit for that property to those that are. The buyer and seller mustmutually profit by such a bargain; and, what rarely happens in mattersof revenue, the relief of the subject will go hand in hand with theprofit of the Exchequer. 

As to the _forest lands_, in which the crown has (where they are notgranted or prescriptively held) the _dominion_ of the _soil_, and the_vert_ and _venison_, that is to say, the timber and the game, and inwhich the people have a variety of rights, in common of herbage, andother commons, according to the usage of the several forests, --I proposeto have those rights of the crown valued as manorial rights are valuedon an inclosure, and a defined portion of land to be given for them, which land is to be sold for the public benefit. 

As to the timber, I propose a survey of the whole. What is useless forthe naval purposes of the kingdom I would condemn and dispose of for thesecurity of what may be useful, and to inclose such other parts as maybe most fit to furnish a perpetual supply, --wholly extinguishing, for avery obvious reason, all right of _venison_ in those parts. 

The forest _rights_ which extend over the lands and possessions ofothers, being of no profit to the crown, and a grievance, as far as itgoes, to the subject, --these I propose to extinguish without charge tothe proprietors. The several commons are to be allotted and compensatedfor, upon ideas which I shall hereafter explain. They are nearly thesame with the principles upon which you have acted in privateinclosures. I shall never quit precedents, where I find them applicable. For those regulations and compensations, and for every other part of thedetail, you will be so indulgent as to give me credit for the present. 

The revenue to be obtained from the sale of the forest lands and rightswill not be so considerable, I believe, as many people have imagined;and I conceive it would be unwise to screw it up to the utmost, or evento suffer bidders to enhance, according to their eagerness, the purchaseof objects wherein the expense of that purchase may weaken the capitalto be employed in their cultivation. This, I am well aware, might giveroom for partiality in the disposal. In my opinion it would be thelesser evil of the two. But I really conceive that a rule of fairpreference might be established, which would take away all sort ofunjust and corrupt partiality. The principal revenue which I propose todraw from these uncultivated wastes is to spring from the improvementand population of the kingdom, --which never can happen without producingan improvement more advantageous to the revenues of the crown than therents of the best landed estate which it can hold. I believe, Sir, itwill hardly be necessary for me to add, that in this sale I naturallyexcept all the houses, gardens, and parks belonging to the crown, andsuch one forest as shall be chosen by his Majesty as best accommodatedto his pleasures. 

By means of this part of the reform will fall the expensive office of_surveyor-general, _ with all the influence that attends it. By this willfall _two chief-justices in Eyre_, with all their train of dependants. You need be under no apprehension, Sir, that your office is to betouched in its emoluments. They are yours by law; and they are but amoderate part of the compensation which is given to you for the abilitywith which you execute an office of quite another sort of importance:it is far from overpaying your diligence, or more than sufficient forsustaining the high rank you stand in as the first gentleman of England. As to the duties of your chief-justiceship, they are very different fromthose for which you have received the office. Your dignity is too highfor a jurisdiction over wild beasts, and your learning and talents toovaluable to be wasted as chief-justice of a desert. I cannot reconcileit to myself, that you, Sir, should be stuck up as a useless piece ofantiquity. 

I have now disposed of the unprofitable landed estates of the crown, andthrown them into the mass of private property; by which they will come, through the course of circulation, and through the political secretionsof the state, into our better understood and better ordered revenues. 

I come next to the great supreme body of the civil government itself. Iapproach it with that awe and reverence with which a young physicianapproaches to the cure of the disorders of his parent. Disorders, Sir, and infirmities, there are, --such disorders, that all attempts towardsmethod, prudence, and frugality will be perfectly vain, whilst a systemof confusion remains, which is not only alien, but adverse to alleconomy; a system which is not only prodigal in its very essence, butcauses everything else which belongs to it to be prodigally conducted. 

It is impossible, Sir, for any person to be an economist, where no orderin payments is established; it is impossible for a man to be aneconomist, who is not able to take a comparative view of his means andof his expenses for the year which lies before him; it is impossible fora man to be an economist, under whom various officers in their severaldepartments may spend--even just what they please, --and often with anemulation of expense, as contributing to the importance, if not profitof their several departments. Thus much is certain: that neither thepresent nor any other First Lord of the Treasury has been ever able totake a survey, or to make even a tolerable guess, of the expenses ofgovernment for any one year, so as to enable him with the least degreeof certainty, or even probability, to bring his affairs within compass. Whatever scheme may be formed upon them must be made on a calculation ofchances. As things are circumstanced, the First Lord of the Treasurycannot make an estimate. I am sure I serve the king, and I am sure Iassist administration, by putting economy at least in their power. Wemust _class services_; we must (as far as their nature admits)_appropriate_ funds; or everything, however reformed, will fall againinto the old confusion. 

Coming upon this ground of the civil list, the first thing in dignityand charge that attracts our notice is the _royal household_. Thisestablishment, in my opinion, is exceedingly abusive in itsconstitution. It is formed upon manners and customs that have long sinceexpired. In the first place, it is formed, in many respects, upon_feudal principles_. In the feudal times, it was not uncommon, evenamong subjects, for the lowest offices to be held by considerablepersons, --persons as unfit by their incapacity as improper from theirrank to occupy such employments. They were held by patent, sometimes forlife, and sometimes by inheritance. If my memory does not deceive me, aperson of no slight consideration held the office of patent hereditarycook to an Earl of Warwick: the Earl of Warwick's soups, I fear, werenot the better for the dignity of his kitchen. I think it was an Earl ofGloucester who officiated as steward of the household to the Archbishopsof Canterbury. Instances of the same kind may in some degree be found inthe Northumberland house-book, and other family records. There was somereason in ancient necessities for these ancient customs. Protection waswanted; and the domestic tie, though not the highest, was the closest. 

The king's household has not only several strong traces of this_feudality_, but it is formed also upon the principles of a _bodycorporate_: it has its own magistrates, courts, and by-laws. This mightbe necessary in the ancient times, in order to have a government withinitself, capable of regulating the vast and often unruly multitude whichcomposed and attended it. This was the origin of the ancient courtcalled the _Green Cloth_, --composed of the marshal, treasurer, and othergreat officers of the household, with certain clerks. The rich subjectsof the kingdom, who had formerly the same establishments, (only on areduced scale, ) have since altered their economy, and turned the courseof their expense from the maintenance of vast establishments withintheir walls to the employment of a great variety of independent tradesabroad. Their influence is lessened; but a mode of accommodation and astyle of splendor suited to the manners of the times has been increased. Royalty itself has insensibly followed, and the royal household has beencarried away by the resistless tide of manners, but with this verymaterial difference: private men have got rid of the establishmentsalong with the reasons of them; whereas the royal household has lost allthat was stately and venerable in the antique manners, withoutretrenching anything of the cumbrous charge of a Gothic establishment. It is shrunk into the polished littleness of modern elegance andpersonal accommodation; it has evaporated from the gross concrete intoan essence and rectified spirit of expense, where you have tuns ofancient pomp in a vial of modern luxury. 

But when the reason of old establishments is gone, it is absurd topreserve nothing but the burden of them. This is superstitiously toembalm a carcass not worth an ounce of the gums that are used topreserve it. It is to burn precious oils in the tomb; it is to offermeat and drink to the dead: not so much an honor to the deceased as adisgrace to the survivors. Our palaces are vast inhospitable halls. There the bleak winds, there "Boreas, and Eurus, and Caurus, andArgestes loud, " howling through the vacant lobbies, and clattering thedoors of deserted guardrooms, appall the imagination, and conjure up thegrim spectres of departed tyrants, --the Saxon, the Norman, and theDane, --the stern Edwards and fierce Henrys, --who stalk from desolationto desolation, through the dreary vacuity and melancholy succession ofchill and comfortless chambers. When this tumult subsides, a dead andstill more frightful silence would reign in this desert, if every nowand then the tacking of hammers did not announce that those constantattendants upon all courts in all ages, jobs, were still alive, --forwhose sake alone it is that any trace of ancient grandeur is suffered toremain. These palaces are a true emblem of some governments: theinhabitants are decayed, but the governors and magistrates stillflourish. They put me in mind of Old Sarum, where the representatives, more in number than the constituents, only serve to inform us that thiswas once a place of trade, and sounding with "the busy hum of men, "though now you can only trace the streets by the color of the corn, andits sole manufacture is in members of Parliament. 

These old establishments were formed also on a third principle, stillmore adverse to the living economy of the age. They were formed, Sir, onthe principle of _purveyance_ and _receipt in kind_. In former days, when the household was vast, and the supply scanty and precarious, theroyal purveyors, sallying forth from under the Gothic portcullis topurchase provision with power and prerogative instead of money, broughthome the plunder of an hundred markets, and all that could be seizedfrom a flying and hiding country, and deposited their spoil in anhundred caverns, with each its keeper. There, every commodity, receivedin its rawest condition, went through all the process which fitted itfor use. This inconvenient receipt produced an economy suited only toitself. It multiplied offices beyond all measure, --buttery, pantry, andall that rabble of places, which, though profitable to the holders, andexpensive to the state, are almost too mean to mention. 

All this might be, and I believe was, necessary at first; for it isremarkable, that _purveyance_, after its regulation had been the subjectof a long line of statutes, (not fewer, I think, than twenty-six, ) waswholly taken away by the 12th of Charles the Second; yet in the nextyear of the same reign it was found necessary to revive it by a specialact of Parliament, for the sake of the king's journeys. This, Sir, iscurious, and what would hardly he expected in so reduced a court asthat of Charles the Second and in so improved a country as England mightthen be thought. But so it was. In our time, one well-filled andwell-covered stage-coach requires more accommodation than a royalprogress, and every district, at an hour's warning, can supply an army. 

I do not say, Sir, that all these establishments, whose principle isgone, have been systematically kept up for influence solely: neglect hadits share. But this I am sure of: that a consideration of influence hashindered any one from attempting to pull them down. For the purposes ofinfluence, and for those purposes only, are retained half at least ofthe household establishments. No revenue, no, not a royal revenue, canexist under the accumulated charge of ancient establishment, modernluxury, and Parliamentary political corruption. 

If, therefore, we aim at regulating this household, the question willbe, whether we ought to economize by _detail_ or by _principle_. Theexample we have had of the success of an attempt to economize by detail, and under establishments adverse to the attempt, may tend to decide thisquestion. 

At the beginning of his Majesty's reign, Lord Talbot came to theadministration of a great department in the household. I believe no manever entered into his Majesty's service, or into the service of anyprince, with a more clear integrity, or with more zeal and affection forthe interest of his master, and, I must add, with abilities for a stillhigher service. Economy was then announced as a maxim of the reign. Thisnoble lord, therefore, made several attempts towards a reform. In theyear 1777, when the king's civil list debts came last to be paid, heexplained very fully the success of his undertaking. He told the Houseof Lords that he had attempted to reduce the charges of the king'stables and his kitchen. The thing, Sir, was not below him. He knew thatthere is nothing interesting in the concerns of men whom we love andhonor, that is beneath our attention. "Love, " says one of our old poets, "esteems no office mean, "--and with still more spirit, "Entire affectionscorneth nicer hands. " Frugality, Sir, is founded on the principle, thatall riches have limits. A royal household, grown enormous, even in themeanest departments, may weaken and perhaps destroy all energy in thehighest offices of the state. The gorging a royal kitchen may stint andfamish the negotiations of a kingdom. Therefore the object was worthy ofhis, was worthy of any man's attention. 

In consequence of this noble lord's resolution, (as he told the otherHouse, ) he reduced several tables, and put the persons entitled to themupon board wages, much to their own satisfaction. But, unluckily, subsequent duties requiring constant attendance, it was not possible toprevent their being fed where they were employed: and thus this firststep towards economy doubled the expense. 

There was another disaster far more doleful than this. I shall state it, as the cause of that misfortune lies at the bottom of almost all ourprodigality. Lord Talbot attempted to reform the kitchen; but such, ashe well observed, is the consequence of having duty done by one personwhilst another enjoys the emoluments, that he found himself frustratedin all his designs. On that rock his whole adventure split, his wholescheme of economy was dashed to pieces. His department became moreexpensive than ever; the civil list debt accumulated. Why? It was trulyfrom a cause which, though perfectly adequate to the effect, one wouldnot have instantly guessed. It was because _the turnspit in the king'skitchen was a member of Parliament_![36] The king's domestic servantswere all undone, his tradesmen remained unpaid and becamebankrupt, --_because the turnspit of the king's kitchen was a member ofParliament_. His Majesty's slumbers were interrupted, his pillow wasstuffed with thorns, and his peace of mind entirely broken, --_becausethe king's turnspit was a member of Parliament_. The judges were unpaid, the justice of the kingdom bent and gave way, the foreign ministersremained inactive and unprovided, the system of Europe was dissolved, the chain of our alliances was broken, all the wheels of government athome and abroad were stopped, --_because the king's turnspit was a memberof Parliament_. 

Such, Sir, was the situation of affairs, and such the cause of thatsituation, when his Majesty came a second time to Parliament to desirethe payment of those debts which the employment of its members invarious offices, visible and invisible, had occasioned. I believe that alike fate will attend every attempt at economy by detail, under similar, circumstances, and in every department. A complex, operose office ofaccount and control is, in itself, and even if members of Parliament hadnothing to do with it, the most prodigal of all things. The mostaudacious robberies or the most subtle frauds would never venture uponsuch a waste as an over-careful detailed guard against them willinfallibly produce. In our establishments, we frequently see an officeof account of an hundred pounds a year expense, and another office of anequal expense to control that office, and the whole upon a matter thatis not worth twenty shillings. 

To avoid, therefore, this minute care, which produces the consequencesof the most extensive neglect, and to oblige members of Parliament toattend to public cares, and not to the servile offices of domesticmanagement, I propose, Sir, to _economize by principle_: that is, Ipropose to put affairs into that train which experience points out asthe most effectual, from the nature of things, and from the constitutionof the human mind. In all dealings, where it is possible, the principlesof radical economy prescribe three things: first, undertaking by thegreat; secondly, engaging with persons of skill in the subject-matter;thirdly, engaging with those who shall have an immediate and directinterest in the proper execution of the business. 

To avoid frittering and crumbling down the attention by a blind, unsystematic observance of every trifle, it has ever been found the bestway to do all things which are great in the total amount and minute inthe component parts by a _general contrast_. The principles of tradehave so pervaded every species of dealing, from the highest to thelowest objects, all transactions are got so much into system, that wemay, at a moment's warning, and to a farthing value, be informed at whatrate any service may be supplied. No dealing is exempt from thepossibility of fraud. But by a contract on a matter certain you havethis advantage: you are sure to know the utmost _extent_ of the fraud towhich you are subject. By a contract with a person in _his own trade_you are sure you shall not suffer by _want of skill. _ By a _short_contract you are sure of making it the _interest_ of the contractor toexert that skill for the satisfaction of his employers. 

I mean to derogate nothing from the diligence or integrity of thepresent, or of any former board of Green Cloth. But what skill canmembers of Parliament obtain in that low kind of province? What pleasurecan they have in the execution of that kind of duty? And if they shouldneglect it, how does it affect their interest, when we know that it istheir vote in Parliament, and not their diligence in cookery orcatering, that recommends them to their office, or keeps them in it?

I therefore propose that the king's tables (to whatever number oftables, or covers to each, he shall think proper to command) should beclassed by the steward of the household, and should be contracted for, according to their rank, by the head or cover; that the estimate andcircumstance of the contract should be carried to the Treasury to beapproved; and that its faithful and satisfactory performance should bereported there previous to any payment; that there, and there only, should the payment be made. I propose that men should be contracted withonly in their proper trade; and that no member of Parliament should becapable of such contract. By this plan, almost all the infinite officesunder the lord steward may be spared, --to the extreme simplification, and to the far better execution, of every one of his functions. The kingof Prussia is so served. He is a great and eminent (though, indeed, avery rare) instance of the possibility of uniting, in a mind of vigorand compass, an attention to minute objects with the largest views andthe most complicated plans. His tables are served by contract, and bythe head. Let me say, that no prince can be ashamed to imitate the kingof Prussia, and particularly to learn in his school, when the problemis, "The best manner of reconciling the state of a court with thesupport of war. " Other courts, I understand, have followed his witheffect, and to their satisfaction. 

The same clew of principle leads us through the labyrinth of the otherdepartments. What, Sir, is there in the office of _the great wardrobe_(which has the care of the king's furniture) that may not be executed bythe lord chamberlain himself? He has an honorable appointment; he hastime sufficient to attend to the duty; and he has the vice-chamberlainto assist him. Why should not he deal also by contract for all thingsbelonging to this office, and carry his estimates first, and his reportof the execution in its proper time, for payment, directly to the Boardof Treasury itself? By a simple operation, (containing in it a treblecontrol, ) the expenses of a department which for naked walls, or wallshung with cobwebs, has in a few years cost the crown 150, 000_l. _, mayat length hope for regulation. But, Sir, the office and its business areat variance. As it stands, it serves, not to furnish the palace with itshangings, but the Parliament with its dependent members. 

To what end, Sir, does the office of _removing wardrobe_ serve at all?Why should a _jewel office_ exist for the sole purpose of taxing theking's gifts of plate? Its object falls naturally within thechamberlain's province, and ought to be under his care and inspectionwithout any fee. Why should an office of the _robes_ exist, when thatof _groom, of the stole_ is a sinecure, and that this is a proper objectof his department?

All these incumbrances, which are themselves nuisances, produce otherincumbrances and other nuisances. For the payment of these uselessestablishments there are no less than _three useless treasurers_: two tohold a purse, and one to play with a stick. The treasurer of thehousehold is a mere name. The cofferer and the treasurer of the chamberreceive and pay great sums, which it is not at all necessary _they_should either receive or pay. All the proper officers, servants, andtradesmen may be enrolled in their several departments, and paid inproper classes and times with great simplicity and order, at theExchequer, and by direction from the Treasury. 

The _Board of Works_, which in the seven years preceding 1777 has costtowards 400, 000_l. _, [37] and (if I recollect rightly) has not cost lessin proportion from the beginning of the reign, is under the very samedescription of all the other ill-contrived establishments, and calls forthe very same reform. We are to seek for the visible signs of all thisexpense. For all this expense, we do not see a building of the size andimportance of a pigeon-house. Buckingham House was reprised by a bargainwith the public for one hundred thousand pounds; and the small house atWindsor has been, if I mistake not, undertaken since that account wasbrought before us. The good works of that Board of Works are ascarefully concealed as other good works ought to be: they are perfectlyinvisible. But though it is the perfection of charity to be concealed, it is, Sir, the property and glory of magnificence to appear and standforward to the eye. 

That board, which ought to be a concern of builders and such like, andof none else, is turned into a junto of members of Parliament. Thatoffice, too, has a treasury and a paymaster of its own; and lest thearduous affairs of that important exchequer should be too fatiguing, that paymaster has a deputy to partake his profits and relieve hiscares. I do not believe, that, either now or in former times, the chiefmanagers of that board have made any profit of its abuse. It is, however, no good reason that an abusive establishment should subsist, because it is of as little private as of public advantage. But thisestablishment has the grand radical fault, the original sin, thatpervades and perverts all our establishments: the apparatus is notfitted to the object, nor the workmen to the work. Expenses are incurredon the private opinion of an inferior establishment, without consultingthe principal, who can alone determine the proportion which it ought tobear to the other establishments of the state, in the order of theirrelative importance. 

I propose, therefore, along with the rest, to pull down this wholeill-contrived scaffolding, which obstructs, rather than forwards, ourpublic works; to take away its treasury; to put the whole into the handsof a real builder, who shall not be a member of Parliament; and tooblige him, by a previous estimate and final payment, to appear twice atthe Treasury before the public can be loaded. The king's gardens are tocome under a similar regulation. 

The _Mint_, though not a department of the household, has the samevices. It is a great expense to the nation, chiefly for the sake ofmembers of Parliament. It has its officers of parade and dignity. It hasits treasury, too. It is a sort of corporate body, and formerly was abody of great importance, --as much so, on the then scale of things, andthe then order of business, as the Bank is at this day. It was the greatcentre of money transactions and remittances for our own and for othernations, until King Charles the First, among other arbitrary projectsdictated by despotic necessity, made it withhold the money that laythere for remittance. That blow (and happily, too) the Mint neverrecovered. Now it is no bank, no remittance-shop. The Mint, Sir, is a_manufacture_, and it is nothing else; and it ought to be undertakenupon the principles of a manufacture, --that is, for the best andcheapest execution, by a contract upon proper securities and underproper regulations. 

The _artillery_ is a far greater object; it is a military concern; buthaving an affinity and kindred in its defects with the establishments Iam now speaking of, I think it best to speak of it along with them. Itis, I conceive, an establishment not well suited to its martial, thoughexceedingly well calculated for its Parliamentary purposes. Here thereis a treasury, as in all the other inferior departments of government. Here the military is subordinate to the civil, and the naval confoundedwith the land service. The object, indeed, is much the same in both. But, when the detail is examined, it will be found that they had betterbe separated. For a reform of this office, I propose to restore thingsto what (all considerations taken together) is their natural order: torestore them to their just proportion, and to their just distribution. I propose, in this military concern, to render the civil subordinate tothe military; and this will annihilate the greatest part of the expense, and all the influence belonging to the office. I propose to send themilitary branch to the army, and the naval to the Admiralty; and Iintend to perfect and accomplish the whole detail (where it becomes toominute and complicated for legislature, and requires exact, official, military, and mechanical knowledge) by a commission of competentofficers in both departments. I propose to execute by contract what bycontract can be executed, and to bring, as much as possible, allestimates to be previously approved and finally to be paid by theTreasury. 

Thus, by following the course of Nature, and not the purposes ofpolitics, or the accumulated patchwork of occasional accommodation, thisvast, expensive department may be methodized, its service proportionedto its necessities, and its payments subjected to the inspection of thesuperior minister of finance, who is to judge of it on the result of thetotal collective exigencies of the state. This last is a reigningprinciple through my whole plan; and it is a principle which I hope mayhereafter be applied to other plans. 

By these regulations taken together, besides the three subordinatetreasuries in the lesser principalities, five other subordinatetreasuries are suppressed. There is taken away the whole _establishmentof detail_ in the household: the _treasurer_; the _comptroller_ (for acomptroller is hardly necessary where there is no treasurer); the_cofferer of the household_; the _treasurer of the chamber_; the _masterof the household_; the whole _board of green cloth_;--and a vast numberof subordinate offices in the department of the _steward of thehousehold_, --the whole establishment of the _great wardrobe_, --the_removing wardrobe_, --the _jewel office_, --the _robes_, --the _Board ofWorks_, --almost the whole charge of the _civil branch_ of the _Board ofOrdnance_, are taken away. All these arrangements together will be foundto relieve the nation from a vast weight of influence, withoutdistressing, but rather by forwarding every public service. Whensomething of this kind is done, then the public may begin to breathe. Under other governments, a question of expense is only a question ofeconomy, and it is nothing more: with us, in every question of expensethere is always a mixture of constitutional considerations. 

It is, Sir, because I wish to keep this business of subordinatetreasuries as much as I can together, that I brought the _ordnanceoffice_ before you, though it is properly a military department. For thesame reason I will now trouble you with my thoughts and propositionsupon two of the greatest _under-treasuries_: I mean the office of_paymaster of the land forces_, or _treasurer of the army_, and that ofthe _treasurer of the navy_. The former of these has long been a greatobject of public suspicion and uneasiness. Envy, too, has had its sharein the obloquy which is cast upon this office. But I am sure that it hasno share at all in the reflections I shall make upon it, or in thereformations that I shall propose. I do not grudge to the honorablegentleman who at present holds the office any of the effects of histalents, his merit, or his fortune. He is respectable in all theseparticulars. I follow the constitution of the office without persecutingits holder. It is necessary in all matters of public complaint, wheremen frequently feel right and argue wrong, to separate prejudice fromreason, and to be very sure, in attempting the redress of a grievance, that we hit upon its real seat and its true nature. Where there is anabuse in office, the first thing that occurs in heat is to censure theofficer. Our natural disposition leads all our inquiries rather topersons than to things. But this prejudice is to be corrected by maturerthinking. 

Sir, the profits of the _pay office_ (as an office) are not too great, in my opinion, for its duties, and for the rank of the person who hasgenerally held it. He has been generally a person of the highestrank, --that is to say, a person of eminence and consideration in thisHouse. The great and the invidious profits of the pay office are fromthe _bank_ that is held in it. According to the present course of theoffice, and according to the present mode of accounting there, this bankmust necessarily exist somewhere. Money is a productive thing; and whenthe usual time of its demand can be tolerably calculated, it may withprudence be safely laid out to the profit of the holder. It is on thiscalculation that the business of banking proceeds. But no profit can bederived from the use of money which does not make it the interest of theholder to delay his account. The process of the Exchequer colludes withthis interest. Is this collusion from its want of rigor and strictnessand great regularity of form? The reverse is true. They have in theExchequer brought rigor and formalism to their ultimate perfection. Theprocess against accountants is so rigorous, and in a manner so unjust, that correctives must from time to time be applied to it. Thesecorrectives being discretionary, upon the case, and generally remittedby the Barons to the Lords of the Treasury, as the test judges of thereasons for respite, hearings are had, delays are produced, and thus theextreme of rigor in office (as usual in all human affairs) leads to theextreme of laxity. What with the interested delay of the officer, theill-conceived exactness of the court, the applications for dispensationsfrom that exactness, the revival of rigorous process after theexpiration of the time, and the new rigors producing new applicationsand new enlargements of time, such delays happen in the public accountsthat they can scarcely ever be closed. 

Besides, Sir, they have a rule in the Exchequer, which, I believe, theyhave founded upon a very ancient statute, that of the 51st of Henry theThird, by which it is provided, that, "when a sheriff or bailiff hathbegun his account, none other shall be received to account, until hethat was first appointed hath clearly accounted, and that the sum hasbeen received. "[38] Whether this clause of that statute be the ground ofthat absurd practice I am not quite able to ascertain. But it has verygenerally prevailed, though I am told that of late they have began torelax from it. In consequence of forms adverse to substantial account, we have a long succession of paymasters and their representatives whohave never been admitted to account, although perfectly ready to do so. 

As the extent of our wars has scattered the accountants under thepaymaster into every part of the globe, the grand and sure paymaster, Death, in all his shapes, calls these accountants to another reckoning. Death, indeed, domineers over everything but the forms of the Exchequer. Over these he has no power. They are impassive and immortal. The auditof the Exchequer, more severe than the audit to which the accountantsare gone, demands proofs which in the nature of things are difficult, sometimes impossible, to be had. In this respect, too, rigor, as usual, defeats itself. Then the Exchequer never gives a particular receipt, orclears a man of his account as far as it goes. A final acquittance (or a_quietus_, as they term it) is scarcely ever to be obtained. Terrors andghosts of unlaid accountants haunt the houses of their children fromgeneration to generation. Families, in the course of succession, fallinto minorities; the inheritance comes into the hands of females; andvery perplexed affairs are often delivered over into the hands ofnegligent guardians and faithless stewards. So that the demand remains, when the advantage of the money is gone, --if ever any advantage at allhas been made of it. This is a cause of infinite distress to families, and becomes a source of influence to an extent that can scarcely beimagined, but by those who have taken some pains to trace it. Themildness of government, in the employment of useless and dangerouspowers, furnishes no reason for their continuance. 

As things stand, can you in justice (except perhaps in that over-perfectkind of justice which has obtained by its merits the title of theopposite vice[39]) insist that any man should, by the course of hisoffice, keep a _bank_ from whence he is to derive no advantage? that aman should be subject to demands below and be in a manner refused anacquittance above, that he should transmit an original sin andinheritance of vexation to his posterity, without a power ofcompensating himself in some way or other for so perilous a situation?We know, that, if the paymaster should deny himself the advantages ofhis bank, the public, as things stand, is not the richer for it by asingle shilling. This I thought it necessary to say as to the offensivemagnitude of the profits of this office, that we may proceed inreformation on the principles of reason, and not on the feelings ofenvy. 

The treasurer of the navy is, _mutatis mutandis_, in the samecircumstances. Indeed, all accountants are. Instead of the present mode, which is troublesome to the officer and unprofitable to the public, Ipropose to substitute something more effectual than rigor, which is theworst exactor in the world. I mean to remove the very temptations todelay; to facilitate the account; and to transfer this bank, now ofprivate emolument, to the public. The crown will suffer no wrong atleast from the pay offices; and its terrors will no longer reign overthe families of those who hold or have held them. I propose that theseoffices should be no longer _banks_ or _treasuries_, but mere _officesof administration_. I propose, first, that the present paymaster and thetreasurer of the navy should carry into the Exchequer the whole body ofthe vouchers for what they have paid over to deputy-paymasters, toregimental agents, or to any of those to whom they have and ought tohave paid money. I propose that those vouchers shall be admitted asactual payments in their accounts, and that the persons to whom themoney has been paid shall then stand charged in the Exchequer in theirplace. After this process, they shall be debited or charged for nothingbut the money-balance that remains in their hands. 

I am conscious, Sir, that, if this balance (which they could not expectto be so suddenly demanded by any usual process of the Exchequer) shouldnow be exacted all at once, not only their ruin, but a ruin of others toan extent which I do not like to think of, but which I can wellconceive, and which you may well conceive, might be the consequence. Itold you, Sir, when I promised before the holidays to bring in thisplan, that I never would suffer any man or description of men to sufferfrom errors that naturally have grown out of the abusive constitution ofthose offices which I propose to regulate. If I cannot reform withequity, I will not reform at all. 

For the regulation of past accounts, I shall therefore propose such amode, as men, temperate and prudent, make use of in the management oftheir private affairs, when their accounts are various, perplexed, andof long standing. I would therefore, after their example, divide thepublic debts into three sorts, --good, bad, and doubtful. In looking overthe public accounts, I should never dream of the blind mode of theExchequer, which regards things in the abstract, and knows no differencein the quality of its debts or the circumstances of its debtors. By thismeans it fatigues itself, it vexes others, it often crushes the poor, itlets escape the rich, or, in a fit of mercy or carelessness, declinesall means of recovering its just demands. Content with the eternity ofits claims, it enjoys its Epicurean divinity with Epicurean languor. Butit is proper that all sorts of accounts should be closed some time orother, --by payment, by composition, or by oblivion. _Expedit reipublicæut sit finis litium_. Constantly taking along with me, that an extremerigor is sure to arm everything against it, and at length to relax intoa supine neglect, I propose, Sir, that even the best, soundest, and themost recent dents should be put into instalments, for the mutual benefitof the accountant and the public. 

In proportion, however, as I am tender of the past, I would be providentof the future. All money that was formerly imprested to the two great_pay offices_ I would have imprested in future to the _Bank of England_. These offices should in future receive no more than cash sufficient forsmall payments. Their other payments ought to be made by drafts on theBank, expressing the service. A check account from both offices, ofdrafts and receipts, should be annually made up in theExchequer, --charging the Bank in account with the cash balance, but notdemanding the payment until there is an order from the Treasury, inconsequence of a vote of Parliament. 

As I did not, Sir, deny to the paymaster the natural profits of the bankthat was in his hands, so neither would I to the Bank of England. Ashare of that profit might be derived to the public in various ways. Myfavorite mode is this: that, in compensation for the use of this money, the bank may take upon themselves, first, _the charge of the Mint_, towhich they are already, by their charter, obliged to bring in a greatdeal of bullion annually to be coined. In the next place, I mean thatthey should take upon themselves the charge of _remittances to ourtroops abroad_. This is a species of dealing from which, by the samecharter, they are not debarred. One and a quarter per cent will be savedinstantly thereby to the public on very large sums of money. This willbe at once a matter of economy and a considerable reduction ofinfluence, by taking away a private contract of an expensive nature. Ifthe Bank, which is a great corporation, and of course receives the leastprofits from the money in their custody, should of itself refuse or bepersuaded to refuse this offer upon those terms, I can speak with someconfidence that one at least, if not both parts of the condition wouldbe received, and gratefully received, by several bankers of eminence. There is no banker who will not be at least as good security as anypaymaster of the forces, or any treasurer of the navy, that have everbeen bankers to the public: as rich at least as my Lord Chatham, or myLord Holland, or either of the honorable gentlemen who now hold theoffices, were at the time that they entered into them; or as ever thewhole establishment of the Mint has been at any period. 

These, Sir, are the outlines of the plan I mean to follow, insuppressing these two large subordinate treasuries. I now come toanother subordinate treasury, --I mean that of the _paymaster of thepensions_; for which purpose I reënter the limits of the civilestablishment: I departed from those limits in pursuit of a principle;and, following the same game in its doubles, I am brought into thoselimits again. That treasury and that office I mean to take away, and totransfer the payment of every name, mode, and denomination of pensionsto the Exchequer. The present course of diversifying the same object cananswer no good purpose, whatever its use may be to purposes of anotherkind. There are also other lists of pensions; and I mean that theyshould all be hereafter paid at one and the same place. The whole ofthe new consolidated list I mean to reduce to 60, 000_l. _ a year, whichsum I intend it shall never exceed. I think that sum will fully answeras a reward to all real merit and a provision for all real publiccharity that is ever like to be placed upon the list. If any merit of anextraordinary nature should emerge before that reduction is completed, Ihave left it open for an address of either House of Parliament toprovide for the case. To all other demands it must be answered, withregret, but with firmness, "The public is poor. "

I do not propose, as I told you before Christmas, to take away anypension. I know that the public seem to call for a reduction of such ofthem as shall appear unmerited. As a censorial act, and punishment of anabuse, it might answer some purpose. But this can make no part of _my_plan. I mean to proceed by bill; and I cannot stop for such an inquiry. I know some gentlemen may blame me. It is with great submission tobetter judgments that I recommend it to consideration, that a criticalretrospective examination of the pension list, upon the principle ofmerit, can never serve for my basis. It cannot answer, according to myplan, any effectual purpose of economy, or of future, permanentreformation. The process in any way will be entangled and difficult, andit will be infinitely slow: there is a danger, that, if we turn our lineof march, now directed towards the grand object, into this morelaborious than useful detail of operations, we shall never arrive at ourend. 

The king, Sir, has been by the Constitution appointed sole judge of themerit for which a pension is to be given. We have a right, undoubtedly, to canvass this, as we have to canvass every act of government. Butthere is a material difference between an office to be reformed and apension taken away for demerit. In the former case, no charge is impliedagainst the holder; in the latter, his character is slurred, as well ashis lawful emolument affected. The former process is against the thing;the second, against the person. The pensioner certainly, if he pleases, has a right to stand on his own defence, to plead his possession, and tobottom his title in the competency of the crown to give him what heholds. Possessed and on the defensive as he is, he will not be obligedto prove his special merit, in order to justify the act of legaldiscretion, now turned into his property, according to his tenure. Thevery act, he will contend, is a legal presumption, and an implication ofhis merit. If this be so, from the natural force of all legalpresumption, he would put us to the difficult proof that he has no meritat all. But other questions would arise in the course of such aninquiry, --that is, questions of the merit when weighed against theproportion of the reward; then the difficulty will be much greater. 

The difficulty will not, Sir, I am afraid, be much less, if we pass tothe person really guilty in the question of an unmerited pension: theminister himself. I admit, that, when called to account for theexecution of a trust, he might fairly be obliged to prove theaffirmative, and to state the merit for which the pension is given, though on the pensioner himself such a process would be hard. If in thisexamination we proceed methodically, and so as to avoid all suspicion ofpartiality and prejudice, we must take the pensions in order of time, or merely alphabetically. The very first pension to which we come, ineither of these ways, may appear the most grossly unmerited of any. Butthe minister may very possibly show that he knows nothing of the puttingon this pension; that it was prior in time to his administration; thatthe minister who laid it on is dead: and then we are thrown back uponthe pensioner himself, and plunged into all our former difficulties. Abuses, and gross ones, I doubt not, would appear, and to the correctionof which I would readily give my hand: but when I consider that pensionshave not generally been affected by the revolutions of ministry; as Iknow not where such inquiries would stop; and as an absence of merit isa negative and loose thing;--one might be led to derange the order offamilies founded on the probable continuance of their kind of income; Imight hurt children; I might injure creditors;--I really think it themore prudent course not to follow the letter of the petitions. If we fixthis mode of inquiry as a basis, we shall, I fear, end as Parliament hasoften ended under similar circumstances. There will be great delay, muchconfusion, much inequality in our proceedings. But what presses me mostof all is this: that, though we should strike off all the unmeritedpensions, while the power of the crown remains unlimited, the very sameundeserving persons might afterwards return to the very same list; or, if they did not, other persons, meriting as little as they do, might beput upon it to an undefinable amount. This, I think, is the pinch of thegrievance. 

For these reasons, Sir, I am obliged to waive this mode of proceeding asany part of my plan. In a plan of reformation, it would be one of mymaxims, that, when I know of an establishment which may be subservientto useful purposes, and which at the same time, from its discretionarynature, is liable to a very great perversion from those purposes, _Iwould limit the quantity of the power that might be so abused_. For I amsure that in all such cases the rewards of merit will have very narrowbounds, and that partial or corrupt favor will be infinite. Thisprinciple is not arbitrary, but the limitation of the specific quantitymust be so in some measure. I therefore state 60, 000_l. _, leaving itopen to the House to enlarge or contract the sum as they shall see, onexamination, that the discretion I use is scanty or liberal. The wholeamount of the pensions of all denominations which have been laid beforeus amount, for a period of seven years, to considerably more than100, 000_l. _ a year. To what the other lists amount I know not. Thatwill be seen hereafter. But from those that do appear, a saving willaccrue to the public, at one time or other, of 40, 000_l. _ a year; andwe had better, in my opinion, to let it fall in naturally than to tearit crude and unripe from the stalk. [40]

There is a great deal of uneasiness among the people upon an articlewhich I must class under the head of pensions: I mean the _great patentoffices in the Exchequer_. They are in reality and substance no otherthan pensions, and in no other light shall I consider them. They aresinecures; they are always executed by deputy; the duty of the principalis as nothing. They differ, however, from the pensions on the list insome particulars. They are held for life. I think, with the public, thatthe profits of those places are grown enormous; the magnitude of thoseprofits, and the nature of them, both call for reformation. The natureof their profits, which grow out of the public distress, is itselfinvidious and grievous. But I fear that reform cannot be immediate. Ifind myself under a restriction. These places, and others of the samekind, which are held for life, have been considered as property. Theyhave been given as a provision for children; they have been the subjectof family settlements; they have been the security of creditors. Whatthe law respects shall be sacred to me. If the barriers of law should bebroken down, upon ideas of convenience, even of public convenience, weshall have no longer anything certain among us. If the discretion ofpower is once let loose upon property, we can be at no loss to determinewhose power and what discretion it is that will prevail at last. Itwould be wise to attend upon the order of things, and not to attempt tooutrun the slow, but smooth and even course of Nature. There areoccasions, I admit, of public necessity, so vast, so clear, so evident, that they supersede all laws. Law, being only made for the benefit ofthe community, cannot in any one of its parts resist a demand which maycomprehend the total of the public interest. To be sure, no law can setitself up against the cause and reason of all law; but such a case veryrarely happens, and this most certainly is not such a case. The meretime of the reform is by no means worth the sacrifice of a principle oflaw. Individuals pass like shadows; but the commonwealth is fixed andstable. The difference, therefore, of to-day and to-morrow, which toprivate people is immense, to the state is nothing. At any rate, it isbetter, if possible, to reconcile our economy with our laws than to setthem at variance, --a quarrel which in the end must be destructive toboth. 

My idea, therefore, is, to reduce those offices to fixed salaries, asthe present lives and reversions shall successively fall. I mean, thatthe office of the great auditor (the auditor of the receipt) shall bereduced to 3000_l. _ a year; and the auditors of the imprest, and therest of the principal officers, to fixed appointments of 1, 500_l. _ ayear each. It will not be difficult to calculate the value of this fallof lives to the public, when we shall have obtained a just account ofthe present income of those places; and we shall obtain that accountwith great facility, if the present possessors are not alarmed with anyapprehension of danger to their freehold office. 

I know, too, that it will be demanded of me, how it comes, that, since Iadmit these offices to be no better than pensions, I chose, after theprinciple of law had been satisfied, to retain them at all. To this, Sir, I answer, that, conceiving it to be a fundamental part of theConstitution of this country, and of the reason of state in everycountry, that there must be means of rewarding public service, thosemeans will be incomplete, and indeed wholly insufficient for thatpurpose, if there should be no further reward for that service than thedaily wages it receives during the pleasure of the crown. 

Whoever seriously considers the excellent argument of Lord Somers, inthe Bankers' Case, will see he bottoms himself upon the very same maximwhich I do; and one of his principal grounds of doctrine for thealienability of the domain in England, [41] contrary to the maxim of thelaw in France, he lays in the constitutional policy of furnishing apermanent reward to public service, of making that reward the origin offamilies, and the foundation of wealth as well as of honors. It is, indeed, the only genuine, unadulterated origin of nobility. It is agreat principle in government, a principle at the very foundation of thewhole structure. The other judges who held the same doctrine went beyondLord Somers with regard to the remedy which they thought was given bylaw against the crown upon the grant of pensions. Indeed, no man knows, when he cuts off the incitements to a virtuous ambition, and the justrewards of public service, what infinite mischief he may do his countrythrough all generations. Such saving to the public may prove the worstmode of robbing it. The crown, which has in its hands the trust of thedaily pay for national service, ought to have in its hands also themeans for the repose of public labor and the fixed settlement ofacknowledged merit. There is a time when the weather-beaten, vessels ofthe state ought to come into harbor. They must at length have a retreatfrom the malice of rivals, from the perfidy of political friends, andthe inconstancy of the people. Many of the persons who in all times havefilled the great offices of state have been younger brothers, who hadoriginally little, if any fortune. These offices do not furnish themeans of amassing wealth. There ought to be some power in the crown ofgranting pensions out of the reach of its own caprices. An entail ofdependence is a bad reward of merit. 

I would therefore leave to the crown the possibility of conferring somefavors, which, whilst they are received as a reward, do not operate ascorruption. When men receive obligations from the crown, through thepious hands of fathers, or of connections as venerable as the paternal, the dependences which arise from thence are the obligations ofgratitude, and not the fetters of servility. Such ties originate invirtue, and they promote it. They continue men in those habitudes offriendship, those political connections, and those political principles, in which they began life. They are antidotes against a corrupt levity, instead of causes of it. What an unseemly spectacle would it afford, what a disgrace would it be to the commonwealth that suffered suchthings, to see the hopeful son of a meritorious minister begging hisbread at the door of that Treasury from whence his father dispensed theeconomy of an empire, and promoted the happiness and glory of hiscountry! Why should he be obliged to prostrate his honor and to submithis principles at the levee of some proud favorite, shouldered andthrust aside by every impudent pretender on the very spot where a fewdays before he saw himself adored, --obliged to cringe to the author ofthe calamities of his house, and to kiss the hands that are red with hisfather's blood?--No, Sir, these things are unfit, --they are intolerable. 

Sir, I shall be asked, why I do not choose to destroy those officeswhich are pensions, and appoint pensions under the direct title in theirstead. I allow that in some cases it leads to abuse, to have thingsappointed for one purpose and applied to another. I have no greatobjection to such a change; but I do not think it quite prudent for meto propose it. If I should take away the present establishment, theburden of proof rests upon me, that so many pensions, and no more, andto such an amount each, and no more, are necessary for the publicservice. This is what I can never prove; for it is a thing incapable ofdefinition. I do not like to take away an object that I think answers mypurpose, in hopes of getting it back again in a better shape. Peoplewill bear an old establishment, when its excess is corrected, who willrevolt at a new one. I do not think these office-pensions to be more innumber than sufficient: but on that point the House will exercise itsdiscretion. As to abuse, I am convinced that very few trusts in theordinary course of administration have admitted less abuse than this. Efficient ministers have been their own paymasters, it is true; buttheir very partiality has operated as a kind of justice, and still itwas service that was paid. When we look over this Exchequer list, wefind it filled with the descendants of the Walpoles, of the Pelhams, ofthe Townshends, --names to whom this country owes its liberties, and towhom his Majesty owes his crown. It was in one of these lines that theimmense and envied employment he now holds came to a certain duke, [42]who is now probably sitting quietly at a very good dinner directly underus, and acting _high life below stairs_, whilst we, his masters, arefilling our mouths with unsubstantial sounds, and talking of hungryeconomy over his head. But he is the elder branch of an ancient anddecayed house, joined to and repaired by the reward of services done byanother. I respect the original title, and the first purchase of meritedwealth and honor through all its descents, through all its transfers, and all its assignments. May such fountains never be dried up! May theyever flow with their original purity, and refresh and fructify thecommonwealth for ages!

Sir, I think myself bound to give you my reasons as clearly and as fullyfor stopping in the course of reformation as for proceeding in it. Mylimits are the rules of law, the rules of policy, and the service of thestate. This is the reason why I am not able to intermeddle with anotherarticle, which seems to be a specific object in several of thepetitions: I mean the reduction of exorbitant emoluments to efficientoffices. If I knew of any real efficient office which did possessexorbitant emoluments, I should be extremely desirous of reducing them. Others may know of them: I do not. I am not possessed of an exact commonmeasure between real service and its reward. I am very sure that statesdo sometimes receive services which is hardly in their power to rewardaccording to their worth. If I were to give my judgment with regard tothis country, I do not think the great efficient offices of the state tobe overpaid. The service of the public is a thing which cannot be put toauction and struck down to those who will agree to execute it thecheapest. When the proportion between reward and service is our object, we must always consider of what nature the service is, and what sort ofmen they are that must perform it. What is just payment for one kind oflabor, and full encouragement for one kind of talents, is fraud anddiscouragement to others. Many of the great offices have much duty todo, and much expense of representation to maintain. A Secretary ofState, for instance, must not appear sordid in the eyes of the ministersof other nations; neither ought our ministers abroad to appearcontemptible in the courts where they reside. In all offices of duty, there is almost necessarily a great neglect of all domestic affairs. Aperson in high office can rarely take a view of his family-house. If hesees that the state takes no detriment, the state must see that hisaffairs should take as little. 

I will even go so far as to affirm, that, if men were willing to servein such situations without salary, they ought not to be permitted to doit. Ordinary service must be secured by the motives to ordinaryintegrity. I do not hesitate to say that that state which lays itsfoundation in rare and heroic virtues will be sure to have itssuperstructure in the basest profligacy and corruption. An honorable andfair profit is the best security against avarice and rapacity; as in allthings else, a lawful and regulated enjoyment is the best securityagainst debauchery and excess. For as wealth is power, so all power willinfallibly draw wealth to itself by some means or other; and when menare left no way of ascertaining their profits but by their means ofobtaining them, those means will be increased to infinity. This is truein all the parts of administration, as well as in the whole. If anyindividual were to decline his appointments, it might give an unfairadvantage to ostentatious ambition over unpretending service; it mightbreed invidious comparisons; it might tend to destroy whatever littleunity and agreement may be found among ministers. And, after all, whenan ambitious man had run down his competitors by a fallacious show ofdisinterestedness, and fixed himself in power by that means, whatsecurity is there that he would not change his course, and claim as anindemnity ten times more than he has given up?

This rule, like every other, may admit its exceptions. When a great manhas some one great object in view to be achieved in a given time, it maybe absolutely necessary for him to walk out of all the common roads, and, if his fortune permits it, to hold himself out as a splendidexample. I am told that something of this kind is now doing in a countrynear us. But this is for a short race, the training for a heat or two, and not the proper preparation for the regular stages of a methodicaljourney. I am speaking of establishments, and not of men. 

It may be expected, Sir, that, when I am giving my reasons why I limitmyself in the reduction of employments, or of their profits, I shouldsay something of those which seem of eminent inutility in the state: Imean the number of officers who, by their places, are attendant on theperson of the king. Considering the commonwealth merely as such, andconsidering those officers only as relative to the direct purposes ofthe state, I admit that they are of no use at all. But there are manythings in the constitution of establishments, which appear of littlevalue on the first view, which in a secondary and oblique manner producevery material advantages. It was on full consideration that I determinednot to lessen any of the offices of honor about the crown, in theirnumber or their emoluments. These emoluments, except in one or twocases, do not much more than answer the charge of attendance. Men ofcondition naturally love to be about a court; and women of conditionlove it much more. But there is in all regular attendance so much ofconstraint, that, if it wore a mere charge, without any compensation, you would soon have the court deserted by all the nobility of thekingdom. 

Sir, the most serious mischiefs would follow from such a desertion. Kings are naturally lovers of low company. They are so elevated aboveall the rest of mankind that they must look upon all their subjects ason a level. They are rather apt to hate than to love their nobility, onaccount of the occasional resistance to their will which will be made bytheir virtue, their petulance, or their pride. It must, indeed, beadmitted that many of the nobility are as perfectly willing to act thepart of flatterers, tale-bearers, parasites, pimps, and buffoons, as anyof the lowest and vilest of mankind can possibly be. But they are notproperly qualified for this object of their ambition. The want of aregular education, and early habits, and some lurking remains of theirdignity, will never permit them to become a match for an Italian eunuch, a mountebank, a fiddler, a player, or any regular practitioner of thattribe. The Roman emperors, almost from the beginning, threw themselvesinto such hands; and the mischief increased every day till the declineand final ruin of the empire. It is therefore of very great importance(provided the thing is not overdone) to contrive such an establishmentas must, almost whether a prince will or not, bring into daily andhourly offices about his person a great number of his first nobility;and it is rather an useful prejudice that gives them a pride in such aservitude. Though they are not much the better for a court, a courtwill be much the better for them. I have therefore not attempted toreform any of the offices of honor about the king's person. 

There are, indeed, two offices in his stables which are sinecures: bythe change of manners, and indeed by the nature of the thing, they mustbe so: I mean the several keepers of buck-hounds, stag-hounds, foxhounds, and harriers. They answer no purpose of utility or ofsplendor. These I propose to abolish. It is not proper that greatnoblemen should be keepers of dogs, though they were the king's dogs. 

In every part of the scheme, I have endeavored that no primary, and thateven no secondary, service of the state should suffer by its frugality. I mean to touch no offices but such as I am perfectly sure are either ofno use at all, or not of any use in the least assignable proportion tothe burden with which they load the revenues of the kingdom, and to theinfluence with which they oppress the freedom of Parliamentarydeliberation; for which reason there are but two offices, which areproperly state offices, that I have a desire to reform. 

The first of them is the new office of _Third Secretary of State_, whichis commonly called _Secretary of State for the Colonies_. 

_We_ know that all the correspondence of the colonies had been, untilwithin a few years, carried on by the Southern Secretary of State, andthat this department has not been shunned upon account of the weight ofits duties, but, on the contrary, much sought on account of itspatronage. Indeed, he must be poorly acquainted with the history ofoffice who does not know how very lightly the American functions havealways leaned on the shoulders of the ministerial _Atlas_ who hasupheld that side of the sphere. Undoubtedly, great temper and judgmentwas requisite in the management of the colony politics; but the officialdetail was a trifle. Since the new appointment, a train of unfortunateaccidents has brought before us almost the whole correspondence of thisfavorite secretary's office since the first day of its establishment. Iwill say nothing of its auspicious foundation, of the quality of itscorrespondence, or of the effects that have ensued from it. I speakmerely of its _quantity_, which we know would have been little or noaddition to the trouble of whatever office had its hands the fullest. But what has been the real condition of the old office of Secretary ofState? Have their velvet bags and their red boxes been so full thatnothing more could possibly be crammed into them?

A correspondence of a curious nature has been lately published. [43] Inthat correspondence, Sir, we find the opinion of a noble person who isthought to be the grand manufacturer of administrations, and thereforethe best judge of the quality of his work. He was of opinion that therewas but one man of diligence and industry in the whole administration:it was the late Earl of Suffolk. The noble lord lamented very justly, that this statesman, of so much mental vigor, was almost wholly disabledfrom the exertion of it by his bodily infirmities. Lord Suffolk, dead tothe state long before he was dead to Nature, at last paid his tribute tothe common treasury to which we must all be taxed. But so little wantwas found even of his intentional industry, that the office, vacant inreality to its duties long before, continued vacant even in nominationand appointment for a year after his death. The whole of the laboriousand arduous correspondence of this empire rested solely upon theactivity and energy of Lord Weymouth. 

It is therefore demonstrable, since one diligent man was fully equal tothe duties of the two offices, that two diligent men will be equal tothe duty of three. The business of the new office, which I shall proposeto you to suppress, is by no means too much to be returned to either ofthe secretaries which remain. If this dust in the balance should bethought too heavy, it may be divided between them both, --North America(whether free or reduced) to the Northern Secretary, the West Indies tothe Southern. It is not necessary that I should say more upon theinutility of this office. It is burning daylight. But before I havedone, I shall just remark that the history of this office is too recentto suffer us to forget that it was made for the mere convenience of thearrangements of political intrigue, and not for the service of thestate, --that it was made in order to give a color to an exorbitantincrease of the civil list, and in the same act to bring a new accessionto the loaded compost-heap of corrupt influence. 

There is, Sir, another office which was not long since closely connectedwith this of the American Secretary, but has been lately separated fromit for the very same purpose for which it had been conjoined: I mean thesole purpose of all the separations and all the conjunctions that havebeen lately made, --a job. I speak, Sir, of the _Board of Trade andPlantations_. This board is a sort of temperate bed of influence, a sortof gently ripening hothouse, where eight members of Parliament receivesalaries of a thousand a year for a certain given time, in order tomature, at a proper season, a claim to two thousand, granted for doingless, and on the credit of having toiled so long in that inferior, laborious department. 

I have known that board, off and on, for a great number of years. Bothof its pretended objects have been much the objects of my study, if Ihave a right to call any pursuits of mine by so respectable a name. Ican assure the House, (and I hope they will not think that I risk mylittle credit lightly, ) that, without meaning to convey the leastreflection upon any one of its members, past or present, it is a boardwhich, if not mischievous, is of no use at all. 

You will be convinced, Sir, that I am not mistaken, if you reflect howgenerally it is true, that commerce, the principal object of thatoffice, flourishes most when it is left to itself. Interest, the greatguide of commerce, is not a blind one. It is very well able to find itsown way; and its necessities are its best laws. But if it were possible, in the nature of things, that the young should direct the old, and theinexperienced instruct the knowing, --if a board in the state was thebest tutor for the counting-house, --if the desk ought to read lecturesto the anvil, and the pen to usurp the place of the shuttle, --yet in anymatter of regulation we know that board must act with as littleauthority as skill. The prerogative of the crown is utterly inadequateto the object; because all regulations are, in their nature, restrictiveof some liberty. In the reign, indeed, of Charles the First, theCouncil, or Committees of Council, were never a moment unoccupied withaffairs of trade. But even where they had no ill intention, (which wassometimes the case, ) trade and manufacture suffered infinitely fromtheir injudicious tampering. But since that period, whenever regulationis wanting, (for I do not deny that sometimes it may be wanting, )Parliament constantly sits; and Parliament alone is competent to suchregulation. We want no instruction from boards of trade, or from anyother board; and God forbid we should give the least attention to theirreports! Parliamentary inquiry is the only mode of obtainingParliamentary information. There is more real knowledge to be obtainedby attending the detail of business in the committees above stairs thanever did come, or ever will come, from any board in this kingdom, orfrom all of them together. An assiduous member of Parliament will not bethe worse instructed there for not being paid a thousand a year forlearning his lesson. And now that I speak of the committees abovestairs, I must say, that, having till lately attended them a good deal, I have observed that no description of members give so littleattendance, either to communicate or to obtain instruction upon mattersof commerce, as the honorable members of the grave Board of Trade. Ireally do not recollect that I have ever seen one of them in that sortof business. Possibly some members may have better memories, and maycall to mind some job that may have accidentally brought one or other ofthem, at one time or other, to attend a matter of commerce. 

This board, Sir, has had both its original formation and itsregeneration in a job. In a job it was conceived, and in a job itsmother brought it forth. It made one among those showy and speciousimpositions which one of the experiment-making administrations ofCharles the Second held out to delude the people, and to be substitutedin the place of the real service which they might expect from aParliament annually sitting. It was intended, also, to corrupt thatbody, whenever it should be permitted to sit. It was projected in theyear 1668, and it continued in a tottering and rickety childhood forabout three or four years: for it died in the year 1673, a babe of aslittle hopes as ever swelled the bills of mortality in the article ofconvulsed or overlaid children who have hardly stepped over thethreshold of life. 

It was buried with little ceremony, and never more thought of until thereign of King William, when, in the strange vicissitude of neglect andvigor, of good and ill success that attended his wars, in the year 1695, the trade was distressed beyond all example of former sufferings by thepiracies of the French cruisers. This suffering incensed, and, as itshould seem, very justly incensed, the House of Commons. In thisferment, they struck, not only at the administration, but at the veryconstitution of the executive government. They attempted to form inParliament a board for the protection of trade, which, as they plannedit, was to draw to itself a great part, if not the whole, of thefunctions and powers both of the Admiralty and of the Treasury; andthus, by a Parliamentary delegation of office and officers, theythreatened absolutely to separate these departments from the wholesystem of the executive government, and of course to vest the mostleading and essential of its attributes in this board. As the executivegovernment was in a manner convicted of a dereliction of its functions, it was with infinite difficulty that this blow was warded off in thatsession. There was a threat to renew the same attempt in the next. Toprevent the effect of this manoeuvre, the court opposed anothermanoeuvre to it, and, in the year 1696, called into life this Board ofTrade, which had slept since 1673. 

This, in a few words, is the history of the regeneration of the Board ofTrade. It has perfectly answered its purposes. It was intended to quietthe minds of the people, and to compose the ferment that was thenstrongly working in Parliament. The courtiers were too happy to be ableto substitute a board which they knew would be useless in the place ofone that they feared would be dangerous. Thus the Board of Trade wasreproduced in a job; and perhaps it is the only instance of a publicbody which has never degenerated, but to this hour preserves all thehealth and vigor of its primitive institution. 

This Board of Trade and Plantations has not been of any use to thecolonies, as colonies: so little of use, that the flourishingsettlements of New England, of Virginia, and of Maryland, and all ourwealthy colonies in the West Indies, were of a date prior to the firstboard of Charles the Second. Pennsylvania and Carolina were settledduring its dark quarter, in the interval between the extinction of thefirst and the formation of the second board. Two colonies alone owetheir origin to that board. Georgia, which, till lately, has made a veryslow progress, --and never did make any progress at all, until it hadwholly got rid of all the regulations which the Board of Trade hadmoulded into its original constitution. That colony has cost the nationvery great sums of money; whereas the colonies which have had thefortune of not being godfathered by the Board of Trade never cost thenation a shilling, except what has been so properly spent in losingthem. But the colony of Georgia, weak as it was, carried with it to thelast hour, and carries, even in its present dead, pallid visage, theperfect resemblance of its parents. It always had, and it now has, an_establishment_, paid by the public of England, for the sake of theinfluence of the crown: that colony having never been able or willing totake upon itself the expense of its proper government or its ownappropriated jobs. 

The province of Nova Scotia was the youngest and the favorite child ofthe Board. Good God! what sums the nursing of that ill-thriven, hard-visaged, and ill-favored brat has cost to this wittol nation! Sir, this colony has stood us in a sum of not less than seven hundredthousand pounds. To this day it has made no repayment, --it does not evensupport those offices of expense which are miscalled its government; thewhole of that job still lies upon the patient, callous shoulders of thepeople of England. 

Sir, I am going to state a fact to you that will serve to set in fullsunshine the real value of formality and official superintendence. Therewas in the province of Nova Scotia one little neglected corner, thecountry of the _neutral French_; which, having the good-fortune toescape the fostering care of both France and England, and to have beenshut out from the protection and regulation of councils of commerce andof boards of trade, did, in silence, without notice, and withoutassistance, increase to a considerable degree. But it seems our nationhad more skill and ability in destroying than in settling a colony. Inthe last war, we did, in my opinion, most inhumanly, and upon pretencesthat in the eye of an honest man are not worth a farthing, root out thispoor, innocent, deserving people, whom our utter inability to govern, orto reconcile, gave us no sort of right to extirpate. Whatever themerits of that extirpation might have been, it was on the footsteps of aneglected people, it was on the fund of unconstrained poverty, it was onthe acquisitions of unregulated industry, that anything which deservesthe name of a colony in that province has been formed. It has beenformed by overflowings from the exuberant population of New England, andby emigration from other parts of Nova Scotia of fugitives from theprotection of the Board of Trade. 

But if all of these things were not more than sufficient to prove to youthe inutility of that expensive establishment, I would desire you torecollect, Sir, that those who may be very ready to defend it are verycautious how they employ it, --cautious how they employ it even inappearance and pretence. They are afraid they should lose the benefit ofits influence in Parliament, if they deemed to keep it up for any otherpurpose. If ever there were commercial points of great weight, and mostclosely connected with our dependencies, they are those which have beenagitated and decided in Parliament since I came into it. Which of theinnumerable regulations since made had their origin or their improvementin the Board of Trade? Did any of the several East India bills whichhave been successively produced since 1767 originate there? Did any onedream of referring them, or any part of them, thither? Was anybody soridiculous as even to think of it? If ever there was an occasion onwhich the Board was fit to be consulted, it was with regard to the actsthat were preludes to the American war, or attendant on itscommencement. Those acts were full of commercial regulations, such asthey were: the Intercourse Bill; the Prohibitory Bill; the FisheryBill. If the Board was not concerned in such things, in what particularwas it thought fit that it should be concerned? In the course of allthese bills through the House, I observed the members of that board tobe remarkably cautious of intermeddling. They understood decorum better;they know that matters of trade and plantations are no business oftheirs. 

There were two very recent occasions, which, if the idea of any use forthe Board had not been extinguished by prescription, appeared loudly tocall for their interference. 

When commissioners were sent to pay his Majesty's and our dutifulrespects to the Congress of the United States, a part of their powersunder the commission were, it seems, of a commercial nature. They wereauthorized, in the most ample and undefined manner, to form a commercialtreaty with America on the spot. This was no trivial object. As theformation of such a treaty would necessarily have been no less than thebreaking up of our whole commercial system, and the giving it an entirenew form, one would imagine that the Board of Trade would have sat dayand night to model propositions, which, on our side, might serve as abasis to that treaty. No such thing. Their learned leisure was not inthe least interrupted, though one of the members of the Board was acommissioner, and might, in mere compliment to his office, have beensupposed to make a show of deliberation on the subject. But he knew thathis colleagues would have thought he laughed in their faces, had heattempted to bring anything the most distantly relating to commerce orcolonies before _them_. A noble person, engaged in the same commission, and sent to learn his commercial rudiments in New York, (then under theoperation of an act for the universal prohibition of trade, ) was soonafter put at the head of that board. This contempt from the presentministers of all the pretended functions of that board, and their mannerof breathing into its very soul, of inspiring it with its animating andpresiding principle, puts an end to all dispute concerning their opinionof the clay it was made of. But I will give them heaped measure. 

It was but the other day, that the noble lord in the blue ribbon carriedup to the House of Peers two acts, altering, I think much for thebetter, but altering in a great degree, our whole commercial system:those acts, I mean, for giving a free trade to Ireland in woollens, andin all things else, with independent nations, and giving them an equaltrade to our own colonies. Here, too, the novelty of this great, butarduous and critical improvement of system, would make you conceive thatthe anxious solicitude of the noble lord in the blue ribbon would havewholly destroyed the plan of summer recreation of that board, byreferences to examine, compare, and digest matters for Parliament. Youwould imagine that Irish commissioners of customs, and Englishcommissioners of customs, and commissioners of excise, that merchantsand manufacturers of every denomination, had daily crowded their outerrooms. _Nil horum_. The perpetual virtual adjournment, and the unbrokensitting vacation of that board, was no more disturbed by the Irish thanby the plantation commerce, or any other commerce. The same matter madea large part of the business which occupied the House for two sessionsbefore; and as our ministers were not then mellowed by the mild, emollient, and engaging blandishments of our dear sister into all thetenderness of unqualified surrender, the bounds and limits of arestrained benefit naturally required much detailed management andpositive regulation. But neither the qualified propositions which werereceived, nor those other qualified propositions which were rejected byministers, were the least concern of theirs, or were they ever thoughtof in the business. 

It is therefore, Sir, on the opinion of Parliament, on the opinion ofthe ministers, and even on their own opinion of their inutility, that Ishall propose to you to _suppress the Board of Trade and Plantations_, and to recommit all its business to the Council, from whence it was veryimprovidently taken; and which business (whatever it might be) was muchbetter done, and without any expense; and, indeed, where in effect itmay all come at last. Almost all that deserves the name of businessthere is the reference of the plantation acts to the opinion ofgentlemen of the law. But all this may be done, as the Irish business ofthe same nature has always been done, by the Council, and with areference to the Attorney and Solicitor General. 

There are some regulations in the household, relative to the officers ofthe yeomen of the guards, and the officers and band of gentlemenpensioners, which I shall likewise submit to your consideration, for thepurpose of regulating establishments which at present are much abused. 

I have now finished all that for the present I shall trouble you with onthe _plan of reduction_. I mean next to propose to you the _plan ofarrangement_, by which I mean to appropriate and fix the civil listmoney to its several services according to their nature: for I amthoroughly sensible, that, if a discretion wholly arbitrary can beexercised over the civil list revenue, although the most effectualmethods may be taken to prevent the inferior departments from exceedingtheir bounds, the plan of reformation will still be left very imperfect. It will not, in my opinion, be safe to permit an entirely arbitrarydiscretion even in the First Lord of the Treasury himself; it will notbe safe to leave with him a power of diverting the public money from itsproper objects, of paying it in an irregular course, or of invertingperhaps the order of time, dictated by the proportion of value, whichought to regulate his application of payment to service. 

I am sensible, too, that the very operation of a plan of economy whichtends to exonerate the civil list of expensive establishments may insome sort defeat the capital end we have in view, --the independence ofParliament; and that, in removing the public and ostensible means ofinfluence, we may increase the fund of private corruption. I havethought of some methods to prevent an abuse of surplus cash underdiscretionary application, --I mean the heads of _secret service, specialservice, various payments_, and the like, --which I hope will answer, andwhich in due time I shall lay before you. Where I am unable to limit thequantity of the sums to be applied, by reason of the uncertain quantityof the service, I endeavor to confine it to its _line_, to secure anindefinite application to the definite service to which it belongs, --notto stop the progress of expense in its line, but to confine it to thatline in which it professes to move. 

But that part of my plan, Sir, upon which I principally rest, that onwhich I rely for the purpose of binding up and securing the whole, is toestablish a fixed and invariable order in all its payments, which itshall not be permitted to the First Lord of the Treasury, upon anypretence whatsoever, to depart from. I therefore divide the civil listpayments into _nine_ classes, putting each class forward according tothe importance or justice of the demand, and to the inability of thepersons entitled to enforce their pretensions: that is, to put thosefirst who have the most efficient offices, or claim the justest debts, and at the same time, from the character of that description of men, from the retiredness or the remoteness of their situation, or from theirwant of weight and power to enforce their pretensions, or from theirbeing entirely subject to the power of a minister, without anyreciprocal power of awing, ought to be the most considered, and are themost likely to be neglected, --all these I place in the highest classes;I place in the lowest those whose functions are of the least importance, but whose persons or rank are often of the greatest power and influence. 

In the first class I place the _judges_, as of the first importance. Itis the public justice that holds the community together; the ease, therefore, and independence of the judges ought to supersede all otherconsiderations, and they ought to be the very last to feel thenecessities of the state, or to be obliged either to court or bully aminister for their right; they ought to be as _weak solicitors on theirown demands_ as strenuous assertors of the rights and liberties ofothers. The judges are, or ought to be, of a _reserved_ and retiredcharacter, and wholly unconnected with the political world. 

In the second class I place the foreign ministers. The judges are thelinks of our connections with one another; the foreign ministers are thelinks of our connection with other nations. They are not upon the spotto demand payment, and are therefore the most likely to be, as in factthey have sometimes been, entirely neglected, to the great disgrace andperhaps the great detriment of the nation. 

In the third class I would bring all the tradesmen who supply the crownby contract or otherwise. 

In the fourth class I place all the domestic servants of the king, andall persons in efficient offices whose salaries do not exceed twohundred pounds a year. 

In the fifth, upon account of honor, which ought to give place tonothing but charity and rigid justice, I would place the pensions andallowances of his Majesty's royal family, comprehending of course thequeen, together with the stated allowance of the privy purse. 

In the sixth class I place those efficient offices of duty whosesalaries may exceed the sum of two hundred pounds a year. 

In the seventh class, that mixed mass, the whole pension list. 

In the eighth, the offices of honor about the king. 

In the ninth, and the last of all, the salaries and pensions of theFirst Lord of the Treasury himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, andthe other Commissioners of the Treasury. 

If, by any possible mismanagement of that part of the revenue which isleft at discretion, or by any other mode of prodigality, cash should bedeficient for the payment of the lowest classes, I propose that theamount of those salaries where the deficiency may happen to fall shallnot be carried as debt to the account of the succeeding year, but thatit shall be entirely lapsed, sunk, and lost; so that government will beenabled to start in the race of every new year wholly unloaded, fresh inwind and in vigor. Hereafter no civil list debt can ever come upon thepublic. And those who do not consider this as saving, because it is nota certain sum, do not ground their calculations of the future on theirexperience of the past. 

I know of no mode of preserving the effectual execution of any duty, butto make it the direct interest of the executive officer that it shall befaithfully performed. Assuming, then, that the present vast allowance tothe civil list is perfectly adequate to all its purposes, if thereshould be any failure, it must be from the mismanagement or neglect ofthe First Commissioner of the Treasury; since, upon the proposed plan, there can be no expense of any consequence which he is not himselfpreviously to authorize and finally to control. It is therefore just, aswell as politic, that the loss should attach upon the delinquency. 

If the failure from the delinquency should be very considerable, it willfall on the class directly above the First Lord of the Treasury, as wellas upon himself and his board. It will fall, as it ought to fall, uponoffices of no primary importance in the state; but then it will fallupon persons whom it will be a matter of no slight importance for aminister to provoke: it will fall upon persons of the first rank andconsequence in the kingdom, --upon those who are nearest to the king, andfrequently have a more interior credit with him than the ministerhimself. It will fall upon masters of the horse, upon lordchamberlains, upon lord stewards, upon grooms of the stole, and lords ofthe bedchamber. The household troops form an army, who will be ready tomutiny for want of pay, and whose mutiny will be _really_ dreadful to acommander-in-chief. A rebellion of the thirteen lords of the bedchamberwould be far more terrible to a minister, and would probably affect hispower more to the quick, than a revolt of thirteen colonies. What anuproar such an event would create at court! What _petitions_, and_committees_, and _associations_, would it not produce! Bless me! what aclattering of white sticks and yellow sticks would be about his head!what a storm of gold keys would fly about the ears of the minister! whata shower of Georges, and thistles, and medals, and collars of S. S. Wouldassail him at his first entrance into the antechamber, after aninsolvent Christmas quarter!--a tumult which could not be appeased byall the harmony of the new year's ode. Rebellion it is certain therewould be; and rebellion may not now, indeed, be so critical an event tothose who engage in it, since its price is so correctly ascertained atjust a thousand pound. 

Sir, this classing, in my opinion, is a serious and solid security forthe performance of a minister's duty. Lord Coke says, that the staff wasput into the Treasurer's hand to enable him to support himself whenthere was no money in the Exchequer, and to beat away importunatesolicitors. The method which I propose would hinder him from thenecessity of such a broken staff to lean on, or such a miserable weaponfor repulsing the demands of worthless suitors, who, the noble lord inthe blue ribbon knows, will bear many hard blows on the head, and manyother indignities, before they are driven from the Treasury. In thisplan, he is furnished with an answer to all their importunity, --ananswer far more conclusive than if he had knocked them down with hisstaff:--"Sir, (or my Lord, ) you are calling for my own salary, --Sir, youare calling for the appointments of my colleagues who sit about me inoffice, --Sir, you are going to excite a mutiny at court against me, --youare going to estrange his Majesty's confidence from me, through thechamberlain, or the master of the horse, or the groom of the stole. "

As things now stand, every man, in proportion to his consequence atcourt, tends to add to the expenses of the civil list, by all manner ofjobs, if not for himself, yet for his dependants. When the new plan isestablished, those who are now suitors for jobs will become the moststrenuous opposers of them. They will have a common interest with theminister in public economy. Every class, as it stands low, will becomesecurity for the payment of the preceding class; and thus the personswhose insignificant services defraud those that are useful would thenbecome interested in their payment. Then the powerful, instead ofoppressing, would be obliged to support the weak; and idleness wouldbecome concerned in the reward of industry. The whole fabric of thecivil economy would become compact and connected in all its parts; itwould be formed into a well-organized body, where every membercontributes to the support of the whole, and where even the lazy stomachsecures the vigor of the active arm. 

This plan, I really flatter myself, is laid, not in official formality, nor in airy speculation, but in real life, and in human nature, in what"comes home" (as Bacon says) "to the business and bosoms of men. " Youhave now, Sir, before you, the whole of my scheme, as far as I havedigested it into a form that might be in any respect worthy of yourconsideration. I intend to lay it before you in five bills. [44] The planconsists, indeed, of many parts; but they stand upon a few plainprinciples. It is a plan which takes nothing from the civil list withoutdischarging it of a burden equal to the sum carried to the publicservice. It weakens no one function necessary to government; but, on thecontrary, by appropriating supply to service, it gives it greater vigor. It provides the means of order and foresight to a minister of finance, which may always keep all the objects of his office, and their state, condition, and relations, distinctly before him. It brings forwardaccounts without hurrying and distressing the accountants: whilst itprovides for public convenience, it regards private rights. Itextinguishes secret corruption almost to the possibility of itsexistence. It destroys direct and visible influence equal to the officesof at least fifty members of Parliament. Lastly, it prevents theprovision for his Majesty's children from being diverted to thepolitical purposes of his minister. 

These are the points on which I rely for the merit of the plan. I pursueeconomy in a secondary view, and only as it is connected with thesegreat objects. I am persuaded, that even for supply this scheme will befar from unfruitful, if it be executed to the extent I propose it. Ithink it will give to the public, at its periods, two or three hundredthousand pounds a year; if not, it will give them a system of economy, which is itself a great revenue. It gives me no little pride andsatisfaction to find that the principles of my proceedings are in manyrespects the very same with those which are now pursued in the plans ofthe French minister of finance. I am sure that I lay before you a schemeeasy and practicable in all its parts. I know it is common at once toapplaud and to reject all attempts of this nature. I know it is commonfor men to say, that such and such things are perfectly right, verydesirable, --but that, unfortunately, they are not practicable. Oh, no, Sir! no! Those things-which are not practicable are not desirable. Thereis nothing in the world really beneficial that does not lie within thereach of an informed understanding and a well-directed pursuit. There isnothing that God has judged good for us that He has not given us themeans to accomplish, both in the natural and the moral world. If we cry, like children, for the moon, like children we must cry on. 

We must follow the nature of our affairs, and conform ourselves to oursituation. If we do, our objects are plain and compassable. Why shouldwe resolve to do nothing, because what I propose to you may not be theexact demand of the petition, when we are far from resolved to complyeven with what evidently is so? Does this sort of chicanery become us?The people are the masters. They have only to express their wants atlarge and in gross. We are the expert artists, we are the skilfulworkmen, to shape their desires into perfect form, and to fit theutensil to the use. They are the sufferers, they tell the symptoms ofthe complaint; but we know the exact seat of the disease, and how toapply the remedy according to the rules of art. How shocking would it beto see us pervert our skill into a sinister and servile dexterity, forthe purpose of evading our duty, and defrauding our employers, who areour natural lords, of the object of their just expectations! I think thewhole not only practicable, but practicable in a very short time. If weare in earnest about it, and if we exert that industry and those talentsin forwarding the work, which, I am afraid, may be exerted in impedingit, I engage that the whole may be put in complete execution within ayear. For my own part, I have very little to recommend me for this orfor any task, but a kind of earnest and anxious perseverance of mind, which, with all its good and all its evil effects, is moulded into myconstitution. I faithfully engage to the House, if they choose toappoint me to any part in the execution of this work, (which, when theyhave made it theirs by the improvements of their wisdom, will be worthyof the able assistance they may give me, ) that by night and by day, intown or in country, at the desk or in the forest, I will, without regardto convenience, ease, or pleasure, devote myself to their service, notexpecting or admitting any reward whatsoever. I owe to this country mylabor, which is my all; and I owe to it ten times more industry, if tentimes more I could exert. After all, I shall be an unprofitable servant. 

At the same time, if I am able, and if I shall be permitted, I will lendan humble helping hand to any other good work which is going on. I havenot, Sir, the frantic presumption to suppose that this plan contains init the whole of what the public has a right to expect in the great workof reformation they call for. Indeed, it falls infinitely short of it. It falls short even of my own ideas. I have some thoughts, not yet fullyripened, relative to a reform in the customs and excise, as well as insome other branches of financial administration. There are other things, too, which form essential parts in a great plan for the purpose ofrestoring the independence of Parliament. The contractors' bill of lastyear it is fit to revive; and I rejoice that it is in better hands thanmine. The bill for suspending the votes of custom-house officers, brought into Parliament several years ago by one of our worthiest andwisest members, [45]--would to God we could along with the plan revivethe person who designed it! but a man of very real integrity, honor, andability will be found to take his place, and to carry his idea into fullexecution. You all see how necessary it is to review our militaryexpenses for some years past, and, if possible, to bind up and closethat bleeding artery of profusion; but that business also, I have reasonto hope, will be undertaken by abilities that are fully adequate to it. Something must be devised (if possible) to check the ruinous expense ofelections. 

Sir, all or most of these things must be done. Every one must take hispart. If we should be able, by dexterity, or power, or intrigue, todisappoint the expectations of our constituents, what will it avail us?We shall never be strong or artful enough to parry, or to put by, theirresistible demands of our situation. That situation calls upon us, andupon our constituents too, with a voice which _will_ be heard. I am sureno man is more zealously attached than I am to the privileges of thisHouse, particularly in regard to the exclusive management of money. TheLords have no right to the disposition, in any sense, of the publicpurse; but they have gone further in self-denial[46] than our utmostjealousy could have required. A power of examining accounts, to censure, correct, and punish, we never, that I know of, have thought of denyingto the House of Lords. It is something more than a century since wevoted that body useless: they have now voted themselves so. The wholehope of reformation is at length cast upon _us_; and let us not deceivethe nation, which does us the honor to hope everything from our virtue. If _all_ the nation are not equally forward to press this duty upon us, yet be assured that they all equally expect we should perform it. Therespectful silence of those who wait upon your pleasure ought to be aspowerful with you as the call of those who require your service as theirright. Some, without doors, affect to feel hurt for your dignity, because they suppose that menaces are held out to you. Justify theirgood opinion by showing that no menaces are necessary to stimulate youto your duty. But, Sir, whilst we may sympathize with them in one pointwho sympathize with us in another, we ought to attend no less to thosewho approach us like men, and who, in the guise of petitioners, speak tous in the tone of a concealed authority. It is not wise to force them tospeak out more plainly what they plainly mean. --But the petitioners areviolent. Be it so. Those who are least anxious about your conduct arenot those that love you most. Moderate affection and satiated enjoymentare cold and respectful; but an ardent and injured passion is temperedup with wrath, and grief, and shame, and conscious worth, and themaddening sense of violated right. A jealous love lights his torch fromthe firebrands of the furies. They who call upon you to belong _wholly_to the people are those who wish you to return to your _proper_home, --to the sphere of your duty, to the post of your honor, to themansion-house of all genuine, serene, and solid satisfaction. We havefurnished to the people of England (indeed we have) some real cause ofjealousy. Let us leave that sort of company which, if it does notdestroy our innocence, pollutes our honor; let us free ourselves at oncefrom everything that can increase their suspicions and inflame theirjust resentment; let us cast away from us, with a generous scorn, allthe love-tokens and symbols that we have been vain and light enough toaccept, --all the bracelets, and snuff-boxes, and miniature pictures, andhair devices, and all the other adulterous trinkets that are the pledgesof our alienation and the monuments of our shame. Let us return to ourlegitimate home, and all jars and all quarrels will be lost in embraces. Let the commons in Parliament assembled be one and the same thing withthe commons at large. The distinctions that are made to separate us areunnatural and wicked contrivances. Let us identify, let us incorporateourselves with the people. Let us cut all the cables and snap the chainswhich tie us to an unfaithful shore, and enter the friendly harbor thatshoots far out into the main its moles and jetties to receive us. "Warwith the world, and peace with our constituents. " Be this our motto, andour principle. Then, indeed, we shall be truly great. Respectingourselves, we shall be respected by the world. At present all istroubled, and cloudy, and distracted, and full of anger and turbulence, both abroad and at home; but the air may be cleared by this storm, andlight and fertility may follow it. Let us give a faithful pledge to thepeople, that we honor, indeed, the crown, but that we _belong_ to them;that we are their auxiliaries, and not their task-masters, --thefellow-laborers in the same vineyard, not lording over their rights, buthelpers of their joy; that to tax them is a grievance to ourselves, butto cut off from our enjoyments to forward theirs is the highestgratification we are capable of receiving. I feel, with comfort, that weare all warmed with these sentiments, and while we are thus warm, I wishwe may go directly and with a cheerful heart to this salutary work. 

Sir, I move for leave to bring in a bill, "For the better regulation ofhis Majesty's civil establishments, and of certain public offices; forthe limitation of pensions, and the suppression of sundry useless, expensive, and inconvenient places, and for applying the moneys savedthereby to the public service. "[47]

 * * * * *

Lord North stated, that there was a difference between this bill forregulating the establishments and some of the others, as they affectedthe ancient patrimony of the crown, and therefore wished them to bepostponed till the king's consent could be obtained. This distinctionwas strongly controverted; but when it was insisted on as a point ofdecorum _only_, it was agreed to postpone them to another day. Accordingly, on the Monday following, viz. Feb. 14, leave was given, onthe motion of Mr. Burke, without opposition, to bring in--

1st, "A bill for the sale of the forest and other crown lands, rents, and hereditaments, with certain exceptions, _and for applying theproduce thereof to the public service_; and for securing, ascertaining, and satisfying _tenant rights_, and common and other rights. "

2nd, "A bill for the more perfectly uniting to the crown thePrincipality of Wales and the County Palatine of Chester, and for themore commodious administration of justice within the same; as also forabolishing certain offices now appertaining thereto, _for quietingdormant claims, ascertaining and securing tenant rights_, and for thesale of all forest lands, and other lands, tenements, and hereditaments, held by his Majesty in right of the said Principality, or CountyPalatine of Chester, _and for applying the produce thereof to the publicservice_. "

3rd, "A bill for uniting to the crown the Duchy and County Palatine ofLancaster, for the suppression of unnecessary offices now belongingthereto, for the _ascertainment and security of tenant and otherrights_, and for the sale of all rents, lands, tenements, andhereditaments, and forests, within the said Duchy and County Palatine, or either of them, _and for applying the produce thereof to the publicservice_. "

And it was ordered that Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, Lord John Cavendish, SirGeorge Savile, Colonel Barré, Mr. Thomas Townshend, Mr. Byng, Mr. Dunning, Sir Joseph Mawbey, Mr. Recorder of London, Sir Robert Clayton, Mr. Frederick Montagu, the Earl of Upper Ossory, Sir William Guise, andMr. Gilbert do prepare and bring in the same. 

At the same time, Mr. Burke moved for leave to bring in--

4th, "A bill for uniting the Duchy of Cornwall to the crown; for thesuppression of certain unnecessary offices now belonging thereto; forthe _ascertainment and security of tenant and other rights_; and forthe sale of certain rents, lands, and tenements, within or belonging tothe said Duchy; _and for applying the produce thereof to the publicservice_. "

But some objections being made by the Surveyor-General of the Duchyconcerning the rights of the Prince of Wales, now in his minority, andLord North remaining perfectly silent, Mr. Burke, at length, though hestrongly contended against the principle of the objection, consented towithdraw this last motion _for the present_, to be renewed upon an earlyoccasion. 

FOOTNOTES:

[31] This term comprehends various retributions made to persons whoseoffices are taken away, or who in any other way suffer by the newarrangements that are made. 

[32] Edict registered 29th January, 1780. 

[33] Thomas Gilbert, Esq. , member for Lichfield. 

[34] Here Lord North shook his head, and told those who sat near himthat Mr. Probert's pension was to depend on his success. It may be so. Mr. Probert's pension was, however, no essential part of the question;nor did Mr. B. Care whether he still possessed it or not. His point was, to show the ridicule of attempting an improvement of the Welsh revenueunder its present establishment. 

[35] Case of Richard Lee, Esq. , appellant, against George Venables LordVernon, respondent, in the year 1775. 

[36] Vide Lord Talbot's speech in Almon's Parliamentary Register. VolVII. P. 79, of the Proceedings of the Lords. 

[37] More exactly, 378, 616_l. _ 10 _s. _ 1-3/4 _d. _

[38] Et quaunt viscount ou baillif eit comence de acompter, nul autre neseit resceu de aconter tanque le primer qe soit assis eit peraccompte, et qe la somme soit resceu. --Stat. 5. Ann Dom. 1266. 

[39] Summum jus summa injuria. 

[40] It was supposed by the Lord Advocate, in a subsequent debate, thatMr. Burke, because he objected to an inquiry into the pension list forthe purpose of economy and relief of the public, would have it withheldfrom the judgment of Parliament for all purposes whatsoever. Thislearned gentleman certainly misunderstood him. His plan shows that hewished the whole list to be easily accessible; and he knows that thepublic eye is of itself a great guard against abuse. 

[41] Before the statute of Queen Anne, which limited the alienation ofland. 

[42] Duke of Newcastle, whose dining-room is under the House of Commons. 

[43] Letters between Dr. Addington and Sir James Wright. 

[44] Titles of the bills read. 

[45] W. Dowdeswell, Esq. , Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1765. 

[46] Rejection of Lord Shelburne's motion in the House of Lords. 

[47] The motion was seconded by Mr. Fox. 

SPEECH

AT THE

GUILDHALL IN BRISTOL, PREVIOUS TO THE LATE ELECTION IN THAT CITY, UPON

CERTAIN POINTS RELATIVE TO HIS PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT. 

1780. 

Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen, --I am extremely pleased at the appearance ofthis large and respectable meeting. The steps I may be obliged to takewill want the sanction of a considerable authority; and in explaininganything which may appear doubtful in my public conduct, I mustnaturally desire a very full audience. 

I have been backward to begin my canvass. The dissolution of theParliament was uncertain; and it did not become me, by an unseasonableimportunity, to appear diffident of the effect of my six years'endeavors to please you. I had served the city of Bristol honorably, andthe city of Bristol had no reason to think that the means of honorableservice to the public were become indifferent to me. 

I found, on my arrival here, that three gentlemen had been long in eagerpursuit of an object which but two of us can obtain. I found that theyhad all met with encouragement. A contested election in such a city asthis is no light thing. I paused on the brink of the precipice. Thesethree gentlemen, by various merits, and on various titles, I made nodoubt were worthy of your favor. I shall never attempt to raise myselfby depreciating the merits of my competitors. In the complexity andconfusion of these cross pursuits, I wished to take the authentic publicsense of my friends upon a business of so much delicacy. I wished totake your opinion along with me, that, if I should give up the contestat the very beginning, my surrender of my post may not seem the effectof inconstancy, or timidity, or anger, or disgust, or indolence, or anyother temper unbecoming a man who has engaged in the public service. If, on the contrary, I should undertake the election, and fail of success, Iwas full as anxious that it should be manifest to the whole world thatthe peace of the city had not been broken by my rashness, presumption, or fond conceit of my own merit. 

I am not come, by a false and counterfeit show of deference to yourjudgment, to seduce it in my favor. I ask it seriously and unaffectedly. If you wish that I should retire, I shall not consider that advice as acensure upon my conduct, or an alteration in your sentiments, but as arational submission to the circumstances of affairs. If, on thecontrary, you should think it proper for me to proceed on my canvass, ifyou will risk the trouble on your part, I will risk it on mine. Mypretensions are such as you cannot be ashamed of, whether they succeedor fail. 

If you call upon me, I shall solicit the favor of the city upon manlyground. I come before you with the plain confidence of an honest servantin the equity of a candid and discerning master. I come to claim yourapprobation, not to amuse you with vain apologies, or with professionsstill more vain and senseless. I have lived too long to be served byapologies, or to stand in need of them. The part I have acted has beenin open day; and to hold out to a conduct which stands in that clear andsteady light for all its good and all its evil, to hold out to thatconduct the paltry winking tapers of excuses and promises, --I neverwill do it. They may obscure it with their smoke, but they never canillumine sunshine by such a flame as theirs. 

I am sensible that no endeavors have been left untried to injure me inyour opinion. But the use of character is to be a shield againstcalumny. I could wish, undoubtedly, (if idle wishes were not the mostidle of all things, ) to make every part of my conduct agreeable to everyone of my constituents; but in so great a city, and so greatly dividedas this, it is weak to expect it. 

In such a discordancy of sentiments it is better to look to the natureof things than to the humors of men. The very attempt towards pleasingeverybody discovers a temper always flashy, and often false andinsincere. Therefore, as I have proceeded straight onward in my conduct, so I will proceed in my account of those parts of it which have beenmost excepted to. But I must first beg leave just to hint to you that wemay suffer very great detriment by being open to every talker. It is notto be imagined how much of service is lost from spirits full of activityand full of energy, who are pressing, who are rushing forward, to greatand capital objects, when you oblige them to be continually lookingback. Whilst they are defending one service, they defraud you of anhundred. Applaud us when we run, console us when we fall, cheer us whenwe recover; but let us pass on, --for God's sake, let us pass on!

Do you think, Gentlemen, that every public act in the six years since Istood in this place before you, that all the arduous things which havebeen done in this eventful period which has crowded into a few years'space the revolutions of an age, can be opened to you on their fairgrounds in half an hour's conversation?

But it is no reason, because there is a bad mode of inquiry, that thereshould be no examination at all. Most certainly it is our duty toexamine; it is our interest, too: but it must be with discretion, withan attention to all the circumstances and to all the motives; like soundjudges, and not like cavilling pettifoggers and quibbling pleaders, prying into flaws and hunting for exceptions. Look, Gentlemen, to the_whole tenor_ of your member's conduct. Try whether his ambition or hisavarice have justled him out of the straight line of duty, --or whetherthat grand foe of the offices of active life, that master vice in men ofbusiness, a degenerate and inglorious sloth, has made him flag andlanguish in his course. This is the object of our inquiry. If ourmember's conduct can bear this touch, mark it for sterling. He may havefallen into errors, he must have faults; but our error is greater, andour fault is radically ruinous to ourselves, if we do not bear, if we donot even applaud, the whole compound and mixed mass of such a character. Not to act thus is folly; I had almost said it is impiety. He censuresGod who quarrels with the imperfections of man. 

Gentlemen, we must not be peevish with those who serve the people; fornone will serve us, whilst there is a court to serve, but those who areof a nice and jealous honor. They who think everything, in comparison ofthat honor, to be dust and ashes, will not bear to have it soiled andimpaired by those for whose sake they make a thousand sacrifices topreserve it immaculate and whole. We shall either drive such men fromthe public stage, or we shall send them to the court for protection, where, if they must sacrifice their reputation, they will at leastsecure their interest. Depend upon it, that the lovers of freedom willbe free. None will violate their conscience to please us, in orderafterwards to discharge that conscience, which they have violated, bydoing us faithful and affectionate service. If we degrade and depravetheir minds by servility, it will be absurd to expect that they who arecreeping and abject towards us will ever be bold and incorruptibleassertors of our freedom against the most seducing and the mostformidable of all powers. No! human nature is not so formed: nor shallwe improve the faculties or better the morals of public men by ourpossession of the most infallible receipt in the world for making cheatsand hypocrites. 

Let me say, with plainness, I who am no longer in a public character, that, if, by a fair, by an indulgent, by a gentlemanly behavior to ourrepresentatives, we do not give confidence to their minds and a liberalscope to their understandings, if we do not permit our members to actupon a _very_ enlarged view of things, we shall at length infalliblydegrade our national representation into a confused and scuffling bustleof local agency. When the popular member is narrowed in his ideas andrendered timid in his proceedings, the service of the crown will be thesole nursery of statesmen. Among the frolics of the court, it may atlength take that of attending to its business. Then the monopoly ofmental power will be added to the power of all other kinds it possesses. On the side of the people there will be nothing but impotence: forignorance is impotence; narrowness of mind is impotence; timidity isitself impotence, and makes all other qualities that go along with itimpotent and useless. 

At present it is the plan of the court to make its servantsinsignificant. If the people should fall into the same humor, and shouldchoose their servants on the same principles of mere obsequiousness andflexibility and total vacancy or indifference of opinion in all publicmatters, then no part of the state will be sound, and it will be in vainto think of saving it. 

I thought it very expedient at this time to give you this candidcounsel; and with this counsel I would willingly close, if the matterswhich at various times have been objected to me in this city concernedonly myself and my own election. These charges, I think, are four innumber: my neglect of a due attention to my constituents, the not payingmore frequent visits here; my conduct on the affairs of the first IrishTrade Acts; my opinion and mode of proceeding on Lord Beauchamp'sDebtors' Bills; and my votes on the late affairs of the Roman Catholics. All of these (except perhaps the first) relate to matters of veryconsiderable public concern; and it is not lest you should censure meimproperly, but lest you should form improper opinions on matters ofsome moment to you, that I trouble you at all upon the subject. Myconduct is of small importance. 

With regard to the first charge, my friends have spoken to ms of it inthe style of amicable expostulation, --not so much blaming the thing aslamenting the effects. Others, less partial to me, were less kind inassigning the motives. I admit, there is a decorum and propriety in amember of Parliament's paying a respectful court to his constituents. IfI were conscious to myself that pleasure, or dissipation, or low, unworthy occupations had detained me from personal attendance on you, Iwould readily admit my fault, and quietly submit to the penalty. But, Gentlemen, I live at an hundred miles' distance from Bristol; and at theend of a session I come to my own house, fatigued in body and in mind, to a little repose, and to a very little attention to my family and myprivate concerns. A visit to Bristol is always a sort of canvass, elseit will do more harm than good. To pass from the toils of a session tothe toils of a canvass is the furthest thing in the world from repose. Icould hardly serve you _as I have done_, and court you too. Most of youhave heard that I do not very remarkably spare myself in _public_business; and in the _private_ business of my constituents I have donevery near as much as those who have nothing else to do. My canvass ofyou was not on the 'change, nor in the county meetings, nor in the clubsof this city: it was in the House of Commons; it was at theCustom-House; it was at the Council; it was at the Treasury; it was atthe Admiralty. I canvassed you through your affairs, and not yourpersons. I was not only your representative as a body; I was the agent, the solicitor of individuals; I ran about wherever your affairs couldcall me; and in acting for you, I often appeared rather as a ship-brokerthan as a member of Parliament. There was nothing too laborious or toolow for me to undertake. The meanness of the business was raised by thedignity of the object. If some lesser matters have slipped through myfingers, it was because I filled my hands too full, and, in my eagernessto serve you, took in more than any hands could grasp. Several gentlemenstand round me who are my willing witnesses; and there are others who, if they were here, would be still better, because they would beunwilling witnesses to the same truth. It was in the middle of a summerresidence in London, and in the middle of a negotiation at the Admiraltyfor your trade, that I was called to Bristol; and this late visit, atthis late day, has been possibly in prejudice to your affairs. 

Since I have touched upon this matter, let me say, Gentlemen, that, if Ihad a disposition or a right to complain, I have some cause of complainton my side. With a petition of this city in my hand, passed through thecorporation without a dissenting voice, a petition in unison with almostthe whole voice of the kingdom, (with whose formal thanks I was coveredover, ) whilst I labored on no less than five bills for a public reform, and fought, against the opposition of great abilities and of thegreatest power, every clause and every word of the largest of thosebills, almost to the very last day of a very long session, --all thistime a canvass in Bristol was as calmly carried on as if I were dead. Iwas considered as a man wholly out of the question. Whilst I watched andfasted and sweated in the House of Commons, by the most easy andordinary arts of election, by dinners and visits, by "How do you dos, "and "My worthy friends, " I was to be quietly moved out of my seat, --andpromises were made, and engagements entered into, without any exceptionor reserve, as if my laborious zeal in my duty had been a regularabdication of my trust. 

To open my whole heart to you on this subject, I do confess, however, that there were other times, besides the two years in which I did visityou, when I was not wholly without leisure for repeating that mark ofmy respect. But I could not bring my mind to see you. You remember thatin the beginning of this American war (that era of calamity, disgrace, and downfall, an era which no feeling mind will ever mention without atear for England) you were greatly divided, --and a very strong body, ifnot the strongest, opposed itself to the madness which every art andevery power were employed to render popular, in order that the errors ofthe rulers might be lost in the general blindness of the nation. Thisopposition continued until after our great, but most unfortunate victoryat Long Island. Then all the mounds and banks of our constancy wereborne down, at once, and the frenzy of the American war broke in upon uslike a deluge. This victory, which seemed to put an immediate end to alldifficulties, perfected us in that spirit of domination which ourunparalleled prosperity had but too long nurtured. We had been so verypowerful, and so very prosperous, that even the humblest of us weredegraded into the vices and follies of kings. We lost all measurebetween means and ends; and our headlong desires became our politics andour morals. All men who wished for peace, or retained any sentiments ofmoderation, were overborne or silenced; and this city was led by everyartifice (and probably with the more management because I was one ofyour members) to distinguish itself by its zeal for that fatal cause. Inthis temper of yours and of my mind, I should sooner have fled to theextremities of the earth than hate shown myself here. I, who saw inevery American victory (for you have had a long series of thesemisfortunes) the germ and seed of the naval power of France and Spain, which all our heat and warmth against America was only hatching intolife, --I should not have been a welcome visitant, with the brow and thelanguage of such feelings. When afterwards the other face of yourcalamity was turned upon you, and showed itself in defeat and distress, I shunned you full as much. I felt sorely this variety in ourwretchedness; and I did not wish to have the least appearance ofinsulting you with that show of superiority, which, though it may not beassumed, is generally suspected, in a time of calamity, from those whoseprevious warnings have been despised. I could not bear to show you arepresentative whose face did not reflect that of his constituents, --aface that could not joy in your joys, and sorrow in your sorrows. Buttime at length has made us all of one opinion, and we have all openedour eyes on the true nature of the American war, --to the true nature ofall its successes and all its failures. 

In that public storm, too, I had my private feelings. I had seen blowndown and prostrate on the ground several of those houses to whom I waschiefly indebted for the honor this city has done me. I confess, that, whilst the wounds of those I loved were yet green, I could not bear toshow myself in pride and triumph in that place into which theirpartiality had brought me, and to appear at feasts and rejoicings in themidst of the grief and calamity of my warm friends, my zealoussupporters, my generous benefactors. This is a true, unvarnished, undisguised state of the affair. You will judge of it. 

This is the only one of the charges in which I am personally concerned. As to the other matters objected against me, which in their turn I shallmention to you, remember once more I do not mean to extenuate or excuse. Why should I, when the things charged are among those upon which Ifound all my reputation? What would be left to me, if I myself was theman who softened and blended and diluted and weakened all thedistinguishing colors of my life, so as to leave nothing distinct anddeterminate in my whole conduct?

It has been said, and it is the second charge, that in the questions ofthe Irish trade I did not consult the interest of my constituents, --or, to speak out strongly, that I rather acted as a native of Ireland thanas an English member of Parliament. 

I certainly have very warm good wishes for the place of my birth. Butthe sphere of my duties is my true country. It was as a man attached toyour interests, and zealous for the conservation of your power anddignity, that I acted on that occasion, and on all occasions. You wereinvolved in the American war. A new world of policy was opened, to whichit was necessary we should conform, whether we would or not; and my onlythought was how to conform to our situation in such a manner as to uniteto this kingdom, in prosperity and in affection, whatever remained ofthe empire. I was true to my old, standing, invariable principle, thatall things which came from Great Britain should issue as a gift of herbounty and beneficence, rather than as claims recovered against astruggling litigant, --or at least, that, if your beneficence obtained nocredit in your concessions, yet that they should appear the salutaryprovisions of your wisdom and foresight, not as things wrung from youwith your blood by the cruel gripe of a rigid necessity. The firstconcessions, by being (much against my will) mangled and stripped of theparts which were necessary to make out their just correspondence andconnection in trade, were of no use. The next year a feeble attempt wasmade to bring the thing into better shape. This attempt, (countenancedby the minister, ) on the very first appearance of some popularuneasiness, was, after a considerable progress through the House, thrownout by _him_. 

What was the consequence? The whole kingdom of Ireland was instantly ina flame. Threatened by foreigners, and, as they thought, insulted byEngland, they resolved at once to resist the power of France and to castoff yours. As for us, we were able neither to protect nor to restrainthem. Forty thousand men were raised and disciplined without commissionfrom the crown. Two illegal armies were seen with banners displayed atthe same time and in the same country. No executive magistrate, nojudicature, in Ireland, would acknowledge the legality of the army whichbore the king's commission; and no law, or appearance of law, authorizedthe army commissioned by itself. In this unexampled state of things, which the least error, the least trespass on the right or left, wouldhave hurried down the precipice into an abyss of blood and confusion, the people of Ireland demand a freedom of trade with arms in theirhands. They interdict all commerce between the two nations. They denyall new supply in the House of Commons, although in time of war. Theystint the trust of the old revenue, given for two years to all theking's predecessors, to six months. The British Parliament, in a formersession, frightened into a limited concession by the menaces of Ireland, frightened out of it by the menaces of England, was now frightened backagain, and made an universal surrender of all that had been thought thepeculiar, reserved, uncommunicable rights of England: the exclusivecommerce of America, of Africa, of the West Indies, --all theenumerations of the Acts of Navigation, --all the manufactures, --iron, glass, even the last pledge of jealousy and pride, the interest hid inthe secret of our hearts, the inveterate prejudice moulded into theconstitution of our frame, even the sacred fleece itself, all wenttogether. No reserve, no exception; no debate, no discussion. A suddenlight broke in upon us all. It broke in, not through well-contrived andwell-disposed windows, but through flaws and breaches, --through theyawning chasms of our ruin. We were taught wisdom by humiliation. Notown in England presumed to have a prejudice, or dared to mutter apetition. What was worse, the whole Parliament of England, whichretained authority for nothing but surrenders, was despoiled of everyshadow of its superintendence. It was, without any qualification, deniedin theory, as it had been trampled upon in practice. This scene of shameand disgrace has, in a manner, whilst I am speaking, ended by theperpetual establishment of a military power in the dominions of thiscrown, without consent of the British legislature, [48] contrary to thepolicy of the Constitution, contrary to the Declaration of Right; and bythis your liberties are swept away along with your supremeauthority, --and both, linked together from the beginning, have, I amafraid, both together perished forever. 

What! Gentlemen, was I not to foresee, or foreseeing, was I not toendeavor to save you from all these multiplied mischiefs and disgraces?Would the little, silly, canvass prattle of obeying instructions, andhaving no opinions but yours, and such idle, senseless tales, whichamuse the vacant ears of unthinking men, have saved you from "thepelting of that pitiless storm, " to which the loose improvidence, thecowardly rashness, of those who dare not look danger in the face so asto provide against it in time, and therefore throw themselves headlonginto the midst of it, have exposed this degraded nation, beat down andprostrate on the earth, unsheltered, unarmed, unresisting? Was I anIrishman on that day that I boldly withstood our pride? or on the daythat I hung down my head, and wept in shame and silence over thehumiliation of Great Britain? I became unpopular in England for the one, and in Ireland for the other. What then? What obligation lay on me to bepopular? I was bound to serve both kingdoms. To be pleased with myservice was their affair, not mine. 

I was an Irishman in the Irish business, just as much as I was anAmerican, when, on the same principles, I wished you to concede toAmerica at a time when she prayed concession at our feet. Just as muchwas I an American, when I wished Parliament to offer terms in victory, and not to wait the well-chosen hour of defeat, for making good byweakness and by supplication a claim of prerogative, preëminence, andauthority. 

Instead of requiring it from me, as a point of duty, to kindle with yourpassions, had you all been as cool as I was, you would have been saveddisgraces and distresses that are unutterable. Do you remember ourcommission? We sent out a solemn embassy across the Atlantic Ocean, tolay the crown, the peerage, the commons of Great Britain at the feet ofthe American Congress. That our disgrace might want no sort ofbrightening and burnishing, observe who they were that composed thisfamous embassy. My Lord Carlisle is among the first ranks of ournobility. He is the identical man who, but two years before, had beenput forward, at the opening of a session, in the House of Lords, as themover of an haughty and rigorous address against America. He was put inthe front of the embassy of submission. Mr. Eden was taken from theoffice of Lord Suffolk, to whom he was then Under-Secretary ofState, --from the office of that Lord Suffolk who but a few weeks before, in his place in Parliament, did not deign to inquire where a congress ofvagrants was to be found. This Lord Suffolk sent Mr. Eden to find thesevagrants, without knowing where his king's generals were to be found whowere joined in the same commission of supplicating those whom they weresent to subdue. They enter the capital of America only to abandon it;and these assertors and representatives of the dignity of England, atthe tail of a flying army, let fly their Parthian shafts of memorialsand remonstrances at random behind them. Their promises and theiroffers, their flatteries and their menaces, were all despised; and wewere saved the disgrace of their formal reception only because theCongress scorned to receive them; whilst the State-house of independentPhiladelphia opened her doors to the public entry of the ambassador ofFrance. From war and blood we went to submission, and from submissionplunged back again to war and blood, to desolate and be desolated, without measure, hope, or end. I am a Royalist: I blushed for thisdegradation of the crown. I am a Whig: I blushed for the dishonor ofParliament. I am a true Englishman: I felt to the quick for thedisgrace of England. I am a man: I felt for the melancholy reverse ofhuman affairs in the fall of the first power in the world. 

To read what was approaching in Ireland, in the black and bloodycharacters of the American war, was a painful, but it was a necessarypart of my public duty. For, Gentlemen, it is not your fond desires ormine that can alter the nature of things; by contending against which, what have we got, or shall ever get, but defeat and shame? I did notobey your instructions. No. I conformed to the instructions of truth andNature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with aconstancy that became me. A representative worthy of you ought to be aperson of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your opinions, --but tosuch opinions as you and I _must_ have five years hence. I was not tolook to the flash of the day. I knew that you chose me, in my place, along with others, to be a pillar of the state, and not a weathercock onthe top of the edifice, exalted for my levity and versatility, and of nouse but to indicate the shiftings of every fashionable gale. Would toGod the value of my sentiments on Ireland and on America had been atthis day a subject of doubt and discussion! No matter what my sufferingshad been, so that this kingdom had kept the authority I wished it tomaintain, by a grave foresight, and by an equitable temperance in theuse of its power. 

The next article of charge on my public conduct, and that which I findrather the most prevalent of all, is Lord Beauchamp's bill: I mean hisbill of last session, for reforming the law-process concerningimprisonment. It is said, to aggravate the offence, that I treated thepetition of this city with contempt even in presenting it to the House, and expressed myself in terms of marked disrespect. Had this latter partof the charge been true, no merits on the side of the question which Itook could possibly excuse me. But I am incapable of treating this citywith disrespect. Very fortunately, at this minute, (if my bad eyesightdoes not deceive me, ) the worthy gentleman[49] deputed on this businessstands directly before me. To him I appeal, whether I did not, though itmilitated with my oldest and my most recent public opinions, deliver thepetition with a strong and more than usual recommendation to theconsideration of the House, on account of the character and consequenceof those who signed it. I believe the worthy gentleman will tell you, that, the very day I received it, I applied to the Solicitor, now theAttorney General, to give it an immediate consideration; and he mostobligingly and instantly consented to employ a great deal of his veryvaluable time to write an explanation of the bill. I attended thecommittee with all possible care and diligence, in order that everyobjection of yours might meet with a solution, or produce an alteration. I entreated your learned recorder (always ready in business in which youtake a concern) to attend. But what will you say to those who blame mefor supporting Lord Beauchamp's bill, as a disrespectful treatment ofyour petition, when you hear, that, out of respect to you, I myself wasthe cause of the loss of that very bill? For the noble lord who broughtit in, and who, I must say, has much merit for this and some othermeasures, at my request consented to put it off for a week, which theSpeaker's illness lengthened to a fortnight; and then the frantictumult about Popery drove that and every rational business from theHouse. So that, if I chose to make a defence of myself, on the littleprinciples of a culprit, pleading in his exculpation, I might not onlysecure my acquittal, but make merit with the opposers of the bill. But Ishall do no such thing. The truth is, that I did occasion the loss ofthe bill, and by a delay caused by my respect to you. But such an eventwas never in my contemplation. And I am so far from taking credit forthe defeat of that measure, that I cannot sufficiently lament mymisfortune, if but one man, who ought to be at large, has passed a yearin prison by my means. I am a debtor to the debtors. I confess judgment. I owe what, if ever it be in my power, I shall most certainlypay, --ample atonement and usurious amends to liberty and humanity for myunhappy lapse. For, Gentlemen, Lord Beauchamp's bill was a law ofjustice and policy, as far as it went: I say, as far as it went; for itsfault was its being in the remedial part miserably defective. 

There are two capital faults in our law with relation to civil debts. One is, that every man is presumed solvent: a presumption, ininnumerable cases, directly against truth. Therefore the debtor isordered, on a supposition of ability and fraud, to be coerced hisliberty until he makes payment. By this means, in all cases of civilinsolvency, without a pardon from his creditor, he is to be imprisonedfor life; and thus a miserable mistaken invention of artificial scienceoperates to change a civil into a criminal judgment, and to scourgemisfortune or indiscretion with a punishment which the law does notinflict on the greatest crimes. 

The next fault is, that the inflicting of that punishment is not on theopinion of an equal and public judge, but is referred to the arbitrarydiscretion of a private, nay, interested, and irritated, individual. He, who formally is, and substantially ought to be, the judge, is in realityno more than ministerial, a mere executive instrument of a private man, who is at once judge and party. Every idea of judicial order issubverted by this procedure. If the insolvency be no crime, why is itpunished with arbitrary imprisonment? If it be a crime, why is itdelivered into private hands to pardon without discretion, or to punishwithout mercy and without measure?

To these faults, gross and cruel faults in our law, the excellentprinciple of Lord Beauchamp's bill applied some sort of remedy. I knowthat credit must be preserved: but equity must be preserved, too; and itis impossible that anything should be necessary to commerce which isinconsistent with justice. The principle of credit was not weakened bythat bill. God forbid! The enforcement of that credit was only put intothe same public judicial hands on which we depend for our lives and allthat makes life dear to us. But, indeed, this business was taken up toowarmly, both here and elsewhere. The bill was extremely mistaken. It wassupposed to enact what it never enacted; and complaints were made ofclauses in it, as novelties, which existed before the noble lord thatbrought in the bill was born. There was a fallacy that ran through thewhole of the objections. The gentlemen who opposed the bill alwaysargued as if the option lay between that bill and the ancient law. Butthis is a grand mistake. For, practically, the option is between notthat bill and the old law, but between that bill and those occasionallaws called acts of grace. For the operation of the old law is sosavage, and so inconvenient to society, that for a long time past, oncein every Parliament, and lately twice, the legislature has been obligedto make a general arbitrary jail-delivery, and at once to set open, byits sovereign authority, all the prisons in England. 

Gentlemen, I never relished acts of grace, nor ever submitted to thembut from despair of better. They are a dishonorable invention, by which, not from humanity, not from policy, but merely because we have not roomenough to hold these victims of the absurdity of our laws, we turn looseupon the public three or four thousand naked wretches, corrupted by thehabits, debased by the ignominy of a prison. If the creditor had a rightto those carcasses as a natural security for his property, I am sure wehave no right to deprive him of that security. But if the few pounds offlesh were not necessary to his security, we had not a right to detainthe unfortunate debtor, without any benefit at all to the person whoconfined him. Take it as you will, we commit injustice. Now LordBeauchamp's bill intended to do deliberately, and with great caution andcircumspection, upon each several case, and with all attention to thejust claimant, what acts of grace do in a much greater measure, and withvery little care, caution, or deliberation. 

I suspect that here, too, if we contrive to oppose this bill, we shallbe found in a struggle against the nature of things. For, as we growenlightened, the public will not bear, for any length of time, to payfor the maintenance of whole armies of prisoners, nor, at their ownexpense, submit to keep jails as a sort of garrisons, merely to fortifythe absurd principle of making men judges in their own cause. For credithas little or no concern in this cruelty. I speak in a commercialassembly. You know that credit is given because capital _must_ beemployed; that men calculate the chances of insolvency; and they eitherwithhold the credit, or make the debtor pay the risk in the price. Thecounting-house has no alliance with the jail. Holland understands tradeas well as we, and she has done much more than this obnoxious billintended to do. There was not, when Mr. Howard visited Holland, morethan one prisoner for debt in the great city of Rotterdam. Although LordBeauchamp's act (which was previous to this bill, and intended to feelthe way for it) has already preserved liberty to thousands, and thoughit is not three years since the last act of grace passed, yet, by Mr. Howard's last account, there were near three thousand again in jail. Icannot name this gentleman without remarking that his labors andwritings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He hasvisited all Europe, --not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces or thestateliness of temples, not to make accurate measurements of the remainsof ancient grandeur nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art, not to collect medals or collate manuscripts, --but to dive into thedepths of dungeons, to plunge into the infection of hospitals, to surveythe mansions of sorrow and pain, to take the gauge and dimensions ofmisery, depression, and contempt, to remember the forgotten, to attendto the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate thedistresses of all men in all countries. His plan is original; and it isas full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery, acircumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labor is feltmore or less in every country; I hope he will anticipate his finalreward by seeing all its effects fully realized in his own. He willreceive, not by retail, but in gross, the reward of those who visit theprisoner; and he has so forestalled and monopolized this branch ofcharity, that there will be, I trust, little room to merit by such actsof benevolence hereafter. 

Nothing now remains to trouble you with but the fourth charge againstme, --the business of the Roman Catholics. It is a business closelyconnected with the rest. They are all on one and the same principle. Mylittle scheme of conduct, such as it is, is all arranged. I could donothing but what I have done on this subject, without confounding thewhole train of my ideas and disturbing the whole order of my life. Gentlemen, I ought to apologize to you for seeming to think anything atall necessary to be said upon this matter. The calumny is fitter to bescrawled with the midnight chalk of incendiaries, with "No Popery, " onwalls and doors of devoted houses, than to be mentioned in any civilizedcompany. I had heard that the spirit of discontent on that subject wasvery prevalent here. With pleasure I find that I have been grosslymisinformed. If it exists at all in this city, the laws have crushed itsexertions, and our morals have shamed its appearance in daylight. I havepursued this spirit wherever I could trace it; but it still fled fromme. It was a ghost which all had heard of, but none had seen. None wouldacknowledge that he thought the public proceeding with regard to ourCatholic dissenters to be blamable; but several were sorry it had madean ill impression upon others, and that my interest was hurt by my sharein the business. I find with satisfaction and pride, that not above fouror five in this city (and I dare say these misled by some grossmisrepresentation) have signed that symbol of delusion and bond ofsedition, that libel on the national religion and English character, theProtestant Association. It is, therefore, Gentlemen, not by way of cure, but of prevention, and lest the arts of wicked men may prevail over theintegrity of any one amongst us, that I think it necessary to open toyou the merits of this transaction pretty much at large; and I beg yourpatience upon it: for, although the reasonings that have been used todepreciate the act are of little force, and though the authority of themen concerned in this ill design is not very imposing, yet theaudaciousness of these conspirators against the national honor, and theextensive wickedness of their attempts, have raised persons of littleimportance to a degree of evil eminence, and imparted a sort of sinisterdignity to proceedings that had their origin in only the meanest andblindest malice. 

In explaining to you the proceedings of Parliament which have beencomplained of, I will state to you, --first, the thing that wasdone, --next, the persons who did it, --and lastly, the grounds andreasons upon which the legislature proceeded in this deliberate act ofpublic justice and public prudence. 

Gentlemen, the condition of our nature is such that we buy our blessingsat a price. The Reformation, one of the greatest periods of humanimprovement, was a time of trouble and confusion. The vast structure ofsuperstition and tyranny which had been for ages in rearing, and whichwas combined with the interest of the great and of the many, which wasmoulded into the laws, the manners, and civil institutions of nations, and blended with the frame and policy of states, could not be brought tothe ground without a fearful struggle; nor could it fall without aviolent concussion of itself and all about it. When this greatrevolution was attempted in a more regular mode by government, it wasopposed by plots and seditions of the people; when by popular efforts, it was repressed as rebellion by the hand of power; and bloodyexecutions (often bloodily returned) marked the whole of its progressthrough all its stages. The affairs of religion, which are no longerheard of in the tumult of our present contentions, made a principalingredient in the wars and politics of that time: the enthusiasm ofreligion threw a gloom over the politics; and political interestspoisoned and perverted the spirit of religion upon all sides. TheProtestant religion, in that violent struggle, infected, as the Popishhad been before, by worldly interests and worldly passions, became apersecutor in its turn, sometimes of the new sects, which carried theirown principles further than it was convenient to the original reformers, and always of the body from whom they parted: and this persecutingspirit arose, not only from the bitterness of retaliation, but from themerciless policy of fear. 

It was long before the spirit of true piety and true wisdom, involved inthe principles of the Reformation, could be depurated from the dregs andfeculence of the contention with which it was carried through. However, until this be done, the Reformation is not complete: and those who thinkthemselves good Protestants, from their animosity to others, are inthat respect no Protestants at all. It was at first thought necessary, perhaps, to oppose to Popery another Popery, to get the better of it. Whatever was the cause, laws were made in many countries, and in thiskingdom in particular, against Papists, which are as bloody as any ofthose which had been enacted by the Popish princes and states: and wherethose laws were not bloody, in my opinion, they were worse; as they wereslow, cruel outrages on our nature, and kept men alive only to insult intheir persons every one of the rights and feelings of humanity. I passthose statutes, because I would spare your pious ears the repetition ofsuch shocking things; and I come to that particular law the repeal ofwhich has produced so many unnatural and unexpected consequences. 

A statute was fabricated in the year 1699, by which the saying mass (achurch service in the Latin tongue, not exactly the same as our liturgy, but very near it, and containing no offence whatsoever against the laws, or against good morals) was forged into a crime, punishable withperpetual imprisonment. The teaching school, an useful and virtuousoccupation, even the teaching in a private family, was in every Catholicsubjected to the same unproportioned punishment. Your industry, and thebread of your children, was taxed for a pecuniary reward to stimulateavarice to do what Nature refused, to inform and prosecute on this law. Every Roman Catholic was, under the same act, to forfeit his estate tohis nearest Protestant relation, until, through a profession of what hedid not believe, he redeemed by his hypocrisy what the law hadtransferred to the kinsman as the recompense of his profligacy. Whenthus turned out of doors from his paternal estate, he was disabled fromacquiring any other by any industry, donation, or charity; but wasrendered a foreigner in his native land, only because he retained thereligion, along with the property, handed down to him from those who hadbeen the old inhabitants of that land before him. 

Does any one who hears me approve this scheme of things, or think thereis common justice, common sense, or common honesty in any part of it? Ifany does, let him say it, and I am ready to discuss the point withtemper and candor. But instead of approving, I perceive a virtuousindignation beginning to rise in your minds on the mere cold stating ofthe statute. 

But what will you feel, when you know from history how this statutepassed, and what were the motives, and what the mode of making it? Aparty in this nation, enemies to the system of the Revolution, were inopposition to the government of King William. They knew that ourglorious deliverer was an enemy to all persecution. They knew that hecame to free us from slavery and Popery, out of a country where a thirdof the people are contented Catholics under a Protestant government. Hecame with a part of his army composed of those very Catholics, tooverset the power of a Popish prince. Such is the effect of a toleratingspirit; and so much is liberty served in every way, and by all persons, by a manly adherence to its own principles. Whilst freedom is true toitself, everything becomes subject to it, and its very adversaries arean instrument in its hands. 

The party I speak of (like some amongst us who would disparage the bestfriends of their country) resolved to make the king either violate hisprinciples of toleration or incur the odium of protecting Papists. Theytherefore brought in this bill, and made it purposely wicked and absurdthat it might be rejected. The then court party, discovering their game, turned the tables on them, and returned their bill to them stuffed withstill greater absurdities, that its loss might lie upon its originalauthors. They, finding their own ball thrown back to them, kicked itback again to their adversaries. And thus this act, loaded with thedouble injustice of two parties, neither of whom intended to pass whatthey hoped the other would be persuaded to reject, went through thelegislature, contrary to the real wish of all parts of it, and of allthe parties that composed it. In this manner these insolent andprofligate factions, as if they were playing with balls and counters, made a sport of the fortunes and the liberties of theirfellow-creatures. Other acts of persecution have been acts of malice. This was a subversion of justice from wantonness and petulance. Lookinto the history of Bishop Burnet. He is a witness without exception. 

The effects of the act have been as mischievous as its origin wasludicrous and shameful. From that time, every person of that communion, lay and ecclesiastic, has been obliged to fly from the face of day. Theclergy, concealed in garrets of private houses, or obliged to take ashelter (hardly safe to themselves, but infinitely dangerous to theircountry) under the privileges of foreign ministers, officiated as theirservants and under their protection. The whole body of the Catholics, condemned to beggary and to ignorance in their native land, have beenobliged to learn the principles of letters, at the hazard of all theirother principles, from the charity of your enemies. They have been taxedto their ruin at the pleasure of necessitous and profligate relations, and according to the measure of their necessity and profligacy. Examplesof this are many and affecting. Some of them are known by a friend whostands near me in this hall. It is but six or seven years since aclergyman, of the name of Malony, a man of morals, neither guilty noraccused of anything noxious to the state, was condemned to perpetualimprisonment for exercising the functions of his religion; and afterlying in jail two or three years, was relieved by the mercy ofgovernment from perpetual imprisonment, on condition of perpetualbanishment. A brother of the Earl of Shrewsbury, a Talbot, a namerespectable in this country whilst its glory is any part of its concern, was hauled to the bar of the Old Bailey, among common felons, and onlyescaped the same doom, either by some error in the process, or that thewretch who brought him there could not correctly describe his person, --Inow forget which. In short, the persecution would never have relentedfor a moment, if the judges, superseding (though with an ambiguousexample) the strict rule of their artificial duty by the higherobligation of their conscience, did not constantly throw everydifficulty in the way of such informers. But so ineffectual is the powerof legal evasion against legal iniquity, that it was but the other daythat a lady of condition, beyond the middle of life, was on the point ofbeing stripped of her whole fortune by a near relation to whom she hadbeen a friend and benefactor; and she must have been totally ruined, without a power of redress or mitigation from the courts of law, hadnot the legislature itself rushed in, and by a special act of Parliamentrescued her from the injustice of its own statutes. One of the actsauthorizing such things was that which we in part repealed, knowing whatour duty was, and doing that duty as men of honor and virtue, as goodProtestants, and as good citizens. Let him stand forth that disapproveswhat we have done!

Gentlemen, bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. In such a country asthis they are of all bad things the worst, --worse by far than anywhereelse; and they derive a particular malignity even from the wisdom andsoundness of the rest of our institutions. For very obvious reasons youcannot trust the crown with a dispensing power over any of your laws. However, a government, be it as bad as it may, will, in the exercise ofa discretionary power, discriminate times and persons, and will notordinarily pursue any man, when its own safety is not concerned. Amercenary informer knows no distinction. Under such a system, theobnoxious people are slaves not only to the government, but they live atthe mercy of every individual; they are at once the slaves of the wholecommunity and of every part of it; and the worst and most unmerciful menare those on whose goodness they most depend. 

In this situation, men not only shrink from the frowns of a sternmagistrate, but they are obliged to fly from their very species. Theseeds of destruction are sown in civil intercourse, in social habitudes. The blood of wholesome kindred is infected. Their tables and beds aresurrounded with snares. All the means given by Providence to make lifesafe and comfortable are perverted into instruments of terror andtorment. This species of universal subserviency, that makes the veryservant who waits behind your chair the arbiter of your life andfortune, has such a tendency to degrade and abase mankind, and todeprive them of that assured and liberal state of mind which alone canmake us what we ought to be, that I vow to God I would sooner bringmyself to put a man to immediate death for opinions I disliked, and soto get rid of the man and his opinions at once, than to fret him with afeverish being, tainted with the jail-distemper of a contagiousservitude, to keep him above ground an animated mass of putrefaction, corrupted himself, and corrupting all about him. 

The act repealed was of this direct tendency; and it was made in themanner which I have related to you. I will now tell you by whom the billof repeal was brought into Parliament. I find it has been industriouslygiven out in this city (from kindness to me, unquestionably) that I wasthe mover or the seconder. The fact is, I did not once open my lips onthe subject during the whole progress of the bill. I do not say this asdisclaiming my share in that measure. Very far from it. I inform you ofthis fact, lest I should seem to arrogate to myself the merits whichbelong to others. To have been the man chosen out to redeem ourfellow-citizens from slavery, to purify our laws from absurdity andinjustice, and to cleanse our religion from the blot and stain ofpersecution, would be an honor and happiness to which my wishes wouldundoubtedly aspire, but to which nothing but my wishes could possiblyhave entitled me. That great work was in hands in every respect farbetter qualified than mine. The mover of the bill was Sir GeorgeSavile. 

When an act of great and signal humanity was to be done, and done withall the weight and authority that belonged to it, the world could castits eyes upon none but him. I hope that few things which have a tendencyto bless or to adorn life have wholly escaped my observation in mypassage through it. I have sought the acquaintance of that gentleman, and have seen him in all situations. He is a true genius; with anunderstanding vigorous, and acute, and refined, and distinguishing evento excess; and illuminated with a most unbounded, peculiar, and originalcast of imagination. With these he possesses many external andinstrumental advantages; and he makes use of them all. His fortune isamong the largest, --a fortune which, wholly unincumbered as it is withone single charge from luxury, vanity, or excess, sinks under thebenevolence of its dispenser. This private benevolence, expanding itselfinto patriotism, renders his whole being the estate of the public, inwhich he has not reserved a _peculium_ for himself of profit, diversion, or relaxation. During the session the first in and the last out of theHouse of Commons, he passes from the senate to the camp; and seldomseeing the seat of his ancestors, he is always in Parliament to servehis country or in the field to defend it. But in all well-wroughtcompositions some particulars stand out more eminently than the rest;and the things which will carry his name to posterity are his two bills:I mean that for a limitation of the claims of the crown upon landedestates, and this for the relief of the Roman Catholics. By the formerhe has emancipated property; by the latter he has quieted conscience;and by both he has taught that grand lesson to government andsubject, --no longer to regard each other as adverse parties. 

Such was the mover of the act that is complained of by men who are notquite so good as he is, --an act most assuredly not brought in by himfrom any partiality to that sect which is the object of it. For amonghis faults I really cannot help reckoning a greater degree of prejudiceagainst that people than becomes so wise a man. I know that he inclinesto a sort of disgust, mixed with a considerable degree of asperity, tothe system; and he has few, or rather no habits with any of itsprofessors. What he has done was on quite other motives. The motiveswere these, which he declared in his excellent speech on his motion forthe bill: namely, his extreme zeal to the Protestant religion, which hethought utterly disgraced by the act of 1699; and his rooted hatred toall kind of oppression, under any color, or upon any pretencewhatsoever. 

The seconder was worthy of the mover and the motion. I was not theseconder; it was Mr. Dunning, recorder of this city. I shall say theless of him because his near relation to you makes you more particularlyacquainted with his merits. But I should appear little acquainted withthem, or little sensible of them, if I could utter his name on thisoccasion without expressing my esteem for his character. I am not afraidof offending a most learned body, and most jealous of its reputation forthat learning, when I say he is the first of his profession. It is apoint settled by those who settle everything else; and I must add (whatI am enabled to say from my own long and close observation) that thereis not a man, of any profession, or in any situation, of a more erectand independent spirit, of a more proud honor, a more manly mind, a morefirm and determined integrity. Assure yourselves, that the names of twosuch men will bear a great load of prejudice in the other scale beforethey can be entirely outweighed. 

With this mover and this seconder agreed the _whole_ House of Commons, the _whole_ House of Lords, the _whole_ Bench of Bishops, the king, theministry, the opposition, all the distinguished clergy of theEstablishment, all the eminent lights (for they were consulted) of thedissenting churches. This according voice of national wisdom ought to belistened to with reverence. To say that all these descriptions ofEnglishmen unanimously concurred in a scheme for introducing theCatholic religion, or that none of them understood the nature andeffects of what they were doing so well as a few obscure clubs of peoplewhose names you never heard of, is shamelessly absurd. Surely it ispaying a miserable compliment to the religion we profess, to suggestthat everything eminent in the kingdom is indifferent or even adverse tothat religion, and that its security is wholly abandoned to the zeal ofthose who have nothing but their zeal to distinguish them. In weighingthis unanimous concurrence of whatever the nation has to boast of, Ihope you will recollect that all these concurring parties do by no meanslove one another enough to agree in any point which was not bothevidently and importantly right. 

To prove this, to prove that the measure was both clearly and materiallyproper, I will next lay before you (as I promised) the political groundsand reasons for the repeal of that penal statute, and the motives to itsrepeal at that particular time. 

Gentlemen, America--When the English nation seemed to be dangerously, if not irrecoverably divided, --when one, and that the most growingbranch, was torn from the parent stock, and ingrafted on the power ofFrance, a great terror fell upon this kingdom. On a sudden we awakenedfrom our dreams of conquest, and saw ourselves threatened with animmediate invasion, which we were at that time very ill prepared toresist. You remember the cloud that gloomed over us all. In that hour ofour dismay, from the bottom of the hiding-places into which theindiscriminate rigor of our statutes had driven them, came out the bodyof the Roman Catholics. They appeared before the steps of a totteringthrone, with one of the most sober, measured, steady, and dutifuladdresses that was ever presented to the crown. It was no holidayceremony, no anniversary compliment of parade and show. It was signed byalmost every gentleman of that persuasion, of note or property, inEngland. At such a crisis, nothing but a decided resolution to stand orfall with their country could have dictated such an address, the directtendency of which was to cut off all retreat, and to render thempeculiarly obnoxious to an invader of their own communion. The addressshowed what I long languished to see, that all the subjects of Englandhad cast off all foreign views and connections, and that every manlooked for his relief from every grievance at the hands only of his ownnatural government. 

It was necessary, on our part, that the natural government should showitself worthy of that name. It was necessary, at the crisis I speak of, that the supreme power of the state should meet the conciliatorydispositions of the subject. To delay protection would be to rejectallegiance. And why should it be rejected, or even coldly andsuspiciously received? If any independent Catholic state should chooseto take part with this kingdom in a war with France and Spain, thatbigot (if such a bigot could be found) would be heard with littlerespect, who could dream of objecting his religion to an ally whom thenation would not only receive with its freest thanks, but purchase withthe last remains of its exhausted treasure. To such an ally we shouldnot dare to whisper a single syllable of those base and invidious topicsupon which some unhappy men would persuade the state to reject the dutyand allegiance of its own members. Is it, then, because foreigners arein a condition to set our malice at defiance, that with _them_ we arewilling to contract engagements of friendship, and to keep them withfidelity and honor, but that, because we conceive some descriptions ofour countrymen are not powerful enough to punish our malignity, we willnot permit them to support our common interest? Is it on that groundthat our anger is to be kindled by their offered kindness? Is it on thatground that they are to be subjected to penalties, because they arewilling by actual merit to purge themselves from imputed crimes? Lest byan adherence to the cause of their country they should acquire a titleto fair and equitable treatment, are we resolved to furnish them withcauses of eternal enmity, and rather supply them with just and foundedmotives to disaffection than not to have that disaffection in existenceto justify an oppression which, not from policy, but disposition, wehave predetermined to exercise?

What shadow of reason could be assigned, why, at a time when the mostProtestant part of this Protestant empire found it for its advantage tounite with the two principal Popish states, to unite itself in theclosest bonds with France and Spain, for our destruction, that we shouldrefuse to unite with our own Catholic countrymen for our ownpreservation? Ought we, like madmen, to tear off the plasters that thelenient hand of prudence had spread over the wounds and gashes which inour delirium of ambition we had given to our own body? No person everreprobated the American war more than I did, and do, and ever shall. ButI never will consent that we should lay additional, voluntary penaltieson ourselves, for a fault which carries but too much of its ownpunishment in its own nature. For one, I was delighted with the proposalof internal peace. I accepted the blessing with thankfulness andtransport. I was truly happy to find _one_ good effect of our civildistractions: that they had put an end to all religious strife andheart-burning in our own bowels. What must be the sentiments of a manwho would wish to perpetuate domestic hostility when the causes ofdispute are at an end, and who, crying out for peace with one part ofthe nation on the most humiliating terms, should deny it to those whooffer friendship without any terms at all?

But if I was unable to reconcile such a denial to the contractedprinciples of local duty, what answer could I give to the broad claimsof general humanity? I confess to you freely, that the sufferings anddistresses of the people of America in this cruel war have at timesaffected me more deeply than I can express. I felt every gazette oftriumph as a blow upon my heart, which has an hundred times sunk andfainted within me at all the mischiefs brought upon those who bear thewhole brunt of war in the heart of their country. Yet the Americans areutter strangers to me; a nation among whom I am not sure that I have asingle acquaintance. Was I to suffer my mind to be so unaccountablywarped, was I to keep such iniquitous weights and measures of temper andof reason, as to sympathize with those who are in open rebellion againstan authority which I respect, at war with a country which by every titleought to be, and is, most dear to me, --and yet to have no feeling at allfor the hardships and indignities suffered by men who by their veryvicinity are bound up in a nearer relation to us, who contribute theirshare, and more than their share, to the common prosperity, who performthe common offices of social life, and who obey the laws, to the full aswell as I do? Gentlemen, the danger to the state being out of thequestion, (of which, let me tell you, statesmen themselves are apt tohave but too exquisite a sense, ) I could assign no one reason ofjustice, policy, or feeling, for not concurring most cordially, as mostcordially I did concur, in softening some part of that shamefulservitude under which several of my worthy fellow-citizens weregroaning. 

Important effects followed this act of wisdom. They appeared at home andabroad, to the great benefit of this kingdom, and, let me hope, to theadvantage of mankind at large. It betokened union among ourselves. Itshowed soundness, even on the part of the persecuted, which generally isthe weak side of every community. But its most essential operation wasnot in England. The act was immediately, though very imperfectly, copiedin Ireland; and this imperfect transcript of an imperfect act, thisfirst faint sketch of toleration, which did little more than disclose aprinciple and mark out a disposition, completed in a most wonderfulmanner the reunion to the state of all the Catholics of that country. Itmade us what we ought always to have been, one family, one body, oneheart and soul, against the family combination and all othercombinations of our enemies. We have, indeed, obligations to thatpeople, who received such small benefits with so much gratitude, and forwhich gratitude and attachment to us I am afraid they have suffered nota little in other places. 

I dare say you have all hoard of the privileges indulged to the IrishCatholics residing in Spain. You have likewise heard with whatcircumstances of severity they have been lately expelled from theseaports of that kingdom, driven into the inland cities, and theredetained as a sort of prisoners of state. I have good reason to believethat it was the zeal to our government and our cause (somewhatindiscreetly expressed in one of the addresses of the Catholics ofIreland) which has thus drawn down on their heads the indignation of thecourt of Madrid, to the inexpressible loss of several individuals, and, in future, perhaps to the great detriment of the whole of their body. Now that our people should be persecuted in Spain for their attachmentto this country, and persecuted in this country for their supposedenmity to us, is such a jarring reconciliation of contradictorydistresses, is a thing at once so dreadful and ridiculous, that nomalice short of diabolical would wish to continue any human creatures insuch a situation. But honest men will not forget either their merit ortheir sufferings. There are men (and many, I trust, there are) who, outof love to their country and their kind, would torture their inventionto find excuses for the mistakes of their brethren, and who, to stifledissension, would construe even doubtful appearances with the utmostfavor: such men will never persuade themselves to be ingenious andrefined in discovering disaffection and treason in the manifest, palpable signs of suffering loyalty. Persecution is so unnatural tothem, that they gladly snatch the very first opportunity of laying asideall the tricks and devices of penal politics, and of returning home, after all their irksome and vexatious wanderings, to our natural familymansion, to the grand social principle that unites all men, in alldescriptions, under the shadow of an equal and impartial justice. 

Men of another sort, I mean the bigoted enemies to liberty, may, perhaps, in their politics, make no account of the good or ill affectionof the Catholics of England, who are but an handful of people, (enoughto torment, but not enough to fear, ) perhaps not so many, of both sexesand of all ages, as fifty thousand. But, Gentlemen, it is possible youmay not know that the people of that persuasion in Ireland amount atleast to sixteen or seventeen hundred thousand souls. I do not at allexaggerate the number. A _nation_ to be persecuted! Whilst we weremasters of the sea, embodied with America, and in alliance with half thepowers of the Continent, we might, perhaps, in that remote corner ofEurope, afford to tyrannize with impunity. But there is a revolution inour affairs, which makes it prudent to be just. In our late awkwardcontest with Ireland about trade, had religion been thrown in, toferment and embitter the mass of discontents, the consequences mighthave been truly dreadful. But, very happily, that cause of quarrel waspreviously quieted by the wisdom of the acts I am commending. 

Even in England, where I admit the danger from the discontent of thatpersuasion to be less than in Ireland, yet even here, had we listened tothe counsels of fanaticism and folly, we might have wounded ourselvesvery deeply, and wounded ourselves in a very tender part. You areapprised that the Catholics of England consist mostly of our bestmanufacturers. Had the legislature chosen, instead of returning theirdeclarations of duty with correspondent good-will, to drive them todespair, there is a country at their very door to which they would beinvited, --a country in all respects as good as ours, and with the finestcities in the world ready built to receive them. And thus the bigotry ofa free country, and in an enlightened age, would have repeopled thecities of Flanders, which, in the darkness of two hundred years ago, hadbeen desolated by the superstition of a cruel tyrant. Oar manufactureswere the growth of the persecutions in the Low Countries. What aspectacle would it be to Europe, to see us at this time of day balancingthe account of tyranny with those very countries, and by ourpersecutions driving back trade and manufacture, as a sort of vagabonds, to their original settlement! But I trust we shall be saved this last ofdisgraces. 

So far as to the effect of the act on the interests of this nation. Withregard to the interests of mankind at large, I am sure the benefit wasvery considerable. Long before this act, indeed, the spirit oftoleration began to gain ground in Europe. In Holland the third part ofthe people are Catholics; they live at ease, and are a sound part of thestate. In many parts of Germany, Protestants and Papists partake thesame cities, the same councils, and even the same churches. Theunbounded liberality of the king of Prussia's conduct on this occasionis known to all the world; and it is of a piece with the other grandmaxims of his reign. The magnanimity of the Imperial court, breakingthrough the narrow principles of its predecessors, has indulged itsProtestant subjects, not only with property, with worship, with liberaleducation, but with honors and trusts, both civil and military. A worthyProtestant gentleman of this country now fills, and fills with credit, an high office in the Austrian Netherlands. Even the Lutheran obstinacyof Sweden has thawed at length, and opened a toleration to allreligions. I know, myself, that in France the Protestants begin to be atrest. The army, which in that country is everything, is open to them;and some of the military rewards and decorations which the laws deny aresupplied by others, to make the service acceptable and honorable. Thefirst minister of finance in that country is a Protestant. Two years'war without a tax is among the first fruits of their liberality. Tarnished as the glory of this nation is, and far as it has waded intothe shades of an eclipse, some beams of its former illumination stillplay upon its surface; and what is done in England is still looked to, as argument, and as example. It is certainly true, that no law of thiscountry ever met with such universal applause abroad, or was so likelyto produce the perfection of that tolerating spirit which, as Iobserved, has been long gaining ground in Europe: for abroad it wasuniversally thought that we had done what I am sorry to say we had not;they thought we had granted a full toleration. That opinion was, however, so far from hurting the Protestant cause, that I declare, withthe most serious solemnity, my firm belief that no one thing done forthese fifty years past was so likely to prove deeply beneficial to ourreligion at large as Sir George Savile's act. In its effects it was "anact for tolerating and protecting Protestantism throughout Europe"; andI hope that those who were taking steps for the quiet and settlement ofour Protestant brethren in other countries will, even yet, ratherconsider the steady equity of the greater and better part of the peopleof Great Britain than the vanity and violence of a few. 

I perceive, Gentlemen, by the manner of all about me, that you look withhorror on the wicked clamor which has been raised on this subject, andthat, instead of an apology for what was done, you rather demand from mean account, why the execution of the scheme of toleration was not mademore answerable to the large and liberal grounds on which it was takenup. The question is natural and proper; and I remember that a great andlearned magistrate, [50] distinguished for his strong and systematicunderstanding, and who at that time was a member of the House ofCommons, made the same objection to the proceeding. The statutes, asthey now stand, are, without doubt, perfectly absurd. But I beg leave toexplain the cause of this gross imperfection in the tolerating plan, aswell and as shortly as I am able. It was universally thought that thesession ought not to pass over without doing _something_ in thisbusiness. To revise the whole body of the penal statutes was conceivedto be an object too big for the time. The penal statute, therefore, which was chosen for repeal (chosen to show our disposition toconciliate, not to perfect a toleration) was this act of ludicrouscruelty of which I have just given you the history. It is an act which, though not by a great deal so fierce and bloody as some of the rest, wasinfinitely more ready in the execution. It was the act which gave thegreatest encouragement to those pests of society, mercenary informersand interested disturbers of household peace; and it was observed withtruth, that the prosecutions, either carried to conviction orcompounded, for many years, had been all commenced upon that act. It wassaid, that, whilst we were deliberating on a more perfect scheme, thespirit of the age would never come up to the execution of the statuteswhich remained, especially as more steps, and a coöperation of moreminds and powers, were required towards a mischievous use of them, thanfor the execution of the act to be repealed: that it was better tounravel this texture from below than from above, beginning with thelatest, which, in general practice, is the severest evil. It wasalleged, that this slow proceeding would be attended with the advantageof a progressive experience, --and that the people would grow reconciledto toleration, when they should find, by the effects, that justice wasnot so irreconcilable an enemy to convenience as they had imagined. 

These, Gentlemen, were the reasons why we left this good work in therude, unfinished state in which good works are commonly left, throughthe tame circumspection with which a timid prudence so frequentlyenervates beneficence. In doing good, we are generally cold, andlanguid, and sluggish, and of all things afraid of being too much in theright. But the works of malice and injustice are quite in another style. They are finished with a bold, masterly hand, touched as they are withthe spirit of those vehement passions that call forth all our energies, whenever we oppress and persecute. 

Thus this matter was left for the time, with a full determination inParliament not to suffer other and worse statutes to remain for thepurpose of counteracting the benefits proposed by the repeal of onepenal law: for nobody then dreamed of defending what was done as abenefit, on the ground of its being no benefit at all. We were not thenripe for so mean a subterfuge. 

I do not wish to go over the horrid scene that was afterwards acted. Would to God it could be expunged forever from the annals of thiscountry! But since it must subsist for our shame, let it subsist for ourinstruction. In the year 1780 there were found in this nation mendeluded enough, (for I give the whole to their delusion, ) on pretencesof zeal and piety, without any sort of provocation whatsoever, real orpretended, to make a desperate attempt, which would have consumed allthe glory and power of this country in the flames of London, and buriedall law, order, and religion under the ruins of the metropolis of theProtestant world. Whether all this mischief done, or in the direct trainof doing, was in their original scheme, I cannot say; I hope it was not:but this would have been the unavoidable consequence of theirproceedings, had not the flames they had lighted up in their fury beenextinguished in their blood. 

All the time that this horrid scene was acting, or avenging, as well asfor some time before, and ever since, the wicked instigators of thisunhappy multitude, guilty, with every aggravation, of all their crimes, and screened in a cowardly darkness from their punishment, continued, without interruption, pity, or remorse, to blow up the blind rage of thepopulace with a continued blast of pestilential libels, which infectedand poisoned the very air we breathed in. 

The main drift of all the libels and all the riots was, to forceParliament (to persuade us was hopeless) into an act of national perfidywhich has no example. For, Gentlemen, it is proper you should all knowwhat infamy we escaped by refusing that repeal, for a refusal of which, it seems, I, among others, stand somewhere or other accused. When wetook away, on the motives which I had the honor of stating to you, a fewof the innumerable penalties upon an oppressed and injured people, therelief was not absolute, but given on a stipulation and compact betweenthem and us: for we bound down the Roman Catholics with the most solemnoaths to bear true allegiance to this government, to abjure all sort oftemporal power in any other, and to renounce, under the same solemnobligations, the doctrines of systematic perfidy with which they stood(I conceive very unjustly) charged. Now our modest petitioners came upto us, most humbly praying nothing more than that we should break ourfaith, without any one cause whatsoever of forfeiture assigned; and whenthe subjects of this kingdom had, on their part, fully performed theirengagement, we should refuse, on our part, the benefit we had stipulatedon the performance of those very conditions that were prescribed by ourown authority, and taken on the sanction of our public faith: that is tosay, when we had inveigled them with fair promises within our door, wewere to shut it on them, and, adding mockery to outrage, to tellthem, --"Now we have got you fast: your consciences are bound to a powerresolved on your destruction. We have made you swear that your religionobliges you to keep your faith: fools as you are! we will now let yousee that our religion enjoins us to keep no faith with you. " They whowould advisedly call upon us to do such things must certainly havethought us not only a convention of treacherous tyrants, but a gang ofthe lowest and dirtiest wretches that ever disgraced humanity. Had wedone this, we should have indeed proved that there were _some_ in theworld whom no faith could bind; and we should have _convicted_ ourselvesof that odious principle of which Papists stood _accused_ by those verysavages who wished us, on that accusation, to deliver them over to theirfury. 

In this audacious tumult, when our very name and character as gentlemenwas to be cancelled forever, along with the faith and honor of thenation, I, who had exerted myself very little on the quiet passing ofthe bill, thought it necessary then to come forward. I was not alone;but though some distinguished members on all sides, and particularly onours, added much to their high reputation by the part they took on thatday, (a part which will be remembered as long as honor, spirit, andeloquence have estimation in the world, ) I may and will value myself sofar, that, yielding in abilities to many, I yielded in zeal to none. With warmth and with vigor, and animated with a just and naturalindignation, I called forth every faculty that I possessed, and Idirected it in every way in which I could possibly employ it. I laborednight and day. I labored in Parliament; I labored out of Parliament. If, therefore, the resolution of the House of Commons, refusing tocommit this act of unmatched turpitude, be a crime, I am guilty amongthe foremost. But, indeed, whatever the faults of that House may havebeen, no one member was found hardy enough to propose so infamous athing; and on full debate we passed the resolution against the petitionswith as much unanimity as we had formerly passed the law of which thesepetitions demanded the repeal. 

There was a circumstance (justice will not suffer me to pass it over)which, if anything could enforce the reasons I have given, would fullyjustify the act of relief, and render a repeal, or anything like arepeal, unnatural, impossible. It was the behavior of the persecutedRoman Catholics under the acts of violence and brutal insolence whichthey suffered. I suppose there are not in London less than four or fivethousand of that persuasion from my country, who do a great deal of themost laborious works in the metropolis; and they chiefly inhabit thosequarters which were the principal theatre of the fury of the bigotedmultitude. They are known to be men of strong arms and quick feelings, and more remarkable for a determined resolution than clear ideas or muchforesight. But, though provoked by everything that can stir the blood ofmen, their houses and chapels in flames, and with the most atrociousprofanations of everything which they hold sacred before their eyes, nota hand was moved to retaliate, or even to defend. Had a conflict oncebegun, the rage of their persecutors would have redoubled. Thus furyincreasing by the reverberation of outrages, house being fired forhouse, and church for chapel, I am convinced that no power under heavencould have prevented a general conflagration, and at this day Londonwould have been a tale. But I am well informed, and the thing speaks it, that their clergy exerted their whole influence to keep their people insuch a state of forbearance and quiet, as, when I look back, fills mewith astonishment, --but not with astonishment only. Their merits on thatoccasion ought not to be forgotten; nor will they, when Englishmen cometo recollect themselves. I am sure it were far more proper to havecalled them forth, and given them the thanks of both Houses ofParliament, than to have suffered those worthy clergymen and excellentcitizens to be hunted into holes and corners, whilst we are makinglow-minded inquisitions into the number of their people; as if atolerating principle was never to prevail, unless we were very sure thatonly a few could possibly take advantage of it. But, indeed, we are notyet well recovered of our fright. Our reason, I trust, will return withour security, and this unfortunate temper will pass over like a cloud. 

Gentlemen, I have now laid before you a few of the reasons for takingaway the penalties of the act of 1699, and for refusing to establishthem on the riotous requisition of 1780. Because I would not sufferanything which may be for your satisfaction to escape, permit me just totouch on the objections urged against our act and our resolves, andintended as a justification of the violence offered to both Houses. "Parliament, " they assert, "was too hasty, and they ought, in soessential and alarming a change, to have proceeded with a far greaterdegree of deliberation. " The direct contrary. Parliament was too slow. They took fourscore years to deliberate on the repeal of an act whichought not to have survived a second session. When at length, after aprocrastination of near a century, the business was taken up, itproceeded in the most public manner, by the ordinary stages, and asslowly as a law so evidently right as to be resisted by none wouldnaturally advance. Had it been read three times in one day, we shouldhave shown only a becoming readiness to recognize, by protection, theundoubted dutiful behavior of those whom we had but too long punishedfor offences of presumption or conjecture. But for what end was thatbill to linger beyond the usual period of an unopposed measure? Was itto be delayed until a rabble in Edinburgh should dictate to the Churchof England what measure of persecution was fitting for her safety? Wasit to be adjourned until a fanatical force could be collected in London, sufficient to frighten us out of all our ideas of policy and justice?Were we to wait for the profound lectures on the reason of state, ecclesiastical and political, which the Protestant Association havesince condescended to read to us? Or were we, seven hundred peers andcommoners, the only persons ignorant of the ribald invectives whichoccupy the place of argument in those remonstrances, which every man ofcommon observation had heard a thousand times over, and a thousand timesover had despised? All men had before heard what they dare to say, andall men at this day know what they dare to do; and I trust all honestmen are equally influenced by the one and by the other. 

But they tell us, that those our fellow-citizens whose chains we have alittle relaxed are enemies to liberty and our free Constitution. --Notenemies, I presume, to their _own_ liberty. And as to the Constitution, until we give them some share in it, I do not know on what pretence wecan examine into their opinions about a business in which they have nointerest or concern. But, after all, are we equally sure that they areadverse to our Constitution as that our statutes are hostile anddestructive to them? For my part, I have reason to believe theiropinions and inclinations in that respect are various, exactly likethose of other men; and if they lean more to the crown than I and thanmany of you think _we_ ought, we must remember that he who aims atanother's life is not to be surprised, if he flies into any sanctuarythat will receive him. The tenderness of the executive power is thenatural asylum of those upon whom the laws have declared war; and tocomplain that men are inclined to favor the means of their own safety isso absurd, that one forgets the injustice in the ridicule. 

I must fairly tell you, that so far as my principles are concerned, (principles that I hope will only depart with my last breath, ) that Ihave no idea of a liberty unconnected with honesty and justice. Nor do Ibelieve that any good constitutions of government, or of freedom, canfind it necessary for their security to doom any part of the people to apermanent slavery. Such a constitution of freedom, if such can be, is ineffect no more than another name for the tyranny of the strongestfaction; and factions in republics have been, and are, full as capableas monarchs of the most cruel oppression and injustice. It is but tootrue, that the love, and even the very idea, of genuine liberty isextremely rare. It is but too true that there are many whose wholescheme of freedom is made up of pride, perverseness, and insolence. Theyfeel themselves in a state of thraldom, they imagine that their soulsare cooped and cabined in, unless they have some man or some body of mendependent on their mercy. This desire of having some one below themdescends to those who are the very lowest of all; and a Protestantcobbler, debased by his poverty, but exalted by his share of the rulingchurch, feels a pride in knowing it is by his generosity alone that thepeer whose footman's instep he measures is able to keep his chaplainfrom a jail. This disposition is the true source of the passion whichmany men in very humble life have taken to the American war. _Our_subjects in America; _our_ colonies; _our_ dependants. This lust ofparty power is the liberty they hunger and thirst for; and this Sirensong of ambition has charmed ears that one would have thought were neverorganized to that sort of music. 

This way of _proscribing the citizens by denominations and generaldescriptions_, dignified by the name of reason of state, and securityfor constitutions and commonwealths, is nothing better at bottom thanthe miserable invention of an ungenerous ambition which would fain holdthe sacred trust of power, without any of the virtues or any of theenergies that give a title to it, --a receipt of policy, made up of adetestable compound of malice, cowardice, and sloth. They would governmen against their will; but in that government they would be dischargedfrom the exercise of vigilance, providence, and fortitude; andtherefore, that they may sleep on their watch, they consent to take someone division of the society into partnership of the tyranny over therest. But let government, in what form it may be, comprehend the wholein its justice, and restrain the suspicious by its vigilance, --let itkeep watch and ward, --let it discover by its sagacity, and punish by itsfirmness, all delinquency against its power, whenever delinquency existsin the overt acts, --and then it will be as safe as ever God and Natureintended it should be. Crimes are the acts of individuals, and not ofdenominations: and therefore arbitrarily to class men under generaldescriptions, in order to proscribe and punish them in the lump for apresumed delinquency, of which perhaps but a part, perhaps none at all, are guilty, is indeed a compendious method, and saves a world of troubleabout proof; but such a method, instead of being law, is an act ofunnatural rebellion against the legal dominion of reason and justice;and this vice, in any constitution that entertains it, at one time orother will certainly bring on its ruin. 

We are told that this is not a religious persecution; and its abettorsare loud in disclaiming all severities on account of conscience. Veryfine indeed! Then, let it be so: they are not persecutors; they are onlytyrants. With all my heart. I am perfectly indifferent concerning thepretexts upon which we torment one another, --or whether it be for theconstitution of the Church of England, or for the constitution of theState of England, that people choose to make their fellow-creatureswretched. When we were sent into a place of authority, you that sent ushad yourselves but one commission to give. You could give us none towrong or oppress, or even to suffer any kind of oppression or wrong, onany grounds whatsoever: not on political, as in the affairs of America;not on commercial, as in those of Ireland; not in civil, as in the lawsfor debt; not in religious, as in the statutes against Protestant orCatholic dissenters. The diversified, but connected, fabric ofuniversal justice is well cramped and bolted together in all its parts;and depend upon it, I never have employed, and I never shall employ, anyengine of power which may come into my hands to wrench it asunder. Allshall stand, if I can help it, and all shall stand connected. After all, to complete this work, much remains to be done: much in the East, muchin the West. But, great as the work is, if our will be ready, our powersare not deficient. 

Since you have suffered me to trouble you so much on this subject, permit me, Gentlemen, to detain you a little longer. I am, indeed, mostsolicitous to give you perfect satisfaction. I find there are some of abetter and softer nature than the persons with whom I have supposedmyself in debate, who neither think ill of the act of relief, nor by anymeans desire the repeal, --yet who, not accusing, but lamenting, what wasdone, on account of the consequences, have frequently expressed theirwish that the late act had never been made. Some of this description, and persons of worth, I have met with in this city. They conceive thatthe prejudices, whatever they might be, of a large part of the people, ought not to have been shocked, --that their opinions ought to have beenpreviously taken, and much attended to, --and that thereby the latehorrid scenes might have been prevented. 

I confess, my notions are widely different; and I never was less sorryfor any action of my life. I like the bill the better on account of theevents of all kinds that followed it. It relieved the real sufferers; itstrengthened the state; and, by the disorders that ensued, we had clearevidence that there lurked a temper somewhere which ought not to befostered by the laws. No ill consequences whatever could be attributedto the act itself. We knew beforehand, or we were poorly instructed, that toleration is odious to the intolerant, freedom to oppressors, property to robbers, and all kinds and degrees of prosperity to theenvious. We knew that all these kinds of men would gladly gratify theirevil dispositions under the sanction of law and religion, if they could:if they could not, yet, to make way to their objects, they would dotheir utmost to subvert all religion and all law. This we certainlyknew. But, knowing this, is there any reason, because thieves break inand steal, and thus bring detriment to you, and draw ruin on themselves, that I am to be sorry that you are in possession of shops, and ofwarehouses, and of wholesome laws to protect them? Are you to build nohouses, because desperate men may pull them down upon their own heads?Or, if a malignant wretch will cut his own throat, because he sees yougive alms to the necessitous and deserving, shall his destruction beattributed to your charity, and not to his own deplorable madness? If werepent of our good actions, what, I pray you, is left for our faults andfollies? It is not the beneficence of the laws, it is the unnaturaltemper which beneficence can fret and sour, that is to be lamented. Itis this temper which, by all rational means, ought to be sweetened andcorrected. If froward men should refuse this cure, can they vitiateanything but themselves? Does evil so react upon good, as not only toretard its motion, but to change its nature? If it can so operate, thengood men will always be in the power of the bad, --and virtue, by adreadful reverse of order, must lie under perpetual subjection andbondage to vice. 

As to the opinion of the people, which some think, in such cases, is tobe implicitly obeyed, --near two years' tranquillity, which follows theact, and its instant imitation in Ireland, proved abundantly that thelate horrible spirit was in a great measure the effect of insidious art, and perverse industry, and gross misrepresentation. But suppose that thedislike had been much more deliberate and much more general than I ampersuaded it was, --when we know that the opinions of even the greatestmultitudes are the standard of rectitude, I shall think myself obligedto make those opinions the masters of my conscience. But if it may bedoubted whether Omnipotence itself is competent to alter the essentialconstitution of right and wrong, sure I am that such _things_ as theyand I are possessed of no such power. No man carries further than I dothe policy of making government pleasing to the people. But the widestrange of this politic complaisance is confined within the limits ofjustice. I would not only consult the interest of the people, but Iwould cheerfully gratify their humors. We are all a sort of childrenthat must be soothed and managed. I think I am not austere or formal inmy nature. I would bear, I would even play my part in, any innocentbuffooneries, to divert them. But I never will act the tyrant for theiramusement. If they will mix malice in their sports, I shall neverconsent to throw them any living, sentient creature whatsoever, no, notso much as a kitling, to torment. 

"But if I profess all this impolitic stubbornness, I may chance never tobe elected into Parliament. "--It is certainly not pleasing to be put outof the public service. But I wish to be a member of Parliament to havemy share of doing good and resisting evil. It would therefore be absurdto renounce my objects in order to obtain my seat. I deceive myself, indeed, most grossly, if I had not much rather pass the remainder of mylife hidden in the recesses of the deepest obscurity, feeding my mindeven with the visions and imaginations of such things, than to be placedon the most splendid throne of the universe, tantalized with a denial ofthe practice of all which can make the greatest situation any other thanthe greatest curse. Gentlemen, I have had my day. I can neversufficiently express my gratitude to you for having set me in a placewherein I could lend the slightest help to great and laudable designs. If I have had my share in any measure giving quiet to private propertyand private conscience, --if by my vote I have aided in securing tofamilies the best possession, peace, --if I have joined in reconcilingkings to their subjects, and subjects to their prince, --if I haveassisted to loosen the foreign holdings of the citizen, and taught himto look for his protection to the laws of his country, and for hiscomfort to the good-will of his countrymen, --if I have thus taken mypart with the best of men in the best of their actions, I can shut thebook: I might wish to read a page or two more, but this is enough for mymeasure. I have not lived in vain. 

And now, Gentlemen, on this serious day, when I come, as it were, tomake up my account with you, let me take to myself some degree of honestpride on the nature of the charges that are against me. I do not herestand before you accused of venality, or of neglect of duty. It is notsaid, that, in the long period of my service, I have, in a singleinstance, sacrificed the slightest of your interests to my ambition orto my fortune. It is not alleged, that, to gratify any anger or revengeof my own, or of my party, I have had a share in wronging or oppressingany description of men, or any one man in any description. No! thecharges against me are all of one kind: that I have pushed theprinciples of general justice and benevolence too far, --further than acautious policy would warrant, and further than the opinions of manywould go along with me. In every accident which may happen through life, in pain, in sorrow, in depression, and distress, I will call to mindthis accusation, and be comforted. 

Gentlemen, I submit the whole to your judgment. Mr. Mayor, I thank youfor the trouble you have taken on this occasion: in your state of healthit is particularly obliging. If this company should think it advisablefor me to withdraw, I shall respectfully retire; if you think otherwise, I shall go directly to the Council-House and to the 'Change, and withouta moment's delay begin my canvass. 

 * * * * *

BRISTOL, September 6, 1780. 

At a great and respectable meeting of the friends of EDMUND BURKE, Esq. , held at the Guildhall this day, the Right Worshipful the Mayor in thechair:--Resolved, That Mr. Burke, as a representative for this city, hasdone all possible honor to himself as a senator and a man, and that wedo heartily and honestly approve of his conduct, as the result of anenlightened loyalty to his sovereign, a warm and zealous love to hiscountry through its widely extended empire, a jealous and watchful careof the liberties of his fellow-subjects, an enlarged and liberalunderstanding of our commercial interest, a humane attention to thecircumstances of even the lowest ranks of the community, and a trulywise, politic, and tolerant spirit, in supporting the national church, with a reasonable indulgence to all who dissent from it; and we wish toexpress the most marked abhorrence of the base arts which have beenemployed, without regard to truth and reason, to misrepresent hiseminent services to his country. 

Resolved, That this resolution be copied out, and signed by thechairman, and be by him presented to Mr. Burke, as the fullestexpression of the respectful and grateful sense we entertain of hismerits and services, public and private, to the citizens of Bristol, asa man and a representative. 

Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting be given to the RightWorshipful the Mayor, who so ably and worthily presided in this meeting. 

Resolved, That it is the earnest request of this meeting to Mr. Burke, that he should again offer himself a candidate to represent this city inParliament; assuring him of that full and strenuous support which is dueto the merits of so excellent a representative. 

 * * * * *

This business being over, Mr. Burke went to the Exchange, and offeredhimself as a candidate in the usual manner. He was accompanied to theCouncil-House, and from thence to the Exchange, by a large body of mostrespectable gentlemen, amongst whom were the following members of thecorporation, viz. : Mr. Mayor, Mr. Alderman Smith, Mr. Alderman Deane, Mr. Alderman Gordon, William Weare, Samuel Munckley, John Merlott, JohnCrofts, Levy Ames, John Fisher Weare, Benjamin Loscombe, PhilipProtheroe, Samuel Span, Joseph Smith, Richard Bright and John Noble, Esquires. 

FOOTNOTES:

[48] Irish Perpetual Mutiny Act. 

[49] Mr. Williams. 

[50] The Chancellor. 

SPEECH AT BRISTOL, ON

DECLINING THE POLL

1780. 

 BRISTOL, Saturday, 9th Sept, 1780. 

 This morning the sheriff and candidates assembled as usual at the Council-House, and from thence proceeded to Guildhall. Proclamation being made for the electors to appear and give their votes, Mr. BURKE stood forward on the hustings, surrounded by a great number of the corporation and other principal citizens, and addressed himself to the whole assembly as follows. 

Gentlemen, --I decline the election. It has ever been my rule throughlife to observe a proportion between my efforts and my objects. I havenever been remarkable for a bold, active, and sanguine pursuit ofadvantages that are personal to myself. 

I have not canvassed the whole of this city in form, but I have takensuch a view of it as satisfies my own mind that your choice will notultimately fall upon me. Your city, Gentlemen, is in a state ofmiserable distraction, and I am resolved to withdraw whatever share mypretensions may have had in its unhappy divisions. I have not been inhaste; I have tried all prudent means; I have waited for the effect ofall contingencies. If I were fond of a contest, by the partiality of mynumerous friends (whom you know to be among the most weighty andrespectable people of the city) I have the means of a sharp one in myhands. But I thought it far better, with my strength unspent, and myreputation unimpaired, to do, early and from foresight, that which Imight be obliged to do from necessity at last. 

I am not in the least surprised nor in the least angry at this view ofthings. I have read the book of life for a long time, and I have readother books a little. Nothing has happened to me, but what has happenedto men much better than me, and in times and in nations full as good asthe age and country that we live in. To say that I am no way concernedwould be neither decent nor true. The representation of _Bristol_ was anobject on many accounts dear to me; and I certainly should very farprefer it to any other in the kingdom. My habits are made to it; and itis in general more unpleasant to be rejected after long trial than notto be chosen at all. 

But, Gentlemen, I will see nothing except your former kindness, and Iwill give way to no other sentiments than those of gratitude. From thebottom of my heart I thank you for what you have done for me. You havegiven me a long term, which is now expired. I have performed theconditions, and enjoyed all the profits to the full; and I now surrenderyour estate into your hands, without being in a single tile or a singlestone impaired or wasted by my use. I have served the public for fifteenyears. I have served you in particular for six. What is past is wellstored; it is safe, and out of the power of fortune. What is to come isin wiser hands than ours; and He in whose hands it is best knows whetherit is best for you and me that I should be in Parliament, or even in theworld. 

Gentlemen, the melancholy event of yesterday reads to us an awfullesson against being too much troubled about any of the objects ofordinary ambition. The worthy gentleman[51] who has been snatched fromus at the moment of the election, and in the middle of the contest, whilst his desires were as warm and his hopes as eager as ours, hasfeelingly told us what shadows we are and what shadows we pursue. 

It has been usual for a candidate who declines to take his leave by aletter to the sheriffs: but I received your trust in the face of day, and in the face of day I accept your dismission. I am not--I am not atall ashamed to look upon you; nor can my presence discompose the orderof business here. I humbly and respectfully take my leave of thesheriffs, the candidates, and the electors, wishing heartily that thechoice may be for the best, at a time which calls, if ever time didcall, for service that is not nominal. It is no plaything you are about. I tremble, when I consider the trust I have presumed to ask. I confided, perhaps, too much in my intentions. They were really fair and upright;and I am bold to say that I ask no ill thing for you, when, on partingfrom this place, I pray, that, whomever you choose to succeed me, he mayresemble me exactly in all things, except in my abilities to serve, andmy fortune to please you. 

FOOTNOTES:

[51] Mr. Coombe. 

SPEECH

(DECEMBER 1, 1783)

UPON

THE QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER'S LEAVING THE CHAIR IN ORDER FOR THE HOUSETO RESOLVE ITSELF INTO A COMMITTEE

ON

MR. FOX'S EAST INDIA BILL. 

Mr. Speaker, --I thank you for pointing to me. I really wished much toengage your attention in an early stage of the debate. I have been longvery deeply, though perhaps ineffectually, engaged in the preliminaryinquiries, which have continued without intermission for some years. Though I have felt, with some degree of sensibility, the natural andinevitable impressions of the several matters of fact, as they have beensuccessively disclosed, I have not at any time attempted to trouble youon the merits of the subject, and very little on any of the points whichincidentally arose in the course of our proceedings. But I should besorry to be found totally silent upon this day. Our inquiries are nowcome to their final issue. It is now to be determined whether the threeyears of laborious Parliamentary research, whether the twenty years ofpatient Indian suffering, are to produce a substantial reform in ourEastern administration; or whether our knowledge of the grievances hasabated our zeal for the correction of them, and our very inquiry intothe evil was only a pretext to elude the remedy which is demanded fromus by humanity, by justice, and by every principle of true policy. Depend upon it, this business cannot be indifferent to our fame. It willturn out a matter of great disgrace or great glory to the whole Britishnation. We are on a conspicuous stage, and the world marks our demeanor. 

I am therefore a little concerned to perceive the spirit and temper inwhich the debate has been all along pursued upon one side of the House. The declamation of the gentlemen who oppose the bill has been abundantand vehement; but they have been reserved and even silent about thefitness or unfitness of the plan to attain the direct object it has inview. By some gentlemen it is taken up (by way of exercise, I presume)as a point of law, on a question of private property and corporatefranchise; by others it is regarded as the petty intrigue of a factionat court, and argued merely as it tends to set this man a little higheror that a little lower in situation and power. All the void has beenfilled up with invectives against coalition, with allusions to the lossof America, with the activity and inactivity of ministers. The totalsilence of these gentlemen concerning the interest and well-being of thepeople of India, and concerning the interest which this nation has inthe commerce and revenues of that country, is a strong indication of thevalue which they set upon these objects. 

It has been a little painful to me to observe the intrusion into thisimportant debate of such company as _quo warranto_, and _mandamus_, and_certiorari_: as if we were on a trial about mayors and aldermen andcapital burgesses, or engaged in a suit concerning the borough ofPenryn, or Saltash, or St. Ives, or St. Mawes. Gentlemen have arguedwith as much heat and passion as if the first things in the world wereat stake; and their topics are such as belong only to matter of thelowest and meanest litigation. It is not right, it is not worthy of us, in this manner to depreciate the value, to degrade the majesty, of thisgrave deliberation of policy and empire. 

For my part, I have thought myself hound, when a matter of thisextraordinary weight came before me, not to consider (as some gentlemenare so fond of doing) whether the bill originated from a Secretary ofState for the Home Department or from a Secretary for the Foreign, froma minister of influence or a minister of the people, from Jacob or fromEsau. [52] I asked myself, and I asked myself nothing else, what part itwas fit for a member of Parliament, who has supplied a mediocrity oftalents by the extreme of diligence, and who has thought himself obligedby the research of years to wind himself into the inmost recesses andlabyrinths of the Indian detail, --what part, I say, it became such amember of Parliament to take, when a minister of state, in conformity toa recommendation from the throne, has brought before us a system for thebetter government of the territory and commerce of the East. In thislight, and in this only, I will trouble you with my sentiments. 

It is not only agreed, but demanded, by the right honorablegentleman, [53] and by those who act with him, that a _whole_ systemought to be produced; that it ought not to be an _half-measure_; that itought to be no _palliative_, but a legislative provision, vigorous, substantial, and effective. --I believe that no man who understands thesubject can doubt for a moment that those must be the conditions ofanything deserving the name of a reform in the Indian government; thatanything short of them would not only be delusive, but, in this matter, which admits no medium, noxious in the extreme. 

To all the conditions proposed by his adversaries the mover of the billperfectly agrees; and on his performance of them he rests his cause. Onthe other hand, not the least objection has been taken with regard tothe efficiency, the vigor, or the completeness of the scheme. I amtherefore warranted to assume, as a thing admitted, that the billsaccomplish what both sides of the House demand as essential. The end iscompletely answered, so for as the direct and immediate object isconcerned. 

But though there are no direct, yet there are various collateralobjections made: objections from the effects which this plan of reformfor Indian administration may have on the privileges of great publicbodies in England; from its probable influence on the constitutionalrights, or on the freedom and integrity, of the several branches of thelegislature. 

Before I answer these objections, I must beg leave to observe, that, ifwe are not able to contrive some method of governing India _well_, whichwill not of necessity become the means of governing Great Britain _ill_, a ground is laid for their eternal separation, but none for sacrificingthe people of that country to our Constitution. I am, however, far frombeing persuaded that any such incompatibility of interest does at allexist. On the contrary, I am certain that every means effectual topreserve India from oppression is a guard to preserve the BritishConstitution from its worst corruption. To show this, I will considerthe objections, which, I think, are four. 

1st, That the bill is an attack on the chartered rights of men. 

2ndly, That it increases the influence of the crown. 

3rdly, That it does _not_ increase, but diminishes, the influence of thecrown, in order to promote the interests of certain ministers and theirparty. 

4thly, That it deeply affects the national credit. 

As to the first of these objections, I must observe that the phrase of"the chartered rights _of men_" is full of affectation, and very unusualin the discussion of privileges conferred by charters of the presentdescription. But it is not difficult to discover what end that ambiguousmode of expression, so often reiterated, is meant to answer. 

The rights of _men_--that is to say, the natural rights of mankind--areindeed sacred things; and if any public measure is proved mischievouslyto affect them, the objection ought to be fatal to that measure, even ifno charter at all could be set up against it. If these natural rightsare further affirmed and declared by express covenants, if they areclearly defined and secured against chicane, against power andauthority, by written instruments and positive engagements, they are ina still better condition: they partake not only of the sanctity of theobject so secured, but of that solemn public faith itself which securesan object of such importance. Indeed, this formal recognition, by thesovereign power, of an original right in the subject, can never besubverted, but by rooting up the holding radical principles ofgovernment, and even of society itself. The charters which we call bydistinction _great_ are public instruments of this nature: I mean thecharters of King John and King Henry the Third. The things secured bythese instruments may, without any deceitful ambiguity, be very fitlycalled _the chartered rights of men_. 

These charters have made the very name of a charter dear to the heart ofevery Englishman. But, Sir, there may be, and there are, charters, notonly different in nature, but formed on principles _the very reverse_ ofthose of the Great Charter. Of this kind is the charter of the EastIndia Company. _Magnet Charta_ is a charter to restrain power and todestroy monopoly. The East India charter is a charter to establishmonopoly and to create power. Political power and commercial monopolyare _not_ the rights of men; and the rights to them derived fromcharters it is fallacious and sophistical to call "the chartered rightsof men. " These chartered rights (to speak of such charters and of theireffects in terms of the greatest possible moderation) do at leastsuspend the natural rights of mankind at large, and in their very frameand constitution are liable to fall into a direct violation of them. 

It is a charter of this latter description (that is to say, a charter ofpower and monopoly) which is affected by the bill before you. The bill, Sir, does without question affect it: it does affect it essentially andsubstantially. But, having stated to you of what description thechartered rights are which this bill touches, I feel no difficulty atall in acknowledging the existence of those chartered rights in theirfullest extent. They belong to the Company in the surest manner, andthey are secured to that body by every sort of public sanction. They arestamped by the faith of the king; they are stamped by the faith ofParliament: they have been bought for money, for money honestly andfairly paid; they have been bought for valuable consideration, over andover again. 

I therefore freely admit to the East India Company their claim toexclude their fellow-subjects from the commerce of half the globe. Iadmit their claim to administer an annual territorial revenue of sevenmillions sterling, to command an army of sixty thousand men, and todispose (under the control of a sovereign, imperial discretion, and withthe due observance of the natural and local law) of the lives andfortunes of thirty millions of their fellow-creatures. All this theypossess by charter, and by Acts of Parliament, (in my opinion, ) withouta shadow of controversy. 

Those who carry the rights and claims of the Company the furthest do notcontend for more than this; and all this I freely grant. But, grantingall this, they must grant to me, in my turn, that all political powerwhich is set over men, and that all privilege claimed or exercised inexclusion of them, being wholly artificial, and for so much a derogationfrom the natural equality of mankind at large, ought to be some way orother exercised ultimately for their benefit. 

If this is true with regard to every species of political dominion andevery description of commercial privilege, none of which can beoriginal, self-derived rights, or grants for the mere private benefit ofthe holders, then such rights, or privileges, or whatever else youchoose to call them, are all in the strictest sense _a trust_: and it isof the very essence of every trust to be rendered _accountable_, --andeven totally to _cease_, when it substantially varies from the purposesfor which alone it could have a lawful existence. 

This I conceive, Sir, to be true of trusts of power vested in thehighest hands, and of such, as seem to hold of no human creature. Butabout the application of this principle to subordinate _derivative_trusts I do not see how a controversy can be maintained. To whom, then, would I make the East India Company accountable? Why, to Parliament, tobe sure, --to Parliament, from whom their trust was derived, --toParliament, which alone is capable of comprehending the magnitude of itsobject, and its abuse, and alone capable of an effectual legislativeremedy. The very charter, which is held out to exclude Parliament fromcorrecting malversation with regard to the high trust vested in theCompany, is the very thing which at once gives a title and imposes aduty on us to interfere with effect, wherever power and authorityoriginating from ourselves are perverted from their purposes, and becomeinstruments of wrong and violence. 

If Parliament, Sir, had nothing to do with this charter, we might havesome sort of Epicurean excuse to stand aloof, indifferent spectators ofwhat passes in the Company's name in India and in London. But if we arethe very cause of the evil, we are in a special manner engaged to theredress; and for us passively to bear with oppressions committed underthe sanction of our own authority is in truth and reason for this Houseto be an active accomplice in the abuse. 

That the power, notoriously grossly abused, has been bought from us isvery certain. But this circumstance, which is urged against the bill, becomes an additional motive for our interference, lest we should bethought to have sold the blood of millions of men for the baseconsideration of money. We sold, I admit, all that we had to sell, --thatis, our authority, not our control. We had not a right to make a marketof our duties. 

I ground myself, therefore, on this principle:--that, if the abuse isproved, the contract is broken, and we reënter into all our rights, thatis, into the exercise of all our duties. Our own authority is, indeed, as much a trust originally as the Company's authority is a trustderivatively; and it is the use we make of the resumed power that mustjustify or condemn us in the resumption of it. When we have perfectedthe plan laid before us by the right honorable mover, the world willthen see what it is we destroy, and what it is we create. By that testwe stand or fall; and by that test I trust that it will be found, in theissue, that we are going to supersede a charter abused to the fullextent of all the powers which it could abuse, and exercised in theplenitude of despotism, tyranny, and corruption, --and that in one andthe same plan we provide a real chartered security for _the rights ofmen_, cruelly violated under that charter. 

This bill, and those connected with it, are intended to form the _MagnaCharta_ of Hindostan. Whatever the Treaty of Westphalia is to theliberty of the princes and free cities of the Empire, and to the threereligions there professed, --whatever the Great Charter, the Statute ofTallage, the Petition of Right, and the Declaration of Right are toGreat Britain, these bills are to the people of India. Of this benefit Iam certain their condition is capable: and when I know that they arecapable of more, my vote shall most assuredly be for our giving to thefull extent of their capacity of receiving; and no charter of dominionshall stand as a bar in my way to their charter of safety andprotection. 

The strong admission I have made of the Company's rights (I am consciousof it) binds me to do a great deal. I do not presume to condemn thosewho argue _a priori_ against the propriety of leaving such extensivepolitical powers in the hands of a company of merchants. I know much is, and much more may be, said against such a system. But, with myparticular ideas and sentiments, I cannot go that way to work. I feel aninsuperable reluctance in giving my hand to destroy any establishedinstitution of government, upon a theory, however plausible it may be. My experience in life teaches me nothing clear upon the subject. I haveknown merchants with the sentiments and the abilities of greatstatesmen, and I have seen persons in the rank of statesmen with theconceptions and character of peddlers. Indeed, my observation hasfurnished me with nothing that is to be found in any habits of life oreducation, which tends wholly to disqualify men for the functions ofgovernment, but that by which the power of exercising those functions isvery frequently obtained: I mean a spirit and habits of low cabal andintrigue; which I have never, in one instance, seen united with acapacity for sound and manly policy. 

To justify us in taking the administration of their affairs out of thehands of the East India Company, on my principles, I must see severalconditions. 1st, The object affected by the abuse should be great andimportant. 2nd, The abuse affecting this great object ought to be agreat abuse. 3d, It ought to be habitual, and not accidental. 4th, Itought to be utterly incurable in the body as it now stands constituted. All this ought to be made as visible to me as the light of the sun, before I should strike off an atom of their charter. A right honorablegentleman[54] has said, and said, I think, but once, and that veryslightly, (whatever his original demand for a plan might seem torequire, ) that "there are abuses in the Company's government. " If thatwere all, the scheme of the mover of this bill, the scheme of hislearned friend, and his own scheme of reformation, (if he has any, ) areall equally needless. There are, and must be, abuses in all governments. It amounts to no more than a nugatory proposition. But before I considerof what nature these abuses are, of which the gentleman speaks so verylightly, permit me to recall to your recollection the map of the countrywhich this abused chartered right affects. This I shall do, that you mayjudge whether in that map I can discover anything like the first of myconditions: that is, whether the object affected by the abuse of theEast India Company's power be of importance sufficient to justify themeasure and means of reform applied to it in this bill. 

With very few, and those inconsiderable intervals, the British dominion, either in the Company's name, or in the names of princes absolutelydependent upon the Company, extends from the mountains that separateIndia from Tartary to Cape Comorin, that is, one-and-twenty degrees oflatitude!

In the northern parts it is a solid mass of land, about eight hundredmiles in length, and four or five hundred broad. As you go southward, itbecomes narrower for a space. It afterwards dilates; but, narrower orbroader, you possess the whole eastern and northeastern coast of thatvast country, quite from the borders of Pegu. --Bengal, Bahar, andOrissa, with Benares, (now unfortunately in our immediate possession, )measure 161, 978 square English miles: a territory considerably largerthan the whole kingdom of France. Oude, with its dependent provinces, is53, 286 square miles: not a great deal less than England. The Carnatic, with Tanjore and the Circars, is 65, 948 square miles: very considerablylarger than England. And the whole of the Company's dominions, comprehending Bombay and Salsette, amounts to 281, 412 square miles:which forms a territory larger than any European dominion, Russia andTurkey excepted. Through all that vast extent of country there is not aman who eats a mouthful of rice but by permission of the East IndiaCompany. 

So far with regard to the extent. The population of this great empire isnot easy to be calculated. When the countries of which it is composedcame into our possession, they were all eminently peopled, and eminentlyproductive, --though at that time considerably declined from theirancient prosperity. But since they are come into our hands!----!However, if we make the period of our estimate immediately before theutter desolation of the Carnatic, and if we allow for the havoc whichour government had even then made in these regions, we cannot, in myopinion, rate the population at much less than thirty millions of souls:more than four times the number of persons in the island of GreatBritain. 

My next inquiry to that of the number is the quality and description ofthe inhabitants. This multitude of men does not consist of an abject andbarbarous populace; much less of gangs of savages, like the Guaraniesand Chiquitos, who wander on the waste borders of the River of Amazonsor the Plate; but a people for ages civilized andcultivated, --cultivated by all the arts of polished life, whilst wewere yet in the woods. There have been (and still the skeletons remain)princes once of great dignity, authority, and opulence. There are to befound the chiefs of tribes and nations. There is to be found an ancientand venerable priesthood, the depository of their laws, learning, andhistory, the guides of the people whilst living and their consolation indeath; a nobility of great antiquity and renown; a multitude of cities, not exceeded in population and trade by those of the first class inEurope; merchants and bankers, individual houses of whom have once viedin capital with the Bank of England, whose credit had often supported atottering state, and preserved their governments in the midst of war anddesolation; millions of ingenious manufacturers and mechanics; millionsof the most diligent, and not the least intelligent, tillers of theearth. Here are to be found almost all the religions professed bymen, --the Braminical, the Mussulman, the Eastern and the WesternChristian. 

If I were to take the whole aggregate of our possessions there, I shouldcompare it, as the nearest parallel I can find, with the Empire ofGermany. Our immediate possessions I should compare with the Austriandominions: and they would not suffer in the comparison. The Nabob ofOude might stand for the King of Prussia; the Nabob of Arcot I wouldcompare, as superior in territory, and equal in revenue, to the Electorof Saxony. Cheit Sing, the Rajah of Benares, might well rank with thePrince of Hesse, at least; and the Rajah of Tanjore (though hardly equalin extent of dominion, superior in revenue) to the Elector of Bavaria. The polygars and the Northern zemindars, and other great chiefs, mightwell class with the rest of the princes, dukes, counts, marquises, andbishops in the Empire; all of whom I mention to honor, and surelywithout disparagement to any or all of those most respectable princesand grandees. 

All this vast mass, composed of so many orders and classes of men, isagain infinitely diversified by manners, by religion, by hereditaryemployment, through all their possible combinations. This renders thehandling of India a matter in an high degree critical and delicate. But, oh, it has been handled rudely indeed! Even some of the reformers seemto have forgot that they had anything to do but to regulate the tenantsof a manor, or the shopkeepers of the next county town. 

It is an empire of this extent, of this complicated nature, of thisdignity and importance, that I have compared to Germany and the Germangovernment, --not for an exact resemblance, but as a sort of a middleterm, by which India might be approximated to our understandings, and, if possible, to our feelings, in order to awaken something of sympathyfor the unfortunate natives, of which I am afraid we are not perfectlysusceptible, whilst we look at this very remote object through a falseand cloudy medium. 

My second condition necessary to justify me in touching the charter is, whether the Company's abuse of their trust with regard to this greatobject be an abuse of great atrocity. I shall beg your permission toconsider their conduct in two lights: first the political, and then thecommercial. Their political conduct (for distinctness) I divide againinto two heads: the external, in which I mean to comprehend theirconduct in their federal capacity, as it relates to powers and statesindependent, or that not long since were such; the otherinternal, --namely, their conduct to the countries, either immediatelysubject to the Company, or to those who, under the apparent governmentof native sovereigns, are in a state much lower and much more miserablethan common subjection. 

The attention, Sir, which I wish to preserve to method will not beconsidered as unnecessary or affected. Nothing else can help me toselection out of the infinite mass of materials which have passed undermy eye, or can keep my mind steady to the great leading points I have inview. 

With regard, therefore, to the abuse of the external federal trust, Iengage myself to you to make good these three positions. First, I say, that from Mount Imaus, (or whatever else you call that large range ofmountains that walls the northern frontier of India, ) where it touchesus in the latitude of twenty-nine, to Cape Comorin, in the latitude ofeight, that there is not a _single_ prince, state, or potentate, greator small, in India, with whom they have come into contact, whom theyhave not sold: I say _sold_, though sometimes they have not been able todeliver according to their bargain. Secondly, I say, that there is not a_single treaty_ they have ever made which they have not broken. Thirdly, I say, that there is not a single prince or state, who ever put anytrust in the Company, who is not utterly ruined; and that none are inany degree secure or flourishing, but in the exact proportion to theirsettled distrust and irreconcilable enmity to this nation. 

These assertions are universal: I say, in the full sense, _universal_. They regard the external and political trust only; but I shall produceothers fully equivalent in the internal. For the present, I shallcontent myself with explaining my meaning; and if I am called on forproof, whilst these bills are depending, (which I believe I shall not, )I will put my finger on the appendixes to the Reports, or on papers ofrecord in the House or the Committees, which I have distinctly presentto my memory, and which I think I can lay before you at half an hour'swarning. 

The first potentate sold by the Company for money was the GreatMogul, --the descendant of Tamerlane. This high personage, as high ashuman veneration can look at, is by every account amiable in hismanners, respectable for his piety, according to his mode, andaccomplished in all the Oriental literature. All this, and the titlederived under his _charter_ to all that we hold in India, could not savehim from the general _sale_. Money is coined in his name; in his namejustice is administered; he is prayed for in every temple through thecountries we possess;--but he was sold. 

It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, not to pause here for a moment, toreflect on the inconstancy of human greatness, and the stupendousrevolutions that have happened in our age of wonders. Could it bebelieved, when I entered into existence, or when you, a younger man, were born, that on this day, in this House, we should be employed indiscussing the conduct of those British subjects who had disposed of thepower and person of the Grand Mogul? This is no idle speculation. Awfullessons are taught by it, and by other events, of which it is not yettoo late to profit. 

This is hardly a digression: but I return to the sale of the Mogul. Twodistricts, Corah and Allahabad, out of his immense grants, were reservedas a royal demesne to the donor of a kingdom, and the rightful sovereignof so many nations. --After withholding the tribute of 260, 000_l. _ ayear, which the Company was, by the _charter_ they had received fromthis prince, under the most solemn obligation to pay, these districtswere sold to his chief minister, Sujah ul Dowlah; and what may appear tosome the worst part of the transaction, these two districts were soldfor scarcely two years' purchase. The descendant of Tamerlane now standsin need almost of the common necessaries of life; and in this situationwe do not even allow him, as bounty, the smallest portion of what we owehim in justice. 

The next sale was that of the whole nation of the Rohillas, which thegrand salesman, without a pretence of quarrel, and contrary to his owndeclared sense Of duty and rectitude, sold to the same Sujah ul Dowlah. He sold the people to utter _extirpation_, for the sum of four hundredthousand pounds. Faithfully was the bargain performed on our side. HafizRhamet, the most eminent of their chiefs, one of the bravest men of histime, and as famous throughout the East for the elegance of hisliterature and the spirit of his poetical compositions (by which hesupported the name of Hafiz) as for his courage, was invaded with anarmy of an hundred thousand men, and an English brigade. This man, atthe head of inferior forces, was slain valiantly fighting for hiscountry. His head was cut off, and delivered for money to a barbarian. His wife and children, persons of that rank, were seen begging anhandful of rice through the English camp. The whole nation, withinconsiderable exceptions, was slaughtered or banished. The country waslaid waste with fire and sword; and that land, distinguished above mostothers by the cheerful face of paternal government and protected labor, the chosen seat of cultivation and plenty, is now almost throughout adreary desert, covered with rushes, and briers, and jungles full of wildbeasts. 

The British officer who commanded in the delivery of the people thussold felt some compunction at his employment. He represented theseenormous excesses to the President of Bengal, for which he received asevere reprimand from the civil governor; and I much doubt whether thebreach caused by the conflict between the compassion of the military andthe firmness of the civil governor be closed at this hour. 

In Bengal, Surajah Dowlah was sold to Mir Jaffier; Mir Jaffier was soldto Mir Cossim; and Mir Cossim was sold to Mir Jaffier again. Thesuccession to Mir Jaffier was sold to his eldest son;--another son ofMir Jaffier, Mobarech ul Dowlah, was sold to his step-mother. TheMahratta Empire was sold to Ragobah; and Ragobah was sold and deliveredto the Peishwa of the Mahrattas. Both Ragobah and the Peishwa of theMahrattas were offered to sale to the Rajah of Berar. Scindia, the chiefof Malwa, was offered to sale to the same Rajah; and the Subah of theDeccan was sold to the great trader, Mahomet Ali, Nabob of Arcot. To thesame Nabob of Arcot they sold Hyder Ali and the kingdom of Mysore. ToMahomet Ali they twice sold the kingdom of Tanjore. To the same MahometAli they sold at least twelve sovereign princes, called the Polygars. But to keep things even, the territory of Tinnevelly, belonging to theirnabob, they would have sold to the Dutch; and to conclude the account ofsales, their great customer, the Nabob of Arcot himself, and his lawfulsuccession, has been sold to his second son, Amir ul Omrah, whosecharacter, views, and conduct are in the accounts upon your table. Itremains with you whether they shall finally perfect this last bargain. 

All these bargains and sales were regularly attended with the waste andhavoc of the country, --always by the buyer, and sometimes by the objectof the sale. This was explained to you by the honorable mover, when hestated the mode of paying debts due from the country powers to theCompany. An honorable gentleman, who is not now in his place, objectedto his jumping near two thousand miles for an example. But the southernexample is perfectly applicable to the northern claim, as the northernis to the southern; for, throughout the whole space of these twothousand miles, take your stand where you will, the proceeding isperfectly uniform, and what is done in one part will apply exactly tothe other. 

My second assertion is, that the Company never has made a treaty whichthey have not broken. This position is so connected with that of thesales of provinces and kingdoms, with the negotiation of universaldistraction in every part of India, that a very minute detail may wellbe spared on this point. It has not yet been contended, by any enemy tothe reform, that they have observed any public agreement. When I hearthat they have done so in any one instance, (which hitherto, I confess, I never heard alleged, ) I shall speak to the particular treaty. TheGovernor General has even amused himself and the Court of Directors ina very singular letter to that board, in which he admits he has not beenvery delicate with regard to public faith; and he goes so far as tostate a regular estimate of the sums which the Company would have lost, or never acquired, if the rigid ideas of public faith entertained by hiscolleagues had been observed. The learned gentleman[55] over against mehas, indeed, saved me much trouble. On a former occasion, he obtained nosmall credit for the clear and forcible manner in which he stated, whatwe have not forgot, and I hope he has not forgot, that universal, systematic breach of treaties which had made the British faithproverbial in the East. 

It only remains, Sir, for me just to recapitulate some heads. --Thetreaty with the Mogul, by which we stipulated to pay him 260, 000_l. _annually, was broken. This treaty they have broken, and not paid him ashilling. They broke their treaty with him, in which they stipulated topay 400, 000_l. _ a year to the Subah of Bengal. They agreed with theMogul, for services admitted to have been performed, to pay Nudjif Cawna pension. They broke this article with the rest, and stopped also thissmall pension. They broke their treaties with the Nizam, and with HyderAli. As to the Mahrattas, they had so many cross treaties with thestates-general of that nation, and with each of the chiefs, that it wasnotorious that no one of these agreements could be kept without grosslyviolating the rest. It was observed, that, if the terms of these severaltreaties had been kept, two British armies would at one and the sametime have met in the field to cut each other's throats. The wars whichdesolate India originated from a most atrocious violation of publicfaith on our part. In the midst of profound peace, the Company's troopsinvaded the Mahratta territories, and surprised the island and fortressof Salsette. The Mahrattas nevertheless yielded to a treaty of peace bywhich solid advantages were procured to the Company. But this treaty, like every other treaty, was soon violated by the Company. Again theCompany invaded the Mahratta dominions. The disaster that ensued gaveoccasion to a new treaty. The whole army of the Company was obliged ineffect to surrender to this injured, betrayed, and insulted people. Justly irritated, however, as they were, the terms which they prescribedwere reasonable and moderate, and their treatment of their captiveinvaders of the most distinguished humanity. But the humanity of theMahrattas was of no power whatsoever to prevail on the Company to attendto the observance of the terms dictated by their moderation. The war wasrenewed with greater vigor than ever; and such was their insatiable lustof plunder, that they never would have given ear to any terms of peace, if Hyder Ali had not broke through the Ghauts, and, rushing like atorrent into the Carnatic, swept away everything in his career. This wasin consequence of that confederacy which by a sort of miracle united themost discordant powers for our destruction, as a nation in which noother could put any trust, and who were the declared enemies of thehuman species. 

It is very remarkable that the late controversy between the severalpresidencies, and between them and the Court of Directors, with relationto these wars and treaties, has not been, which of the parties might bedefended for his share in them, but on which of the parties the guiltof all this load of perfidy should be fixed. But I am content to admitall these proceedings to be perfectly regular, to be full of honor andgood faith; and wish to fix your attention solely to that singletransaction which the advocates of this system select for sotranscendent a merit as to cancel the guilt of all the rest of theirproceedings: I mean the late treaties with the Mahrattas. 

I make no observation on the total cession of territory, by which theysurrendered all they had obtained by their unhappy successes in war, andalmost all they had obtained under the treaty of Poorunder. Therestitution was proper, if it had been voluntary and seasonable. Iattach on the spirit of the treaty, the dispositions it showed, theprovisions it made for a general peace, and the faith kept with alliesand confederates, --in order that the House may form a judgment, fromthis chosen piece, of the use which has been made (and is likely to bemade, if things continue in the same hands) of the trust of the federalpowers of this country. 

It was the wish of almost every Englishman that the Mahratta peace mightlead to a general one; because the Mahratta war was only a part of ageneral confederacy formed against us, on account of the universalabhorrence of our conduct which prevailed in every state, and almost inevery house in India. Mr. Hastings was obliged to pretend some sort ofacquiescence in this general and rational desire. He thereforeconsented, in order to satisfy the point of honor of the Mahrattas, thatan article should be inserted to admit Hyder Ali to accede to thepacification. But observe, Sir, the spirit of this man, --which, if itwere not made manifest by a thousand things, and particularly by hisproceedings with regard to Lord Macartney, would be sufficientlymanifest by this. What sort of article, think you, does he require thisessential head of a solemn treaty of general pacification to be? In hisinstruction to Mr. Anderson, he desires him to admit "a _vague_ article"in favor of Hyder. Evasion and fraud were the declared basis of thetreaty. These _vague_ articles, intended for a more vague performance, are the things which have damned our reputation in India. 

Hardly was this vague article inserted, than, without waiting for anyact on the part of Hyder, Mr. Hastings enters into a negotiation withthe Mahratta chief, Scindia, for a partition of the territories of theprince who was one of the objects to be secured by the treaty. He was tobe parcelled out in three parts: one to Scindia; one to the Peishwa ofthe Mahrattas; and the third to the East India Company, or to (the olddealer and chapman) Mahomet Ali. 

During the formation of this project, Hyder dies; and before his soncould take any one step, either to conform to the tenor of the articleor to contravene it, the treaty of partition is renewed on the oldfooting, and an instruction is sent to Mr. Anderson to conclude it inform. 

A circumstance intervened, during the pendency of this negotiation, toset off the good faith of the Company with an additional brilliancy, andto make it sparkle and glow with a variety of splendid faces. GeneralMatthews had reduced that most valuable part of Hyder's dominions calledthe country of Biddanore. When the news reached Mr. Hastings, heinstructed Mr. Anderson to contend for an alteration in the treaty ofpartition, and to take the Biddanore country out of the common stockwhich was to be divided, and to keep it for the Company. 

The first ground for this variation was its being a separate conquestmade before the treaty had actually taken place. Here was a new proofgiven of the fairness, equity, and moderation of the Company. But thesecond of Mr. Hastings's reasons for retaining the Biddanore as aseparate portion, and his conduct on that second ground, is still moreremarkable. He asserted that that country could not be put into thepartition stock, because General Matthews had received it on the termsof some convention which might be incompatible with the partitionproposed. This was a reason in itself both honorable and solid; and itshowed a regard to faith somewhere, and with some persons. But in orderto demonstrate his utter contempt of the plighted faith which wasalleged on one part as a reason for departing from it on another, and toprove his impetuous desire for sowing a new war even in the preparedsoil of a general pacification, he directs Mr. Anderson, if he shouldfind strong difficulties impeding the partition on the score of thesubtraction of Biddanore, wholly to abandon that claim, and to concludethe treaty on the original terms. General Matthews's convention was justbrought forward sufficiently to demonstrate to the Mahrattas theslippery hold which they had on their new confederate; on the otherhand, that convention being instantly abandoned, the people of Indiawere taught that no terms on which they can surrender to the Company areto be regarded, when farther conquests are in view. 

Next, Sir, let me bring before you the pious care that was taken of ourallies under that treaty which is the subject of the Company'sapplauses. These allies were Ragonaut Row, for whom we had engaged tofind a throne; the Guickwar, (one of the Guzerat princes, ) who was to beemancipated from the Mahratta authority, and to grow great by severalaccessions of dominion; and, lastly, the Rana of Gohud, with whom we hadentered into a treaty of partition for eleven sixteenths of our jointconquests. Some of these inestimable securities called _vague_ articleswere inserted in favor of them all. 

As to the first, the unhappy abdicated Peishwa, and pretender to theMahratta throne, Ragonaut Row, was delivered up to his people, with anarticle for safety, and some provision. This man, knowing how littlevague the hatred of his countrymen was towards him, and well apprised ofwhat black crimes he stood accused, (among which our invasion of hiscountry would not appear the least, ) took a mortal alarm at the securitywe had provided for him. He was thunderstruck at the article in hisfavor, by which he was surrendered to his enemies. He never had theleast notice of the treaty; and it was apprehended that he would fly tothe protection of Hyder Ali, or some other, disposed or able to protecthim. He was therefore not left without comfort; for Mr. Anderson did himthe favor to send a special messenger, desiring him to be of good cheerand to fear nothing. And his old enemy, Scindia, at our request, senthim a message equally well calculated to quiet his apprehensions. 

By the same treaty the Guickwar was to come again, with no bettersecurity, under the dominion of the Mahratta state. As to the Rana ofGohud, a long negotiation depended for giving him up. At first this wasrefused by Mr. Hastings with great indignation; at another stage it wasadmitted as proper, because he had shown himself a most perfidiousperson. But at length a method of reconciling these extremes was foundout, by contriving one of the usual articles in his favor. What Ibelieve will appear beyond all belief, Mr. Anderson exchanged the finalratifications of that treaty by which the Rana was nominally secured inhis possessions, in the camp of the Mahratta chief, Scindia, whilst hewas (really, and not nominally) battering the castle of Gwalior, whichwe had given, agreeably to treaty, to this deluded ally. Scindia hadalready reduced the town, and was at the very time, by variousdetachments, reducing, one after another, the fortresses of ourprotected ally, as well as in the act of chastising all the rajahs whohad assisted Colonel Camac in his invasion. I have seen in a letter fromCalcutta, that the Rana of Gohud's agent would have represented thesehostilities (which went hand in hand with the protecting treaty) to Mr. Hastings, but he was not admitted to his presence. 

In this manner the Company has acted with their allies in the Mahrattawar. But they did not rest here. The Mahrattas were fearful lest thepersons delivered to them by that treaty should attempt to escape intothe British territories, and thus might elude the punishment intendedfor them, and, by reclaiming the treaty, might stir up new disturbances. To prevent this, they desired an article to be inserted in thesupplemental treaty, to which they had the ready consent of Mr. Hastings, and the rest of the Company's representatives in Bengal. Itwas this: "That the English and Mahratta governments mutually agree notto afford refuge to any _chiefs, merchants, or other persons_, flyingfor protection to the territories of the other. " This was readilyassented to, and assented to without any exception whatever in favor ofour surrendered allies. On their part a reciprocity was stipulated whichwas not unnatural for a government like the Company's to ask, --agovernment conscious that many subjects had been, and would in futurebe, driven to fly from its jurisdiction. 

To complete the system of pacific intention and public faith whichpredominate in those treaties, Mr. Hastings fairly resolved to put allpeace, except on the terms of absolute conquest, wholly out of his ownpower. For, by an article in this second treaty with Scindia, he bindsthe Company not to make any peace with Tippoo Sahib without the consentof the Peishwa of the Mahrattas, and binds Scindia to him by areciprocal engagement. The treaty between France and England obliges usmutually to withdraw our forces, if our allies in India do not accede tothe peace within four months; Mr. Hastings's treaty obliges us tocontinue the war as long as the Peishwa thinks fit. We are now in thathappy situation, that the breach of the treaty with France, or theviolation of that with the Mahrattas, is inevitable; and we have only totake our choice. 

My third assertion, relative to the abuse made of the right of war andpeace, is, that there are none who have ever confided in us who have notbeen utterly ruined. The examples I have given of Ragonaut Row, ofGuickwar, of the Rana of Gohud, are recent. There is proof more thanenough in the condition of the Mogul, --in the slavery and indigence ofthe Nabob of Oude, --the exile of the Rajah of Benares, --the beggary ofthe Nabob of Bengal, --the undone and captive condition of the Rajah andkingdom of Tanjore, --the destruction of the Polygars, --and, lastly, inthe destruction of the Nabob of Arcot himself, who, when his dominionswere invaded, was found entirely destitute of troops, provisions, stores, and (as he asserts) of money, being a million in debt to theCompany, and four millions to others: the many millions which he hadextorted from so many extirpated princes and their desolated countrieshaving (as he has frequently hinted) been expended for the ground-rentof his mansion-house in an alley in the suburbs of Madras. Compare thecondition of all these princes with the power and authority of all theMahratta states, with the independence and dignity of the Subah of theDeccan, and the mighty strength, the resources, and the manly struggleof Hyder Ali, --and then the House will discover the effects, on everypower in India, of an easy confidence or of a rooted distrust in thefaith of the Company. 

These are some of my reasons, grounded on the abuse of the externalpolitical trust of that body, for thinking myself not only justified, but bound, to declare against those chartered rights which produce somany wrongs. I should deem myself the wickedest of men, if any vote ofmine could contribute to the continuance of so great an evil. 

Now, Sir, according to the plan I proposed, I shall take notice of theCompany's internal government, as it is exercised first on the dependentprovinces, and then as it affects those under the direct and immediateauthority of that body. And here, Sir, before I enter into the spirit oftheir interior government, permit me to observe to you upon a few of themany lines of difference which are to be found between the vices of theCompany's government and those of the conquerors who preceded us inIndia, that we may be enabled a little the better to see our way in anattempt to the necessary reformation. 

The several irruptions of Arabs, Tartars, and Persians into India were, for the greater part, ferocious, bloody, and wasteful in the extreme:our entrance into the dominion of that country was, as generally, withsmall comparative effusion of blood, --being introduced by various fraudsand delusions, and by taking advantage of the incurable, blind, andsenseless animosity which the several country powers bear towards eachother, rather than by open force. But the difference in favor of thefirst conquerors is this. The Asiatic conquerors very soon abated oftheir ferocity, because they made the conquered country their own. Theyrose or fell with the rise or fall of the territory they lived in. Fathers there deposited the hopes of their posterity; and children therebeheld the monuments of their fathers. Here their lot was finally cast;and it is the natural wish of all that their lot should not be cast in abad land. Poverty, sterility, and desolation are not a recreatingprospect to the eye of man; and there are very few who can bear to growold among the curses of a whole people. If their passion or theiravarice drove the Tartar lords to acts of rapacity or tyranny, there wastime enough, even in the short life of man, to bring round the illeffects of an abuse of power upon the power itself. If hoards were madeby violence and tyranny, they were still domestic hoards; and domesticprofusion, or the rapine of a more powerful and prodigal hand, restoredthem to the people. With many disorders, and with few political checksupon power, Nature had still fair play; the sources of acquisition werenot dried up; and therefore the trade, the manufactures, and thecommerce of the country flourished. Even avarice and usury itselfoperated both for the preservation and the employment of nationalwealth. The husbandman and manufacturer paid heavy interest, but thenthey augmented the fund from whence they were again to borrow. Theirresources were dearly bought, but they were sure; and the general stockof the community grew by the general effort. 

But under the English government all this order is reversed. The Tartarinvasion was mischievous; but it is our protection that destroys India. It was their enmity; but it is our friendship. Our conquest there, aftertwenty years, is as crude as it was the first day. The natives scarcelyknow what it is to see the gray head of an Englishman. Young men (boysalmost) govern there, without society and without sympathy with thenatives. They have no more social habits with the people than if theystill resided in England, --nor, indeed, any species of intercourse, butthat which is necessary to making a sudden fortune, with a view to aremote settlement. Animated with all the avarice of age and all theimpetuosity of youth, they roll in one after another, wave after wave;and there is nothing before the eyes of the natives but an endless, hopeless prospect of new flights of birds of prey and passage, withappetites continually renewing for a food that is continually wasting. Every rupee of profit made by an Englishman is lost forever to India. With us are no retributory superstitions, by which a foundation ofcharity compensates, through ages, to the poor, for the rapine andinjustice of a day. With us no pride erects stately monuments whichrepair the mischiefs which pride had produced, and which adorn a countryout of its own spoils. England has erected no churches, nohospitals, [56] no palaces, no schools; England has built no bridges, made no high-roads, cut no navigations, dug out no reservoirs. Everyother conqueror of every other description has left some monument, either of state or beneficence, behind him. Were we to be driven out ofIndia this day, nothing would remain to tell that it had been possessed, during the inglorious period of our dominion, by anything better thanthe orang-outang or the tiger. 

There is nothing in the boys we send to India worse than in the boyswhom we are whipping at school, or that we see trailing a pike orbending over a desk at home. But as English youth in India drink theintoxicating draught of authority and dominion before their heads areable to bear it, and as they are full grown in fortune long before theyare ripe in principle, neither Nature nor reason have any opportunity toexert themselves for remedy of the excesses of their premature power. The consequences of their conduct, which in good minds (and many oftheirs are probably such) might produce penitence or amendment, areunable to pursue the rapidity of their flight. Their prey is lodged inEngland; and the cries of India are given to seas and winds, to be blownabout, in every breaking up of the monsoon, over a remote and unhearingocean. In India all the vices operate by which sudden fortune isacquired: in England are often displayed, by the same persons, thevirtues which dispense hereditary wealth. Arrived in England, thedestroyers of the nobility and gentry of a whole kingdom will find thebest company in this nation at a board of elegance and hospitality. Herethe manufacturer and husbandman will bless the just and punctual handthat in India has torn the cloth from the loom, or wrested the scantyportion of rice and salt from the peasant of Bengal, or wrung from himthe very opium in which he forgot his oppressions and his oppressor. They marry into your families; they enter into your senate; they easeyour estates by loans; they raise their value by demand; they cherishand protect your relations which lie heavy on your patronage; and thereis scarcely an house in the kingdom that does not feel some concern andinterest that makes all reform of our Eastern government appearofficious and disgusting, and, on the whole, a most discouragingattempt. In such an attempt you hurt those who are able to returnkindness or to resent injury. If you succeed, you save those who cannotso much as give you thanks. All these things show the difficulty of thework we have on hand: but they show its necessity, too. Our Indiangovernment is in its best state a grievance. It is necessary that thecorrectives should be uncommonly vigorous, and the work of men sanguine, warm, and even impassioned in the cause. But it is an arduous thing toplead against abuses of a power which originates from your own country, and affects those whom we are used to consider as strangers. 

I shall certainly endeavor to modulate myself to this temper; though Iam sensible that a cold style of describing actions, which appear to mein a very affecting light, is equally contrary to the justice due tothe people and to all genuine human feelings about them. I ask pardon oftruth and Nature for this compliance. But I shall be very sparing ofepithets either to persons or things. It has been said, (and, withregard to one of them, with truth, ) that Tacitus and Machiavel, by theircold way of relating enormous crimes, have in some sort appeared not todisapprove them; that they seem a sort of professors of the art oftyranny; and that they corrupt the minds of their readers by notexpressing the detestation and horror that naturally belong to horribleand detestable proceedings. But we are in general, Sir, so littleacquainted with Indian details, the instruments of oppression underwhich the people suffer are so hard to be understood, and even the verynames of the sufferers are so uncouth and strange to our ears, that itis very difficult for our sympathy to fix upon these objects. I am surethat some of us have come down stairs from the committee-room withimpressions on our minds which to us were the inevitable results of ourdiscoveries, yet, if we should venture to express ourselves in theproper language of our sentiments to other gentlemen not at all preparedto enter into the cause of them, nothing could appear more harsh anddissonant, more violent and unaccountable, than our language andbehavior. All these circumstances are not, I confess, very favorable tothe idea of our attempting to govern India at all. But there we are;there we are placed by the Sovereign Disposer; and we must do the bestwe can in our situation. The situation of man is the preceptor of hisduty. 

Upon the plan which I laid down, and to which I beg leave to return, Iwas considering the conduct of the Company to those nations which areindirectly subject to their authority. The most considerable of thedependent princes is the Nabob of Oude. My right honorable friend, [57]to whom we owe the remedial bills on your table, has already pointed outto you, in one of the reports, the condition of that prince, and as itstood in the time he alluded to. I shall only add a few circumstancesthat may tend to awaken some sense of the manner in which the conditionof the people is affected by that of the prince, and involved init, --and to show you, that, when we talk of the sufferings of princes, we do not lament the oppression of individuals, --and that in these casesthe high and the low suffer together. 

In the year 1779, the Nabob of Oude represented, through the Britishresident at his court, that the number of Company's troops stationed inhis dominions was a main cause of his distress, --and that all thosewhich he was not bound by treaty to maintain should be withdrawn, asthey had greatly diminished his revenue and impoverished his country. Iwill read you, if you please, a few extracts from these representations. 

He states, "that the country and cultivation are abandoned, and thisyear in particular, from the excessive drought of the season, deductionsof many lacs having been allowed to the farmers, who are still leftunsatisfied"; and then he proceeds with a long detail of his owndistress, and that of his family and all his dependants; and adds, "thatthe new-raised brigade is not only quite useless to my government, butis, moreover, the cause of much loss both in revenues and customs. Thedetached body of troops under European officers bring nothing _butconfusion to the affairs of my government, and are entirely their ownmasters_. " Mr. Middleton, Mr. Hastings's confidential resident, vouchesfor the truth of this representation in its fullest extent. "I amconcerned to confess that there is too good ground for this plea. _Themisfortune hat been general throughout the whole of the vizier's_ [theNabob of Oude] _dominions_, obvious to everybody; and so _fatal_ havebeen its consequences, that no person of either credit or characterwould enter into engagements with government for farming the country. "He then proceeds to give strong instances of the general calamity, andits effects. 

It was now to be seen what steps the Governor-General and Council tookfor the relief of this distressed country, long laboring under thevexations of men, and now stricken by the hand of God. The case of ageneral famine is known to relax the severity even of the most rigorousgovernment. --Mr. Hastings does not deny or show the least doubt of thefact. The representation is humble, and almost abject. On thisrepresentation from a great prince of the distress of his subjects, Mr. Hastings falls into a violent passion, --such as (it seems) would beunjustifiable in any one who speaks of any part of _his_ conduct. Hedeclares "that the _demands_, the _tone_ in which they were asserted, and the _season_ in which they were made, are all equally alarming, andappear to him to require an adequate degree of firmness in this board in_opposition_ to them. " He proceeds to deal out very unreserved languageon the person and character of the Nabob and his ministers. He declares, that, in a division between him and the Nabob, "_the strongest mustdecide_. " With regard to the urgent and instant necessity from thefailure of the crops, he says, "that _perhaps_ expedients _may be found_for affording a _gradual_ relief from the burden of which he so heavilycomplains, and it shall be my endeavor to seek them out": and lest heshould be suspected of too much haste to alleviate sufferings and toremove violence, he says, "that these must be _gradually_ applied, andtheir complete _effect_ may be _distant_; and this, I conceive, _is all_he can claim of right. "

This complete effect of his lenity is distant indeed. Rejecting thisdemand, (as he calls the Nabob's abject supplication, ) he attributes it, as he usually does all things of the kind, to the division in theirgovernment, and says, "This is a powerful motive with _me_ (howeverinclined I might be, _upon any other occasion_, to yield to some _part_of his demand) to give them an _absolute and unconditional refusal_ uponthe present, --and even _to bring to punishment, if my influence canproduce that effect, those incendiaries who have endeavored to makethemselves the instruments of division between us_. "

Here, Sir, is much heat and passion, --but no more consideration of thedistress of the country, from a failure of the means of subsistence, and(if possible) the worse evil of an useless and licentious soldiery, thanif they were the most contemptible of all trifles. A letter is written, in consequence, in such a style of lofty despotism as I believe hashitherto been unexampled and unheard of in the records of the East. Thetroops were continued. The _gradual_ relief, whose effect was to be so_distant_, has _never_ been substantially and beneficially applied, --andthe country is ruined. 

Mr. Hastings, two years after, when it was too late, saw the absolutenecessity of a removal of the intolerable grievance of this licentioussoldiery, which, under pretence of defending it, held the country undermilitary execution. A new treaty and arrangement, according to thepleasure of Mr. Hastings, took place; and this new treaty was broken inthe old manner, in every essential article. The soldiery were againsent, and again set loose. The effect of all his manoeuvres, from whichit seems he was sanguine enough to entertain hopes, upon the state ofthe country, he himself informs us, --"The event has proved the _reverse_of these hopes, and _accumulation of distress, debasement, anddissatisfaction_ to the Nabob, and _disappointment and disgrace tome_. --Every measure [which he had himself proposed] has been _soconducted_ as to give him cause of displeasure. There are no officersestablished by which his affairs could be regularly conducted: mean, incapable, and indigent men have been appointed. A number of thedistricts without authority, and without the means of personalprotection; some of them have been murdered by the zemindars, and thosezemindars, instead of punishment, have been permitted to retain theirzemindaries, with independent authority; _all_ the other zemindarssuffered to rise up in rebellion, and to insult the authority of thesircar, without any attempt made to suppress them; and the Company'sdebt, instead of being discharged by the assignments and extraordinarysources of money provided for that _purpose, is likely to exceed eventhe amount at which it stood at the time in which the arrangement withhis Excellency was concluded_. " The House will smile at the resource onwhich the Directors take credit as such a certainty in their curiousaccount. 

This is Mr. Hastings's own narrative of the effects of his ownsettlement. This is the state of the country which we have been told isin perfect peace and order; and, what is curious, he informs us, that_every part of this was foretold to him in the order and manner in whichit happened_, at the very time he made his arrangement of men andmeasures. 

The invariable course of the Company's policy is this: either they setup some prince too odious to maintain himself without the necessity oftheir assistance, or they soon render him odious by making him theinstrument of their government. In that case troops are bountifully sentto him to maintain his authority. That he should have no want ofassistance, a civil gentleman, called a Resident, is kept at his court, who, under pretence of providing duly for the pay of these troops, getsassignments on the revenue into his hands. Under his providentmanagement, debts soon accumulate; new assignments are made for thesedebts; until, step by step, the whole revenue, and with it the wholepower of the country, is delivered into his hands. The military do notbehold without a virtuous emulation the moderate gains of the civildepartment. They feel that in a country driven to habitual rebellion bythe civil government the military is necessary; and they will not permittheir services to go unrewarded. Tracts of country are delivered over totheir discretion. Then it is found proper to convert their commandingofficers into farmers of revenue. Thus, between the well-paid civil andwell-rewarded military establishment, the situation of the natives maybe easily conjectured. The authority of the regular and lawfulgovernment is everywhere and in every point extinguished. Disorders andviolences arise; they are repressed by other disorders and otherviolences. Wherever the collectors of the revenue and the farmingcolonels and majors move, ruin is about them, rebellion before andbehind them. The people in crowds fly out of the country; and thefrontier is guarded by lines of troops, not to exclude an enemy, but toprevent the escape of the inhabitants. 

By these means, in the course of not more than four or five years, thisonce opulent and flourishing country, which, by the accounts given inthe Bengal consultations, yielded more than three crore of sicca rupees, that is, above three millions sterling, annually, is reduced, as far asI can discover, in a matter purposely involved in the utmost perplexity, to less than one million three hundred thousand pounds, and that exactedby every mode of rigor that can be devised. To complete the business, most of the wretched remnants of this revenue are mortgaged, anddelivered into the hands of the usurers at Benares (for there alone areto be found some lingering remains of the ancient wealth of theseregions) at an interest of near _thirty per cent per annum_. 

The revenues in this manner failing, they seized upon the estates ofevery person of eminence in the country, and, under the name of_resumption_, confiscated their property. I wish, Sir, to be understooduniversally and literally, when I assert that there is not left one manof property and substance for his rank in the whole of these provinces, in provinces which are nearly the extent of England and Wales takentogether: not one landholder, not one banker, not one merchant, not oneeven of those who usually perish last, the _ultimum moriens_ in a ruinedstate, not one farmer of revenue. 

One country for a while remained, which stood as an island in the midstof the grand waste of the Company's dominion. My right honorable friend, in his admirable speech on moving the bill, just touched the situation, the offences, and the punishment of a native prince, called FizullaKhân. This man, by policy and force, had protected himself from thegeneral extirpation of the Rohilla chiefs. He was secured (if that wereany security) by a treaty. It was stated to you, as it was stated by theenemies of that unfortunate man, "that the whole of his country _is_what the whole country of the Rohillas _was_, cultivated like a garden, without one neglected spot in it. " Another accuser says, --"FyzoolahKhan, though a bad soldier, [that is the true source of his misfortune, ]has approved himself a good aumil, --having, it is supposed, in thecourse of a few years, at least _doubled_ the population and revenue ofhis country. " In another part of the correspondence he is charged withmaking his country an asylum for the oppressed peasants who fly from theterritories of Oude. The improvement of his revenue, arising from thissingle crime, (which Mr. Hastings considers as tantamount to treason, )is stated at an hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year. 

Dr. Swift somewhere says, that he who could make two blades of grassgrow where but one grew before was a greater benefactor to the humanrace than all the politicians that ever existed. This prince, who wouldhave been deified by antiquity, who would have been ranked with Osiris, and Bacchus, and Ceres, and the divinities most propitious to men, was, for those very merits, by name attacked by the Company's government, asa cheat, a robber, a traitor. In the same breath in which he wasaccused as a rebel, he was ordered at once to furnish five thousandhorse. On delay, or (according to the technical phrase, when anyremonstrance is made to them) "_on evasion_, " he was declared a violatorof treaties, and everything he had was to be taken from him. Not oneword, however, of horse in this treaty. 

The territory of this Fizulla Khân, Mr. Speaker, is less than the Countyof Norfolk. It is an inland country, full seven hundred miles from anyseaport, and not distinguished for any one considerable branch ofmanufacture whatsoever. From this territory several very considerablesums had at several times been paid to the British resident. The demandof cavalry, without a shadow or decent pretext of right, amounted tothree hundred thousand a year more, at the lowest computation; and it isstated, by the last person sent to negotiate, as a demand of little use, if it could be complied with, --but that the compliance was impossible, as it amounted to more than his territories could supply, if there hadbeen no other demand upon him. Three hundred thousand pounds a year froman inland country not so large as Norfolk!

The thing most extraordinary was to hear the culprit defend himself fromthe imputation of his virtues, as if they had been the blackestoffences. He extenuated the superior cultivation of his country. Hedenied its population. He endeavored to prove that he had often sentback the poor peasant that sought shelter with him. --I can make noobservation on this. 

After a variety of extortions and vexations, too fatiguing to you, toodisgusting to me, to go through with, they found "that they ought to bein a better state to warrant forcible means"; they therefore contentedthemselves with a gross sum of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds fortheir present demand. They offered him, indeed, an indemnity from theirexactions in future for three hundred thousand pounds more. But herefused to buy their securities, --pleading (probably with truth) hispoverty; but if the plea were not founded, in my opinion very wisely:not choosing to deal any more in that dangerous commodity of theCompany's faith; and thinking it better to oppose distress and unarmedobstinacy to uncolored exaction than to subject himself to be consideredas a cheat, if he should make a treaty in the least beneficial tohimself. 

Thus they executed an exemplary punishment on Fizulla Khân for theculture of his country. But, conscious that the prevention of evils isthe great object of all good regulation, they deprived him of the meansof increasing that criminal cultivation in future, by exhausting hiscoffers; and that the population of his country should no more be astanding reproach and libel on the Company's government, they bound himby a positive engagement not to afford any shelter whatsoever to thefarmers and laborers who should seek refuge in his territories from theexactions of the British residents in Oude. When they had done all thiseffectually, they gave him a full and complete acquittance from allcharges of rebellion, or of any intention to rebel, or of his havingoriginally had any interest in, or any means of, rebellion. 

These intended rebellions are one of the Company's standing resources. When money has been thought to be heaped up anywhere, its owners areuniversally accused of rebellion, until they are acquitted of theirmoney and their treasons at once. The money once taken, all accusation, trial, and punishment ends. It is so settled a resource, that I ratherwonder how it comes to be omitted in the Directors' account; but I takeit for granted this omission will be supplied in their next edition. 

The Company stretched this resource to the full extent, when theyaccused two old women, in the remotest corner of India, (who could haveno possible view or motive to raise disturbances, ) of being engaged inrebellion, with an intent to drive out the English nation, in whoseprotection, purchased by money and secured by treaty, rested the solehope of their existence. But the Company wanted money, and the old women_must_ be guilty of a plot. They were accused of rebellion, and theywere convicted of wealth. Twice had great sums been extorted from them, and as often had the British faith guarantied the remainder. A body ofBritish troops, with one of the military farmers-general at their head, was sent to seize upon the castle in which these helpless women resided. Their chief eunuchs, who were their agents, their guardians, protectors, persons of high rank according to the Eastern manners, and of greattrust, were thrown into dungeons, to make them discover their hiddentreasures; and there they lie at present. The lands assigned for themaintenance of the women were seized and confiscated. Their jewels andeffects were taken, and set up to a pretended auction in an obscureplace, and bought at such a price as the gentlemen thought proper togive. No account has ever been transmitted of the articles or produce ofthis sale. What money was obtained is unknown, or what terms werestipulated for the maintenance of these despoiled and forlorncreatures: for by some particulars it appears as if an engagement of thekind was made. 

Let me here remark, once for all, that though the act of 1773 requiresthat an account of all proceedings should be diligently transmitted, that this, like all the other injunctions of the law, is totallydespised, and that half at least of the most important papers areintentionally withheld. 

I wish you, Sir, to advert particularly, in this transaction, to thequality and the numbers of the persons spoiled, and the instrument bywhom that spoil was made. These ancient matrons, called the Begums, orPrincesses, were of the first birth and quality in India: the onemother, the other wife, of the late Nabob of Oude, Sujah Dowlah, aprince possessed of extensive and flourishing dominions, and the secondman in the Mogul Empire. This prince (suspicious, and not unjustlysuspicious, of his son and successor) at his death committed histreasures and his family to the British faith. That family and householdconsisted of _two thousand women_, to which were added two otherseraglios of near kindred, and said to be extremely numerous, and (as Iam well informed) of about fourscore of the Nabob's children, with allthe eunuchs, the ancient servants, and a multitude of the dependants ofhis splendid court. These were all to be provided, for presentmaintenance and future establishment, from the lands assigned as dower, and from the treasures which he left to these matrons, in trust for thewhole family. 

So far as to the objects of the spoil. The _instrument_ chosen by Mr. Hastings to despoil the relict of Sujah Dowlah was _her own son_, thereigning Nabob of Oude. It was the pious hand of a son that was selectedto tear from his mother and grandmother the provision of their age, themaintenance of his brethren, and of all the ancient household of hisfather. [_Here a laugh, from some young members_. ] The laugh is_seasonable_, and the occasion decent and proper. 

By the last advices, something of the sum extorted remained unpaid. Thewomen, in despair, refuse to deliver more, unless their lands arerestored, and their ministers released from prison; but Mr. Hastings andhis council, steady to their point, and consistent to the last in theirconduct, write to the resident to stimulate the son to accomplish thefilial acts he had brought so near to their perfection. "We desire, " saythey in their letter to the resident, (written so late as March last, )"that you will inform us if any, and what means, have been taken forrecovering the balance due from the Begum [Princess] at Fyzabad; andthat, if necessary, you _recommend_ it to the vizier to enforce _themost effectual means_ for that purpose. "

What their effectual means of enforcing demands on women of high rankand condition are I shall show you, Sir, in a few minutes, when Irepresent to you another of these plots and rebellions, which _always_in India, though so _rarely_ anywhere else, are the offspring of an easycondition and hoarded riches. 

Benares is the capital city of the Indian religion. It is regarded asholy by a particular and distinguished sanctity; and the Gentoos ingeneral think themselves as much obliged to visit it once in their livesas the Mahometans to perform their pilgrimage to Mecca. By this meansthat city grew great in commerce and opulence; and so effectually was itsecured by the pious veneration of that people, that in all wars and inall violences of power there was so sure an asylum both for poverty andwealth, (as it were under a divine protection, ) that the wisest laws andbest assured free constitution could not better provide for the reliefof the one or the safety of the other; and this tranquillity influencedto the greatest degree the prosperity of all the country, and theterritory of which it was the capital. The interest of money there wasnot more than half the usual rate in which it stood in all other places. The reports have fully informed you of the means and of the terms inwhich this city and the territory called Ghazipoor, of which it was thehead, came under the sovereignty of the East India Company. 

If ever there was a subordinate dominion pleasantly circumstanced to thesuperior power, it was this. A large rent or tribute, to the amount oftwo hundred and sixty thousand pounds a year, was paid in monthlyinstalments with the punctuality of a dividend at the Bank. If everthere was a prince who could not have an interest in disturbances, itwas its sovereign, the Rajah Cheit Sing. He was in possession of thecapital of his religion, and a willing revenue was paid by the devoutpeople who resorted to him from all parts. His sovereignty and hisindependence, except his tribute, was secured by every tie. Histerritory was not much less than half of Ireland, and displayed in allparts a degree of cultivation, ease, and plenty, under his frugal andpaternal management, which left him nothing to desire, either for honoror satisfaction. 

This was the light in which this country appeared to almost every eye. But Mr. Hastings beheld it askance. Mr. Hastings tells us that it was_reported_ of this Cheit Sing, that his father left him a millionsterling, and that he made annual accessions to the hoard. Nothing couldbe so obnoxious to indigent power. So much wealth could not be innocent. The House is fully acquainted with the unfounded and unjust requisitionswhich were made upon this prince. The question has been most ably andconclusively cleared up in one of the reports of the select committee, and in an answer of the Court of Directors to an extraordinarypublication against them by their servant, Mr. Hastings. But I mean topass by these exactions as if they were perfectly just and regular; andhaving admitted them, I take what I shall now trouble you with only asit serves to show the spirit of the Company's government, the mode inwhich it is carried on, and the maxims on which it proceeds. 

Mr. Hastings, from whom I take the doctrine, endeavors to prove thatCheit Sing was no sovereign prince, but a mere zemindar, or commonsubject, holding land by rent. If this be granted to him, it is next tobe seen under what terms he is of opinion such a landholder, that is aBritish subject, holds his life and property under the Company'sgovernment. It is proper to understand well the doctrines of the personwhose administration has lately received such distinguished approbationfrom the Company. His doctrine is, --"That the Company, or the _persondelegated by it_, holds _an absolute_ authority over suchzemindars;--that he [such a subject] owes _an implicit_ and _unreserved_obedience to its authority, at the _forfeiture_ even of his _life_ and_property_, at the DISCRETION of those who held _or fully represented_the sovereign authority;--and that _these_ rights are _fully_ delegated_to him_, Mr. Hastings. "

Such is a British governor's idea of the condition of a great zemindarholding under a British authority; and this kind of authority hesupposes fully delegated to _him_, --though no such delegation appears inany commission, instruction, or act of Parliament. At his _discretion_he may demand of the substance of any zemindar, over and above his rentor tribute, even, what he pleases, with a sovereign authority; and if hedoes not yield an _implicit, unreserved_ obedience to all his commands, he forfeits his lands, his life, and his property, at Mr. Hastings's_discretion_. But, extravagant, and even frantic, as these positionsappear, they are less so than what I shall now read to you; for heasserts, that, if any one should urge an exemption from more than astated payment, or should consider the deeds which passed between himand the Board "as bearing _the quality and force_ of a treaty betweenequal states, " he says, "that such an opinion is itself criminal to thestate of which he is a subject; and that he was himself amenable to itsjustice, if he gave _countenance_ to such a _belief_. " Here is a newspecies of crime invented, that of countenancing a belief, --but a beliefof what? A belief of that which the Court of Directors, Hastings'smasters, and a committee of this House, have decided as this prince'sindisputable right. 

But supposing the Rajah of Benares to be a mere subject, and thatsubject a criminal of the highest form; let us see what course was takenby an upright English magistrate. Did he cite this culprit before histribunal? Did he make a charge? Did he produce witnesses? These are notforms; they are parts of substantial and eternal justice. No, not a wordof all this. Mr. Hastings concludes him, _in his own mind_, to beguilty: he makes this conclusion on reports, on hearsays, onappearances, on rumors, on conjectures, on presumptions; and even thesenever once hinted to the party, nor publicly to any human being, tillthe whole business was done. 

But the Governor tells you his motive for this extraordinary proceeding, so contrary to every mode of justice towards either a prince or asubject, fairly and without disguise; and he puts into your hands thekey of his whole conduct:--"I will suppose, for a moment, that I haveacted with unwarrantable rigor towards Cheit Sing, and even withinjustice. --Let my MOTIVE be consulted. I left Calcutta, impressed witha belief that _extraordinary means_ were necessary, and those exertedwith a _steady hand_, to preserve the Company's _interests from sinkingunder the accumulated weight which oppressed them_. I saw a _politicalnecessity_ for curbing the _overgrown_ power of a great member of theirdominion, and _for making it contribute to the relief of their pressingexigencies_. " This is plain speaking; after this, it is no wonder thatthe Rajah's wealth and his offence, the necessities of the judge and theopulence of the delinquent, are never separated, through the whole ofMr. Hastings's apology. "The justice and _policy_ of exacting _a largepecuniary mulct_. " The resolution "_to draw from his guilt the means ofrelief to the Company's distresses. "_ His determination "to make him_pay largely_ for his pardon, or to execute a severe vengeance for pastdelinquency. " That "as his _wealth was great_, and the _Company'sexigencies_ pressing, he thought it a measure of justice and policy toexact from him a large pecuniary mulct _for their relief_. "--"The sum"(says Mr. Wheler, bearing evidence, at his desire, to his intentions)"to which the Governor declared his resolution to extend his fine wasforty or fifty lacs, _that is, four or five hundred thousand pounds_;and that, if he refused, he was to be removed from his zemindaryentirely; or by taking possession of his forts, to obtain, _out of thetreasure deposited in them_, the above sum for the Company. "

Crimes so convenient, crimes so politic, crimes so necessary, crimes soalleviating of distress, can never be wanting to those who use noprocess, and who produce no proofs. 

But there is another serious part (what is not so?) in this affair. Letus suppose that the power for which Mr. Hastings contends, a power whichno sovereign ever did or ever can vest in any of his subjects, namely, his own sovereign authority, to be conveyed by the act of Parliament toany man or body of men whatsoever; it certainly was never given to Mr. Hastings. The powers given by the act of 1773 were formal and official;they were given, not to the Governor-General, but to the major vote ofthe board, as a board, on discussion amongst themselves, in their publiccharacter and capacity; and their acts in that character and capacitywere to be ascertained by records and minutes of council. The despoticacts exercised by Mr. Hastings were done merely in his _private_character; and, if they had been moderate and just, would still be theacts of an usurped authority, and without any one of the legal modes ofproceeding which could give him competence for the most trivial exertionof power. There was no proposition or deliberation whatsoever incouncil, no minute on record, by circulation or otherwise, to authorizehis proceedings; no delegation of power to impose a fine, or to takeany step to deprive the Rajah of Benares of his government, hisproperty, or his liberty. The minutes of consultation assign to hisjourney a totally different object, duty, and destination. Mr. Wheler, at his desire, tells us long after, that he had a confidentialconversation with him on various subjects, of which this was theprincipal, in which Mr. Hastings notified to him his secret intentions;"and that he _bespoke_ his support of the measures which he intended topursue towards him (the Rajah). " This confidential discourse, and_bespeaking_ of support, could give him no power, in opposition to anexpress act of Parliament, and the whole tenor of the orders of theCourt of Directors. 

In what manner the powers thus usurped were employed is known to thewhole world. All the House knows that the design on the Rajah proved asunfruitful as it was violent. The unhappy prince was expelled, and hismore unhappy country was enslaved and ruined; but not a rupee wasacquired. Instead of treasure to recruit the Company's finances, wastedby their wanton wars and corrupt jobs, they were plunged into a new war, which shook their power in India to its foundation, and, to use theGovernor's own happy simile, might have dissolved it like a magicstructure, if the talisman had been broken. 

But the success is no part of my consideration, who should think justthe same of this business, if the spoil of one rajah had been fullyacquired, and faithfully applied to the destruction of twenty otherrajahs. Not only the arrest of the Rajah in his palace was unnecessaryand unwarrantable, and calculated to stir up any manly blood whichremained in his subjects, but the despotic style and the extremeinsolence of language and demeanor, used to a person of great conditionamong the politest people in the world, was intolerable. Nothingaggravates tyranny so much as contumely. _Quicquid superbia incontumeliis_ was charged by a great man of antiquity, as a principalhead of offence against the Governor-General of that day. The unhappypeople were still more insulted. A relation, but an _enemy_ to thefamily, a notorious robber and villain, called Ussaun Sing, kept as ahawk in a mew, to fly upon this nation, was set up to govern there, instead of a prince honored and beloved. But when the business of insultwas accomplished, the revenue was too serious a concern to be intrustedto such hands. Another was set up in his place, as guardian to aninfant. 

But here, Sir, mark the effect of all these _extraordinary_ means, ofall this policy and justice. The revenues, which had been hitherto paidwith such astonishing punctuality, fell into arrear. The new princeguardian was deposed without ceremony, --and with as little, cast intoprison. The government of that once happy country has been in the utmostconfusion ever since such good order was taken about it. But, tocomplete the contumely offered to this undone people, and to make themfeel their servitude in all its degradation and all its bitterness, thegovernment of their sacred city, the government of that Benares whichhad been so respected by Persian and Tartar conquerors, though of theMussulman persuasion, that, even in the plenitude of their pride, power, and bigotry, no magistrate of that sect entered the place, was nowdelivered over by English hands to a Mahometan; and an Ali Ibrahim Khânwas introduced, under the Company's authority, with power of life anddeath, into the sanctuary of the Gentoo religion. After this, the takingoff a slight payment, cheerfully made by pilgrims to a chief of theirown rites, was represented as a mighty benefit. 

It remains only to show, through the conduct in this business, thespirit of the Company's government, and the respect they pay towardsother prejudices, not less regarded in the East than those of religion:I mean the reverence paid to the female sex in general, and particularlyto women of high rank and condition. During the general confusion of thecountry of Ghazipoor, Panna, the mother of Cheit Sing, was lodged withher train in a castle called Bidgé Gur, in which were likewise depositeda large portion of the treasures of her son, or more probably her own. To whomsoever they belonged was indifferent: for, though no charge ofrebellion was made on this woman, (which was rather singular, as itwould have cost nothing, ) they were resolved to secure her with herfortune. The castle was besieged by Major Popham. 

There was no great reason to apprehend that soldiers ill paid, thatsoldiers who thought they had been defrauded of their plunder on formerservices of the same kind, would not have been sufficiently attentive tothe spoil they were expressly come for; but the gallantry and generosityof the profession was justly suspected, as being likely to set bounds tomilitary rapaciousness. The Company's first civil magistrate discoveredthe greatest uneasiness lest the women should have anything preserved tothem. Terms tending to put some restraint on military violence weregranted. He writes a letter to Mr. Popham, referring to some letterwritten before to the same effect, which I do not remember to have seen;but it shows his anxiety on this subject. Hear himself:--"I think_every_ demand she has made on you, except that of safety and respect toher person, is unreasonable. If the reports brought to me are true, yourrejecting her offers, or _any negotiation, _ would soon obtain you thefort upon your own terms. I apprehend she will attempt to _defraud thecaptors of a considerable part of their booty, by being suffered toretire without examination_. But this is your concern, not mine. Ishould _be very sorry_ that your officers and soldiers lost _any_ partof the reward to which they are so well entitled; but you must be thebest judge of the _promised_ indulgence to the Ranny: what you haveengaged for I will certainly ratify; but as to suffering the Ranny tohold the purgunna of Hurlich, or any other zemindary, without beingsubject to the authority of the zemindar, _or any lands whatsoever_, orindeed making _any_ condition with her for a _provision_, I will _neverconsent_. "

Here your Governor stimulates a rapacious and licentious soldiery to thepersonal search of women, lest these unhappy creatures should availthemselves of the protection of their sex to secure any supply for theirnecessities; and he positively orders that no stipulation should be madefor any provision for them. The widow and mother of a prince, wellinformed of her miserable situation, and the cause of it, a woman ofthis rank became a suppliant to the domestic servant of Mr. Hastings, (they are his own words that I read, ) "imploring his intercession thatshe may be relieved _from the hardships and dangers of her presentsituation_, and offering to surrender the fort, and the _treasure andvaluable effects_ contained in it, provided she can be assured _ofsafety and protection to her person and honor_, and to that of herfamily and attendants. " He is so good as to consent to this, "providedshe surrenders everything of value, with the reserve _only_ of sucharticles as _you_ shall think _necessary_ to her condition, or as you_yourself_ shall be disposed to indulge her with. --But should she refuseto execute the promise she has made, or delay it beyond the term oftwenty-four hours, it is _my positive_ injunction that you immediatelyput a stop to any further intercourse or negotiation with her, and on nopretext renew it. If she disappoints or _trifles_ with me, after I havesubjected _my duan_ to the disgrace of returning ineffectually, and ofcourse myself to discredit, I shall consider it as a _wanton_ affrontand indignity _which I can never forgive_; nor will I grant her _any_conditions whatever, but leave her exposed _to those_ dangers which shehas chosen to risk, rather than trust to the clemency and generosity ofour government. I think she cannot be ignorant of these consequences, and will not venture to incur them; and it is for this reason I place adependence on her offers, and have consented to send my duan to her. "The dreadful secret hinted at by the merciful Governor in the latterpart of the letter is well understood in India, where those who suffercorporeal indignities generally expiate the offences of others withtheir own blood. However, in spite of all these, the temper of themilitary did, some way or other, operate. They came to terms which havenever been transmitted. It appears that a fifteenth per cent of theplunder was reserved to the captives, of which the unhappy mother ofthe Prince of Benares was to have a share. This ancient matron, born tobetter things [_A laugh from certain young gentlemen]_--I see no causefor this mirth. A good author of antiquity reckons among the calamitiesof his time "_nobilissimarum fæminarum exilia et fugas_. " I say, Sir, this ancient lady was compelled to quit her house, with three hundredhelpless women and a multitude of children in her train. But the lowersort in the camp, it seems, could not be restrained. They did not forgetthe good lessons of the Governor-General. They were unwilling "to bedefrauded of a considerable part of their booty by suffering them topass without examination. "--They examined them, Sir, with a vengeance;and the sacred protection of that awful character, Mr. Hastings's_maître d'hôtel, _ could not secure them from insult and plunder. Here isPopham's narrative of the affair:--

"The Ranny came out of the fort, with her family and dependants, thetenth, at night, owing to which such attention was not paid to her as Iwished; and I am exceedingly sorry to inform you that _thelicentiousness of our followers was beyond the bounds of control; for, notwithstanding all I could do, her people were plundered on the road ofmost of the things which they brought out of the fort, by which meansone of the articles of surrender has been much infringed_. The distressI have felt upon this occasion cannot be expressed, and can only beallayed by a firm performance of the other articles of the treaty, whichI shall make it my business to enforce. --The suspicions which theofficers had of treachery, and the delay made to our getting possession, had enraged them, as well as the troops, so much, that the treaty was atfirst regarded as void; but this determination was soon succeeded bypity and compassion for the unfortunate besieged. "--After this comes, inhis due order, Mr. Hastings; who is full of sorrow and indignation, &c. , &c. , &c. , according to the best and most authentic precedentsestablished upon such occasions. 

The women being thus disposed of, that is, completely despoiled, andpathetically lamented, Mr. Hastings at length recollected the greatobject of his enterprise, which, during his zeal lest the officers andsoldiers should lose any part of their reward, he seems to haveforgot, --that is to say, "to draw from the Rajah's guilt the means ofrelief to the Company's distresses. " This was to be the stronghold ofhis defence. This compassion to the Company, he knew by experience, would sanctify a great deal of rigor towards the natives. But themilitary had distresses of their own, which they considered first. Neither Mr. Hastings's authority, nor his supplications, could prevailon them to assign a shilling to the claim he made on the part of theCompany. They divided the booty amongst themselves. Driven from hisclaim, he was reduced to petition for the spoil as a loan. But thesoldiers were too wise to venture as a loan what the borrower claimed asa right. In defiance of all authority, they shared among themselvesabout two hundred thousand pounds sterling, besides what had been takenfrom the women. 

In all this there is nothing wonderful. We may rest assured, that, whenthe maxims of any government establish among its resources extraordinarymeans, and those exerted with a strong hand, that strong hand willprovide those extraordinary means for _itself_. Whether the soldiers hadreason or not, (perhaps much might be said for them, ) certain it is, the military discipline of India was ruined from that moment; and thesame rage for plunder, the same contempt of subordination, which blastedall the hopes of extraordinary means from your strong hand at Benares, have very lately lost you an army in Mysore. This is visible enough fromthe accounts in the last gazette. 

There is no doubt but that the country and city of Benares, now broughtinto the same order, will very soon exhibit, if it does not alreadydisplay, the same appearance with those countries and cities which areunder better subjection. A great master, Mr. Hastings, has himself beenat the pains of drawing a picture of one of these countries: I mean theprovince and city of Furruckabad. There is no reason to question hisknowledge of the facts; and his authority (on this point at least) isabove all exception, as well for the state of the country as for thecause. In his minute of consultation, Mr. Hastings describes forciblythe consequences which arise from the degradation into which we havesunk the native government. "The total want (says he) of all order, regularity, or authority, in his (the Nabob of Furruckabad's)government, and to which, among other obvious causes, it may no doubt beowing that the country of Furruckabad is become _almost an entire waste, without cultivation or inhabitants_, --that the capital, which but a veryshort time ago was distinguished as one of the most populous and opulentcommercial cities in Hindostan, at present exhibits nothing but _scenesof the most wretched poverty, desolation, and misery_, --and that the_Nabob himself_, though in the possession of a tract of country which, with only common care, is notoriously capable of yielding an annualrevenue of between thirty and forty lacs, (three or four hundredthousand pounds, ) with _no military establishment_ to maintain, scarcelycommands _the means of a bare subsistence_. "

This is a true and unexaggerated picture, not only of Furruckabad, butof at least three fourths of the country which we possess, or rather laywaste, in India. Now, Sir, the House will be desirous to know for whatpurpose this picture was drawn. It was for a purpose, I will not saylaudable, but necessary: that of taking the unfortunate prince and hiscountry out of the hands of a sequestrator sent thither by the Nabob ofOude, the mortal enemy of the prince thus ruined, and to protect him bymeans of a British resident, who might carry his complaints to thesuperior resident at Oude, or transmit them to Calcutta. But mark howthe reformer persisted in his reformation. The effect of the measure wasbetter than was probably expected. The prince began to be at ease; thecountry began to recover; and the revenue began to be collected. Thesewere alarming circumstances. Mr. Hastings not only recalled theresident, but he entered into a formal stipulation with the Nabob ofOude never to send an English subject again to Furruckabad; and thus thecountry, described as you have heard by Mr. Hastings, is given upforever to the very persons to whom he had attributed its ruin, --thatis, to the sezawals or sequestrators of the Nabob of Oude. 

Such was the issue of the first attempt to relieve the distresses of thedependent provinces. I shall close what I have to say on the conditionof the northern dependencies with the effect of the last of theseattempts. You will recollect, Sir, the account I have not long agostated to you, as given by Mr. Hastings, of the ruined condition of thedestroyer of others, the Nabob of Oude, and of the recall, inconsequence, of Hannay, Middleton, and Johnson. When the first littlesudden gust of passion against these gentlemen was spent, the sentimentsof old friendship began to revive. Some healing conferences were heldbetween them and the superior government. Mr. Hannay was permitted toreturn to Oude; but death prevented the further advantages intended forhim, and the future benefits proposed for the country by the providentcars of the Council-General. 

One of these gentlemen was accused of the grossest peculations; two ofthem by Mr. Hastings himself, of what he considered as very grossoffences. The Court of Directors were informed, by the Governor-Generaland Council, that a severe inquiry would be instituted against the twosurvivors; and they requested that court to suspend its judgment, and towait the event of their proceedings. A mock inquiry has been instituted, by which the parties could not be said to be either acquitted orcondemned. By means of the bland and conciliatory dispositions of thecharter-governors, and proper private explanations, the public inquiryhas in effect died away; the supposed peculators and destroyers of Ouderepose in all security in the bosoms of their accusers; whilst otherssucceed to them to be instructed by their example. 

It is only to complete the view I proposed of the conduct of the Companywith regard to the dependent provinces, that I shall say _any_ thing atall of the Carnatic, which is the scene, if possible, of greaterdisorder than the northern provinces. Perhaps it were better to say ofthis centre and metropolis of abuse, whence all the rest in India and inEngland diverge, from whence they are fed and methodized, what was saidof Carthage, --"_De Carthagine satius est silere quam parum dicere_. "This country, in all its de nominations, is about 46, 000 square miles. It may be affirmed universally, that not one person of substance orproperty, landed, commercial, or moneyed, excepting two or threebankers, who are necessary deposits and distributors of the generalspoil, is left in all that region. In that country, the moisture, thebounty of Heaven, is given but at a certain season. Before the era ofour influence, the industry of man carefully husbanded that gift of God. The Gentoos preserved, with a provident and religious care, the preciousdeposit of the periodical rain in reservoirs, many of them works ofroyal grandeur; and from these, as occasion demanded, they fructifiedthe whole country. To maintain these reservoirs, and to keep up anannual advance to the cultivators for seed and cattle, formed aprincipal object of the piety and policy of the priests and rulers ofthe Gentoo religion. 

This object required a command of money; and there was no pollam, orcastle, which in the happy days of the Carnatic was without some hoardof treasure, by which the governors were enabled to combat with theirregularity of the seasons, and to resist or to buy off the invasion ofan enemy. In all the cities were multitudes of merchants and bankers, for all occasions of moneyed assistance; and on the other hand, thenative princes were in condition to obtain credit from them. Themanufacturer was paid by the return of commodities, or by importedmoney, and not, as at present, in the taxes that had been originallyexacted from his industry. In aid of casual distress, the country wasfull of choultries, which were inns and hospitals, where the travellerand the poor were relieved. All ranks of people had their place in thepublic concern, and their share in the common stock and commonprosperity. But _the chartered rights of men_, and the right which itwas thought proper to set up in the Nabob of Arcot, introduced a newsystem. It was their policy to consider hoards of money as crimes, --toregard moderate rents as frauds on the sovereign, --and to view, in thelesser princes, any claim of exemption from more than settled tribute asan act of rebellion. Accordingly, all the castles were, one after theother, plundered and destroyed; the native princes were expelled; thehospitals fell to ruin; the reservoirs of water went to decay; themerchants, bankers, and manufacturers disappeared; and sterility, indigence, and depopulation overspread the face of these onceflourishing provinces. 

The Company was very early sensible of these mischiefs, and of theirtrue cause. They gave precise orders, "that the native princes, calledpolygars, should _not be extirpated_. " "The rebellion" (so they chooseto call it) "of the polygars may, they fear, _with, too much justice_, be attributed to the maladministration of the Nabob's collectors. " "Theyobserve with concern, that their troops have been put to _disagreeable_services. " They might have used a stronger expression withoutimpropriety. But they make amends in another place. Speaking of thepolygars, the Directors say that "it was repugnant to humanity to_force_ them to such dreadful extremities _as they underwent";_ thatsome examples of severity _might_ be necessary, "when they fell intothe Nabob's hands, " _and not by the destruction of the country_; "that_they fear_ his government is _none of the mildest_, and that there is_great oppression_ in collecting his revenues. " They state, that thewars in which he has involved the Carnatic had been a cause of itsdistresses; "that those distresses have been certainly great, but thoseby _the Nabob's oppressions_ they believe _to be greater than all_. "Pray, Sir, attend to the reason for their opinion that the government ofthis their instrument is more calamitous to the country than the ravagesof war:--Because, say they, his oppressions are "_without intermission_;the others are temporary;--by all which _oppressions_ we believe theNabob has great wealth in store. " From this store neither he nor theycould derive any advantage whatsoever, upon the invasion of Hyder Ali, in the hour of their greatest calamity and dismay. 

It is now proper to compare these declarations with the Company'sconduct. The principal reason which they assigned against the_extirpation_ of the polygars was, that the _weavers_ were protected intheir fortresses. They might have added, that the Company itself, whichstung them to death, had been warmed in the bosom of these unfortunateprinces: for, on the taking of Madras by the French, it was in theirhospitable pollams that most of the inhabitants found refuge andprotection. But notwithstanding all these orders, reasons, anddeclarations, they at length gave an indirect sanction, and permittedthe use of a very direct and irresistible force, to measures which theyhad over and over again declared to be false policy, cruel, inhuman, andoppressive. Having, however, forgot all attention to the princes and thepeople, they remembered that they had some sort of interest in thetrade of the country; and it is matter of curiosity to observe theprotection which they afforded to this their natural object. 

Full of anxious cares on this head, they direct, "that, in reducing thepolygars, they [their servants] were to be _cautious_ not to deprive the_weavers and manufacturers_ of the protection they often met with in thestrongholds of the polygar countries"; and they write to theirinstrument, the Nabob of Arcot, concerning these poor people in a mostpathetic strain. "We _entreat_ your Excellency, " (say they, ) "inparticular, to make the manufacturers the object of your _tenderestcare;_ particularly when you _root out_ the polygars, you do not deprivethe _weavers of the protection they enjoyed under them_. " When they rootout the protectors in favor of the oppressor, they show themselvesreligiously cautious of the rights of the protected. When they extirpatethe shepherd and the shepherd's dog, they piously recommend the helplessflock to the mercy, and even to the _tenderest care, _ of the wolf. Thisis the uniform strain of their policy, --strictly forbidding, and at thesame time strenuously encouraging and enforcing, every measure that canruin and desolate the country committed to their charge. After givingthe Company's idea of the government of this their instrument, it mayappear singular, but it is perfectly consistent with their system, that, besides wasting for him, at two different times, the most exquisite spotupon the earth, Tanjore, and all the adjacent countries, they have evenvoluntarily put their own territory, that is, a large and fine countryadjacent to Madras, called their jaghire, wholly out of theirprotection, --and have continued to farm their subjects, and theirduties towards these subjects, to that very Nabob whom they themselvesconstantly represent as an habitual oppressor and a relentless tyrant. This they have done without any pretence of ignorance of the objects ofoppression for which this prince has thought fit to become their renter;for he has again and again told them that it is for the sole purpose ofexercising authority he holds the jaghire lands; and he affirms (and Ibelieve with truth) that he pays more for that territory than therevenues yield. This deficiency he must make up from his otherterritories; and thus, in order to furnish the means of oppressing onepart of the Carnatic, he is led to oppress all the rest. 

The House perceives that the livery of the Company's government isuniform. I have described the condition of the countries indirectly, butmost substantially, under the Company's authority. And now I ask, whether, with this map of misgovernment before me, I can suppose myselfbound by my vote to continue, upon any principles of pretended publicfaith, the management of these countries in those hands. If I kept sucha faith (which in reality is no better than a _fides latronum_) withwhat is called the Company, I must break the faith, the covenant, thesolemn, original, indispensable oath, in which I am bound, by theeternal frame and constitution of things, to the whole human race. 

As I have dwelt so long on these who are indirectly under the Company'sadministration, I will endeavor to be a little shorter upon thecountries immediately under this charter-government. These are theBengal provinces. The condition of these provinces is pretty fullydetailed in the Sixth and Ninth Reports, and in their Appendixes. Iwill select only such principles and instances as are broad and general. To your own thoughts I shall leave it to furnish the detail ofoppressions involved in them. I shall state to you, as shortly as I amable, the conduct of the Company:--1st, towards the landedinterests;--next, the commercial interests;--3rdly, the nativegovernment;--and lastly, to their own government. 

Bengal, and the provinces that are united to it, are larger than thekingdom of France, and once contained, as France does contain, a greatand independent landed interest, composed of princes, of great lords, ofa numerous nobility and gentry, of freeholders, of lower tenants, ofreligious communities, and public foundations. So early as 1769, theCompany's servants perceived the decay into which these provinces hadfallen under English administration, and they made a strongrepresentation upon this decay, and what they apprehended to be thecauses of it. Soon after this representation, Mr. Hastings becamePresident of Bengal. Instead of administering a remedy to thismelancholy disorder, upon the heels of a dreadful famine, in the year1772, the succor which the new President and the Council lent to thisafflicted nation was--shall I be believed in relating it?--the landedinterest of a whole kingdom, of a kingdom to be compared to France, wasset up to public auction! They set up (Mr. Hastings set up) the wholenobility, gentry, and freeholders to the highest bidder. No preferencewas given to the ancient proprietors. They must bid against everyusurer, every temporary adventurer, every jobber and schemer, everyservant of every European, --or they were obliged to content themselves, in lieu of their extensive domains, with their house, and such apension as the state auctioneers thought fit to assign. In this generalcalamity, several of the first nobility thought (and in all appearancejustly) that they had better submit to the necessity of this pension, than continue, under the name of zemindars, the objects and instrumentsof a system by which they ruined their tenants and were ruinedthemselves. Another reform has since come upon the back of the first;and a pension having been assigned to these unhappy persons, in lieu oftheir hereditary lands, a new scheme of economy has taken place, anddeprived them of that pension. 

The menial servants of Englishmen, persons (to use the emphatical phraseof a ruined and patient Eastern chief) "_whose fathers they would nothave set with the dogs of their flock_" entered into their patrimoniallands. Mr. Hastings's banian was, after this auction, found possessed ofterritories yielding a rent of one hundred and forty thousand pounds ayear. 

Such an universal proscription, upon any pretence, has few examples. Such a proscription, without even a pretence of delinquency, has none. It stands by itself. It stands as a monument to astonish theimagination, to confound the reason of mankind. I confess to you, when Ifirst came to know this business in its true nature and extent, mysurprise did a little suspend my indignation. I was in a mannerstupefied by the desperate boldness of a few obscure young men, who, having obtained, by ways which they could not comprehend, a power ofwhich they saw neither the purposes nor the limits, tossed about, subverted, and tore to pieces, as if it were in the gambols of a boyishunluckiness and malice, the most established rights, and the mostancient and most revered institutions, of ages and nations. Sir, I willnot now trouble you with any detail with regard to what they have sincedone with these same lands and landholders, only to inform you thatnothing has been suffered to settle for two seasons together upon anybasis, and that the levity and inconstancy of these mock legislatorswere not the least afflicting parts of the oppressions suffered undertheir usurpation; nor will anything give stability to the property ofthe natives, but an administration in England at once protecting andstable. The country sustains, almost every year, the miseries of arevolution. At present, all is uncertainty, misery, and confusion. Thereis to be found through these vast regions no longer one landed man whois a resource for voluntary aid or an object for particular rapine. Someof them were not long since great princes; they possessed treasures, they levied armies. There was a zemindar in Bengal, (I forget his name, )that, on the threat of an invasion, supplied the subah of theseprovinces with the loan of a million sterling. The family at this daywants credit for a breakfast at the bazaar. 

I shall now say a word or two on the Company's care of the commercialinterest of those kingdoms. As it appears in the Reports that persons inthe highest stations in Bengal have adopted, as a fixed plan of policy, the destruction of all intermediate dealers between the Company and themanufacturer, native merchants have disappeared of course. The spoil ofthe revenues is the sole capital which purchases the produce andmanufactures, and through three or four foreign companies transmits theofficial gains of individuals to Europe. No other commerce has anexistence in Bengal. The transport of its plunder is the only traffic ofthe country. I wish to refer you to the Appendix to the Ninth Report fora full account of the manner in which the Company have protected thecommercial interests of their dominions in the East. 

As to the native government and the administration of justice, itsubsisted in a poor, tottering manner for some years. In the year 1781 atotal revolution took place in that establishment. In one of the usualfreaks of legislation of the Council of Bengal, the whole criminaljurisdiction of these courts, called the Phoujdary Judicature, exercisedtill then by the principal Mussulmen, was in one day, without notice, without consultation with the magistrates or the people there, andwithout communication with the Directors or Ministers here, totallysubverted. A new institution took place, by which this jurisdiction wasdivided between certain English servants of the Company and the Gentoozemindars of the country, the latter of whom never petitioned for it, nor, for aught that appears, ever desired this boon. But its natural usewas made of it: it was made a pretence for new extortions of money. 

The natives had, however, one consolation in the ruin of theirjudicature: they soon saw that it fared no better with the Englishgovernment itself. That, too, after destroying every other, came to itsperiod. This revolution may well be rated for a most daring act, evenamong the extraordinary things that have been doing in Bengal since ourunhappy acquisition of the means of so much mischief. 

An establishment of English government for civil justice, and for thecollection of revenue, was planned and executed by the President andCouncil of Bengal, subject to the pleasure of the Directors, in the year1772. According to this plan, the country was divided into sixdistricts, or provinces. In each of these was established a provincialcouncil, which administered the revenue; and of that council, onemember, by monthly rotation, presided in the courts of civil resort, with an appeal to the council of the province, and thence to Calcutta. In this system (whether in other respects good or evil) there were somecapital advantages. There was, in the very number of persons in eachprovincial council, authority, communication, mutual check, and control. They were obliged, on their minutes of consultation, to enter theirreasons and dissents; so that a man of diligence, of research, andtolerable sagacity, sitting in London, might, from these materials, beenabled to form some judgment of the spirit of what was going on on thefurthest banks of the Ganges and Burrampooter. 

The Court of Directors so far ratified this establishment, (which wasconsonant enough to their general plan of government, ) that they gaveprecise orders that no alteration should be made in it without theirconsent. So far from being apprised of any design against thisconstitution, they had reason to conceive that on trial it had been moreand more approved by their Council-General, at least by theGovernor-General, who had planned it. At the time of the revolution, theCouncil-General was nominally in two persons, virtually in one. At thattime measures of an arduous and critical nature ought to have beenforborne, even if, to the fullest council, this specific measure hadnot been prohibited by the superior authority. It was in this verysituation that one man had the hardiness to conceive and the temerity toexecute a total revolution in the form and the persons composing thegovernment of a great kingdom. Without any previous step, at one stroke, the whole constitution, of Bengal, civil and criminal, was swept away. The counsellors were recalled from their provinces; upwards of fifty ofthe principal officers of government were turned out of employ, andrendered dependent on Mr. Hastings for their immediate subsistence, andfor all hope of future provision. The chief of each council, and oneEuropean collector of revenue, was left in each province. 

But here, Sir, you may imagine a new government, of some permanentdescription, was established in the place of that which had been thussuddenly overturned. No such thing. Lest these chiefs, without councils, should be conceived to form the ground-plan of some future government, it was publicly declared that their continuance was only temporary andpermissive. The whole subordinate British administration of revenue wasthen vested in a committee in Calcutta, all creatures of theGovernor-General; and the provincial management, under the permissivechief, was delivered over to native officers. 

But that the revolution and the purposes of the revolution might becomplete, to this committee were delegated, not only the functions ofall the inferior, but, what will surprise the House, those of thesupreme administration of revenue also. Hitherto the Governor-Generaland Council had, in their revenue department, administered the financesof those kingdoms. By the new scheme they are delegated to thiscommittee, who are only to report their proceedings for approbation. 

The key to the whole transaction is given in one of the instructions tothe committee, --"that it is not necessary that they should enterdissents. " By this means the ancient plan of the Company'sadministration was destroyed; but the plan of concealment was perfected. To that moment the accounts of the revenues were tolerably clear, --or atleast means were furnished for inquiries, by which they might berendered satisfactory. In the obscure and silent gulf of this committeeeverything is now buried. The thickest shades of night surround alltheir transactions. No effectual means of detecting fraud, mismanagement, or misrepresentation exist. The Directors, who have daredto talk with such confidence on their revenues, know nothing about them. What used to fill volumes is now comprised under a few dry heads on asheet of paper. The natives, a people habitually made to concealment, are the chief managers of the revenue throughout the provinces. I meanby natives such wretches as your rulers select out of them as mostfitted for their purposes. As a proper keystone to bind the arch, anative, one Gunga Govind Sing, a man turned out of his employment by SirJohn Clavering for malversation in office, is made the correspondingsecretary, and, indeed, the great moving principle of their new board. 

As the whole revenue and civil administration was thus subverted, and aclandestine government substituted in the place of it, the judicialinstitution underwent a like revolution. In 1772 there had been sixcourts, formed out of the six provincial councils. Eighteen new onesare appointed in their place, with each a judge, taken from the _junior_servants of the Company. To maintain these eighteen courts, a tax islevied on the sums in litigation, of two and one half per cent on thegreat, and of five per cent on the less. This money is all drawn fromthe provinces to Calcutta. The chief justice (the same who stays indefiance of a vote of this House, and of his Majesty's recall) isappointed at once the treasurer and disposer of these taxes, leviedwithout any sort of authority from the Company, from the Crown, or fromParliament. 

In effect, Sir, every legal, regular authority, in matters of revenue, of political administration, of criminal law, of civil law, in many ofthe most essential parts of military discipline, is laid level with theground; and an oppressive, irregular, capricious, unsteady, rapacious, and peculating despotism, with a direct disavowal of obedience to anyauthority at home, and without any fixed maxim, principle, or rule ofproceeding to guide them in India, is at present the state of yourcharter-government over great kingdoms. 

As the Company has made this use of their trust, I should ill dischargemine, if I refused to give my most cheerful vote for the redress ofthese abuses, by putting the affairs of so large and valuable a part ofthe interests of this nation and of mankind into some steady hands, possessing the confidence and assured of the support of this House, until they can be restored to regularity, order, and consistency. 

I have touched the heads of some of the grievances of the people and theabuses of government. But I hope and trust you will give me credit, whenI faithfully assure you that I have not mentioned one fourth part ofwhat has come to my knowledge in your committee; and further, I havefull reason to believe that not one fourth part of the abuses are cometo my knowledge, by that or by any other means. Pray consider what Ihave said only as an index to direct you in your inquiries. 

If this, then, Sir, has been the use made of the trust of politicalpowers, internal and external, given by you in the charter, the nextthing to be seen is the conduct of the Company with regard to thecommercial trust. And here I will make a fair offer:--If it can beproved that they have acted wisely, prudently, and frugally, asmerchants, I shall pass by the whole mass of their enormities asstatesmen. That they have not done this their present condition is proofsufficient. Their distresses are said to be owing to their wars. This isnot wholly true. But if it were, is not that readiness to engage inwars, which distinguishes them, and for which the Committee of Secrecyhas so branded their politics, founded on the falsest principles ofmercantile speculation?

The principle of buying cheap and selling dear is the first, the greatfoundation of mercantile dealing. Have they ever attended to thisprinciple? Nay, for years have they not actually authorized in theirservants a total indifference as to the prices they were to pay?

A great deal of strictness in driving bargains for whatever we contractis another of the principles of mercantile policy. Try the Company bythat test. Look at the contracts that are made for them. Is the Companyso much as a good commissary to their own armies? I engage to select foryou, out of the innumerable mass of their dealings, all conducted verynearly alike, one contract only the excessive profits on which during ashort term would pay the whole of their year's dividend. I shallundertake to show that upon two others the inordinate profits given, with the losses incurred in order to secure those profits, would pay ayear's dividend more. 

It is a third property of trading-men to see that their clerks do notdivert the dealings of the master to their own benefit. It was the otherday only, when their Governor and Council taxed the Company's investmentwith a sum of fifty thousand pounds, as an inducement to persuade onlyseven members of their Board of Trade to give their _honor_ that theywould abstain from such profits upon that investment, as they must haveviolated their _oaths_, if they had made at all. 

It is a fourth quality of a merchant to be exact in his accounts. Whatwill be thought, when you have fully before you the mode of accountingmade use of in the Treasury of Bengal? I hope you will have it soon. With regard to one of their agencies, when it came to the material part, the prime cost of the goods on which a commission of fifteen per centwas allowed, to the astonishment of the factory to whom the commoditieswere sent, the Accountant-General reports that he did not think himselfauthorized to call for _vouchers_ relative to this and otherparticulars, --because the agent was upon his _honor_ with regard tothem. A new principle of account upon honor seems to be regularlyestablished in their dealings and their treasury, which in realityamounts to an entire annihilation of the principle of all accounts. 

It is a fifth property of a merchant, who does not meditate afraudulent bankruptcy, to calculate his probable profits upon the moneyhe takes up to vest in business. Did the Company, when they bought goodson bonds bearing eight per cent interest, at ten and even twenty percent discount, even ask themselves a question concerning the possibilityof advantage from dealing on these terms?

The last quality of a merchant I shall advert to is the taking care tobe properly prepared, in cash or goods in the ordinary course of sale, for the bills which are drawn on them. Now I ask, whether they have evercalculated the clear produce of any given sales, to make them tally withthe four million of bills which are come and coming upon them, so as atthe proper periods to enable the one to liquidate the other. No, theyhave not. They are now obliged to borrow money of their own servants topurchase their investment. The servants stipulate five per cent on thecapital they advance, if their bills should not be paid at the time whenthey become due; and the value of the rupee on which they charge thisinterest is taken at two shillings and a penny. Has the Company evertroubled themselves to inquire whether their sales can bear the paymentof that interest, and at that rate of exchange? Have they onceconsidered the dilemma in which they are placed, --the ruin of theircredit in the East Indies, if they refuse the bills, --the ruin of theircredit and existence in England, if they accept them?

Indeed, no trace of equitable government is found in their politics, notone trace of commercial principle in their mercantile dealing: and henceis the deepest and maturest wisdom of Parliament demanded, and the bestresources of this kingdom must be strained, to restore them, --that is, to restore the countries destroyed by the misconduct of the Company, andto restore the Company itself, ruined by the consequences of their plansfor destroying what they were bound to preserve. 

I required, if you remember, at my outset, a proof that these abuseswere habitual. But surely this is not necessary for me to consider as aseparate head; because I trust I have made it evident beyond a doubt, inconsidering the abuses themselves, that they are regular, permanent, andsystematical. 

I am now come to my last condition, without which, for one, I will neverreadily lend my hand to the destruction of any established government, which is, --that, in its present state, the government of the East IndiaCompany is absolutely incorrigible. 

Of this great truth I think there can be little doubt, after all thathas appeared in this House. It is so very clear, that I must considerthe leaving any power in their hands, and the determined resolution tocontinue and countenance every mode and every degree of peculation, oppression, and tyranny, to be one and the same thing. I look upon thatbody incorrigible, from the fullest consideration both of their uniformconduct and their present real and virtual constitution. 

If they had not constantly been apprised of all the enormities committedin India under their authority, if this state of things had been as mucha discovery to them as it was to many of us, we might flatter ourselvesthat the detection of the abuses would lead to their reformation. I willgo further. If the Court of Directors had not uniformly condemned everyact which this House or any of its committees had condemned, if thelanguage in which they expressed their disapprobation against enormitiesand their authors had not been much more vehement and indignant than anyever used in this House, I should entertain some hopes. If they had not, on the other hand, as uniformly commended all their servants who haddone their duty and obeyed their orders as they had heavily censuredthose who rebelled, I might say, These people have been in an error, andwhen they are sensible of it they will mend. But when I reflect on theuniformity of their support to the objects of their uniform censure, andthe state of insignificance and disgrace to which all of those have beenreduced whom they approved, and that even utter ruin and premature deathhave been among the fruits of their favor, I must be convinced, that inthis case, as in all others, hypocrisy is the only vice that never canbe cured. 

Attend, I pray you, to the situation and prosperity of Benfield, Hastings, and others of that sort. The last of these has been treated bythe Company with an asperity of reprehension that has no parallel. Theylament "that the power of disposing of their property for perpetuityshould fall into such hands. " Yet for fourteen years, with littleinterruption, he has governed all their affairs, of every description, with an absolute sway. He has had himself the means of heaping upimmense wealth; and during that whole period, the fortunes of hundredshave depended on his smiles and frowns. He himself tells you he isincumbered with two hundred and fifty young gentlemen, some of them ofthe best families in England, all of whom aim at returning with vastfortunes to Europe in the prime of life. He has, then, two hundred andfifty of your children as his hostages for your good behavior; andloaded for years, as he has been, with the execrations of the natives, with the censures of the Court of Directors, and struck and blasted withresolutions of this House, he still maintains the most despotic powerever known in India. He domineers with an overbearing sway in theassemblies of his pretended masters; and it is thought in a degree rashto venture to name his offences in this House, even as grounds of alegislative remedy. 

On the other hand, consider the fate of those who have met with theapplauses of the Directors. Colonel Monson, one of the best of men, hadhis days shortened by the applauses, destitute of the support, of theCompany. General Clavering, whose panegyric was made in every dispatchfrom England, whose hearse was bedewed with the tears and hung roundwith the eulogies of the Court of Directors, burst an honest andindignant heart at the treachery of those who ruined him by theirpraises. Uncommon patience and temper supported Mr. Francis a whilelonger under the baneful influence of the commendation of the Court ofDirectors. His health, however, gave way at length; and in utterdespair, he returned to Europe. At his return, the doors of the IndiaHouse were shut to this man who had been the object of their constantadmiration. He has, indeed, escaped with life; but he has forfeited allexpectation of credit, consequence, party, and following. He may wellsay, "_Me nemo ministro fur erit, atque ideo nulli comes exeo_. " Thisman, whose deep reach of thought, whose large legislative conceptions, and whose grand plans of policy make the most shining part of ourReports, from whence we have all learned our lessons, if we have learnedany good ones, --this man, from whose materials those gentlemen who haveleast acknowledged it have yet spoken as from a brief, --this man, drivenfrom his employment, discountenanced by the Directors, has had no otherreward, and no other distinction, but that inward "sunshine of the soul"which a good conscience can always bestow upon itself. He has not yethad so much as a good word, but from a person too insignificant to makeany other return for the means with which he has been furnished forperforming his share of a duty which is equally urgent on us all. 

Add to this, that, from the highest in place to the lowest, everyBritish subject, who, in obedience to the Company's orders, has beenactive in the discovery of peculations, has been ruined. They have beendriven from India. When they made their appeal at home, they were notheard; when they attempted to return, they were stopped. No artifice offraud, no violence of power, has been omitted to destroy them incharacter as well as in fortune. 

Worse, far worse, has been the fate of the poor creatures, the nativesof India, whom the hypocrisy of the Company has betrayed into complaintof oppression and discovery of peculation. The first women in Bengal, the Ranny of Rajeshahi, the Ranny of Burdwan, the Ranny of Ambooah, bytheir weak and thoughtless trust in the Company's honor and protection, are utterly ruined: the first of these women, a person of princely rank, and once of correspondent fortune, who paid above two hundred thousand ayear quit-rent to the state, is, according to very credible information, so completely beggared as to stand in need of the relief of alms. Mahomed Reza Khân, the second Mussulman in Bengal, for having beendistinguished by the ill-omened honor of the countenance and protectionof the Court of Directors, was, without the pretence of any inquirywhatsoever into his conduct, stripped of all his employments, andreduced to the lowest condition. His ancient rival for power, the RajahNundcomar, was, by an insult on everything which India holds respectableand sacred, hanged in the face of all his nation by the judges you sentto protect that people: hanged for a pretended crime, upon an _ex postfacto_ British act of Parliament, in the midst of his evidence againstMr. Hastings. The accuser they saw hanged. The culprit, withoutacquittal or inquiry, triumphs on the ground of that murder: a murder, not of Nundcomar only, but of all living testimony, and even of evidenceyet unborn. From that time not a complaint has been heard from thenatives against their governors. All the grievances of India have founda complete remedy. 

Men will not look to acts of Parliament, to regulations, todeclarations, to votes, and resolutions. No, they are not such fools. They will ask, What is the road to power, credit, wealth, and honors?They will ask, What conduct ends in neglect, disgrace, poverty, exile, prison, and gibbet? These will teach them the course which they are tofollow. It is your distribution of these that will give the characterand tone to your government. All the rest is miserable grimace. 

When I accuse the Court of Directors of this habitual treachery in theuse of reward and punishment, I do not mean to include all theindividuals in that court. There have been, Sir, very frequently men ofthe greatest integrity and virtue amongst them; and the contrariety inthe declarations and conduct of that court has arisen, I take it, fromthis, --that the honest Directors have, by the force of matter of fact onthe records, carried the reprobation of the evil measures of theservants in India. This could not be prevented, whilst these recordsstared them in the face; nor were the delinquents, either here or there, very solicitous about their reputation, as long as they were able tosecure their power. The agreement of their partisans to censure themblunted for a while the edge of a severe proceeding. It obtained forthem a character of impartiality, which enabled them to recommend withsome sort of grace, what will always carry a plausible appearance, thosetreacherous expedients called moderate measures. Whilst these were underdiscussion, new matter of complaint came over, which seemed to antiquatethe first. The same circle was here trod round once more; and thusthrough years they proceeded in a compromise of censure for punishment, until, by shame and despair, one after another, almost every man whopreferred his duty to the Company to the interest of their servants hasbeen driven from that court. 

This, Sir, has been their conduct: and it has been the result of thealteration which was insensibly made in their constitution. The changewas made insensibly; but it is now strong and adult, and as public anddeclared as it is fixed beyond all power of reformation: so that thereis none who hears me that is not as certain as I am, that the Company, in the sense in which it was formerly understood, has no existence. 

The question is not, what injury you may do to the proprietors of Indiastock; for there are no such men to be injured. If the active, rulingpart of the Company, who form the General Court, who fill the officesand direct the measures, (the rest tell for nothing, ) were persons whoheld their stock as a means of their subsistence, who in the part theytook were only concerned in the government of India for the rise or fallof their dividend, it would be indeed a defective plan of policy. Theinterest of the people who are governed by them would not be theirprimary object, --perhaps a very small part of their consideration atall. But then they might well be depended on, and perhaps more thanpersons in other respects preferable, for preventing the peculations oftheir servants to their own prejudice. Such a body would not easily haveleft their trade as a spoil to the avarice of those who received theirwages. But now things are totally reversed. The stock is of no value, whether it be the qualification of a Director or Proprietor; and it isimpossible that it should. A Director's qualification may be worth abouttwo thousand five hundred pounds, --and the interest, at eight per cent, is about one hundred and sixty pounds a year. Of what value is that, whether it rise to ten, or fall to six, or to nothing; to him whose son, before he is in Bengal two months, and before he descends the stops ofthe Council-Chamber, sells the grant of a single contract for fortythousand pounds? Accordingly, the stock is bought up in qualifications. The vote is not to protect the stock, but the stock is bought to acquirethe vote; and the end of the vote is to cover and support, againstjustice, some man of power who has made an obnoxious fortune in India, or to maintain in power those who are actually employing it in theacquisition of such a fortune, --and to avail themselves, in return, ofhis patronage, that he may shower the spoils of the East, "barbaricpearl and gold, " on them, their families, and dependants. So that allthe relations of the Company are not only changed, but inverted. Theservants in India are not appointed by the Directors, but the Directorsare chosen by them. The trade is carried on with their capitals. To themthe revenues of the country are mortgaged. The seat of the supreme poweris in Calcutta. The house in Leadenhall Street is nothing more than a'change for their agents, factors, and deputies to meet in, to take careof their affairs and support their interests, --and this so avowedly, that we see the known agents of the delinquent servants marshalling anddisciplining their forces, and the prime spokesmen in all theirassemblies. 

Everything has followed in this order, and according to the naturaltrain of events. I will close what I have to say on the incorrigiblecondition of the Company, by stating to you a few facts that will leaveno doubt of the obstinacy of that corporation, and of their strengthtoo, in resisting the reformation of their servants. By these facts youwill be enabled to discover the sole grounds upon which they aretenacious of their charter. 

It is now more than two years, that upon account of the gross abuses andruinous situation of the Company's affairs, (which occasioned the cry ofthe whole world long before it was taken up here, ) that we institutedtwo committees to inquire into the mismanagements by which the Company'saffairs had been brought to the brink of ruin. These inquiries had beenpursued with unremitting diligence, and a great body of facts wascollected and printed for general information. In the result of thoseinquiries, although the committees consisted of very differentdescriptions, they were unanimous. They joined in censuring the conductof the Indian administration, and enforcing the responsibility upon twomen, whom this House, in consequence of these reports, declared it to bethe duty of the Directors to remove from their stations, and recall toGreat Britain, --"_because they had acted in a manner repugnant to thehonor and policy of this nation, and thereby brought great calamities onIndia and enormous expenses on the East India Company_. "

Here was no attempt on the charter. Here was no question of theirprivileges. To vindicate their own honor, to support their owninterests, to enforce obedience to their own orders, --these were thesole object of the monitory resolution of this House. But as soon as theGeneral Court could assemble, they assembled to demonstrate who theyreally were. Regardless of the proceedings of this House, they orderedthe Directors not to carry into effect any resolution they might come tofor the removal of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Hornby. The Directors, stillretaining some shadow of respect to this House, instituted an inquirythemselves, which continued from June to October, and, after anattentive perusal and full consideration of papers, resolved to takesteps for removing the persons who had been the objects of ourresolution, but not without a violent struggle against evidence. SevenDirectors went so far as to enter a protest against the vote of theircourt. Upon this the General Court takes the alarm: it reassembles; itorders the Directors to rescind their resolution, that is, not to recallMr. Hastings and Mr. Hornby, and to despise the resolution of the Houseof Commons. Without so much as the pretence of looking into a singlepaper, without the formality of instituting any committee of inquiry, they superseded all the labors of their own Directors and of this House. 

It will naturally occur to ask, how it was possible that they should notattempt some sort of examination into facts, as a color for theirresistance to a public authority proceeding so very deliberately, andexerted, apparently at least, in favor of their own. The answer, and theonly answer which can be given, is, that they were afraid that theirtrue relation should be mistaken. They were afraid that their patronsand masters in India should attribute their support of them to anopinion of their cause, and not to an attachment to their power. Theywere afraid it should be suspected that they did not mean blindly tosupport them in the use they made of that power. They determined to showthat they at least were set against reformation: that they were firmlyresolved to bring the territories, the trade, and the stock of theCompany to ruin, rather than be wanting in fidelity to their nominalservants and real masters, in the ways they took to their privatefortunes. 

Even since the beginning of this session, the same act of audacity wasrepeated, with the same circumstances of contempt of all the decorum ofinquiry on their part, and of all the proceedings of this House. Theyagain made it a request to their favorite, and your culprit, to keep hispost, --and thanked and applauded him, without calling for a paper whichcould afford light into the merit or demerit of the transaction, andwithout giving themselves a moment's time to consider, or even tounderstand, the articles of the Mahratta peace. The fact is, that for along time there was a struggle, a faint one indeed, between the Companyand their servants. But it is a struggle no longer. For some time thesuperiority has been decided. The interests abroad are become thesettled preponderating weight both in the Court of Proprietors and theCourt of Directors. Even the attempt you have made to inquire into theirpractices and to reform abuses has raised and piqued them to a far moreregular and steady support. The Company has made a common cause andidentified themselves with the destroyers of India. They have taken onthemselves all that mass of enormity; they are supporting what you havereprobated; those you condemn they applaud, those you order home toanswer for their conduct they request to stay, and thereby encourage toproceed in their practices. Thus the servants of the East India Companytriumph, and the representatives of the people of Great Britain aredefeated. 

I therefore conclude, what you all conclude, that this body, beingtotally perverted from the purposes of its institution, is utterlyincorrigible; and because they are incorrigible, both in conduct andconstitution, power ought to be taken out of their hands, --just on thesame principles on which have been made all the just changes andrevolutions of government that have taken place since the beginning ofthe world. 

I will now say a few words to the general principle of the plan which isset up against that of my right honorable friend. It is to recommit thegovernment of India to the Court of Directors. Those who would committhe reformation of India to the destroyers of it are the enemies tothat reformation. They would make a distinction between Directors andProprietors, which, in the present state of things, does not, cannotexist. But a right honorable gentleman says, he would keep the presentgovernment of India in the Court of Directors, and would, to curb them, provide salutary regulations. Wonderful! That is, he would appoint theold offenders to correct the old offences; and he would render thevicious and the foolish wise and virtuous by salutary regulations. Hewould appoint the wolf as guardian of the sheep; but he has invented acurious muzzle, by which this protecting wolf shall not be able to openhis jaws above an inch or two at the utmost. Thus his work is finished. But I tell the right honorable gentleman, that controlled depravity isnot innocence, and that it is not the labor of delinquency in chainsthat will correct abuses. Will these gentlemen of the directionanimadvert on the partners of their own guilt? Never did a serious planof amending of any old tyrannical establishment propose the authors andabettors of the abuses as the reformers of them. If the undone people ofIndia see their old oppressors in confirmed power, even by thereformation, they will expect nothing but what they will certainlyfeel, --continuance, or rather an aggravation, of all their formersufferings. They look to the seat of power, and to the persons who fillit; and they despise those gentlemen's regulations as much as thegentlemen do who talk of them. 

But there is a cure for everything. Take away, say they, the Court ofProprietors, and the Court of Directors will do their duty. Yes, --asthey have done it hitherto. That the evils in India have solely arisenfrom the Court of Proprietors is grossly false. In many of them theDirectors were heartily concurring; in most of them they wereencouraging, and sometimes commanding; in all they were conniving. 

But who are to choose this well-regulated and reforming Court ofDirectors?--Why, the very Proprietors who are excluded from allmanagement, for the abuse of their power. They will choose, undoubtedly, out of themselves, men like themselves; and those who are most forwardin resisting your authority, those who are most engaged in faction orinterest with the delinquents abroad, will be the objects of theirselection. But gentlemen say, that, when this choice is made, theProprietors are not to interfere in the measures of the Directors, whilst those Directors are busy in the control of their common patronsand masters in India. No, indeed, I believe they will not desire tointerfere. They will choose those whom they know may be trusted, safelytrusted, to act in strict conformity to their common principles, manners, measures, interests, and connections. They will want neithermonitor nor control. It is not easy to choose men to act in conformityto a public interest against their private; but a sure dependence may behad on those who are chosen to forward their private interest at theexpense of the public. But if the Directors should slip, and deviateinto rectitude, the punishment is in the hands of the General Court, andit will surely be remembered to them at their next election. 

If the government of India wants no reformation, but gentlemen areamusing themselves with a theory, conceiving a more democratic oraristocratic mode of government for these dependencies, or if they arein a dispute only about patronage, the dispute is with me of so littleconcern that I should not take the pains to utter an affirmative ornegative to any proposition in it. If it be only for a theoreticalamusement that they are to propose a bill, the thing is at bestfrivolous and unnecessary. But if the Company's government is not onlyfull of abuse, but is one of the most corrupt and destructive tyranniesthat probably ever existed in the world, (as I am sure it is, ) what acruel mockery would it be in me, and in those who think like me, topropose this kind of remedy for this kind of evil!

I now come to the third objection, --that this bill will increase theinfluence of the crown. An honorable gentleman has demanded of me, whether I was in earnest when I proposed to this House a plan for thereduction of that influence. Indeed, Sir, I was much, very much, inearnest My heart was deeply concerned in it; and I hope the public hasnot lost the effect of it. How far my judgment was right, for whatconcerned personal favor and consequence to myself, I shall not presumeto determine; nor is its effect upon _me_, of any moment. But as to thisbill, whether it increases the influence of the crown, or not, is aquestion I should be ashamed to ask. If I am not able to correct asystem of oppression and tyranny, that goes to the utter ruin of thirtymillions of my fellow-creatures and fellow-subjects, but by someincrease to the influence of the crown, I am ready here to declare thatI, who have been active to reduce it, shall be at least as active andstrenuous to restore it again. I am no lover of names; I contend for thesubstance of good and protecting government, let it come from whatquarter it will. 

But I am not obliged to have recourse to this expedient. Much, verymuch, the contrary. I am sure that the influence of the crown will by nomeans aid a reformation of this kind, which can neither be originatednor supported but by the uncorrupt public virtue of the representativesof the people of England. Let it once got into the ordinary course ofadministration, and to me all hopes of reformation are gone. I am farfrom knowing or believing that this bill will increase the influence ofthe crown. We all know that the crown has ever had some influence in theCourt of Directors, and that it has been extremely increased by the actsof 1773 and 1780. The gentlemen who, as part of their reformation, propose "a more active control on the part of the crown, " which is toput the Directors under a Secretary of State specially named for thatpurpose, must know that their project will increase it further. But thatold influence has had, and the new will have, incurable inconveniences, which cannot happen under the Parliamentary establishment proposed inthis bill. An honorable gentleman, [58] not now in his place, but who iswell acquainted with the India Company, and by no means a friend to thisbill, has told you that a ministerial influence has always beenpredominant in that body, --and that to make the Directors pliant totheir purposes, ministers generally caused persons meanly qualified tobe chosen Directors. According to his idea, to secure subserviency, theysubmitted the Company's affairs to the direction of incapacity. This wasto ruin the Company in order to govern it. This was certainly influencein the very worst form in which it could appear. At best it wasclandestine and irresponsible. Whether this was done so much upon systemas that gentleman supposes, I greatly doubt. But such in effect theoperation of government on that court unquestionably was; and such, under a similar constitution, it will be forever. Ministers must bewholly removed from the management of the affairs of India, or they willhave an influence in its patronage. The thing is inevitable. Theirscheme of a new Secretary of State, "with a more vigorous control, " isnot much better than a repetition of the measure which we know byexperience will not do. Since the year 1773 and the year 1780, theCompany has been under the control of the Secretary of State's office, and we had then three Secretaries of State. If more than this is done, then they annihilate the direction which they pretend to support; andthey augment the influence of the crown, of whose growth they affect sogreat an horror. But in truth this scheme of reconciling a directionreally and truly deliberative with an office really and substantiallycontrolling is a sort of machinery that can be kept in order but a veryshort time. Either the Directors will dwindle into clerks, or theSecretary of State, as hitherto has been the course, will leaveeverything to them, often through design, often through neglect. If bothshould affect activity, collision, procrastination, delay, and, in theend, utter confusion, must ensue. 

But, Sir, there is one kind of influence far greater than that of thenomination to office. This gentlemen in opposition have totallyoverlooked, although it now exists in its full vigor; and it will do so, upon their scheme, in at least as much force as it does now. Thatinfluence this bill cuts up by the roots. I mean the _influence ofprotection_. I shall explain myself. --The office given to a young mangoing to India is of trifling consequence. But he that goes out aninsignificant boy in a few years returns a great nabob. Mr. Hastingssays he has two hundred and fifty of that kind of raw materials, whoexpect to be speedily manufactured into the merchantable quality Imention. One of these gentlemen, suppose, returns hither laden withodium and with riches. When he comes to England, he comes as to aprison, or as to a sanctuary; and either is ready for him, according tohis demeanor. What is the influence in the grant of any place in India, to that which is acquired by the protection or compromise with suchguilt, and with the command of such riches, under the dominion of thehopes and fears which power is able to hold out to every man in thatcondition? That man's whole fortune, half a million perhaps, becomes aninstrument of influence, without a shilling of charge to the civil list:and the influx of fortunes which stand in need of this protection iscontinual. It works both ways: it influences the delinquent, and it maycorrupt the minister. Compare the influence acquired by appointing, forinstance, even a Governor-General, and that obtained by protecting him. I shall push this no further. But I wish gentlemen to roll it a littlein their own minds. 

The bill before you cuts off this source of influence. Its design andmain scope is, to regulate the administration of India upon theprinciples of a court of judicature, --and to exclude, as far as humanprudence can exclude, all possibility of a corrupt partiality, inappointing to office, or supporting in office, or covering from inquiryand punishment, any person who has abused or shall abuse his authority. At the board, as appointed and regulated by this bill, reward andpunishment cannot be shifted and reversed by a whisper. That commissionbecomes fatal to cabal, to intrigue, and to secret representation, thoseinstruments of the ruin of India. He that cuts off the means ofpremature fortune, and the power of protecting it when acquired, strikesa deadly blow at the great fund, the bank, the capital stock of Indianinfluence, which cannot be vested anywhere, or in any hands, withoutmost dangerous consequences to the public. 

The third and contradictory objection is, that this bill does notincrease the influence of the crown; on the contrary, that the justpower of the crown will be lessened, and transferred to the use of aparty, by giving the patronage of India to a commission nominated byParliament and independent of the crown. The contradiction is glaring, and it has been too well exposed to make it necessary for me to insistupon it. But passing the contradiction, and taking it without anyrelation, of all objections that is the most extraordinary. Do notgentlemen know that the crown has not at present the grant of a singleoffice under the Company, civil or military, at home or abroad? So faras the crown is concerned, it is certainly rather a gainer; for thevacant offices in the new commission are to be filled up by the king. 

It is argued, as a part of the bill derogatory to the prerogatives ofthe crown, that the commissioners named in the bill are to continue fora short term of years, too short in my opinion, --and because, duringthat time, they are not at the mercy of every predominant faction of thecourt. Does not this objection lie against the present Directors, --noneof whom are named by the crown, and a proportion of whom hold for thisvery term of four years? Did it not lie against the Governor-General andCouncil named in the act of 1773, --who were invested by name, as thepresent commissioners are to be appointed in the body of the act ofParliament, who were to hold their places for a term of years, and werenot removable at the discretion of the crown? Did it not lie against thereappointment, in the year 1780, upon the very same terms? Yet at noneof these times, whatever other objections the scheme might be liable to, was it supposed to be a derogation to the just prerogative of the crown, that a commission created by act of Parliament should have its membersnamed by the authority which called it into existence. This is not thedisposal by Parliament of any office derived from the authority of thecrown, or now disposable by that authority. It is so far from beinganything new, violent, or alarming, that I do not recollect, in anyParliamentary commission, down to the commissioners of the land-tax, that it has ever been otherwise. 

The objection of the tenure for four years is an objection to all placesthat are not held during pleasure; but in that objection I pronounce thegentlemen, from my knowledge of their complexion and of theirprinciples, to be perfectly in earnest. The party (say these gentlemen)of the minister who proposes this scheme will be rendered powerful byit; for he will name his party friends to the commission. This objectionagainst party is a party objection; and in this, too, these gentlemenare perfectly serious. They see, that, if, by any intrigue, they shouldsucceed to office, they will lose the _clandestine_ patronage, the trueinstrument of clandestine influence, enjoyed in the name of subservientDirectors, and of wealthy, trembling Indian delinquents. But as often asthey are beaten off this ground, they return to it again. The ministerwill name his friends, and persons of his own party. Whom should hename? Should he name his adversaries? Should he name those whom hecannot trust? Should he name those to execute his plans who are thedeclared enemies to the principles of his reform? His character is hereat stake. If he proposes for his own ends (but he never will propose)such names as, from their want of rank, fortune, character, ability, orknowledge, are likely to betray or to fall short of their trust, he isin an independent House of Commons, --in an House of Commons which has, by its own virtue, destroyed the instruments of Parliamentarysubservience. This House of Commons would not endure the sound of suchnames. He would perish by the means which he is supposed to pursue forthe security of his power. The first pledge he must give of hissincerity in this great reform will be in the confidence which ought tobe reposed in those names. 

For my part, Sir, in this business I put all indirect considerationswholly out of my mind. My sole question, on each clause of the bill, amounts to this:--Is the measure proposed required by the necessities ofIndia? I cannot consent totally to lose sight of the real wants of thepeople who are the objects of it, and to hunt after every matter ofparty squabble that may be started on the several provisions. On thequestion of the duration of the commission I am clear and decided. CanI, can any one who has taken the smallest trouble to be informedconcerning the affairs of India, amuse himself with so strange animagination as that the habitual despotism and oppression, that themonopolies, the peculations, the universal destruction of all the legalauthority of this kingdom, which have been for twenty years maturing totheir present enormity, combined with the distance of the scene, theboldness and artifice of delinquents, their combination, their excessivewealth, and the faction they have made in England, can be fullycorrected in a shorter term than four years? None has hazarded such anassertion; none who has a regard for his reputation will hazard it. 

Sir, the gentlemen, whoever they are, who shall be appointed to thiscommission, have an undertaking of magnitude on their hands, and theirstability must not only be, but it must be thought, real; and who is itwill believe that anything short of an establishment made, supported, and fixed in its duration, with all the authority of Parliament, can bethought secure of a reasonable stability? The plan of my honorablefriend is the reverse of that of reforming by the authors of the abuse. The best we could expect from them is, that they should not continuetheir ancient, pernicious activity. To those we could think of nothingbut applying _control_; as we are sure that even a regard to theirreputation (if any such thing exists in them) would oblige them tocover, to conceal, to suppress, and consequently to prevent all cure ofthe grievances of India. For what can be discovered which is not totheir disgrace? Every attempt to correct an abuse would be a satire ontheir former administration. Every man they should pretend to call toan account would be found their instrument, or their accomplice. Theycan never see a beneficial regulation, but with a view to defeat it. Theshorter the tenure of such persons, the better would be the chance ofsome amendment. 

But the system of the bill is different. It calls in persons in no wiseconcerned with any act censured by Parliament, --persons generated with, and for, the reform, of which they are themselves the most essentialpart. To these the chief regulations in the bill are helps, not fetters:they are authorities to support, not regulations to restrain them. Fromthese we look for much more than innocence. From these we expect zeal, firmness, and unremitted activity. Their duty, their character, bindsthem to proceedings of vigor; and they ought to have a tenure in theiroffice which precludes all fear, whilst they are acting up to thepurposes of their trust, --a tenure without which none will undertakeplans that require a series and system of acts. When they know that theycannot be whispered out of their duty, that their public conduct cannotbe censured without a public discussion, that the schemes which theyhave begun will not be committed to those who will have an interest andcredit in defeating and disgracing them, then we may entertain hopes. The tenure is for four years, or during their good behavior. That goodbehavior is as long as they are true to the principles of the bill; andthe judgment is in either House of Parliament. This is the tenure ofyour judges; and the valuable principle of the bill is to make ajudicial administration for India. It is to give confidence in theexecution of a duty which requires as much perseverance and fortitudeas can fall to the lot of any that is born of woman. 

As to the gain by party from the right honorable gentleman's bill, letit be shown that this supposed party advantage is pernicious to itsobject, and the objection is of weight; but until this is done, (andthis has not been attempted, ) I shall consider the sole objection fromits tendency to promote the interest of a party as altogethercontemptible. The kingdom is divided into parties, and it ever has beenso divided, and it ever will be so divided; and if no system forrelieving the subjects of this kingdom from oppression, and snatchingits affairs from ruin, can be adopted, until it is demonstrated that noparty can derive an advantage from it, no good can ever be done in thiscountry. If party is to derive an advantage from the reform of India, (which is more than I know or believe, ) it ought to be that party whichalone in this kingdom has its reputation, nay, its very being, pledgedto the protection and preservation of that part of the empire. Greatfear is expressed that the commissioners named in this bill will showsome regard to a minister out of place. To men made like the objectorsthis must appear criminal. Let it, however, be remembered by others, that, if the commissioners should be his friends, they cannot be hisslaves. But dependants are not in a condition to adhere to friends, norto principles, nor to any uniform line of conduct. They may begincensors, and be obliged to end accomplices. They may be even put underthe direction of those whom they were appointed to punish. 

The fourth and last objection is, that the bill will hurt public credit. I do not know whether this requires an answer. But if it does, look toyour foundations. The sinking fund is the pillar of credit in thiscountry; and let it not be forgot, that the distresses, owing to themismanagement, of the East India Company, have already taken a millionfrom that fund by the non-payment of duties. The bills drawn upon theCompany, which are about four millions, cannot be accepted without theconsent of the Treasury. The Treasury, acting under a Parliamentarytrust and authority, pledges the public for these millions. If theypledge the public, the public must have a security in its hands for themanagement of this interest, or the national credit is gone. Forotherwise it is not only the East India Company, which is a greatinterest, that is undone, but, clinging to the security of all yourfunds, it drags down the rest, and the whole fabric perishes in oneruin. If this bill does not provide a direction of integrity and ofability competent to that trust, the objection is fatal; if it does, public credit must depend on the support of the bill. 

It has been said, If you violate this charter, what security has thecharter of the Bank, in which public credit is so deeply concerned, andeven the charter of London, in which the rights of so many subjects areinvolved? I answer, In the like case they have no security at all, --no, no security at all. If the Bank should, by every species ofmismanagement, fall into a state similar to that of the East IndiaCompany, --if it should be oppressed with demands it could not answer, engagements which it could not perform, and with bills for which itcould not procure payment, --no charter should protect the mismanagementfrom correction, and such public grievances from redress. If the cityof London had the means and will of destroying an empire, and of cruellyoppressing and tyrannizing over millions of men as good as themselves, the charter of the city of London should prove no sanction to suchtyranny and such oppression. Charters are kept, when their purposes aremaintained: they are violated, when the privilege is supported againstits end and its object. 

Now, Sir, I have finished all I proposed to say, as my reasons forgiving my vote to this bill. If I am wrong, it is not for want of painsto know what is right. This pledge, at least, of my rectitude I havegiven to my country. 

And now, having done my duty to the bill, let me say a word to theauthor. I should leave him to his own noble sentiments, if the unworthyand illiberal language with which he has been treated, beyond allexample of Parliamentary liberty, did not make a few wordsnecessary, --not so much in justice to him as to my own feelings. I mustsay, then, that it will be a distinction honorable to the age, that therescue of the greatest number of the human race that ever were sogrievously oppressed from the greatest tyranny that was ever exercisedhas fallen to the lot of abilities and dispositions equal to thetask, --that it has fallen to one who has the enlargement to comprehend, the spirit to undertake, and the eloquence to support so great a measureof hazardous benevolence. His spirit is not owing to his ignorance ofthe state of men and things: he well knows what snares are spread abouthis path, from personal animosity, from court intrigues, and possiblyfrom popular delusion. But he has put to hazard his ease, his security, his interest, his power, even his darling popularity, for the benefitof a people whom he has never seen. This is the road that all heroeshave trod before him. He is traduced and abused for his supposedmotives. He will remember that obloquy is a necessary ingredient in thecomposition of all true glory: he will remember that it was not only inthe Roman customs, but it is in the nature and constitution of things, that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph. These thoughtswill support a mind which only exists for honor under the burden oftemporary reproach. He is doing, indeed, a great good, --such as rarelyfalls to the lot, and almost as rarely coincides with the desires, ofany man. Let him use his time. Let him give the whole length of thereins to his benevolence. He is now on a great eminence, where the eyesof mankind are turned to him. He may live long, he may do much; but hereis the summit: he never can exceed what he does this day. 

He has faults; but they are faults that, though they may in a smalldegree tarnish the lustre and sometimes impede the march of hisabilities, have nothing in them to extinguish the fire of great virtues. In those faults there is no mixture of deceit, of hypocrisy, of pride, of ferocity, of complexional despotism, or want of feeling for thedistresses of mankind. His are faults which might exist in a descendantof Henry the Fourth of France, as they did exist in that father of hiscountry. Henry the Fourth wished that he might live to see a fowl in thepot of every peasant in his kingdom. That sentiment of homelybenevolence was worth all the splendid sayings that are recorded ofkings. But he wished perhaps for more than could be obtained, and thegoodness of the man exceeded the power of the king. But this gentleman, a subject, may this day say this at least with truth, --that he securesthe rice in his pot to every man in India. A poet of antiquity thoughtit one of the first distinctions to a prince whom he meant to celebrate, that through a long succession of generations he had been the progenitorof an able and virtuous citizen who by force of the arts of peace hadcorrected governments of oppression and suppressed wars of rapine. 

 Indole proh quanta juvenis, quantumque daturus Ausoniæ populis ventura in sæcula civem! Ille super Gangem, super exauditus et Indos, Implebit terras voce, et furialia bella Fulmine compescet linguæ. --

This was what was said of the predecessor of the only person to whoseeloquence it does not wrong that of the mover of this bill to becompared. But the Ganges and the Indus are the patrimony of the fame ofmy honorable friend, and not of Cicero. I confess I anticipate with joythe reward of those whose whole consequence, power, and authority existonly for the benefit of mankind; and I carry my mind to all the people, and all the names and descriptions, that, relieved by this bill, willbless the labors of this Parliament, and the confidence which the bestHouse of Commons has given to him who the best deserves it. The littlecavils of party will not be heard where freedom and happiness will befelt. There is not a tongue, a nation, or religion in India, which willnot bless the presiding care and manly beneficence of this House, and ofhim who proposes to you this great work. Your names will never beseparated before the throne of the Divine Goodness, in whateverlanguage, or with whatever rites, pardon is asked for sin, and rewardfor those who imitate the Godhead in His universal bounty to Hiscreatures. These honors you deserve, and they will surely be paid, whenall the jargon of influence and party and patronage are swept intooblivion. 

I have spoken what I think, and what I feel, of the mover of this bill. An honorable friend of mine, speaking of his merits, was charged withhaving made a studied panegyric. I don't know what his was. Mine, I amsure, is a studied panegyric, --the fruit of much meditation, the resultof the observation of near twenty years. For my own part, I am happythat I have lived to see this day; I feel myself overpaid for the laborsof eighteen years, when, at this late period, I am able to take myshare, by one humble vote, in destroying a tyranny that exists to thedisgrace of this nation and the destruction of so large a part of thehuman species. 

FOOTNOTES:

[52] An allusion made by Mr. Powis. 

[53] Mr. Pitt. 

[54] Mr. Pitt. 

[55] Mr. Dundas, Lord Advocate of Scotland. 

[56] The paltry foundation at Calcutta is scarcely worth naming as anexception. 

[57] Mr. Fox. 

[58] Governor Johnstone. 

A

REPRESENTATION TO HIS MAJESTY, MOVED IN

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

BY THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE, AND SECONDED BY WILLIAM WINDHAM, ESQ. , ON MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1784, AND NEGATIVED. 

WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES. 

PREFACE. 

The representation now given to the public relates to some of the mostessential privileges of the House of Commons. It would appear of littleimportance, if it were to be judged by its reception in the place whereit was proposed. There it was rejected without debate. The subjectmatter may, perhaps, hereafter appear to merit a more seriousconsideration. Thinking men will scarcely regard the _penal_ dissolutionof a Parliament as a very trifling concern. Such a dissolution mustoperate forcibly as an example; and it much imports the people of thiskingdom to consider what lesson that example is to teach. 

The late House of Commons was not accused of an interested compliance tothe will of a court. The charge against them was of a different nature. They were charged with being actuated by an extravagant spirit ofindependency. This species of offence is so closely connected withmerit, this vice bears so near a resemblance to virtue, that the flightof a House of Commons above the exact temperate medium of independenceought to be correctly ascertained, lest we give encouragement todispositions of a less generous nature, and less safe for the people; weought to call for very solid and convincing proofs of the existence, andof the magnitude, too, of the evils which are charged to an independentspirit, before we give sanction to any measure, that, by checking aspirit so easily damped, and so hard to be excited, may affect theliberty of a part of our Constitution, which, if not free, is worse thanuseless. 

The Editor does not deny that by possibility such an abuse may exist:but, _primâ fronte_, there is no reason to presume it. The House ofCommons is not, by its complexion, peculiarly subject to the distempersof an independent habit. Very little compulsion is necessary, on thepart of the people, to render it abundantly complaisant to ministers andfavorites of all descriptions. It required a great length of time, veryconsiderable industry and perseverance, no vulgar policy, the union ofmany men and many tempers, and the concurrence of events which do nothappen every day, to build up an independent House of Commons. Itsdemolition was accomplished in a moment; and it was the work of ordinaryhands. But to construct is a matter of skill; to demolish, force andfury are sufficient. 

The late House of Commons has been punished for its independence. Thatexample is made. Have we an example on record of a House of Commonspunished for its servility? The rewards of a senate so disposed aremanifest to the world. Several gentlemen are very desirous of alteringthe constitution of the House of Commons; but they must alter the frameand constitution of human nature itself, before they can so fashion it, by any mode of election, that its conduct will not be influenced byreward and punishment, by fame and by disgrace. If these examples takeroot in the minds of men, what members hereafter will be bold enoughnot to be corrupt, especially as the king's highway of obsequiousness isso very broad and easy? To make a passive member of Parliament, nodignity of mind, no principles of honor, no resolution, no ability, noindustry, no learning, no experience, are in the least degree necessary. To defend a post of importance against a powerful enemy requires anEliot; a drunken invalid is qualified to hoist a white flag, or todeliver up the keys of the fortress on his knees. 

The gentlemen chosen into this Parliament, for the purpose of thissurrender, were bred to better things, and are no doubt qualified forother service. But for this strenuous exertion of inactivity, for thevigorous task of submission and passive obedience, all their learningand ability are rather a matter of personal ornament to themselves thanof the least use in the performance of their duty. 

The present surrender, therefore, of rights and privileges withoutexamination, and the resolution to support any minister given by thesecret advisers of the crown, determines not only on all the power andauthority of the House, but it settles the character and description ofthe men who are to compose it, and perpetuates that character as long asit may be thought expedient to keep up a phantom of popularrepresentation. 

It is for the chance of some amendment before this new settlement takesa permanent form, and while the matter is yet soft and ductile, that theEditor has republished this piece, and added some notes and explanationsto it. His intentions, he hopes, will excuse him to the original mover, and to the world. He acts from a strong sense of the incurable illeffects of holding out the conduct of the late House of Commons as anexample to be shunned by future representatives of the people. 

MOTION

RELATIVE TO

THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE. 

LUNÆ, 14° DIE JUNII, 1784. 

A motion was made, That a representation be presented to his Majesty, most humbly to offer to his royal consideration, that the address ofthis House, upon his Majesty's speech from the throne, was dictatedsolely by our conviction of his Majesty's own most gracious intentionstowards his people, which, as we feel with gratitude, so we are everready to acknowledge with cheerfulness and satisfaction. 

Impressed with these sentiments, we were willing to separate from ourgeneral expressions of duty, respect, and veneration to his Majesty'sroyal person and his princely virtues all discussion whatever withrelation to several of the matters suggested and several of theexpressions employed in that speech. 

That it was not fit or becoming that any decided opinion should beformed by his faithful Commons on that speech, without a degree ofdeliberation adequate to the importance of the object. Having affordedourselves due time for that deliberation, we do now most humbly begleave to represent to his Majesty, that, in the speech from the throne, his ministers have thought proper to use a language of a very alarmingimport, unauthorized by the practice of good times, and irreconcilableto the principles of this government. 

Humbly to express to his Majesty, that it is the privilege and duty ofthis House to guard the Constitution from all infringement on the partof ministers, and, whenever the occasion requires it, to warn themagainst any abuse of the authorities committed to them; but it is verylately, [59] that, in a manner not more unseemly than irregular andpreposterous, ministers have thought proper, by admonition from thethrone, implying distrust and reproach, to convey the expectations ofthe people to us, their sole representatives, [60] and have presumed tocaution us, the natural guardians of the Constitution, against anyinfringement of it on our parts. 

This dangerous innovation we, his faithful Commons, think it our duty tomark; and as these admonitions from the throne, by their frequentrepetition, seem intended to lead gradually to the establishment of anusage, we hold ourselves bound thus solemnly to protest against them. 

This House will be, as it ever ought to be, anxiously attentive to theinclinations and interests of its constituents; nor do we desire tostraiten any of the avenues to the throne, or to either House ofParliament. But the ancient order in which the rights of the people havebeen exercised is not a restriction of these rights. It is a methodprovidently framed in favor of those privileges which it preserves andenforces, by keeping in that course which has been found the mosteffectual for answering their ends. His Majesty may receive the opinionsand wishes of individuals under their signatures, and of bodiescorporate under their seals, as expressing their own particular sense;and he may grant such redress as the legal powers of the crown enablethe crown to afford. This, and the other House of Parliament, may alsoreceive the wishes of such corporations and individuals by petition. Thecollective sense of his people his Majesty is to receive from hisCommons in Parliament assembled. It would destroy the whole spirit ofthe Constitution, if his Commons were to receive that sense from theministers of the crown, or to admit them to be a proper or a regularchannel for conveying it. 

That the ministers in the said speech declare, "His Majesty has a justand confident reliance that we (his faithful Commons) are animated withthe same sentiments of loyalty, and the same attachment to our excellentConstitution which he had the happiness to see so fully manifested inevery part of the kingdom. "

To represent, that his faithful Commons have never foiled in loyalty tohis Majesty. It is new to them to be reminded of it. It is unnecessaryand invidious to press it upon them by any example. This recommendationof loyalty, after his Majesty has sat for so many years, with the fullsupport of all descriptions of his subjects, on the throne of thiskingdom, at a time of profound peace, and without any pretence of theexistence or apprehension of war or conspiracy, becomes in itself asource of no small jealousy to his faithful Commons; as manycircumstances lead us to apprehend that therein the ministers havereference to some other measures and principles of loyalty, and to someother ideas of the Constitution, than the laws require, or the practiceof Parliament will admit. 

No regular communication of the proofs of loyalty and attachment to theConstitution, alluded to in the speech from the throne, have been laidbefore this House, in order to enable us to judge of the nature, tendency, or occasion of them, or in what particular acts they weredisplayed; but if we are to suppose the manifestations of loyalty (whichare held out to us as an example for imitation) consist in certainaddresses delivered to his Majesty, promising support to his Majesty inthe exercise of his prerogative, and thanking his Majesty for removingcertain of his ministers, on account of the votes they have given uponbills depending in Parliament, --if this be the example of loyaltyalluded to in the speech from the throne, then we must beg leave toexpress our serious concern for the impression which has been made onany of our fellow-subjects by misrepresentations which have seduced theminto a seeming approbation of proceedings subversive of their ownfreedom. We conceive that the opinions delivered in these papers werenot well considered; nor were the parties duly informed of the nature ofthe matters on which they were called to determine, nor of thoseproceedings of Parliament which they were led to censure. 

We shall act more advisedly. --The loyalty we shall manifest will not bethe same with theirs; but, we trust, it will be equally sincere, andmore enlightened. It is no slight authority which shall persuade us (byreceiving as proofs of loyalty the mistaken principles lightly taken upin these addresses) obliquely to criminate, with the heavy andungrounded charge of disloyalty and disaffection, an uncorrupt, independent, and reforming Parliament. [61] Above all, we shall take carethat none of the rights and privileges, always claimed, and since theaccession of his Majesty's illustrious family constantly exercised bythis House, (and which we hold and exercise in trust for the Commons ofGreat Britain, and for their benefit, ) shall be constructivelysurrendered, or even weakened and impaired, under ambiguous phrases andimplications of censure on the late Parliamentary proceedings. If theseclaims are not well founded, they ought to be honestly abandoned; ifthey are just, they ought to be steadily and resolutely maintained. 

Of his Majesty's own gracious disposition towards the true principles ofour free Constitution his faithful Commons never did or could entertaina doubt; but we humbly beg leave to express to his Majesty ouruneasiness concerning other new and unusual expressions of hisministers, declaratory of a resolution "to support in their _justbalance_ the rights and privileges of every branch of the legislature. "

It were desirable that all hazardous theories concerning a balance ofrights and privileges (a mode of expression wholly foreign toParliamentary usage) might have been forborne. His Majesty's faithfulCommons are well instructed in their own rights and privileges, whichthey are determined to maintain on the footing upon which they werehanded down from their ancestors; they are not unacquainted with therights and privileges of the House of Peers; and they know and respectthe lawful prerogatives of the crown: but they do not think it safe toadmit anything concerning the existence of a balance of those rights, privileges, and prerogatives; nor are they able to discern to whatobjects ministers would apply their fiction of a balance, nor what theywould consider as a just one. These unauthorized doctrines have atendency to stir improper discussions, and to lead to mischievousinnovations in the Constitution. [62]

That his faithful Commons most humbly recommend, instead of theinconsiderate speculations of unexperienced men, that, on all occasions, resort should be had to the happy practice of Parliament, and to thosesolid maxims of government which have prevailed since the accession ofhis Majesty's illustrious family, as furnishing the only safe principleson which the crown and Parliament can proceed. 

We think it the more necessary to be cautious on this head, as, in thelast Parliament, the present ministers had thought proper tocountenance, if not to suggest, an attack upon the most clear andundoubted rights and privileges of this House. [63]

Fearing, from these extraordinary admonitions, and from the newdoctrines, which seem to have dictated several unusual expressions, thathis Majesty has been abused by false representations of the lateproceedings in Parliament, we think it our duty respectfully to informhis Majesty, that no attempt whatever has been made against his lawfulprerogatives, or against the rights and privileges of the Peers, by thelate House of Commons, in any of their addresses, votes, or resolutions;neither do we know of any proceeding by bill, in which it was proposedto abridge the extent of his royal prerogative: but, if such provisionhad existed in any bill, we protest, and we declare, against allspeeches, acts, or addresses, from any persons whatsoever, which have atendency to consider such bills, or the persons concerned in them, asjust objects of any kind of censure and punishment from the throne. Necessary reformations may hereafter require, as they have frequentlydone in former times, limitations and abridgments, and in some cases anentire extinction, of some branch of prerogative. If bills should beimproper in the form in which they appear in the House where theyoriginate, they are liable, by the wisdom of this Constitution, to becorrected, and even to be totally set aside, elsewhere. This is theknown, the legal, and the safe remedy; but whatever, by themanifestation of the royal displeasure, tends to intimidate individualmembers from proposing, or this House from receiving, debating, andpassing bills, tends to prevent even the beginning of every reformationin the state, and utterly destroys the deliberative capacity ofParliament. We therefore claim, demand, and insist upon it, as ourundoubted right, that no persons shall be deemed proper objects ofanimadversion by the crown, in any mode whatever, for the votes whichthey give or the propositions which they make in Parliament. 

We humbly conceive, that besides its share of the legislative power, andits right of impeachment, that, by the law and usage of Parliament, thisHouse has other powers and capacities, which it is bound to maintain. This House is assured that our humble advice on the exercise ofprerogative will be heard with the same attention with which it has everbeen regarded, and that it will be followed by the same effects which ithas ever produced, during the happy and glorious reigns of his Majesty'sroyal progenitors, --not doubting but that, in all those points, we shallbe considered as a council of wisdom and weight to advise, and notmerely as an accuser of competence to criminate. [64] This House claimsboth capacities; and we trust that we shall be left to our freediscretion which of them we shall employ as best calculated for hisMajesty's and the national service. Whenever we shall see it expedientto offer our advice concerning his Majesty's servants, who are those ofthe public, we confidently hope that the personal favor of any minister, or any set of ministers, will not be more dear to his Majesty than thecredit and character of a House of Commons. It is an experiment full ofperil to put the representative wisdom and justice of his Majesty'speople in the wrong; it is a crooked and desperate design, leading tomischief, the extent of which no human wisdom can foresee, to attemptto form a prerogative party in the nation, to be resorted to as occasionshall require, in derogation, from the authority of the Commons of GreatBritain in Parliament assembled; it is a contrivance full of danger, forministers to set up the representative and constituent bodies of theCommons of this kingdom as two separate and distinct powers, formed tocounterpoise each other, leaving the preference in the hands of secretadvisers of the crown. In such a situation of things, these advisers, taking advantage of the differences which may accidentally arise or maypurposely be fomented between them, will have it in their choice toresort to the one or the other, as may best suit the purposes of theirsinister ambition. By exciting an emulation and contest between therepresentative and the constituent bodies, as parties contending forcredit and influence at the throne, sacrifices will be made by both; andthe whole can end in nothing else than the destruction of the dearestrights and liberties of the nation. If there must be another mode ofconveying the collective sense of the people to the throne than that bythe House of Commons, it ought to be fixed and defined, and itsauthority ought to be settled: it ought not to exist in so precariousand dependent a state as that ministers should have it in their power, at their own mere pleasure, to acknowledge it with respect or to rejectit with scorn. 

It is the undoubted prerogative of the crown to dissolve Parliament; butwe beg leave to lay before his Majesty, that it is, of all the trustsvested in his Majesty, the most critical and delicate, and that in whichthis House has the most reason to require, not only the good faith, butthe favor of the crown. His Commons are not always upon a par with hisministers in an application to popular judgment; it is not in the powerof the members of this House to go to their election at the moment themost favorable for them. It is in the power of the crown to choose atime for their dissolution whilst great and arduous matters of state andlegislation are depending, which may be easily misunderstood, and whichcannot be fully explained before that misunderstanding may prove fatalto the honor that belongs and to the consideration that is due tomembers of Parliament. 

With his Majesty is the gift of all the rewards, the honors, distinctions, favors, and graces of the state; with his Majesty is themitigation of all the rigors of the law: and we rejoice to see the crownpossessed of trusts calculated to obtain good-will, and charged withduties which are popular and pleasing. Our trusts are of a differentkind. Our duties are harsh and invidious in their nature; and justiceand safety is all we can expect in the exercise of them. We are to offersalutary, which is not always pleasing counsel: we are to inquire and toaccuse; and the objects of our inquiry and charge will be for the mostpart persons of wealth, power, and extensive connections: we are to makerigid laws for the preservation of revenue, which of necessity more orless confine some action or restrain some function which before wasfree: what is the most critical and invidious of all, the whole body ofthe public impositions originate from us, and the hand of the House ofCommons is seen and felt in every burden that presses on the people. Whilst ultimately we are serving them, and in the first instance whilstwe are serving his Majesty, it will be hard indeed, if we should see aHouse of Commons the victim of its zeal and fidelity, sacrificed by hisministers to those very popular discontents which shall be excited byour dutiful endeavors for the security and greatness of his throne. Noother consequence can result from such an example, but that, in future, the House of Commons, consulting its safety at the expense of itsduties, and suffering the whole energy of the state to be relaxed, willshrink from every service which, however necessary, is of a great andarduous nature, --or that, willing to provide for the public necessities, and at the same time to secure the means of performing that task, theywill exchange independence for protection, and will court a subservientexistence through the favor of those ministers of state or those secretadvisers who ought themselves to stand in awe of the Commons of thisrealm. 

A House of Commons respected by his ministers is essential to hisMajesty's service: it is fit that they should yield to Parliament, andnot that Parliament should be new-modelled until it is fitted to theirpurposes. If our authority is only to be held up when we coincide inopinion with his Majesty's advisers, but is to be set at nought themoment it differs from them, the House of Commons will sink into a mereappendage of administration, and will lose that independent characterwhich, inseparably connecting the honor and reputation with the acts ofthis House, enables us to afford a real, effective, and substantialsupport to his government. It is the deference shown to our opinion, when we dissent from the servants of the crown, which alone can giveauthority to the proceedings of this House, when it concurs with theirmeasures. 

That authority once lost, the credit of his Majesty's crown will beimpaired in the eyes of all nations. Foreign powers, who may yet wish torevive a friendly intercourse with this nation, will look in vain forthat hold which gave a connection with Great Britain the preference toan affiance with any other state. A House of Commons of which ministerswere known to stand in awe, where everything was necessarily discussedon principles fit to be openly and publicly avowed, and which could notbe retracted or varied without danger, furnished a ground of confidencein the public faith which the engagement of no state dependent on thefluctuation of personal favor and private advice can ever pretend to. Iffaith with the House of Commons, the grand security for the nationalfaith itself, can be broken with impunity, a wound is given to thepolitical importance of Great Britain which will not easily be healed. 

That there was a great variance between the late House of Commons andcertain persons, whom his Majesty has been advised to make and continueas ministers, in defiance of the advice of that House, is notorious tothe world. That House did not confide in those ministers; and theywithheld their confidence from them for reasons for which posterity willhonor and respect the names of those who composed that House of Commons, distinguished for its independence. They could not confide in personswho have shown a disposition to dark and dangerous intrigues. By theseintrigues they have weakened, if not destroyed, the clear assurancewhich his Majesty's people, and which all nations, ought to have of whatare and what are not the real acts of his government. 

If it should be seen that his ministers may continue in their officeswithout any signification to them of his Majesty's displeasure at any oftheir measures, whilst persons considerable for their rank, and known tohave had access to his Majesty's sacred person, can with impunity abusethat advantage, and employ his Majesty's name to disavow and counteractthe proceedings of his official servants, nothing but distrust, discord, debility, contempt of all authority, and general confusion, can prevailin his government. 

This we lay before his Majesty, with humility and concern, as theinevitable effect of a spirit of intrigue in his executive government:an evil which we have but too much reason to be persuaded exists andincreases. During the course of the last session it broke out in amanner the most alarming. This evil was infinitely aggravated by theunauthorized, but not disavowed, use which has been made of hisMajesty's name, for the purpose of the most unconstitutional, corrupt, and dishonorable influence on the minds of the members of Parliamentthat ever was practised in this kingdom. No attention even to exteriordecorum, in the practice of corruption and intimidation employed onpeers, was observed: several peers were obliged under menaces to retracttheir declarations and to recall their proxies. 

The Commons have the deepest interest in the purity and integrity of thePeerage. The Peers dispose of all the property in the kingdom, in thelast resort; and they dispose of it on their honor, and not on theiroaths, as all the members of every other tribunal in the kingdom mustdo, --though in them the proceeding is not conclusive. We have, therefore, a right to demand that no application shall be made to peersof such a nature as may give room to call in question, much less toattaint, our sole security for all that we possess. This corruptproceeding appeared to the House of Commons, who are the naturalguardians of the purity of Parliament, and of the purity of every branchof judicature, a most reprehensible and dangerous practice, tending toshake the very foundation of the authority of the House of Peers; andthey branded it as such by their resolution. 

The House had not sufficient evidence to enable them legally to punishthis practice, but they had enough to caution them against allconfidence in the authors and abettors of it. They performed their dutyin humbly advising his Majesty against the employment of such ministers;but his Majesty was advised to keep those ministers, and to dissolvethat Parliament. The House, aware of the importance and urgency of itsduty with regard to the British interests in India, which were and arein the utmost disorder, and in the utmost peril, most humbly requestedhis Majesty not to dissolve the Parliament during the course of theirvery critical proceedings on that subject. His Majesty's graciouscondescension to that request was conveyed in the royal faith, pledgedto a House of Parliament, and solemnly delivered from the throne. It wasbut a very few days after a committee had been, with the consent andconcurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed for an inquiryinto certain accounts delivered to the House by the Court of Directors, and then actually engaged in that inquiry, that the ministers, regardless of the assurance given from the crown to a House of Commons, did dissolve that Parliament. We most humbly submit to his Majesty'sconsideration the consequences of this their breach of public faith. 

Whilst the members of the House of Commons, under that security, wereengaged in his Majesty's and the national business, endeavors wereindustriously used to calumniate those whom it was found impracticableto corrupt. The reputation of the members, and the reputation of theHouse itself, was undermined in every part of the kingdom. 

In the speech from the throne relative to India, we are cautioned by theministers "not to lose sight of the effect any measure may have on theConstitution of our country. " We are apprehensive that a calumniousreport, spread abroad, of an attack upon his Majesty's prerogative bythe late House of Commons, may have made an impression on his royalmind, and have given occasion to this unusual admonition to the present. This attack is charged to have been made in the late Parliament by abill which passed the House of Commons, in the late session of thatParliament, for the regulation of the affairs, for the preservation ofthe commerce, and for the amendment of the government of this nation, inthe East Indies. 

That his Majesty and his people may have an opportunity of entering intothe ground of this injurious charge, we beg leave humbly to acquaint hisMajesty, that, far from having made any infringement whatsoever on anypart of his royal prerogative, that bill did, for a limited time, giveto his Majesty certain powers never before possessed by the crown; andfor this his present ministers (who, rather than fall short in thenumber of their calumnies, employ some that are contradictory) haveslandered this House, as aiming at the extension of an unconstitutionalinfluence in his Majesty's crown. This pretended attempt to increase theinfluence of the crown they were weak enough to endeavor to persuade hisMajesty's people was amongst the causes which excited his Majesty'sresentment against his late ministers. 

Further, to remove the impressions of this calumny concerning an attemptin the House of Commons against his prerogative, it is proper to informhis Majesty, that the territorial possessions in the East Indies neverhave been declared by any public judgment, act, or instrument, or anyresolution of Parliament whatsoever, to be the subject matter of hisMajesty's prerogative; nor have they ever been understood as belongingto his ordinary administration, or to be annexed or united to his crown;but that they are acquisitions of a new and peculiar description, [65]unknown to the ancient executive constitution of this country. 

From time to time, therefore, Parliament provided for their governmentaccording to its discretion, and to its opinion of what was required bythe public necessities. We do not know that his Majesty was entitled, by prerogative, to exercise any act of authority whatsoever in theCompany's affairs, or that, in effect, such authority has ever beenexercised. His Majesty's patronage was not taken away by that bill;because it is notorious that his Majesty never originally had theappointment of a single officer, civil or military, in the Company'sestablishment in India: nor has the least degree of patronage ever beenacquired to the crown in any other manner or measure than as the powerwas thought expedient to be granted by act of Parliament, --that is, bythe very same authority by which the offices were disposed of andregulated in the bill which his Majesty's servants have falsely andinjuriously represented as infringing upon the prerogative of the crown. 

Before the year 1773 the whole administration of India, and the wholepatronage to office there, was in the hands of the East India Company. The East India Company is not a branch of his Majesty's prerogativeadministration, nor does that body exercise any species of authorityunder it, nor indeed from any British title that does not derive all itslegal validity from acts of Parliament. 

When a claim was asserted to the India territorial possessions in theoccupation of the Company, these possessions were not claimed as parcelof his Majesty's patrimonial estate, or as a fruit of the ancientinheritance of his crown: they were claimed for the public. And whenagreements were made with the East India Company concerning anycomposition for the holding, or any participation of the profits, ofthose territories, the agreement was made with the public; and thepreambles of the several acts have uniformly so stated it. Theseagreements were not made (even nominally) with his Majesty, but withParliament: and the bills making and establishing such agreements alwaysoriginated in this House; which appropriated the money to await thedisposition of Parliament, without the ceremony of previous consent fromthe crown even so much as suggested by any of his ministers: whichprevious consent is an observance of decorum, not indeed of strictright, but generally paid, when a new appropriation takes place in anypart of his Majesty's prerogative revenues. 

In pursuance of a right thus uniformly recognized and uniformly actedon, when Parliament undertook the reformation of the East India Companyin 1773, a commission was appointed, as the commission in the late billwas appointed; and it was made to continue for a term of years, as thecommission in the late bill was to continue; all the commissioners werenamed in Parliament, as in the late bill they were named. As theyreceived, so they held their offices, wholly independent of the crown;they held them for a fixed term; they were not removable by an addressof either House or even of both Houses of Parliament, a precautionobserved in the late bill relative to the commissioners proposedtherein; nor were they bound by the strict rules of proceeding whichregulated and restrained the late commissioners against all possibleabuse of a power which could not fail of being diligently and zealouslywatched by the ministers of the crown, and the proprietors of the stock, as well as by Parliament. Their proceedings were, in that bill, directedto be of such a nature as easily to subject them to the strictestrevision of both, in case of any malversation. 

In the year 1780, an act of Parliament again made provision for thegovernment of those territories for another four years, without any sortof reference to prerogative; nor was the least objection taken at thesecond, more than at the first of those periods, as if an infringementhad been made upon the rights of the crown: yet his Majesty's ministershave thought fit to represent the late commission as an entireinnovation on the Constitution, and the setting up a new order andestate in the nation, tending to the subversion of the monarchy itself. 

If the government of the East Indies, other than by his Majesty'sprerogative, be in effect a fourth order in the commonwealth, this orderhas long existed; because the East India Company has for many yearsenjoyed it in the fullest extent, and does at this day enjoy the wholeadministration of those provinces, and the patronage to officesthroughout that great empire, except as it is controlled by act ofParliament. 

It was the ill condition and ill administration of the Company's affairswhich induced this House (merely as a temporary establishment) to vestthe same powers which the Company did before possess, (and no other, )for a limited time, and under very strict directions, in proper hands, until they could be restored, or farther provision made concerning them. It was therefore no creation whatever of a new power, but the removal ofan old power, long since created, and then existing, from the managementof those persons who had manifestly and dangerously abused their trust. This House, which well knows the Parliamentary origin of all theCompany's powers and privileges, and is not ignorant or negligent of theauthority which may vest those powers and privileges in others, ifjustice and the public safety so require, is conscious to itself that itno more creates a new order in the state, by making occasional trusteesfor the direction of the Company, than it originally did in giving amuch more permanent trust to the Directors or to the General Court ofthat body. The monopoly of the East India Company was a derogation fromthe general freedom of trade belonging to his Majesty's people. Thepowers of government, and of peace and war, are parts of prerogative ofthe highest order. Of our competence to restrain the rights of all hissubjects by act of Parliament, and to vest those high and eminentprerogatives even in a particular company of merchants, there has beenno question. We beg leave most humbly to claim as our right, and as aright which this House has always used, to frame such bills for theregulation of that commerce, and of the territories held by the EastIndia Company, and everything relating to them, as to our discretionshall seem fit; and we assert and maintain that therein we follow, anddo not innovate on, the Constitution. 

That his Majesty's ministers, misled by their ambition, haveendeavored, if possible, to form a faction in the country against thepopular part of the Constitution; and have therefore thought proper toadd to their slanderous accusation against a House of Parliament, relative to his Majesty's prerogative, another of a different nature, calculated for the purpose of raising fears and jealousies among thecorporate bodies of the kingdom, and of persuading uninformed personsbelonging to those corporations to look to and to make addresses tothem, as protectors of their rights, under their several charters, fromthe designs which they, without any ground, charged the then House ofCommons to have formed against _charters in general_. For this purposethey have not scrupled to assert that the exertion of his Majesty'sprerogative in the late precipitate change in his administration, andthe dissolution of the late Parliament, were measures adopted in orderto rescue the people and their rights out of the hands of the House ofCommons, their representatives. 

We trust that his Majesty's subjects are not yet so far deluded as tobelieve that the charters, or that any other of their local or generalprivileges, can have a solid security in any place but where thatsecurity has always been looked for, and always found, --in the House ofCommons. Miserable and precarious indeed would be the state of theirfranchises, if they were to find no defence but from that quarter fromwhence they have always been attacked![66] But the late House ofCommons, in passing that bill, made no attack upon any powers orprivileges, except such as a House of Commons has frequently attacked, and will attack, (and they trust, in the end, with their wontedsuccess, )--that is, upon those which are corruptly and oppressivelyadministered; and this House do faithfully assure his Majesty, that wewill correct, and, if necessary for the purpose, as far as in us lies, will wholly destroy, every species of power and authority exercised byBritish subjects to the oppression, wrong, and detriment of the people, and to the impoverishment and desolation of the countries subject to it. 

The propagators of the calumnies against that House of Parliament havebeen indefatigable in exaggerating the supposed injury done to the EastIndia Company by the suspension of the authorities which they have inevery instance abused, --as if power had been wrested by wrong andviolence from just and prudent hands; but they have, with equal care, concealed the weighty grounds and reasons on which that House hadadopted the most moderate of all possible expedients for rescuing thenatives of India from oppression, and for saving the interests of thereal and honest proprietors of their stock, as well as that greatnational, commercial concern, from imminent ruin. 

The ministers aforesaid have also caused it to be reported that theHouse of Commons have confiscated the property of the East IndiaCompany. It is the reverse of truth. The whole management was a trustfor the proprietors, under their own inspection, (and it was so providedfor in the bill, ) and under the inspection of Parliament. That bill, sofar from confiscating the Company's property, was the only one which, for several years past, did not, in some shape or other, affect theirproperty, or restrain them in the disposition of it. 

It is proper that his Majesty and all his people should be informed thatthe House of Commons have proceeded, with regard to the East IndiaCompany, with a degree of care, circumspection, and deliberation, whichhas not been equalled in the history of Parliamentary proceedings. Forsixteen years the state and condition of that body has never been whollyout of their view. In the year 1767 the House took those objects intoconsideration, in a committee of the whole House. The business waspursued in the following year. In the year 1772 two committees wereappointed for the same purpose, which examined into their affairs withmuch diligence, and made very ample reports. In the year 1773 theproceedings were carried to an act of Parliament, which provedineffectual to its purpose. The oppressions and abuses in India havesince rather increased than diminished, on account of the greatness ofthe temptations, and convenience of the opportunities, which got thebetter of the legislative provisions calculated against ill practicesthen in their beginnings; insomuch that, in 1781, two committees wereagain instituted, who have made seventeen reports. It was upon the mostminute, exact, and laborious collection and discussion of facts, thatthe late House of Commons proceeded in the reform which they attemptedin the administration of India, but which has been frustrated by waysand means the most dishonorable to his Majesty's government, and themost pernicious to the Constitution of this kingdom. His Majesty was sosensible of the disorders in the Company's administration, that theconsideration of that subject was no less than six times recommended tothis House in speeches from the throne. 

The result of the Parliamentary inquiries has been, that the East IndiaCompany was found totally corrupted, and totally perverted from thepurposes of its institution, whether political or commercial; that thepowers of war and peace given by the charter had been abused, bykindling hostilities in every quarter for the purposes of rapine; thatalmost all the treaties of peace they have made have only given cause toso many breaches of public faith; that countries once the mostflourishing are reduced to a state of indigence, decay, anddepopulation, to the diminution of our strength, and to the infinitedishonor of our national character; that the laws of this kingdom arenotoriously, and almost in every instance, despised; that the servantsof the Company, by the purchase of qualifications to vote in the GeneralCourt, and, at length, by getting the Company itself deeply in theirdebt, have obtained the entire and absolute mastery in the body by whichthey ought to have been ruled and coerced. Thus their malversations inoffice are supported, instead of being checked by the Company. The wholeof the affairs of that body are reduced to a most perilous situation;and many millions of innocent and deserving men, who are under theprotection of this nation, and who ought to be protected by it, areoppressed by a most despotic and rapacious tyranny. The Company andtheir servants, having strengthened themselves by this confederacy, setat defiance the authority and admonitions of this House employed toreform them; and when this House had selected certain principaldelinquents, whom they declared it the duty of the Company to recall, the Company held out its legal privileges against all reformation, positively refused to recall them, and supported those who had fallenunder the just censure of this House with new and stronger marks ofcountenance and approbation. 

The late House, discovering the reversed situation of the Company, bywhich the nominal servants are really the masters, and the offenders arebecome their own judges, thought fit to examine into the state of theircommerce; and they have also discovered that their commercial affairsare in the greatest disorder; that their debts have accumulated beyondany present or obvious future means of payment, at least under theactual administration of their affairs; that this condition of the EastIndia Company has begun to affect the sinking fund itself, on which thepublic credit of the kingdom rests, --a million and upwards being due tothe customs, which that House of Commons whose intentions towards theCompany have been so grossly misrepresented were indulgent enough torespite. And thus, instead of confiscating their property, the Companyreceived without interest (which in such a case had been before charged)the use of a very large sum of the public money. The revenues are underthe peculiar care of this House, not only as the revenues originate fromus, but as, on every failure if the funds set apart for the support ofthe national credit, or to provide for the national strength and safety, the task of supplying every deficiency falls upon his Majesty's faithfulCommons, this House must, in effect, tax the people. The House, therefore, at every moment, incurs the hazard of becoming obnoxious toits constituents. 

The enemies of the late House of Commons resolved, if possible, to bringon that event. They therefore endeavored to misrepresent the providentmeans adopted by the House of Commons for keeping off this invidiousnecessity, as an attack on the rights of the East India Company: forthey well knew, that, on the one hand, if, for want of proper regulationand relief, the Company should become insolvent, or even stop payment, the national credit and commerce would sustain a heavy blow; and thatcalamity would be justly imputed to Parliament, which, after such longinquiries, and such frequent admonitions from his Majesty, had neglectedso essential and so urgent an article of their duty: on the other hand, they knew, that, wholly corrupted as the Company is, nothing effectualcould be done to preserve that interest from ruin, without taking for atime the national objects of their trust out of their hands; and then acry would be industriously raised against the House of Commons, asdepriving British subjects of their legal privileges. The restraint, being plain and simple, must be easily understood by those who would bebrought with great difficulty to comprehend the intricate detail ofmatters of fact which rendered this suspension of the administration ofIndia absolutely necessary on motives of justice, of policy, of publichonor, and public safety. 

The House of Commons had not been able to devise a method by which theredress of grievances could be effected through the authors of thosegrievances; nor could they imagine how corruptions could be purified bythe corrupters and the corrupted; nor do we now conceive how anyreformation can proceed from the known abettors and supporters of thepersons who have been guilty of the misdemeanors which Parliament hasreprobated, and who for their own ill purposes have given countenance toa false and delusive state of the Company's affairs, fabricated tomislead Parliament and to impose upon the nation. [67]

Your Commons feel, with a just resentment, the inadequate estimate whichyour ministers have formed of the importance of this great concern. They call on us to act upon the principles of those who have notinquired into the subject, and to condemn those who with the mostlaudable diligence have examined and scrutinized every part of it. Thedeliberations of Parliament have been broken; the season of the year isunfavorable; many of us are new members, who must be wholly unacquaintedwith the subject, which lies remote from the ordinary course of generalinformation. 

We are cautioned against an infringement of the Constitution; and it isimpossible to know what the secret advisers of the crown, who havedriven out the late ministers for their conduct in Parliament, and havedissolved the late Parliament for a pretended attack upon prerogative, will consider as such an infringement. We are not furnished with a rule, the observance of which can make us safe from the resentment of thecrown, even by an implicit obedience to the dictates of the ministerswho have advised that speech; we know not how soon those ministers maybe disavowed, and how soon the members of this House, for our veryagreement with them, may be considered as objects of his Majesty'sdispleasure. Until by his Majesty's goodness and wisdom the late exampleis completely done away, we are not free. 

We are well aware, in providing for the affairs of the East, with whatan adult strength of abuse, and of wealth and influence growing out ofthat abuse, his Majesty's Commons had, in the last Parliament, and stillhave, to struggle. We are sensible that the influence of that wealth, ina much larger degree and measure than at any former period, may havepenetrated into the very quarter from whence alone any real reformationcan be expected. [68]

If, therefore, in the arduous affairs recommended to us, our proceedingsshould be ill adapted, feeble, and ineffectual, --if no delinquencyshould be prevented, and no delinquent should be called to account, --ifevery person should be caressed, promoted, and raised in power, inproportion to the enormity of his offences, --if no relief should begiven to any of the natives unjustly dispossessed of their rights, jurisdictions, and properties, --if no cruel and unjust exactions shouldbe forborne, --if the source of no peculation or oppressive gain shouldbe cut off, --if, by the omission of the opportunities that were in ourhands, our Indian empire should fall into ruin irretrievable, and in itsfall crush the credit and overwhelm the revenues of this country, --westand acquitted to our honor and to our conscience, who have reluctantlyseen the weightiest interests of our country, at times the most criticalto its dignity and safety, rendered the sport of the inconsiderate andunmeasured ambition of individuals, and by that means the wisdom of hisMajesty's government degraded in the public estimation, and the policyand character of this renowned nation rendered contemptible in the eyesof all Europe. 

 * * * * *

It passed in the negative. 

FOOTNOTES:

[59] See King's Speech, Dec. 5, 1782, and May 19, 1784. 

[60] "I shall never submit to the doctrines I have heard this day fromthe woolsack, that the other House [House of Commons] are the onlyrepresentatives and guardians of the people's rights. I boldly maintainthe contrary. I say this House [House of Lords] _is equally therepresentatives of the people_. "--Lord Shelburne's Speech, April 8, 1778. _Vide_ Parliamentary Register, Vol. X. P. 892. 

[61] In that Parliament the House of Commons by two several resolutionsput an end to the American war. Immediately on the change of ministrywhich ensued, in order to secure their own independence, and to preventthe accumulation of new burdens on the people by the growth of a civillist debt, they passed the Establishment Bill. By that bill thirty-sixoffices tenable by members of Parliament were suppressed, and an orderof payment was framed by which the growth of any fresh debt was renderedimpracticable. The debt on the civil list from the beginning of thepresent reign had amounted to one million three hundred thousand poundsand upwards. Another act was passed for regulating the office of thePaymaster-General and the offices subordinate to it. A million of publicmoney had sometimes been in the hands of the paymasters: this actprevented the possibility of any money whatsoever being accumulated inthat office in future. The offices of the Exchequer, whose emoluments intime of war were excessive, and grew in exact proportion to the publicburdens, were regulated, --some of them suppressed, and the rest reducedto fixed salaries. To secure the freedom of election against the crown, a bill was passed to disqualify all officers concerned in the collectionof the revenue in any of its branches from voting in elections: a mostimportant act, not only with regard to its primary object, the freedomof election, but as materially forwarding the due collection of revenue. For the same end, (the preserving the freedom of election, ) the Houserescinded the famous judgment relative to the Middlesex election, andexpunged it from the journals. On the principle of reformation of theirown House, connected with a principle of public economy, an act passedfor rendering contractors with government incapable of a seat inParliament. The India Bill (unfortunately lost in the House of Lords)pursued the same idea to its completion, and disabled all servants ofthe East India Company from a seat in that House for a certain time, anduntil their conduct was examined into and cleared. The remedy ofinfinite corruptions and of infinite disorders and oppressions, as wellas the security of the most important objects of public economy, perished with that bill and that Parliament. That Parliament alsoinstituted a committee to inquire into the collection of the revenue inall its branches, which prosecuted its duty with great vigor, andsuggested several material improvements. 

[62] If these speculations are let loose, the House of Lords may quarrelwith their share of the legislature, as being limited with regard to theorigination of grants to the crown and the origination of money bills. The advisers of the crown may think proper to bring its negative intoordinary use, --and even to dispute, whether a mere negative, comparedwith the deliberative power exercised in the other Houses, be such ashare in the legislature as to produce a due balance in favor of thatbranch, and thus justify the previous interference of the crown in themanner lately used. The following will serve to show how much foundationthere is for great caution concerning these novel speculations. LordShelburne, in his celebrated speech, April 8th, 1778, expresses himselfas follows. (_Vide_ Parliamentary Register, Vol. X. )

"The noble and learned lord on the woolsack, in the debate which openedthe business of this day, asserted that your Lordships were incompetentto make any alteration in a money bill or a bill of supply, I should beglad to see the matter fairly and fully discussed, and the subjectbrought forward and argued upon precedent, as well as all its collateralrelations. I should be pleased to see the question fairly committed, were it for no other reason but to hear the sleek, smooth contractorsfrom the other House come to this bar and declare, that they, and theyonly, _could frame a money bill_, and they, and they _only_, coulddispose of the _property of the peers of Great Britain_. Perhaps somearguments more plausible than those I heard this day from the woolsack, to show that the Commons have an uncontrollable, unqualified right tobind your Lordships' property, may be urged by them. At present, I begleave to differ from the noble and learned lord; for, until the claim, after a solemn discussion of this House, is openly and directlyrelinquished, I shall continue to be of opinion that your Lordships havea right to after, _amend_, or reject a money bill. "

The Duke of Richmond also, in his letter to the volunteers of Ireland, speaks of several of the powers exercised by the House of Commons in thelight of usurpations; and his Grace is of opinion, that, when the peopleare restored to what he conceives to be their rights, in electing theHouse of Commons, the other branches of the legislature ought to berestored to theirs. --_Vide_ Remembrancer, Vol. XVI. 

[63] By an act of Parliament, the Directors of the East India Companyare restrained from acceptance of bills drawn, from India, beyond acertain amount, without the consent of the Commissioners of theTreasury. The late House of Commons, finding bills to an immense amountdrawn upon that body by their servants abroad, and knowing theircircumstances to be exceedingly doubtful, came to a resolutionprovidently, cautioning the Lords of the Treasury against the acceptanceof these bills, until the House should otherwise direct. The Court Lordsthen took occasion to declare against the resolution as illegal, by theCommons undertaking to direct in the execution of a trust created by actof Parliament. The House, justly alarmed at this resolution, which wentto the destruction of the whole of its superintending capacity, andparticularly in matters relative to its own province of money, directeda committee to search the journals, and they found a regular series ofprecedents, commencing from the remotest of those records, and carriedon to that day, by which it appeared that the House interfered, by anauthoritative advice and admonition, upon every act of executivegovernment without exception, and in many much stronger cases than thatwhich the Lords thought proper to quarrel with. 

[64] "I observe, at the same time, that there is _no charge orcomplaint_ suggested against my present ministers. "--The King's Answer, 25th February, 1784, to the Address of the House of Common. _Vide_Resolutions of the House of Commons, printed for Debrett, p. 31. 

[65] The territorial possessions in the East Indies were acquired to theCompany, in virtue of grants from the Great Mogul, in the nature ofoffices and jurisdictions, to be held under _him_, and dependent upon_his_ crown, with the express condition of being obedient to orders from_his_ court, and of paying an annual tribute to _his_ treasury. It istrue that no obedience is yielded to these orders, and for some timepast there has been no payment made of this tribute. But it is under agrant so conditioned that they still hold. To subject the King of GreatBritain as tributary to a foreign power by the acts of his subjects; tosuppose the grant valid, and yet the condition void; to suppose it goodfor the king, and insufficient for the Company; to suppose it aninterest divisible between the parties: these are some few of the manylegal difficulties to be surmounted, before the Common Law of Englandcan acknowledge the East India Company's Asiatic affairs to be a subjectmatter of _prerogative_, so as to bring it within the verge of Englishjurisprudence. It is a very anomalous species of power and propertywhich is held by the East India Company. Our English prerogative lawdoes not furnish principles, much less precedents, by which it can bedefined or adjusted. Nothing but the eminent dominion of Parliament overevery British subject, in every concern, and in every circumstance inwhich he is placed, can adjust this new, intricate matter. Parliamentmay act wisely or unwisely, justly or unjustly; but Parliament alone iscompetent to it. 

[66] The attempt upon charters and the privileges of the corporatebodies of the kingdom in the reigns of Charles the Second and James theSecond was made by the _crown_. It was carried on by the ordinary courseof law, in courts instituted for the security of the property andfranchises of the people. This attempt made by the _crown_ was attendedwith complete success. The corporate rights of the city of London, andof all the companies it contains, were by solemn judgment of lawdeclared forfeited, and all their franchises, privileges, properties, and estates were of course seized into the hands of the _crown_. Theinjury was from the crown: the redress was by Parliament. A bill wasbrought into the _House of Commons_, by which the judgment against thecity of London, and against the companies, was reversed: and this billpassed the House of Lords without any complaint of trespass on theirjurisdiction, although the bill was for a reversal of a judgment in law. By this act, which is in the second of William and Mary, chap. 8, thequestion of forfeiture of that charter is forever taken out of the powerof any court of law: no cognizance can be taken of it except inParliament. 

Although the act above mentioned has declared the judgment against thecorporation of London to be _illegal_ yet Blackstone makes no scruple ofasserting, that, "perhaps, in strictness of law, the proceedings in mostof them [the Quo Warranto causes] were sufficiently regular, " leaving itin doubt, whether this regularity did not apply to the corporation ofLondon, as well as to any of the rest; and he seems to blame theproceeding (as most blamable it was) not so much on account ofillegality as for the crown's having employed a legal proceeding forpolitical purposes. He calls it "an exertion of _an act of law_ for thepurposes of the state. "

The same security which was given to the city of London, would have beenextended to all the corporations, if the House of Commons could haveprevailed. But the bill for that purpose passed but by a majority of onein the Lords; and it was entirely lost by a prorogation, which is theact of the crown. Small, indeed, was the security which the corporationof London enjoyed before the act of William and Mary, and which all theother corporations, secured by no statute, enjoy at this hour, if strictlaw was employed against them. The use of strict law has always beenrendered very delicate by the same means by which the almost unmeasuredlegal powers residing (and in many instances dangerously residing) inthe crown are kept within due bounds: I mean, that strong superintendingpower in the House of Commons which inconsiderate people have beenprevailed on to condemn as trenching on prerogative. Strict law is by nomeans such a friend to the rights of the subject as they have beentaught to believe. They who have been most conversant in this kind oflearning will be most sensible of the danger of submitting corporaterights of high political importance to these subordinate tribunals. Thegeneral heads of law on that subject are vulgar and trivial. On themthere is not much question. But it is far from easy to determine whatspecial acts, or what special neglect of action, shall subjectcorporations to a forfeiture. There is so much laxity in this doctrine, that great room is left for favor or prejudice, which might give to thecrown an entire dominion over those corporations. On the other hand, itis undoubtedly true that every subordinate corporate right ought to besubject to control, to superior direction, and even to forfeiture uponjust cause. In this reason and law agree. In every judgment given on acorporate right of great political importance, the policy and prudencemake no small part of the question. To these considerations a court oflaw is not competent; and, indeed, an attempt at the least intermixtureof such ideas with the matter of law could have no other effect thanwholly to corrupt the judicial character of the court in which such acause should come to be tried. It is besides to be remarked, that, if, in virtue of a legal process, a forfeiture should be adjudged, the courtof law has no power to modify or mitigate. The whole franchise isannihilated, and the corporate property goes into the hands of thecrown. They who hold the new doctrines concerning the power of the Houseof Commons ought well to consider in such a case by what means thecorporate rights could be revived, or the property could be recoveredout of the hands of the crown. But Parliament can do what the courtsneither can do nor ought to attempt. Parliament is competent to give dueweight to all political considerations. It may modify, it may mitigate, and it may render perfectly secure, all that it does not think fit totake away. It is not likely that Parliament will ever draw to itself thecognizance of questions concerning ordinary corporations, farther thanto protect them, in case attempts are made to induce a forfeiture oftheir franchises. 

The case of the East India Company is different even from that of thegreatest of these corporations. No monopoly of trade, beyond their ownlimits, is vested in the corporate body of any town or city in thekingdom. Even within these limits the monopoly is not general. TheCompany has the monopoly of the trade of half the world. The firstcorporation of the kingdom has for the object of its jurisdiction only afew matters of subordinate police. The East India Company governs anempire, through all its concerns and all its departments, from thelowest office of economy to the highest councils of state, --an empire towhich Great Britain is in comparison but a respectable province. Toleave these concerns without superior cognizance would be madness; toleave them to be judged in the courts below, on the principles of aconfined jurisprudence, would be folly. It is well, if the wholelegislative power is competent to the correction of abuses which arecommensurate to the immensity of the object they affect. The idea of anabsolute power has, indeed, its terrors; but that objection lies toevery Parliamentary proceeding; and as no other can regulate the abusesof such a charter, it is fittest that sovereign authority should beexercised, where it is most likely to be attended with the mosteffectual correctives. These correctives are furnished by the nature andcourse of Parliamentary proceedings, and by the infinitely diversifiedcharacters who compose the two Houses. In effect and virtually, theyform a vast number, variety, and succession of judges and jurors. Thefulness, the freedom, and publicity of discussion leaves it easy todistinguish what are acts of power, and what the determinations ofequity and reason. There prejudice corrects prejudice, and the differentasperities of party zeal mitigate and neutralize each other. So far fromviolence being the general characteristic of the proceedings ofParliament, whatever the beginnings of any Parliamentary process may be, its general fault in the end is, that it is found incomplete andineffectual. 

[67] The purpose of the misrepresentation being now completely answered, there is no doubt but the committee in this Parliament, appointed by theministers themselves, will justify the grounds upon which the lastParliament proceeded, and will lay open to the world the dreadful stateof the Company's affairs, and the grossness of their own calumnies uponthis head. By delay the new assembly is come into the disgracefulsituation of allowing a dividend of eight per cent by act of Parliament, without the least matter before them to justify the granting of anydividend at all. 

[68] This will be evident to those who consider the number anddescription of Directors and servants of the East India Company choseninto the present Parliament. The light in which the present ministershold the labors of the House of Commons in searching into the disordersin the Indian administration, and all its endeavors for the reformationof the government there, without any distinction of times, or of thepersons concerned, will appear from the following extract from a speechof the present Lord Chancellor. After making a high-flown panegyric onthose whom the House of Commons had condemned by their resolutions, hesaid:--"Let us not be misled by reports from committees of _another_House, to which, I again repeat, _I pay as much attention as I would doto the history of Robinson Crusoe, _ Let the conduct of the East IndiaCompany be fairly and fully inquired into. Let it be acquitted orcondemned by evidence brought to the bar of the House. Without enteringvery deeply into the subject, let me reply in a few words to anobservation which fell from a noble and learned lord, that the Company'sfinances are distressed, and that they owe at this moment a millionsterling to the nation. When such a charge is brought, will Parliamentin its justice forget that the Company is restricted from employing_that credit which its great and flourishing situation_ gives to it?"

END OF VOL. II.