{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15198/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15198","id":"gutenberg_15198","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15198","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: History - British","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1760-1820","Political science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Paul Murray, Susan Skinner and the PG Online Distributed\nProofreading Team from images generously made available by the\nBibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at\nhttp://gallica.bnf.fr\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS\n\nOF\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nEDMUND BURKE\n\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES\n\nVOLUME THE SECOND\n\n\n[Illustration: Burke Coat of Arms.]\n\n\nLONDON\nJOHN C. NIMMO\n14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.\nMDCCCLXXXVII\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF VOL. II.\n\n\nSPEECH ON AMERICAN TAXATION, April 19, 1774                            1\n\nSPEECHES ON ARRIVAL AT BRISTOL AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE POLL,\n  October 13 and November 3, 1774                                     81\n\nSPEECH ON MOVING RESOLUTIONS FOR CONCILIATION WITH AMERICA,\n  March 22, 1775                                                      99\n\nLETTER TO THE SHERIFFS OF BRISTOL, ON THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA,\n  April 3, 1777                                                      187\n\nTWO LETTERS TO GENTLEMEN OF BRISTOL, ON THE BILLS DEPENDING IN\n  PARLIAMENT RELATIVE TO THE TRADE OF IRELAND, April 23 and\n  May 2, 1778                                                        247\n\nSPEECH ON PRESENTING TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS A PLAN FOR THE BETTER\n  SECURITY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT, AND THE ECONOMICAL\n  REFORMATION OF THE CIVIL AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS,\n  February 11, 1780                                                  265\n\nSPEECH AT BRISTOL PREVIOUS TO THE ELECTION, September 6, 1780        365\n\nSPEECH AT BRISTOL ON DECLINING THE POLL, September 9, 1780           425\n\nSPEECH ON MR. FOX'S EAST INDIA BILL, December 1, 1783                431\n\nA REPRESENTATION TO HIS MAJESTY, MOVED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,\n  June 14, 1784                                                      537\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\nON\n\nAMERICAN TAXATION.\n\n\nAPRIL 19, 1774.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe following speech has been much the subject of conversation, and the\ndesire of having it printed was last summer very general. The means of\ngratifying the public curiosity were obligingly furnished from the notes\nof some gentlemen, members of the last Parliament.\n\nThis piece has been for some months ready for the press. But a delicacy,\npossibly over-scrupulous, has delayed the publication to this time. The\nfriends of administration have been used to attribute a great deal of\nthe opposition to their measures in America to the writings published in\nEngland. The editor of this speech kept it back, until all the measures\nof government have had their full operation, and can be no longer\naffected, if ever they could have been affected, by any publication.\n\nMost readers will recollect the uncommon pains taken at the beginning of\nthe last session of the last Parliament, and indeed during the whole\ncourse of it, to asperse the characters and decry the measures of those\nwho were supposed to be friends to America, in order to weaken the\neffect of their opposition to the acts of rigor then preparing against\nthe colonies. The speech contains a full refutation of the charges\nagainst that party with which Mr. Burke has all along acted. In doing\nthis, he has taken a review of the effects of all the schemes which\nhave been successively adopted in the government of the plantations. The\nsubject is interesting; the matters of information various and\nimportant; and the publication at this time, the editor hopes, will not\nbe thought unseasonable.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH.\n\n\n     During the last session of the last Parliament, on the 19th of\n     April, 1774, Mr. Rose Fuller, member for Rye, made the following\n     motion:--\n\n     \"That an act made in the seventh year of the reign of his present\n     Majesty, intituled, 'An act for granting certain duties in the\n     British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing a\n     drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation from this\n     kingdom of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said\n     colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on\n     china earthenware exported to America; and for more effectually\n     preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies\n     and plantations, might be read.\"\n\n     And the same being read accordingly, he moved,--\n\n     \"That this House will, upon this day sevennight, resolve itself\n     into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the\n     duty of three-pence per pound weight upon tea, payable in all his\n     Majesty's dominions in America, imposed by the said act; and also\n     the appropriation of the said duty.\"\n\n     On this latter motion a warm and interesting debate arose, in which\n     Mr. Burke spoke as follows.\n\nSir,--I agree with the honorable gentleman[1] who spoke last, that this\nsubject is not new in this House. Very disagreeably to this House, very\nunfortunately to this nation, and to the peace and prosperity of this\nwhole empire, no topic has been more familiar to us. For nine long\nyears, session after session, we have been lashed round and round this\nmiserable circle of occasional arguments and temporary expedients. I am\nsure our heads must turn and our stomachs nauseate with them. We have\nhad them in every shape; we have looked at them in every point of view.\nInvention is exhausted; reason is fatigued; experience has given\njudgment; but obstinacy is not yet conquered.\n\nThe honorable gentleman has made one endeavor more to diversify the form\nof this disgusting argument. He has thrown out a speech composed almost\nentirely of challenges. Challenges are serious things; and as he is a\nman of prudence as well as resolution, I dare say he has very well\nweighed those challenges before he delivered them. I had long the\nhappiness to sit at the same side of the House, and to agree with the\nhonorable gentleman on all the American questions. My sentiments, I am\nsure, are well known to him; and I thought I had been perfectly\nacquainted with his. Though I find myself mistaken, he will still permit\nme to use the privilege of an old friendship; he will permit me to apply\nmyself to the House under the sanction of his authority, and, on the\nvarious grounds he has measured out, to submit to you the poor opinions\nwhich I have formed upon a matter of importance enough to demand the\nfullest consideration I could bestow upon it.\n\nHe has stated to the House two grounds of deliberation: one narrow and\nsimple, and merely confined to the question on your paper; the other\nmore large and more complicated,--comprehending the whole series of the\nParliamentary proceedings with regard to America, their causes, and\ntheir consequences. With regard to the latter ground, he states it as\nuseless, and thinks it may be even dangerous, to enter into so extensive\na field of inquiry. Yet, to my surprise, he had hardly laid down this\nrestrictive proposition, to which his authority would have given so much\nweight, when directly, and with the same authority, he condemns it, and\ndeclares it absolutely necessary to enter into the most ample historical\ndetail. His zeal has thrown him a little out of his usual accuracy. In\nthis perplexity, what shall we do, Sir, who are willing to submit to the\nlaw he gives us? He has reprobated in one part of his speech the rule he\nhad laid down for debate in the other, and, after narrowing the ground\nfor all those who are to speak after him, he takes an excursion,\nhimself, as unbounded as the subject and the extent of his great\nabilities.\n\nSir, when I cannot obey all his laws, I will do the best I can. I will\nendeavor to obey such of them as have the sanction of his example, and\nto stick to that rule which, though not consistent with the other, is\nthe most rational. He was certainly in the right, when he took the\nmatter largely. I cannot prevail on myself to agree with him in his\ncensure of his own conduct. It is not, he will give me leave to say,\neither useless or dangerous. He asserts, that retrospect is not wise;\nand the proper, the only proper subject of inquiry, is \"not how we got\ninto this difficulty, but how we are to get out of it.\" In other words,\nwe are, according to him, to consult our invention, and to reject our\nexperience. The mode of deliberation he recommends is diametrically\nopposite to every rule of reason and every principle of good sense\nestablished amongst mankind. For that sense and that reason I have\nalways understood absolutely to prescribe, whenever we are involved in\ndifficulties from the measures we have pursued, that we should take a\nstrict review of those measures, in order to correct our errors, if they\nshould be corrigible,--or at least to avoid a dull uniformity in\nmischief, and the unpitied calamity of being repeatedly caught in the\nsame snare.\n\nSir, I will freely follow the honorable gentleman in his historical\ndiscussion, without the least management for men or measures, further\nthan as they shall seem to me to deserve it. But before I go into that\nlarge consideration, because I would omit nothing that can give the\nHouse satisfaction, I wish to tread the narrow ground to which alone the\nhonorable gentleman, in one part of his speech, has so strictly confined\nus.\n\nHe desires to know, whether, if we were to repeal this tax, agreeably to\nthe proposition of the honorable gentleman who made the motion, the\nAmericans would not take post on this concession, in order to make a new\nattack on the next body of taxes; and whether they would not call for a\nrepeal of the duty on wine as loudly as they do now for the repeal of\nthe duty on tea. Sir, I can give no security on this subject. But I will\ndo all that I can, and all that can be fairly demanded. To the\n_experience_ which the honorable gentleman reprobates in one instant and\nreverts to in the next, to that experience, without the least wavering\nor hesitation on my part, I steadily appeal: and would to God there was\nno other arbiter to decide on the vote with which the House is to\nconclude this day!\n\nWhen Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in the year 1766, I affirm,\nfirst, that the Americans did _not_ in consequence of this measure call\nupon you to give up the former Parliamentary revenue which subsisted in\nthat country, or even any one of the articles which compose it. I affirm\nalso, that, when, departing from the maxims of that repeal, you revived\nthe scheme of taxation, and thereby filled the minds of the colonists\nwith new jealousy and all sorts of apprehensions, then it was that they\nquarrelled with the old taxes as well as the new; then it was, and not\ntill then, that they questioned all the parts of your legislative power,\nand by the battery of such questions have shaken the solid structure of\nthis empire to its deepest foundations.\n\nOf those two propositions I shall, before I have done, give such\nconvincing, such damning proof, that, however the contrary may be\nwhispered in circles or bawled in newspapers, they never more will dare\nto raise their voices in this House. I speak with great confidence. I\nhave reason for it. The ministers are with me. _They_ at least are\nconvinced that the repeal of the Stamp Act had not, and that no repeal\ncan have, the consequences which the honorable gentleman who defends\ntheir measures is so much alarmed at. To their conduct I refer him for a\nconclusive answer to his objection. I carry my proof irresistibly into\nthe very body of both Ministry and Parliament: not on any general\nreasoning growing out of collateral matter, but on the conduct of the\nhonorable gentleman's ministerial friends on the new revenue itself.\n\nThe act of 1767, which grants this tea-duty, sets forth in its preamble,\nthat it was expedient to raise a revenue in America for the support of\nthe civil government there, as well as for purposes still more\nextensive. To this support the act assigns six branches of duties. About\ntwo years after this act passed, the ministry, I mean the present\nministry, thought it expedient to repeal five of the duties, and to\nleave (for reasons best known to themselves) only the sixth standing.\nSuppose any person, at the time of that repeal, had thus addressed the\nminister:[2] \"Condemning, as you do, the repeal of the Stamp Act, why do\nyou venture to repeal the duties upon glass, paper, and painters'\ncolors? Let your pretence for the repeal be what it will, are you not\nthoroughly convinced that your concessions will produce, not\nsatisfaction, but insolence in the Americans, and that the giving up\nthese taxes will necessitate the giving up of all the rest?\" This\nobjection was as palpable then as it is now; and it was as good for\npreserving the five duties as for retaining the sixth. Besides, the\nminister will recollect that the repeal of the Stamp Act had but just\npreceded his repeal; and the ill policy of that measure, (had it been so\nimpolitic as it has been represented,) and the mischiefs it produced,\nwere quite recent. Upon the principles, therefore, of the honorable\ngentleman, upon the principles of the minister himself, the minister has\nnothing at all to answer. He stands condemned by himself, and by all his\nassociates old and new, as a destroyer, in the first trust of finance,\nof the revenues,--and in the first rank of honor, as a betrayer of the\ndignity of his country.\n\nMost men, especially great men, do not always know their well-wishers. I\ncome to rescue that noble lord out of the hands of those he calls his\nfriends, and even out of his own. I will do him the justice he is denied\nat home. He has not been this wicked or imprudent man. He knew that a\nrepeal had no tendency to produce the mischiefs which give so much alarm\nto his honorable friend. His work was not bad in its principle, but\nimperfect in its execution; and the motion on your paper presses him\nonly to complete a proper plan, which, by some unfortunate and\nunaccountable error, he had left unfinished.\n\nI hope, Sir, the honorable gentleman who spoke last is thoroughly\nsatisfied, and satisfied out of the proceedings of ministry on their own\nfavorite act, that his fears from a repeal are groundless. If he is not,\nI leave him, and the noble lord who sits by him, to settle the matter as\nwell as they can together; for, if the repeal of American taxes destroys\nall our government in America,--he is the man!--and he is the worst of\nall the repealers, because he is the last.\n\nBut I hear it rung continually in my ears, now and formerly,--\"The\npreamble! what will become of the preamble, if you repeal this tax?\"--I\nam sorry to be compelled so often to expose the calamities and disgraces\nof Parliament. The preamble of this law, standing as it now stands, has\nthe lie direct given to it by the provisionary part of the act: if that\ncan be called provisionary which makes no provision. I should be afraid\nto express myself in this manner, especially in the face of such a\nformidable array of ability as is now drawn up before me, composed of\nthe ancient household troops of that side of the House and the new\nrecruits from this, if the matter were not clear and indisputable.\nNothing but truth could give me this firmness; but plain truth and\nclear evidence can be beat down by no ability. The clerk will be so good\nas to turn to the act, and to read this favorite preamble.\n\n\"Whereas it is _expedient_ that a revenue should be raised in your\nMajesty's dominions in America, for making a more _certain_ and\n_adequate_ provision for defraying the charge of the _administration of\njustice and support of civil government_ in such provinces where it\nshall be found necessary, and towards _further defraying_ the expenses\nof _defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions_.\"\n\nYou have heard this pompous performance. Now where is the revenue which\nis to do all these mighty things? Five sixths\nrepealed,--abandoned,--sunk,--gone,--lost forever. Does the poor\nsolitary tea-duty support the purposes of this preamble? Is not the\nsupply there stated as effectually abandoned as if the tea-duty had\nperished in the general wreck? Here, Mr. Speaker, is a precious\nmockery:--a preamble without an act,--taxes granted in order to be\nrepealed,--and the reasons of the grant still carefully kept up! This is\nraising a revenue in America! This is preserving dignity in England! If\nyou repeal this tax, in compliance with the motion, I readily admit that\nyou lose this fair preamble. Estimate your loss in it. The object of the\nact is gone already; and all you suffer is the purging the statute-book\nof the opprobrium of an empty, absurd, and false recital.\n\nIt has been said again and again, that the five taxes were repealed on\ncommercial principles. It is so said in the paper in my hand:[3] a paper\nwhich I constantly carry about; which I have often used, and shall\noften use again. What is got by this paltry pretence of commercial\nprinciples I know not; for, if your government in America is destroyed\nby the _repeal of taxes_, it is of no consequence upon what ideas the\nrepeal is grounded. Repeal this tax, too, upon commercial principles, if\nyou please. These principles will serve as well now as they did\nformerly. But you know that either your objection to a repeal from these\nsupposed consequences has no validity, or that this pretence never could\nremove it. This commercial motive never was believed by any man, either\nin America, which this letter is meant to soothe, or in England, which\nit is meant to deceive. It was impossible it should: because every man,\nin the least acquainted with the detail of commerce, must know that\nseveral of the articles on which the tax was repealed were fitter\nobjects of duties than almost any other articles that could possibly be\nchosen,--without comparison more so than the tea that was left taxed, as\ninfinitely less liable to be eluded by contraband. The tax upon red and\nwhite lead was of this nature. You have in this kingdom an advantage in\nlead that amounts to a monopoly. When you find yourself in this\nsituation of advantage, you sometimes venture to tax even your own\nexport. You did so soon after the last war, when, upon this principle,\nyou ventured to impose a duty on coals. In all the articles of American\ncontraband trade, who ever heard of the smuggling of red lead and white\nlead? You might, therefore, well enough, without danger of contraband,\nand without injury to commerce, (if this were the whole consideration,)\nhave taxed these commodities. The same may be said of glass. Besides,\nsome of the things taxed were so trivial, that the loss of the objects\nthemselves, and their utter annihilation out of American commerce, would\nhave been comparatively as nothing. But is the article of tea such an\nobject in the trade of England, as not to be felt, or felt but slightly,\nlike white lead, and red lead, and painters' colors? Tea is an object of\nfar other importance. Tea is perhaps the most important object, taking\nit with its necessary connections, of any in the mighty circle of our\ncommerce. If commercial principles had been the true motives to the\nrepeal, or had they been at all attended to, tea would have been the\nlast article we should have left taxed for a subject of controversy.\n\nSir, it is not a pleasant consideration, but nothing in the world can\nread so awful and so instructive a lesson as the conduct of ministry in\nthis business, upon the mischief of not having large and liberal ideas\nin the management of great affairs. Never have the servants of the state\nlooked at the whole of your complicated interests in one connected view.\nThey have taken things by bits and scraps, some at one time and one\npretence, and some at another, just as they pressed, without any sort of\nregard to their relations or dependencies. They never had any kind of\nsystem, right or wrong; but only invented occasionally some miserable\ntale for the day, in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties into\nwhich they had proudly strutted. And they were put to all these shifts\nand devices, full of meanness and full of mischief, in order to pilfer\npiecemeal a repeal of an act which they had not the generous courage,\nwhen they found and felt their error, honorably and fairly to disclaim.\nBy such management, by the irresistible operation of feeble councils,\nso paltry a sum as three-pence in the eyes of a financier, so\ninsignificant an article as tea in the eyes of a philosopher, have\nshaken the pillars of a commercial empire that circled the whole globe.\n\nDo you forget that in the very last year you stood on the precipice of\ngeneral bankruptcy? Your danger was indeed great. You were distressed in\nthe affairs of the East India Company; and you well know what sort of\nthings are involved in the comprehensive energy of that significant\nappellation. I am not called upon to enlarge to you on that danger,\nwhich you thought proper yourselves to aggravate, and to display to the\nworld with all the parade of indiscreet declamation. The monopoly of the\nmost lucrative trades and the possession of imperial revenues had\nbrought you to the verge of beggary and ruin. Such was your\nrepresentation; such, in some measure, was your case. The vent of ten\nmillions of pounds of this commodity, now locked up by the operation of\nan injudicious tax, and rotting in the warehouses of the Company, would\nhave prevented all this distress, and all that series of desperate\nmeasures which you thought yourselves obliged to take in consequence of\nit. America would have furnished that vent, which no other part of the\nworld can furnish but America, where tea is next to a necessary of life,\nand where the demand grows upon the supply. I hope our dear-bought East\nIndia Committees have done us at least so much good, as to let us know,\nthat, without a more extensive sale of that article, our East India\nrevenues and acquisitions can have no certain connection with this\ncountry. It is through the American trade of tea that your East India\nconquests are to be prevented from crushing you with their burden. They\nare ponderous indeed; and they must have that great country to lean\nupon, or they tumble upon your head. It is the same folly that has lost\nyou at once the benefit of the West and of the East. This folly has\nthrown open folding-doors to contraband, and will be the means of giving\nthe profits of the trade of your colonies to every nation but\nyourselves. Never did a people suffer so much for the empty words of a\npreamble. It must be given up. For on what principle does it stand? This\nfamous revenue stands, at this hour, on all the debate, as a description\nof revenue not as yet known in all the comprehensive (but too\ncomprehensive!) vocabulary of finance,--_a preambulary tax_. It is,\nindeed, a tax of sophistry, a tax of pedantry, a tax of disputation, a\ntax of war and rebellion, a tax for anything but benefit to the imposers\nor satisfaction to the subject.\n\nWell! but whatever it is, gentlemen will force the colonists to take the\nteas. You will force them? Has seven years' struggle been yet able to\nforce them? Oh, but it seems \"we are in the right. The tax is\ntrifling,--in effect it is rather an exoneration than an imposition;\nthree fourths of the duty formerly payable on teas exported to America\nis taken off,--the place of collection is only shifted; instead of the\nretention of a shilling from the drawback here, it is three-pence custom\npaid in America.\" All this, Sir, is very true. But this is the very\nfolly and mischief of the act. Incredible as it may seem, you know that\nyou have deliberately thrown away a large duty, which you held secure\nand quiet in your hands, for the vain hope of getting one three fourths\nless, through every hazard, through certain litigation, and possibly\nthrough war.\n\nThe manner of proceeding in the duties on paper and glass, imposed by\nthe same act, was exactly in the same spirit. There are heavy excises on\nthose articles, when used in England. On export, these excises are drawn\nback. But instead of withholding the drawback, which might have been\ndone, with ease, without charge, without possibility of smuggling, and\ninstead of applying the money (money already in your hands) according to\nyour pleasure, you began your operations in finance by flinging away\nyour revenue; you allowed the whole drawback on export, and then you\ncharged the duty, (which you had before discharged,) payable in the\ncolonies, where it was certain the collection would devour it to the\nbone,--if any revenue were ever suffered to be collected at all. One\nspirit pervades and animates the whole mass.\n\nCould anything be a subject of more just alarm to America than to see\nyou go out of the plain highroad of finance, and give up your most\ncertain revenues and your clearest interest, merely for the sake of\ninsulting your colonies? No man ever doubted that the commodity of tea\ncould bear an imposition of three-pence. But no commodity will bear\nthree-pence, or will bear a penny, when the general feelings of men are\nirritated, and two millions of people are resolved not to pay. The\nfeelings of the colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain.\nTheirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden, when called upon for\nthe payment of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr.\nHampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the\nprinciple it was demanded, would have made him a slave. It is the weight\nof that preamble, of which you are so fond, and not the weight of the\nduty, that the Americans are unable and unwilling to bear.\n\nIt is, then, Sir, upon the _principle_ of this measure, and nothing\nelse, that we are at issue. It is a principle of political expediency.\nYour act of 1767 asserts that it is expedient to raise a revenue in\nAmerica; your act of 1769, which takes away that revenue, contradicts\nthe act of 1767, and, by something much stronger than words, asserts\nthat it is not expedient. It is a reflection upon your wisdom to persist\nin a solemn Parliamentary declaration of the expediency of any object,\nfor which, at the same time, you make no sort of provision. And pray,\nSir, let not this circumstance escape you,--it is very material,--that\nthe preamble of this act which we wish to repeal is not _declaratory of\na right_, as some gentlemen seem to argue it: it is only a recital of\nthe _expediency_ of a certain exercise of a right supposed already to\nhave been asserted; an exercise you are now contending for by ways and\nmeans which you confess, though they were obeyed, to be utterly\ninsufficient for their purpose. You are therefore at this moment in the\nawkward situation of fighting for a phantom,--a quiddity,--a thing that\nwants, not only a substance, but even a name,--for a thing which is\nneither abstract right nor profitable enjoyment.\n\nThey tell you, Sir, that your dignity is tied to it. I know not how it\nhappens, but this dignify of yours is a terrible incumbrance to you; for\nit has of late been ever at war with your interest, your equity, and\nevery idea of your policy. Show the thing you contend for to be reason,\nshow it to be common sense, show it to be the means of attaining some\nuseful end, and then I am content to allow it what dignity you please.\nBut what dignity is derived from the perseverance in absurdity is more\nthan ever I could discern. The honorable gentleman has said\nwell,--indeed, in most of his _general_ observations I agree with\nhim,--he says, that this subject does not stand as it did formerly. Oh,\ncertainly not! Every hour you continue on this ill-chosen ground, your\ndifficulties thicken on you; and therefore my conclusion is, remove from\na bad position as quickly as you can. The disgrace, and the necessity of\nyielding, both of them, grow upon you every hour of your delay.\n\nBut will you repeal the act, says the honorable gentleman, at this\ninstant, when America is in open resistance to your authority, and that\nyou have just revived your system of taxation? He thinks he has driven\nus into a corner. But thus pent up, I am content to meet him; because I\nenter the lists supported by my old authority, his new friends, the\nministers themselves. The honorable gentleman remembers that about five\nyears ago as great disturbances as the present prevailed in America on\naccount of the new taxes. The ministers represented these disturbances\nas treasonable; and this House thought proper, on that representation,\nto make a famous address for a revival and for a new application of a\nstatute of Henry the Eighth. We besought the king, in that\nwell-considered address, to inquire into treasons, and to bring the\nsupposed traitors from America to Great Britain for trial. His Majesty\nwas pleased graciously to promise a compliance with our request. All the\nattempts from this side of the House to resist these violences, and to\nbring about a repeal, were treated with the utmost scorn. An\napprehension of the very consequences now stated by the honorable\ngentleman was then given as a reason for shutting the door against all\nhope of such an alteration. And so strong was the spirit for supporting\nthe new taxes, that the session concluded with the following remarkable\ndeclaration. After stating the vigorous measures which had been pursued,\nthe speech from the throne proceeds:--\n\n\"You have assured me of your _firm_ support in the _prosecution_ of\nthem. Nothing, in my opinion, could be more likely to enable the\nwell-disposed among my subjects in that part of the world effectually to\ndiscourage and defeat the designs of the factious and seditious than the\nhearty concurrence of every branch of the legislature in the resolution\nof _maintaining the execution of the laws in every_ part of my\ndominions.\"\n\nAfter this no man dreamt that a repeal under this ministry could\npossibly take place. The honorable gentleman knows as well as I, that\nthe idea was utterly exploded by those who sway the House. This speech\nwas made on the ninth day of May, 1769. Five days after this speech,\nthat is, on the thirteenth of the same month, the public circular\nletter, a part of which I am going to read to you, was written by Lord\nHillsborough, Secretary of State for the Colonies. After reciting the\nsubstance of the king's speech, he goes on thus:--\n\n\"I can take upon me to assure you, notwithstanding insinuations to the\ncontrary from men with _factious and seditious views_, that his\nMajesty's _present administration have at no time entertained a design\nto propose to Parliament to lay any further taxes upon America, for the\npurpose of_ RAISING A REVENUE; and that it is at present their intention\nto propose, the next session of Parliament, to take off the duties upon\nglass, paper, and colors, upon consideration of such duties _having been\nlaid contrary to the true principles of commerce_.\n\n\"These have _always_ been, and _still are_, the sentiments of _his\nMajesty's present servants_, and by which their conduct _in respect to\nAmerica has been governed._ And _his Majesty_ relies upon your prudence\nand fidelity for such an explanation of _his_ measures as may tend to\nremove the prejudices which have been excited by the misrepresentations\nof those who are enemies to the peace and prosperity of Great Britain\nand her colonies, and to reestablish that mutual _confidence and\naffection_ upon which the glory and safety of the British empire\ndepend.\"\n\nHere, Sir, is a canonical boot of ministerial scripture: the general\nepistle to the Americans. What does the gentleman say to it? Here a\nrepeal is promised,--promised without condition,--and while your\nauthority was actually resisted. I pass by the public promise of a peer\nrelative to the repeal of taxes by this House. I pass by the use of the\nking's name in a matter of supply, that sacred and reserved right of the\nCommons. I conceal the ridiculous figure of Parliament hurling its\nthunders at the gigantic rebellion of America, and then, five days\nafter, prostrate at the feet of those assemblies we affected to\ndespise,--begging them, by the intervention of our ministerial sureties,\nto receive our submission, and heartily promising amendment. These might\nhave been serious matters formerly; but we are grown wiser than our\nfathers. Passing, therefore, from the Constitutional consideration to\nthe mere policy, does not this letter imply that the idea of taxing\nAmerica for the purpose of revenue is an abominable project, when the\nministry suppose none but _factious_ men, and with seditious views,\ncould charge them with it? does not this letter adopt and sanctify the\nAmerican distinction of _taxing for a revenue_? does it not formally\nreject all future taxation on that principle? does it not state the\nministerial rejection of such principle of taxation, not as the\noccasional, but the constant opinion of the king's servants? does it not\nsay, (I care not how consistently,) but does it not say, that their\nconduct with regard to America has been _always_ governed by this\npolicy? It goes a great deal further. These excellent and trusty\nservants of the king, justly fearful lest they themselves should have\nlost all credit with the world, bring out the image of their gracious\nsovereign from the inmost and most sacred shrine, and they pawn him as a\nsecurity for their promises:--\"_His Majesty_ relies on your prudence and\nfidelity for such an explanation of _his_ measures.\" These sentiments of\nthe minister and these measures of his Majesty can only relate to the\nprinciple and practice of taxing for a revenue; and accordingly Lord\nBotetourt, stating it as such, did, with great propriety, and in the\nexact spirit of his instructions, endeavor to remove the fears of the\nVirginian assembly lest the sentiments which it seems (unknown to the\nworld) had _always_ been those of the ministers, and by which _their_\nconduct _in respect to America had been governed_, should by some\npossible revolution, favorable to wicked American taxers, be hereafter\ncounteracted. He addresses them in this manner:--\n\n\"It may possibly be objected, that, as his Majesty's present\nadministration are _not immortal_, their successors may be inclined to\nattempt to undo what the present ministers shall have attempted to\nperform; and to that objection I can give but this answer: that it is my\nfirm opinion, that the plan I have stated to you will certainly take\nplace, and that it will never be departed from; and so determined am I\nforever to abide by it, that I will be content to be declared infamous,\nif I do not, to the last hour of my life, at all times, in all places,\nand upon all occasions, exert every power with which I either am or ever\nshall be legally invested, in order to obtain and _maintain_ for the\ncontinent of America that _satisfaction_ which I have been authorized to\npromise this day by the _confidential_ servants of our gracious\nsovereign, who to my certain knowledge rates his honor so high _that he\nwould rather part with his crown than preserve it by deceit_.\"[4]\n\nA glorious and true character! which (since we suffer his ministers with\nimpunity to answer for his ideas of taxation) we ought to make it our\nbusiness to enable his Majesty to preserve in all its lustre. Let him\nhave character, since ours is no more! Let some part of government be\nkept in respect!\n\nThis epistle was not the letter of Lord Hillsborough solely, though he\nheld the official pen. It was the letter of the noble lord upon the\nfloor,[5] and of all the king's then ministers, who (with, I think, the\nexception of two only) are his ministers at this hour. The very first\nnews that a British Parliament heard of what it was to do with the\nduties which it had given and granted to the king was by the publication\nof the votes of American assemblies. It was in America that your\nresolutions were pre-declared. It was from thence that we knew to a\ncertainty how much exactly, and not a scruple more nor less, we were to\nrepeal. We were unworthy to be let into the secret of our own conduct.\nThe assemblies had _confidential_ communications from his Majesty's\n_confidential_ servants. We were nothing but instruments. Do you, after\nthis, wonder that you have no weight and no respect in the colonies?\nAfter this are you surprised that Parliament is every day and everywhere\nlosing (I feel it with sorrow, I utter it with reluctance) that\nreverential affection which so endearing a name of authority ought ever\nto carry with it? that you are obeyed solely from respect to the\nbayonet? and that this House, the ground and pillar of freedom, is\nitself held up only by the treacherous underpinning and clumsy\nbuttresses of arbitrary power?\n\nIf this dignity, which is to stand in the place of just policy and\ncommon sense, had been consulted, there was a time for preserving it,\nand for reconciling it with any concession. If in the session of 1768,\nthat session of idle terror and empty menaces, you had, as you were\noften pressed to do, repealed these taxes, then your strong operations\nwould have come justified and enforced, in case your concessions had\nbeen returned by outrages. But, preposterously, you began with violence;\nand before terrors could have any effect, either good or bad, your\nministers immediately begged pardon, and promised that repeal to the\nobstinate Americans which they had refused in an easy, good-natured,\ncomplying British Parliament. The assemblies, which had been publicly\nand avowedly dissolved for _their_ contumacy, are called together to\nreceive _your_ submission. Your ministerial directors blustered like\ntragic tyrants here; and then went mumping with a sore leg in America,\ncanting, and whining, and complaining of faction, which represented them\nas friends to a revenue from the colonies. I hope nobody in this House\nwill hereafter have the impudence to defend American taxes in the name\nof ministry. The moment they do, with this letter of attorney in my\nhand, I will tell them, in the authorized terms, they are wretches \"with\nfactious and seditious views,\" \"enemies to the peace and prosperity of\nthe mother country and the colonies,\" and subverters \"of the mutual\naffection and confidence on which the glory and safety of the British\nempire depend.\"\n\nAfter this letter, the question is no more on propriety or dignity. They\nare gone already. The faith of your sovereign is pledged for the\npolitical principle. The general declaration in the letter goes to the\nwhole of it. You must therefore either abandon the scheme of taxing, or\nyou must send the ministers tarred and feathered to America, who dared\nto hold out the royal faith for a renunciation of all taxes for revenue.\nThem you must punish, or this faith you must preserve. The preservation\nof this faith is of more consequence than the duties on _red lead_, or\n_white lead_, or on broken _glass_, or _atlas-ordinary_, or _demy-fine_,\nor _blue-royal_, or _bastard_, or _fools cap_, which you have given up,\nor the three-pence on tea which you retained. The letter went stamped\nwith the public authority of this kingdom. The instructions for the\ncolony government go under no other sanction; and America cannot\nbelieve, and will not obey you, if you do not preserve this channel of\ncommunication sacred. You are now punishing the colonies for acting on\ndistinctions held out by that very ministry which is here shining in\nriches, in favor, and in power, and urging the punishment of the very\noffence to which they had themselves been the tempters.\n\nSir, if reasons respecting simply your own commerce, which is your own\nconvenience, were the sole grounds of the repeal of the five duties, why\ndoes Lord Hillsborough, in disclaiming in the name of the king and\nministry their ever having had an intent to tax for revenue, mention it\nas the means \"of reestablishing the confidence and affection of the\ncolonies?\" Is it a way of soothing _others_, to assure them that you\nwill take good care of _yourself_? The medium, the only medium, for\nregaining their affection and confidence is that you will take off\nsomething oppressive to their minds. Sir, the letter strongly enforces\nthat idea: for though the repeal of the taxes is promised on commercial\nprinciples, yet the means of counteracting the \"insinuations of men with\nfactious and seditious views\" is by a disclaimer of the intention of\ntaxing for revenue, as a constant, invariable sentiment and rule of\nconduct in the government of America.\n\nI remember that the noble lord on the floor, not in a former debate to\nbe sure, (it would be disorderly to refer to it, I suppose I read it\nsomewhere,) but the noble lord was pleased to say, that he did not\nconceive how it could enter into the head of man to impose such taxes as\nthose of 1767: I mean those taxes which he voted for imposing, and voted\nfor repealing,--as being taxes, contrary to all the principles of\ncommerce, laid on _British manufactures_.\n\nI dare say the noble lord is perfectly well read, because the duty of\nhis particular office requires he should be so, in all our revenue laws,\nand in the policy which is to be collected out of them. Now, Sir, when\nhe had read this act of American revenue, and a little recovered from\nhis astonishment, I suppose he made one step retrograde (it is but one)\nand looked at the act which stands just before in the statute-book. The\nAmerican revenue act is the forty-fifth chapter; the other to which I\nrefer is the forty-fourth of the same session. These two acts are both\nto the same purpose: both revenue acts; both taxing out of the kingdom;\nand both taxing British manufactures exported. As the forty-fifth is an\nact for raising a revenue in America, the forty-fourth is an act for\nraising a revenue in the Isle of Man. The two acts perfectly agree in\nall respects, except one. In the act for taxing the Isle of Man the\nnoble lord will find, not, as in the American act, four or fire\narticles, but almost the _whole body_ of British manufactures, taxed\nfrom two and a half to fifteen per cent, and some articles, such as that\nof spirits, a great deal higher. You did not think it uncommercial to\ntax the whole mass of your manufactures, and, let me add, your\nagriculture too; for, I now recollect, British corn is there also taxed\nup to ten per cent, and this too in the very head-quarters, the very\ncitadel of smuggling, the Isle of Man. Now will the noble lord\ncondescend to tell me why he repealed the taxes on your manufactures\nsent out to America, and not the taxes on the manufactures exported to\nthe Isle of Man? The principle was exactly the same, the objects charged\ninfinitely more extensive, the duties without comparison higher. Why?\nWhy, notwithstanding all his childish pretexts, because the taxes were\nquietly submitted to in the Isle of Man, and because they raised a flame\nin America. Your reasons were political, not commercial. The repeal was\nmade, as Lord Hillsborough's letter well expresses it, to regain \"the\nconfidence and affection of the colonies, on which the glory and safety\nof the British empire depend.\" A wise and just motive, surely, if ever\nthere was such. But the mischief and dishonor is, that you have not done\nwhat you had given the colonies just cause to expect, when your\nministers disclaimed the idea of taxes for a revenue. There is nothing\nsimple, nothing manly, nothing ingenuous, open, decisive, or steady, in\nthe proceeding, with regard either to the continuance or the repeal of\nthe taxes. The whole has an air of littleness and fraud. The article of\ntea is slurred over in the circular letter, as it were by accident:\nnothing is said of a resolution either to keep that tax or to give it\nup. There is no fair dealing in any part of the transaction.\n\nIf you mean to follow your true motive and your public faith, give up\nyour tax on tea for raising a revenue, the principle of which has, in\neffect, been disclaimed in your name, and which produces you no\nadvantage,--no, not a penny. Or, if you choose to go on with a poor\npretence instead of a solid reason, and will still adhere to your cant\nof commerce, you have ten thousand times more strong commercial reasons\nfor giving up this duty on tea than for abandoning the five others that\nyou have already renounced.\n\nThe American consumption of teas is annually, I believe, worth 300,000_l._\nat the least farthing. If you urge the American violence as a\njustification of your perseverance in enforcing this tax, you know that\nyou can never answer this plain question,--Why did you repeal the others\ngiven in the same act, whilst the very same violence subsisted?--But you\ndid not find the violence cease upon that concession.--No! because the\nconcession was far short of satisfying the principle which Lord\nHillsborough had abjured, or even the pretence on which the repeal of\nthe other taxes was announced; and because, by enabling the East India\nCompany to open a shop for defeating the American resolution not to pay\nthat specific tax, you manifestly showed a hankering after the principle\nof the act which you formerly had renounced. Whatever road you take\nleads to a compliance with this motion. It opens to you at the end of\nevery visto. Your commerce, your policy, your promises, your reasons,\nyour pretences, your consistency, your inconsistency,--all jointly\noblige you to this repeal.\n\nBut still it sticks in our throats, if we go so far, the Americans will\ngo farther.--We do not know that. We ought, from experience, rather to\npresume the contrary. Do we not know for certain, that the Americans are\ngoing on as fast as possible, whilst we refuse to gratify them? Can they\ndo more, or can they do worse, if we yield this point? I think this\nconcession will rather fix a turnpike to prevent their further\nprogress. It is impossible to answer for bodies of men. But I am sure\nthe natural effect of fidelity, clemency, kindness in governors is\npeace, good-will, order, and esteem, on the part of the governed. I\nwould certainly, at least, give these fair principles a fair trial;\nwhich, since the making of this act to this hour, they never have had.\n\nSir, the honorable gentleman having spoken what he thought necessary\nupon the narrow part of the subject, I have given him, I hope, a\nsatisfactory answer. He next presses me, by a variety of direct\nchallenges and oblique reflections, to say something on the historical\npart. I shall therefore, Sir, open myself fully on that important and\ndelicate subject: not for the sake of telling you a long story, (which,\nI know, Mr. Speaker, you are not particularly fond of,) but for the sake\nof the weighty instruction that, I flatter myself, will necessarily\nresult from it. It shall not be longer, if I can help it, than so\nserious a matter requires.\n\nPermit me then, Sir, to lead your attention very far back,--back to the\nAct of Navigation, the cornerstone of the policy of this country with\nregard to its colonies. Sir, that policy was, from the beginning, purely\ncommercial; and the commercial system was wholly restrictive. It was the\nsystem of a monopoly. No trade was let loose from that constraint, but\nmerely to enable the colonists to dispose of what, in the course of your\ntrade, you could not take,--or to enable them to dispose of such\narticles as we forced upon them, and for which, without some degree of\nliberty, they could not pay. Hence all your specific and detailed\nenumerations; hence the innumerable checks and counterchecks; hence that\ninfinite variety of paper chains by which you bind together this\ncomplicated system of the colonies. This principle of commercial\nmonopoly runs through no less than twenty-nine acts of Parliament, from\nthe year 1660 to the unfortunate period of 1764.\n\nIn all those acts the system of commerce is established as that from\nwhence alone you proposed to make the colonies contribute (I mean\ndirectly and by the operation of your superintending legislative power)\nto the strength of the empire. I venture to say, that, during that whole\nperiod, a Parliamentary revenue from thence was never once in\ncontemplation. Accordingly, in all the number of laws passed with regard\nto the plantations, the words which distinguish revenue laws\nspecifically as such were, I think, premeditately avoided. I do not say,\nSir, that a form of words alters the nature of the law, or abridges the\npower of the lawgiver. It certainly does not. How ever, titles and\nformal preambles are not always idle words; and the lawyers frequently\nargue from them. I state these facts to show, not what was your right,\nbut what has been your settled policy. Our revenue laws have usually a\n_title_, purporting their being _grants_; and the words \"_give and\ngrant_\" usually precede the enacting parts. Although duties were imposed\non America in acts of King Charles the Second, and in acts of King\nWilliam, no one title of giving \"an aid to his Majesty,\" or any other of\nthe usual titles to revenue acts, was to be found in any of them till\n1764; nor were the words \"give and grant\" in any preamble until the\nsixth of George the Second. However, the title of this act of George the\nSecond, notwithstanding the words of donation, considers it merely as a\nregulation of trade; \"An act for the better securing of the trade of his\nMajesty's sugar colonies in America.\" This act was made on a compromise\nof all, and at the express desire of a part, of the colonies themselves.\nIt was therefore in some measure with their consent; and having a title\ndirectly purporting only a _commercial regulation_, and being in truth\nnothing more, the words were passed by, at a time when no jealousy was\nentertained, and things were little scrutinized. Even Governor Bernard,\nin his second printed letter, dated in 1763, gives it as his opinion,\nthat \"it was an act of _prohibition_, not of revenue.\" This is certainly\ntrue, that no act avowedly for the purpose of revenue, and with the\nordinary title and recital taken together, is found in the statute-book\nuntil the year I have mentioned: that is, the year 1764. All before this\nperiod stood on commercial regulation and restraint. The scheme of a\ncolony revenue by British authority appeared, therefore, to the\nAmericans in the light of a great innovation. The words of Governor\nBernard's ninth letter, written in November, 1765, state this idea very\nstrongly. \"It must,\" says he, \"have been supposed _such an innovation as\na Parliamentary taxation_ would cause a great _alarm_, and meet with\nmuch _opposition_ in most parts of America; it was _quite new_ to the\npeople, and had no _visible bounds_ set to it.\" After stating the\nweakness of government there, he says, \"Was this a time to introduce _so\ngreat a novelty_ as a Parliamentary inland taxation in America?\"\nWhatever the right might have been, this mode of using it was absolutely\nnew in policy and practice.\n\nSir, they who are friends to the schemes of American revenue say, that\nthe commercial restraint is full as hard a law for America to live\nunder. I think so, too. I think it, if uncompensated, to be a condition\nof as rigorous servitude as men can be subject to. But America bore it\nfrom the fundamental Act of Navigation until 1764. Why? Because men do\nbear the inevitable constitution of their original nature with all its\ninfirmities. The Act of Navigation attended the colonies from their\ninfancy, grow with their growth, and strengthened with their strength\nThey were confirmed in obedience to it even more by usage than by law.\nThey scarcely had remembered a time when they were not subject to such\nrestraint. Besides, they were indemnified for it by a pecuniary\ncompensation. Their monopolist happened to be one of the richest men in\nthe world. By his immense capital (primarily employed, not for their\nbenefit, but his own) they were enabled to proceed with their fisheries,\ntheir agriculture, their shipbuilding, (and their trade, too, within the\nlimits,) in such a manner as got far the start of the slow, languid\noperations of unassisted Nature. This capital was a hot-bed to them.\nNothing in the history of mankind is like their progress. For my part, I\nnever cast an eye on their flourishing commerce, and their cultivated\nand commodious life, but they seem to me rather ancient nations grown to\nperfection through a long series of fortunate events, and a train of\nsuccessful industry, accumulating wealth in many centuries, than the\ncolonies of yesterday,--than a set of miserable outcasts a few years\nago, not so much sent as thrown out on the bleak and barren shore of a\ndesolate wilderness three thousand miles from all civilized intercourse.\n\nAll this was done by England whilst England pursued trade and forgot\nrevenue. You not only acquired commerce, but you actually created the\nvery objects of trade in America; and by that creation you raised the\ntrade of this kingdom at least fourfold. America had the compensation of\nyour capital, which made her bear her servitude. She had another\ncompensation, which you are now going to take away from her. She had,\nexcept the commercial restraint, every characteristic mark of a free\npeople in all her internal concerns. She had the image of the British\nConstitution. She had the substance. She was taxed by her own\nrepresentatives. She chose most of her own magistrates. She paid them\nall. She had in effect the sole disposal of her own internal government.\nThis whole state of commercial servitude and civil liberty, taken\ntogether, is certainly not perfect freedom; but comparing it with the\nordinary circumstances of human nature, it was an happy and a liberal\ncondition.\n\nI know, Sir, that great and not unsuccessful pains have been taken to\ninflame our minds by an outcry, in this House, and out of it, that in\nAmerica the Act of Navigation neither is or never was obeyed. But if you\ntake the colonies through, I affirm that its authority never was\ndisputed,--that it was nowhere disputed for any length of time,--and, on\nthe whole, that it was well observed. Wherever the act pressed hard,\nmany individuals, indeed, evaded it. This is nothing. These scattered\nindividuals never denied the law, and never obeyed it. Just as it\nhappens, whenever the laws of trade, whenever the laws of revenue, press\nhard upon the people in England: in that case all your shores are full\nof contraband. Your right to give a monopoly to the East India Company,\nyour right to lay immense duties on French brandy, are not disputed in\nEngland. You do not make this charge on any man. But you know that\nthere is not a creek from Pentland Frith to the Isle of Wight in which\nthey do not smuggle immense quantities of teas, East India goods, and\nbrandies. I take it for granted that the authority of Governor Bernard\nin this point is indisputable. Speaking of these laws, as they regarded\nthat part of America now in so unhappy a condition, he says, \"I believe\nthey are nowhere better supported than in this province: I do not\npretend that it is entirely free from a breach of these laws, but that\nsuch a breach, if discovered, is justly punished.\" What more can you say\nof the obedience to any laws in any country? An obedience to these laws\nformed the acknowledgment, instituted by yourselves, for your\nsuperiority, and was the payment you originally imposed for your\nprotection.\n\nWhether you were right or wrong in establishing the colonies on the\nprinciples of commercial monopoly, rather than on that of revenue, is at\nthis day a problem of mere speculation. You cannot have both by the same\nauthority. To join together the restraints of an universal internal and\nexternal monopoly with an universal internal and external taxation is an\nunnatural union,--perfect, uncompensated slavery. You have long since\ndecided for yourself and them; and you and they have prospered\nexceedingly under that decision.\n\nThis nation, Sir, never thought of departing from that choice until the\nperiod immediately on the close of the last war. Then a scheme of\ngovernment, new in many things, seemed to have been adopted. I saw, or\nthought I saw, several symptoms of a great change, whilst I sat in your\ngallery, a good while before I had the honor of a seat in this House.\nAt that period the necessity was established of keeping up no less than\ntwenty new regiments, with twenty colonels capable of seats in this\nHouse. This scheme was adopted with very general applause from all\nsides, at the very time that, by your conquests in America, your danger\nfrom foreign attempts in that part of the world was much lessened, or\nindeed rather quite over. When this huge increase of military\nestablishment was resolved on, a revenue was to be found to support so\ngreat a burden. Country gentlemen, the great patrons of economy, and the\ngreat resisters of a standing armed force, would not have entered with\nmuch alacrity into the vote for so large and so expensive an army, if\nthey had been very sure that they were to continue to pay for it. But\nhopes of another kind were held out to them; and in particular, I well\nremember that Mr. Townshend, in a brilliant harangue on this subject,\ndid dazzle them by playing before their eyes the image of a revenue to\nbe raised in America.\n\nHere began to dawn the first glimmerings of this new colony system. It\nappeared more distinctly afterwards, when it was devolved upon a person\nto whom, on other accounts, this country owes very great obligations. I\ndo believe that he had a very serious desire to benefit the public. But\nwith no small study of the detail, he did not seem to have his view, at\nleast equally, carried to the total circuit of our affairs. He generally\nconsidered his objects in lights that were rather too detached. Whether\nthe business of an American revenue was imposed upon him\naltogether,--whether it was entirely the result of his own speculation,\nor, what is more probable, that his own ideas rather coincided with the\ninstructions he had received,--certain it is, that, with the best\nintentions in the world, he first brought this fatal scheme into form,\nand established it by Act of Parliament.\n\nNo man can believe, that, at this time of day, I mean to lean on the\nvenerable memory of a great man, whose loss we deplore in common. Our\nlittle party differences have been long ago composed; and I have acted\nmore with him, and certainly with more pleasure with him, than ever I\nacted against him. Undoubtedly Mr. Grenville was a first-rate figure in\nthis country. With a masculine understanding, and a stout and resolute\nheart, he had an application undissipated and unwearied. He took public\nbusiness, not as a duty which he was to fulfil, but as a pleasure he was\nto enjoy; and he seemed to have no delight out of this House, except in\nsuch things as some way related to the business that was to be done\nwithin it. If he was ambitious, I will say this for him, his ambition\nwas of a noble and generous strain. It was to raise himself, not by the\nlow, pimping politics of a court, but to win his way to power through\nthe laborious gradations of public service, and to secure himself a\nwell-earned rank in Parliament by a thorough knowledge of its\nconstitution and a perfect practice in all its business.\n\nSir, if such a man fell into errors, it must be from defects not\nintrinsical; they must be rather sought in the particular habits of his\nlife, which, though they do not alter the groundwork of character, yet\ntinge it with their own hue. He was bred in a profession. He was bred to\nthe law, which is, in my opinion, one of the first and noblest of human\nsciences,--a science which does more to quicken and invigorate the\nunderstanding than all the other kinds of learning put together; but it\nis not apt, except in persons very happily born, to open and to\nliberalize the mind exactly in the same proportion. Passing from that\nstudy, he did not go very largely into the world, but plunged into\nbusiness,--I mean into the business of office, and the limited and fixed\nmethods and forms established there. Much knowledge is to be had,\nundoubtedly, in that line; and there is no knowledge which is not\nvaluable. But it may be truly said, that men too much conversant in\noffice are rarely minds of remarkable enlargement. Their habits of\noffice are apt to give them a turn to think the substance of business\nnot to be much more important than the forms in which it is conducted.\nThese forms are adapted to ordinary occasions; and therefore persons who\nare nurtured in office do admirably well as long as things go on in\ntheir common order; but when the high-roads are broken up, and the\nwaters out, when a new and troubled scene is opened, and the file\naffords no precedent, then it is that a greater knowledge of mankind,\nand a far more extensive comprehension of things is requisite, than ever\noffice gave, or than office can ever give. Mr. Grenville thought better\nof the wisdom and power of human legislation than in truth it deserves.\nHe conceived, and many conceived along with him, that the flourishing\ntrade of this country was greatly owing to law and institution, and not\nquite so much to liberty; for but too many are apt to believe regulation\nto be commerce, and taxes to be revenue. Among regulations, that which\nstood first in reputation was his idol: I mean the Act of Navigation. He\nhas often professed it to be so. The policy of that act is, I readily\nadmit, in many respects well understood. But I do say, that, if the act\nbe suffered to run the full length of its principle, and is not changed\nand modified according to the change of times and the fluctuation of\ncircumstances, it must do great mischief, and frequently even defeat its\nown purpose.\n\nAfter the war, and in the last years of it, the trade of America had\nincreased far beyond the speculations of the most sanguine imaginations.\nIt swelled out on every side. It filled all its proper channels to the\nbrim. It overflowed with a rich redundance, and breaking its banks on\nthe right and on the left, it spread out upon some places where it was\nindeed improper, upon others where it was only irregular. It is the\nnature of all greatness not to be exact; and great trade will always be\nattended with considerable abuses. The contraband will always keep pace\nin some measure with the fair trade. It should stand as a fundamental\nmaxim, that no vulgar precaution ought to be employed in the cure of\nevils which are closely connected with the cause of our prosperity.\nPerhaps this great person turned his eyes somewhat less than was just\ntowards the incredible increase of the fair trade, and looked with\nsomething of too exquisite a jealousy towards the contraband. He\ncertainly felt a singular degree of anxiety on the subject, and even\nbegan to act from that passion earlier than is commonly imagined. For\nwhilst he was First Lord of the Admiralty, though not strictly called\nupon in his official line, he presented a very strong memorial to the\nLords of the Treasury, (my Lord Bute was then at the head of the board,)\nheavily complaining of the growth of the illicit commerce in America.\nSome mischief happened even at that time from this over-earnest zeal.\nMuch greater happened afterwards, when it operated with greater power in\nthe highest department of the finances. The bonds of the Act of\nNavigation were straitened so much that America was on the point of\nhaving no trade, either contraband or legitimate. They found, under the\nconstruction and execution then used, the act no longer tying, but\nactually strangling them. All this coming with new enumerations of\ncommodities, with regulations which in a manner put a stop to the mutual\ncoasting intercourse of the colonies, with the appointment of courts of\nadmiralty under various improper circumstances, with a sudden extinction\nof the paper currencies, with a compulsory provision for the quartering\nof soldiers,--the people of America thought themselves proceeded against\nas delinquents, or, at best, as people under suspicion of delinquency,\nand in such a manner as they imagined their recent services in the war\ndid not at all merit. Any of these innumerable regulations, perhaps,\nwould not have alarmed alone; some might be thought reasonable; the\nmultitude struck them with terror.\n\nBut the grand manoeuvre in that business of new regulating the colonies\nwas the fifteenth act of the fourth of George the Third, which, besides\ncontaining several of the matters to which I have just alluded, opened a\nnew principle. And here properly began the second period of the policy\nof this country with regard to the colonies, by which the scheme of a\nregular plantation Parliamentary revenue was adopted in theory and\nsettled in practice: a revenue not substituted in the place of, but\nsuperadded to, a monopoly; which monopoly was enforced at the same time\nwith additional strictness, and the execution put into military hands.\n\nThis act, Sir, had for the first time the title of \"granting duties in\nthe colonies and plantations of America,\" and for the first time it was\nasserted in the preamble \"that it was _just_ and _necessary_ that a\nrevenue should be raised there\"; then came the technical words of\n\"giving and granting.\" And thus a complete American revenue act was made\nin all the forms, and with a full avowal of the right, equity, policy,\nand even necessity, of taxing the colonies, without any formal consent\nof theirs. There are contained also in the preamble to that act these\nvery remarkable words,--the Commons, &c., \"being desirous to make _some_\nprovision in the _present_ session of Parliament _towards_ raising the\nsaid revenue.\" By these words it appeared to the colonies that this act\nwas but a beginning of sorrows,--that every session was to produce\nsomething of the same kind,--that we were to go on, from day to day, in\ncharging them with such taxes as we pleased, for such a military force\nas we should think proper. Had this plan been pursued, it was evident\nthat the provincial assemblies, in which the Americans felt all their\nportion of importance, and beheld their sole image of freedom, were\n_ipso facto_ annihilated. This ill prospect before them seemed to be\nboundless in extent and endless in duration. Sir, they were not\nmistaken. The ministry valued themselves when this act passed, and when\nthey gave notice of the Stamp Act, that both of the duties came very\nshort of their ideas of American taxation. Great was the applause of\nthis measure here. In England we cried out for new taxes on America,\nwhilst they cried out that they were nearly crushed with those which\nthe war and their own grants had brought upon them.\n\nSir, it has been said in the debate, that, when the first American\nrevenue act (the act in 1764, imposing the port-duties) passed, the\nAmericans did not object to the principle. It is true they touched it\nbut very tenderly. It was not a direct attack. They were, it is true, as\nyet novices,--as yet unaccustomed to direct attacks upon any of the\nrights of Parliament. The duties were port-duties, like those they had\nbeen accustomed to bear,--with this difference, that the title was not\nthe same, the preamble not the same, and the spirit altogether unlike.\nBut of what service is this observation to the cause of those that make\nit? It is a full refutation of the pretence for their present cruelty to\nAmerica; for it shows, out of their own mouths, that our colonies were\nbackward to enter into the present vexatious and ruinous controversy.\n\nThere is also another circulation abroad, (spread with a malignant\nintention, which I cannot attribute to those who say the same thing in\nthis House,) that Mr. Grenville gave the colony agents an option for\ntheir assemblies to tax themselves, which they had refused. I find that\nmuch stress is laid on this, as a fact. However, it happens neither to\nbe true nor possible. I will observe, first, that Mr. Grenville never\nthought fit to make this apology for himself in the innumerable debates\nthat were had upon the subject. He might have proposed to the colony\nagents, that they should agree in some mode of taxation as the ground of\nan act of Parliament. But he never could have proposed that they should\ntax themselves on requisition, which is, the assertion of the day.\nIndeed, Mr. Grenville well knew that the colony agents could have no\ngeneral powers to consent to it; and they had no time to consult their\nassemblies for particular powers, before he passed his first revenue\nact. If you compare dates, you will find it impossible. Burdened as the\nagents knew the colonies were at that time, they could not give the\nleast hope of such grants. His own favorite governor was of opinion that\nthe Americans were not then taxable objects.\n\n\"Nor was the time less favorable to the _equity_ of such a taxation. I\ndon't mean to dispute the reasonableness of America contributing to the\ncharges of Great Britain, _when she is able_; nor, I believe, would the\nAmericans themselves have disputed it at a _proper time and season_. But\nit should be considered, that the American governments themselves have,\nin the prosecution of the late war, contracted very large debts, which\nit will take some years to pay off, and in the mean time occasion very\n_burdensome taxes for that purpose_ only. For instance, this government,\nwhich is as much beforehand as any, raises every year 37,500_l._\nsterling for sinking their debt, and must continue it for four years\nlonger at least before it will be clear.\"\n\nThese are the words of Governor Bernard's letter to a member of the old\nministry, and which he has since printed.\n\nMr. Grenville could not have made this proposition to the agents for\nanother reason. He was of opinion, which he has declared in this House\nan hundred times, that the colonies could not legally grant any revenue\nto the crown, and that infinite mischiefs would be the consequence of\nsuch a power. When Mr. Grenville had passed the first revenue act, and\nin the same session had made this House come to a resolution for laying\na stamp-duty on America, between that time and the passing the Stamp Act\ninto a law he told a considerable and most respectable merchant, a\nmember of this House, whom I am truly sorry I do not now see in his\nplace, when he represented against this proceeding, that, if the\nstamp-duty was disliked, he was willing to exchange it for any other\nequally productive,--but that, if he objected to the Americans being\ntaxed by Parliament, he might save himself the trouble of the\ndiscussion, as he was determined on the measure. This is the fact, and,\nif you please, I will mention a very unquestionable authority for it.\n\nThus, Sir, I have disposed of this falsehood. But falsehood has a\nperennial spring. It is said that no conjecture could be made of the\ndislike of the colonies to the principle. This is as untrue as the\nother. After the resolution of the House, and before the passing of the\nStamp Act, the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New York did send\nremonstrances objecting to this mode of Parliamentary taxation. What was\nthe consequence? They were suppressed, they were put under the table,\nnotwithstanding an order of Council to the contrary, by the ministry\nwhich composed the very Council that had made the order; and thus the\nHouse proceeded to its business of taxing without the least regular\nknowledge of the objections which were made to it. But to give that\nHouse its due, it was not over-desirous to receive information or to\nhear remonstrance. On the 15th of February, 1765, whilst the Stamp Act\nwas under deliberation, they refused with scorn even so much as to\nreceive four petitions presented from so respectable colonies as\nConnecticut, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Carolina, besides one from the\ntraders of Jamaica. As to the colonies, they had no alternative left to\nthem but to disobey, or to pay the taxes imposed by that Parliament,\nwhich was not suffered, or did not suffer itself, even to hear them\nremonstrate upon the subject.\n\nThis was the state of the colonies before his Majesty thought fit to\nchange his ministers. It stands upon no authority of mine. It is proved\nby uncontrovertible records. The honorable gentleman has desired some of\nus to lay our hands upon our hearts and answer to his queries upon the\nhistorical part of this consideration, and by his manner (as well as my\neyes could discern it) he seemed to address himself to me.\n\nSir, I will answer him as clearly as I am able, and with great openness:\nI have nothing to conceal. In the year sixty-five, being in a very\nprivate station, far enough from any line of business, and not having\nthe honor of a seat in this House, it was my fortune, unknowing and\nunknown to the then ministry, by the intervention of a common friend, to\nbecome connected with a very noble person, and at the head of the\nTreasury Department. It was, indeed, in a situation of little rank and\nno consequence, suitable to the mediocrity of my talents and\npretensions,--but a situation near enough to enable me to see, as well\nas others, what was going on; and I did see in that noble person such\nsound principles, such an enlargement of mind, such clear and sagacious\nsense, and such unshaken fortitude, as have bound me, as well as others\nmuch better than me, by an inviolable attachment to him from that time\nforward. Sir, Lord Rockingham very early in that summer received a\nstrong representation from many weighty English merchants and\nmanufacturers, from governors of provinces and commanders of men-of-war,\nagainst almost the whole of the American commercial regulations,--and\nparticularly with regard to the total ruin which was threatened to the\nSpanish trade. I believe, Sir, the noble lord soon saw his way in this\nbusiness. But he did not rashly determine against acts which it might be\nsupposed were the result of much deliberation. However, Sir, he scarcely\nbegan to open the ground, when the whole veteran body of office took the\nalarm. A violent outcry of all (except those who knew and felt the\nmischief) was raised against any alteration. On one hand, his attempt\nwas a direct violation of treaties and public law; on the other, the Act\nof Navigation and all the corps of trade-laws were drawn up in array\nagainst it.\n\nThe first step the noble lord took was, to have the opinion of his\nexcellent, learned, and ever-lamented friend, the late Mr. Yorke, then\nAttorney-General, on the point of law. When he knew that formally and\nofficially which in substance he had known before, he immediately\ndispatched orders to redress the grievance. But I will say it for the\nthen minister, he is of that constitution of mind, that I know he would\nhave issued, on the same critical occasion, the very same orders, if the\nacts of trade had been, as they were not, directly against him, and\nwould have cheerfully submitted to the equity of Parliament for his\nindemnity.\n\nOn the conclusion of this business of the Spanish trade, the news of the\ntroubles on account of the Stamp Act arrived in England. It was not\nuntil the end of October that these accounts were received. No sooner\nhad the sound of that mighty tempest reached us in England, than the\nwhole of the then opposition, instead of feeling humbled by the unhappy\nissue of their measures, seemed to be infinitely elated, and cried out,\nthat the ministry, from envy to the glory of their predecessors, were\nprepared to repeal the Stamp Act. Near nine years after, the honorable\ngentleman takes quite opposite ground, and now challenges me to put my\nhand to my heart and say whether the ministry had resolved on the repeal\ntill a considerable time after the meeting of Parliament. Though I do\nnot very well know what the honorable gentleman wishes to infer from the\nadmission or from the denial of this fact on which he so earnestly\nadjures me, I do put my hand on my heart and assure him that they did\n_not_ come to a resolution directly to repeal. They weighed this matter\nas its difficulty and importance required. They considered maturely\namong themselves. They consulted with all who could give advice or\ninformation. It was not determined until a little before the meeting of\nParliament; but it was determined, and the main lines of their own plan\nmarked out, before that meeting. Two questions arose. (I hope I am not\ngoing into a narrative troublesome to the House.)\n\n[A cry of \"Go on, go on!\"]\n\nThe first of the two considerations was, whether the repeal should be\ntotal, or whether only partial,--taking out everything burdensome and\nproductive, and reserving only an empty acknowledgment, such as a stamp\non cards or dice. The other question was, on what principle the act\nshould be repealed. On this head also two principles were started. One,\nthat the legislative rights of this country with regard to America were\nnot entire, but had certain restrictions and limitations. The other\nprinciple was, that taxes of this kind were contrary to the fundamental\nprinciples of commerce on which the colonies were founded, and contrary\nto every idea of political equity,--by which equity we are bound as much\nas possible to extend the spirit and benefit of the British Constitution\nto every part of the British dominions. The option, both of the measure\nand of the principle of repeal, was made before the session; and I\nwonder how any one can read the king's speech at the opening of that\nsession, without seeing in that speech both the repeal and the\nDeclaratory Act very sufficiently crayoned out. Those who cannot see\nthis can see nothing.\n\nSurely the honorable gentleman will not think that a great deal less\ntime than was then employed ought to have been spent in deliberation,\nwhen he considers that the news of the troubles did not arrive till\ntowards the end of October. The Parliament sat to fill the vacancies on\nthe 14th day of December, and on business the 14th of the following\nJanuary.\n\nSir, a partial repeal, or, as the _bon-ton_ of the court then was, a\n_modification_, would have satisfied a timid, unsystematic,\nprocrastinating ministry, as such a measure has since done such a\nministry. A modification is the constant resource of weak, undeciding\nminds. To repeal by a denial of our right to tax in the preamble (and\nthis, too, did not want advisers) would have cut, in the heroic style,\nthe Gordian knot with a sword. Either measure would have cost no more\nthan a day's debate. But when the total repeal was adopted, and adopted\non principles of policy, of equity, and of commerce, this plan made it\nnecessary to enter into many and difficult measures. It became necessary\nto open a very largo field of evidence commensurate to these extensive\nviews. But then this labor did knights' service. It opened the eyes of\nseveral to the true state of the American affairs; it enlarged their\nideas; it removed prejudices; and it conciliated the opinions and\naffections of men. The noble lord who then took the lead in\nadministration, my honorable friend[6] under me, and a right honorable\ngentleman[7] (if he will not reject his share, and it was a large one,\nof this business) exerted the most laudable industry in bringing before\nyou the fullest, most impartial, and least garbled body of evidence that\never was produced to this House. I think the inquiry lasted in the\ncommittee for six weeks; and at its conclusion, this House, by an\nindependent, noble, spirited, and unexpected majority, by a majority\nthat will redeem all the acts ever done by majorities in Parliament, in\nthe teeth of all the old mercenary Swiss of state, in despite of all the\nspeculators and augurs of political events, in defiance of the whole\nembattled legion of veteran pensioners and practised instruments of a\ncourt, gave a total repeal to the Stamp Act, and (if it had been so\npermitted) a lasting peace to this whole empire.\n\nI state, Sir, these particulars, because this act of spirit and\nfortitude has lately been, in the circulation of the season, and in some\nhazarded declamations in this House, attributed to timidity. If, Sir,\nthe conduct of ministry, in proposing the repeal, had arisen from\ntimidity with regard to themselves, it would have been greatly to be\ncondemned. Interested timidity disgraces as much in the cabinet as\npersonal timidity does in the field. But timidity with regard to the\nwell-being of our country is heroic virtue. The noble lord who then\nconducted affairs, and his worthy colleagues, whilst they trembled at\nthe prospect of such distresses as you have since brought upon\nyourselves, were not afraid steadily to look in the face that glaring\nand dazzling influence at which the eyes of eagles have blenched. He\nlooked in the face one of the ablest, and, let me say, not the most\nscrupulous oppositions, that perhaps ever was in this House; and\nwithstood it, unaided by even one of the usual supports of\nadministration. He did this, when he repealed the Stamp Act. He looked\nin the face a person he had long respected and regarded, and whose aid\nwas then particularly wanting: I mean Lord Chatham. He did this when he\npassed the Declaratory Act.\n\nIt is now given out, for the usual purposes, by the usual emissaries,\nthat Lord Rockingham did not consent to the repeal of this act until he\nwas bullied into it by Lord Chatham; and the reporters have gone so far\nas publicly to assert, in an hundred companies, that the honorable\ngentleman under the gallery,[8] who proposed the repeal in the American\ncommittee, had another set of resolutions in his pocket, directly the\nreverse of those he moved. These artifices of a desperate cause are at\nthis time spread abroad, with incredible care, in every part of the\ntown, from the highest to the lowest companies; as if the industry of\nthe circulation were to make amends for the absurdity of the report.\n\nSir, whether the noble lord is of a complexion to be bullied by Lord\nChatham, or by any man, I must submit to those who know him. I confess,\nwhen I look back to that time, I consider him as placed in one of the\nmost trying situations in which, perhaps, any man ever stood. In the\nHouse of Peers there were very few of the ministry, out of the noble\nlord's own particular connection, (except Lord Egmont, who acted, as\nfar as I could discern, an honorable and manly part,) that did not look\nto some other future arrangement, which warped his politics. There were\nin both Houses new and menacing appearances, that might very naturally\ndrive any other than a most resolute minister from his measure or from\nhis station. The household troops openly revolted. The allies of\nministry (those, I mean, who supported some of their measures, but\nrefused responsibility for any) endeavored to undermine their credit,\nand to take ground that must be fatal to the success of the very cause\nwhich they would be thought to countenance. The question of the repeal\nwas brought on by ministry in the committee of this House in the very\ninstant when it was known that more than one court negotiation was\ncarrying on with the heads of the opposition. Everything, upon every\nside, was full of traps and mines. Earth below shook; heaven above\nmenaced; all the elements of ministerial safety were dissolved. It was\nin the midst of this chaos of plots and counterplots, it was in the\nmidst of this complicated warfare against public opposition and private\ntreachery, that the firmness of that noble person was put to the proof.\nHe never stirred from his ground: no, not an inch. He remained fixed and\ndetermined, in principle, in measure, and in conduct. He practised no\nmanagements. He secured no retreat. He sought no apology.\n\nI will likewise do justice--I ought to do it--to the honorable gentleman\nwho led us in this House.[9] Far from the duplicity wickedly charged on\nhim, he acted his part with alacrity and resolution. We all felt\ninspired by the example he gave us, down even to myself, the weakest in\nthat phalanx. I declare for one, I knew well enough (it could not be\nconcealed from anybody) the true state of things; but, in my life, I\nnever came with so much spirits into this House. It was a time for a\n_man_ to act in. We had powerful enemies; but we had faithful and\ndetermined friends, and a glorious cause. We had a great battle to\nfight; but we had the means of fighting: not as now, when our arms are\ntied behind us. We did fight that day, and conquer.\n\nI remember, Sir, with a melancholy pleasure, the situation of the\nhonorable gentleman[10] who made the motion for the repeal: in that\ncrisis, when the whole trading interest of this empire, crammed into\nyour lobbies, with a trembling and anxious expectation, waited, almost\nto a winter's return of light, their fate from your resolutions. When at\nlength you had determined in their favor, and your doors thrown open\nshowed them the figure of their deliverer in the well-earned triumph of\nhis important victory, from the whole of that grave multitude there\narose an involuntary burst of gratitude and transport. They jumped upon\nhim like children on a long absent father. They clung about him as\ncaptives about their redeemer. All England, all America, joined in his\napplause. Nor did he seem insensible to the best of all earthly rewards,\nthe love and admiration of his fellow-citizens. _Hope elevated and joy\nbrightened his crest_. I stood near him; and his face, to use the\nexpression of the Scripture of the first martyr, \"his face was as if it\nhad been the face of an angel.\" I do not know how others feel; but if I\nhad stood in that situation, I never would have exchanged it for all\nthat kings in their profusion could bestow. I did hope that that day's\ndanger and honor would have been a bond to hold us all together forever.\nBut, alas! that, with other pleasing visions, is long since vanished.\n\nSir, this act of supreme magnanimity has been represented as if it had\nbeen a measure of an administration that, having no scheme of their own,\ntook a middle line, pilfered a bit from one side and a bit from the\nother. Sir, they took _no_ middle lines. They differed fundamentally\nfrom the schemes of both parties; but they preserved the objects of\nboth. They preserved the authority of Great Britain; they preserved the\nequity of Great Britain. They made the Declaratory Act; they repealed\nthe Stamp Act. They did both _fully_: because the Declaratory Act was\n_without qualification_; and the repeal of the Stamp Act _total_. This\nthey did in the situation I have described.\n\nNow, Sir, what will the adversary say to both these acts? If the\nprinciple of the Declaratory Act was not good, the principle we are\ncontending for this day is monstrous. If the principle of the repeal was\nnot good, why are we not at war for a real, substantial, effective\nrevenue? If both were bad, why has this ministry incurred all the\ninconveniences of both and of all schemes? why have they enacted,\nrepealed, enforced, yielded, and now attempt to enforce again?\n\nSir, I think I may as well now as at any other time speak to a certain\nmatter of fact not wholly unrelated to the question under your\nconsideration. We, who would persuade you to revert to the ancient\npolicy of this kingdom, labor under the effect of this short current\nphrase, which the court leaders have given out to all their corps, in\norder to take away the credit of those who would prevent you from that\nfrantic war you are going to wage upon your colonies. Their cant is\nthis: \"All the disturbances in America have been created by the repeal\nof the Stamp Act.\" I suppress for a moment my indignation at the\nfalsehood, baseness, and absurdity of this most audacious assertion.\nInstead of remarking on the motives and character of those who have\nissued it for circulation, I will clearly lay before you the state of\nAmerica, antecedently to that repeal, after the repeal, and since the\nrenewal of the schemes of American taxation.\n\nIt is said, that the disturbances, if there were any before the repeal,\nwere slight, and without difficulty or inconvenience might have been\nsuppressed. For an answer to this assertion I will send you to the great\nauthor and patron of the Stamp Act, who, certainly meaning well to the\nauthority of this country, and fully apprised of the state of that,\nmade, before a repeal was so much as agitated in this House, the motion\nwhich is on your journals, and which, to save the clerk the trouble of\nturning to it, I will now read to you. It was for an amendment to the\naddress of the 17th of December, 1765.\n\n\"To express our just resentment and indignation at the _outrageous\ntumults and insurrections_ which have been excited and carried on in\nNorth America, and at the resistance given, by _open_ and _rebellious_\nforce, to the execution of the laws in that part of his Majesty's\ndominions; to assure his Majesty, that his faithful Commons, animated\nwith the warmest duty and attachment to his royal person and\ngovernment, ... will firmly and effectually support his Majesty in all\nsuch measures as shall be necessary for preserving and securing the\nlegal dependence of the colonies upon this their mother country,\" &c.,\n&c.\n\nHere was certainly a disturbance preceding the repeal,--such a\ndisturbance as Mr. Grenville thought necessary to qualify by the name of\nan _insurrection_, and the epithet of a _rebellious_ force: terms much\nstronger than any by which those who then supported his motion have ever\nsince thought proper to distinguish the subsequent disturbances in\nAmerica. They were disturbances which seemed to him and his friends to\njustify as strong a promise of support as hath been usual to give in the\nbeginning of a war with the most powerful and declared enemies. When the\naccounts of the American governors came before the House, they appeared\nstronger even than the warmth of public imagination had painted them: so\nmuch stronger, that the papers on your table bear me out in saying that\nall the late disturbances, which have been at one time the minister's\nmotives for the repeal of five out of six of the new court taxes, and\nare now his pretences for refusing to repeal that sixth, did not\namount--why do I compare them?--no, not to a tenth part of the tumults\nand violence which prevailed long before the repeal of that act.\n\nMinistry cannot refuse the authority of the commander-in-chief, General\nGage, who, in his letter of the 4th of November, from New York, thus\nrepresents the state of things:--\n\n\"It is difficult to say, from the _highest to the lowest_, who has not\nbeen _accessory_ to this _insurrection_, either by writing, or _mutual\nagreements_ to oppose the act, by what they are pleased to term all\nlegal opposition to it. Nothing effectual has been proposed, either to\nprevent or quell the tumult. _The rest of the provinces are in the same\nsituation_, as to a positive refusal to take the stamps, and threatening\nthose who shall take them _to plunder and murder them_; and this affair\nstands _in all the provinces_, that, unless the act from its own nature\nenforce itself, nothing but a _very_ considerable military force can do\nit.\"\n\nIt is remarkable, Sir, that the persons who formerly trumpeted forth the\nmost loudly the violent resolutions of assemblies, the universal\ninsurrections, the seizing and burning the stamped papers, the forcing\nstamp officers to resign their commissions under the gallows, the\nrifling and pulling down of the houses of magistrates, and the expulsion\nfrom their country of all who dared to write or speak a single word in\ndefence of the powers of Parliament,--these very trumpeters are now the\nmen that represent the whole as a mere trifle, and choose to date all\nthe disturbances from the repeal of the Stamp Act, which put an end to\nthem. Hear your officers abroad, and let them refute this shameless\nfalsehood, who, in all their correspondence, state the disturbances as\nowing to their true causes, the discontent of the people from the taxes.\nYou have this evidence in your own archives; and it will give you\ncomplete satisfaction, if you are not so far lost to all Parliamentary\nideas of information as rather to credit the lie of the day than the\nrecords of your own House.\n\nSir, this vermin of court reporters, when they are forced into day upon\none point, are sure to burrow in another: but they shall have no refuge;\nI will make them bolt out of all their holes. Conscious that they must\nbe baffled, when they attribute a precedent disturbance to a subsequent\nmeasure, they take other ground, almost as absurd, but very common in\nmodern practice, and very wicked; which is, to attribute the ill effect\nof ill-judged conduct to the arguments which had been used to dissuade\nus from it. They say, that the opposition made in Parliament to the\nStamp Act, at the time of its passing, encouraged the Americans to their\nresistance. This has even formally appeared in print in a regular volume\nfrom an advocate of that faction,--a Dr. Tucker. This Dr. Tucker is\nalready a dean, and his earnest labors in this vineyard will, I suppose,\nraise him to a bishopric. But this assertion, too, just like the rest,\nis false. In all the papers which have loaded your table, in all the\nvast crowd of verbal witnesses that appeared at your bar, witnesses\nwhich were indiscriminately produced from both sides of the House, not\nthe least hint of such a cause of disturbance has ever appeared. As to\nthe fact of a strenuous opposition to the Stamp Act, I sat as a stranger\nin your gallery when the act was under consideration. Far from anything\ninflammatory, I never heard a more languid debate in this House. No more\nthan two or three gentlemen, as I remember, spoke against the act, and\nthat with great reserve and remarkable temper. There was but one\ndivision in the whole progress of the bill; and the minority did not\nreach to more than 39 or 40. In the House of Lords I do not recollect\nthat there was any debate or division at all. I am sure there was no\nprotest. In fact, the affair passed with so very, very little noise,\nthat in town they scarcely knew the nature of what you were doing. The\nopposition to the bill in England never could have done this mischief,\nbecause there scarcely ever was less of opposition to a bill of\nconsequence.\n\nSir, the agents and distributors of falsehoods have, with their usual\nindustry, circulated another lie, of the same nature with the former. It\nis this: that the disturbances arose from the account which had been\nreceived in America of the change in the ministry. No longer awed, it\nseems, with the spirit of the former rulers, they thought themselves a\nmatch for what our calumniators choose to qualify by the name of so\nfeeble a ministry as succeeded. Feeble in one sense these men certainly\nmay be called: for, with all their efforts, and they have made many,\nthey have not been able to resist the distempered vigor and insane\nalacrity with which you are rushing to your ruin. But it does so happen,\nthat the falsity of this circulation is (like the rest) demonstrated by\nindisputable dates and records.\n\nSo little was the change known in America, that the letters of your\ngovernors, giving an account of these disturbances long after they had\narrived at their highest pitch, were all directed to the _old ministry_,\nand particularly to the _Earl of Halifax_, the Secretary of State\ncorresponding with the colonies, without once in the smallest degree\nintimating the slightest suspicion of any ministerial revolution\nwhatsoever. The ministry was not changed in England until the 10th day\nof July, 1765. On the 14th of the preceding June, Governor Fauquier,\nfrom Virginia, writes thus,--and writes thus to the Earl of\nHalifax:--\"Government is set at _defiance_, not having strength enough\nin her hands to enforce obedience to the laws of the community.--The\nprivate distress, which every man feels, increases the _general\ndissatisfaction_ at the duties laid by the _Stamp Act_, which breaks out\nand shows itself upon every trifling occasion.\" The general\ndissatisfaction had produced some time before, that is, on the 29th of\nMay, several strong public resolves against the Stamp Act; and those\nresolves are assigned by Governor Bernard as the cause of the\n_insurrections_ in Massachusetts Bay, in his letter of the 15th of\nAugust, still addressed to the Earl of Halifax; and he continued to\naddress such accounts to that minister quite to the 7th of September of\nthe same year. Similar accounts, and of as late a date, were sent from\nother governors, and all directed to Lord Halifax. Not one of these\nletters indicates the slightest idea of a change, either known or even\napprehended.\n\nThus are blown away the insect race of courtly falsehoods! Thus perish\nthe miserable inventions of the wretched runners for a wretched cause,\nwhich they have fly-blown into every weak and rotten part of the\ncountry, in vain hopes, that, when their maggots had taken wing, their\nimportunate buzzing might sound something like the public voice!\n\nSir, I have troubled you sufficiently with the state of America before\nthe repeal. Now I turn to the honorable gentleman who so stoutly\nchallenges us to tell whether, after the repeal, the provinces were\nquiet. This is coming home to the point. Here I meet him directly, and\nanswer most readily, _They were quiet_. And I, in my turn, challenge him\nto prove when, and where, and by whom, and in what numbers, and with\nwhat violence, the other laws of trade, as gentlemen assert, were\nviolated in consequence of your concession, or that even your other\nrevenue laws were attacked. But I quit the vantage-ground on which I\nstand, and where I might leave the burden of the proof upon him: I walk\ndown upon the open plain, and undertake to show that they were not only\nquiet, but showed many unequivocal marks of acknowledgment and\ngratitude. And to give him every advantage, I select the obnoxious\ncolony of Massachusetts Bay, which at this time (but without hearing\nher) is so heavily a culprit before Parliament: I will select their\nproceedings even under circumstances of no small irritation. For, a\nlittle imprudently, I must say, Governor Bernard mixed in the\nadministration of the lenitive of the repeal no small acrimony arising\nfrom matters of a separate nature. Yet see, Sir, the effect of that\nlenitive, though mixed with these bitter ingredients,--and how this\nrugged people can express themselves on a measure of concession.\n\n\"If it is not now in our power,\" (say they, in their address to Governor\nBernard,) \"in so full a manner as will be expected, to show our\nrespectful gratitude to the mother country, or to make a dutiful,\naffectionate return to the indulgence of the King and Parliament, it\nshall be no fault of ours; for this we intend, and hope shall be able\nfully to effect.\"\n\nWould to God that this temper had been cultivated, managed, and set in\naction! Other effects than those which we have since felt would have\nresulted from it. On the requisition for compensation to those who had\nsuffered from the violence of the populace, in the same address they\nsay,--\"The recommendation enjoined by Mr. Secretary Conway's letter, and\nin consequence thereof made to us, we shall embrace the first convenient\nopportunity to consider and act upon.\" They did consider; they did act\nupon it. They obeyed the requisition. I know the mode has been chicaned\nupon; but it was substantially obeyed, and much better obeyed than I\nfear the Parliamentary requisition of this session will be, though\nenforced by all your rigor and backed with all your power. In a word,\nthe damages of popular fury were compensated by legislative gravity.\nAlmost every other part of America in various ways demonstrated their\ngratitude. I am bold to say, that so sudden a calm recovered after so\nviolent a storm is without parallel in history. To say that no other\ndisturbance should happen from any other cause is folly. But as far as\nappearances went, by the judicious sacrifice of one law you procured an\nacquiescence in all that remained. After this experience, nobody shall\npersuade me, when an whole people are concerned, that acts of lenity are\nnot means of conciliation.\n\nI hope the honorable gentleman has received a fair and full answer to\nhis question.\n\nI have done with the third period of your policy,--that of your repeal,\nand the return of your ancient system, and your ancient tranquillity and\nconcord. Sir, this period was not as long as it was happy. Another scene\nwas opened, and other actors appeared on the stage. The state, in the\ncondition I have described it, was delivered into the hands of Lord\nChatham, a great and celebrated name,--a name that keeps the name of\nthis country respectable in every other on the globe. It may be truly\ncalled\n\n            Clarum et venerabile nomen\n    Gentibus, et multum nostrae quod proderat urbi.\n\n\nSir, the venerable age of this great man, his merited rank, his superior\neloquence, his splendid qualities, his eminent services, the vast space\nhe fills in the eye of mankind, and, more than all the rest, his fall\nfrom power, which, like death, canonizes and sanctifies a great\ncharacter, will not suffer me to censure any part of his conduct. I am\nafraid to flatter him; I am sure I am not disposed to blame him. Let\nthose who have betrayed him by their adulation insult him with their\nmalevolence. But what I do not presume to censure I may have leave to\nlament. For a wise man, he seemed to me at that time to be governed too\nmuch by general maxims. I speak with the freedom of history, and I hope\nwithout offence. One or two of these maxims, flowing from an opinion not\nthe most indulgent to our unhappy species, and surely a little too\ngeneral, led him into measures that were greatly mischievous to himself,\nand for that reason, among others, perhaps fatal to his\ncountry,--measures, the effects of which, I am afraid, are forever\nincurable. He made an administration so checkered and speckled, he put\ntogether a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically\ndovetailed, a cabinet so variously inlaid, such a piece of diversified\nmosaic, such a tessellated pavement without cement,--here a bit of black\nstone and there a bit of white, patriots and courtiers, king's friends\nand republicans, Whigs and Tories, treacherous friends and open\nenemies,--that it was, indeed, a very curious show, but utterly unsafe\nto touch and unsure to stand on. The colleagues whom he had assorted at\nthe same boards stared at each other, and were obliged to ask,--\"Sir,\nyour name?\"--\"Sir, you have the advantage of me.\"--\"Mr. Such-a-one.\"--\"I\nbeg a thousand pardons.\"--I venture to say, it did so happen that\npersons had a single office divided between them, who had never spoke\nto each other in their lives, until they found themselves, they knew not\nhow, pigging together, heads and points, in the same truckle-bed.[11]\n\nSir, in consequence of this arrangement, having put so much the larger\npart of his enemies and opposers into power, the confusion was such that\nhis own principles could not possibly have any effect or influence in\nthe conduct of affairs. If over he fell into a fit of the gout, or if\nany other cause withdrew him from public cares, principles directly the\ncontrary were sure to predominate. When he had executed his plan, he had\nnot an inch of ground to stand upon. When he had accomplished his scheme\nof administration, he was no longer a minister.\n\nWhen his face was hid but for a moment, his whole system was on a wide\nsea without chart or compass. The gentlemen, his particular friends,\nwho, with the names of various departments of ministry, were admitted to\nseem as if they acted a part under him, with a modesty that becomes all\nmen, and with a confidence in him which was justified even in its\nextravagance by his superior abilities, had never in any instance\npresumed upon any opinion of their own. Deprived of his guiding\ninfluence, they were whirled about, the sport of every gust, and easily\ndriven into any port; and as those who joined with them in manning the\nvessel were the most directly opposite to his opinions, measures, and\ncharacter, and far the most artful and most powerful of the set, they\neasily prevailed, so as to seize upon the vacant, unoccupied, and\nderelict minds of his friends, and instantly they turned the vessel\nwholly out of the course of his policy. As if it were to insult as well\nas to betray him, even long before the close of the first session of his\nadministration, when everything was publicly transacted, and with great\nparade, in his name, they made an act declaring it highly just and\nexpedient to raise a revenue in America. For even then, Sir, even before\nthis splendid orb was entirely set, and while the western horizon was in\na blaze with his descending glory, on the opposite quarter of the\nheavens arose another luminary, and for his hour became lord of the\nascendant.\n\nThis light, too, is passed and set forever. You understand, to be sure,\nthat I speak of Charles Townshend, officially the reproducer of this\nfatal scheme, whom I cannot even now remember without some degree of\nsensibility. In truth, Sir, he was the delight and ornament of this\nHouse, and the charm of every private society which he honored with his\npresence. Perhaps there never arose in this country, nor in any country,\na man of a more pointed and finished wit, and (where his passions were\nnot concerned) of a more refined, exquisite, and penetrating judgment.\nIf he had not so great a stock as some have had, who flourished\nformerly, of knowledge long treasured up, he knew, better by far than\nany man I ever was acquainted with, how to bring together within a short\ntime all that was necessary to establish, to illustrate, and to decorate\nthat side of the question he supported. He stated his matter skilfully\nand powerfully. He particularly excelled in a most luminous explanation\nand display of his subject. His style of argument was neither trite and\nvulgar, nor subtle and abstruse. He hit the House just between wind and\nwater. And not being troubled with too anxious a zeal for any matter in\nquestion, he was never more tedious or more earnest than the\npreconceived opinions and present temper of his hearers required, to\nwhom he was always in perfect unison. He conformed exactly to the temper\nof the House; and he seemed to guide, because he was always sure to\nfollow it.\n\nI beg pardon, Sir, if, when I speak of this and of other great men, I\nappear to digress in saying something of their characters. In this\neventful history of the revolutions of America, the characters of such\nmen are of much importance. Great men are the guideposts and landmarks\nin the state. The credit of such men at court or in the nation is the\nsole cause of all the public measures. It would be an invidious thing\n(most foreign, I trust, to what you think my disposition) to remark the\nerrors into which the authority of great names has brought the nation,\nwithout doing justice at the same time to the great qualities whence\nthat authority arose. The subject is instructive to those who wish to\nform themselves on whatever of excellence has gone before them. There\nare many young members in the House (such of late has been the rapid\nsuccession of public men) who never saw that prodigy, Charles Townshend,\nnor of course know what a ferment he was able to excite in everything by\nthe violent ebullition of his mixed virtues and failings. For failings\nhe had undoubtedly,--many of us remember them; we are this day\nconsidering the effect of them. But he had no failings which were not\nowing to a noble cause,--to an ardent, generous, perhaps an immoderate\npassion for fame: a passion which is the instinct of all great souls. He\nworshipped that goddess, wheresoever she appeared; but he paid his\nparticular devotions to her in her favorite habitation, in her chosen\ntemple, the House of Commons. Besides the characters of the individuals\nthat compose our body, it is impossible, Mr. Speaker, not to observe\nthat this House has a collective character of its own. That character,\ntoo, however imperfect, is not unamiable. Like all great public\ncollections of men, you possess a marked love of virtue and an\nabhorrence of vice. But among vices there is none which the House abhors\nin the same degree with _obstinacy_. Obstinacy, Sir, is certainly a\ngreat vice; and in the changeful state of political affairs it is\nfrequently the cause of great mischief. It happens, however, very\nunfortunately, that almost the whole line of the great and masculine\nvirtues, constancy, gravity, magnanimity, fortitude, fidelity, and\nfirmness, are closely allied to this disagreeable quality, of which you\nhave so just an abhorrence; and, in their excess, all these virtues very\neasily fall into it. He who paid such a punctilious attention to all\nyour feelings certainly took care not to shock them by that vice which\nis the most disgustful to you.\n\nThat fear of displeasing those who ought most to be pleased betrayed him\nsometimes into the other extreme. He had voted, and, in the year 1765,\nhad been an advocate for the Stamp Act. Things and the disposition of\nmen's minds were changed. In short, the Stamp Act began to be no\nfavorite in this House. He therefore attended at the private meeting in\nwhich the resolutions moved by a right honorable gentleman were settled:\nresolutions leading to the repeal. The next day he voted for that\nrepeal; and he would have spoken for it, too, if an illness (not, as was\nthen given out, a political, but, to my knowledge, a very real illness)\nhad not prevented it.\n\nThe very next session, as the fashion of this world passeth away, the\nrepeal began to be in as bad an odor in this House as the Stamp Act had\nbeen in the session before. To conform to the temper which began to\nprevail, and to prevail mostly amongst those most in power, he declared,\nvery early in the winter, that a revenue must be had out of America.\nInstantly he was tied down to his engagements by some, who had no\nobjection to such experiments, when made at the cost of persons for whom\nthey had no particular regard. The whole body of courtiers drove him\nonward. They always talked as if the king stood in a sort of humiliated\nstate, until something of the kind should be done.\n\nHere this extraordinary man, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, found\nhimself in great straits. To please universally was the object of his\nlife; but to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is\nnot given to men. However, he attempted it. To render the tax palatable\nto the partisans of American revenue, he made a preamble stating the\nnecessity of such a revenue. To close with the American distinction,\nthis revenue was _external_ or port-duty; but again, to soften it to the\nother party, it was a duty of _supply_. To gratify the _colonists_, it\nwas laid on British manufactures; to satisfy the _merchants of Britain_,\nthe duty was trivial, and (except that on tea, which touched only the\ndevoted East India Company) on none of the grand objects of commerce. To\ncounterwork the American contraband, the duty on tea was reduced from a\nshilling to three-pence; but to secure the favor of those who would tax\nAmerica, the scene of collection was changed, and, with the rest, it\nwas levied in the colonies. What need I say more? This fine-spun scheme\nhad the usual fate of all exquisite policy. But the original plan of the\nduties, and the mode of executing that plan, both arose singly and\nsolely from a love of our applause. He was truly the child of the House.\nHe never thought, did, or said anything, but with a view to you. He\nevery day adapted himself to your disposition, and adjusted himself\nbefore it as at a looking-glass.\n\nHe had observed (indeed, it could not escape him) that several persons,\ninfinitely his inferiors in all respects, had formerly rendered\nthemselves considerable in this House by one method alone. They were a\nrace of men (I hope in God the species is extinct) who, when they rose\nin their place, no man living could divine, from any known adherence to\nparties, to opinions, or to principles, from any order or system in\ntheir politics, or from any sequel or connection in their ideas, what\npart they were going to take in any debate. It is astonishing how much\nthis uncertainty, especially at critical times, called the attention of\nall parties on such men. All eyes were fixed on them, all ears open to\nhear them; each party gaped, and looked alternately for their vote,\nalmost to the end of their speeches. While the House hung in this\nuncertainty, now the _hear-hims_ rose from this side, now they\nrebellowed from the other; and that party to whom they fell at length\nfrom their tremulous and dancing balance always received them in a\ntempest of applause. The fortune of such men was a temptation too great\nto be resisted by one to whom a single whiff of incense withheld gave\nmuch greater pain than he received delight in the clouds of it which\ndaily rose about him from the prodigal superstition of innumerable\nadmirers. He was a candidate for contradictory honors; and his great aim\nwas, to make those agree in admiration of him who never agreed in\nanything else.\n\nHence arose this unfortunate act, the subject of this day's debate: from\na disposition which, after making an American revenue to please one,\nrepealed it to please others, and again revived it in hopes of pleasing\na third, and of catching something in the ideas of all.\n\nThis revenue act of 1767 formed the fourth period of American policy.\nHow we have fared since then: what woful variety of schemes have been\nadopted; what enforcing, and what repealing; what bullying, and what\nsubmitting; what doing, and undoing; what straining, and what relaxing;\nwhat assemblies dissolved for not obeying, and called again without\nobedience; what troops sent out to quell resistance, and, on meeting\nthat resistance, recalled; what shiftings, and changes, and jumblings of\nall kinds of men at home, which left no possibility of order,\nconsistency, vigor, or even so much as a decent unity of color, in\nanyone public measure--It is a tedious, irksome task. My duty may call\nme to open it out some other time; on a former occasion[12] I tried your\ntemper on a part of it; for the present I shall forbear.\n\nAfter all these changes and agitations, your immediate situation upon\nthe question on your paper is at length brought to this. You have an act\nof Parliament stating that \"it is _expedient_ to raise a revenue in\nAmerica.\" By a partial repeal you annihilated the greatest part of that\nrevenue which this preamble declares to be so expedient. You have\nsubstituted no other in the place of it. A Secretary of State has\ndisclaimed, in the king's name, all thoughts of such a substitution in\nfuture. The principle of this disclaimer goes to what has been left, as\nwell as what has been repealed. The tax which lingers after its\ncompanions (under a preamble declaring an American revenue expedient,\nand for the sole purpose of supporting the theory of that preamble)\nmilitates with the assurance authentically conveyed to the colonies, and\nis an exhaustless source of jealousy and animosity. On this state, which\nI take to be a fair one,--not being able to discern any grounds of\nhonor, advantage, peace, or power, for adhering, either to the act or to\nthe preamble, I shall vote for the question which leads to the repeal of\nboth.\n\nIf you do not fall in with this motion, then secure something to fight\nfor, consistent in theory and valuable in practice. If you must employ\nyour strength, employ it to uphold you in some honorable right or some\nprofitable wrong. If you are apprehensive that the concession\nrecommended to you, though proper, should be a means of drawing on you\nfurther, but unreasonable claims,--why, then employ your force in\nsupporting that reasonable concession against those unreasonable\ndemands. You will employ it with more grace, with better effect, and\nwith great probable concurrence of all the quiet and rational people in\nthe provinces, who are now united with and hurried away by the\nviolent,--having, indeed, different dispositions, but a common interest.\nIf you apprehend that on a concession you shall be pushed by\nmetaphysical process to the extreme lines, and argued out of your whole\nauthority, my advice is this: when you have recovered your old, your\nstrong, your tenable position, then face about,--stop short,--do nothing\nmore,--reason not at all,--oppose the ancient policy and practice of the\nempire as a rampart against the speculations of innovators on both sides\nof the question,--and you will stand on great, manly, and sure ground.\nOn this solid basis fix your machines, and they will draw worlds towards\nyou.\n\nTour ministers, in their own and his Majesty's name, have already\nadopted the American distinction of internal and external duties. It is\na distinction, whatever merit it may have, that was originally moved by\nthe Americans themselves; and I think they will acquiesce in it, if they\nare not pushed with too much logic and too little sense, in all the\nconsequences: that is, if external taxation be understood, as they and\nyou understand it, when you please, to be not a distinction of\ngeography, but of policy; that it is a power for regulating trade, and\nnot for supporting establishments. The distinction, which is as nothing\nwith regard to right, is of most weighty consideration in practice.\nRecover your old ground, and your old tranquillity; try it; I am\npersuaded the Americans will compromise with you. When confidence is\nonce restored, the odious and suspicious _summum jus_ will perish of\ncourse. The spirit of practicability, of moderation, and mutual\nconvenience will never call in geometrical exactness as the arbitrator\nof an amicable settlement. Consult and follow your experience. Let not\nthe long story with which I have exercised your patience prove fruitless\nto your interests.\n\nFor my part, I should choose (if I could have my wish) that the\nproposition of the honorable gentleman[13] for the repeal could go to\nAmerica without the attendance of the penal bills. Alone I could almost\nanswer for its success. I cannot be certain of its reception in the bad\ncompany it may keep. In such heterogeneous assortments, the most\ninnocent person will lose the effect of his innocency. Though you should\nsend out this angel of peace, yet you are sending out a destroying angel\ntoo; and what would be the effect of the conflict of these two adverse\nspirits, or which would predominate in the end, is what I dare not say:\nwhether the lenient measures would cause American passion to subside, or\nthe severe would increase its fury,--all this is in the hand of\nProvidence. Yet now, even now, I should confide in the prevailing virtue\nand efficacious operation of lenity, though working in darkness and in\nchaos, in the midst of all this unnatural and turbid combination: I\nshould hope it might produce order and beauty in the end.\n\nLet us, Sir, embrace some system or other before we end this session. Do\nyou mean to tax America, and to draw a productive revenue from thence?\nIf you do, speak out: name, fix, ascertain this revenue; settle its\nquantity; define its objects; provide for its collection; and then\nfight, when you have something to fight for. If you murder, rob; if you\nkill, take possession; and do not appear in the character of madmen as\nwell as assassins, violent, vindictive, bloody, and tyrannical, without\nan object. But may better counsels guide you!\n\nAgain, and again, revert to your old principles,--seek peace and ensue\nit,--leave America, if she has taxable matter in her, to tax herself. I\nam not here going into the distinctions of rights, nor attempting to\nmark their boundaries. I do not enter into these metaphysical\ndistinctions; I hate the very sound of them. Leave the Americans as they\nanciently stood, and these distinctions, born of our unhappy contest,\nwill die along with it. They and we, and their and our ancestors, have\nbeen happy under that system. Let the memory of all actions in\ncontradiction to that good old mode, on both sides, be extinguished\nforever. Be content to bind America by laws of trade: you have always\ndone it. Let this be your reason for binding their trade. Do not burden\nthem by taxes: you were not used to do so from the beginning. Let this\nbe your reason for not taxing. These are the arguments of states and\nkingdoms. Leave the rest to the schools; for there only they may be\ndiscussed with safety. But if, intemperately, unwisely, fatally, you\nsophisticate and poison the very source of government, by urging subtle\ndeductions, and consequences odious to those you govern, from the\nunlimited and illimitable nature of supreme sovereignty, you will teach\nthem by these means to call that sovereignty itself in question. When\nyou drive him hard, the boar will surely turn upon the hunters. If that\nsovereignty and their freedom cannot be reconciled, which will they\ntake? They will cast your sovereignty in your face. Nobody will be\nargued into slavery. Sir, let the gentlemen on the other side call forth\nall their ability; let the best of them get up and tell me what one\ncharacter of liberty the Americans have, and what one brand of slavery\nthey are free from, if they are bound in their property and industry by\nall the restraints you can imagine on commerce, and at the same time are\nmade pack-horses of every tax you choose to impose, without the least\nshare in granting them. When they bear the burdens of unlimited\nmonopoly, will you bring them to bear the burdens of unlimited revenue\ntoo? The Englishman in America will feel that this is slavery: that it\nis _legal_ slavery will be no compensation either to his feelings or his\nunderstanding.\n\nA noble lord,[14] who spoke some time ago, is full of the fire of\ningenuous youth; and when he has modelled the ideas of a lively\nimagination by further experience, he will be an ornament to his country\nin either House. He has said that the Americans are our children, and\nhow can they revolt against their parent? He says, that, if they are not\nfree in their present state, England is not free; because Manchester,\nand other considerable places, are not represented. So, then, because\nsome towns in England are not represented, America is to have no\nrepresentative at all. They are \"our children\"; but when children ask\nfor bread, we are not to give a stone. Is it because the natural\nresistance of things, and the various mutations of time, hinders our\ngovernment, or any scheme of government, from being any more than a sort\nof approximation to the right, is it therefore that the colonies are to\nrecede from it infinitely? When this child of ours wishes to assimilate\nto its parent, and to reflect with a true filial resemblance the\nbeauteous countenance of British liberty, are we to turn to them the\nshameful parts of our constitution? are we to give them our weakness for\ntheir strength, our opprobrium for their glory, and the slough of\nslavery, which we are not able to work off, to serve them for their\nfreedom?\n\nIf this be the case, ask yourselves this question: Will they be content\nin such a state of slavery? If not, look to the consequences. Reflect\nhow you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free, and\nthink they are not. Your scheme yields no revenue; it yields nothing but\ndiscontent, disorder, disobedience: and such is the state of America,\nthat, after wading up to your eyes in blood, you could only end just\nwhere you begun,--that is, to tax where no revenue is to be found, to\n---- My voice fails me: my inclination, indeed, carries me no further;\nall is confusion beyond it.\n\nWell, Sir, I have recovered a little, and before I sit down I must say\nsomething to another point with which gentlemen urge us. What is to\nbecome of the Declaratory Act, asserting the entireness of British\nlegislative authority, if we abandon the practice of taxation?\n\nFor my part, I look upon the rights stated in that act exactly in the\nmanner in which I viewed them on its very first proposition, and which I\nhave often taken the liberty, with great humility, to lay before you. I\nlook, I say, on the imperial rights of Great Britain, and the privileges\nwhich the colonists ought to enjoy under these rights, to be just the\nmost reconcilable things in the world. The Parliament of Great Britain\nsits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities. One as the\nlocal legislature of this island, providing for all things at home,\nimmediately, and by no other instrument than the executive power. The\nother, and I think her nobler capacity, is what I call her _imperial\ncharacter_; in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends all\nthe several inferior legislatures, and guides and controls them all\nwithout annihilating any. As all these provincial legislatures are only\ncooerdinate to each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her; else\nthey can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual justice, nor\neffectually afford mutual assistance. It is necessary to coerce the\nnegligent, to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak and deficient,\nby the overruling plenitude of her power. She is never to intrude into\nthe place of the others, whilst they are equal to the common ends of\ntheir institution. But in order to enable Parliament to answer all these\nends of provident and beneficent superintendence, her powers must be\nboundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited may\nplease themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions\nare not obeyed? What! shall there be no reserved power in the empire, to\nsupply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole?\nWe are engaged in war,--the Secretary of State calls upon the colonies\nto contribute,--some would do it, I think most would cheerfully furnish\nwhatever is demanded,--one or two, suppose, hang back, and, easing\nthemselves, let the stress of the draft lie on the others,--surely it is\nproper that some authority might legally say, \"Tax yourselves for the\ncommon Supply, or Parliament will do it for you.\" This backwardness was,\nas I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania for some short time\ntowards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internal\ndissensions in that colony. But whether the fact were so or otherwise,\nthe case is equally to be provided for by a competent sovereign power.\nBut then this ought to be no ordinary power, nor ever used in the first\ninstance. This is what I meant, when I have said, at various times,\nthat I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an instrument of\nempire, and not as a means of supply.\n\nSuch, Sir, is my idea of the Constitution of the British Empire, as\ndistinguished from the Constitution of Britain; and on these grounds I\nthink subordination and liberty may be sufficiently reconciled through\nthe whole,--whether to serve a refining speculatist or a factious\ndemagogue I know not, but enough surely for the ease and happiness of\nman.\n\nSir, whilst we hold this happy course, we drew more from the colonies\nthan all the impotent violence of despotism ever could extort from them.\nWe did this abundantly in the last war; it has never been once denied;\nand what reason have we to imagine that the colonies would not have\nproceeded in supplying government as liberally, if you had not stepped\nin and hindered them from contributing, by interrupting the channel in\nwhich their liberality flowed with so strong a course,--by attempting to\ntake, instead of being satisfied to receive? Sir William Temple says,\nthat Holland has loaded itself with ten times the impositions which it\nrevolted from Spain rather than submit to. He says true. Tyranny is a\npoor provider. It knows neither how to accumulate nor how to extract.\n\nI charge, therefore, to this new and unfortunate system the loss not\nonly of peace, of union, and of commerce, but even of revenue, which its\nfriends are contending for. It is morally certain that we have lost at\nleast a million of free grants since the peace. I think we have lost a\ngreat deal more; and that those who look for a revenue from the\nprovinces never could have pursued, even in that light, a course more\ndirectly repugnant to their purposes.\n\nNow, Sir, I trust I have shown, first on that narrow ground which the\nhonorable gentleman measured, that you are like to lose nothing by\ncomplying with the motion, except what you have lost already. I have\nshown afterwards, that in time of peace you flourished in commerce, and,\nwhen war required it, had sufficient aid from the colonies, while you\npursued your ancient policy; that you threw everything into confusion,\nwhen you made the Stamp Act; and that you restored everything to peace\nand order, when you repealed it. I have shown that the revival of the\nsystem of taxation has produced the very worst effects; and that the\npartial repeal has produced, not partial good, but universal evil. Let\nthese considerations, founded on facts, not one of which can be denied,\nbring us back to our reason by the road of our experience.\n\nI cannot, as I have said, answer for mixed measures: but surely this\nmixture of lenity would give the whole a better chance of success. When\nyou once regain confidence, the way will be clear before you. Then you\nmay enforce the Act of Navigation, when it ought to be enforced. You\nwill yourselves open it, where it ought still further to be opened.\nProceed in what you do, whatever you do, from policy, and not from\nrancor. Let us act like men, let us act like statesmen. Let us hold some\nsort of consistent conduct. It is agreed that a revenue is not to be had\nin America. If we lose the profit, let us get rid of the odium.\n\nOn this business of America, I confess I am serious, even to sadness. I\nhave had but one opinion concerning it, since I sat, and before I sat in\nParliament. The noble lord[15] will, as usual, probably, attribute the\npart taken by me and my friends in this business to a desire of getting\nhis places. Let him enjoy this happy and original idea. If I deprived\nhim of it, I should take away most of his wit, and all his argument. But\nI had rather bear the brunt of all his wit, and indeed blows much\nheavier, than stand answerable to God for embracing a system that tends\nto the destruction of some of the very best and fairest of His works.\nBut I know the map of England as well as the noble lord, or as any other\nperson; and I know that the way I take is not the road to preferment. My\nexcellent and honorable friend under me on the floor[16] has trod that\nroad with great toil for upwards of twenty years together. He is not yet\narrived at the noble lord's destination. However, the tracks of my\nworthy friend are those I have ever wished to follow; because I know\nthey lead to honor. Long may we tread the same road together, whoever\nmay accompany us, or whoever may laugh at us on our journey! I honestly\nand solemnly declare, I have in all seasons adhered to the system of\n1766 for no other reason than, that I think it laid deep in your truest\ninterests,--and that, by limiting the exercise, it fixes on the firmest\nfoundations a real, consistent, well-grounded authority in Parliament.\nUntil you come back to that system, there will be no peace for England.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Charles Wolfran Cornwall, Esq., lately appointed one of the Lords of\nthe Treasury.\n\n[2] Lord North, then Chancellor of the Exchequer.\n\n[3] Lord Hillsborough's Circular Letter to the Governors of the\nColonies, concerning the repeal of some of the duties laid in the Act of\n1767.\n\n[4] A material point is omitted by Mr. Burke in this speech, viz. _the\nmanner in which the continent received this royal assurance_. The\nassembly of Virginia, in their address in answer to Lord Botetourt's\nspeech, express themselves thus:--\"We will not suffer our present hopes,\narising from the pleasing prospect your Lordship hath so kindly opened\nand displayed to us, to be lashed by the bitter reflection that any\n_future_ administration will entertain a wish to depart from that _plan_\nwhich affords the surest and most permanent foundation of public\ntranquillity and happiness. No, my Lord, we are sure _our most gracious\nsovereign_, under whatever changes may happen in his confidential\nservants, will remain immutable in the ways of truth and justice, and\nthat he is _incapable of deceiving his faithful subjects_; and we esteem\nyour Lordship's information not only as warranted, but even sanctified\n_by the royal word_.\"\n\n[5] Lord North.\n\n[6] Mr. Dowdeswell.\n\n[7] General Conway.\n\n[8] General Conway.\n\n[9] General Conway.\n\n[10] General Conway.\n\n[11] Supposed to allude to the Right Honorable Lord North, and George\nCooke, Esq., who were made joint paymasters in the summer of 1766, on\nthe removal of the Rockingham administration.\n\n[12] Resolutions in May, 1770.\n\n[13] Mr. Fuller.\n\n[14] Lord Carmarthen.\n\n[15] Lord North.\n\n[16] Mr. Dowdeswell\n\n\n\n\nSPEECHES\n\nAT\n\nHIS ARRIVAL AT BRISTOL,\n\nAND AT THE\n\nCONCLUSION OF THE POLL.\n\n\n1774 EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nWe believe there is no need of an apology to the public for offering to\nthem any genuine speeches of Mr. Burke: the two contained in this\npublication undoubtedly are so. The general approbation they met with\n(as we hear) from all parties at Bristol persuades us that a good\nedition of them will not be unacceptable in London; which we own to be\nthe inducement, and we hope is a justification, of our offering it.\n\nWe do not presume to descant on the merit of these speeches; but as it\nis no less new than honorable to find a popular candidate, at a popular\nelection, daring to avow his dissent to certain points that have been\nconsidered as very popular objects, and maintaining himself on the manly\nconfidence of his own opinion, so we must say that it does great credit\nto the people of England, as it proves to the world, that, to insure\ntheir confidence, it is not necessary to flatter them, or to affect a\nsubserviency to their passions or their prejudices.\n\nIt may be necessary to promise, that at the opening of the poll the\ncandidates were Lord Clare, Mr. Brickdale, the two last members, and Mr.\nCruger, a considerable merchant at Bristol. On the second day of the\npoll, Lord Clare declined; and a considerable body of gentlemen, who had\nwished that the city of Bristol should, at this critical season, be\nrepresented by some gentleman of tried abilities and known commercial\nknowledge, immediately put Mr. Burke in nomination. Some of them set off\nexpress for London to apprise that gentleman of this event; but he was\ngone to Malton, in Yorkshire. The spirit and active zeal of these\ngentlemen followed him to Malton. They arrived there just after Mr.\nBurke's election for that place, and invited him to Bristol.\n\nMr. Burke, as he tells us in his first speech, acquainted his\nconstituents with the honorable offer that was made him, and, with their\nconsent, he immediately set off for Bristol, on the Tuesday, at six in\nthe evening; he arrived at Bristol at half past two in the afternoon, on\nThursday, the 13th of October, being the sixth day of the poll.\n\nHe drove directly to the mayor's house, who not being at home, he\nproceeded to the Guildhall, where he ascended the hustings, and having\nsaluted the electors, the sheriffs, and the two candidates, he reposed\nhimself for a few minutes, and then addressed the electors in a speech\nwhich was received with great and universal applause and approbation.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\nAT\n\nHIS ARRIVAL AT BRISTOL.\n\n\nGentlemen,--I am come hither to solicit in person that favor which my\nfriends have hitherto endeavored to procure for me, by the most\nobliging, and to me the most honorable exertions.\n\nI have so high an opinion of the great trust which you have to confer on\nthis occasion, and, by long experience, so just a diffidence in my\nabilities to fill it in a manner adequate even to my own ideas, that I\nshould never have ventured of myself to intrude into that awful\nsituation. But since I am called upon by the desire of several\nrespectable fellow subjects, as I have done at other times, I give up my\nfears to their wishes. Whatever my other deficiencies may be, I do not\nknow what it is to be wanting to my friends.\n\nI am not fond of attempting to raise public expectations by great\npromises. At this time, there is much cause to consider, and very little\nto presume. We seem to be approaching to a great crisis in our affairs,\nwhich calls for the whole wisdom of the wisest among us, without being\nable to assure ourselves that any wisdom can preserve us from many and\ngreat inconveniences. You know I speak of our unhappy contest with\nAmerica. I confess, it is a matter on which I look down as from a\nprecipice. It is difficult in itself, and it is rendered more intricate\nby a great variety of plans of conduct. I do not mean to enter into\nthem. I will not suspect a want of good intention in framing them. But\nhowever pure the intentions of their authors may have been, we all know\nthat the event has been unfortunate. The means of recovering our affairs\nare not obvious. So many great questions of commerce, of finance, of\nconstitution, and of policy are involved in this American deliberation,\nthat I dare engage for nothing, but that I shall give it, without any\npredilection to former opinions, or any sinister bias whatsoever, the\nmost honest and impartial consideration of which I am capable. The\npublic has a full right to it; and this great city, a main pillar in the\ncommercial interest of Great Britain, must totter on its base by the\nslightest mistake with regard to our American measures.\n\nThus much, however, I think it not amiss to lay before you,--that I am\nnot, I hope, apt to take up or lay down my opinions lightly. I have\nheld, and ever shall maintain, to the best of my power, unimpaired and\nundiminished, the just, wise, and necessary constitutional superiority\nof Great Britain. This is necessary for America as well as for us. I\nnever mean to depart from it. Whatever may be lost by it, I avow it. The\nforfeiture even of your favor, if by such a declaration I could forfeit\nit, though the first object of my ambition, never will make me disguise\nmy sentiments on this subject.\n\nBut--I have ever had a clear opinion, and have ever held a constant\ncorrespondent conduct, that this superiority is consistent with all the\nliberties a sober and spirited American ought to desire. I never mean to\nput any colonist, or any human creature, in a situation not becoming a\nfree man. To reconcile British superiority with American liberty shall\nbe my great object, as far as my little faculties extend. I am far from\nthinking that both, even yet, may not be preserved.\n\nWhen I first devoted myself to the public service, I considered how I\nshould render myself fit for it; and this I did by endeavoring to\ndiscover what it was that gave this country the rank it holds in the\nworld. I found that our prosperity and dignity arose principally, if not\nsolely, from two sources: our Constitution, and commerce. Both these I\nhave spared no study to understand, and no endeavor to support.\n\nThe distinguishing part of our Constitution is its liberty. To preserve\nthat liberty inviolate seems the particular duty and proper trust of a\nmember of the House of Commons. But the liberty, the only liberty, I\nmean is a liberty connected with order: that not only exists along with\norder and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them. It inheres\nin good and steady government, as in its substance and vital principle.\n\nThe other source of our power is commerce, of which you are so large a\npart, and which cannot exist, no more than your liberty, without a\nconnection with many virtues. It has ever been a very particular and a\nvery favorite object of my study, in its principles, and in its details.\nI think many here are acquainted with the truth of what I say. This I\nknow,--that I have ever had my house open, and my poor services ready,\nfor traders and manufacturers of every denomination. My favorite\nambition is, to have those services acknowledged. I now appear before\nyou to make trial, whether my earnest endeavors have been so wholly\noppressed by the weakness of my abilities as to be rendered\ninsignificant in the eyes of a great trading city; or whether you choose\nto give a weight to humble abilities, for the sake of the honest\nexertions with which they are accompanied. This is my trial to-day. My\nindustry is not on trial. Of my industry I am sure, as far as my\nconstitution of mind and body admitted.\n\nWhen I was invited by many respectable merchants, freeholders, and\nfreemen of this city to offer them my services, I had just received the\nhonor of an election at another place, at a very great distance from\nthis. I immediately opened the matter to those of my worthy constituents\nwho were with me, and they unanimously advised me not to decline it.\nThey told me that they had elected me with a view to the public service;\nand as great questions relative to our commerce and colonies were\nimminent that in such matters I might derive authority and support from\nthe representation of this great commercial city: they desired me,\ntherefore, to set off without delay, very well persuaded that I never\ncould forget my obligations to them or to my friends, for the choice\nthey had made of me. From that time to this instant I have not slept;\nand if I should have the honor of being freely chosen by you, I hope I\nshall be as far from slumbering or sleeping, when your service requires\nme to be awake, as I have been in coming to offer myself a candidate for\nyour favor.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\nTO THE\n\nELECTORS OF BRISTOL,\n\nON HIS BEING DECLARED BY THE SHERIFFS DULY ELECTED ONE OF THE\nREPRESENTATIVES IN PARLIAMENT FOR THAT CITY,\n\nON THURSDAY, THE 3D OF NOVEMBER, 1774.\n\n\nGentlemen,--I cannot avoid sympathizing strongly with the feelings of\nthe gentleman who has received the same honor that you have conferred on\nme. If he, who was bred and passed his whole life amongst you,--if he,\nwho, through the easy gradations of acquaintance, friendship, and\nesteem, has obtained the honor which seems of itself, naturally and\nalmost insensibly, to meet with those who, by the even tenor of pleasing\nmanners and social virtues, slide into the love and confidence of their\nfellow-citizens,--if he cannot speak but with great emotion on this\nsubject, surrounded as he is on all sides with his old friends,--you\nwill have the goodness to excuse me, if my real, unaffected\nembarrassment prevents me from expressing my gratitude to you as I\nought.\n\nI was brought hither under the disadvantage of being unknown, even by\nsight, to any of you. No previous canvass was made for me. I was put in\nnomination after the poll was opened. I did not appear until it was far\nadvanced. If, under all these accumulated disadvantages, your good\nopinion has carried me to this happy point of success, you will pardon\nme, if I can only say to you collectively, as I said to you\nindividually, simply and plainly, I thank you,--I am obliged to you,--I\nam not insensible of your kindness.\n\nThis is all that I am able to say for the inestimable favor you have\nconferred upon me. But I cannot be satisfied without saying a little\nmore in defence of the right you have to confer such a favor. The person\nthat appeared here as counsel for the candidate who so long and so\nearnestly solicited your votes thinks proper to deny that a very great\npart of you have any votes to give. He fixes a standard period of time\nin his own imagination, (not what the law defines, but merely what the\nconvenience of his client suggests,) by which he would cut off at one\nstroke all those freedoms which are the dearest privileges of your\ncorporation,--which the Common Law authorizes,--which your magistrates\nare compelled to grant,--which come duly authenticated into this\ncourt,--and are saved in the clearest words, and with the most religious\ncare and tenderness, in that very act of Parliament which was made to\nregulate the elections by freemen, and to prevent all possible abuses in\nmaking them.\n\nI do not intend to argue the matter here. My learned counsel has\nsupported your cause with his usual ability; the worthy sheriffs have\nacted with their usual equity; and I have no doubt that the same equity\nwhich dictates the return will guide the final determination. I had the\nhonor, in conjunction with many far wiser men, to contribute a very\nsmall assistance, but, however, some assistance, to the forming the\njudicature which is to try such questions. It would be unnatural in me\nto doubt the justice of that court, in the trial of my own cause, to\nwhich I have been so active to give jurisdiction over every other.\n\nI assure the worthy freemen, and this corporation, that, if the\ngentleman perseveres in the intentions which his present warmth dictates\nto him, I will attend their cause with diligence, and I hope with\neffect. For, if I know anything of myself, it is not my own interest in\nit, but my full conviction, that induces me to tell you, _I think there\nis not a shadow of doubt in the case_.\n\nI do not imagine that you find me rash in declaring myself, or very\nforward in troubling you. From the beginning to the end of the election,\nI have kept silence in all matters of discussion. I have never asked a\nquestion of a voter on the other side, or supported a doubtful vote on\nmy own. I respected the abilities of my managers; I relied on the candor\nof the court. I think the worthy sheriffs will bear me witness that I\nhave never once made an attempt to impose upon their reason, to surprise\ntheir justice, or to ruffle their temper. I stood on the hustings\n(except when I gave my thanks to those who favored me with their votes)\nless like a candidate than an unconcerned spectator of a public\nproceeding. But here the face of things is altered. Here is an attempt\nfor a general _massacre_ of suffrages,--an attempt, by a promiscuous\ncarnage of _friends_ and _foes_, to exterminate above two thousand\nvotes, including _seven hundred polled for the gentleman himself who now\ncomplains_, and who would destroy the friends whom he has obtained, only\nbecause he cannot obtain as many of them as he wishes.\n\nHow he will be permitted, in another place, to stultify and disable\nhimself, and to plead against his own acts, is another question. The law\nwill decide it. I shall only speak of it as it concerns the propriety of\npublic conduct in this city. I do not pretend to lay down rules of\ndecorum for other gentlemen. They are best judges of the mode of\nproceeding that will recommend them to the favor of their\nfellow-citizens. But I confess I should look rather awkward, if I had\nbeen _the very first to produce the new copies of freedom_,--if I had\npersisted in producing them to the last,--if I had ransacked, with the\nmost unremitting industry and the most penetrating research, the\nremotest corners of the kingdom to discover them,--if I were then, all\nat once, to turn short, and declare that I had been sporting all this\nwhile with the right of election, and that I had been drawing out a\npoll, upon no sort of rational grounds, which disturbed the peace of my\nfellow-citizens for a month together;--I really, for my part, should\nappear awkward under such circumstances.\n\nIt would be still more awkward in me, if I were gravely to look the\nsheriffs in the face, and to tell them they were not to determine my\ncause on my own principles, nor to make the return upon those votes upon\nwhich I had rested my election. Such would be my appearance to the court\nand magistrates.\n\nBut how should I appear to the _voters_ themselves? If I had gone round\nto the citizens entitled to freedom, and squeezed them by the\nhand,--\"Sir, I humbly beg your vote,--I shall be eternally\nthankful,--may I hope for the honor of your support?--Well!--come,--we\nshall see you at the Council-House.\"--If I were then to deliver them to\nmy managers, pack them into tallies, vote them off in court, and when I\nheard from the bar,--\"Such a one only! and such a one forever!--he's my\nman!\"--\"Thank you, good Sir,--Hah! my worthy friend! thank you\nkindly,--that's an honest fellow,--how is your good family?\"--Whilst\nthese words were hardly out of my mouth, if I should have wheeled round\nat once, and told them,--\"Get you gone, you pack of worthless fellows!\nyou have no votes,--you are usurpers! you are intruders on the rights of\nreal freemen! I will have nothing to do with you! you ought never to\nhave been produced at this election, and the sheriffs ought not to have\nadmitted you to poll!\"--\n\nGentlemen, I should make a strange figure, if my conduct had been of\nthis sort. I am not so old an acquaintance of yours as the worthy\ngentleman. Indeed, I could not have ventured on such kind of freedoms\nwith you. But I am bound, and I will endeavor, to have justice done to\nthe rights of freemen,--even though I should at the same time be obliged\nto vindicate the former[17] part of my antagonist's conduct against his\nown present inclinations.\n\nI owe myself, in all things, to _all_ the freemen of this city. My\nparticular friends have a demand on mo that I should not deceive their\nexpectations. Never was cause or man supported with more constancy, more\nactivity, more spirit. I have been supported with a zeal, indeed, and\nheartiness in my friends, which (if their object had been at all\nproportioned to their endeavors) could never be sufficiently commended.\nThey supported me upon the most liberal principles. They wished that the\nmembers for Bristol should be chosen for the city, and for their country\nat large, and not for themselves.\n\nSo far they are not disappointed. If I possess nothing else, I am sure I\npossess the temper that is fit for your service. I know nothing of\nBristol, but by the favors I have received, and the virtues I have seen\nexerted in it.\n\nI shall ever retain, what I now feel, the most perfect and grateful\nattachment to my friends,--and I have no enmities, no resentments. I\nnever can consider fidelity to engagements and constancy in friendships\nbut with the highest approbation, even when those noble qualities are\nemployed against my own pretensions. The gentleman who is not so\nfortunate as I have been in this contest enjoys, in this respect, a\nconsolation full of honor both to himself and to his friends. They have\ncertainly left nothing undone for his service.\n\nAs for the trifling petulance which the rage of party stirs up in little\nminds, though it should show itself even in this court, it has not made\nthe slightest impression on me. The highest flight of such clamorous\nbirds is winged in an inferior region of the air. We hear them, and we\nlook upon them, just as you, Gentlemen, when you enjoy the serene air on\nyour lofty rocks, look down upon the gulls that skim the mud of your\nriver, when it is exhausted of its tide.\n\nI am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched\nupon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a\ntime when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has\nthought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor\nsentiments on that subject.\n\nHe tells you that \"the topic of instructions has occasioned much\naltercation and uneasiness in this city\"; and he expresses himself (if I\nunderstand him rightly) in favor of the coercive authority of such\ninstructions.\n\nCertainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a\nrepresentative to live in the strictest union, the closest\ncorrespondence, and the most unreserved communication with his\nconstituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their\nopinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his\nduty to sacrifice his repose, his _pleasure_, _his satisfactions_, _to\ntheirs_,--and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their\ninterest to his own.\n\nBut his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened\nconscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set\nof men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,--no, nor\nfrom the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for\nthe abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes\nyou, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of\nserving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.\n\nMy worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If\nthat be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will\nupon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But\ngovernment and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not\nof inclination; and what sort of reason is that in which the\ndetermination precedes the discussion, in which one set of men\ndeliberate and another decide, and where those who form the conclusion\nare perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the\narguments?\n\nTo deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a\nweighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to\nrejoice to hear, and which he ought always most seriously to consider.\nBut _authoritative_ instructions, _mandates_ issued, which the member is\nbound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though\ncontrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and\nconscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land,\nand which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor\nof our Constitution.\n\nParliament is not a _congress_ of ambassadors from different and hostile\ninterests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate,\nagainst other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a _deliberative_\nassembly of _one_ nation, with _one_ interest, that of the whole--where\nnot local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the\ngeneral good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose\na member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of\nBristol, but he is a member of _Parliament_. If the local constituent\nshould have an interest or should form an hasty opinion evidently\nopposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for\nthat place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavor to give it\neffect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject; I have been\nunwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness\nof communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I\nshall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. On this\npoint of instructions, however, I think it scarcely possible we ever can\nhave any sort of difference. Perhaps I may give you too much, rather\nthan too little trouble.\n\nFrom the first hour I was encouraged to court your favor, to this happy\nday of obtaining it, I have never promised you anything but humble and\npersevering endeavors to do my duty. The weight of that duty, I confess,\nmakes me tremble; and whoever well considers what it is, of all things\nin the world, will fly from what has the least likeness to a positive\nand precipitate engagement. To be a good member of Parliament is, let me\ntell you, no easy task,--especially at this time, when there is so\nstrong a disposition to run into the perilous extremes of servile\ncompliance or wild popularity. To unite circumspection with vigor is\nabsolutely necessary, but it is extremely difficult. We are now members\nfor a rich commercial _city_; this city, however, is but a part of a\nrich commercial _nation_, the interests of which are various, multiform,\nand intricate. We are members for that great nation, which, however, is\nitself but part of a great _empire_, extended by our virtue and our\nfortune to the farthest limits of the East and of the West. All these\nwide-spread interests must be considered,--must be compared,--must be\nreconciled, if possible. We are members for a _free_ country; and surely\nwe all know that the machine of a free constitution is no simple thing,\nbut as intricate and as delicate as it is valuable. We are members in a\ngreat and ancient _monarchy_; and we must preserve religiously the true,\nlegal rights of the sovereign, which form the keystone that binds\ntogether the noble and well-constructed arch of our empire and our\nConstitution. A constitution made up of balanced powers must ever be a\ncritical thing. As such I mean to touch that part of it which comes\nwithin my reach. I know my inability, and I wish for support from every\nquarter. In particular I shall aim at the friendship, and shall\ncultivate the best correspondence, of the worthy colleague you have\ngiven me.\n\nI trouble you no farther than once more to thank you all: you,\nGentlemen, for your favors; the candidates, for their temperate and\npolite behavior; and the sheriffs, for a conduct which may give a model\nfor all who are in public stations.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[17] Mr. Brickdale opened his poll, it seems, with a tally of those very\nkind of freemen, and voted many hundreds of them.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\nON\n\nMOVING HIS RESOLUTIONS FOR CONCILIATION WITH THE COLONIES.\n\nMARCH 22, 1775.\n\n\n\n\nI hope, Sir, that, notwithstanding the austerity of the Chair, your\ngood-nature will incline you to some degree of indulgence towards human\nfrailty. You will not think it unnatural, that those who have an object\ndepending, which strongly engages their hopes and fears, should be\nsomewhat inclined to superstition. As I came into the House, full of\nanxiety about the event of my motion, I found, to my infinite surprise,\nthat the grand penal bill by which we had passed sentence on the trade\nand sustenance of America is to be returned to us from the other\nHouse.[18] I do confess, I could not help looking on this event as a\nfortunate omen. I look upon it as a sort of Providential favor, by which\nwe are put once more in possession of our deliberative capacity, upon a\nbusiness so very questionable in its nature, so very uncertain in its\nissue. By the return of this bill, which seemed to have taken its flight\nforever, we are at this very instant nearly as free to choose a plan for\nour American government as we were on the first day of the session. If,\nSir, we incline to the side of conciliation, we are not at all\nembarrassed (unless we please to make ourselves so) by any incongruous\nmixture of coercion and restraint. We are therefore called upon, as it\nwere by a superior warning voice, again to attend to America,--to attend\nto the whole of it together,--and to review the subject with an unusual\ndegree of care and calmness.\n\nSurely it is an awful subject,--or there is none so on this side of the\ngrave. When I first had the honor of a seat in this House, the affairs\nof that continent pressed themselves upon us as the most important and\nmost delicate object of Parliamentary attention. My little share in this\ngreat deliberation oppressed me. I found myself a partaker in a very\nhigh trust; and having no sort of reason to rely on the strength of my\nnatural abilities for the proper execution of that trust, I was obliged\nto take more than common pains to instruct myself in everything which\nrelates to our colonies. I was not less under the necessity of forming\nsome fixed ideas concerning the general policy of the British empire.\nSomething of this sort seemed to be indispensable, in order, amidst so\nvast a fluctuation of passions and opinions, to concentre my thoughts,\nto ballast my conduct, to preserve me from being blown about by every\nwind of fashionable doctrine. I really did not think it safe or manly to\nhave fresh principles to seek upon every fresh mail which should arrive\nfrom America.\n\nAt that period I had the fortune to find myself in perfect concurrence\nwith a large majority in this House. Bowing under that high authority,\nand penetrated with the sharpness and strength of that early\nimpression, I have continued ever since, without the least deviation,\nin my original sentiments. Whether this be owing to an obstinate\nperseverance in error, or to a religious adherence to what appears to me\ntruth and reason, it is in your equity to judge.\n\nSir, Parliament, having an enlarged view of objects, made, during this\ninterval, more frequent changes in their sentiments and their conduct\nthan could be justified in a particular person upon the contracted scale\nof private information. But though I do not hazard anything approaching\nto a censure on the motives of former Parliaments to all those\nalterations, one fact is undoubted,--that under them the state of\nAmerica has been kept in continual agitation. Everything administered as\nremedy to the public complaint, if it did not produce, was at least\nfollowed by, an heightening of the distemper, until, by a variety of\nexperiments, that important country has been brought into her present\nsituation,--a situation which I will not miscall, which I dare not name,\nwhich I scarcely know how to comprehend in the terms of any description.\n\nIn this posture, Sir, things stood at the beginning of the session.\nAbout that time, a worthy member,[19] of great Parliamentary experience,\nwho in the year 1766 filled the chair of the American Committee with\nmuch ability, took me aside, and, lamenting the present aspect of our\npolitics, told me, things were come to such a pass that our former\nmethods of proceeding in the House would be no longer tolerated,--that\nthe public tribunal (never too indulgent to a long and unsuccessful\nopposition) would now scrutinize our conduct with unusual\nseverity,--that the very vicissitudes and shiftings of ministerial\nmeasures, instead of convicting their authors of inconstancy and want of\nsystem, would be taken as an occasion of charging us with a\npredetermined discontent which nothing could satisfy, whilst we accused\nevery measure of vigor as cruel and every proposal of lenity as weak and\nirresolute. The public, he said, would not have patience to see us play\nthe game out with our adversaries; we must produce our hand: it would be\nexpected that those who for many years had been active in such affairs\nshould show that they had formed some clear and decided idea of the\nprinciples of colony government, and were capable of drawing out\nsomething like a platform of the ground which might be laid for future\nand permanent tranquillity.\n\nI felt the truth of what my honorable friend represented; but I felt my\nsituation, too. His application might have been made with far greater\npropriety to many other gentlemen. No man was, indeed, ever better\ndisposed, or worse qualified, for such an undertaking, than myself.\nThough I gave so far into his opinion, that I immediately threw my\nthoughts into a sort of Parliamentary form, I was by no means equally\nready to produce them. It generally argues some degree of natural\nimpotence of mind, or some want of knowledge of the world, to hazard\nplans of government, except from a seat of authority. Propositions are\nmade, not only ineffectually, but somewhat disreputably, when the minds\nof men are not properly disposed for their reception; and for my part, I\nam not ambitious of ridicule, not absolutely a candidate for disgrace.\n\nBesides, Sir, to speak the plain truth, I have in general no very\nexalted opinion of the virtue of paper government, nor of any polities\nin which the plan is to be wholly separated from the execution. But when\nI saw that anger and violence prevailed every day more and more, and\nthat things were hastening towards an incurable alienation of our\ncolonies, I confess my caution gave way. I felt this as one of those few\nmoments in which decorum yields to an higher duty. Public calamity is a\nmighty leveller; and there are occasions when any, even the slightest,\nchance of doing good must be laid hold on, even by the most\ninconsiderable person.\n\nTo restore order and repose to an empire so great and so distracted as\nours is, merely in the attempt, an undertaking that would ennoble the\nflights of the highest genius, and obtain pardon for the efforts of the\nmeanest understanding. Struggling a good while with these thoughts, by\ndegrees I felt myself more firm. I derived, at length, some confidence\nfrom what in other circumstances usually produces timidity. I grew less\nanxious, even from the idea of my own insignificance. For, judging of\nwhat you are by what you ought to be, I persuaded myself that you would\nnot reject a reasonable proposition because it had nothing but its\nreason to recommend it. On the other hand, being totally destitute of\nall shadow of influence, natural or adventitious, I was very sure, that,\nif my proposition were futile or dangerous, if it were weakly conceived\nor improperly timed, there was nothing exterior to it of power to awe,\ndazzle, or delude you. You will see it just as it is, and you will treat\nit just as it deserves.\n\nThe proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace\nto be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless\nnegotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from\nprinciple, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the\njuridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking\nthe shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace,\nsought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace\nsought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. I\npropose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the\n_former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country_,\nto give permanent satisfaction to your people,--and (far from a scheme\nof ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act\nand by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to\nBritish government.\n\nMy idea is nothing more. Refined policy ever has been the parent of\nconfusion,--and ever will be so, as long as the world endures. Plain\ngood intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraud\nis surely detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the\ngovernment of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an healing and\ncementing principle. My plan, therefore, being formed upon the most\nsimple grounds imaginable, may disappoint some people, when they hear\nit. It has nothing to recommend it to the pruriency of curious ears.\nThere is nothing at all new and captivating in it. It has nothing of the\nsplendor of the project which has been lately laid upon your table by\nthe noble lord in the blue riband.[20] It does not propose to fill your\nlobby with squabbling colony agents, who will require the interposition\nof your mace at every instant to keep the peace amongst them. It does\nnot institute a magnificent auction of finance, where captivated\nprovinces come to general ransom by bidding against each other, until\nyou knock down the hammer, and determine a proportion of payments beyond\nall the powers of algebra to equalize and settle.\n\nThe plan which I shall presume to suggest derives, however, one great\nadvantage from the proposition and registry of that noble lord's\nproject. The idea of conciliation is admissible. First, the House, in\naccepting the resolution moved by the noble lord, has admitted,\nnotwithstanding the menacing front of our address, notwithstanding our\nheavy bill of pains and penalties, that we do not think ourselves\nprecluded from all ideas of free grace and bounty.\n\nThe House has gone farther: it has declared conciliation admissible\n_previous_ to any submission on the part of America. It has even shot a\ngood deal beyond that mark, and has admitted that the complaints of our\nformer mode of exerting the right of taxation were not wholly unfounded.\nThat right thus exerted is allowed to have had something reprehensible\nin it,--something unwise, or something grievous; since, in the midst of\nour heat and resentment, we, of ourselves, have proposed a capital\nalteration, and, in order to get rid of what seemed so very\nexceptionable, have instituted a mode that is altogether new,--one that\nis, indeed, wholly alien from all the ancient methods and forms of\nParliament.\n\nThe _principle_ of this proceeding is large enough for my purpose. The\nmeans proposed by the noble lord for carrying his ideas into execution,\nI think, indeed, are very indifferently suited to the end; and this I\nshall endeavor to show you before I sit down. But, for the present, I\ntake my ground on the admitted principle. I mean to give peace. Peace\nimplies reconciliation; and where there has been a material dispute,\nreconciliation does in a manner always imply concession on the one part\nor on the other. In this state of things I make no difficulty in\naffirming that the proposal ought to originate from us. Great and\nacknowledged force is not impaired, either in effect or in opinion, by\nan unwillingness to exert itself. The superior power may offer peace\nwith honor and with safety. Such an offer from such a power will be\nattributed to magnanimity. But the concessions of the weak are the\nconcessions of fear. When such a one is disarmed, he is wholly at the\nmercy of his superior; and he loses forever that time and those chances\nwhich, as they happen to all men, are the strength and resources of all\ninferior power.\n\nThe capital leading questions on which you must this day decide are\nthese two: First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what your\nconcession ought to be. On the first of these questions we have gained\n(as I have just taken the liberty of observing to you) some ground. But\nI am sensible that a good deal more is still to be done. Indeed, Sir, to\nenable us to determine both on the one and the other of these great\nquestions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be necessary\nto consider distinctly the true nature and the peculiar circumstances of\nthe object which we have before us: because, after all our struggle,\nwhether we will or not, we must govern America according to that nature\nand to those circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations,\nnot according to abstract ideas of right, by no means according to mere\ngeneral theories of government, the resort to which appears to me, in\nour present situation, no better than arrant trifling. I shall therefore\nendeavor, with your leave, to lay before you some of the most material\nof these circumstances in as full and as clear a manner as I am able to\nstate them.\n\nThe first thing that we have to consider with regard to the nature of\nthe object is the number of people in the colonies. I have taken for\nsome years a good deal of pains on that point. I can by no calculation\njustify myself in placing the number below two millions of inhabitants\nof our own European blood and color,--besides at least 500,000 others,\nwho form no inconsiderable part of the strength and opulence of the\nwhole. This, Sir, is, I believe, about the true number. There is no\noccasion to exaggerate, where plain truth is of so much weight and\nimportance. But whether I put the present numbers too high or too low is\na matter of little moment. Such is the strength with which population\nshoots in that part of the world, that, state the numbers as high as we\nwill, whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration ends. Whilst we are\ndiscussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it. Whilst we spend\nour time in deliberating on the mode of governing two millions, we shall\nfind we have millions more to manage. Your children do not grow faster\nfrom infancy to manhood than they spread from families to communities,\nand from villages to nations.\n\nI put this consideration of the present and the growing numbers in the\nfront of our deliberation, because, Sir, this consideration will make it\nevident to a blunter discernment than yours, that no partial, narrow,\ncontracted, pinched, occasional system will be at all suitable to such\nan object. It will show you that it is not to be considered as one of\nthose _minima_ which are out of the eye and consideration of the\nlaw,--not a paltry excrescence of the state,--not a mean dependant, who\nmay be neglected with little damage and provoked with little danger. It\nwill prove that some degree of care and caution is required in the\nhandling such an object; it will show that you ought not, in reason, to\ntrifle with so large a mass of the interests and feelings of the human\nrace. You could at no time do so without guilt; and be assured you will\nnot be able to do it long with impunity.\n\nBut the population of this country, the great and growing population,\nthough a very important consideration, will lose much of its weight, if\nnot combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your colonies is\nout of all proportion beyond the numbers of the people. This ground of\ntheir commerce, indeed, has been trod some days ago, and with great\nability, by a distinguished person,[21] at your bar. This gentleman,\nafter thirty-five years,--it is so long since he first appeared at the\nsame place to plead for the commerce of Great Britain,--has come again\nbefore you to plead the same cause, without any other effect of time\nthan that to the fire of imagination and extent of erudition, which even\nthen marked him as one of the first literary characters of his age, he\nhas added a consummate knowledge in the commercial interest of his\ncountry, formed by a long course of enlightened and discriminating\nexperience.\n\nSir, I should be inexcusable in coming after such a person with any\ndetail, if a great part of the members who now fill the House had not\nthe misfortune to be absent when he appeared at your bar. Besides, Sir,\nI propose to take the matter at periods of time somewhat different from\nhis. There is, if I mistake not, a point of view from whence, if you\nwill look at this subject, it is impossible that it should not make an\nimpression upon you.\n\nI have in my hand two accounts: one a comparative state of the export\ntrade of England to its colonies, as it stood in the year 1704, and as\nit stood in the year 1772; the other a state of the export trade of this\ncountry to its colonies alone, as it stood in 1772, compared with the\nwhole trade of England to all parts of the world (the colonies included)\nin the year 1704. They are from good vouchers: the latter period from\nthe accounts on your table; the earlier from an original manuscript of\nDavenant, who first established the Inspector-General's office, which\nhas been ever since his time so abundant a source of Parliamentary\ninformation.\n\nThe export trade to the colonies consists of three great branches: the\nAfrican, which, terminating almost wholly in the colonies, must be put\nto the account of their commerce; the West Indian; and the North\nAmerican. All these are so interwoven, that the attempt to separate them\nwould tear to pieces the contexture of the whole, and, if not entirely\ndestroy, would very much depreciate, the value of all the parts. I\ntherefore consider these three denominations to be, what in effect they\nare, one trade.\n\nThe trade to the colonies, taken on the export side, at the beginning of\nthis century, that is, in the year 1704, stood thus:--\n\nExports to North America and the West\nIndies                                  L 483,265\nTo Africa                                  86,665\n                                        ---------\n                                        L 569,930\n\nIn the year 1772, which I take as a middle year between the highest and\nlowest of those lately laid on your table, the account was as follows:--\n\nTo North America and the West Indies  L 4,791,734\nTo Africa                                 866,398\nTo which if you add the export trade\nfrom Scotland, which had in 1704 no\nexistence                                 364,000\n                                       ----------\n                                       L6,024,171\n\nFrom five hundred and odd thousand, it has grown to six millions. It has\nincreased no less than twelve-fold. This is the state of the colony\ntrade, as compared with itself at these two periods, within this\ncentury;--and this is matter for meditation. But this is not all.\nExamine my second account. See how the export trade to the colonies\nalone in 1772 stood in the other point of view, that is, as compared to\nthe whole trade of England in 1704.\n\nThe whole export trade of England, including\nthat to the colonies, in 1704                 L6,509,000\nExport to the colonies alone, in 1772          6,024,000\n                                               ---------\n                              Difference        L485,000\n\nThe trade with America alone is now within less than 500,000_l._ of\nbeing equal to what this great commercial nation, England, carried on at\nthe beginning of this century with the whole world! If I had taken the\nlargest year of those on your table, it would rather have exceeded. But,\nit will be said, is not this American trade an unnatural protuberance,\nthat has drawn the juices from the rest of the body? The reverse. It is\nthe very food that has nourished every other part into its present\nmagnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and augmented\nmore or less in almost every part to which it ever extended, but with\nthis material difference: that of the six millions which in the\nbeginning of the century constituted the whole mass of our export\ncommerce the colony trade was but one twelfth part; it is now (as a part\nof sixteen millions) considerably more than a third of the whole. This\nis the relative proportion of the importance of the colonies at these\ntwo periods: and all reasoning concerning our mode of treating them must\nhave this proportion as its basis, or it is a reasoning weak, rotten,\nand sophistical.\n\nMr. Speaker, I cannot prevail on myself to hurry over this great\nconsideration. It is good for us to be here. We stand where we have an\nimmense view of what is, and what is past. Clouds indeed, and darkness,\nrest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend from this noble\neminence, reflect that this growth of our national prosperity has\nhappened within the short period of the life of man. It has happened\nwithin sixty-eight years. There are those alive whose memory might touch\nthe two extremities. For instance, my Lord Bathurst might remember all\nthe stages of the progress. He was in 1704 of an age at least to be made\nto comprehend such things. He was then old enough _acta parentum jam\nlegere, et quae sit poterit cognoscere virtus_. Suppose, Sir, that the\nangel of this auspicious youth, foreseeing the many virtues which made\nhim one of the most amiable, as he is one of the most fortunate men of\nhis age, had opened to him in vision, that, when, in the fourth\ngeneration, the third prince of the House of Brunswick had sat twelve\nyears on the throne of that nation which (by the happy issue of moderate\nand healing councils) was to be made Great Britain, he should see his\nson, Lord Chancellor of England, turn back the current of hereditary\ndignity to its fountain, and raise him to an higher rank of peerage,\nwhilst he enriched the family with a new one,--if, amidst these bright\nand happy scenes of domestic honor and prosperity, that angel should\nhave drawn up the curtain, and unfolded the rising glories of his\ncountry, and whilst he was gazing with admiration on the then commercial\ngrandeur of England, the genius should point out to him a little speck,\nscarce visible in the mass of the national interest, a small seminal\nprinciple rather than a formed body, and should tell him,--\"Young man,\nthere is America,--which at this day serves for little more than to\namuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners, yet shall,\nbefore you taste of death, show itself equal to the whole of that\ncommerce which now attracts the envy of the world. Whatever England has\nbeen growing to by a progressive increase of improvement, brought in by\nvarieties of people, by succession of civilizing conquests and\ncivilizing settlements in a series of seventeen hundred years, you shall\nsee as much added to her by America in the course of a single life!\" If\nthis state of his country had been foretold to him, would it not require\nall the sanguine credulity of youth, and all the fervid glow of\nenthusiasm, to make him believe it? Fortunate man, he has lived to see\nit! Fortunate indeed, if he lives to see nothing that shall vary the\nprospect, and cloud the setting of his day!\n\nExcuse me, Sir, if, turning from such thoughts, I resume this\ncomparative view once more. You have seen it on a large scale; look at\nit on a small one. I will point out to your attention a particular\ninstance of it in the single province of Pennsylvania. In the year 1704,\nthat province called for 11,459_l._ in value of your commodities,\nnative and foreign. This was the whole. What did it demand in 1772! Why,\nnearly fifty times as much; for in that year the export to Pennsylvania\nwas 507,909_l._, nearly equal to the export to all the colonies\ntogether in the first period.\n\nI choose, Sir, to enter into these minute and particular details;\nbecause generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten and\nraise the subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we speak of the\ncommerce with our colonies, fiction lags after truth, invention is\nunfruitful, and imagination cold and barren.\n\nSo far, Sir, as to the importance of the object in the view of its\ncommerce, as concerned in the exports from England. If I were to detail\nthe imports, I could show how many enjoyments they procure which deceive\nthe burden of life, how many materials which invigorate the springs of\nnational industry and extend and animate every part of our foreign and\ndomestic commerce. This would be a curious subject indeed,--but I must\nprescribe bounds to myself in a matter so vast and various.\n\nI pass, therefore, to the colonies in another point of view,--their\nagriculture. This they have prosecuted with such a spirit, that, besides\nfeeding plentifully their own growing multitude, their annual export of\ngrain, comprehending rice, has some years ago exceeded a million in\nvalue. Of their last harvest, I am persuaded, they will export much\nmore. At the beginning of the century some of these colonies imported\ncorn from the mother country. For some time past the Old World has been\nfed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would have been a\ndesolating famine, if this child of your old age, with a true filial\npiety, with a Roman charity, had not put the full breast of its youthful\nexuberance to the mouth of its exhausted parent.\n\nAs to the wealth which the colonies have drawn from the sea by their\nfisheries, you had all that matter fully opened at your bar. You surely\nthought those acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite your\nenvy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment has been\nexercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised your esteem and\nadmiration. And pray, Sir, what in the world is equal to it? Pass by\nthe other parts, and look at the manner in which the people of New\nEngland have of late carried on the whale-fishery. Whilst we follow them\namong the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating into\nthe deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, whilst\nwe are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that they\nhave pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that they are at\nthe antipodes, and engaged under the frozen serpent of the South.\nFalkland Island, which seemed too remote and romantic an object for the\ngrasp of national ambition, is but a stage and resting-place in the\nprogress of their victorious industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more\ndiscouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the poles. We\nknow, that, whilst some of them draw the line and strike the harpoon on\nthe coast of Africa, others run the longitude, and pursue their gigantic\ngame along the coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by their\nfisheries. No climate that is not witness to their toils. Neither the\nperseverance of Holland, nor the activity of France, nor the dexterous\nand firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever carried this most perilous\nmode of hardy industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by this\nrecent people,--a people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle,\nand not yet hardened into the bone of manhood. When I contemplate these\nthings,--when I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing\nto any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form\nby the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that,\nthrough a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has been\nsuffered to take her own way to perfection,--when I reflect upon these\neffects, when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel all the\npride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human\ncontrivances melt and die away within me,--my rigor relents,--I pardon\nsomething to the spirit of liberty.\n\nI am sensible, Sir, that all which I have asserted in my detail is\nadmitted in the gross, but that quite a different conclusion is drawn\nfrom it. America, gentlemen say, is a noble object,--it is an object\nwell worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the\nbest way of gaining them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to their\nchoice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those who\nunderstand the military art will of course have some predilection for\nit. Those who wield the thunder of the state may have more confidence in\nthe efficacy of arms. But I confess, possibly for want of this\nknowledge, my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than\nof force,--considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument,\nfor preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited\nas this, in a profitable and subordinate connection with us.\n\nFirst, Sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but\n_temporary_. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the\nnecessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed which is\nperpetually to be conquered.\n\nMy next objection is its _uncertainty_. Terror is not always the effect\nof force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you\nare without resource: for, conciliation failing, force remains; but,\nforce failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and\nauthority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged\nas alms by an impoverished and defeated violence.\n\nA further objection to force is, that you _impair the object_ by your\nvery endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing\nwhich you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the\ncontest. Nothing less will content me than _whole America_. I do not\nchoose to consume its strength along with our own; because in all parts\nit is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose to be caught\nby a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still\nless in the midst of it. I may escape, but I can make no insurance\nagainst such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly to break\nthe American spirit; because it is the spirit that has made the country.\n\nLastly, we have no sort of _experience_ in favor of force as an\ninstrument in the rule of our colonies. Their growth and their utility\nhas been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence\nhas been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if\nfeeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt\nto mend it, and our sin far more salutary than our penitence.\n\nThese, Sir, are my reasons for not entertaining that high opinion of\nuntried force by which many gentlemen, for whose sentiments in other\nparticulars I have great respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. But\nthere is still behind a third consideration concerning this object,\nwhich serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought\nto be pursued in the management of America, even more than its\npopulation and its commerce: I mean its _temper and character_.\n\nIn this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the\npredominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole: and as an\nardent is always a jealous affection, your colonies become suspicious,\nrestive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest\nfrom them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think the\nonly advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is\nstronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people of\nthe earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, to\nunderstand the true temper of their minds, and the direction which this\nspirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open somewhat more largely.\n\nFirst, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen.\nEngland, Sir, is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerly\nadored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of\nyour character was most predominant; and they took this bias and\ndirection the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not\nonly devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and\non English principles. Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions,\nis not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object; and every\nnation has formed to itself some favorite point, which by way of\neminence becomes the criterion of their happiness. It happened, you\nknow, Sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were from\nthe earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing. Most of the\ncontests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right of\nelection of magistrates, or on the balance among the several orders of\nthe state. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But in\nEngland it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens and\nmost eloquent tongues have been exercised, the greatest spirits have\nacted and suffered. In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerning\nthe importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who in\nargument defended the excellence of the English Constitution to insist\non this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to prove\nthat the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments and blind\nusages to reside in a certain body called an House of Commons: they went\nmuch further: they attempted to prove, and they succeeded, that in\ntheory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of\nCommons, as an immediate representative of the people, whether the old\nrecords had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to\ninculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people\nmust in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power\nof granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. The\ncolonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and\nprinciples. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on\nthis specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe or might be\nendangered in twenty other particulars without their being much pleased\nor alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, they\nthought themselves sick or sound. I do not say whether they were right\nor wrong in applying your general arguments to their own case. It is not\neasy, indeed, to make a monopoly of theorems and corollaries. The fact\nis, that they did thus apply those general arguments; and your mode of\ngoverning them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom or\nmistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well as you,\nhad an interest in these common principles.\n\nThey were further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their\nprovincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are popular in an\nhigh degree: some are merely popular; in all, the popular representative\nis the most weighty; and this share of the people in their ordinary\ngovernment never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a\nstrong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief\nimportance.\n\nIf anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of\ngovernment, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion,\nalways a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or\nimpaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of this\nfree spirit. The people are Protestants, and of that kind which is the\nmost adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a\npersuasion not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it. I do not\nthink, Sir, that the reason of this averseness in the dissenting\nchurches from all that looks like absolute government is so much to be\nsought in their religious tenets as in their history. Every one knows\nthat the Roman Catholic religion is at least coeval with most of the\ngovernments where it prevails, that it has generally gone hand in hand\nwith them, and received great favor and every kind of support from\nauthority. The Church of England, too, was formed from her cradle under\nthe nursing care of regular government. But the dissenting interests\nhave sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the\nworld, and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim to\nnatural liberty. Their very existence depended on the powerful and\nunremitted assertion of that claim. All Protestantism, even the most\ncold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent\nin our northern colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance:\nit is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestant\nreligion. This religion, under a variety of denominations agreeing in\nnothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in\nmost of the northern provinces, where the Church of England,\nnotwithstanding its legal rights, is in reality no more than a sort of\nprivate sect, not composing, most probably, the tenth of the people. The\ncolonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrants\nwas the highest of all; and even that stream of foreigners which has\nbeen constantly flowing into these colonies has, for the greatest part,\nbeen composed of dissenters from the establishments of their several\ncountries, and have brought with them a temper and character far from\nalien to that of the people with whom they mixed.\n\nSir, I can perceive, by their manner, that some gentlemen object to the\nlatitude of this description, because in the southern colonies the\nChurch of England forms a large body, and has a regular establishment.\nIt is certainly true. There is, however, a circumstance attending these\ncolonies, which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference,\nand makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in\nthose to the northward. It is, that in Virginia and the Carolinas they\nhave a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any part of\nthe world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of\ntheir freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind of\nrank and privilege. Not seeing there, that freedom, as in countries\nwhere it is a common blessing, and as broad and general as the air, may\nbe united with much abject toil, with great misery, with all the\nexterior of servitude, liberty looks, amongst them, like something that\nis more noble and liberal. I do not mean, Sir, to commend the superior\nmorality of this sentiment, which has at least as much pride as virtue\nin it; but I cannot alter the nature of man. The fact is so; and these\npeople of the southern colonies are much more strongly, and with an\nhigher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the\nnorthward. Such were all the ancient commonwealths; such were our Gothic\nancestors; such in our days were the Poles; and such will be all masters\nof slaves, who are not slaves themselves. In such a people, the\nhaughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies\nit, and renders it invincible.\n\nPermit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which\ncontributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this\nuntractable spirit: I mean their education. In no country, perhaps, in\nthe world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is\nnumerous and powerful, and in most provinces it takes the lead. The\ngreater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were lawyers. But\nall who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in\nthat science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no\nbranch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many\nbooks as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists\nhave now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear\nthat they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's \"Commentaries\" in\nAmerica as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very\nparticularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people\nin his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law,--and that in Boston\nthey have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many\nparts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of\ndebate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly\nthe rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the\npenalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honorable and\nlearned friend[22] on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for\nanimadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I,\nthat, when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this\nknowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to\ngovernment. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy\nmethods, it is stubborn and litigious. _Abeunt studia in mores_. This\nstudy renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready\nin defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more\nsimple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in\ngovernment only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil,\nand judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the\nprinciple. They augur misgovernment at a distance, and snuff the\napproach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.\n\nThe last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less\npowerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the\nnatural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie\nbetween you and them. No contrivance can prevent the effect of this\ndistance in weakening government. Seas roll, and months pass, between\nthe order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of a\nsingle point is enough to defeat an whole system. You have, indeed,\nwinged ministers of vengeance, who carry your bolts in their pounces to\nthe remotest verge of the sea: but there a power steps in, that limits\nthe arrogance of raging passions and furious elements, and says, \"So far\nshalt thou go, and no farther.\" Who are you, that should fret and rage,\nand bite the chains of Nature? Nothing worse happens to you than does to\nall nations who have extensive empire; and it happens in all the forms\ninto which empire can be thrown. In large bodies, the circulation of\npower must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. The\nTurk cannot govern Egypt, and Arabia, and Kurdistan, as he governs\nThrace; nor has he the same dominion in Crimea and Algiers which he has\nat Brusa and Smyrna. Despotism itself is obliged to truck and huckster.\nThe Sultan gets such obedience as he can. He governs with a loose rein,\nthat he may govern at all; and the whole of the force and vigor of his\nauthority in his centre is derived from a prudent relaxation in all his\nborders. Spain, in her provinces, is perhaps not so well obeyed as you\nare in yours. She complies, too; she submits; she watches times. This is\nthe immutable condition, the eternal law, of extensive and detached\nempire.\n\nThen, Sir, from these six capital sources, of descent, of form of\ngovernment, of religion in the northern provinces, of manners in the\nsouthern, of education, of the remoteness of situation from the first\nmover of government,--from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty\nhas grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in your\ncolonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth: a spirit,\nthat, unhappily meeting with an exercise of power in England, which,\nhowever lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much less\nwith theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to consume us.\n\nI do not mean to commend either the spirit in this excess, or the moral\ncauses which produce it. Perhaps a more smooth and accommodating spirit\nof freedom in them would be more acceptable to us. Perhaps ideas of\nliberty might be desired more reconcilable with an arbitrary and\nboundless authority. Perhaps we might wish the colonists to be persuaded\nthat their liberty is more secure when held in trust for them by us (as\ntheir guardians during a perpetual minority) than with any part of it in\ntheir own hands. But the question is not, whether their spirit deserves\npraise or blame,--what, in the name of God, shall we do with it? You\nhave before you the object, such as it is,--with all its glories, with\nall its imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, the\nimportance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all these\nconsiderations we are strongly urged to determine something concerning\nit. We are called upon to fix some rule and line for our future conduct,\nwhich may give a little stability to our politics, and prevent the\nreturn of such unhappy deliberations as the present. Every such return\nwill bring the matter before us in a still more untractable form. For\nwhat astonishing and incredible things have we not seen already! What\nmonsters have not been generated from this unnatural contention! Whilst\nevery principle of authority and resistance has been pushed, upon both\nsides, as far as it would go, there is nothing so solid and certain,\neither in reasoning or in practice, that has not been shaken. Until very\nlately, all authority in America seemed to be nothing but an emanation\nfrom yours. Even the popular part of the colony constitution derived all\nits activity, and its first vital movement, from the pleasure of the\ncrown. We thought, Sir, that the utmost which the discontented colonists\ncould do was to disturb authority; we never dreamt they could of\nthemselves supply it, knowing in general what an operose business it is\nto establish a government absolutely new. But having, for our purposes\nin this contention, resolved that none but an obedient assembly should\nsit, the humors of the people there, finding all passage through the\nlegal channel stopped, with great violence broke out another way. Some\nprovinces have tried their experiment, as we have tried ours; and theirs\nhas succeeded. They have formed a government sufficient for its\npurposes, without the bustle of a revolution, or the troublesome\nformality of an election. Evident necessity and tacit consent have done\nthe business in an instant. So well they have done it, that Lord Dunmore\n(the account is among the fragments on your table) tells you that the\nnew institution is infinitely better obeyed than the ancient government\never was in its most fortunate periods. Obedience is what makes\ngovernment, and not the names by which it is called: not the name of\nGovernor, as formerly, or Committee, as at present. This new government\nhas originated directly from the people, and was not transmitted\nthrough any of the ordinary artificial media of a positive constitution.\nIt was not a manufacture ready formed, and transmitted to them in that\ncondition from England. The evil arising from hence is this: that the\ncolonists having once found the possibility of enjoying the advantages\nof order in the midst of a struggle for liberty, such struggles will not\nhenceforward seem so terrible to the settled and sober part of mankind\nas they had appeared before the trial.\n\nPursuing the same plan of punishing by the denial of the exercise of\ngovernment to still greater lengths, we wholly abrogated the ancient\ngovernment of Massachusetts. We were confident that the first feeling,\nif not the very prospect of anarchy, would instantly enforce a complete\nsubmission. The experiment was tried. A new, strange, unexpected face of\nthings appeared. Anarchy is found tolerable. A vast province has now\nsubsisted, and subsisted in a considerable degree of health and vigor,\nfor near a twelvemonth, without governor, without public council,\nwithout judges, without executive magistrates. How long it will continue\nin this state, or what may arise out of this unheard-of situation, how\ncan the wisest of us conjecture? Our late experience has taught us that\nmany of those fundamental principles formerly believed infallible are\neither not of the importance they were imagined to be, or that we have\nnot at all adverted to some other far more important and far more\npowerful principles which entirely overrule those we had considered as\nomnipotent. I am much against any further experiments which tend to put\nto the proof any more of these allowed opinions which contribute so much\nto the public tranquillity. In effect, we suffer as much at home by\nthis loosening of all ties, and this concussion of all established\nopinions, as we do abroad. For, in order to prove that the Americans\nhave no right to their liberties, we are every day endeavoring to\nsubvert the maxims which preserve the whole spirit of our own. To prove\nthat the Americans ought not to be free, we are obliged to depreciate\nthe value of freedom itself; and we never seem to gain a paltry\nadvantage over them in debate, without attacking some of those\nprinciples, or deriding some of those feelings, for which our ancestors\nhave shed their blood.\n\nBut, Sir, in wishing to put an end to pernicious experiments, I do not\nmean to preclude the fullest inquiry. Far from it. Far from deciding on\na sudden or partial view, I would patiently go round and round the\nsubject, and survey it minutely in every possible aspect. Sir, if I were\ncapable of engaging you to an equal attention, I would state, that, as\nfar as I am capable of discerning, there are but three ways of\nproceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which prevails in your\ncolonies and disturbs your government. These are,--to change that\nspirit, as inconvenient, by removing the causes,--to prosecute it, as\ncriminal,--or to comply with it, as necessary. I would not be guilty of\nan imperfect enumeration; I can think of but these three. Another has,\nindeed, been started,--that of giving up the colonies; but it met so\nslight a reception that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a great\nwhile upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger, like the\nfrowardness of peevish children, who, when they cannot get all they\nwould have, are resolved to take nothing.\n\nThe first of these plans--to change the spirit, as inconvenient, by\nremoving the causes--I think is the most like a systematic proceeding.\nIt is radical in its principle; but it is attended with great\ndifficulties: some of them little short, as I conceive, of\nimpossibilities. This will appear by examining into the plans which have\nbeen proposed.\n\nAs the growing population of the colonies is evidently one cause of\ntheir resistance, it was last session mentioned in both Houses, by men\nof weight, and received not without applause, that, in order to check\nthis evil, it would be proper for the crown to make no further grants of\nland. But to this scheme there are two objections. The first, that there\nis already so much unsettled land in private hands as to afford room for\nan immense future population, although the crown not only withheld its\ngrants, but annihilated its soil. If this be the case, then the only\neffect of this avarice of desolation, this hoarding of a royal\nwilderness, would be to raise the value of the possessions in the hands\nof the great private monopolists, without any adequate check to the\ngrowing and alarming mischief of population.\n\nBut if you stopped your grants, what would be the consequence? The\npeople would occupy without grants. They have already so occupied in\nmany places. You cannot station garrisons in every part of these\ndeserts. If you drive the people from one place, they will carry on\ntheir annual tillage, and remove with their flocks and herds to another.\nMany of the people in the back settlements are already little attached\nto particular situations. Already they have topped the Appalachian\nmountains. From thence they behold before them an immense plain, one\nvast, rich, level meadow: a square of five hundred miles. Over this\nthey would wander without a possibility of restraint; they would change\ntheir manners with the habits of their life; would soon forget a\ngovernment by which they were disowned; would become hordes of English\nTartars, and, pouring down upon your unfortified frontiers a fierce and\nirresistible cavalry, become masters of your governors and your\ncounsellors, your collectors and comptrollers, and of all the slaves\nthat adhered to them. Such would, and, in no long time, must be, the\neffect of attempting to forbid as a crime, and to suppress as an evil,\nthe command and blessing of Providence, \"Increase and multiply.\" Such\nwould be the happy result of an endeavor to keep as a lair of wild\nbeasts that earth which God by an express charter has given to the\nchildren of men. Far different, and surely much wiser, has been our\npolicy hitherto. Hitherto we have invited our people, by every kind of\nbounty, to fixed establishments. We have invited the husbandman to look\nto authority for his title. We have taught him piously to believe in the\nmysterious virtue of wax and parchment. We have thrown each tract of\nland, as it was peopled, into districts, that the ruling power should\nnever be wholly out of sight. We have settled all we could; and we have\ncarefully attended every settlement with government.\n\nAdhering, Sir, as I do, to this policy, as well as for the reasons I\nhave just given, I think this new project of hedging in population to be\nneither prudent nor practicable.\n\nTo impoverish the colonies in general, and in particular to arrest the\nnoble course of their marine enterprises, would be a more easy task. I\nfreely confess it. We have shown a disposition to a system of this\nkind,--a disposition even to continue the restraint after the\noffence,--looking on ourselves as rivals to our colonies, and persuaded\nthat of course we must gain all that they shall lose. Much mischief we\nmay certainly do. The power inadequate to all other things is often more\nthan sufficient for this. I do not look on the direct and immediate\npower of the colonies to resist our violence as very formidable. In\nthis, however, I may be mistaken. But when I consider that we have\ncolonies for no purpose but to be serviceable to us, it seems to my poor\nunderstanding a little preposterous to make them unserviceable, in order\nto keep them obedient. It is, in truth, nothing more than the old, and,\nas I thought, exploded problem of tyranny, which proposes to beggar its\nsubjects into submission. But remember, when you have completed your\nsystem of impoverishment, that Nature still proceeds in her ordinary\ncourse; that discontent will increase with misery; and that there are\ncritical moments in the fortune of all states, when they who are too\nweak to contribute to your prosperity may be strong enough to complete\nyour ruin. _Spoliatis arma supersunt_.\n\nThe temper and character which prevail in our colonies are, I am afraid,\nunalterable by any human art. We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of\nthis fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a\nnation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates. The language in\nwhich they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the\nimposition; your speech would betray you. An Englishman is the unfittest\nperson on earth to argue another Englishman into slavery.\n\nI think it is nearly as little in our power to change their republican\nreligion as their free descent, or to substitute the Roman Catholic as a\npenalty, or the Church of England as an improvement. The mode of\ninquisition and dragooning is going out of fashion in the Old World, and\nI should not confide much to their efficacy in the New. The education of\nthe Americans is also on the same unalterable bottom with their\nreligion. You cannot persuade them to burn their books of curious\nscience, to banish their lawyers from their courts of law, or to quench\nthe lights of their assemblies by refusing to choose those persons who\nare best read in their privileges. It would be no less impracticable to\nthink of wholly annihilating the popular assemblies in which these\nlawyers sit. The army, by which we must govern in their place, would be\nfar more chargeable to us, not quite so effectual, and perhaps, in the\nend, full as difficult to be kept in obedience.\n\nWith regard to the high aristocratic spirit of Virginia and the southern\ncolonies, it has been proposed, I know, to reduce it by declaring a\ngeneral enfranchisement of their slaves. This project has had its\nadvocates and panegyrists; yet I never could argue myself into any\nopinion of it. Slaves are often much attached to their masters. A\ngeneral wild offer of liberty would not always be accepted. History\nfurnishes few instances of it. It is sometimes as hard to persuade\nslaves to be free as it is to compel freemen to be slaves; and in this\nauspicious scheme we should have both these pleasing tasks on our hands\nat once. But when we talk of enfranchisement, do we not perceive that\nthe American master may enfranchise, too, and arm servile hands in\ndefence of freedom?--a measure to which other people have had recourse\nmore than once, and not without success, in a desperate situation of\ntheir affairs.\n\nSlaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are\nfrom slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from\nthat very nation which has sold them to their present masters,--from\nthat nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is their\nrefusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffic? An offer of freedom\nfrom England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African\nvessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or\nCarolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would be\ncurious to see the Guinea captain attempting at the same instant to\npublish his proclamation of liberty and to advertise his sale of slaves.\n\nBut let us suppose all these moral difficulties got over. The ocean\nremains. You cannot pump this dry; and as long as it continues in its\npresent bed, so long all the causes which weaken authority by distance\nwill continue.\n\n    \"Ye Gods! annihilate but space and time,\n     And make two lovers happy,\"\n\nwas a pious and passionate prayer,--but just as reasonable as many of\nthe serious wishes of very grave and solemn politicians.\n\nIf, then, Sir, it seems almost desperate to think of any alterative\ncourse for changing the moral causes (and not quite easy to remove the\nnatural) which produce prejudices irreconcilable to the late exercise of\nour authority, but that the spirit infallibly will continue, and,\ncontinuing, will produce such effects as now embarrass us,--the second\nmode under consideration is, to prosecute that spirit in its overt acts,\nas _criminal_.\n\nAt this proposition I must pause a moment. The thing seems a great deal\ntoo big for my ideas of jurisprudence. It should seem, to my way of\nconceiving such matters, that there is a very wide difference, in reason\nand policy, between the mode of proceeding on the irregular conduct of\nscattered individuals, or even of bands of men, who disturb order within\nthe state, and the civil dissensions which may, from time to time, on\ngreat questions, agitate the several communities which compose a great\nempire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary\nideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not know\nthe method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people. I cannot\ninsult and ridicule the feelings of millions of my fellow-creatures as\nSir Edward Coke insulted one excellent individual (Sir Walter Raleigh)\nat the bar. I am not ripe to pass sentence on the gravest public bodies,\nintrusted with magistracies of great authority and dignity, and charged\nwith the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title that\nI am. I really think that for wise men this is not judicious, for sober\nmen not decent, for minds tinctured with humanity not mild and merciful.\n\nPerhaps, Sir, I am mistaken in my idea of an empire, as distinguished\nfrom a single state or kingdom. But my idea of it is this: that an\nempire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether\nthis head be a monarch or a presiding republic. It does, in such\nconstitutions, frequently happen (and nothing but the dismal, cold, dead\nuniformity of servitude can prevent its happening) that the subordinate\nparts have many local privileges and immunities. Between these\nprivileges and the supreme common authority the line may be extremely\nnice. Of course disputes, often, too, very bitter disputes, and much ill\nblood, will arise. But though every privilege is an exemption (in the\ncase) from the ordinary exercise of the supreme authority, it is no\ndenial of it. The claim of a privilege seems rather, _ex vi termini_, to\nimply a superior power: for to talk of the privileges of a state or of a\nperson who has no superior is hardly any better than speaking nonsense.\nNow in such unfortunate quarrels among the component parts of a great\npolitical union of communities, I can scarcely conceive anything more\ncompletely imprudent than for the head of the empire to insist, that if\nany privilege is pleaded against his will or his acts, that his whole\nauthority is denied,--instantly to proclaim rebellion, to beat to arms,\nand to put the offending provinces under the ban. Will not this, Sir,\nvery soon teach the provinces to make no distinctions on their part?\nWill it not teach them that the government against which a claim of\nliberty is tantamount to high treason is a government to which\nsubmission is equivalent to slavery? It may not always be quite\nconvenient to impress dependent communities with such an idea.\n\nWe are, indeed, in all disputes with the colonies, by the necessity of\nthings, the judge. It is true, Sir. But I confess that the character of\njudge in my own cause is a thing that frightens me. Instead of filling\nme with pride, I am exceedingly humbled by it. I cannot proceed with a\nstern, assured judicial confidence, until I find myself in something\nmore like a judicial character. I must have these hesitations as long as\nI am compelled to recollect, that, in my little reading upon such\ncontests as these, the sense of mankind has at least as often decided\nagainst the superior as the subordinate power. Sir, let me add, too,\nthat the opinion of my having some abstract right in my favor would not\nput me much at my ease in passing sentence, unless I could be sure that\nthere were no rights which, in their exercise under certain\ncircumstances, were not the most odious of all wrongs and the most\nvexatious of all injustice. Sir, these considerations have great weight\nwith me, when I find things so circumstanced that I see the same party\nat once a civil litigant against me in a point of right and a culprit\nbefore me, while I sit as criminal judge on acts of his whose moral\nquality is to be decided upon the merits of that very litigation. Men\nare every now and then put, by the complexity of human affairs, into\nstrange situations; but justice is the same, let the judge be in what\nsituation he will.\n\nThere is, Sir, also a circumstance which convinces me that this mode of\ncriminal proceeding is not (at least in the present stage of our\ncontest) altogether expedient,--which is nothing less than the conduct\nof those very persons who have seemed to adopt that mode, by lately\ndeclaring a rebellion in Massachusetts Bay, as they had formerly\naddressed to have traitors brought hither, under an act of Henry the\nEighth, for trial. For, though rebellion is declared, it is not\nproceeded against as such; nor have any steps been taken towards the\napprehension or conviction of any individual offender, either on our\nlate or our former address; but modes of public coercion have been\nadopted, and such as have much more resemblance to a sort of qualified\nhostility towards an independent power than the punishment of rebellious\nsubjects. All this seems rather inconsistent; but it shows how\ndifficult it is to apply these juridical ideas to our present case.\n\nIn this situation, let us seriously and coolly ponder. What is it we\nhave got by all our menaces, which have been many and ferocious? What\nadvantage have we derived from the penal laws we have passed, and which,\nfor the time, have been severe and numerous? What advances have we made\ntowards our object, by the sending of a force, which, by land and sea,\nis no contemptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothing\nless.--When I see things in this situation, after such confident hopes,\nbold promises, and active exertions, I cannot, for my life, avoid a\nsuspicion that the plan itself is not correctly right.\n\nIf, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty\nbe, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable,--if the\nideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or, if applicable, are in the\nhighest degree inexpedient, what way yet remains? No way is open, but\nthe third and last,--to comply with the American spirit as necessary,\nor, if you please, to submit, to it as a necessary evil.\n\nIf we adopt this mode, if we mean to conciliate and concede, let us see\nof what nature the concession ought to be. To ascertain the nature of\nour concession, we must look at their complaint. The colonies complain\nthat they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom.\nThey complain that they are taxed in a Parliament in which they are not\nrepresented. If you mean to satisfy them at all, you must satisfy them\nwith regard to this complaint. If you mean to please any people, you\nmust give them the boon which they ask,--not what you may think better\nfor them, but of a kind totally different. Such an act may be a wise\nregulation, but it is no concession; whereas our present theme is the\nmode of giving satisfaction.\n\nSir, I think you must perceive that I am resolved this day to have\nnothing at all to do with the question of the right of taxation. Some\ngentlemen startle,--but it is true: I put it totally out of the\nquestion. It is less than nothing in my consideration. I do not indeed\nwonder, nor will you, Sir, that gentlemen of profound learning are fond\nof displaying it on this profound subject. But my consideration is\nnarrow, confined, and wholly limited to the policy of the question. I do\nnot examine whether the giving away a man's money be a power excepted\nand reserved out of the general trust of government, and how far all\nmankind, in all forms of polity, are entitled to an exercise of that\nright by the charter of Nature,--or whether, on the contrary, a right of\ntaxation is necessarily involved in the general principle of\nlegislation, and inseparable from the ordinary supreme power. These are\ndeep questions, where great names militate against each other, where\nreason is perplexed, and an appeal to authorities only thickens the\nconfusion: for high and reverend authorities lift up their heads on both\nsides, and there is no sure footing in the middle. This point is the\n_great Serbonian bog, betwixt Damiata and Mount Casius old, where armies\nwhole have sunk_. I do not intend to be overwhelmed in that bog, though\nin such respectable company. The question with me is, not whether you\nhave a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not your\ninterest to make them happy. It is not what a lawyer tells me I _may_\ndo, but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do. Is a\npolitic act the worse for being a generous one? Is no concession proper,\nbut that which is made from your want of right to keep what you grant?\nOr does it lessen the grace or dignity of relaxing in the exercise of an\nodious claim, because you have your evidence-room full of titles, and\nyour magazines stuffed with arms to enforce them? What signify all those\ntitles and all those arms? Of what avail are they, when the reason of\nthe thing tells me that the assertion of my title is the loss of my\nsuit, and that I could do nothing but wound myself by the use of my own\nweapons?\n\nSuch is steadfastly my opinion of the absolute necessity of keeping up\nthe concord of this empire by a unity of spirit, though in a diversity\nof operations, that, if I were sure the colonists had, at their leaving\nthis country, sealed a regular compact of servitude, that they had\nsolemnly abjured all the rights of citizens, that they had made a vow to\nrenounce all ideas of liberty for them and their posterity to all\ngenerations, yet I should hold myself obliged to conform to the temper I\nfound universally prevalent in my own day, and to govern two million of\nmen, impatient of servitude, on the principles of freedom. I am not\ndetermining a point of law; I am restoring tranquillity: and the general\ncharacter and situation of a people must determine what sort of\ngovernment is fitted for them. That point nothing else can or ought to\ndetermine.\n\nMy idea, therefore, without considering whether we yield as matter of\nright or grant as matter of favor, is, _to admit the people of our\ncolonies into an interest in the Constitution_, and, by recording that\nadmission in the journals of Parliament, to give them as strong an\nassurance as the nature of the thing will admit that we mean forever to\nadhere to that solemn declaration of systematic indulgence.\n\nSome years ago, the repeal of a revenue act, upon its understood\nprinciple, might have served to show that we intended an unconditional\nabatement of the exercise of a taxing power. Such a measure was then\nsufficient to remove all suspicion and to give perfect content. But\nunfortunate events since that time may make something further\nnecessary,--and not more necessary for the satisfaction of the colonies\nthan for the dignity and consistency of our own future proceedings.\n\nI have taken a very incorrect measure of the disposition of the House,\nif this proposal in itself would be received with dislike. I think, Sir,\nwe have few American financiers. But our misfortune is, we are too\nacute, we are too exquisite in our conjectures of the future, for men\noppressed with such great and present evils. The more moderate among the\nopposers of Parliamentary concession freely confess that they hope no\ngood from taxation; but they apprehend the colonists have further views,\nand if this point were conceded, they would instantly attack the trade\nlaws. These gentlemen are convinced that this was the intention from the\nbeginning, and the quarrel of the Americans with taxation was no more\nthan a cloak and cover to this design. Such has been the language even\nof a gentleman[23] of real moderation, and of a natural temper well\nadjusted to fair and equal government. I am, however, Sir, not a little\nsurprised at this kind of discourse, whenever I hear it; and I am the\nmore surprised on account of the arguments which I constantly find in\ncompany with it, and which are often urged from the same mouths and on\nthe same day.\n\nFor instance, when we allege that it is against reason to tax a people\nunder so many restraints in trade as the Americans, the noble lord[24]\nin the blue riband shall tell you that the restraints on trade are\nfutile and useless, of no advantage to us, and of no burden to those on\nwhom they are imposed,--that the trade to America is not secured by the\nActs of Navigation, but by the natural and irresistible advantage of a\ncommercial preference.\n\nSuch is the merit of the trade laws in this posture of the debate. But\nwhen strong internal circumstances are urged against the taxes,--when\nthe scheme is dissected,--when experience and the nature of things are\nbrought to prove, and do prove, the utter impossibility of obtaining an\neffective revenue from the colonies,--when these things are pressed, or\nrather press themselves, so as to drive the advocates of colony taxes to\na clear admission of the futility of the scheme,--then, Sir, the\nsleeping trade laws revive from their trance, and this useless taxation\nis to be kept sacred, not for its own sake, but as a counter-guard and\nsecurity of the laws of trade.\n\nThen, Sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous in order to\npreserve trade laws that are useless. Such is the wisdom of our plan in\nboth its members. They are separately given up as of no value; and yet\none is always to be defended for the sake of the other. But I cannot\nagree with the noble lord, nor with the pamphlet from whence he seems to\nhave borrowed these ideas concerning the inutility of the trade laws.\nFor, without idolizing them, I am sure they are still, in many ways, of\ngreat use to us; and in former times they have been of the greatest.\nThey do confine, and they do greatly narrow, the market for the\nAmericans. But my perfect conviction of this does not help me in the\nleast to discern how the revenue laws form any security whatsoever to\nthe commercial regulations,--or that these commercial regulations are\nthe true ground of the quarrel,--or that the giving way, in any one\ninstance, of authority is to lose all that may remain unconceded.\n\nOne fact is clear and indisputable: the public and avowed origin of this\nquarrel was on taxation. This quarrel has, indeed, brought on new\ndisputes on new questions, but certainly the least bitter, and the\nfewest of all, on the trade laws. To judge which of the two be the real,\nradical cause of quarrel, we have to see whether the commercial dispute\ndid, in order of time, precede the dispute on taxation. There is not a\nshadow of evidence for it. Next, to enable us to judge whether at this\nmoment a dislike to the trade laws be the real cause of quarrel, it is\nabsolutely necessary to put the taxes out of the question by a repeal.\nSee how the Americans act in this position, and then you will be able to\ndiscern correctly what is the true object of the controversy, or whether\nany controversy at all will remain. Unless you consent to remove this\ncause of difference, it is impossible, with decency, to assert that the\ndispute is not upon what it is avowed to be. And I would, Sir, recommend\nto your serious consideration, whether it be prudent to form a rule for\npunishing people, not on their own acts, but on your conjectures. Surely\nit is preposterous, at the very best. It is not justifying your anger\nby their misconduct, but it is converting your ill-will into their\ndelinquency.\n\nBut the colonies will go further.--Alas! alas! when will this\nspeculating against fact and reason end? What will quiet these panic\nfears which we entertain of the hostile effect of a conciliatory\nconduct? Is it true that no case can exist in which it is proper for the\nsovereign to accede to the desires of his discontented subjects? Is\nthere anything peculiar in this case, to make a rule for itself? Is all\nauthority of course lost, when it is not pushed to the extreme? Is it a\ncertain maxim, that, the fewer causes of dissatisfaction are left by\ngovernment, the more the subject will be inclined to resist and rebel?\n\nAll these objections being in fact no more than suspicions, conjectures,\ndivinations, formed in defiance of fact and experience, they did not,\nSir, discourage me from entertaining the idea of a conciliatory\nconcession, founded on the principles which I have just stated.\n\nIn forming a plan for this purpose, I endeavored to put myself in that\nframe of mind which was the most natural and the most reasonable, and\nwhich was certainly the most probable means of securing me from all\nerror. I set out with a perfect distrust of my own abilities, a total\nrenunciation of every speculation of my own, and with a profound\nreverence for the wisdom of our ancestors, who have left us the\ninheritance of so happy a Constitution and so flourishing an empire,\nand, what is a thousand times more valuable, the treasury of the maxims\nand principles which formed the one and obtained the other.\n\nDuring the reigns of the kings of Spain of the Austrian family,\nwhenever they were at a loss in the Spanish councils, it was common for\ntheir statesmen to say that they ought to consult the genius of Philip\nthe Second. The genius of Philip the Second might mislead them; and the\nissue of their affairs showed that they had not chosen the most perfect\nstandard. But, Sir, I am sure that I shall not be misled, when, in a\ncase of constitutional difficulty, I consult the genius of the English\nConstitution. Consulting at that oracle, (it was with all due humility\nand piety,) I found four capital examples in a similar case before me:\nthose of Ireland, Wales, Chester, and Durham.\n\nIreland, before the English conquest, though never governed by a\ndespotic power, had no Parliament. How far the English Parliament itself\nwas at that time modelled according to the present form is disputed\namong antiquarians. But we have all the reason in the world to be\nassured, that a form of Parliament, such as England then enjoyed, she\ninstantly communicated to Ireland; and we are equally sure that almost\nevery successive improvement in constitutional liberty, as fast as it\nwas made here, was transmitted thither. The feudal baronage, and the\nfeudal knighthood, the roots of our primitive Constitution, were early\ntransplanted into that soil, and grew and flourished there. Magna\nCharta, if it did not give us originally the House of Commons, gave us\nat least an House of Commons of weight and consequence. But your\nancestors did not churlishly sit down alone to the feast of Magna\nCharta. Ireland was made immediately a partaker. This benefit of English\nlaws and liberties, I confess, was not at first extended to _all_\nIreland. Mark the consequence. English authority and English liberty had\nexactly the same boundaries. Your standard could never be advanced an\ninch before your privileges. Sir John Davies shows beyond a doubt, that\nthe refusal of a general communication of these rights was the true\ncause why Ireland was five hundred years in subduing; and after the vain\nprojects of a military government, attempted in the reign of Queen\nElizabeth, it was soon discovered that nothing could make that country\nEnglish, in civility and allegiance, but your laws and your forms of\nlegislature. It was not English arms, but the English Constitution, that\nconquered Ireland. From that time, Ireland has ever had a general\nParliament, as she had before a partial Parliament. You changed the\npeople, you altered the religion, but you never touched the form or the\nvital substance of free government in that kingdom. You deposed kings;\nyou restored them; you altered the succession to theirs, as well as to\nyour own crown; but you never altered their Constitution, the principle\nof which was respected by usurpation, restored with the restoration of\nmonarchy, and established, I trust, forever by the glorious Revolution.\nThis has made Ireland the great and flourishing kingdom that it is, and,\nfrom a disgrace and a burden intolerable to this nation, has rendered\nher a principal part of our strength and ornament. This country cannot\nbe said to have ever formally taxed her. The irregular things done in\nthe confusion of mighty troubles, and on the hinge of great revolutions,\neven if all were done that is said to have been done, form no example.\nIf they have any effect in argument, they make an exception to prove the\nrule. None of your own liberties could stand a moment, if the casual\ndeviations from them, at such times, were suffered to be used as proofs\nof their nullity. By the lucrative amount of such casual breaches in\nthe Constitution, judge what the stated and fixed rule of supply has\nbeen in that kingdom. Your Irish pensioners would starve, if they had no\nother fund to live on than taxes granted by English authority. Turn your\neyes to those popular grants from whence all your great supplies are\ncome, and learn to respect that only source of public wealth in the\nBritish empire.\n\nMy next example is Wales. This country was said to be reduced by Henry\nthe Third. It was said more truly to be so by Edward the First. But\nthough then conquered, it was not looked upon as any part of the realm\nof England. Its old Constitution, whatever that might have been, was\ndestroyed; and no good one was substituted in its place. The care of\nthat tract was put into the hands of Lords Marchers: a form of\ngovernment of a very singular kind; a strange, heterogeneous monster,\nsomething between hostility and government: perhaps it has a sort of\nresemblance, according to the modes of those times, to that of\ncommander-in-chief at present, to whom all civil power is granted as\nsecondary. The manners of the Welsh nation followed the genius of the\ngovernment: the people were ferocious, restive, savage, and\nuncultivated; sometimes composed, never pacified. Wales, within itself,\nwas in perpetual disorder; and it kept the frontier of England in\nperpetual alarm. Benefits from it to the state there were none. Wales\nwas only known to England by incursion and invasion.\n\nSir, during that state of things, Parliament was not idle. They\nattempted to subdue the fierce spirit of the Welsh by all sorts of\nrigorous laws. They prohibited by statute the sending all sorts of arms\ninto Wales, as you prohibit by proclamation (with something more of\ndoubt on the legality) the sending arms to America. They disarmed the\nWelsh by statute, as you attempted (but still with more question on the\nlegality) to disarm New England by an instruction. They made an act to\ndrag offenders from Wales into England for trial, as you have done (but\nwith more hardship) with regard to America. By another act, where one of\nthe parties was an Englishman, they ordained that his trial should be\nalways by English. They made acts to restrain trade, as you do; and they\nprevented the Welsh from the use of fairs and markets, as you do the\nAmericans from fisheries and foreign ports. In short, when the\nstatute-book was not quite so much swelled as it is now, you find no\nless than fifteen acts of penal regulation on the subject of Wales.\n\nHere we rub our hands,--A fine body of precedents for the authority of\nParliament and the use of it!--I admit it fully; and pray add likewise\nto these precedents, that all the while Wales rid this kingdom like an\n_incubus_; that it was an unprofitable and oppressive burden; and that\nan Englishman travelling in that country could not go six yards from the\nhighroad without being murdered.\n\nThe march of the human mind is slow. Sir, it was not until after two\nhundred years discovered, that, by an eternal law, Providence had\ndecreed vexation to violence, and poverty to rapine. Your ancestors did,\nhowever, at length open their eyes to the ill husbandry of injustice.\nThey found that the tyranny of a free people could of all tyrannies the\nleast be endured, and that laws made against an whole nation were not\nthe most effectual methods for securing its obedience. Accordingly, in\nthe twenty-seventh year of Henry the Eighth the course was entirely\naltered. With a preamble stating the entire and perfect rights of the\ncrown of England, it gave to the Welsh all the rights and privileges of\nEnglish subjects. A political order was established; the military power\ngave way to the civil; the marches were turned into counties. But that a\nnation should have a right to English liberties, and yet no share at all\nin the fundamental security of these liberties,--the grant of their own\nproperty,--seemed a thing so incongruous, that eight years after, that\nis, in the thirty-fifth of that reign, a complete and not\nill-proportioned representation by counties and boroughs was bestowed\nupon Wales by act of Parliament. From that moment, as by a charm, the\ntumults subsided; obedience was restored; peace, order, and civilization\nfollowed in the train of liberty. When the day-star of the English\nConstitution had arisen in their hearts, all was harmony within and\nwithout:--\n\n            Simul alba nautis\n        Stella refulsit,\n    Defluit saxis agitatus humor,\n    Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes,\n    Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto\n        Unda recumbit.\n\n\nThe very same year the County Palatine of Chester received the same\nrelief from its oppressions, and the same remedy to its disorders.\nBefore this time Chester was little less distempered than Wales. The\ninhabitants, without rights themselves, were the fittest to destroy the\nrights of others; and from thence Richard the Second drew the standing\narmy of archers with which for a time he oppressed England. The people\nof Chester applied to Parliament in a petition penned as I shall read to\nyou.\n\n\"To the king our sovereign lord, in most humble wise shown unto your\nmost excellent Majesty, the inhabitants of your Grace's County Palatine\nof Chester: That where the said County Palatine of Chester is and hath\nbeen alway hitherto exempt, excluded, and separated out and from your\nhigh court of Parliament, to have any knights and burgesses within the\nsaid court; by reason whereof the said inhabitants have hitherto\nsustained manifold disherisons, losses, and damages, as well in their\nlands, goods, and bodies, as in the good, civil, and politic governance\nand maintenance of the common wealth of their said country: And\nforasmuch as the said inhabitants have always hitherto been bound by the\nacts and statutes made and ordained by your said Highness, and your most\nnoble progenitors, by authority of the said court, as far forth as other\ncounties, cities, and boroughs have been, that have had their knights\nand burgesses within your said court of Parliament, and yet have had\nneither knight no burgess there for the said County Palatine; the said\ninhabitants, for lack thereof, have been oftentimes touched and grieved\nwith acts and statutes made within the said court, as well derogatory\nunto the most ancient jurisdictions, liberties, and privileges of your\nsaid County Palatine, as prejudicial unto the common wealth, quietness,\nrest, and peace of your Grace's most bounden subjects inhabiting within\nthe same.\"\n\nWhat did Parliament with this audacious address?--Reject it as a libel?\nTreat it as an affront to government? Spurn it as a derogation from the\nrights of legislature? Did they toss it over the table? Did they burn\nit by the hands of the common hangman?--They took the petition of\ngrievance, all rugged as it was, without softening or temperament,\nunpurged of the original bitterness and indignation of complaint; they\nmade it the very preamble to their act of redress, and consecrated its\nprinciple to all ages in the sanctuary of legislation.\n\nHere is my third example. It was attended with the success of the two\nformer. Chester, civilized as well as Wales, has demonstrated that\nfreedom, and not servitude, is the cure of anarchy; as religion, and not\natheism, is the true remedy for superstition. Sir, this pattern of\nChester was followed in the reign of Charles the Second with regard to\nthe County Palatine of Durham, which is my fourth example. This county\nhad long lain out of the pale of free legislation. So scrupulously was\nthe example of Chester followed, that the style of the preamble is\nnearly the came with that of the Chester act; and, without affecting the\nabstract extent of the authority of Parliament, it recognizes the equity\nof not suffering any considerable district, in which the British\nsubjects may act as a body, to be taxed without their own voice in the\ngrant.\n\nNow if the doctrines of policy contained in these preambles, and the\nforce of these examples in the acts of Parliament, avail anything, what\ncan be said against applying them with regard to America? Are not the\npeople of America as much Englishmen as the Welsh? The preamble of the\nact of Henry the Eighth says, the Welsh speak a language no way\nresembling that of his Majesty's English subjects. Are the Americana not\nas numerous? If we may trust the learned and accurate Judge Barrington's\naccount of North Wales, and take that as a standard to measure the\nrest, there is no comparison. The people cannot amount to above 200,000:\nnot a tenth part of the number in the colonies. Is America in rebellion?\nWales was hardly ever free from it. Have you attempted to govern America\nby penal statutes? You made fifteen for Wales. But your legislative\nauthority is perfect with regard to America: was it less perfect in\nWales, Chester, and Durham? But America is virtually represented. What!\ndoes the electric force of virtual representation more easily pass over\nthe Atlantic than pervade Wales, which lies in your neighborhood? or\nthan Chester and Durham, surrounded by abundance of representation that\nis actual and palpable? But, Sir, your ancestors thought this sort of\nvirtual representation, however ample, to be totally insufficient for\nthe freedom of the inhabitants of territories that are so near, and\ncomparatively so inconsiderable. How, then, can I think it sufficient\nfor those which are infinitely greater, and infinitely more remote?\n\nYou will now, Sir, perhaps imagine that I am on the point of proposing\nto you a scheme for a representation of the colonies in Parliament.\nPerhaps I might be inclined to entertain some such thought; but a great\nflood stops me in my course. _Opposuit Natura._ I cannot remove the\neternal barriers of the creation. The thing, in that mode, I do not know\nto be possible. As I meddle with no theory, I do not absolutely assert\nthe impracticability of such a representation; but I do not see my way\nto it; and those who have been more confident have not been more\nsuccessful. However, the arm of public benevolence is not shortened; and\nthere are often several means to the same end. What Nature has\ndisjoined in one way wisdom may unite in another. When we cannot give\nthe benefit as we would wish, let us not refuse it altogether. If we\ncannot give the principal, let us find a substitute. But how? where?\nwhat substitute?\n\nFortunately, I am not obliged, for the ways and means of this\nsubstitute, to tax my own unproductive invention. I am not even obliged\nto go to the rich treasury of the fertile framers of imaginary\ncommonwealths: not to the Republic of Plato, not to the Utopia of More,\nnot to the Oceana of Harrington. It is before me,--it is at my feet,--\n\n                   \"And the rude swain\n    Treads daily on it with his clouted shoon.\"\n\nI only wish you to recognize, for the theory, the ancient constitutional\npolicy of this kingdom with regard to representation, as that policy has\nbeen declared in acts of Parliament,--and as to the practice, to return\nto that mode which an uniform experience has marked out to you as best,\nand in which you walked with security, advantage, and honor, until the\nyear 1763.\n\nMy resolutions, therefore, mean to establish the equity and justice of a\ntaxation of America by _grant_, and not by _imposition_; to mark the\n_legal competency_ of the colony assemblies for the support of their\ngovernment in peace, and for public aids in time of war; to acknowledge\nthat this legal competency has had a _dutiful and beneficial exercise_,\nand that experience has shown _the benefit of their grants_, and _the\nfutility of Parliamentary taxation, as a method of supply_.\n\nThese solid truths compose six fundamental propositions. There are three\nmore resolutions corollary to these. If you admit the first set, you can\nhardly reject the others. But if you admit the first, I shall be far\nfrom solicitous whether you accept or refuse the last. I think these six\nmassive pillars will be of strength sufficient to support the temple of\nBritish concord. I have no more doubt than I entertain of my existence,\nthat, if you admitted these, you would command an immediate peace, and,\nwith but tolerable future management, a lasting obedience in America. I\nam not arrogant in this confident assurance. The propositions are all\nmere matters of fact; and if they are such facts as draw irresistible\nconclusions even in the stating, this is the power of truth, and not any\nmanagement of mine.\n\nSir, I shall open the whole plan to you together, with such observations\non the motions as may tend to illustrate them, where they may want\nexplanation.\n\nThe first is a resolution,--\"That the colonies and plantations of Great\nBritain in North America, consisting of fourteen separate governments,\nand containing two millions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not\nhad the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights and\nburgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court of\nParliament.\"\n\nThis is a plain matter of fact, necessary to be laid down, and\n(excepting the description) it is laid down in the language of the\nConstitution; it is taken nearly _verbatim_ from acts of Parliament.\n\nThe second is like unto the first,--\"That the said colonies and\nplantations have been made liable to, and bounden by, several subsidies,\npayments, rates, and taxes, given and granted by Parliament, though the\nsaid colonies and plantations have not their knights and burgesses in\nthe said high court of Parliament, of their own election, to represent\nthe condition of their country; by lack whereof they have been\noftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies, given, granted, and\nassented to, in the said court, in a manner prejudicial to the common\nwealth, quietness, rest, and peace of the subjects inhabiting within the\nsame.\"\n\nIs this description too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak? Does it\narrogate too much to the supreme legislature? Does it lean too much to\nthe claims of the people? If it runs into any of these errors, the fault\nis not mine. It is the language of your own ancient acts of Parliament.\n\n    Non meus hic sermo, sed quae praecepit Ofellus\n    Rusticus, abnormis sapiens.\n\nIt is the genuine produce of the ancient, rustic, manly, home-bred sense\nof this country. I did not dare to rub off a particle of the venerable\nrust that rather adorns and preserves than destroys the metal. It would\nbe a profanation to touch with a tool the stones which construct the\nsacred altar of peace. I would not violate with modern polish the\ningenuous and noble roughness of these truly constitutional materials.\nAbove all things, I was resolved not to be guilty of tampering,--the\nodious vice of restless and unstable minds. I put my foot in the tracks\nof our forefathers, where I can neither wander nor stumble. Determining\nto fix articles of peace, I was resolved not to be wise beyond what was\nwritten; I was resolved to use nothing else than the form of sound\nwords, to let others abound in their own sense, and carefully to abstain\nfrom all expressions of my own. What the law has said, I say. In all\nthings else I am silent. I have no organ but for her words. This, if it\nbe not ingenious, I am sure is safe.\n\nThere are, indeed, words expressive of grievance in this second\nresolution, which those who are resolved always to be in the right will\ndeny to contain matter of fact, as applied to the present case; although\nParliament thought them true with regard to the Counties of Chester and\nDurham. They will deny that the Americans were ever \"touched and\ngrieved\" with the taxes. If they consider nothing in taxes but their\nweight as pecuniary impositions, there might be some pretence for this\ndenial. But men may be sorely touched and deeply grieved in their\nprivileges, as well as in their purses. Men may lose little in property\nby the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of a\ntrifle on the highway, it is not the twopence lost that constitutes the\ncapital outrage. This is not confined to privileges. Even ancient\nindulgences withdrawn, without offence on the part of those who enjoyed\nsuch favors, operate as grievances. But were the Americans, then, not\ntouched and grieved by the taxes, in some measure, merely as taxes? If\nso, why were they almost all either wholly repealed or exceedingly\nreduced? Were they not touched and grieved even by the regulating duties\nof the sixth of George the Second? Else why were the duties first\nreduced to one third in 1764, and afterwards to a third of that third in\nthe year 1766? Were they not touched and grieved by the Stamp Act? I\nshall say they were, until that tax is revived. Were they not touched\nand grieved by the duties of 1767, which were likewise repealed, and\nwhich Lord Hillsborough tells you (for the ministry) were laid contrary\nto the true principle of commerce? Is not the assurance given by that\nnoble person to the colonies of a resolution to lay no more taxes on\nthem an admission that taxes would touch and grieve them? Is not the\nresolution of the noble lord in the blue riband, now standing on your\njournals, the strongest of all proofs that Parliamentary subsidies\nreally touched and grieved them? Else why all these changes,\nmodifications, repeals, assurances, and resolutions?\n\nThe next proposition is,--\"That, from the distance of the said colonies,\nand from other circumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for\nprocuring a representation in Parliament for the said colonies.\"\n\nThis is an assertion of a fact. I go no further on the paper; though, in\nmy private judgment, an useful representation is impossible; I am sure\nit is not desired by them, nor ought it, perhaps, by us: but I abstain\nfrom opinions.\n\nThe fourth resolution is,--\"That each of the said colonies hath within\nitself a body, chosen, in part or in the whole, by the freemen,\nfreeholders, or other free inhabitants thereof, commonly called the\nGeneral Assembly, or General Court, with powers legally to raise, levy,\nand assess, according to the several usages of such colonies, duties and\ntaxes towards defraying all sorts of public services.\"\n\nThis competence in the colony assemblies is certain. It is proved by the\nwhole tenor of their acts of supply in all the assemblies, in which the\nconstant style of granting is, \"An aid to his Majesty\"; and acts\ngranting to the crown have regularly, for near a century, passed the\npublic offices without dispute. Those who have been pleased\nparadoxically to deny this right, holding that none but the British\nParliament can grant to the crown, are wished to look to what is done,\nnot only in the colonies, but in Ireland, in one uniform, unbroken\ntenor, every session. Sir, I am surprised that this doctrine should come\nfrom Rome of the law servants of the crown. I say, that, if the crown\ncould be responsible, his Majesty,--but certainly the ministers, and\neven these law officers themselves, through whose hands the acts pass\nbiennially in Ireland, or annually in the colonies, are in an habitual\ncourse of committing impeachable offences. What habitual offenders have\nbeen all Presidents of the Council, all Secretaries of State, all First\nLords of Trade, all Attorneys and all Solicitors General! However, they\nare safe, as no one impeaches them; and there is no ground of charge\nagainst them, except in their own unfounded theories.\n\nThe fifth resolution is also a resolution of fact,--\"That the said\ngeneral assemblies, general courts, or other bodies legally qualified as\naforesaid, have at sundry times freely granted several large subsidies\nand public aids for his Majesty's service, according to their abilities,\nwhen required thereto by letter from one of his Majesty's principal\nSecretaries of State; and that their right to grant the same, and their\ncheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grants, have been at sundry\ntimes acknowledged by Parliament.\"\n\nTo say nothing of their great expenses in the Indian wars, and not to\ntake their exertion in foreign ones, so high as the supplies in the year\n1695, not to go back to their public contributions in the year 1710, I\nshall begin to travel only where the journals give me light,--resolving\nto deal in nothing but fact authenticated by Parliamentary record, and\nto build myself wholly on that solid basis.\n\nOn the 4th of April, 1748,[25] a committee of this House came to the\nfollowing resolution:--\n\n\"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, _that it is just\nand reasonable_, that the several provinces and colonies of\nMassachusetts Bay, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island be\nreimbursed the expenses they have been at in taking and securing to the\ncrown of Great Britain the island of Caps Breton and its dependencies.\"\n\nThese expenses were immense for such colonies. They were above\n200,000_l._ sterling: money first raised and advanced on their public\ncredit.\n\nOn the 28th of January, 1756,[26] a message from the king came to us, to\nthis effect:--\"His Majesty, being sensible of the zeal and vigor with\nwhich his faithful subjects of certain colonies in North America have\nexerted themselves in defence of his Majesty's just rights and\npossessions, recommends it to this House to take the same into their\nconsideration, and to enable his Majesty to give them such assistance as\nmay be _proper reward and encouragement_.\"\n\nOn the 3d of February, 1756,[27] the House came to a suitable\nresolution, expressed in words nearly the same as those of the message;\nbut with the further addition, that the money then voted was as an\n_encouragement_ to the colonies to exert themselves with vigor. It will\nnot be necessary to go through all the testimonies which your own\nrecords have given to the truth of my resolutions. I will only refer you\nto the places in the journals:--\n\n     Vol. XXVII--16th and 19th May, 1757.\n\n     Vol. XXVIII.--June 1st, 1758,--April 26th and 30th, 1759,--March\n     26th and 31st, and April 28th, 1760,--Jan. 9th and 20th, 1761.\n\n     Vol. XXIX.--Jan. 22d and 26th, 1762,--March 14th and 17th, 1763.\n\n\nSir, here is the repeated acknowledgment of Parliament, that the\ncolonies not only gave, but gave to satiety. This nation has formally\nacknowledged two things: first, that the colonies had gone beyond their\nabilities, Parliament having thought it necessary to reimburse them;\nsecondly, that they had acted legally and laudably in their grants of\nmoney, and their maintenance of troops, since the compensation is\nexpressly given as reward and encouragement. Reward is not bestowed for\nacts that are unlawful; and encouragement is not held out to things that\ndeserve reprehension. My resolution, therefore, does nothing more than\ncollect into one proposition what is scattered through your journals. I\ngive you nothing but your own; and you cannot refuse in the gross what\nyou have so often acknowledged in detail. The admission of this, which\nwill be so honorable to them and to you, will, indeed, be mortal to all\nthe miserable stories by which the passions of the misguided people have\nbeen engaged in an unhappy system. The people heard, indeed, from the\nbeginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears:\nthat reason and justice demanded, that the Americans, who paid no taxes,\nshould be compelled to contribute. How did that fact, of their paying\nnothing, stand, when the taxing system began? When Mr. Grenville began\nto form his system of American revenue, he stated in this House that the\ncolonies were then in debt two million six hundred thousand pounds\nsterling money, and was of opinion they would discharge that debt in\nfour years. On this state, those untaxed people were actually subject to\nthe payment of taxes to the amount of six hundred and fifty thousand a\nyear. In fact, however, Mr. Grenville was mistaken. The funds given for\nsinking the debt did not prove quite so ample as both the colonies and\nhe expected. The calculation was too sanguine: the reduction was not\ncompleted till some years after, and at different times in different\ncolonies. However, the taxes after the war continued too great to bear\nany addition, with prudence or propriety; and when the burdens imposed\nin consequence of former requisitions were discharged, our tone became\ntoo high to resort again to requisition. No colony, since that time,\never has had any requisition whatsoever made to it.\n\nWe see the sense of the crown, and the sense of Parliament, on the\nproductive nature of a _revenue by grant_. Now search the same journals\nfor the produce of the _revenue by imposition_. Where is it?--let us\nknow the volume and the page. What is the gross, what is the net\nproduce? To what service is it applied? How have you appropriated its\nsurplus?--What! can none of the many skilful index-makers that we are\nnow employing find any trace of it?--Well, let them and that rest\ntogether.--But are the journals, which say nothing of the revenue, as\nsilent on the discontent?--Oh, no! a child may find it. It is the\nmelancholy burden and blot of every page.\n\nI think, then, I am, from those journals, justified in the sixth and\nlast resolution, which is,--\"That it hath been found by experience, that\nthe manner of granting the said supplies and aids by the said general\nassemblies hath been more agreeable to the inhabitants of the said\ncolonies, and more beneficial and conducive to the public service, than\nthe mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies in Parliament, to be\nraised and paid in the said colonies.\"\n\nThis makes the whole of the fundamental part of the plan. The conclusion\nis irresistible. You cannot say that you were driven by any necessity to\nan exercise of the utmost rights of legislature. You cannot assert that\nyou took on yourselves the task of imposing colony taxes, from the want\nof another legal body that is competent to the purpose of supplying the\nexigencies of the state without wounding the prejudices of the people.\nNeither is it true, that the body so qualified, and having that\ncompetence, had neglected the duty.\n\nThe question now, on all this accumulated matter, is,--Whether you will\nchoose to abide by a profitable experience or a mischievous theory?\nwhether you choose to build on imagination or fact? whether you prefer\nenjoyment or hope? satisfaction in your subjects, or discontent?\n\nIf these propositions are accepted, everything which has been made to\nenforce a contrary system must, I take it for granted, fall along with\nit. On that ground, I have drawn the following resolution, which, when\nit comes to be moved, will naturally be divided in a proper\nmanner:--\"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the seventh\nyear of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for\ngranting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in\nAmerica; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs, upon the\nexportation from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produce\nof the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks\npayable on China earthen ware exported to America; and for more\neffectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said\ncolonies and plantations.'--And also, that it may be proper to repeal an\nact, made in the fourteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty,\nintituled, 'An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as\nare therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping,\nof goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the harbor of\nBoston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.'--And\nalso, that it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth\nyear of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the\nimpartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned\nfor any acts done by them, in the execution of the law, or for the\nsuppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts\nBay, in New England.'--And also, that it may be proper to repeal an act,\nmade in the fourteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty,\nintituled,' An act for the better regulating the government of the\nprovince of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'--And also, that it\nmay be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the thirty-fifth year\nof the reign of King Henry the Eighth, intituled, 'An act for the trial\nof treasons committed out of the king's dominions.'\"\n\nI wish, Sir, to repeal the Boston Port Bill, because (independently of\nthe dangerous precedent of suspending the rights of the subject during\nthe king's pleasure) it was passed, as I apprehend, with less\nregularity, and on more partial principles, than it ought. The\ncorporation of Boston was not heard before it was condemned. Other\ntowns, full as guilty as she was, have not had their ports blocked up.\nEven the Restraining Bill of the present session does not go to the\nlength of the Boston Port Act. The same ideas of prudence, which induced\nyou not to extend equal punishment to equal guilt, even when you were\npunishing, induce me, who mean not to chastise, but to reconcile, to be\nsatisfied with the punishment already partially inflicted.\n\nIdeas of prudence and accommodation to circumstances prevent you from\ntaking away the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island, as you have\ntaken away that of Massachusetts Colony, though the crown has far less\npower in the two former provinces than it enjoyed in the latter, and\nthough the abuses have bean full as great and as flagrant in the\nexempted as in the punished. The same reasons of prudence and\naccommodation have weight with me in restoring the charter of\nMassachusetts Bay. Besides, Sir, the act which changes the charter of\nMassachusetts is in many particulars so exceptionable, that, if I did\nnot wish absolutely to repeal, I would by all means desire to alter it;\nas several of its provisions tend to the subversion of all public and\nprivate justice. Such, among others, is the power in the governor to\nchange the sheriff at his pleasure, and to make a new returning officer\nfor every special cause. It is shameful to behold such a regulation\nstanding among English laws.\n\nThe act for bringing persons accused of committing murder under the\norders of government to England for trial is but temporary. That act has\ncalculated the probable duration of our quarrel with the colonies, and\nis accommodated to that supposed duration. I would hasten the happy\nmoment of reconciliation, and therefore must, on my principle, get rid\nof that most justly obnoxious act.\n\nThe act of Henry the Eighth for the trial of treasons I do not mean to\ntake away, but to confine it to its proper bounds and original\nintention: to make it expressly for trial of treasons (and the greatest\ntreasons may be committed) in places where the jurisdiction of the crown\ndoes not extend.\n\nHaving guarded the privileges of local legislature, I would next secure\nto the colonies a fair and unbiased judicature; for which purpose, Sir,\nI propose the following resolution:--\"That, from the time when the\ngeneral assembly, or general court, of any colony or plantation in North\nAmerica shall have appointed, by act of assembly duly confirmed, a\nsettled salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges of\nthe superior courts, it may be proper that the said chief justice and\nother judges of the superior courts of such colony shall hold his and\ntheir office and offices during their good behavior, and shall not be\nremoved therefrom, but when the said removal shall be adjudged by his\nMajesty in council, upon a hearing on complaint from the general\nassembly, or on a complaint from the governor, or the council, or the\nhouse of representatives, severally, of the colony in which the said\nchief justice and other judges have exercised the said offices.\"\n\nThe next resolution relates to the courts of admiralty. It is\nthis:--\"That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or\nvice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th George the\nThird, in such a manner as to make the same more commodious to those who\nsue or are sued in the said courts, and to provide for the more decent\nmaintenance of the judges of the same.\"\n\nThese courts I do not wish to take away: they are in themselves proper\nestablishments. This court is one of the capital securities of the Act\nof Navigation. The extent of its jurisdiction, indeed, has been\nincreased; but this is altogether as proper, and is, indeed, on many\naccounts, more eligible, where new powers were wanted, than a court\nabsolutely new. But courts incommodiously situated, in effect, deny\njustice; and a court partaking in the fruits of its own condemnation is\na robber. The Congress complain, and complain justly, of this\ngrievance.[28]\n\nThese are the three consequential propositions. I have thought of two or\nthree more; but they come rather too near detail, and to the province of\nexecutive government, which I wish Parliament always to superintend,\nnever to assume. If the first six are granted, congruity will carry the\nlatter three. If not, the things that remain unrepealed will be, I hope,\nrather unseemly incumbrances on the building than very materially\ndetrimental to its strength and stability.\n\nHere, Sir, I should close, but that I plainly perceive some objections\nremain, which I ought, if possible, to remove. The first will be, that,\nin resorting to the doctrine of our ancestors, as contained in the\npreamble to the Chester act, I prove too much: that the grievance from a\nwant of representation, stated in that preamble, goes to the whole of\nlegislation as well as to taxation; and that the colonies, grounding\nthemselves upon that doctrine, will apply it to all parts of legislative\nauthority.\n\nTo this objection, with all possible deference and humility, and wishing\nas little as any man living to impair the smallest particle of our\nsupreme authority, I answer, that _the words are the words of\nParliament, and not mine_; and that all false and inconclusive\ninferences drawn from them are not mine; for I heartily disclaim any\nsuch inference. I have chosen the words of an act of Parliament, which\nMr. Grenville, surely a tolerably zealous and very judicious advocate\nfor the sovereignty of Parliament, formerly moved to have read at your\ntable in confirmation of his tenets. It is true that Lord Chatham\nconsidered these preambles as declaring strongly in favor of his\nopinions. He was a no less powerful advocate for the privileges of the\nAmericans. Ought I not from hence to presume that these preambles are as\nfavorable as possible to both, when properly understood: favorable both\nto the rights of Parliament, and to the privilege of the dependencies of\nthis crown? But, Sir, the object of grievance in my resolution I have\nnot taken from the Chester, but from the Durham act, which confines the\nhardship of want of representation to the case of subsidies, and which\ntherefore falls in exactly with the case of the colonies. But whether\nthe unrepresented counties were _de jure_ or _de facto_ bound the\npreambles do not accurately distinguish; nor, indeed, was it necessary:\nfor, whether _de jure_ or _de facto_, the legislature thought the\nexercise of the power of taxing, as of right, or as of fact without\nright, equally a grievance, and equally oppressive.\n\nI do not know that the colonies have, in any general way, or in any cool\nhour, gone much beyond the demand of immunity in relation to taxes. It\nis not fair to judge of the temper or dispositions of any man or any set\nof men, when they are composed and at rest, from their conduct or their\nexpressions in a state of disturbance and irritation. It is, besides, a\nvery great mistake to imagine that mankind follow up practically any\nspeculative principle, either of government or of freedom, as far as it\nwill go in argument and logical illation. We Englishmen stop very short\nof the principles upon which we support any given part of our\nConstitution, or even the whole of it together. I could easily, if I had\nnot already tired you, give you very striking and convincing instances\nof it. This is nothing but what is natural and proper. All government,\nindeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent\nact, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; we\ngive and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and we\nchoose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants. As we must\ngive away some natural liberty, to enjoy civil advantages, so we must\nsacrifice some civil liberties, for the advantages to be derived from\nthe communion and fellowship of a great empire. But, in all fair\ndealings, the thing bought must bear some proportion to the purchase\npaid. None will barter away the immediate jewel of his soul. Though a\ngreat house is apt to make slaves haughty, yet it is purchasing a part\nof the artificial importance of a great empire too dear, to pay for it\nall essential rights, and all the intrinsic dignity of human nature.\nNone of us who would not risk his life rather than fall under a\ngovernment purely arbitrary. But although there are some amongst us who\nthink our Constitution wants many improvements to make it a complete\nsystem of liberty, perhaps none who are of that opinion would think it\nright to aim at such improvement by disturbing his country and risking\neverything that is dear to him. In every arduous enterprise, we consider\nwhat we are to lose, as well as what we are to gain; and the more and\nbetter stake of liberty every people possess, the less they will hazard\nin a vain attempt to make it more. These are _the cords of man_. Man\nacts from adequate motives relative to his interest, and not on\nmetaphysical speculations. Aristotle, the great master of reasoning,\ncautions us, and with great weight and propriety, against this species\nof delusive geometrical accuracy in moral arguments, as the most\nfallacious of all sophistry.\n\nThe Americans will have no interest contrary to the grandeur and glory\nof England, when they are not oppressed by the weight of it; and they\nwill rather be inclined to respect the acts of a superintending\nlegislature, when they see them the acts of that power which is itself\nthe security, not the rival, of their secondary importance. In this\nassurance my mind most perfectly acquiesces, and I confess I feel not\nthe least alarm from the discontents which are to arise from putting\npeople at their ease; nor do I apprehend the destruction of this empire\nfrom giving, by an act of free grace and indulgence, to two millions of\nmy fellow-citizens some share of those rights upon which I have always\nbeen taught to value myself.\n\nIt is said, indeed, that this power of granting, vested in American\nassemblies, would dissolve the unity of the empire,--which was preserved\nentire, although Wales, and Chester, and Durham were added to it. Truly,\nMr. Speaker, I do not know what this unity means; nor has it ever been\nheard of, that I know, in the constitutional policy of this country. The\nvery idea of subordination of parts excludes this notion of simple and\nundivided unity. England is the head; but she is not the head and the\nmembers too. Ireland has ever had from the beginning a separate, but not\nan independent legislature, which, far from distracting, promoted the\nunion of the whole. Everything was sweetly and harmoniously disposed\nthrough both islands for the conservation of English dominion and the\ncommunication of English liberties. I do not see that the same\nprinciples might not be carried into twenty islands, and with the same\ngood effect. This is my model with regard to America, as far as the\ninternal circumstances of the two countries are the same. I know no\nother unity of this empire than I can draw from its example during these\nperiods, when it seemed to my poor understanding more united than it is\nnow, or than it is likely to be by the present methods.\n\nBut since I speak of these methods, I recollect, Mr. Speaker, almost too\nlate, that I promised, before I finished, to say something of the\nproposition of the noble lord[29] on the floor, which has been so lately\nreceived, and stands on your journals. I must be deeply concerned,\nwhenever it is my misfortune to continue a difference with the majority\nof this House. But as the reasons for that difference are my apology for\nthus troubling you, suffer me to state them in a very few words. I shall\ncompress them into as small a body as I possibly can, having already\ndebated that matter at large, when the question was before the\ncommittee.\n\nFirst, then, I cannot admit that proposition of a ransom by\nauction,--because it is a mere project. It is a thing new, unheard of,\nsupported by no experience, justified by no analogy, without example of\nour ancestors, or root in the Constitution. It is neither regular\nParliamentary taxation nor colony grant. _Experimentum in corpore vili_\nis a good rule, which will ever make me adverse to any trial of\nexperiments on what is certainly the most valuable of all subjects, the\npeace of this empire.\n\nSecondly, it is an experiment which must be fatal in the end to our\nConstitution. For what is it but a scheme for taxing the colonies in the\nantechamber of the noble lord and his successors? To settle the quotas\nand proportions in this House is clearly impossible. You, Sir, may\nflatter yourself you shall sit a state auctioneer, with your hammer in\nyour hand, and knock down to each colony as it bids. But to settle (on\nthe plan laid down by the noble lord) the true proportional payment for\nfour or five and twenty governments, according to the absolute and the\nrelative wealth of each, and according to the British proportion of\nwealth and burden, is a wild and chimerical notion. This new taxation\nmust therefore come in by the back-door of the Constitution. Each quota\nmust be brought to this House ready formed. You can neither add nor\nalter. You must register it. You can do nothing further. For on what\ngrounds can you deliberate either before or after the proposition? You\ncannot hear the counsel for all these provinces, quarrelling each on its\nown quantity of payment, and its proportion to others. If you should\nattempt it, the Committee of Provincial Ways and Means, or by whatever\nother name it will delight to be called, must swallow up all the time of\nParliament.\n\nThirdly, it does not give satisfaction to the complaint of the colonies.\nThey complain that they are taxed without their consent. You answer,\nthat you will fix the sum at which they shall be taxed. That is, you\ngive them the very grievance for the remedy. You tell them, indeed,\nthat you will leave the mode to themselves. I really beg pardon; it\ngives me pain to mention it; but you must be sensible that you will not\nperform this part of the compact. For suppose the colonies were to lay\nthe duties which furnished their contingent upon the importation of your\nmanufactures; you know you would never suffer such a tax to be laid. You\nknow, too, that you would not suffer many other modes of taxation. So\nthat, when you come to explain yourself, it will be found that you will\nneither leave to themselves the quantum nor the mode, nor indeed\nanything. The whole is delusion, from one end to the other.\n\nFourthly, this method of ransom by auction, unless it be _universally_\naccepted, will plunge you into great and inextricable difficulties. In\nwhat year of our Lord are the proportions of payments to be settled? To\nsay nothing of the impossibility that colony agents should have general\npowers of taxing the colonies at their discretion, consider, I implore\nyou, that the communication by special messages and orders between these\nagents and their constituents on each variation of the case, when the\nparties come to contend together, and to dispute on their relative\nproportions, will be a matter of delay, perplexity, and confusion, that\nnever can have an end.\n\nIf all the colonies do not appear at the outcry, what is the condition\nof those assemblies who offer, by themselves or their agents, to tax\nthemselves up to your ideas of their proportion? The refractory\ncolonies, who refuse all composition, will remain taxed only to your old\nimpositions, which, however grievous in principle, are trifling as to\nproduction. The obedient colonies in this scheme are heavily taxed; the\nrefractory remain unburdened. What will you do? Will you lay new and\nheavier taxes by Parliament on the disobedient? Pray consider in what\nway you can do it. You are perfectly convinced, that, in the way of\ntaxing, you can do nothing but at the ports. Now suppose it is Virginia\nthat refuses to appear at your auction, while Maryland and North\nCarolina bid handsomely for their ransom, and are taxed to your quota,\nhow will you put these colonies on a par? Will you tax the tobacco of\nVirginia? If you do, you give its death-wound to your English revenue at\nhome, and to one of the very greatest articles of your own foreign\ntrade. If you tax the import of that rebellious colony, what do you tax\nbut your own manufactures, or the goods of some other obedient and\nalready well-taxed colony? Who has said one word on this labyrinth of\ndetail, which bewilders you more and more as you enter into it? Who has\npresented, who can present, you with a clew to lead you out of it? I\nthink, Sir, it is impossible that you should not recollect that the\ncolony bounds are so implicated in one another (you know it by your\nother experiments in the bill for prohibiting the New England fishery)\nthat you can lay no possible restraints on almost any of them which may\nnot be presently eluded, if you do not confound the innocent with the\nguilty, and burden those whom upon every principle you ought to\nexonerate. He must be grossly ignorant of America, who thinks, that,\nwithout falling into this confusion of all rules of equity and policy,\nyou can restrain any single colony, especially Virginia and Maryland,\nthe central, and most important of them all.\n\nLet it also be considered, that either in the present confusion you\nsettle a permanent contingent, which will and must be trifling, and\nthen you have no effectual revenue,--or you change the quota at every\nexigency, and then on every new repartition you will have a new quarrel.\n\nReflect besides, that, when you have fixed a quota for every colony, you\nhave not provided for prompt and punctual payment. Suppose one, two,\nfive, ten years' arrears. You cannot issue a Treasury extent against the\nfailing colony. You must make new Boston port bills, new restraining\nlaws, new acts for dragging men to England for trial. You must send out\nnew fleets, new armies. All is to begin again. From this day forward the\nempire is never to know an hour's tranquillity. An intestine fire will\nbe kept alive in the bowels of the colonies, which one time or other\nmust consume this whole empire. I allow, indeed, that the Empire of\nGermany raises her revenue and her troops by quotas and contingents; but\nthe revenue of the Empire and the army of the Empire is the worst\nrevenue and the worst army in the world.\n\nInstead of a standing revenue, you will therefore have a perpetual\nquarrel. Indeed, the noble lord who proposed this project of a ransom by\nauction seemed himself to be of that opinion. His project was rather\ndesigned for breaking the union of the colonies than for establishing a\nrevenue. He confessed he apprehended that his proposal would not be to\n_their taste_. I say, this scheme of disunion seems to be at the bottom\nof the project; for I will not suspect that the noble lord meant nothing\nbut merely to delude the nation by an airy phantom which he never\nintended to realize. But whatever his views may be, as I propose the\npeace and union of the colonies as the very foundation of my plan, it\ncannot accord with one whose foundation is perpetual discord.\n\nCompare the two. This I offer to give you is plain and simple: the other\nfull of perplexed and intricate mazes. This is mild: that harsh. This is\nfound by experience effectual for its purposes: the other is a new\nproject. This is universal: the other calculated for certain colonies\nonly. This is immediate in its conciliatory operation: the other remote,\ncontingent, full of hazard. Mine is what becomes the dignity of a ruling\npeople: gratuitous, unconditional, and not held out as matter of bargain\nand sale. I have done my duty in proposing it to you. I have, indeed,\ntired you by a long discourse; but this is the misfortune of those to\nwhose influence nothing will be conceded, and who must win every inch of\ntheir ground by argument. You have heard me with goodness. May you\ndecide with wisdom! For my part, I feel my mind greatly disburdened by\nwhat I have done to-day. I have been the less fearful of trying your\npatience, because on this subject I mean to spare it altogether in\nfuture. I have this comfort,--that, in every stage of the American\naffairs, I have steadily opposed the measures that have produced the\nconfusion, and may bring on the destruction, of this empire. I now go so\nfar as to risk a proposal of my own. If I cannot give peace to my\ncountry, I give it to my conscience.\n\nBut what (says the financier) is peace to us without money? Your plan\ngives us no revenue.--No! But it does: for it secures to the subject the\npower of REFUSAL,--the first of all revenues. Experience is a cheat, and\nfact a liar, if this power in the subject, of proportioning his grant,\nor of not granting at all, has not been found the richest mine of\nrevenue ever discovered by the skill or by the fortune of man. It does\nnot, indeed, vote you L152,750: 11: 2-3/4ths, nor any other paltry\nlimited sum; but it gives the strong-box itself, the fund, the bank,\nfrom whence only revenues can arise amongst a people sensible of\nfreedom: _Posita luditur arca_. Cannot you in England, cannot you at\nthis time of day, cannot you, an House of Commons, trust to the\nprinciple which has raised so mighty a revenue, and accumulated a debt\nof near 140 millions in this country? Is this principle to be true in\nEngland and false everywhere else? Is it not true in Ireland? Has it not\nhitherto been true in the colonies? Why should you presume, that, in any\ncountry, a body duly constituted for any function will neglect to\nperform its duty, and abdicate its trust? Such a presumption would go\nagainst all government in all modes. But, in truth, this dread of penury\nof supply from a free assembly has no foundation in Nature. For first,\nobserve, that, besides the desire which all men have naturally of\nsupporting the honor of their own government, that sense of dignity, and\nthat security to property, which ever attends freedom, has a tendency to\nincrease the stock of the free community. Most may be taken where most\nis accumulated. And what is the soil or climate where experience has not\nuniformly proved that the voluntary flow of heaped-up plenty, bursting\nfrom the weight of its own rich luxuriance, has ever run with a more\ncopious stream of revenue than could be squeezed from the dry husks of\noppressed indigence by the straining of all the politic machinery in the\nworld?\n\nNext, we know that parties must ever exist in a free country. We know,\ntoo, that the emulations of such parties, their contradictions, their\nreciprocal necessities, their hopes, and their fears, must send them all\nin their turns to him that holds the balance of the state. The parties\nare the gamesters; but government keeps the table, and is sure to be the\nwinner in the end. When this game is played, I really think it is more\nto be feared that the people will be exhausted than that government will\nnot be supplied. Whereas whatever is got by acts of absolute power ill\nobeyed because odious, or by contracts ill kept because constrained,\nwill be narrow, feeble, uncertain, and precarious.\n\n                      \"Ease would retract\n    Vows made in pain, as violent and void.\"\n\n\nI, for one, protest against compounding our demands: I declare against\ncompounding, for a poor limited sum, the immense, ever-growing, eternal\ndebt which is due to generous government from protected freedom. And so\nmay I speed in the great object I propose to you, as I think it would\nnot only be an act of injustice, but would be the worst economy in the\nworld, to compel the colonies to a sum certain, either in the way of\nransom, or in the way of compulsory compact.\n\nBut to clear up my ideas on this subject,--a revenue from America\ntransmitted hither. Do not delude yourselves: you can never receive\nit,--no, not a shilling. We have experience that from remote countries\nit is not to be expected. If, when you attempted to extract revenue from\nBengal, you were obliged to return in loan what you had taken in\nimposition, what can you expect from North America? For, certainly, if\never there was a country qualified to produce wealth, it is India; or an\ninstitution fit for the transmission, it is the East India Company.\nAmerica has none of these aptitudes. If America gives you taxable\nobjects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you at the same\ntime a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on\nthese objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the\nBritish revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she\nmay, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in\nmoderation; for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She\nought to be reserved to a war; the weight of which, with the enemies\nthat we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of\nthe globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially.\n\nFor that service, for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire,\nmy trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the\ncolonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from\nkindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are\nties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the\ncolonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your\ngovernment,--they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under\nheaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it\nbe once understood that your government may be one thing and their\nprivileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual\nrelation,--the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything\nhastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep\nthe sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the\nsacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race\nand sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards\nyou. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have; the more\nardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.\nSlavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil.\nThey may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But, until\nyou become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural\ndignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This is the commodity\nof price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of\nNavigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through\nthem secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this\nparticipation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally\nmade, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. Do not entertain\nso weak an imagination as that your registers and your bonds, your\naffidavits and your sufferances, your cockets and your clearances, are\nwhat form the great securities of your commerce. Do not dream that your\nletters of office, and your instructions, and your suspending clauses\nare the things that hold together the great contexture of this\nmysterious whole. These things do not make your government. Dead\ninstruments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of the English\ncommunion that gives all their life and efficacy to them. It is the\nspirit of the English Constitution, which, infused through the mighty\nmass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the\nempire, even down to the minutest member.\n\nIs it not the same virtue which does everything for us here in England?\nDo you imagine, then, that it is the Land-Tax Act which raises your\nrevenue? that it is the annual vote in the Committee of Supply which\ngives you your army? or that it is the Mutiny Bill which inspires it\nwith bravery and discipline? No! surely, no! It is the love of the\npeople; it is their attachment to their government, from the sense of\nthe deep stake they have in such a glorious institution, which gives you\nyour army and your navy, and infuses into both that liberal obedience\nwithout which your army would be a base rabble and your navy nothing but\nrotten timber.\n\nAll this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the\nprofane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no\nplace among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what\nis gross and material,--and who, therefore, far from being qualified to\nbe directors of the great movement of empire, are not fit to turn a\nwheel in the machine. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught,\nthese ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as\nI have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything,\nand all in all. Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom;\nand a great empire and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious\nof our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place as becomes our\nstation and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceedings\non America with the old warning of the Church, _Sursum corda!_ We ought\nto elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order\nof Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high\ncalling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious\nempire, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable\nconquests, not by destroying, but by promoting the wealth, the number,\nthe happiness of the human race. Let us get an American revenue as we\nhave got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it\nis; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.\n\nIn full confidence of this unalterable truth, I now (_quod felix\nfaustumque sit!_) lay the first stone of the Temple of Peace; and I move\nyou,--\n\n\"That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America,\nconsisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millions\nand upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilege\nof electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, to\nrepresent them in the high court of Parliament.\"\n\nUpon this resolution the previous question was put and carried: for the\nprevious question, 270; against it, 78.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs the propositions were opened separately in the body of the speech,\nthe reader perhaps may wish to see the whole of them together, in the\nform in which they were moved for.\n\n\"MOVED,\n\n\"That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America,\nconsisting of fourteen separate governments, and containing two millions\nand upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilege\nof electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, to\nrepresent them in the high court of Parliament.\"\n\n\"That the said colonies and plantations have been made liable to, and\nbounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and taxes, given and\ngranted by Parliament, though the said colonies and plantations have not\ntheir knights and burgesses in the said high court of Parliament, of\ntheir own election, to represent the condition of their country; _by\nlack whereof they have been oftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies,\ngiven, granted, and amended to, in the said, court, in a manner\nprejudicial to the common wealth, quietness, rest, and peace of the\nsubjects inhabiting within the same_.\"\n\n\"That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from other\ncircumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for procuring a\nrepresentation in Parliament for the said colonies.\"\n\n\"That each of the said colonies hath within itself a body, chosen, in\npart or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders, or other free\ninhabitants thereof, commonly called the General Assembly, or General\nCourt, with powers legally to raise, levy, and assess, according to the\nseveral usages of such colonies, duties and taxes towards defraying all\nsorts of public services.\"[30]\n\n\"That the said general assemblies, general courts, or other bodies\nlegally qualified as aforesaid, have at sundry times freely granted\nseveral large subsidies and public aids for his Majesty's service,\naccording to their abilities, when required thereto by letter from one\nof his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State; and that their right to\ngrant the same, and their cheerfulness and sufficiency in the said\ngrants, have been at sundry times acknowledged by Parliament.\"\n\n\"That it hath been found by experience, that the manner of granting the\nsaid supplies and aids by the said general assemblies hath been more\nagreeable to the inhabitants of the said colonies, and more beneficial\nand conducive to the public service, than the mode of giving and\ngranting aids and subsidies in Parliament, to be raised and paid in the\nsaid colonies.\"\n\n\"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the seventh year of the\nreign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for granting certain\nduties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing\na drawback of the duties of customs, upon the exportation from this\nkingdom, of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said colonies\nor plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on China earthen\nware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing the\nclandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations.'\"\n\n\"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year of\nthe reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to discontinue, in\nsuch manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and\ndischarging, lading or chipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at\nthe town and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of\nMassachusetts Bay, in North America.'\"\n\n\"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year of\nthe reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the impartial\nadministration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any\nacts done by them, in the execution of the law, or for the suppression\nof riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New\nEngland.'\"\n\n\"That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the fourteenth year of\nthe reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the better\nregulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in\nNew England.'\"\n\n\"That it may be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the\nthirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, intituled, 'An\nact for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's dominions.'\"\n\n\"That, from the time when the general assembly, or general court, of any\ncolony or plantation in North America, shall have appointed, by act of\nassembly duly confirmed, a settled salary to the offices of the chief\njustice and other judges of the superior courts, it may be proper that\nthe said chief justice and other judges of the superior courts of such\ncolony shall hold his and their office and offices during their good\nbehavior, and shall not be removed therefrom, but when the said removal\nshall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon a hearing on complaint\nfrom the general assembly, or on a complaint from the governor, or the\ncouncil, or the house of representatives, severally, of the colony in\nwhich the said chief justice and other judges have exercised the said\noffices.\"\n\n\"That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or\nvice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th George the\nThird, in such a manner as to make the same more commodious to those who\nsue or are sued in the said courts; _and to provide for the mere decent\nmaintenance of the judges of the same_.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] The act to restrain the trade and commerce of the provinces of\nMassachusetts Bay and New Hampshire, and colonies of Connecticut and\nRhode Island and Providence Plantation, in North America, to Great\nBritain, Ireland, and the British Islands in the West Indies; and to\nprohibit such provinces and colonies from carrying on any fishery on the\nbanks of Newfoundland, and other places therein mentioned, under certain\nconditions and limitations.\n\n[19] Mr. Rose Fuller.\n\n[20] \"That when the governor, council, and assembly, or general court,\nof any of his Majesty's provinces or colonies in America shall _propose_\nto make provision, _according to the condition, circumstances_, and\n_situation_ of such province or colony, for contributing their\n_proportion_ to the _common defence_, (such _proportion_ to be raised\nunder the authority of the general court or general assembly of such\nprovince or colony, and disposable by Parliament,) and shall _engage_ to\nmake provision, also for the support of the civil government and the\nadministration, of justice in such province or colony, it will be\nproper, _if such proposal shall be approved by his Majesty and the two\nHouses of Parliament_, and for so long as such provision shall be made\naccordingly, to forbear, in _respect of such province or colony_, to\nlevy any duty, tax, or assessment, or to impose any farther duty, tax,\nor assessment, except only such duties as it may be expedient to\ncontinue to levy or to impose for the regulation of commerce: the net\nproduce of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of\nsuch province or colony respectively.\"--Resolution moved by Lord North\nin the Committee, and agreed to by the House, 27th February, 1775.\n\n[21] Mr. Glover.\n\n[22] The Attorney-General.\n\n[23] Mr. Rice.\n\n[24] Lord North.\n\n[25] Journals of the House, Vol. XXV.\n\n[26] Journals of the House, Vol. XXVII.\n\n[27] Ibid.\n\n[28] The Solicitor-General informed Mr. B., when the resolutions were\nseparately moved, that the grievance of the judges partaking of the\nprofits of the seizure had been redressed by office; accordingly the\nresolution was amended.\n\n[29] Lord North.\n\n[30] The first four motions and the last had the previous question put\non them. The others were negatived.\n\nThe words in Italics were, by an amendment that was carried, left out of\nthe motion; which will appear in the journals, though it is not the\npractice to insert such amendments in the votes.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nJOHN FARR AND JOHN HARRIS, ESQRS.,\n\nSHERIFFS OF THE CITY OF BRISTOL,\n\nON THE\n\nAFFAIRS OF AMERICA.\n\n1777.\n\n\n\n\nGentlemen,--I have the honor of sending you the two last acts which have\nbeen passed with regard to the troubles in America. These acts are\nsimilar to all the rest which have been made on the same subject. They\noperate by the same principle, and they are derived from the very same\npolicy. I think they complete the number of this sort of statutes to\nnine. It affords no matter for very pleasing reflection to observe that\nour subjects diminish as our laws increase.\n\nIf I have the misfortune of differing with some of my fellow-citizens on\nthis great and arduous subject, it is no small consolation to me that I\ndo not differ from you. With you I am perfectly united. We are heartily\nagreed in our detestation of a civil war. We have ever expressed the\nmost unqualified disapprobation of all the steps which have led to it,\nand of all those which tend to prolong it. And I have no doubt that we\nfeel exactly the same emotions of grief and shame on all its miserable\nconsequences, whether they appear, on the one side or the other, in the\nshape of victories or defeats, of captures made from the English on the\ncontinent or from the English in these islands, of legislative\nregulations which subvert the liberties of our brethren or which\nundermine our own.\n\nOf the first of these statutes (that for the letter of marque) I shall\nsay little. Exceptionable as it may be, and as I think it is in some\nparticulars, it seems the natural, perhaps necessary, result of the\nmeasures we have taken and the situation we are in. The other (for a\npartial suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_) appears to me of a much\ndeeper malignity. During its progress through the House of Commons, it\nhas been amended, so as to express, more distinctly than at first it\ndid, the avowed sentiments of those who framed it; and the main ground\nof my exception to it is, because it does express, and does carry into\nexecution, purposes which appear to me so contradictory to all the\nprinciples, not only of the constitutional policy of Great Britain, but\neven of that species of hostile justice which no asperity of war wholly\nextinguishes in the minds of a civilized people.\n\nIt seems to have in view two capital objects: the first, to enable\nadministration to confine, as long as it shall think proper, those whom\nthat act is pleased to qualify by the name of _pirates_. Those so\nqualified I understand to be the commanders and mariners of such\nprivateers and ships of war belonging to the colonies as in the course\nof this unhappy contest may fall into the hands of the crown. They are\ntherefore to be detained in prison, under the criminal description of\npiracy, to a future trial and ignominious punishment, whenever\ncircumstances shall make it convenient to execute vengeance on them,\nunder the color of that odious and infamous offence.\n\nTo this first purpose of the law I have no small dislike, because the\nact does not (as all laws and all equitable transactions ought to do)\nfairly describe its object. The persons who make a naval war upon us, in\nconsequence of the present troubles, may be rebels; but to call and\ntreat them as pirates is confounding not only the natural distinction of\nthings, but the order of crimes,--which, whether by putting them from a\nhigher part of the scale to the lower or from the lower to the higher,\nis never done without dangerously disordering the whole frame of\njurisprudence. Though piracy may be, in the eye of the law, a _less_\noffence than treason, yet, as both are, in effect, punished with the\nsame death, the same forfeiture, and the same corruption of blood, I\nnever would take from any fellow-creature whatever any sort of advantage\nwhich he may derive to his safety from the pity of mankind, or to his\nreputation from their general feelings, by degrading his offence, when I\ncannot soften his punishment. The general sense of mankind tells me that\nthose offences which may possibly arise from mistaken virtue are not in\nthe class of infamous actions. Lord Coke, the oracle of the English law,\nconforms to that general sense, where he says that \"those things which\nare of the highest criminality may be of the least disgrace.\" The act\nprepares a sort of masked proceeding, not honorable to the justice of\nthe kingdom, and by no means necessary for its safety. I cannot enter\ninto it. If Lord Balmerino, in the last rebellion, had driven off the\ncattle of twenty clans, I should have thought it would have been a\nscandalous and low juggle, utterly unworthy of the manliness of an\nEnglish judicature, to have tried him for felony as a stealer of cows.\n\nBesides, I must honestly tell you that I could not vote for, or\ncountenance in any way, a statute which stigmatizes with the crime of\npiracy these men whom an act of Parliament had previously put out of the\nprotection of the law. When the legislature of this kingdom had ordered\nall their ships and goods, for the mere new-created offence of\nexercising trade, to be divided as a spoil among the seamen, of the\nnavy,--to consider the necessary reprisal of an unhappy, proscribed,\ninterdicted people, as the crime of piracy, would have appeared, in any\nother legislature than ours, a strain of the most insulting and most\nunnatural cruelty and injustice. I assure you I never remember to have\nheard of anything like it in any time or country.\n\nThe second professed purpose of the act is to detain in England for\ntrial those who shall commit high treason in America.\n\nThat you may be enabled to enter into the true spirit of the present\nlaw, it is necessary, Gentlemen, to apprise you that there is an act,\nmade so long ago as in the reign of Henry the Eighth, before the\nexistence or thought of any English colonies in America, for the trial\nin this kingdom of treasons committed out of the realm. In the year 1769\nParliament thought proper to acquaint the crown with their construction\nof that act in a formal address, wherein they entreated his Majesty to\ncause persons charged with high treason in America to be brought into\nthis kingdom for trial. By this act of Henry the Eighth, _so construed\nand so applied_, almost all that is substantial and beneficial in a\ntrial by jury is taken away from the subject in the colonies. This is,\nhowever, saying too little; for to try a man under that act is, in\neffect, to condemn him unheard. A person is brought hither in the\ndungeon of a ship's hold; thence he is vomited into a dungeon on land,\nloaded with irons, unfurnished with money, unsupported by friends, three\nthousand miles from all means of calling upon or confronting evidence,\nwhere no one local circumstance that tends to detect perjury can\npossibly be judged of;--such a person may be executed according to form,\nbut he can never be tried according to justice.\n\nI therefore could never reconcile myself to the bill I send you, which\nis expressly provided to remove all inconveniences from the\nestablishment of a mode of trial which has ever appeared to me most\nunjust and most unconstitutional. Far from removing the difficulties\nwhich impede the execution of so mischievous a project, I would heap new\ndifficulties upon it, if it were in my power. All the ancient, honest,\njuridical principles and institutions of England are so many clogs to\ncheck and retard the headlong course of violence and oppression. They\nwere invented for this one good purpose, that what was not just should\nnot be convenient. Convinced of this, I would leave things as I found\nthem. The old, cool-headed, general law is as good as any deviation\ndictated by present heat.\n\nI could see no fair, justifiable expedience pleaded to favor this new\nsuspension of the liberty of the subject. If the English in the colonies\ncan support the independency to which they have been unfortunately\ndriven, I suppose nobody has such a fanatical zeal for the criminal\njustice of Henry the Eighth that he will contend for executions which\nmust be retaliated tenfold on his own friends, or who has conceived so\nstrange an idea of English dignity as to think the defeats in America\ncompensated by the triumphs at Tyburn. If, on the contrary, the colonies\nare reduced to the obedience of the crown, there must be, under that\nauthority, tribunals in the country itself fully competent to administer\njustice on all offenders. But if there are not, and that we must\nsuppose a thing so humiliating to our government as that all this vast\ncontinent should unanimously concur in thinking that no ill fortune can\nconvert resistance to the royal authority into a criminal act, we may\ncall the effect of our victory peace, or obedience, or what we will, but\nthe war is not ended; the hostile mind continues in full vigor, and it\ncontinues under a worse form. If your peace be nothing more than a\nsullen pause from arms, if their quiet be nothing but the meditation of\nrevenge, where smitten pride smarting from its wounds festers into new\nrancor, neither the act of Henry the Eighth nor its handmaid of this\nreign will answer any wise end of policy or justice. For, if the bloody\nfields which they saw and felt are not sufficient to subdue the reason\nof America, (to use the expressive phrase of a great lord in office,) it\nis not the judicial slaughter which is made in another hemisphere\nagainst their universal sense of justice that will ever reconcile them\nto the British government.\n\nI take it for granted, Gentlemen, that we sympathize in a proper horror\nof all punishment further than as it serves for an example. To whom,\nthen does the example of an execution in England for this American\nrebellion apply? Remember, you are told every day, that the present is a\ncontest between the two countries, and that we in England are at war for\n_our own_ dignity against our rebellious children. Is this true? If it\nbe, it is surely among such rebellious children that examples for\ndisobedience should be made, to be in any degree instructive: for who\never thought of teaching parents their duty by an example from the\npunishment of an undutiful son? As well might the execution of a\nfugitive negro in the plantations be considered as a lesson to teach\nmasters humanity to their slaves. Such executions may, indeed, satiate\nour revenge; they may harden our hearts, and puff us up with pride and\narrogance. Alas! this is not instruction.\n\nIf anything can be drawn from such examples by a parity of the case, it\nis to show how deep their crime and how heavy their punishment will be,\nwho shall at any time dare to resist a distant power actually disposing\nof their property without their voice or consent to the disposition, and\noverturning their franchises without charge or hearing. God forbid that\nEngland should ever read this lesson written in the blood of _any_ of\nher offspring!\n\nWar is at present carried on between the king's natural and foreign\ntroops, on one side, and the English in America, on the other, upon the\nusual footing of other wars; and accordingly an exchange of prisoners\nhas been regularly made from the beginning. If, notwithstanding this\nhitherto equal procedure, upon some prospect of ending the war with\nsuccess (which, however, may be delusive) administration prepares to act\nagainst those as _traitors_ who remain in their hands at the end of the\ntroubles, in my opinion we shall exhibit to the world as indecent a\npiece of injustice as ever civil fury has produced. If the prisoners who\nhave been exchanged have not by that exchange been _virtually pardoned_,\nthe cartel (whether avowed or understood) is a cruel fraud; for you have\nreceived the life of a man, and you ought to return a life for it, or\nthere is no parity or fairness in the transaction.\n\nIf, on the other hand, we admit that they who are actually exchanged\nare pardoned, but contend that you may justly reserve for vengeance\nthose who remain unexchanged, then this unpleasant and unhandsome\nconsequence will follow: that you judge of the delinquency of men merely\nby the time of their guilt, and not by the heinousness of it; and you\nmake fortune and accidents, and not the moral qualities of human action,\nthe rule of your justice.\n\nThese strange incongruities must ever perplex those who confound the\nunhappiness of civil dissension with the crime of treason. Whenever a\nrebellion really and truly exists, which is as easily known in fact as\nit is difficult to define in words, government has not entered into such\nmilitary conventions, but has ever declined all intermediate treaty\nwhich should put rebels in possession of the law of nations with regard\nto war. Commanders would receive no benefits at their hands, because\nthey could make no return for them. Who has ever heard of capitulation,\nand parole of honor, and exchange of prisoners in the late rebellions in\nthis kingdom? The answer to all demands of that sort was, \"We can engage\nfor nothing; you are at the king's pleasure.\" We ought to remember,\nthat, if our present enemies be in reality and truth rebels, the king's\ngenerals have no right to release them upon any conditions whatsoever;\nand they are themselves answerable to the law, and as much in want of a\npardon, for doing so, as the rebels whom they release.\n\nLawyers, I know, cannot make the distinction for which I contend;\nbecause they have their strict rule to go by. But legislators ought to\ndo what lawyers cannot; for they have no other rules to bind them but\nthe great principles of reason and equity and the general sense of\nmankind. These they are bound to obey and follow, and rather to enlarge\nand enlighten law by the liberality of legislative reason than to fetter\nand bind their higher capacity by the narrow constructions of\nsubordinate, artificial justice. If we had adverted to this, we never\ncould consider the convulsions of a great empire, not disturbed by a\nlittle disseminated faction, but divided by whole communities and\nprovinces, and entire legal representatives of a people, as fit matter\nof discussion under a commission of Oyer and Terminer. It is as opposite\nto reason and prudence as it is to humanity and justice.\n\nThis act, proceeding on these principles, that is, preparing to end the\npresent troubles by a trial of one sort of hostility under the name of\npiracy, and of another by the name of treason, and executing the act of\nHenry the Eighth according to a new and unconstitutional interpretation,\nI have thought evil and dangerous, even though the instruments of\neffecting such purposes had been merely of a neutral quality.\n\nBut it really appears to me that the means which this act employs are at\nleast as exceptionable as the end. Permit me to open myself a little\nupon this subject; because it is of importance to me, when I am obliged\nto submit to the power without acquiescing in the reason of an act of\nlegislature, that I should justify my dissent by such arguments as may\nbe supposed to have weight with a sober man.\n\nThe main operative regulation of the act is to suspend the Common Law\nand the statute _Habeas Corpus_ (the sole securities either for liberty\nor justice) with regard to all those who have been out of the realm, or\non the high seas, within a given time. The rest of the people, as I\nunderstand, are to continue as they stood before.\n\nI confess, Gentlemen, that this appears to me as bad in the principle,\nand far worse in its consequence, than an universal suspension of the\n_Habeas Corpus_ Act; and the limiting qualification, instead of taking\nout the sting, does in my humble opinion sharpen and envenom it to a\ngreater degree. Liberty, if I understand it at all, is a _general_\nprinciple, and the clear right of all the subjects within the realm, or\nof none. Partial freedom seems to me a most invidious mode of slavery.\nBut, unfortunately, it is the kind of slavery the most easily admitted\nin times of civil discord: for parties are but too apt to forget their\nown future safety in their desire of sacrificing their enemies. People\nwithout much difficulty admit the entrance of that injustice of which\nthey are not to be the immediate victims. In times of high proceeding it\nis never the faction of the predominant power that is in danger: for no\ntyranny chastises its own instruments. It is the obnoxious and the\nsuspected who want the protection of law; and there is nothing to bridle\nthe partial violence of state factions but this,--\"that, whenever an act\nis made for a cessation of law and justice, the whole people should be\nuniversally subjected to the same suspension of their franchises.\" The\nalarm of such a proceeding would then be universal. It would operate as\na sort of _call of the nation_. It would become every man's immediate\nand instant concern to be made very sensible of _the absolute necessity_\nof this total eclipse of liberty. They would more carefully advert to\nevery renewal, and more powerfully resist it. These great determined\nmeasures are not commonly so dangerous to freedom. They are marked with\ntoo strong lines to slide into use. No plea, nor pretence, of\n_inconvenience or evil example_ (which must in their nature be daily\nand ordinary incidents) can be admitted as a reason for such mighty\noperations. But the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for\nexpedients, and by parts. The _Habeas Corpus_ Act supposes, contrary to\nthe genius of most other laws, that the lawful magistrate may see\nparticular men with a malignant eye, and it provides for that identical\ncase. But when men, in particular descriptions, marked out by the\nmagistrate himself, are delivered over by Parliament to this possible\nmalignity, it is not the _Habeas Corpus_ that is occasionally suspended,\nbut its spirit that is mistaken, and its principle that is subverted.\nIndeed, nothing is security to any individual but the common interest of\nall.\n\nThis act, therefore, has this distinguished evil in it, that it is the\nfirst _partial_ suspension of the _Habeas Corpus_ that has been made.\nThe precedent, which is always of very great importance, is now\nestablished. For the first time a distinction is made among the people\nwithin this realm. Before this act, every man putting his foot on\nEnglish ground, every stranger owing only a local and temporary\nallegiance, even negro slaves who had been sold in the colonies and\nunder an act of Parliament, became as free as every other man who\nbreathed the same air with them. Now a line is drawn, which may be\nadvanced further and further at pleasure, on the same argument of mere\nexpedience on which it was first described. There is no equality among\nus; we are not fellow-citizens, if the mariner who lands on the quay\ndoes not rest on as firm legal ground as the merchant who sits in his\ncounting-house. Other laws may injure the community; this dissolves it.\nAs things now stand, every man in the West Indies, every one inhabitant\nof three unoffending provinces on the continent, every person coming\nfrom the East Indies, every gentleman who has travelled for his health\nor education, every mariner who has navigated the seas, is, for no other\noffence, under a temporary proscription. Let any of these facts (now\nbecome presumptions of guilt) be proved against him, and the bare\nsuspicion of the crown puts him out of the law. It is even by no means\nclear to me whether the negative proof does not lie upon the person\napprehended on suspicion, to the subversion of all justice.\n\nI have not debated against this bill in its progress through the House;\nbecause it would have been vain to oppose, and impossible to correct it.\nIt is some time since I have been clearly convinced, that, in the\npresent state of things, all opposition to any measures proposed by\nministers, where the name of America appears, is vain and frivolous. You\nmay be sure that I do not speak of my opposition, which in all\ncircumstances must be so, but that of men of the greatest wisdom and\nauthority in the nation. Everything proposed against America is supposed\nof course to be in favor of Great Britain. Good and ill success are\nequally admitted as reasons for persevering in the present methods.\nSeveral very prudent and very well-intentioned persons were of opinion,\nthat, during the prevalence of such dispositions, all struggle rather\ninflamed than lessened the distemper of the public counsels. Finding\nsuch resistance to be considered as factious by most within doors and by\nvery many without, I cannot conscientiously support what is against my\nopinion, nor prudently contend with what I know is irresistible.\nPreserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational\nendeavors; and I hope that my past conduct has given sufficient\nevidence, that, if I am a single day from my place, it is not owing to\nindolence or love of dissipation. The slightest hope of doing good is\nsufficient to recall me to what I quitted with regret In declining for\nsome time my usual strict attendance, I do not in the least condemn the\nspirit of those gentlemen who, with a just confidence in their\nabilities, (in which I claim a sort of share from my love and admiration\nof them,) were of opinion that their exertions in this desperate case\nmight be of some service. They thought that by contracting the sphere of\nits application they might lessen the malignity of an evil principle.\nPerhaps they were in the right. But when my opinion was so very clearly\nto the contrary, for the reasons I have just stated, I am sure _my_\nattendance would have been ridiculous.\n\nI must add, in further explanation of _my_ conduct, that, far from\nsoftening the features of such a principle, and thereby removing any\npart of the popular odium or natural terrors attending it, I should be\nsorry that anything framed in contradiction to the spirit of our\nConstitution did not instantly produce, in fact, the grossest of the\nevils with which it was pregnant in its nature. It is by lying dormant a\nlong time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power\nsteals upon a people. On the next unconstitutional act, all the\nfashionable world will be ready to say, \"Your prophecies are ridiculous,\nyour fears are vain, you see how little of the mischiefs which you\nformerly foreboded are come to pass.\" Thus, by degrees, that artful\nsoftening of all arbitrary power, the alleged infrequency or narrow\nextent of its operation, will be received as a sort of aphorism,--and\nMr. Hume will not be singular in telling us, that the felicity of\nmankind is no more disturbed by it than by earthquakes or thunder, or\nthe other more unusual accidents of Nature.\n\nThe act of which I speak is among the fruits of the American war,--a war\nin my humble opinion productive of many mischiefs, of a kind which\ndistinguish it from all others. Not only our policy is deranged, and our\nempire distracted, but our laws and our legislative spirit appear to\nhave been totally perverted by it. We have made war on our colonies, not\nby arms only, but by laws. As hostility and law are not very concordant\nideas, every step we have taken in this business has been made by\ntrampling on some maxim of justice or some capital principle of wise\ngovernment. What precedents were established, and what principles\noverturned, (I will not say of English privilege, but of general\njustice,) in the Boston Port, the Massachusetts Charter, the Military\nBill, and all that long array of hostile acts of Parliament by which the\nwar with America has been begun and supported! Had the principles of any\nof these acts been first exerted on English ground, they would probably\nhave expired as soon as they touched it. But by being removed from our\npersons, they have rooted in our laws, and the latest posterity will\ntaste the fruits of them.\n\nNor is it the worst effect of this unnatural contention, that our _laws_\nare corrupted. Whilst _manners_ remain entire, they will correct the\nvices of law, and soften it at length to their own temper. But we have\nto lament that in most of the late proceedings we see very few traces of\nthat generosity, humanity, and dignity of mind, which formerly\ncharacterized this nation. War suspends the rules of moral obligation,\nand what is long suspended is in danger of being totally abrogated.\nCivil wars strike deepest of all into the manners of the people. They\nvitiate their politics; they corrupt their morals; they pervert even the\nnatural taste and relish of equity and justice. By teaching us to\nconsider our fellow-citizens in an hostile light, the whole body of our\nnation becomes gradually less dear to us. The very names of affection\nand kindred, which were the bond of charity whilst we agreed, become new\nincentives to hatred and rage when the communion of our country is\ndissolved. We may flatter ourselves that we shall not fall into this\nmisfortune. But we have no charter of exemption, that I know of, from\nthe ordinary frailties of our nature.\n\nWhat but that blindness of heart which arises from the frenzy of civil\ncontention could have made any persons conceive the present situation of\nthe British affairs as an object of triumph to themselves or of\ncongratulation to their sovereign? Nothing surely could be more\nlamentable to those who remember the flourishing days of this kingdom\nthan to see the insane joy of several unhappy people, amidst the sad\nspectacle which our affairs and conduct exhibit to the scorn of Europe.\nWe behold (and it seems some people rejoice in beholding) our native\nland, which used to sit the envied arbiter of all her neighbors, reduced\nto a servile dependence on their mercy,--acquiescing in assurances of\nfriendship which she does not trust,--complaining of hostilities which\nshe dares not resent,--deficient to her allies, lofty to her subjects,\nand submissive to her enemies,--whilst the liberal government of this\nfree nation is supported by the hireling sword of German boors and\nvassals, and three millions of the subjects of Great Britain are seeking\nfor protection to English privileges in the arms of France!\n\nThese circumstances appear to me more like shocking prodigies than\nnatural changes in human affairs. Men of firmer minds may see them\nwithout staggering or astonishment. Some may think them matters of\ncongratulation and complimentary addresses; but I trust your candor will\nbe so indulgent to my weakness as not to have the worse opinion of me\nfor my declining to participate in this joy, and my rejecting all share\nwhatsoever in such a triumph. I am too old, too stiff in my inveterate\npartialities, to be ready at all the fashionable evolutions of opinion.\nI scarcely know how to adapt my mind to the feelings with which the\nCourt Gazettes mean to impress the people. It is not instantly that I\ncan be brought to rejoice, when I hear of the slaughter and captivity of\nlong lists of those names which have been familiar to my ears from my\ninfancy, and to rejoice that they have fallen under the sword of\nstrangers, whose barbarous appellations I scarcely know how to\npronounce. The glory acquired at the White Plains by Colonel Rahl has no\ncharms for me, and I fairly acknowledge that I have not yet learned to\ndelight in finding Fort Kniphausen in the heart of the British\ndominions.\n\nIt might be some consolation for the loss of our old regards, if our\nreason were enlightened in proportion as our honest prejudices are\nremoved. Wanting feelings for the honor of our country, we might then in\ncold blood be brought to think a little of our interests as individual\ncitizens and our private conscience as moral agents.\n\nIndeed, our affairs are in a bad condition. I do assure those gentlemen\nwho have prayed for war, and obtained the blessing they have sought,\nthat they are at this instant in very great straits. The abused wealth\nof this country continues a little longer to feed its distemper. As yet\nthey, and their German allies of twenty hireling states, have contended\nonly with the unprepared strength of our own infant colonies. But\nAmerica is not subdued. Not one unattacked village which was originally\nadverse throughout that vast continent has yet submitted from love or\nterror. You have the ground you encamp on, and you have no more. The\ncantonments of your troops and your dominions are exactly of the same\nextent. You spread devastation, but you do not enlarge the sphere of\nauthority.\n\nThe events of this war are of so much greater magnitude than those who\neither wished or feared it ever looked for, that this alone ought to\nfill every considerate mind with anxiety and diffidence. Wise men often\ntremble at the very things which fill the thoughtless with security. For\nmany reasons I do not choose to expose to public view all the\nparticulars of the state in which you stood with regard to foreign\npowers during the whole course of the last year. Whether you are yet\nwholly out of danger from them is more than I know, or than your rulers\ncan divine. But even if I were certain of my safety, I could not easily\nforgive those who had brought me into the most dreadful perils, because\nby accidents, unforeseen by them or me, I have escaped.\n\nBelieve me, Gentlemen, the way still before you is intricate, dark, and\nfull of perplexed and treacherous mazes. Those who think they have the\nclew may lead us out of this labyrinth. We may trust them as amply as we\nthink proper; but as they have most certainly a call for all the reason\nwhich their stock can furnish, why should we think it proper to disturb\nits operation by inflaming their passions? I may be unable to lend an\nhelping hand to those who direct the state; but I should be ashamed to\nmake myself one of a noisy multitude to halloo and hearten them into\ndoubtful and dangerous courses. A conscientious man would be cautious\nhow he dealt in blood. He would feel some apprehension at being called\nto a tremendous account for engaging in so deep a play without any sort\nof knowledge of the game. It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance,\nthat it is directed by insolent passion. The poorest being that crawls\non earth, contending to save itself from injustice and oppression, is an\nobject respectable in the eyes of God and man. But I cannot conceive any\nexistence under heaven (which in the depths of its wisdom tolerates all\nsorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting than an\nimpotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill,\nwithout a consciousness of any other qualification for power but his\nservility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles\nwhich he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can\nnever exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order\nto render others contemptible and wretched.\n\nIf you and I find our talents not of the great and ruling kind, our\nconduct, at least, is conformable to our faculties. No man's life pays\nthe forfeit of our rashness. No desolate widow weeps tears of blood\nover our ignorance. Scrupulous and sober in a well-grounded distrust of\nourselves, we would keep in the port of peace and security; and perhaps\nin recommending to others something of the same diffidence, we should\nshow ourselves more charitable to their welfare than injurious to their\nabilities.\n\nThere are many circumstances in the zeal shown for civil war which seem\nto discover but little of real magnanimity. The addressers offer their\nown persons, and they are satisfied with hiring Germans. They promise\ntheir private fortunes, and they mortgage their country. They have all\nthe merit of volunteers, without risk of person or charge of\ncontribution; and when the unfeeling arm of a foreign soldiery pours out\ntheir kindred blood like water, they exult and triumph as if they\nthemselves had performed some notable exploit. I am really ashamed of\nthe fashionable language which has been held for some time past, which,\nto say the best of it, is full of levity. You know that I allude to the\ngeneral cry against the cowardice of the Americans, as if we despised\nthem for not making the king's soldiery purchase the advantage they have\nobtained at a dearer rate. It is not, Gentlemen, it is not to respect\nthe dispensations of Providence, nor to provide any decent retreat in\nthe mutability of human affairs. It leaves no medium between insolent\nvictory and infamous defeat. It tends to alienate our minds further and\nfurther from our natural regards, and to make an eternal rent and schism\nin the British nation. Those who do not wish for such a separation would\nnot dissolve that cement of reciprocal esteem and regard which can alone\nbind together the parts of this great fabric. It ought to be our wish,\nas it is our duty, not only to forbear this style of outrage ourselves,\nbut to make every one as sensible as we can of the impropriety and\nunworthiness of the tempers which give rise to it, and which designing\nmen are laboring with such malignant industry to diffuse amongst us. It\nis our business to counteract them, if possible,--if possible, to awake\nour natural regards, and to revive the old partiality to the English\nname. Without something of this kind I do not see how it is ever\npracticable really to reconcile with those whose affection, after all,\nmust be the surest hold of our government, and which is a thousand times\nmore worth to us than the mercenary zeal of all the circles of Germany.\n\nI can well conceive a country completely overrun, and miserably wasted,\nwithout approaching in the least to settlement. In my apprehension, as\nlong as English government is attempted to be supported over Englishmen\nby the sword alone, things will thus continue. I anticipate in my mind\nthe moment of the final triumph of foreign military force. When that\nhour arrives, (for it may arrive,) then it is that all this mass of\nweakness and violence will appear in its full light. If we should be\nexpelled from America, the delusion of the partisans of military\ngovernment might still continue. They might still feed their\nimaginations with the possible good consequences which might have\nattended success. Nobody could prove the contrary by facts. But in case\nthe sword should do all that the sword can do, the success of their arms\nand the defeat of their policy will be one and the same thing. You will\nnever see any revenue from America. Some increase of the means of\ncorruption, without ease of the public burdens, is the very best that\ncan happen. Is it for this that we are at war,--and in such a war?\n\nAs to the difficulties of laying once more the foundations of that\ngovernment which, for the sake of conquering what was our own, has been\nvoluntarily and wantonly pulled down by a court faction here, I tremble\nto look at them. Has any of these gentlemen who are so eager to govern\nall mankind shown himself possessed of the first qualification towards\ngovernment, some knowledge of the object, and of the difficulties which\noccur in the task they have undertaken?\n\nI assure you, that, on the most prosperous issue of your arms, you will\nnot be where you stood when you called in war to supply the defects of\nyour political establishment. Nor would any disorder or disobedience to\ngovernment which could arise from the most abject concession on our part\never equal those which will be felt after the most triumphant violence.\nYou have got all the intermediate evils of war into the bargain.\n\nI think I know America,--if I do not, my ignorance is incurable, for I\nhave spared no pains to understand it,--and I do most solemnly assure\nthose of my constituents who put any sort of confidence in my industry\nand integrity, that everything that has been done there has arisen from\na total misconception of the object: that our means of originally\nholding America, that our means of reconciling with it after quarrel, of\nrecovering it after separation, of keeping it after victory, did depend,\nand must depend, in their several stages and periods, upon a total\nrenunciation of that unconditional submission which has taken such\npossession of the minds of violent men. The whole of those maxims upon\nwhich we have made and continued this war must be abandoned. Nothing,\nindeed, (for I would not deceive you,) can place us in our former\nsituation. That hope must be laid aside. But there is a difference\nbetween bad and the worst of all. Terms relative to the cause of the war\nought to be offered by the authority of Parliament. An arrangement at\nhome promising some security for them ought to be made. By doing this,\nwithout the least impairing of our strength, we add to the credit of our\nmoderation, which, in itself, is always strength more or less.\n\nI know many have been taught to think that moderation in a case like\nthis is a sort of treason,--and that all arguments for it are\nsufficiently answered by railing at rebels and rebellion, and by\ncharging all the present or future miseries which we may suffer on the\nresistance of our brethren. But I would wish them, in this grave matter,\nand if peace is not wholly removed from their hearts, to consider\nseriously, first, that to criminate and recriminate never yet was the\nroad to reconciliation, in any difference amongst men. In the next\nplace, it would be right to reflect that the American English (whom they\nmay abuse, if they think it honorable to revile the absent) can, as\nthings now stand, neither be provoked at our railing or bettered by our\ninstruction. All communication is cut off between us. But this we know\nwith certainty, that, though we cannot reclaim them, we may reform\nourselves. If measures of peace are necessary, they must begin\nsomewhere; and a conciliatory temper must precede and prepare every plan\nof reconciliation. Nor do I conceive that we suffer anything by thus\nregulating our own minds. We are not disarmed by being disencumbered of\nour passions. Declaiming on rebellion never added a bayonet or a charge\nof powder to your military force; but I am afraid that it has been the\nmeans of taking up many muskets against you.\n\nThis outrageous language, which has been encouraged and kept alive by\nevery art, has already done incredible mischief. For a long time, even\namidst the desolations of war, and the insults of hostile laws daily\naccumulated on one another, the American leaders seem to have had the\ngreatest difficulty in bringing up their people to a declaration of\ntotal independence. But the Court Gazette accomplished what the abettors\nof independence had attempted in vain. When that disingenuous\ncompilation and strange medley of railing and flattery was adduced as a\nproof of the united sentiments of the people of Great Britain, there was\na great change throughout all America. The tide of popular affection,\nwhich had still set towards the parent country, began immediately to\nturn, and to flow with great rapidity in a contrary course. Par from\nconcealing these wild declarations of enmity, the author of the\ncelebrated pamphlet which prepared the minds of the people for\nindependence insists largely on the multitude and the spirit of these\naddresses; and he draws an argument from them, which, if the fact were\nas he supposes, must be irresistible. For I never knew a writer on the\ntheory of government so partial to authority as not to allow that the\nhostile mind of the rulers to their people did fully justify a change of\ngovernment; nor can any reason whatever be given why one people should\nvoluntarily yield any degree of preeminence to another but on a\nsupposition of great affection and benevolence towards them.\nUnfortunately, your rulers, trusting to other things, took no notice of\nthis great principle of connection. From the beginning of this affair,\nthey have done all they could to alienate your minds from your own\nkindred; and if they could excite hatred enough in one of the parties\ntowards the other, they seemed to be of opinion that they had gone half\nthe way towards reconciling the quarrel.\n\nI know it is said, that your kindness is only alienated on account of\ntheir resistance, and therefore, if the colonies surrender at\ndiscretion, all sort of regard, and even much indulgence, is meant\ntowards them in future. But can those who are partisans for continuing a\nwar to enforce such a surrender be responsible (after all that has\npassed) for such a future use of a power that is bound by no compacts\nand restrained by no terror? Will they tell us what they call\nindulgences? Do they not at this instant call the present war and all\nits horrors a lenient and merciful proceeding?\n\nNo conqueror that I ever heard of has _professed_ to make a cruel,\nharsh, and insolent use of his conquest. No! The man of the most\ndeclared pride scarcely dares to trust his own heart with this dreadful\nsecret of ambition. But it will appear in its time; and no man who\nprofesses to reduce another to the insolent mercy of a foreign arm ever\nhad any sort of good-will towards him. The profession of kindness, with\nthat sword in his hand, and that demand of surrender, is one of the most\nprovoking acts of his hostility. I shall be told that all this is\nlenient as against rebellious adversaries. But are the leaders of their\nfaction more lenient to those who submit? Lord Howe and General Howe\nhave powers, under an act of Parliament, to restore to the king's peace\nand to free trade any men or district which shall submit. Is this done?\nWe have been over and over informed by the authorized gazette, that the\ncity of New York and the countries of Staten and Long Island have\nsubmitted voluntarily and cheerfully, and that many are very full of\nzeal to the cause of administration. Were they instantly restored to\ntrade? Are they yet restored to it? Is not the benignity of two\ncommissioners, naturally most humane and generous men, some way fettered\nby instructions, equally against their dispositions and the spirit of\nParliamentary faith, when Mr. Tryon, vaunting of the fidelity of the\ncity in which he is governor, is obliged to apply to ministry for leave\nto protect the King's loyal subjects, and to grant to them, not the\ndisputed rights and privileges of freedom, but the common rights of men,\nby the name of _graces_? Why do not the commissioners restore them on\nthe spot? Were they not named as commissioners for that express purpose?\nBut we see well enough to what the whole leads. The trade of America is\nto be dealt out in _private indulgences and grants,_--that is, in jobs\nto recompense the incendiaries of war. They will be informed of the\nproper time in which to send out their merchandise. From a national, the\nAmerican trade is to be turned into a personal monopoly, and one set of\nmerchants are to be rewarded for the pretended zeal of which another set\nare the dupes; and thus, between craft and credulity, the voice of\nreason is stifled, and all the misconduct, all the calamities of the war\nare covered and continued.\n\nIf I had not lived long enough to be little surprised at anything, I\nshould have been in some degree astonished at the continued rage of\nseveral gentlemen, who, not satisfied with carrying fire and sword into\nAmerica, are animated nearly with the same fury against those neighbors\nof theirs whose only crime it is, that they have charitably and humanely\nwished them to entertain more reasonable sentiments, and not always to\nsacrifice their interest to their passion. All this rage against\nunresisting dissent convinces me, that, at bottom, they are far from\nsatisfied they are in the right. For what is it they would have? A war?\nThey certainly have at this moment the blessing of something that is\nvery like one; and if the war they enjoy at present be not sufficiently\nhot and extensive, they may shortly have it as warm and as spreading as\ntheir hearts can desire. Is it the force of the kingdom they call for?\nThey have it already; and if they choose to fight their battles in their\nown person, nobody prevents their setting sail to America in the next\ntransports. Do they think that the service is stinted for want of\nliberal supplies? Indeed they complain without reason. The table of the\nHouse of Commons will glut them, let their appetite for expense be never\nso keen. And I assure them further, that those who think with them in\nthe House of Commons are full as easy in the control as they are liberal\nin the vote of these expenses. If this be not supply or confidence\nsufficient, let them open their own private purse-strings, and give,\nfrom what is left to them, as largely and with as little care as they\nthink proper.\n\nTolerated in their passions, let them learn not to persecute the\nmoderation of their fellow-citizens. If all the world joined them in a\nfull cry against rebellion, and were as hotly inflamed against the whole\ntheory and enjoyment of freedom as those who are the most factious for\nservitude, it could not, in my opinion, answer any one end whatsoever in\nthis contest. The leaders of this war could not hire (to gratify their\nfriends) one German more than they do, or inspire him with less feeling\nfor the persons or less value for the privileges of their revolted\nbrethren. If we all adopted their sentiments to a man, their allies, the\nsavage Indians, could not be more ferocious than they are: they could\nnot murder one more helpless woman or child, or with more exquisite\nrefinements of cruelty torment to death one more of their English flesh\nand blood, than they do already. The public money is given to purchase\nthis alliance;--and they have their bargain.\n\nThey are continually boasting of unanimity, or calling for it. But\nbefore this unanimity can be matter either of wish or congratulation, we\nought to be pretty sure that we are engaged in a rational pursuit.\nFrenzy does not become a slighter distemper on account of the number of\nthose who may be infected with it. Delusion and weakness produce not one\nmischief the less because they are universal. I declare that I cannot\ndiscern the least advantage which could accrue to us, if we were able to\npersuade our colonies that they had not a single friend in Great\nBritain. On the contrary, if the affections and opinions of mankind be\nnot exploded as principles of connection, I conceive it would be happy\nfor us, if they were taught to believe that there was even a formed\nAmerican party in England, to whom they could always look for support.\nHappy would it be for us, if, in all tempers, they might turn their eyes\nto the parent state, so that their very turbulence and sedition should\nfind vent in no other place than this! I believe there is not a man\n(except those who prefer the interest of some paltry faction to the very\nbeing of their country) who would not wish that the Americans should\nfrom time to time carry many points, and even some of them not quite\nreasonable, by the aid of any denomination of men here, rather than they\nshould be driven to seek for protection against the fury of foreign\nmercenaries and the waste of savages in the arms of France.\n\nWhen any community is subordinately connected with another, the great\ndanger of the connection is the extreme pride and self-complacency of\nthe superior, which in all matters of controversy will probably decide\nin its own favor. It is a powerful corrective to such a very rational\ncause of fear, if the inferior body can be made to believe that the\nparty inclination or political views of several in the principal state\nwill induce them in some degree to counteract this blind and tyrannical\npartiality. There is no danger that any one acquiring consideration or\npower in the presiding state should carry this leaning to the inferior\ntoo far. The fault of human nature is not of that sort. Power, in\nwhatever hands, is rarely guilty of too strict limitations on itself.\nBut one great advantage to the support of authority attends such an\namicable and protecting connection: that those who have conferred favors\nobtain influence, and from the foresight of future events can persuade\nmen who have received obligations sometimes to return them. Thus, by the\nmediation of those healing principles, (call them good or evil,)\ntroublesome discussions are brought to some sort of adjustment, and\nevery hot controversy is not a civil war.\n\nBut, if the colonies (to bring the general matter home to us) could see\nthat in Great Britain the mass of the people is melted into its\ngovernment, and that every dispute with the ministry must of necessity\nbe always a quarrel with the nation, they can stand no longer in the\nequal and friendly relation of fellow-citizens to the subjects of this\nkingdom. Humble as this relation may appear to some, when it is once\nbroken, a strong tie is dissolved. Other sort of connections will be\nsought. For there are very few in the world who will not prefer an\nuseful ally to an insolent master.\n\nSuch discord has been the effect of the unanimity into which so many\nhave of late been seduced or bullied, or into the appearance of which\nthey have sunk through mere despair. They have been told that their\ndissent from violent measures is an encouragement to rebellion. Men of\ngreat presumption and little knowledge will hold a language which is\ncontradicted by the whole course of history. _General_ rebellions and\nrevolts of an whole people never were _encouraged_, now or at any time.\nThey are always _provoked_. But if this unheard-of doctrine of the\nencouragement of rebellion were true, if it were true that an assurance\nof the friendship of numbers in this country towards the colonies could\nbecome an encouragement to them to break off all connection with it,\nwhat is the inference? Does anybody seriously maintain, that, charged\nwith my share of the public councils, I am obliged not to resist\nprojects which I think mischievous, lest men who suffer should be\nencouraged to resist? The very tendency of such projects to produce\nrebellion is one of the chief reasons against them. Shall that reason\nnot be given? Is it, then, a rule, that no man in this nation shall open\nhis mouth in favor of the colonies, shall defend their rights, or\ncomplain of their sufferings,--or when war finally breaks out, no man\nshall express his desires of peace? Has this been the law of our past,\nor is it to be the terms of our future connection? Even looking no\nfurther than ourselves, can it be true loyalty to any government, or\ntrue patriotism towards any country, to degrade their solemn councils\ninto servile drawing-rooms, to flatter their pride and passions rather\nthan to enlighten their reason, and to prevent them from being cautioned\nagainst violence lest others should be encouraged to resistance? By such\nacquiescence great kings and mighty nations have been undone; and if any\nare at this day in a perilous situation from rejecting truth and\nlistening to flattery, it would rather become them to reform the errors\nunder which they suffer than to reproach those who forewarned them of\ntheir danger.\n\nBut the rebels looked for assistance from this country.--They did so, in\nthe beginning of this controversy, most certainly; and they sought it by\nearnest supplications to government, which dignity rejected, and by a\nsuspension of commerce, which the wealth of this nation enabled you to\ndespise. When they found that neither prayers nor menaces had any sort\nof weight, but that a firm resolution was taken to reduce them to\nunconditional obedience by a military force, they came to the last\nextremity. Despairing of us, they trusted in themselves. Not strong\nenough themselves, they sought succor in France. In proportion as all\nencouragement here lessened, their distance from this country increased.\nThe encouragement is over; the alienation is complete.\n\nIn order to produce this favorite unanimity in delusion, and to prevent\nall possibility of a return to our ancient happy concord, arguments for\nour continuance in this course are drawn from the wretched situation\nitself into which we have been betrayed. It is said, that, being at war\nwith the colonies, whatever our sentiments might have been before, all\nties between us are now dissolved, and all the policy we have left is to\nstrengthen the hands of government to reduce them. On the principle of\nthis argument, the more mischiefs we suffer from any administration, the\nmore our trust in it is to be confirmed. Let them but once get us into a\nwar, and then their power is safe, and an act of oblivion passed for all\ntheir misconduct.\n\nBut is it really true that government is always to be strengthened with\nthe instruments of war, but never furnished with the means of peace? In\nformer times, ministers, I allow, have been sometimes driven by the\npopular voice to assert by arms the national honor against foreign\npowers. But the wisdom of the nation has been far more clear, when those\nministers have been compelled to consult its interests by treaty. We all\nknow that the sense of the nation obliged the court of Charles the\nSecond to abandon the _Dutch war_: a war, next to the present, the most\nimpolitic which we ever carried on. The good people of England\nconsidered Holland as a sort of dependency on this kingdom; they dreaded\nto drive it to the protection or subject it to the power of France by\ntheir own inconsiderate hostility. They paid but little respect to the\ncourt jargon of that day; nor were they inflamed by the pretended\nrivalship of the Dutch in trade,--by the massacre at Amboyna, acted on\nthe stage to provoke the public vengeance,--nor by declamations against\nthe ingratitude of the United Provinces for the benefits England had\nconferred upon them in their infant state. They were not moved from\ntheir evident interest by all these arts; nor was it enough to tell\nthem, they were at war, that they must go through with it, and that the\ncause of the dispute was lost in the consequences. The people of England\nwere then, as they are now, called upon to make government strong. They\nthought it a great deal better to make it wise and honest.\n\nWhen I was amongst my constituents at the last summer assizes, I\nremember that men of all descriptions did then express a very strong\ndesire for peace, and no slight hopes of attaining it from the\ncommission sent out by my Lord Howe. And it is not a little remarkable,\nthat, in proportion as every person showed a zeal for the court\nmeasures, he was then earnest in circulating an opinion of the extent of\nthe supposed powers of that commission. When I told them that Lord Howe\nhad no powers to treat, or to promise satisfaction on any point\nwhatsoever of the controversy, I was hardly credited,--so strong and\ngeneral was the desire of terminating this war by the method of\naccommodation. As far as I could discover, this was the temper then\nprevalent through the kingdom. The king's forces, it must be observed,\nhad at that time been obliged to evacuate Boston. The superiority of the\nformer campaign rested wholly with the colonists. If such powers of\ntreaty were to be wished whilst success was very doubtful, how came they\nto be less so, since his Majesty's arms have been crowned with many\nconsiderable advantages? Have these successes induced us to alter our\nmind, as thinking the season of victory not the time for treating with\nhonor or advantage? Whatever changes have happened in the national\ncharacter, it can scarcely be our wish that terms of accommodation never\nshould be proposed to our enemy, except when they must be attributed\nsolely to our fears. It has happened, let me say unfortunately, that we\nread of his Majesty's commission for making peace, and his troops\nevacuating his last town in the Thirteen Colonies, at the same hour and\nin the same gazette. It was still more unfortunate that no commission\nwent to America to settle the troubles there, until several months after\nan act had been passed to put the colonies out of the protection of this\ngovernment, and to divide their trading property, without a possibility\nof restitution, as spoil among the seamen of the navy. The most abject\nsubmission on the part of the colonies could not redeem them. There was\nno man on that whole continent, or within three thousand miles of it,\nqualified by law to follow allegiance with protection or submission with\npardon. A proceeding of this kind has no example in history.\nIndependency, and independency with an enmity, (which, putting ourselves\nout of the question, would be called natural and much provoked,) was the\ninevitable consequence. How this came to pass the nation may be one day\nin an humor to inquire.\n\nAll the attempts made this session to give fuller powers of peace to the\ncommanders in America were stifled by the fatal confidence of victory\nand the wild hopes of unconditional submission. There was a moment\nfavorable to the king's arms, when, if any powers of concession had\nexisted on the other side of the Atlantic, even after all our errors,\npeace in all probability might have been restored. But calamity is\nunhappily the usual season of reflection; and the pride of men will not\noften suffer reason to have any scope, until it can be no longer of\nservice.\n\nI have always wished, that as the dispute had its apparent origin from\nthings done in Parliament, and as the acts passed there had provoked the\nwar, that the foundations of peace should be laid in Parliament also. I\nhave been astonished to find that those whose zeal for the dignity of\nour body was so hot as to light up the flames of civil war should even\npublicly declare that these delicate points ought to be wholly left to\nthe crown. Poorly as I may be thought affected to the authority of\nParliament, I shall never admit that our constitutional rights can ever\nbecome a matter of ministerial negotiation.\n\nI am charged with being an American. If warm affection towards those\nover whom I claim any share of authority be a crime, I am guilty of this\ncharge. But I do assure you, (and they who know me publicly and\nprivately will bear witness to me,) that, if ever one man lived more\nzealous than another for the supremacy of Parliament and the rights of\nthis imperial crown, it was myself. Many others, indeed, might be more\nknowing in the extent of the foundation of these rights. I do not\npretend to be an antiquary, a lawyer, or qualified for the chair of\nprofessor in metaphysics. I never ventured to put your solid interests\nupon speculative grounds. My having constantly declined to do so has\nbeen attributed to my incapacity for such disquisitions; and I am\ninclined to believe it is partly the cause. I never shall be ashamed to\nconfess, that, where I am ignorant, I am diffident. I am, indeed, not\nvery solicitous to clear myself of this imputed incapacity; because men\neven less conversant than I am in this kind of subtleties, and placed\nin stations to which I ought not to aspire, have, by the mere force of\ncivil discretion, often conducted the affairs of great nations with\ndistinguished felicity and glory.\n\nWhen I first came into a public trust, I found your Parliament in\npossession of an unlimited legislative power over the colonies. I could\nnot open the statute-book without seeing the actual exercise of it, more\nor less, in all cases whatsoever. This possession passed with me for a\ntitle. It does so in all human affairs. No man examines into the defects\nof his title to his paternal estate or to his established government.\nIndeed, common sense taught me that a legislative authority not actually\nlimited by the express terms of its foundation, or by its own subsequent\nacts, cannot have its powers parcelled out by argumentative\ndistinctions, so as to enable us to say that here they can and there\nthey cannot bind. Nobody was so obliging as to produce to me any record\nof such distinctions, by compact or otherwise, either at the successive\nformation of the several colonies or during the existence of any of\nthem. If any gentlemen were able to see how one power could be given up\n(merely on abstract reasoning) without giving up the rest, I can only\nsay that they saw further than I could. Nor did I ever presume to\ncondemn any one for being clear-sighted when I was blind. I praise their\npenetration and learning, and hope that their practice has been\ncorrespondent to their theory.\n\nI had, indeed, very earnest wishes to keep the whole body of this\nauthority perfect and entire as I found it,--and to keep it so, not for\nour advantage solely, but principally for the sake of those on whose\naccount all just authority exists: I mean the people to be governed.\nFor I thought I saw that many cases might well happen in which the\nexercise of every power comprehended in the broadest idea of legislature\nmight become, in its time and circumstances, not a little expedient for\nthe peace and union of the colonies amongst themselves, as well as for\ntheir perfect harmony with Great Britain. Thinking so, (perhaps\nerroneously, but being honestly of that opinion,) I was at the same time\nvery sure that the authority of which I was so jealous could not, under\nthe actual circumstances of our plantations, be at all preserved in any\nof its members, but by the greatest reserve in its application,\nparticularly in those delicate points in which the feelings of mankind\nare the most irritable. They who thought otherwise have found a few more\ndifficulties in their work than (I hope) they were thoroughly aware of,\nwhen they undertook the present business. I must beg leave to observe,\nthat it is not only the invidious branch of taxation that will be\nresisted, but that no other given part of legislative rights can be\nexercised, without regard to the general opinion of those who are to be\ngoverned. That general opinion is the vehicle and organ of legislative\nomnipotence. Without this, it may be a theory to entertain the mind, but\nit is nothing in the direction of affairs. The completeness of the\nlegislative authority of Parliament _over this kingdom_ is not\nquestioned; and yet many things indubitably included in the abstract\nidea of that power, and which carry no absolute injustice in themselves,\nyet being contrary to the opinions and feelings of the people, can as\nlittle be exercised as if Parliament in that case had been possessed of\nno right at all. I see no abstract reason, which can be given, why the\nsame power which made and repealed the High Commission Court and the\nStar-Chamber might not revive them again; and these courts, warned by\ntheir former fate, might possibly exercise their powers with some degree\nof justice. But the madness would be as unquestionable as the competence\nof that Parliament which should attempt such things. If anything can be\nsupposed out of the power of human legislature, it is religion; I admit,\nhowever, that the established religion of this country has been three or\nfour times altered by act of Parliament, and therefore that a statute\nbinds even in that case. But we may very safely affirm, that,\nnotwithstanding this apparent omnipotence, it would be now found as\nimpossible for King and Parliament to alter the established religion of\nthis country as it was to King James alone, when he attempted to make\nsuch an alteration without a Parliament. In effect, to follow, not to\nforce, the public inclination,--to give a direction, a form, a technical\ndress, and a specific sanction, to the general sense of the community,\nis the true end of legislature.\n\nIt is so with regard to the exercise of all the powers which our\nConstitution knows in any of its parts, and indeed to the substantial\nexistence of any of the parts themselves. The king's negative to bills\nis one of the most indisputed of the royal prerogatives; and it extends\nto all cases whatsoever. I am far from certain, that if several laws,\nwhich I know, had fallen under the stroke of that sceptre, that the\npublic would have had a very heavy loss. But it is not the _propriety_\nof the exercise which is in question. The exercise itself is wisely\nforborne. Its repose may be the preservation of its existence; and its\nexistence may be the means of saying the Constitution itself, on an\noccasion worthy of bringing it forth.\n\nAs the disputants whose accurate and logical reasonings have brought us\ninto our present condition think it absurd that powers or members of any\nconstitution should exist, rarely, if ever, to be exercised, I hope I\nshall be excused in mentioning another instance that is material. We\nknow that the Convocation of the Clergy had formerly been called, and\nsat with nearly as much regularity to business as Parliament itself. It\nis now called for form only. It sits for the purpose of making some\npolite ecclesiastical compliments to the king, and, when that grace is\nsaid, retires and is heard of no more. It is, however, _a part of the\nConstitution_, and may be called out into act and energy, whenever there\nis occasion, and whenever those who conjure up that spirit will choose\nto abide the consequences. It is wise to permit its legal existence: it\nis much wiser to continue it a legal existence only. So truly has\nprudence (constituted as the god of this lower world) the entire\ndominion over every exercise of power committed into its hands! And yet\nI have lived to see prudence and conformity to circumstances wholly set\nat nought in our late controversies, and treated as if they were the\nmost contemptible and irrational of all things. I have heard it an\nhundred times very gravely alleged, that, in order to keep power in\nwind, it was necessary, by preference, to exert it in those very points\nin which it was most likely to be resisted and the least likely to be\nproductive of any advantage.\n\nThese were the considerations, Gentlemen, which led me early to think,\nthat, in the comprehensive dominion which the Divine Providence had put\ninto our hands, instead of troubling our understandings with\nspeculations concerning the unity of empire and the identity or\ndistinction of legislative powers, and inflaming our passions with the\nheat and pride of controversy, it was our duty, in all soberness, to\nconform our government to the character and circumstances of the several\npeople who composed this mighty and strangely diversified mass. I never\nwas wild enough to conceive that one method would serve for the whole,\nthat the natives of Hindostan and those of Virginia could be ordered in\nthe same manner, or that the Cutchery court and the grand jury of Salem\ncould be regulated on a similar plan. I was persuaded that government\nwas a practical thing, made for the happiness of mankind, and not to\nfurnish out a spectacle of uniformity to gratify the schemes of\nvisionary politicians. Our business was to rule, not to wrangle; and it\nwould have been a poor compensation that we had triumphed in a dispute,\nwhilst we lost an empire.\n\nIf there be one fact in the world perfectly clear, it is this,--\"that\nthe disposition of the people of America is wholly averse to any other\nthan a free government\"; and this is indication enough to any honest\nstatesman how he ought to adapt whatever power he finds in his hands to\ntheir case. If any ask me what a free government is, I answer, that, for\nany practical purpose, it is what the people think so,--and that they,\nand not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of this matter.\nIf they practically allow me a greater degree of authority over them\nthan is consistent with any correct ideas of perfect freedom, I ought to\nthank them for so great a trust, and not to endeavor to prove from\nthence that they have reasoned amiss, and that, having gone so far, by\nanalogy they must hereafter have no enjoyment but by my pleasure.\n\nIf we had seen this done by any others, we should have concluded them\nfar gone in madness. It is melancholy, as well as ridiculous, to observe\nthe kind of reasoning with which the public has been amused, in order to\ndivert our minds from the common sense of our American policy. There are\npeople who have split and anatomized the doctrine of free government, as\nif it were an abstract question concerning metaphysical liberty and\nnecessity, and not a matter of moral prudence and natural feeling. They\nhave disputed whether liberty be a positive or a negative idea; whether\nit does not consist in being governed by laws, without considering what\nare the laws, or who are the makers; whether man has any rights by\nNature; and whether all the property he enjoys be not the alms of his\ngovernment, and his life itself their favor and indulgence. Others,\ncorrupting religion as these have perverted philosophy, contend that\nChristians are redeemed into captivity, and the blood of the Saviour of\nmankind has been shed to make them the slaves of a few proud and\ninsolent sinners. These shocking extremes provoking to extremes of\nanother kind, speculations are let loose as destructive to all authority\nas the former are to all freedom; and every government is called tyranny\nand usurpation which is not formed on their fancies. In this manner the\nstirrers-up of this contention, not satisfied with distracting our\ndependencies and filling them with blood and slaughter, are corrupting\nour understandings: they are endeavoring to tear up, along with\npractical liberty, all the foundations of human society, all equity and\njustice, religion and order.\n\nCivil freedom, Gentlemen, is not, as many have endeavored to persuade\nyou, a thing that lies hid in the depth of abstruse science. It is a\nblessing and a benefit, not an abstract speculation; and all the just\nreasoning that can be upon it is of so coarse a texture as perfectly to\nsuit the ordinary capacities of those who are to enjoy, and of those who\nare to defend it. Far from any resemblance to those propositions in\ngeometry and metaphysics which admit no medium, but must be true or\nfalse in all their latitude, social and civil freedom, like all other\nthings in common life, are variously mixed and modified, enjoyed in very\ndifferent degrees, and shaped into an infinite diversity of forms,\naccording to the temper and circumstances of every community. The\n_extreme_ of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real\nfault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere; because extremes,\nas we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or\nsatisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment.\nLiberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed. The degree of\nrestraint it is impossible in any case to settle precisely. But it ought\nto be the constant aim of every wise public counsel to find out by\ncautious experiments, and rational, cool endeavors, with how little, not\nhow much, of this restraint the community can subsist: for liberty is a\ngood to be improved, and not an evil to be lessened. It is not only a\nprivate blessing of the first order, but the vital spring and energy of\nthe state itself, which has just so much life and vigor as there is\nliberty in it. But whether liberty be advantageous or not, (for I know\nit is a fashion to decry the very principle,) none will dispute that\npeace is a blessing; and peace must, in the course of human affairs, be\nfrequently bought by some indulgence and toleration at least to liberty:\nfor, as the Sabbath (though of divine institution) was made for man, not\nman for the Sabbath, government, which can claim no higher origin or\nauthority, in its exercise at least, ought to conform to the exigencies\nof the time, and the temper and character of the people with whom it is\nconcerned, and not always to attempt violently to bend the people to\ntheir theories of subjection. The bulk of mankind, on their part, are\nnot excessively curious concerning any theories whilst they are really\nhappy; and one sure symptom of an ill-conducted state is the propensity\nof the people to resort to them.\n\nBut when subjects, by a long course of such ill conduct, are once\nthoroughly inflamed, and the state itself violently distempered, the\npeople must have some satisfaction to their feelings more solid than a\nsophistical speculation on law and government. Such was our situation:\nand such a satisfaction was necessary to prevent recourse to arms; it\nwas necessary towards laying them down; it will be necessary to prevent\nthe taking them up again and again. Of what nature this satisfaction\nought to be I wish it had been the disposition of Parliament seriously\nto consider. It was certainly a deliberation that called for the\nexertion of all their wisdom.\n\nI am, and ever have been, deeply sensible of the difficulty of\nreconciling the strong presiding power, that is so useful towards the\nconservation of a vast, disconnected, infinitely diversified empire,\nwith that liberty and safety of the provinces which they must enjoy,\n(in opinion and practice at least,) or they will not be provinces at\nall. I know, and have long felt, the difficulty of reconciling the\nunwieldy haughtiness of a great ruling nation, habituated to command,\npampered by enormous wealth, and confident from a long course of\nprosperity and victory, to the high spirit of free dependencies,\nanimated with the first glow and activity of juvenile heat, and assuming\nto themselves, as their birthright, some part of that very pride which\noppresses them. They who perceive no difficulty in reconciling these\ntempers (which, however, to make peace, must some way or other be\nreconciled) are much above my capacity, or much below the magnitude of\nthe business. Of one thing I am perfectly clear: that it is not by\ndeciding the suit, but by compromising the difference, that peace can be\nrestored or kept. They who would put an end to such quarrels by\ndeclaring roundly in favor of the whole demands of either party have\nmistaken, in my humble opinion, the office of a mediator.\n\nThe war is now of full two years' standing: the controversy of many\nmore. In different periods of the dispute, different methods of\nreconciliation were to be pursued. I mean to trouble you with a short\nstate of things at the most important of these periods, in order to give\nyou a more distinct idea of our policy with regard to this most delicate\nof all objects. The colonies were from the beginning subject to the\nlegislature of Great Britain on principles which they never examined;\nand we permitted to them many local privileges, without asking how they\nagreed with that legislative authority. Modes of administration were\nformed in an insensible and very unsystematic manner. But they gradually\nadapted themselves to the varying condition of things. What was first a\nsingle kingdom stretched into an empire; and an imperial\nsuperintendence, of some kind or other, became necessary. Parliament,\nfrom a mere representative of the people, and a guardian of popular\nprivileges for its own immediate constituents, grew into a mighty\nsovereign. Instead of being a control on the crown on its own behalf, it\ncommunicated a sort of strength to the royal authority, which was wanted\nfor the conservation of a new object, but which could not be safely\ntrusted to the crown alone. On the other hand, the colonies, advancing\nby equal steps, and governed by the same necessity, had formed within\nthemselves, either by royal instruction or royal charter, assemblies so\nexceedingly resembling a parliament, in all their forms, functions, and\npowers, that it was impossible they should not imbibe some opinion of a\nsimilar authority.\n\nAt the first designation of these assemblies, they were probably not\nintended for anything more (nor perhaps did they think themselves much\nhigher) than the municipal corporations within this island, to which\nsome at present love to compare them. But nothing in progression can\nrest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man\nin the cradle of an infant. Therefore, as the colonies prospered and\nincreased to a numerous and mighty people, spreading over a very great\ntract of the globe, it was natural that they should attribute to\nassemblies so respectable in their formal constitution some part of the\ndignity of the great nations which they represented. No longer tied to\nby-laws, these assemblies made acts of all sorts and in all cases\nwhatsoever. They levied money, not for parochial purposes, but upon\nregular grants to the crown, following all the rules and principles of a\nparliament, to which they approached every day more and more nearly.\nThose who think themselves wiser than Providence and stronger than the\ncourse of Nature may complain of all this variation, on the one side or\nthe other, as their several humors and prejudices may lead them. But\nthings could not be otherwise; and English colonies must be had on these\nterms, or not had at all. In the mean time neither party felt any\ninconvenience from this double legislature, to which they had been\nformed by imperceptible habits, and old custom, the great support of all\nthe governments in the world. Though these two legislatures were\nsometimes found perhaps performing the very same functions, they did not\nvery grossly or systematically clash. In all likelihood this arose from\nmere neglect, possibly from the natural operation of things, which, left\nto themselves, generally fall into their proper order. But whatever was\nthe cause, it is certain that a regular revenue, by the authority of\nParliament, for the support of civil and military establishments, seems\nnot to have been thought of until the colonies were too proud to submit,\ntoo strong to be forced, too enlightened not to see all the consequences\nwhich must arise from such a system.\n\nIf ever this scheme of taxation was to be pushed against the\ninclinations of the people, it was evident that discussions must arise,\nwhich would let loose all the elements that composed this double\nconstitution, would show how much each of their members had departed\nfrom its original principles, and would discover contradictions in each\nlegislature, as well to its own first principles as to its relation to\nthe other, very difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to be\nreconciled.\n\nTherefore, at the first fatal opening of this contest, the wisest course\nseemed to be to put an end as soon as possible to the immediate causes\nof the dispute, and to quiet a discussion, not easily settled upon clear\nprinciples, and arising from claims which pride would permit neither\nparty to abandon, by resorting as nearly as possible to the old,\nsuccessful course. A mere repeal of the obnoxious tax, with a\ndeclaration of the legislative authority of this kingdom, was then fully\nsufficient to procure peace to _both sides_. Man is a creature of habit,\nand, the first breach being of very short continuance, the colonies fell\nback exactly into their ancient state. The Congress has used an\nexpression with regard to this pacification which appears to me truly\nsignificant. After the repeal of the Stamp Act, \"the colonies fell,\"\nsays this assembly, \"into their ancient state of _unsuspecting\nconfidence in the mother country_.\" This unsuspecting confidence is the\ntrue centre of gravity amongst mankind, about which all the parts are at\nrest. It is this _unsuspecting confidence_ that removes all\ndifficulties, and reconciles all the contradictions which occur in the\ncomplexity of all ancient puzzled political establishments. Happy are\nthe rulers which have the secret of preserving it!\n\nThe whole empire has reason to remember with eternal gratitude the\nwisdom and temper of that man and his excellent associates, who, to\nrecover this confidence, formed a plan of pacification in 1766. That\nplan, being built upon the nature of man, and the circumstances and\nhabits of the two countries, and not on any visionary speculations,\nperfectly answered its end, as long as it was thought proper to adhere\nto it. Without giving a rude shock to the dignity (well or ill\nunderstood) of this Parliament, they gave perfect content to our\ndependencies. Had it not been for the mediatorial spirit and talents of\nthat great man between such clashing pretensions and passions, we should\nthen have rushed headlong (I know what I say) into the calamities of\nthat civil war in which, by departing from his system, we are at length\ninvolved; and we should have been precipitated into that war at a time\nwhen circumstances both at home and abroad were far, very far, more\nunfavorable unto us than they were at the breaking out of the present\ntroubles.\n\nI had the happiness of giving my first votes in Parliament for that\npacification. I was one of those almost unanimous members who, in the\nnecessary concessions of Parliament, would as much as possible have\npreserved its authority and respected its honor. I could not at once\ntear from my heart prejudices which were dear to me, and which bore a\nresemblance to virtue. I had then, and I have still, my partialities.\nWhat Parliament gave up I wished to be given as of grace and favor and\naffection, and not as a restitution of stolen goods. High dignity\nrelented as it was soothed; and a benignity from old acknowledged\ngreatness had its full effect on our dependencies. Our unlimited\ndeclaration of legislative authority produced not a single murmur. If\nthis undefined power has become odious since that time, and full of\nhorror to the colonies, it is because the _unsuspicious confidence_ is\nlost, and the parental affection, in the bosom of whose boundless\nauthority they reposed their privileges, is become estranged and\nhostile.\n\nIt will be asked, if such was then my opinion of the mode of\npacification, how I came to be the very person who moved, not only for a\nrepeal of all the late coercive statutes, but for mutilating, by a\npositive law, the entireness of the legislative power of Parliament, and\ncutting off from it the whole right of taxation. I answer, Because a\ndifferent state of things requires a different conduct. When the dispute\nhad gone to these last extremities, (which no man labored more to\nprevent than I did,) the concessions which had satisfied in the\nbeginning could satisfy no longer; because the violation of tacit faith\nrequired explicit security. The same cause which has introduced all\nformal compacts and covenants among men made it necessary: I mean,\nhabits of soreness, jealousy, and distrust. I parted with it as with a\nlimb, but as a limb to save the body: and I would have parted with more,\nif more had been necessary; anything rather than a fruitless, hopeless,\nunnatural civil war. This mode of yielding would, it is said, give way\nto independency without a war. I am persuaded, from the nature of\nthings, and from every information, that it would have had a directly\ncontrary effect. But if it had this effect, I confess that I should\nprefer independency without war to independency with it; and I have so\nmuch trust in the inclinations and prejudices of mankind, and so little\nin anything else, that I should expect ten times more benefit to this\nkingdom from the affection of America, though under a separate\nestablishment, than from her perfect submission to the crown and\nParliament, accompanied with her terror, disgust, and abhorrence. Bodies\ntied together by so unnatural a bond of union as mutual hatred are only\nconnected to their ruin.\n\nOne hundred and ten respectable members of Parliament voted for that\nconcession. Many not present when the motion was made were of the\nsentiments of those who voted. I knew it would then have made peace. I\nam not without hopes that it would do so at present, if it were adopted.\nNo benefit, no revenue, could be lost by it; something might possibly be\ngained by its consequences. For be fully assured, that, of all the\nphantoms that ever deluded the fond hopes of a credulous world, a\nParliamentary revenue in the colonies is the most perfectly chimerical.\nYour breaking them to any subjection, far from relieving your burdens,\n(the pretext for this war,) will never pay that military force which\nwill be kept up to the destruction of their liberties and yours. I risk\nnothing in this prophecy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen, you have my opinions on the present state of public affairs.\nMean as they may be in themselves, your partiality has made them of some\nimportance. Without troubling myself to inquire whether I am under a\nformal obligation to it, I have a pleasure in accounting for my conduct\nto my constituents. I feel warmly on this subject, and I express myself\nas I feel. If I presume to blame any public proceeding, I cannot be\nsupposed to be personal. Would to God I could be suspected of it! My\nfault might be greater, but the public calamity would be less extensive.\nIf my conduct has not been able to make any impression on the warm part\nof that ancient and powerful party with whose support I was not honored\nat my election, on my side, my respect, regard, and duty to them is not\nat all lessened. I owe the gentlemen who compose it my most humble\nservice in everything. I hope that whenever any of them were pleased to\ncommand me, that they found me perfectly equal in my obedience. But\nflattery and friendship are very different things; and to mislead is not\nto serve them. I cannot purchase the favor of any man by concealing from\nhim what I think his ruin.\n\nBy the favor of my fellow-citizens, I am the representative of an\nhonest, well-ordered, virtuous city,--of a people who preserve more of\nthe original English simplicity and purity of manners than perhaps any\nother. You possess among you several men and magistrates of large and\ncultivated understandings, fit for any employment in any sphere. I do,\nto the best of my power, act so as to make myself worthy of so honorable\na choice. If I were ready, on any call of my own vanity or interest, or\nto answer any election purpose, to forsake principles (whatever they\nare) which I had formed at a mature age, on full reflection, and which\nhad been confirmed by long experience, I should forfeit the only thing\nwhich makes you pardon so many errors and imperfections in me.\n\nNot that I think it fit for any one to rely too much on his own\nunderstanding, or to be filled with a presumption not becoming a\nChristian man in his own personal stability and rectitude. I hope I am\nfar from that vain confidence which almost always fails in trial. I know\nmy weakness in all respects, as much at least as any enemy I have; and I\nattempt to take security against it. The only method which has ever been\nfound effectual to preserve any man against the corruption of nature and\nexample is an habit of life and communication of councils with the most\nvirtuous and public-spirited men of the age you live in. Such a society\ncannot be kept without advantage, or deserted without shame. For this\nrule of conduct I may be called in reproach a _party man_; but I am\nlittle affected with such aspersions. In the way which they call party I\nworship the Constitution of your fathers; and I shall never blush for my\npolitical company. All reverence to honor, all idea of what it is, will\nbe lost out of the world, before it can be imputed as a fault to any\nman, that he has been closely connected with those incomparable persons,\nliving and dead, with whom for eleven years I have constantly thought\nand acted. If I have wandered out of the paths of rectitude into those\nof interested faction, it was in company with the Saviles, the\nDowdeswells, the Wentworths, the Bentincks; with the Lenoxes, the\nManchesters, the Keppels, the Saunderses; with the temperate, permanent,\nhereditary virtue of the whole house of Cavendish: names, among which,\nsome have extended your fame and empire in arms, and all have fought the\nbattle of your liberties in fields not less glorious. These, and many\nmore like these, grafting public principles on private honor, have\nredeemed the present age, and would have adorned the most splendid\nperiod in your history. Where could any man, conscious of his own\ninability to act alone, and willing to act as he ought to do, have\narranged himself better? If any one thinks this kind of society to be\ntaken up as the best method of gratifying low personal pride or\nambitious interest, he is mistaken, and knows nothing of the world.\n\nPreferring this connection, I do not mean to detract in the slightest\ndegree from others. There are some of those whom I admire at something\nof a greater distance, with whom I have had the happiness also\nperfectly to agree, in almost all the particulars in which I have\ndiffered with some successive administrations; and they are such as it\nnever can be reputable to any government to reckon among its enemies.\n\nI hope there are none of you corrupted with the doctrine taught by\nwicked men for the worst purposes, and received by the malignant\ncredulity of envy and ignorance, which is, that the men who act upon the\npublic stage are all alike, all equally corrupt, all influenced by no\nother views than the sordid lure of salary and pension. The thing I know\nby experience to be false. Never expecting to find perfection in men,\nand not looking for divine attributes in created beings, in my commerce\nwith my contemporaries I have found much human virtue. I have seen not a\nlittle public spirit, a real subordination of interest to duty, and a\ndecent and regulated sensibility to honest fame and reputation. The age\nunquestionably produces (whether in a greater or less number than former\ntimes I know not) daring profligates and insidious hypocrites. What\nthen? Am I not to avail myself of whatever good is to be found in the\nworld, because of the mixture of evil that will always be in it? The\nsmallness of the quantity in currency only heightens the value. They who\nraise suspicions on the good on account of the behavior of ill men are\nof the party of the latter. The common cant is no justification for\ntaking this party. I have been deceived, say they, by _Titius_ and\n_Maevius_; I have been the dupe of this pretender or of that mountebank;\nand I can trust appearances no longer. But my credulity and want of\ndiscernment cannot, as I conceive, amount to a fair presumption against\nany man's integrity. A conscientious person would rather doubt his own\njudgment than condemn his species. He would say, \"I have observed\nwithout attention, or judged upon erroneous maxims; I trusted to\nprofession, when I ought to have attended to conduct.\" Such a man will\ngrow wise, not malignant, by his acquaintance with the world. But he\nthat accuses all mankind of corruption ought to remember that he is sure\nto convict only one. In truth, I should much rather admit those whom at\nany time I have disrelished the most to be patterns of perfection than\nseek a consolation to my own unworthiness in a general communion of\ndepravity with all about me.\n\nThat this ill-natured doctrine should be preached by the missionaries of\na court I do not wonder. It answers their purpose. But that it should be\nheard among those who pretend to be strong assertors of liberty is not\nonly surprising, but hardly natural. This moral levelling is a _servile\nprinciple_. It leads to practical passive obedience far better than all\nthe doctrines which the pliant accommodation of theology to power has\never produced. It cuts up by the roots, not only all idea of forcible\nresistance, but even of civil opposition. It disposes men to an abject\nsubmission, not by opinion, which may be shaken by argument or altered\nby passion, but by the strong ties of public and private interest. For,\nif all men who act in a public situation are equally selfish, corrupt,\nand venal, what reason can be given for desiring any sort of change,\nwhich, besides the evils which must attend all changes, can be\nproductive of no possible advantage? The active men in the state are\ntrue samples of the mass. If they are universally depraved, the\ncommonwealth itself is not sound. We may amuse ourselves with talking as\nmuch as we please of the virtue of middle or humble life; that is, we\nmay place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been\ntried. But if the persons who are continually emerging out of that\nsphere be no better than those whom birth has placed above it, what\nhopes are there in the remainder of the body which is to furnish the\nperpetual succession of the state? All who have ever written on\ngovernment are unanimous, that among a people generally corrupt liberty\ncannot long exist. And, indeed, how is it possible, when those who are\nto make the laws, to guard, to enforce, or to obey them, are, by a tacit\nconfederacy of manners, indisposed to the spirit of all generous and\nnoble institutions?\n\nI am aware that the age is not what we all wish. But I am sure that the\nonly means of checking its precipitate degeneracy is heartily to concur\nwith whatever is the best in our time, and to have some more correct\nstandard of judging what that best is than the transient and uncertain\nfavor of a court. If once we are able to find, and can prevail on\nourselves to strengthen an union of such men, whatever accidentally\nbecomes indisposed to ill-exercised power, even by the ordinary\noperation of human passions, must join with that society, and cannot\nlong be joined without in some degree assimilating to it. Virtue will\ncatch as well as vice by contact; and the public stock of honest, manly\nprinciple will daily accumulate. We are not too nicely to scrutinize\nmotives as long as action is irreproachable. It is enough (and for a\nworthy man perhaps too much) to deal out its infamy to convicted guilt\nand declared apostasy.\n\nThis, Gentlemen, has been from the beginning the rule of my conduct; and\nI mean to continue it, as long as such a body as I have described can\nby any possibility be kept together; for I should think it the most\ndreadful of all offences, not only towards the present generation, but\nto all the future, if I were to do anything which could make the\nminutest breach in this great conservatory of free principles. Those who\nperhaps have the same intentions, but are separated by some little\npolitical animosities, will, I hope, discern at last how little\nconducive it is to any rational purpose to lower its reputation. For my\npart, Gentlemen, from much experience, from no little thinking, and from\ncomparing a great variety of things, I am thoroughly persuaded that the\nlast hopes of preserving the spirit of the English Constitution, or of\nreuniting the dissipated members of the English race upon a common plan\nof tranquillity and liberty, does entirely depend on their firm and\nlasting union, and above all on their keeping themselves from that\ndespair which is so very apt to fall on those whom a violence of\ncharacter and a mixture of ambitious views do not support through a\nlong, painful, and unsuccessful struggle.\n\nThere never, Gentlemen, was a period in which the steadfastness of some\nmen has been put to so sore a trial. It is not very difficult for\nwell-formed minds to abandon their interest; but the separation of fame\nand virtue is an harsh divorce. Liberty is in danger of being made\nunpopular to Englishmen. Contending for an imaginary power, we begin to\nacquire the spirit of domination, and to lose the relish of honest\nequality. The principles of our forefathers become suspected to us,\nbecause we see them animating the present opposition of our children.\nThe faults which grow out of the luxuriance of freedom appear much more\nshocking to us than the base vices which are generated from the rankness\nof servitude. Accordingly, the least resistance to power appears more\ninexcusable in our eyes than the greatest abuses of authority. All dread\nof a standing military force is looked upon as a superstitious panic.\nAll shame of calling in foreigners and savages in a civil contest is\nworn off. We grow indifferent to the consequences inevitable to\nourselves from the plan of ruling half the empire by a mercenary sword.\nWe are taught to believe that a desire of domineering over our\ncountrymen is love to our country, that those who hate civil war abet\nrebellion, and that the amiable and conciliatory virtues of lenity,\nmoderation, and tenderness to the privileges of those who depend on this\nkingdom are a sort of treason to the state.\n\nIt is impossible that we should remain long in a situation which breeds\nsuch notions and dispositions without some great alteration in the\nnational character. Those ingenuous and feeling minds who are so\nfortified against all other things, and so unarmed to whatever\napproaches in the shape of disgrace, finding these principles, which\nthey considered as sure means of honor, to be grown into disrepute, will\nretire disheartened and disgusted. Those of a more robust make, the\nbold, able, ambitious men, who pay some of their court to power through\nthe people, and substitute the voice of transient opinion in the place\nof true glory, will give into the general mode; and those superior\nunderstandings which ought to correct vulgar prejudice will confirm and\naggravate its errors. Many things have been long operating towards a\ngradual change in our principles; but this American war has done more in\na very few years than all the other causes could have effected in a\ncentury. It is therefore not on its own separate account, but because of\nits attendant circumstances, that I consider its continuance, or its\nending in any way but that of an honorable and liberal accommodation, as\nthe greatest evils which can befall us. For that reason I have troubled\nyou with this long letter. For that reason I entreat you, again and\nagain, neither to be persuaded, shamed, or frighted out of the\nprinciples that have hitherto led so many of you to abhor the war, its\ncause, and its consequences. Let us not be amongst the first who\nrenounce the maxims of our forefathers.\n\nI have the honor to be,\n\nGentlemen,\n\nYour most obedient and faithful humble servant,\n\nEDMUND BURKE.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, April 3, 1777.\n\nP.S. You may communicate this letter in any manner you think proper to\nmy constituents.\n\n\n\n\nTWO LETTERS\n\nTO\n\nGENTLEMEN IN THE CITY OF BRISTOL.\n\nON THE\n\nBILLS DEPENDING IN PARLIAMENT RELATIVE TO THE TRADE OF IRELAND.\n\n1778.\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS.\n\nTO SAMUEL SPAN, ESQ., MASTER OF THE SOCIETY OF MERCHANTS ADVENTURERS OF\nBRISTOL.\n\n\nSir,--I am honored with your letter of the 13th, in answer to mine,\nwhich accompanied the resolutions of the House relative to the trade of\nIreland.\n\nYou will be so good as to present my best respects to the Society, and\nto assure them that it was altogether unnecessary to remind me of the\ninterest of the constituents. I have never regarded anything else since\nI had a seat in Parliament. Having frequently and maturely considered\nthat interest, and stated it to myself in almost every point of view, I\nam persuaded, that, under the present circumstances, I cannot more\neffectually pursue it than by giving all the support in my power to the\npropositions which I lately transmitted to the Hall.\n\nThe fault I find in the scheme is, that it falls extremely short of that\nliberality in the commercial system which I trust will one day be\nadopted. If I had not considered the present resolutions merely as\npreparatory to better things, and as a means of showing, experimentally,\nthat justice to others is not always folly to ourselves, I should have\ncontented myself with receiving them in a cold and silent acquiescence.\nSeparately considered, they are matters of no very great importance. But\nthey aim, however imperfectly, at a right principle. I submit to the\nrestraint to appease prejudice; I accept the enlargement, so far as it\ngoes, as the result of reason and of sound policy.\n\nWe cannot be insensible of the calamities which have been brought upon\nthis nation by an obstinate adherence to narrow and restrictive plans of\ngovernment. I confess, I cannot prevail on myself to take them up\nprecisely at a time when the most decisive experience has taught the\nrest of the world to lay them down. The propositions in question did not\noriginate from me, or from my particular friends. But when things are so\nright in themselves, I hold it my duty not to inquire from what hands\nthey come. I opposed the American measures upon the very same principle\non which I support those that relate to Ireland. I was convinced that\nthe evils which have arisen from the adoption of the former would be\ninfinitely aggravated by the rejection of the latter.\n\nPerhaps gentlemen are not yet fully aware of the situation of their\ncountry, and what its exigencies absolutely require. I find that we are\nstill disposed to talk at our ease, and as if all things were to be\nregulated by our good pleasure. I should consider it as a fatal symptom,\nif, in our present distressed and adverse circumstances, we should\npersist in the errors which are natural only to prosperity. One cannot,\nindeed, sufficiently lament the continuance of that spirit of delusion,\nby which, for a long time past, we have thought fit to measure our\nnecessities by our inclinations. Moderation, prudence, and equity are\nfar more suitable to our condition than loftiness, and confidence, and\nrigor. We are threatened by enemies of no small magnitude, whom, if we\nthink fit, we may despise, as we have despised others; but they are\nenemies who can only cease to be truly formidable by our entertaining a\ndue respect for their power. Our danger will not be lessened by our\nshutting our eyes to it; nor will our force abroad be increased by\nrendering ourselves feeble and divided at home.\n\nThere is a dreadful schism in the British nation. Since we are not able\nto reunite the empire, it is our business to give all possible vigor and\nsoundness to those parts of it which are still content to be governed by\nour councils. Sir, it is proper to inform you that our measures _must be\nhealing_. Such a degree of strength must be communicated to all the\nmembers of the state as may enable them to defend themselves, and to\ncooeperate in the defence of the whole. Their temper, too, must be\nmanaged, and their good affections cultivated. They may then be disposed\nto bear the load with cheerfulness, as a contribution towards what may\nbe called with truth and propriety, and not by an empty form of words,\n_a common cause_. Too little dependence cannot be had, at this time of\nday, on names and prejudices. The eyes of mankind are opened, and\ncommunities must be held together by an evident and solid interest. God\nforbid that our conduct should demonstrate to the world that Great\nBritain can in no instance whatsoever be brought to a sense of rational\nand equitable policy but by coercion and force of arms!\n\nI wish you to recollect with what powers of concession, relatively to\ncommerce, as well as to legislation, his Majesty's commissioners to the\nUnited Colonies have sailed from England within this week. Whether these\npowers are sufficient for their purposes it is not now my business to\nexamine. But we all know that our resolutions in favor of Ireland are\ntrifling and insignificant, when compared with the concessions to the\nAmericans. At such a juncture, I would implore every man, who retains\nthe least spark of regard to the yet remaining honor and security of\nthis country, not to compel others to an imitation of their conduct, or\nby passion and violence to force them to seek in the territories of the\nseparation that freedom and those advantages which they are not to look\nfor whilst they remain under the wings of their ancient government.\n\nAfter all, what are the matters we dispute with so much warmth? Do we in\nthese resolutions _bestow_ anything upon Ireland? Not a shilling. We\nonly consent to _leave_ to them, in two or three instances, the use of\nthe natural faculties which God has given to them, and to all mankind.\nIs Ireland united to the crown of Great Britain for no other purpose\nthan that we should counteract the bounty of Providence in her favor?\nand in proportion as that bounty has been liberal, that we are to regard\nit as an evil, which is to be met with in every sort of corrective? To\nsay that Ireland interferes with us, and therefore must be checked, is,\nin my opinion, a very mistaken, and a very dangerous principle. I must\nbeg leave to repeat, what I took the liberty of suggesting to you in my\nlast letter, that Ireland is a country in the same climate and of the\nsame natural qualities and productions with this, and has consequently\nno other means of growing wealthy in herself, or, in other words, of\nbeing useful to us, but by doing the very same things which we do for\nthe same purposes. I hope that in Great Britain we shall always pursue,\nwithout exception, _every_ means of prosperity, and, of course, that\nIreland _will_ interfere with us in something or other: for either, in\norder to _limit_ her, we _must restrain_ ourselves, or we must fall into\nthat shocking conclusion, that we are to keep our yet remaining\ndependency under a general and indiscriminate restraint for the mere\npurpose of oppression. Indeed, Sir, England and Ireland may flourish\ntogether. The world is large enough for us both. Let it be our care not\nto make ourselves too little for it.\n\nI know it is said, that the people of Ireland do not pay the same taxes,\nand therefore ought not in equity to enjoy the same benefits with this.\nI had hopes that the unhappy phantom of a compulsory _equal taxation_\nhad haunted us long enough. I do assure you, that, until it is entirely\nbanished from our imaginations, (where alone it has, or can have, any\nexistence,) we shall never cease to do ourselves the most substantial\ninjuries. To that argument of equal taxation I can only say, that\nIreland pays as many taxes as those who are the best judges of her\npowers are of opinion she can bear. To bear more, she must have more\nability; and, in the order of Nature, the advantage must _precede_ the\ncharge. This disposition of things being the law of God, neither you nor\nI _can_ alter it. So that, if you will have more help from Ireland, you\nmust _previously_ supply her with more means. I believe it will be\nfound, that, if men are suffered freely to cultivate their natural\nadvantages, a virtual equality of contribution will come in its own\ntime, and will flow by an easy descent through its own proper and\nnatural channels. An attempt to disturb that course, and to force\nNature, will only bring on universal discontent, distress, and\nconfusion.\n\nYou tell me, Sir, that you prefer an union with Ireland to the little\nregulations which are proposed in Parliament. This union is a great\nquestion of state, to which, when it comes properly before me in my\nParliamentary capacity, I shall give an honest and unprejudiced\nconsideration. However, it is a settled rule with me, to make the most\nof my _actual situation_, and not to refuse to do a proper thing because\nthere is something else more proper which I am not able to do. This\nunion is a business of difficulty, and, on the principles of your\nletter, a business impracticable. Until it can be matured into a\nfeasible and desirable scheme, I wish to have as close an union of\ninterest and affection with Ireland as I can have; and that, I am sure,\nis a far better thing than any nominal union of government.\n\nFrance, and indeed most extensive empires, which by various designs and\nfortunes have grown into one great mass, contain many provinces that are\nvery different from each other in privileges and modes of government;\nand they raise their supplies in different ways, in different\nproportions, and under different authorities: yet none of them are for\nthis reason curtailed of their natural rights; but they carry on trade\nand manufactures with perfect equality. In some way or other the true\nbalance is found; and all of them are properly poised and harmonized.\nHow much have you lost by the participation of Scotland in all your\ncommerce? The external trade of England has more than doubled since that\nperiod; and I believe your internal (which is the most advantageous) has\nbeen augmented at least fourfold. Such virtue there is in liberality of\nsentiment, that you have grown richer even by the partnership of\npoverty.\n\nIf you think that this participation was a loss, commercially\nconsidered, but that it has been compensated by the share which Scotland\nhas taken in defraying the public charge, I believe you have not very\ncarefully looked at the public accounts. Ireland, Sir, pays a great deal\nmore than Scotland, and is perhaps as much and as effectually united to\nEngland as Scotland is. But if Scotland, instead of paying little, had\npaid nothing at all, we should be gainers, not losers, by acquiring the\nhearty cooeperation of an active, intelligent people towards the increase\nof the common stock, instead of our being employed in watching and\ncounteracting them, and their being employed in watching and\ncounteracting us, with the peevish and churlish jealousy of rivals and\nenemies on both sides.\n\nI am sure, Sir, that the commercial experience of the merchants of\nBristol will soon disabuse them of the prejudice, that they can trade no\nlonger, if countries more lightly taxed are permitted to deal in the\nsame commodities at the same markets. You know, that, in fact, you trade\nvery largely where you are met by the goods of all nations. You even pay\nhigh duties on the import of your goods, and afterwards undersell\nnations less taxed, at their own markets, and where goods of the same\nkind are not charged at all. If it were otherwise, you could trade very\nlittle. You know that the price of all sorts of manufacture is not a\ngreat deal enhanced (except to the domestic consumer) by any taxes paid\nin this country. This I might very easily prove.\n\nThe same consideration will relieve you from the apprehension you\nexpress with relation to sugars, and the difference of the duties paid\nhere and in Ireland. Those duties affect the interior consumer only,\nand for obvious reasons, relative to the interest of revenue itself,\nthey must be proportioned to his ability of payment; but in all cases in\nwhich sugar can be an _object of commerce_, and therefore (in this view)\nof rivalship, you are sensible that you are at least on a par with\nIreland. As to your apprehensions concerning the more advantageous\nsituation of Ireland for some branches of commerce, (for it is so but\nfor some,) I trust you will not find them more serious. Milford Haven,\nwhich is at your door, may serve to show you that the mere advantage of\nports, is not the thing which shifts the seat of commerce from one part\nof the world to the other. If I thought you inclined to take up this\nmatter on local considerations, I should state to you, that I do not\nknow any part of the kingdom so well situated for an advantageous\ncommerce with Ireland as Bristol, and that none would be so likely to\nprofit of its prosperity as our city. But your profit and theirs must\nconcur. Beggary and bankruptcy are not the circumstances which invite to\nan intercourse with that or with any country; and I believe it will be\nfound invariably true, that the superfluities of a rich nation furnish a\nbetter object of trade than the necessities of a poor one. It is the\ninterest of the commercial world that wealth should be found everywhere.\n\nThe true ground of fear, in my opinion, is this: that Ireland, from the\nvicious system of its internal polity, will be a long time before it can\nderive any benefit from the liberty now granted, or from any thing else.\nBut, as I do not vote advantages in hopes that they may not be enjoyed,\nI will not lay any stress upon this consideration. I rather wish that\nthe Parliament of Ireland may, in its own wisdom, remove these\nimpediments, and put their country in a condition to avail itself of its\nnatural advantages. If they do not, the fault is with them, and not with\nus.\n\nI have written this long letter in order to give all possible\nsatisfaction to my constituents with regard to the part I have taken in\nthis affair. It gave me inexpressible concern to find that my conduct\nhad been a cause of uneasiness to any of them. Next to my honor and\nconscience, I have nothing so near and dear to me as their approbation.\nHowever, I had much rather run the risk of displeasing than of injuring\nthem,--if I am driven to make such an option. You obligingly lament that\nyou are not to have me for your advocate; but if I had been capable of\nacting as an advocate in opposition to a plan so perfectly consonant to\nmy known principles, and to the opinions I had publicly declared on an\nhundred occasions, I should only disgrace myself, without supporting,\nwith the smallest degree of credit or effect, the cause you wished me to\nundertake. I should have lost the only thing which can make such\nabilities as mine of any use to the world now or hereafter: I mean that\nauthority which is derived from an opinion that a member speaks the\nlanguage of truth and sincerity, and that he is not ready to take up or\nlay down a great political system for the convenience of the hour, that\nhe is in Parliament to support his opinion of the public good, and does\nnot form his opinion in order to get into Parliament, or to continue in\nit. It is in a great measure for your sake that I wish to preserve this\ncharacter. Without it, I am sure, I should be ill able to discharge, by\nany service, the smallest part of that debt of gratitude and affection\nwhich I owe you for the great and honorable trust you have reposed in\nme.\n\nI am, with the highest regard and esteem, Sir,\n\nYour most obedient and humble servant,\n\nE.B.\n\nBEACONSFIELD, 23rd April, 1778.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCOPY OF A LETTER TO MESSRS. ******* ****** AND CO., BRISTOL.\n\nGentlemen,--\n\nIt gives me the most sensible concern to find that my vote on the\nresolutions relative to the trade of Ireland has not been fortunate\nenough to meet with your approbation. I have explained at large the\ngrounds of my conduct on that occasion in my letters to the Merchants'\nHall; but my very sincere regard and esteem for you will not permit me\nto let the matter pass without an explanation which is particular to\nyourselves, and which I hope will prove satisfactory to you.\n\nYou tell me that the conduct of your late member is not much wondered\nat; but you seem to be at a loss to account for mine; and you lament\nthat I have taken so decided a part _against_ my constituents.\n\nThis is rather an heavy imputation. Does it, then, really appear to you\nthat the propositions to which you refer are, on the face of them, so\nmanifestly wrong, and so certainly injurious to the trade and\nmanufactures of Great Britain, and particularly to yours, that no man\ncould think of proposing or supporting them, except from resentment to\nyou, or from some other oblique motive? If you suppose your late\nmember, or if you suppose me, to act upon other reasons than we choose\nto avow, to what do you attribute the conduct of the _other_ members,\nwho in the beginning almost unanimously adopted those resolutions? To\nwhat do you attribute the strong part taken by the ministers, and, along\nwith the ministers, by several of their most declared opponents? This\ndoes not indicate a ministerial job, a party design, or a provincial or\nlocal purpose. It is, therefore, not so absolutely clear that the\nmeasure is wrong, or likely to be injurious to the true interests of any\nplace or any person.\n\nThe reason, Gentlemen, for taking this step, at this time, is but too\nobvious and too urgent. I cannot imagine that you forget the great war\nwhich has been carried on with so little success (and, as I thought,\nwith so little policy) in America, or that you are not aware of the\nother great wars which are impending. Ireland has been called upon to\nrepel the attacks of enemies of no small power, brought upon her by\ncouncils in which she has had no share. The very purpose and declared\nobject of that original war, which has brought other wars and other\nenemies on Ireland, was not very flattering to her dignity, her\ninterest, or to the very principle of her liberty. Yet she submitted\npatiently to the evils she suffered from an attempt to subdue to _your_\nobedience countries whose very commerce was not open to her. America was\nto be conquered in order that Ireland should _not_ trade thither; whilst\nthe miserable trade which she is permitted to carry on to other places\nhas been torn to pieces in the struggle. In this situation, are we\nneither to suffer her to have any real interest in our quarrel, or to\nbe flattered with the hope of any future means of bearing the burdens\nwhich she is to incur in defending herself against enemies which we have\nbrought upon her?\n\nI cannot set my face against such arguments. Is it quite fair to suppose\nthat I have no other motive for yielding to them but a desire of acting\n_against_ my constituents? It is for _you_, and for _your_ interest, as\na dear, cherished, and respected part of a valuable whole, that I have\ntaken my share in this question. You do not, you cannot, suffer by it.\nIf honesty be true policy with regard to the transient interest of\nindividuals, it is much more certainly so with regard to the permanent\ninterests of communities. I know that it is but too natural for us to\nsee our own _certain_ ruin in the _possible_ prosperity of other people.\nIt is hard to persuade us that everything which is _got_ by another is\nnot _taken_ from ourselves. But it is fit that We should get the better\nof these suggestions, which come from what is not the best and soundest\npart of our nature, and that we should form to ourselves a way of\nthinking, more rational, more just, and more religious. Trade is not a\nlimited thing: as if the objects of mutual demand and consumption could\nnot stretch beyond the bounds of our jealousies. God has given the earth\nto the children of men, and He has undoubtedly, in giving it to them,\ngiven them what is abundantly sufficient for all their exigencies: not a\nscanty, but a most liberal, provision for them all. The Author of our\nnature has written it strongly in that nature, and has promulgated the\nsame law in His written word, that man shall eat his bread by his labor;\nand I am persuaded that no man, and no combination of men, for their own\nideas of their particular profit, can, without great impiety, undertake\nto say that he _shall not_ do so,--that they have no sort of right\neither to prevent the labor or to withhold the bread. Ireland having\nreceived no _compensation_, directly or indirectly, for any restraints\non their trade, ought not, in justice or common honesty, to be made\nsubject to such restraints. I do not mean to impeach the right of the\nParliament of Great Britain to make laws for the trade of Ireland: I\nonly speak of what laws it is right for Parliament to make.\n\nIt is nothing to an oppressed people, to say that in part they are\nprotected at our charge. The military force which shall be kept up in\norder to cramp the natural faculties of a people, and to prevent their\narrival to their utmost prosperity, is the instrument of their\nservitude, not the means of their protection. To protect men is to\nforward, and not to restrain, their improvement. Else, what is it more\nthan to avow to them, and to the world, that you guard them from others\nonly to make them a prey to yourself? This fundamental nature of\nprotection does not belong to free, but to all governments, and is as\nvalid in Turkey as in Great Britain. No government ought to own that it\nexists for the purpose of checking the prosperity of its people, or that\nthere is such a principle involved in its policy.\n\nUnder the impression of these sentiments, (and not as wanting every\nattention to my constituents which affection and gratitude could\ninspire,) I voted for these bills which give you so much trouble. I\nvoted for them, not as doing complete justice to Ireland, but as being\nsomething less unjust than the general prohibition which has hitherto\nprevailed. I hear some discourse as if, in one or two paltry duties on\nmaterials, Ireland had a preference, and that those who set themselves\nagainst this act of scanty justice assert that they are only contending\nfor an _equality_. What equality? Do they forget that the whole woollen\nmanufacture of Ireland, the most extensive and profitable of any, and\nthe natural staple of that kingdom, has been in a manner so destroyed by\nrestrictive laws of ours, and (at our persuasion, and on our promises)\nby restrictive laws of _their own_, that in a few years, it is probable,\nthey will not be able to wear a coat of their own fabric? Is this\nequality? Do gentlemen forget that the understood faith upon which they\nwere persuaded to such an unnatural act has not been kept,--but a\nlinen-manufacture has been set up, and highly encouraged, against them?\nIs this equality? Do they forget the state of the trade of Ireland in\nbeer, so great an article of consumption, and which now stands in so\nmischievous a position with regard to their revenue, their manufacture,\nand their agriculture? Do they find any equality in all this? Yet, if\nthe least step is taken towards doing them common justice in the\nslightest articles for the most limited markets, a cry is raised, as if\nwe were going to be ruined by partiality to Ireland.\n\nGentlemen, I know that the deficiency in these arguments is made up (not\nby you, but by others) by the usual resource on such occasions, the\nconfidence in military force and superior power. But that ground of\nconfidence, which at no time was perfectly just, or the avowal of it\ntolerably decent, is at this time very unseasonable. Late experience has\nshown that it cannot be altogether relied upon; and many, if not all, of\nour present difficulties have arisen from putting our trust in what may\nvery possibly fail, and, if it should fail, leaves those who are hurt by\nsuch a reliance without pity. Whereas honesty and justice, reason and\nequity, go a very great way in securing prosperity to those who use\nthem, and, in case of failure, secure the best retreat and the most\nhonorable consolations.\n\nIt is very unfortunate that we should consider those as rivals, whom we\nought to regard as fellow-laborers in a common cause. Ireland has never\nmade a single step in its progress towards prosperity, by which you have\nnot had a share, and perhaps the greatest share, in the benefit. That\nprogress has been chiefly owing to her own natural advantages, and her\nown efforts, which, after a long time, and by slow degrees, have\nprevailed in some measure over the mischievous systems which have been\nadopted. Far enough she is still from having arrived even at an ordinary\nstate of perfection; and if our jealousies were to be converted into\npolitics as systematically as some would have them, the trade of Ireland\nwould vanish out of the system of commerce. But, believe me, if Ireland\nis beneficial to you, it is so not from the parts in which it is\nrestrained, but from those in which it is left free, though not left\nunrivalled. The greater its freedom, the greater must be your advantage.\nIf you should lose in one way, you will gain in twenty.\n\nWhilst I remain under this unalterable and powerful conviction, you will\nnot wonder at the _decided_ part I take. It is my custom so to do, when\nI see my way clearly before me, and when I know that I am not misled by\nany passion or any personal interest, which in this case I am very sure\nI am not. I find that disagreeable things are circulated among my\nconstituents; and I wish my sentiments, which form my justification,\nmay be equally general with the circulation against me. I have the honor\nto be, with the greatest regard and esteem, Gentlemen,\n\nYour most obedient and humble servant,\n\nE.B.\n\nWestminster, May 2, 1778.\n\nI send the bills.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\nON PRESENTING TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS\n\n(ON THE 11TH FEBRUARY, 1780)\n\nA PLAN\n\nFOR\n\nTHE BETTER SECURITY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT, AND THE\nECONOMICAL REFORMATION OF THE CIVIL AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS\n\n\n\n\nMr. Speaker,--I rise, in acquittal of my engagement to the House, in\nobedience to the strong and just requisition of my constituents, and, I\nam persuaded, in conformity to the unanimous wishes of the whole nation,\nto submit to the wisdom of Parliament \"A Plan of Reform in the\nConstitution of Several Parts of the Public Economy.\"\n\nI have endeavored that this plan should include, in its execution, a\nconsiderable reduction of improper expense; that it should effect a\nconversion of unprofitable titles into a productive estate; that it\nshould lead to, and indeed almost compel, a provident administration of\nsuch sums of public money as must remain under discretionary trusts;\nthat it should render the incurring debts on the civil establishment\n(which must ultimately affect national strength and national credit) so\nvery difficult as to become next to impracticable.\n\nBut what, I confess, was uppermost with me, what I bent the whole force\nof my mind to, was the reduction of that corrupt influence which is\nitself the perennial spring of all prodigality and of all\ndisorder,--which loads us more than millions of debt,--which takes away\nvigor from our arms, wisdom from our councils, and every shadow of\nauthority and credit from the most venerable parts of our Constitution.\n\nSir, I assure you very solemnly, and with a very clear conscience, that\nnothing in the world has led me to such an undertaking but my zeal for\nthe honor of this House, and the settled, habitual, systematic affection\nI bear to the cause and to the principles of government.\n\nI enter perfectly into the nature and consequences of my attempt, and I\nadvance to it with a tremor that shakes me to the inmost fibre of my\nframe. I feel that I engage in a business, in itself most ungracious,\ntotally wide of the course of prudent conduct, and, I really think, the\nmost completely adverse that can be imagined to the natural turn and\ntemper of my own mind. I know that all parsimony is of a quality\napproaching to unkindness, and that (on some person or other) every\nreform must operate as a sort of punishment. Indeed, the whole class of\nthe severe and restrictive virtues are at a market almost too high for\nhumanity. What is worse, there are very few of those virtues which are\nnot capable of being imitated, and even outdone in many of their most\nstriking effects, by the worst of vices. Malignity and envy will carve\nmuch more deeply, and finish much more sharply, in the work of\nretrenchment, than frugality and providence. I do not, therefore, wonder\nthat gentlemen have kept away from such a task, as well from good-nature\nas from prudence. Private feeling might, indeed, be overborne by\nlegislative reason; and a man of a long-sighted and a strong-nerved\nhumanity might bring himself not so much to consider from whom he takes\na superfluous enjoyment as for whom in the end he may preserve the\nabsolute necessaries of life.\n\nBut it is much more easy to reconcile this measure in humanity than to\nbring it to any agreement with prudence. I do not mean that little,\nselfish, pitiful, bastard thing which sometimes goes by the name of a\nfamily in which it is not legitimate and to which it is a disgrace;--I\nmean even that public and enlarged prudence, which, apprehensive of\nbeing disabled from rendering acceptable services to the world,\nwithholds itself from those that are invidious. Gentlemen who are, with\nme, verging towards the decline of life, and are apt to form their ideas\nof kings from kings of former times, might dread the anger of a reigning\nprince;--they who are more provident of the future, or by being young\nare more interested in it, might tremble at the resentment of the\nsuccessor; they might see a long, dull, dreary, unvaried visto of\ndespair and exclusion, for half a century, before them. This is no\npleasant prospect at the outset of a political journey.\n\nBesides this, Sir, the private enemies to be made in all attempts of\nthis kind are innumerable; and their enmity will be the more bitter, and\nthe more dangerous too, because a sense of dignity will oblige them to\nconceal the cause of their resentment. Very few men of great families\nand extensive connections but will feel the smart of a cutting reform,\nin some close relation, some bosom friend, some pleasant acquaintance,\nsome dear, protected dependant. Emolument is taken from some; patronage\nfrom others; objects of pursuit from all. Men forced into an involuntary\nindependence will abhor the authors of a blessing which in their eyes\nhas so very near a resemblance to a curse. When officers are removed,\nand the offices remain, you may set the gratitude of some against the\nanger of others, you may oppose the friends you oblige against the\nenemies you provoke. But services of the present sort create no\nattachments. The individual good felt in a public benefit is\ncomparatively so small, comes round through such an involved labyrinth\nof intricate and tedious revolutions, whilst a present personal\ndetriment is so heavy, where it falls, and so instant in its operation,\nthat the cold commendation of a public advantage never was and never\nwill be a match for the quick sensibility of a private loss; and you may\ndepend upon it, Sir, that, when many people have an interest in railing,\nsooner or later, they will bring a considerable degree of unpopularity\nupon any measure. So that, for the present at least, the reformation\nwill operate against the reformers; and revenge (as against them at the\nleast) will produce all the effects of corruption.\n\nThis, Sir, is almost always the case, where the plan has complete\nsuccess. But how stands the matter in the mere attempt? Nothing, you\nknow, is more common than for men to wish, and call loudly too, for a\nreformation, who, when it arrives, do by no means like the severity of\nits aspect. Reformation is one of those pieces which must be put at some\ndistance in order to please. Its greatest favorers love it better in the\nabstract than in the substance. When any old prejudice of their own, or\nany interest that they value, is touched, they become scrupulous, they\nbecome captious; and every man has his separate exception. Some pluck\nout the black hairs, some the gray; one point must be given up to one,\nanother point must be yielded to another; nothing is suffered to prevail\nupon its own principle; the whole is so frittered down and disjointed,\nthat scarcely a trace of the original scheme remains. Thus, between the\nresistance of power, and the unsystematical process of popularity, the\nundertaker and the undertaking are both exposed, and the poor reformer\nis hissed off the stags both by friends and foes.\n\nObserve, Sir, that the apology for my undertaking (an apology which,\nthough long, is no longer than necessary) is not grounded on my want of\nthe fullest sense of the difficult and invidious nature of the task I\nundertake. I risk odium, if I succeed, and contempt, if I fail. My\nexcuse must rest in mine and your conviction of the absolute, urgent\n_necessity_ there is that something of the kind should be done. If there\nis any sacrifice to be made, either of estimation or of fortune, the\nsmallest is the best. Commanders-in-chief are not to be put upon the\nforlorn hope. But, indeed, it is necessary that the attempt should be\nmade. It is necessary from our own political circumstances; it is\nnecessary from the operations of the enemy; it is necessary from the\ndemands of the people, whose desires, when they do not militate with the\nstable and eternal rules of justice and reason, (rules which are above\nus and above them,) ought to be as a law to a House of Commons.\n\nAs to our circumstances, I do not mean to aggravate the difficulties of\nthem by the strength of any coloring whatsoever. On the contrary, I\nobserve, and observe with pleasure, that our affairs rather wear a more\npromising aspect than they did on the opening of this session. We have\nhad some leading successes. But those who rate them at the highest\n(higher a great deal, indeed, than I dare to do) are of opinion, that,\nupon the ground of such advantages, we cannot at this time hope to make\nany treaty of peace which would not be ruinous and completely\ndisgraceful. In such an anxious state of things, if dawnings of success\nserve to animate our diligence, they are good; if they tend to increase\nour presumption, they are worse than defeats. The state of our affairs\nshall, then, be as promising as any one may choose to conceive it: it\nis, however, but promising. We must recollect, that, with but half of\nour natural strength, we are at war against confederated powers who have\nsingly threatened us with ruin; we must recollect, that, whilst we are\nleft naked on one side, our other flank is uncovered by any alliance;\nthat, whilst we are weighing and balancing our successes against our\nlosses, we are accumulating debt to the amount of at least fourteen\nmillions in the year. That loss is certain.\n\nI have no wish to deny that our successes are as brilliant as any one\nchooses to make them; our resources, too, may, for me, be as\nunfathomable as they are represented. Indeed, they are just whatever the\npeople possess and will submit to pay. Taxing is an easy business. Any\nprojector can contrive new impositions; any bungler can add to the old.\nBut is it altogether wise to have no other bounds to your impositions\nthan the patience of those who are to bear them?\n\nAll I claim upon the subject of your resources is this: that they are\nnot likely to be increased by wasting them. I think I shall be permitted\nto assume that a system of frugality will not lessen your riches,\nwhatever they may be. I believe it will not be hotly disputed, that\nthose resources which lie heavy on the subject ought not to be objects\nof preference,--that they ought not to be the _very first choice_, to an\nhonest representative of the people.\n\nThis is all, Sir, that I shall say upon our circumstances and our\nresources: I mean to say a little more on the operations of the enemy,\nbecause this matter seems to me very natural in our present\ndeliberation. When I look to the other side of the water, I cannot help\nrecollecting what Pyrrhus said, on reconnoitring the Roman camp:--\"These\nbarbarians have nothing barbarous in their discipline.\" When I look, as\nI have pretty carefully looked, into the proceedings of the French king,\nI am sorry to say it, I see nothing of the character and genius of\narbitrary finance, none of the bold frauds of bankrupt power, none of\nthe wild struggles and plunges of despotism in distress,--no lopping off\nfrom the capital of debt, no suspension of interest, no robbery under\nthe name of loan, no raising the value, no debasing the substance of the\ncoin. I see neither Louis the Fourteenth nor Louis the Fifteenth. On the\ncontrary, I behold, with astonishment, rising before me, by the very\nhands of arbitrary power, and in the very midst of war and confusion, a\nregular, methodical system of public credit; I behold a fabric laid on\nthe natural and solid foundations of trust and confidence among men, and\nrising, by fair gradations, order over order, according to the just\nrules of symmetry and art. What a reverse of things! Principle, method,\nregularity, economy, frugality, justice to individuals, and care of the\npeople are the resources with which France makes war upon Great Britain.\nGod avert the omen! But if we should see any genius in war and politics\narise in France to second what is done in the bureau!--I turn my eyes\nfrom the consequences.\n\nThe noble lord in the blue ribbon, last year, treated all this with\ncontempt. He never could conceive it possible that the French minister\nof finance could go through that year with a loan of but seventeen\nhundred thousand pounds, and that he should be able to fund that loan\nwithout any tax. The second year, however, opens the very same scene. A\nsmall loan, a loan of no more than two millions five hundred thousand\npounds, is to carry our enemies through the service of this year also.\nNo tax is raised to fund that debt; no tax is raised for the current\nservices. I am credibly informed that there is no anticipation\nwhatsoever. Compensations[31] are correctly made. Old debts continue to\nbe sunk as in the time of profound peace. Even payments which their\ntreasury had been authorized to suspend during the time of war are not\nsuspended.\n\nA general reform, executed through every _department of the revenue_,\ncreates an annual income of more than half a million, whilst it\nfacilitates and simplifies all the functions of administration. The\nking's _household_--at the remotest avenues to which all reformation has\nbeen hitherto stopped, that household which has been the stronghold of\nprodigality, the virgin fortress which was never before attacked--has\nbeen not only not defended, but it has, even in the forms, been\nsurrendered by the king to the economy of his minister. No capitulation;\nno reserve. Economy has entered in triumph into the public splendor of\nthe monarch, into his private amusements, into the appointments of his\nnearest and highest relations. Economy and public spirit have made a\nbeneficent and an honest spoil: they have plundered from extravagance\nand luxury, for the use of substantial service, a revenue of near four\nhundred thousand pounds. The reform of the finances, joined to this\nreform of the court, gives to the public nine hundred thousand pounds a\nyear, and upwards.\n\nThe minister who does these things is a great man; but the king who\ndesires that they should be done is a far greater. We must do justice to\nour enemies: these are the acts of a patriot king. I am not in dread of\nthe vast armies of France; I am not in dread of the gallant spirit of\nits brave and numerous nobility; I am not alarmed even at the great navy\nwhich has been so miraculously created. All these things Louis the\nFourteenth had before. With all these things, the French monarchy has\nmore than once fallen prostrate at the feet of the public faith of Great\nBritain. It was the want of public credit which disabled France from\nrecovering after her defeats, or recovering even from her victories and\ntriumphs. It was a prodigal court, it was an ill-ordered revenue, that\nsapped the foundations of all her greatness. Credit cannot exist under\nthe arm of necessity. Necessity strikes at credit, I allow, with a\nheavier and quicker blow under an arbitrary monarchy than under a\nlimited and balanced government; but still necessity and credit are\nnatural enemies, and cannot be long reconciled in any situation. From\nnecessity and corruption, a free state may lose the spirit of that\ncomplex constitution which is the foundation of confidence. On the other\nhand, I am far from being sure that a monarchy, when once it is properly\nregulated, may not for a long time furnish a foundation for credit upon\nthe solidity of its maxims, though it affords no ground of trust in its\ninstitutions. I am afraid I see in England, and in France, something\nlike a beginning of both these things. I wish I may be found in a\nmistake.\n\nThis very short and very imperfect state of what is now going on in\nFrance (the last circumstances of which I received in about eight days\nafter the registry of the edict[32]) I do not, Sir, lay before you for\nany invidious purpose. It is in order to excite in us the spirit of a\nnoble emulation. Let the nations make war upon each other, (since we\nmust make war,) not with a low and vulgar malignity, but by a\ncompetition of virtues. This is the only way by which both parties can\ngain by war. The French have imitated us: let us, through them, imitate\nourselves,--ourselves in our better and happier days. If public\nfrugality, under whatever men, or in whatever mode of government, is\nnational strength, it is a strength which our enemies are in possession\nof before us.\n\nSir, I am well aware that the state and the result of the French economy\nwhich I have laid before you are even now lightly treated by some who\nought never to speak but from information. Pains have not been spared to\nrepresent them as impositions on the public. Let me tell you, Sir, that\nthe creation of a navy, and a two years' war without taxing, are a very\nsingular species of imposture. But be it so. For what end does Necker\ncarry on this delusion? Is it to lower the estimation of the crown he\nserves, and to render his own administration contemptible? No! No! He is\nconscious that the sense of mankind is so clear and decided in favor of\neconomy, and of the weight and value of its resources, that he turns\nhimself to every species of fraud and artifice to obtain the mere\nreputation of it. Men do not affect a conduct that tends to their\ndiscredit. Let us, then, get the better of Monsieur Necker in his own\nway; let us do in reality what he does only in pretence; let us turn his\nFrench tinsel into English gold. Is, then, the mere opinion and\nappearance of frugality and good management of such use to France, and\nis the substance to be so mischievous to England? Is the very\nconstitution of Nature so altered by a sea of twenty miles, that economy\nshould give power on the Continent, and that profusion should give it\nhere? For God's sake, let not this be the only fashion of France which\nwe refuse to copy!\n\nTo the last kind of necessity, the desires of the people, I have but a\nvery few words to say. The ministers seem to contest this point, and\naffect to doubt whether the people do really desire a plan of economy in\nthe civil government. Sir, this is too ridiculous. It is impossible that\nthey should not desire it. It is impossible that a prodigality which\ndraws its resources from their indigence should be pleasing to them.\nLittle factions of pensioners, and their dependants, may talk another\nlanguage. But the voice of Nature is against them, and it will be heard.\nThe people of England will not, they cannot, take it kindly, that\nrepresentatives should refuse to their constituents what an absolute\nsovereign voluntarily offers to his subjects. The expression of the\npetitions is, that, \"_before any new burdens are laid upon this country,\neffectual measures be taken by this House to inquire into and correct\nthe gross abuses in the expenditure of public money_.\"\n\nThis has been treated by the noble lord in the blue ribbon as a wild,\nfactious language. It happens, however, that the people, in their\naddress to us, use, almost word for word, the same terms as the king of\nFrance uses in addressing himself to his people; and it differs only as\nit falls short of the French king's idea of what is due to his subjects.\n\"To convince,\" says he, \"our faithful subjects of _the desire we\nentertain not to recur to new impositions_, until we have first\nexhausted all the resources which order and economy can possibly\nsupply,\" &c., &c.\n\nThese desires of the people of England, which come far short of the\nvoluntary concessions of the king of France, are moderate indeed. They\nonly contend that we should interweave some economy with the taxes with\nwhich we have chosen to begin the war. They request, not that you should\nrely upon economy exclusively, but that you should give it rank and\nprecedence, in the order of the ways and means of this single session.\n\nBut if it were possible that the desires of our constituents, desires\nwhich are at once so natural and so very much tempered and subdued,\nshould have no weight with an House of Commons which has its eye\nelsewhere, I would turn my eyes to the very quarter to which theirs are\ndirected. I would reason this matter with the House on the mere policy\nof the question; and I would undertake to prove that an early\ndereliction of abuse is the direct interest of government,--of\ngovernment taken abstractedly from its duties, and considered merely as\na system intending its own conservation.\n\nIf there is any one eminent criterion which above all the rest\ndistinguishes a wise government from an administration weak and\nimprovident, it is this: \"well to know the best time and manner of\nyielding what it is impossible to keep.\" There have been, Sir, and\nthere are, many who choose to chicane with their situation rather than\nbe instructed by it. Those gentlemen argue against every desire of\nreformation upon the principles of a criminal prosecution. It is enough\nfor them to justify their adherence to a pernicious system, that it is\nnot of their contrivance,--that it is an inheritance of absurdity,\nderived to them from their ancestors,--that they can make out a long and\nunbroken pedigree of mismanagers that have gone before them. They are\nproud of the antiquity of their house; and they defend their errors as\nif they were defending their inheritance, afraid of derogating from\ntheir nobility, and carefully avoiding a sort of blot in their\nscutcheon, which they think would degrade them forever.\n\nIt was thus that the unfortunate Charles the First defended himself on\nthe practice of the Stuart who went before him, and of all the Tudors.\nHis partisans might have gone to the Plantagenets. They might have found\nbad examples enough, both abroad and at home, that could have shown an\nancient and illustrious descent. But there is a time when men will not\nsuffer bad things because their ancestors have suffered worse. There is\na time when the hoary head of inveterate abuse will neither draw\nreverence nor obtain protection. If the noble lord in the blue ribbon\npleads, \"_Not guilty_,\" to the charges brought against the present\nsystem of public economy, it is not possible to give a fair verdict by\nwhich he will not stand acquitted. But pleading is not our present\nbusiness. His plea or his traverse may be allowed as an answer to a\ncharge, when a charge is made. But if he puts himself in the way to\nobstruct reformation, then the faults of his office instantly become\nhis own. Instead of a public officer in an abusive department, whose\nprovince is an object to be regulated, he becomes a criminal who is to\nbe punished. I do most seriously put it to administration to consider\nthe wisdom of a timely reform. Early reformations are amicable\narrangements with a friend in power; late reformations are terms imposed\nupon a conquered enemy: early reformations are made in cool blood; late\nreformations are made under a state of inflammation. In that state of\nthings the people behold in government nothing that is respectable. They\nsee the abuse, and they will see nothing else. They fall into the temper\nof a furious populace provoked at the disorder of a house of ill-fame;\nthey never attempt to correct or regulate; they go to work by the\nshortest way: they abate the nuisance, they pull down the house.\n\nThis is my opinion with regard to the true interest of government. But\nas it is the interest of government that reformation should be early, it\nis the interest of the people that it should be temperate. It is their\ninterest, because a temperate reform is permanent, and because it has a\nprinciple of growth. Whenever we improve, it is right to leave room for\na further improvement. It is right to consider, to look about us, to\nexamine the effect of what we have done. Then we can proceed with\nconfidence, because we can proceed with intelligence. Whereas in hot\nreformations, in what men more zealous than considerate call _making\nclear work_, the whole is generally so crude, so harsh, so indigested,\nmixed with so much imprudence and so much injustice, so contrary to the\nwhole course of human nature and human institutions, that the very\npeople who are most eager for it are among the first to grow disgusted\nat what they have done. Then some part of the abdicated grievance is\nrecalled from its exile in order to become a corrective of the\ncorrection. Then the abuse assumes all the credit and popularity of a\nreform. The very idea of purity and disinterestedness in politics falls\ninto disrepute, and is considered as a vision of hot and inexperienced\nmen; and thus disorders become incurable, not by the virulence of their\nown quality, but by the unapt and violent nature of the remedies. A\ngreat part, therefore, of my idea of reform is meant to operate\ngradually: some benefits will come at a nearer, some at a more remote\nperiod. We must no more make haste to be rich by parsimony than by\nintemperate acquisition.\n\nIn my opinion, it is our duty, when we have the desires of the people\nbefore us, to pursue them, not in the spirit of literal obedience, which\nmay militate with their very principle,--much less to treat them with a\npeevish and contentious litigation, as if we were adverse parties in a\nsuit. It would, Sir, be most dishonorable for a faithful representative\nof the Commons to take advantage of any inartificial expression of the\npeople's wishes, in order to frustrate their attainment of what they\nhave an undoubted right to expect. We are under infinite obligations to\nour constituents, who have raised us to so distinguished a trust, and\nhave imparted such a degree of sanctity to common characters. We ought\nto walk before them with purity, plainness, and integrity of\nheart,--with filial love, and not with slavish fear, which is always a\nlow and tricking thing. For my own part, in what I have meditated upon\nthat subject, I cannot, indeed, take upon me to say I have the honor _to\nfollow_ the sense of the people. The truth is, _I met it on the way_,\nwhile I was pursuing their interest according to my own ideas. I am\nhappy beyond expression to find that my intentions have so far coincided\nwith theirs, that I have not had, cause to be in the least scrupulous to\nsign their petition, conceiving it to express my own opinions, as nearly\nas general terms can express the object of particular arrangements.\n\nI am therefore satisfied to act as a fair mediator between government\nand the people, endeavoring to form a plan which should have both an\nearly and a temperate operation. I mean, that it should be substantial,\nthat it should be systematic, that it should rather strike at the first\ncause of prodigality and corrupt influence than attempt to follow them\nin all their effects.\n\nIt was to fulfil the first of these objects (the proposal of something\nsubstantial) that I found myself obliged, at the outset, to reject a\nplan proposed by an honorable and attentive member of Parliament,[33]\nwith very good intentions on his part, about a year or two ago. Sir, the\nplan I speak of was the tax of twenty-five per cent moved upon places\nand pensions during the continuance of the American war. Nothing, Sir,\ncould have met my ideas more than such a tax, if it was considered as a\npractical satire on that war, and as a penalty upon those who led us\ninto it; but in any other view it appeared to me very liable to\nobjections. I considered the scheme as neither substantial, nor\npermanent, nor systematical, nor likely to be a corrective of evil\ninfluence. I have always thought employments a very proper subject of\nregulation, but a very ill-chosen subject for a tax. An equal tax upon\nproperty is reasonable; because the object is of the same quality\nthroughout. The species is the same; it differs only in its quantity.\nBut a tax upon salaries is totally of a different nature; there can be\nno equality, and consequently no justice, in taxing them by the hundred\nin the gross.\n\nWe have, Sir, on our establishment several offices which perform real\nservice: we have also places that provide large rewards for no service\nat all. We have stations which are made for the public decorum, made for\npreserving the grace and majesty of a great people: we have likewise\nexpensive formalities, which tend rather to the disgrace than the\nornament of the state and the court. This, Sir, is the real condition of\nour establishments. To fall with the same severity on objects so\nperfectly dissimilar is the very reverse of a reformation,--I mean a\nreformation framed, as all serious things ought to be, in number,\nweight, and measure.--Suppose, for instance, that two men receive a\nsalary of 800_l._ a year each. In the office of one there is nothing at\nall to be done; in the other, the occupier is oppressed by its duties.\nStrike off twenty-five per cent from these two offices, you take from\none man 200_l._ which in justice he ought to have, and you give in\neffect to the other 600_l._ which he ought not to receive. The public\nrobs the former, and the latter robs the public; and this mode of mutual\nrobbery is the only way in which the office and the public can make up\ntheir accounts.\n\nBut the balance, in settling the account of this double injustice, is\nmuch against the state. The result is short. You purchase a saving of\ntwo hundred pounds by a profusion of six. Besides, Sir, whilst you leave\na supply of unsecured money behind, wholly at the discretion of\nministers, they make up the tax to such places as they wish to favor, or\nin such new places as they may choose to create. Thus the civil list\nbecomes oppressed with debt; and the public is obliged to repay, and to\nrepay with an heavy interest, what it has taken by an injudicious tax.\nSuch has been the effect of the taxes hitherto laid on pensions and\nemployments, and it is no encouragement to recur again to the same\nexpedient.\n\nIn effect, such a scheme is not calculated to produce, but to prevent\nreformation. It holds out a shadow of present gain to a greedy and\nnecessitous public, to divert their attention from those abuses which in\nreality are the great causes of their wants. It is a composition to stay\ninquiry; it is a fine paid by mismanagement for the renewal of its\nlease; what is worse, it is a fine paid by industry and merit for an\nindemnity to the idle and the worthless. But I shall say no more upon\nthis topic, because (whatever may be given out to the contrary) I know\nthat the noble lord in the blue ribbon perfectly agrees with me in these\nsentiments.\n\nAfter all that I have said on this subject, I am so sensible that it is\nour duty to try everything which may contribute to the relief of the\nnation, that I do not attempt wholly to reprobate the idea even of a\ntax. Whenever, Sir, the incumbrance of useless office (which lies no\nless a dead weight upon the service of the state than upon its revenues)\nshall be removed,--when the remaining offices shall be classed according\nto the just proportion of their rewards and services, so as to admit the\napplication of an equal rule to their taxation,--when the discretionary\npower over the civil list cash shall be so regulated that a minister\nshall no longer have the means of repaying with a private what is taken\nby a public hand,--if, after all these preliminary regulations, it\nshould be thought that a tax on places is an object worthy of the public\nattention, I shall be very ready to lend my hand to a reduction of their\nemoluments.\n\nHaving thus, Sir, not so much absolutely rejected as postponed the plan\nof a taxation of office, my next business was to find something which\nmight be really substantial and effectual. I am quite clear, that, if we\ndo not go to the very origin and first ruling cause of grievances, we do\nnothing. What does it signify to turn abuses out of one door, if we are\nto let them in at another? What does it signify to promote economy upon\na measure, and to suffer it to be subverted in the principle? Our\nministers are far from being wholly to blame for the present ill order\nwhich prevails. Whilst institutions directly repugnant to good\nmanagement are suffered to remain, no effectual or lasting reform _can_\nbe introduced.\n\nI therefore thought it necessary, as soon as I conceived thoughts of\nsubmitting to you some plan of reform, to take a comprehensive view of\nthe state of this country,--to make a sort of survey of its\njurisdictions, its estates, and its establishments. Something in every\none of them seemed to me to stand in the way of all economy in their\nadministration, and prevented every possibility of methodizing the\nsystem. But being, as I ought to be, doubtful of myself, I was resolved\nnot to proceed in an _arbitrary_ manner in any particular which tended\nto change the settled state of things, or in any degree to affect the\nfortune or situation, the interest or the importance, of any individual.\nBy an arbitrary proceeding I mean one conducted by the private\nopinions, tastes, or feelings of the man who attempts to regulate. These\nprivate measures are not standards of the exchequer, nor balances of the\nsanctuary. General principles cannot be debauched or corrupted by\ninterest or caprice; and by those principles I was resolved to work.\n\nSir, before I proceed further, I will lay these principles fairly before\nyou, that afterwards you may be in a condition to judge whether every\nobject of regulation, as I propose it, comes fairly under its rule. This\nwill exceedingly shorten all discussion between us, if we are perfectly\nin earnest in establishing a system of good management. I therefore lay\ndown to myself seven fundamental rules: they might, indeed, be reduced\nto two or three simple maxims; but they would be too general, and their\napplication to the several heads of the business before us would not be\nso distinct and visible. I conceive, then,\n\n     _First_, That all jurisdictions which furnish more matter of\n     expense, more temptation to oppression, or more means and\n     instruments of corrupt influence, than advantage to justice or\n     political administration, ought to be abolished.\n\n     _Secondly_, That all public estates which are more subservient to\n     the purposes of vexing, overawing, and influencing those who hold\n     under them, and to the expense of perception and management, than\n     of benefit to the revenue, ought, upon every principle both of\n     revenue and of freedom, to be disposed of.\n\n     _Thirdly_, That all offices which bring more charge than\n     proportional advantage to the state, that all offices which may be\n     engrafted on others, uniting and simplifying their duties, ought,\n     in the first case, to be taken away, and, in the second, to be\n     consolidated.\n\n     _Fourthly_, That all such offices ought to be abolished as obstruct\n     the prospect of the general superintendent of finance, which\n     destroy his superintendency, which disable him from foreseeing and\n     providing for charges as they may occur, from preventing expense in\n     its origin, checking it in its progress, or securing its\n     application to its proper purposes. A minister, under whom expenses\n     can be made without his knowledge, can never say what it is that he\n     can spend, or what it is that he can save.\n\n     _Fifthly_, That it is proper to establish an invariable order in\n     all payments, which will prevent partiality, which will give\n     preference to services, not according to the importunity of the\n     demandant, but the rank and order of their utility or their\n     justice.\n\n     _Sixthly_, That it is right to reduce every establishment and every\n     part of an establishment (as nearly as possible) to certainty, the\n     life of all order and good management.\n\n     _Seventhly_, That all subordinate treasuries, as the nurseries of\n     mismanagement, and as naturally drawing to themselves as much money\n     as they can, keeping it as long as they can, and accounting for it\n     as late as they can, ought to be dissolved. They have a tendency to\n     perplex and distract the public accounts, and to excite a suspicion\n     of government even beyond the extent of their abuse.\n\nUnder the authority and with the guidance of those principles I\nproceed,--wishing that nothing in any establishment may be changed,\nwhere I am not able to make a strong, direct, and solid application of\nthose principles, or of some one of them. An economical constitution is\na necessary basis for an economical administration.\n\nFirst, with regard to the sovereign jurisdictions, I must observe, Sir,\nthat whoever takes a view of this kingdom in a cursory manner will\nimagine that he beholds a solid, compacted, uniform system of monarchy,\nin which all inferior jurisdictions are but as rays diverging from one\ncentre. But on examining it more nearly, you find much eccentricity and\nconfusion. It is not a _monarchy_ in strictness. But, as in the Saxon\ntimes this country was an heptarchy, it is now a strange sort of\n_pentarchy_. It is divided into five several distinct principalities,\nbesides the supreme. There is, indeed, this difference from the Saxon\ntimes,--that, as in the itinerant exhibitions of the stage, for want of\na complete company, they are obliged to throw a variety of parts on\ntheir chief performer, so our sovereign condescends himself to act not\nonly the principal, but all the subordinate parts in the play. He\ncondescends to dissipate the royal character, and to trifle with those\nlight, subordinate, lacquered sceptres in those hands that sustain the\nball representing the world, or which wield the trident that commands\nthe ocean. Cross a brook, and you lose the King of England; but you have\nsome comfort in coming again under his Majesty, though \"shorn of his\nbeams,\" and no more than Prince of Wales. Go to the north, and you find\nhim dwindled to a Duke of Lancaster; turn to the west of that north, and\nhe pops upon you in the humble character of Earl of Chester. Travel a\nfew miles on, the Earl of Chester disappears, and the king surprises\nyou again as Count Palatine of Lancaster. If you travel beyond Mount\nEdgecombe, you find him ones more in his incognito, and he is Duke of\nCornwall. So that, quite fatigued and satiated with this dull variety,\nyou are infinitely refreshed when you return to the sphere of his proper\nsplendor, and behold your amiable sovereign in his true, simple,\nundisguised, native character of Majesty.\n\nIn every one of these five principalities, duchies, palatinates, there\nis a regular establishment of considerable expense and most domineering\ninfluence. As his Majesty submits to appear in this state of\nsubordination to himself, his loyal peers and faithful commons attend\nhis royal transformations, and are not so nice as to refuse to nibble at\nthose crumbs of emoluments which console their petty metamorphoses. Thus\nevery one of those principalities has the apparatus of a kingdom for the\njurisdiction over a few private estates, and the formality and charge of\nthe Exchequer of Great Britain for collecting the rents of a country\nsquire. Cornwall is the best of them; but when you compare the charge\nwith the receipt, you will find that it furnishes no exception to the\ngeneral rule. The Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster do not yield,\nas I have reason to believe, on an average of twenty years, four\nthousand pounds a year clear to the crown. As to Wales, and the County\nPalatine of Chester, I have my doubts whether their productive exchequer\nyields any returns at all. Yet one may say, that this revenue is more\nfaithfully applied to its purposes than any of the rest; as it exists\nfor the sole purpose of multiplying offices and extending influence.\n\nAn attempt was lately made to improve this branch of local influence,\nand to transfer it to the fund of general corruption. I have on the seat\nbehind me the constitution of Mr. John Probert, a knight-errant dubbed\nby the noble lord in the blue ribbon, and sent to search for revenues\nand adventures upon the mountains of Wales. The commission is\nremarkable, and the event not less so. The commission sets forth, that,\n\"upon a report of the _deputy-auditor_\" (for there is a deputy-auditor)\n\"of the Principality of Wales, it appeared that his Majesty's land\nrevenues in the said principality _are greatly diminished_\";--and \"that\nupon a _report_ of the _surveyor-general_ of his Majesty's land\nrevenues, upon a _memorial_ of the auditor of his Majesty's revenues,\n_within the said principality_, that his mines and forests have produced\nvery _little profit either to the public revenue or to\nindividuals_\";--and therefore they appoint Mr. Probert, with a pension\nof three hundred pounds a year from the said principality, to try\nwhether he can make anything more of that very _little_ which is stated\nto be so _greatly_ diminished. \"_A beggarly account of empty boxes_.\"\nAnd yet, Sir, you will remark, that this diminution from littleness\n(which serves only to prove the infinite divisibility of matter) was not\nfor want of the tender and officious care (as we see) of surveyors\ngeneral and surveyors particular, of auditors and deputy-auditors,--not\nfor want of memorials, and remonstrances, and reports, and commissions,\nand constitutions, and inquisitions, and pensions.\n\nProbert, thus armed, and accoutred,--and paid,--proceeded on his\nadventure; but he was no sooner arrived on the confines of Wales than\nall Wales was in arms to meet him. That nation is brave and full of\nspirit. Since the invasion of King Edward, and the massacre of the\nbards, there never was such a tumult and alarm and uproar through the\nregion of Prestatyn. Snowdon shook to its base; Cader-Idris was loosened\nfrom its foundations. The fury of litigious war blew her horn on the\nmountains. The rocks poured down their goatherds, and the deep caverns\nvomited out their miners. Everything above ground and everything under\nground was in arms.\n\nIn short, Sir, to alight from my Welsh Pegasus, and to come to level\nground, the _Preux Chevalier_ Probert went to look for revenue, like his\nmasters upon other occasions, and, like his masters, he found rebellion.\nBut we were grown cautious by experience. A civil war of paper might end\nin a more serious war; for now remonstrance met remonstrance, and\nmemorial was opposed to memorial. The wise Britons thought it more\nreasonable that the poor, wasted, decrepit revenue of the principality\nshould die a natural than a violent death. In truth, Sir, the attempt\nwas no less an affront upon the understanding of that respectable people\nthan it was an attack on their property. They chose rather that their\nancient, moss-grown castles should moulder into decay, under the silent\ntouches of time, and the slow formality of an oblivious and drowsy\nexchequer, than that they should be battered down all at once by the\nlively efforts of a pensioned engineer. As it is the fortune of the\nnoble lord to whom the auspices of this campaign belonged frequently to\nprovoke resistance, so it is his rule and nature to yield to that\nresistance _in all cases whatsoever_. He was true to himself on this\noccasion. He submitted with spirit to the spirited remonstrances of the\nWelsh. Mr. Probert gave up his adventure, and keeps his pension; and so\nends \"the famous history of the revenue adventures of the bold Baron\nNorth and the good Knight Probert upon the mountains of Venodotia.\"\n\nIn such a state is the exchequer of Wales at present, that, upon the\nreport of the Treasury itself, its _little_ revenue is _greatly_\ndiminished; and we see, by the whole of this strange transaction, that\nan attempt to improve it produces resistance, the resistance produces\nsubmission, and the whole ends in pension.[34]\n\nIt is nearly the same with the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster. To do\nnothing with them is extinction; to improve them is oppression. Indeed,\nthe whole of the estates which support these minor principalities is\nmade up, not of revenues, and rents, and profitable fines, but of\nclaims, of pretensions, of vexations, of litigations. They are\nexchequers of unfrequent receipt and constant charge: a system of\nfinances not fit for an economist who would be rich, not fit for a\nprince who would govern his subjects with equity and justice.\n\nIt is not only between prince and subject that these mock jurisdictions\nand mimic revenues produce great mischief. They excite among the people\na spirit of informing and delating, a spirit of supplanting and\nundermining one another: so that many, in such circumstances, conceive\nit advantageous to them rather to continue subject to vexation\nthemselves than to give up the means and chance of vexing others. It is\nexceedingly common for men to contract their love to their country into\nan attachment to its petty subdivisions; and they sometimes even cling\nto their provincial abuses, as if they were franchises and local\nprivileges. Accordingly, in places where there is much of this kind of\nestate, persons will be always found who would rather trust to their\ntalents in recommending themselves to power for the renewal of their\ninterests, than to incumber their purses, though never so lightly, in\norder to transmit independence to their posterity. It is a great\nmistake, that the desire of securing property is universal among\nmankind. Gaming is a principle inherent in human nature. It belongs to\nus all. I would therefore break those tables; I would furnish no evil\noccupation for that spirit. I would make every man look everywhere,\nexcept to the intrigue of a court, for the improvement of his\ncircumstances or the security of his fortune. I have in my eye a very\nstrong case in the Duchy of Lancaster (which lately occupied Westminster\nHall and the House of Lords) as my voucher for many of these\nreflections.[35]\n\nFor what plausible reason are these principalities suffered to exist?\nWhen a government is rendered complex, (which in itself is no desirable\nthing,) it ought to be for some political end which cannot be answered\notherwise. Subdivisions in government are only admissible in favor of\nthe dignity of inferior princes and high nobility, or for the support of\nan aristocratic confederacy under some head, or for the conservation of\nthe franchises of the people in some privileged province. For the two\nformer of these ends, such are the subdivisions in favor of the\nelectoral and other princes in the Empire; for the latter of these\npurposes are the jurisdictions of the Imperial cities and the Hanse\ntowns. For the latter of these ends are also the countries of the States\n(_Pays d'Etats_) and certain cities and orders in France. These are all\nregulations with an object, and some of them with a very good object.\nBut how are the principles of any of these subdivisions applicable in\nthe case before us?\n\nDo they answer any purpose to the king? The Principality of Wales was\ngiven by patent to Edward the Black Prince on the ground on which it has\nsince stood. Lord Coke sagaciously observes upon it, \"That in the\ncharter of creating the Black Prince Edward Prince of Wales there is a\n_great mystery_: for _less_ than an estate of inheritance so _great_ a\nprince _could_ not have, and an _absolute estate of inheritance_ in so\n_great_ a principality as Wales (this principality being _so dear_ to\nhim) he _should_ not have; and therefore it was made _sibi et heredibus\nsuis regibus Angliae_, that by his decease, or attaining to the crown, it\nmight be extinguished in the crown.\"\n\nFor the sake of this foolish _mystery_, of what a great prince _could_\nnot have _less_ and _should_ not have _so much_, of a principality which\nwas too _dear_ to be given and too _great_ to be kept,--and for no other\ncause that ever I could find,--this form and shadow of a principality,\nwithout any substance, has been maintained. That you may judge in this\ninstance (and it serves for the rest) of the difference between a great\nand a little economy, you will please to recollect, Sir, that Wales may\nbe about the tenth part of England in size and population, and certainly\nnot a hundredth part in opulence. Twelve judges perform the whole of\nthe business, both of the stationary and the itinerant justice of this\nkingdom; but for Wales there are eight judges. There is in Wales an\nexchequer, as well as in all the duchies, according to the very best and\nmost authentic absurdity of form. There are in all of them a hundred\nmore difficult trifles and laborious fooleries, which serve no other\npurpose than to keep alive corrupt hope and servile dependence.\n\nThese principalities are so far from contributing to the ease of the\nking, to his wealth, or his dignity, that they render both his supreme\nand his subordinate authority perfectly ridiculous. It was but the other\nday, that that pert, factious fellow, the Duke of Lancaster, presumed to\nfly in the face of his liege lord, our gracious sovereign, and,\n_associating_ with a parcel of lawyers as factious as himself, to the\ndestruction of _all law and order_, and _in committees leading directly\nto rebellion_, presumed to go to law with the king. The object is\nneither your business nor mine. Which of the parties got the better I\nreally forget. I think it was (as it ought to be) the king. The material\npoint is, that the suit cost about fifteen thousand pounds. But as the\nDuke of Lancaster is but a sort of _Duke Humphrey_, and not worth a\ngroat, our sovereign was obliged to pay the costs of both. Indeed, this\nart of converting a great monarch into a little prince, this royal\nmasquerading, is a very dangerous and expensive amusement, and one of\nthe king's _menus plaisirs_, which ought to be reformed. This duchy,\nwhich is not worth four thousand pounds a year at best to _revenue_, is\nworth forty or fifty thousand to _influence_.\n\nThe Duchy of Lancaster and the County Palatine of Lancaster answered, I\nadmit, some purpose in their original creation. They tended to make a\nsubject imitate a prince. When Henry the Fourth from that stair ascended\nthe throne, high-minded as he was, he was not willing to kick away the\nladder. To prevent that principality from being extinguished in the\ncrown, he severed it by act of Parliament. He had a motive, such as it\nwas: he thought his title to the crown unsound, and his possession\ninsecure. He therefore managed a retreat in his duchy, which Lord Coke\ncalls (I do not know why) \"_par multis regnis_.\" He flattered himself\nthat it was practicable to make a projecting point half way down, to\nbreak his fall from the precipice of royalty; as if it were possible for\none who had lost a kingdom to keep anything else. However, it is evident\nthat he thought so. When Henry the Fifth united, by act of Parliament,\nthe estates of his mother to the duchy, he had the same predilection\nwith his father to the root of his family honors, and the same policy in\nenlarging the sphere of a possible retreat from the slippery royalty of\nthe two great crowns he held. All this was changed by Edward the Fourth.\nHe had no such family partialities, and his policy was the reverse of\nthat of Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth. He accordingly again\nunited the Duchy of Lancaster to the crown. But when Henry the Seventh,\nwho chose to consider himself as of the House of Lancaster, came to the\nthrone, he brought with him the old pretensions and the old politics of\nthat house. A new act of Parliament, a second time, dissevered the Duchy\nof Lancaster from the crown; and in that line tilings continued until\nthe subversion of the monarchy, when principalities and powers fell\nalong with the throne. The Duchy of Lancaster must have been\nextinguished, if Cromwell, who began to form ideas of aggrandizing his\nhouse and raising the several branches of it, had not caused the duchy\nto be again separated from the commonwealth, by an act of the Parliament\nof those times.\n\nWhat partiality, what objects of the politics of the House of Lancaster,\nor of Cromwell, has his present Majesty, or his Majesty's family? What\npower have they within any of these principalities, which they have not\nwithin their kingdom? In what manner is the dignity of the nobility\nconcerned in these principalities? What rights have the subject there,\nwhich they have not at least equally in every other part of the nation?\nThese distinctions exist for no good end to the king, to the nobility,\nor to the people. They ought not to exist at all. If the crown (contrary\nto its nature, but most conformably to the whole tenor of the advice\nthat has been lately given) should so far forget its dignity as to\ncontend that these jurisdictions and revenues are estates of private\nproperty, I am rather for acting as if that groundless claim were of\nsome weight than for giving up that essential part of the reform. I\nwould value the clear income, and give a clear annuity to the crown,\ntaken on the medium produce for twenty years.\n\nIf the crown has any favorite name or title, if the subject has any\nmatter of local accommodation within any of these jurisdictions, it is\nmeant to preserve them,--and to improve them, if any improvement can be\nsuggested. As to the crown reversions or titles upon the property of the\npeople there, it is proposed to convert them from a snare to their\nindependence into a relief from their burdens. I propose, therefore, to\nunite all the five principalities to the crown, and to its ordinary\njurisdiction,--to abolish all those offices that produce an useless and\nchargeable separation from the body of the people,--to compensate those\nwho do not hold their offices (if any such there are) at the pleasure of\nthe crown,--to extinguish vexatious titles by an act of short\nlimitation,--to sell those unprofitable estates which support useless\njurisdictions,--and to turn the tenant-right into a fee, on such\nmoderate terms as will be better for the state than its present right,\nand which it is impossible for any rational tenant to refuse.\n\nAs to the duchies, their judicial economy may be provided for without\ncharge. They have only to fall of course into the common county\nadministration. A commission more or less, made or omitted, settles the\nmatter fully. As to Wales, it has been proposed to add a judge to the\nseveral courts of Westminster Hall; and it has been considered as an\nimprovement in itself. For my part, I cannot pretend to speak upon it\nwith clearness or with decision; but certainly this arrangement would be\nmore than sufficient for Wales. My original thought was, to suppress\nfive of the eight judges; and to leave the chief-justice of Chester,\nwith the two senior judges; and, to facilitate the business, to throw\nthe twelve counties into six districts, holding the sessions alternately\nin the counties of which each district shall be composed. But on this I\nshall be more clear, when I come to the particular bill.\n\nSir, the House will now see, whether, in praying for judgment against\nthe minor principalities, I do not act in conformity to the laws that I\nhad laid to myself: of getting rid of every jurisdiction more\nsubservient to oppression and expense than to any end of justice or\nhonest policy; of abolishing offices more expensive than useful; of\ncombining duties improperly separated; of changing revenues more\nvexatious than productive into ready money; of suppressing offices which\nstand in the way of economy; and of cutting off lurking subordinate\ntreasuries. Dispute the rules, controvert the application, or give your\nhands to this salutary measure.\n\nMost of the same rules will be found applicable to my second\nobject,--_the landed estate of the crown_. A landed estate is certainly\nthe very worst which the crown can possess. All minute and dispersed\npossessions, possessions that are often of indeterminate value, and\nwhich require a continued personal attendance, are of a nature more\nproper for private management than public administration. They are\nfitter for the care of a frugal land-steward than of an office in the\nstate. Whatever they may possibly have been in other times or in other\ncountries, they are not of magnitude enough with us to occupy a public\ndepartment, nor to provide for a public object. They are already given\nup to Parliament, and the gift is not of great value. Common prudence\ndictates, even in the management of private affairs, that all dispersed\nand chargeable estates should be sacrificed to the relief of estates\nmore compact and better circumstanced.\n\nIf it be objected, that these lands at present would sell at a low\nmarket, this is answered by showing that money is at a high price. The\none balances the other. Lands sell at the current rate; and nothing can\nsell for more. But be the price what it may, a great object is always\nanswered, whenever any property is transferred from hands that are not\nfit for that property to those that are. The buyer and seller must\nmutually profit by such a bargain; and, what rarely happens in matters\nof revenue, the relief of the subject will go hand in hand with the\nprofit of the Exchequer.\n\nAs to the _forest lands_, in which the crown has (where they are not\ngranted or prescriptively held) the _dominion_ of the _soil_, and the\n_vert_ and _venison_, that is to say, the timber and the game, and in\nwhich the people have a variety of rights, in common of herbage, and\nother commons, according to the usage of the several forests,--I propose\nto have those rights of the crown valued as manorial rights are valued\non an inclosure, and a defined portion of land to be given for them,\nwhich land is to be sold for the public benefit.\n\nAs to the timber, I propose a survey of the whole. What is useless for\nthe naval purposes of the kingdom I would condemn and dispose of for the\nsecurity of what may be useful, and to inclose such other parts as may\nbe most fit to furnish a perpetual supply,--wholly extinguishing, for a\nvery obvious reason, all right of _venison_ in those parts.\n\nThe forest _rights_ which extend over the lands and possessions of\nothers, being of no profit to the crown, and a grievance, as far as it\ngoes, to the subject,--these I propose to extinguish without charge to\nthe proprietors. The several commons are to be allotted and compensated\nfor, upon ideas which I shall hereafter explain. They are nearly the\nsame with the principles upon which you have acted in private\ninclosures. I shall never quit precedents, where I find them applicable.\nFor those regulations and compensations, and for every other part of the\ndetail, you will be so indulgent as to give me credit for the present.\n\nThe revenue to be obtained from the sale of the forest lands and rights\nwill not be so considerable, I believe, as many people have imagined;\nand I conceive it would be unwise to screw it up to the utmost, or even\nto suffer bidders to enhance, according to their eagerness, the purchase\nof objects wherein the expense of that purchase may weaken the capital\nto be employed in their cultivation. This, I am well aware, might give\nroom for partiality in the disposal. In my opinion it would be the\nlesser evil of the two. But I really conceive that a rule of fair\npreference might be established, which would take away all sort of\nunjust and corrupt partiality. The principal revenue which I propose to\ndraw from these uncultivated wastes is to spring from the improvement\nand population of the kingdom,--which never can happen without producing\nan improvement more advantageous to the revenues of the crown than the\nrents of the best landed estate which it can hold. I believe, Sir, it\nwill hardly be necessary for me to add, that in this sale I naturally\nexcept all the houses, gardens, and parks belonging to the crown, and\nsuch one forest as shall be chosen by his Majesty as best accommodated\nto his pleasures.\n\nBy means of this part of the reform will fall the expensive office of\n_surveyor-general,_ with all the influence that attends it. By this will\nfall _two chief-justices in Eyre_, with all their train of dependants.\nYou need be under no apprehension, Sir, that your office is to be\ntouched in its emoluments. They are yours by law; and they are but a\nmoderate part of the compensation which is given to you for the ability\nwith which you execute an office of quite another sort of importance:\nit is far from overpaying your diligence, or more than sufficient for\nsustaining the high rank you stand in as the first gentleman of England.\nAs to the duties of your chief-justiceship, they are very different from\nthose for which you have received the office. Your dignity is too high\nfor a jurisdiction over wild beasts, and your learning and talents too\nvaluable to be wasted as chief-justice of a desert. I cannot reconcile\nit to myself, that you, Sir, should be stuck up as a useless piece of\nantiquity.\n\nI have now disposed of the unprofitable landed estates of the crown, and\nthrown them into the mass of private property; by which they will come,\nthrough the course of circulation, and through the political secretions\nof the state, into our better understood and better ordered revenues.\n\nI come next to the great supreme body of the civil government itself. I\napproach it with that awe and reverence with which a young physician\napproaches to the cure of the disorders of his parent. Disorders, Sir,\nand infirmities, there are,--such disorders, that all attempts towards\nmethod, prudence, and frugality will be perfectly vain, whilst a system\nof confusion remains, which is not only alien, but adverse to all\neconomy; a system which is not only prodigal in its very essence, but\ncauses everything else which belongs to it to be prodigally conducted.\n\nIt is impossible, Sir, for any person to be an economist, where no order\nin payments is established; it is impossible for a man to be an\neconomist, who is not able to take a comparative view of his means and\nof his expenses for the year which lies before him; it is impossible for\na man to be an economist, under whom various officers in their several\ndepartments may spend--even just what they please,--and often with an\nemulation of expense, as contributing to the importance, if not profit\nof their several departments. Thus much is certain: that neither the\npresent nor any other First Lord of the Treasury has been ever able to\ntake a survey, or to make even a tolerable guess, of the expenses of\ngovernment for any one year, so as to enable him with the least degree\nof certainty, or even probability, to bring his affairs within compass.\nWhatever scheme may be formed upon them must be made on a calculation of\nchances. As things are circumstanced, the First Lord of the Treasury\ncannot make an estimate. I am sure I serve the king, and I am sure I\nassist administration, by putting economy at least in their power. We\nmust _class services_; we must (as far as their nature admits)\n_appropriate_ funds; or everything, however reformed, will fall again\ninto the old confusion.\n\nComing upon this ground of the civil list, the first thing in dignity\nand charge that attracts our notice is the _royal household_. This\nestablishment, in my opinion, is exceedingly abusive in its\nconstitution. It is formed upon manners and customs that have long since\nexpired. In the first place, it is formed, in many respects, upon\n_feudal principles_. In the feudal times, it was not uncommon, even\namong subjects, for the lowest offices to be held by considerable\npersons,--persons as unfit by their incapacity as improper from their\nrank to occupy such employments. They were held by patent, sometimes for\nlife, and sometimes by inheritance. If my memory does not deceive me, a\nperson of no slight consideration held the office of patent hereditary\ncook to an Earl of Warwick: the Earl of Warwick's soups, I fear, were\nnot the better for the dignity of his kitchen. I think it was an Earl of\nGloucester who officiated as steward of the household to the Archbishops\nof Canterbury. Instances of the same kind may in some degree be found in\nthe Northumberland house-book, and other family records. There was some\nreason in ancient necessities for these ancient customs. Protection was\nwanted; and the domestic tie, though not the highest, was the closest.\n\nThe king's household has not only several strong traces of this\n_feudality_, but it is formed also upon the principles of a _body\ncorporate_: it has its own magistrates, courts, and by-laws. This might\nbe necessary in the ancient times, in order to have a government within\nitself, capable of regulating the vast and often unruly multitude which\ncomposed and attended it. This was the origin of the ancient court\ncalled the _Green Cloth_,--composed of the marshal, treasurer, and other\ngreat officers of the household, with certain clerks. The rich subjects\nof the kingdom, who had formerly the same establishments, (only on a\nreduced scale,) have since altered their economy, and turned the course\nof their expense from the maintenance of vast establishments within\ntheir walls to the employment of a great variety of independent trades\nabroad. Their influence is lessened; but a mode of accommodation and a\nstyle of splendor suited to the manners of the times has been increased.\nRoyalty itself has insensibly followed, and the royal household has been\ncarried away by the resistless tide of manners, but with this very\nmaterial difference: private men have got rid of the establishments\nalong with the reasons of them; whereas the royal household has lost all\nthat was stately and venerable in the antique manners, without\nretrenching anything of the cumbrous charge of a Gothic establishment.\nIt is shrunk into the polished littleness of modern elegance and\npersonal accommodation; it has evaporated from the gross concrete into\nan essence and rectified spirit of expense, where you have tuns of\nancient pomp in a vial of modern luxury.\n\nBut when the reason of old establishments is gone, it is absurd to\npreserve nothing but the burden of them. This is superstitiously to\nembalm a carcass not worth an ounce of the gums that are used to\npreserve it. It is to burn precious oils in the tomb; it is to offer\nmeat and drink to the dead: not so much an honor to the deceased as a\ndisgrace to the survivors. Our palaces are vast inhospitable halls.\nThere the bleak winds, there \"Boreas, and Eurus, and Caurus, and\nArgestes loud,\" howling through the vacant lobbies, and clattering the\ndoors of deserted guardrooms, appall the imagination, and conjure up the\ngrim spectres of departed tyrants,--the Saxon, the Norman, and the\nDane,--the stern Edwards and fierce Henrys,--who stalk from desolation\nto desolation, through the dreary vacuity and melancholy succession of\nchill and comfortless chambers. When this tumult subsides, a dead and\nstill more frightful silence would reign in this desert, if every now\nand then the tacking of hammers did not announce that those constant\nattendants upon all courts in all ages, jobs, were still alive,--for\nwhose sake alone it is that any trace of ancient grandeur is suffered to\nremain. These palaces are a true emblem of some governments: the\ninhabitants are decayed, but the governors and magistrates still\nflourish. They put me in mind of Old Sarum, where the representatives,\nmore in number than the constituents, only serve to inform us that this\nwas once a place of trade, and sounding with \"the busy hum of men,\"\nthough now you can only trace the streets by the color of the corn, and\nits sole manufacture is in members of Parliament.\n\nThese old establishments were formed also on a third principle, still\nmore adverse to the living economy of the age. They were formed, Sir, on\nthe principle of _purveyance_ and _receipt in kind_. In former days,\nwhen the household was vast, and the supply scanty and precarious, the\nroyal purveyors, sallying forth from under the Gothic portcullis to\npurchase provision with power and prerogative instead of money, brought\nhome the plunder of an hundred markets, and all that could be seized\nfrom a flying and hiding country, and deposited their spoil in an\nhundred caverns, with each its keeper. There, every commodity, received\nin its rawest condition, went through all the process which fitted it\nfor use. This inconvenient receipt produced an economy suited only to\nitself. It multiplied offices beyond all measure,--buttery, pantry, and\nall that rabble of places, which, though profitable to the holders, and\nexpensive to the state, are almost too mean to mention.\n\nAll this might be, and I believe was, necessary at first; for it is\nremarkable, that _purveyance_, after its regulation had been the subject\nof a long line of statutes, (not fewer, I think, than twenty-six,) was\nwholly taken away by the 12th of Charles the Second; yet in the next\nyear of the same reign it was found necessary to revive it by a special\nact of Parliament, for the sake of the king's journeys. This, Sir, is\ncurious, and what would hardly he expected in so reduced a court as\nthat of Charles the Second and in so improved a country as England might\nthen be thought. But so it was. In our time, one well-filled and\nwell-covered stage-coach requires more accommodation than a royal\nprogress, and every district, at an hour's warning, can supply an army.\n\nI do not say, Sir, that all these establishments, whose principle is\ngone, have been systematically kept up for influence solely: neglect had\nits share. But this I am sure of: that a consideration of influence has\nhindered any one from attempting to pull them down. For the purposes of\ninfluence, and for those purposes only, are retained half at least of\nthe household establishments. No revenue, no, not a royal revenue, can\nexist under the accumulated charge of ancient establishment, modern\nluxury, and Parliamentary political corruption.\n\nIf, therefore, we aim at regulating this household, the question will\nbe, whether we ought to economize by _detail_ or by _principle_. The\nexample we have had of the success of an attempt to economize by detail,\nand under establishments adverse to the attempt, may tend to decide this\nquestion.\n\nAt the beginning of his Majesty's reign, Lord Talbot came to the\nadministration of a great department in the household. I believe no man\never entered into his Majesty's service, or into the service of any\nprince, with a more clear integrity, or with more zeal and affection for\nthe interest of his master, and, I must add, with abilities for a still\nhigher service. Economy was then announced as a maxim of the reign. This\nnoble lord, therefore, made several attempts towards a reform. In the\nyear 1777, when the king's civil list debts came last to be paid, he\nexplained very fully the success of his undertaking. He told the House\nof Lords that he had attempted to reduce the charges of the king's\ntables and his kitchen. The thing, Sir, was not below him. He knew that\nthere is nothing interesting in the concerns of men whom we love and\nhonor, that is beneath our attention. \"Love,\" says one of our old poets,\n\"esteems no office mean,\"--and with still more spirit, \"Entire affection\nscorneth nicer hands.\" Frugality, Sir, is founded on the principle, that\nall riches have limits. A royal household, grown enormous, even in the\nmeanest departments, may weaken and perhaps destroy all energy in the\nhighest offices of the state. The gorging a royal kitchen may stint and\nfamish the negotiations of a kingdom. Therefore the object was worthy of\nhis, was worthy of any man's attention.\n\nIn consequence of this noble lord's resolution, (as he told the other\nHouse,) he reduced several tables, and put the persons entitled to them\nupon board wages, much to their own satisfaction. But, unluckily,\nsubsequent duties requiring constant attendance, it was not possible to\nprevent their being fed where they were employed: and thus this first\nstep towards economy doubled the expense.\n\nThere was another disaster far more doleful than this. I shall state it,\nas the cause of that misfortune lies at the bottom of almost all our\nprodigality. Lord Talbot attempted to reform the kitchen; but such, as\nhe well observed, is the consequence of having duty done by one person\nwhilst another enjoys the emoluments, that he found himself frustrated\nin all his designs. On that rock his whole adventure split, his whole\nscheme of economy was dashed to pieces. His department became more\nexpensive than ever; the civil list debt accumulated. Why? It was truly\nfrom a cause which, though perfectly adequate to the effect, one would\nnot have instantly guessed. It was because _the turnspit in the king's\nkitchen was a member of Parliament_![36] The king's domestic servants\nwere all undone, his tradesmen remained unpaid and became\nbankrupt,--_because the turnspit of the king's kitchen was a member of\nParliament_. His Majesty's slumbers were interrupted, his pillow was\nstuffed with thorns, and his peace of mind entirely broken,--_because\nthe king's turnspit was a member of Parliament_. The judges were unpaid,\nthe justice of the kingdom bent and gave way, the foreign ministers\nremained inactive and unprovided, the system of Europe was dissolved,\nthe chain of our alliances was broken, all the wheels of government at\nhome and abroad were stopped,--_because the king's turnspit was a member\nof Parliament_.\n\nSuch, Sir, was the situation of affairs, and such the cause of that\nsituation, when his Majesty came a second time to Parliament to desire\nthe payment of those debts which the employment of its members in\nvarious offices, visible and invisible, had occasioned. I believe that a\nlike fate will attend every attempt at economy by detail, under similar,\ncircumstances, and in every department. A complex, operose office of\naccount and control is, in itself, and even if members of Parliament had\nnothing to do with it, the most prodigal of all things. The most\naudacious robberies or the most subtle frauds would never venture upon\nsuch a waste as an over-careful detailed guard against them will\ninfallibly produce. In our establishments, we frequently see an office\nof account of an hundred pounds a year expense, and another office of an\nequal expense to control that office, and the whole upon a matter that\nis not worth twenty shillings.\n\nTo avoid, therefore, this minute care, which produces the consequences\nof the most extensive neglect, and to oblige members of Parliament to\nattend to public cares, and not to the servile offices of domestic\nmanagement, I propose, Sir, to _economize by principle_: that is, I\npropose to put affairs into that train which experience points out as\nthe most effectual, from the nature of things, and from the constitution\nof the human mind. In all dealings, where it is possible, the principles\nof radical economy prescribe three things: first, undertaking by the\ngreat; secondly, engaging with persons of skill in the subject-matter;\nthirdly, engaging with those who shall have an immediate and direct\ninterest in the proper execution of the business.\n\nTo avoid frittering and crumbling down the attention by a blind,\nunsystematic observance of every trifle, it has ever been found the best\nway to do all things which are great in the total amount and minute in\nthe component parts by a _general contrast_. The principles of trade\nhave so pervaded every species of dealing, from the highest to the\nlowest objects, all transactions are got so much into system, that we\nmay, at a moment's warning, and to a farthing value, be informed at what\nrate any service may be supplied. No dealing is exempt from the\npossibility of fraud. But by a contract on a matter certain you have\nthis advantage: you are sure to know the utmost _extent_ of the fraud to\nwhich you are subject. By a contract with a person in _his own trade_\nyou are sure you shall not suffer by _want of skill._ By a _short_\ncontract you are sure of making it the _interest_ of the contractor to\nexert that skill for the satisfaction of his employers.\n\nI mean to derogate nothing from the diligence or integrity of the\npresent, or of any former board of Green Cloth. But what skill can\nmembers of Parliament obtain in that low kind of province? What pleasure\ncan they have in the execution of that kind of duty? And if they should\nneglect it, how does it affect their interest, when we know that it is\ntheir vote in Parliament, and not their diligence in cookery or\ncatering, that recommends them to their office, or keeps them in it?\n\nI therefore propose that the king's tables (to whatever number of\ntables, or covers to each, he shall think proper to command) should be\nclassed by the steward of the household, and should be contracted for,\naccording to their rank, by the head or cover; that the estimate and\ncircumstance of the contract should be carried to the Treasury to be\napproved; and that its faithful and satisfactory performance should be\nreported there previous to any payment; that there, and there only,\nshould the payment be made. I propose that men should be contracted with\nonly in their proper trade; and that no member of Parliament should be\ncapable of such contract. By this plan, almost all the infinite offices\nunder the lord steward may be spared,--to the extreme simplification,\nand to the far better execution, of every one of his functions. The king\nof Prussia is so served. He is a great and eminent (though, indeed, a\nvery rare) instance of the possibility of uniting, in a mind of vigor\nand compass, an attention to minute objects with the largest views and\nthe most complicated plans. His tables are served by contract, and by\nthe head. Let me say, that no prince can be ashamed to imitate the king\nof Prussia, and particularly to learn in his school, when the problem\nis, \"The best manner of reconciling the state of a court with the\nsupport of war.\" Other courts, I understand, have followed his with\neffect, and to their satisfaction.\n\nThe same clew of principle leads us through the labyrinth of the other\ndepartments. What, Sir, is there in the office of _the great wardrobe_\n(which has the care of the king's furniture) that may not be executed by\nthe lord chamberlain himself? He has an honorable appointment; he has\ntime sufficient to attend to the duty; and he has the vice-chamberlain\nto assist him. Why should not he deal also by contract for all things\nbelonging to this office, and carry his estimates first, and his report\nof the execution in its proper time, for payment, directly to the Board\nof Treasury itself? By a simple operation, (containing in it a treble\ncontrol,) the expenses of a department which for naked walls, or walls\nhung with cobwebs, has in a few years cost the crown 150,000_l._, may\nat length hope for regulation. But, Sir, the office and its business are\nat variance. As it stands, it serves, not to furnish the palace with its\nhangings, but the Parliament with its dependent members.\n\nTo what end, Sir, does the office of _removing wardrobe_ serve at all?\nWhy should a _jewel office_ exist for the sole purpose of taxing the\nking's gifts of plate? Its object falls naturally within the\nchamberlain's province, and ought to be under his care and inspection\nwithout any fee. Why should an office of the _robes_ exist, when that\nof _groom, of the stole_ is a sinecure, and that this is a proper object\nof his department?\n\nAll these incumbrances, which are themselves nuisances, produce other\nincumbrances and other nuisances. For the payment of these useless\nestablishments there are no less than _three useless treasurers_: two to\nhold a purse, and one to play with a stick. The treasurer of the\nhousehold is a mere name. The cofferer and the treasurer of the chamber\nreceive and pay great sums, which it is not at all necessary _they_\nshould either receive or pay. All the proper officers, servants, and\ntradesmen may be enrolled in their several departments, and paid in\nproper classes and times with great simplicity and order, at the\nExchequer, and by direction from the Treasury.\n\nThe _Board of Works_, which in the seven years preceding 1777 has cost\ntowards 400,000_l._,[37] and (if I recollect rightly) has not cost less\nin proportion from the beginning of the reign, is under the very same\ndescription of all the other ill-contrived establishments, and calls for\nthe very same reform. We are to seek for the visible signs of all this\nexpense. For all this expense, we do not see a building of the size and\nimportance of a pigeon-house. Buckingham House was reprised by a bargain\nwith the public for one hundred thousand pounds; and the small house at\nWindsor has been, if I mistake not, undertaken since that account was\nbrought before us. The good works of that Board of Works are as\ncarefully concealed as other good works ought to be: they are perfectly\ninvisible. But though it is the perfection of charity to be concealed,\nit is, Sir, the property and glory of magnificence to appear and stand\nforward to the eye.\n\nThat board, which ought to be a concern of builders and such like, and\nof none else, is turned into a junto of members of Parliament. That\noffice, too, has a treasury and a paymaster of its own; and lest the\narduous affairs of that important exchequer should be too fatiguing,\nthat paymaster has a deputy to partake his profits and relieve his\ncares. I do not believe, that, either now or in former times, the chief\nmanagers of that board have made any profit of its abuse. It is,\nhowever, no good reason that an abusive establishment should subsist,\nbecause it is of as little private as of public advantage. But this\nestablishment has the grand radical fault, the original sin, that\npervades and perverts all our establishments: the apparatus is not\nfitted to the object, nor the workmen to the work. Expenses are incurred\non the private opinion of an inferior establishment, without consulting\nthe principal, who can alone determine the proportion which it ought to\nbear to the other establishments of the state, in the order of their\nrelative importance.\n\nI propose, therefore, along with the rest, to pull down this whole\nill-contrived scaffolding, which obstructs, rather than forwards, our\npublic works; to take away its treasury; to put the whole into the hands\nof a real builder, who shall not be a member of Parliament; and to\noblige him, by a previous estimate and final payment, to appear twice at\nthe Treasury before the public can be loaded. The king's gardens are to\ncome under a similar regulation.\n\nThe _Mint_, though not a department of the household, has the same\nvices. It is a great expense to the nation, chiefly for the sake of\nmembers of Parliament. It has its officers of parade and dignity. It has\nits treasury, too. It is a sort of corporate body, and formerly was a\nbody of great importance,--as much so, on the then scale of things, and\nthe then order of business, as the Bank is at this day. It was the great\ncentre of money transactions and remittances for our own and for other\nnations, until King Charles the First, among other arbitrary projects\ndictated by despotic necessity, made it withhold the money that lay\nthere for remittance. That blow (and happily, too) the Mint never\nrecovered. Now it is no bank, no remittance-shop. The Mint, Sir, is a\n_manufacture_, and it is nothing else; and it ought to be undertaken\nupon the principles of a manufacture,--that is, for the best and\ncheapest execution, by a contract upon proper securities and under\nproper regulations.\n\nThe _artillery_ is a far greater object; it is a military concern; but\nhaving an affinity and kindred in its defects with the establishments I\nam now speaking of, I think it best to speak of it along with them. It\nis, I conceive, an establishment not well suited to its martial, though\nexceedingly well calculated for its Parliamentary purposes. Here there\nis a treasury, as in all the other inferior departments of government.\nHere the military is subordinate to the civil, and the naval confounded\nwith the land service. The object, indeed, is much the same in both.\nBut, when the detail is examined, it will be found that they had better\nbe separated. For a reform of this office, I propose to restore things\nto what (all considerations taken together) is their natural order: to\nrestore them to their just proportion, and to their just distribution.\nI propose, in this military concern, to render the civil subordinate to\nthe military; and this will annihilate the greatest part of the expense,\nand all the influence belonging to the office. I propose to send the\nmilitary branch to the army, and the naval to the Admiralty; and I\nintend to perfect and accomplish the whole detail (where it becomes too\nminute and complicated for legislature, and requires exact, official,\nmilitary, and mechanical knowledge) by a commission of competent\nofficers in both departments. I propose to execute by contract what by\ncontract can be executed, and to bring, as much as possible, all\nestimates to be previously approved and finally to be paid by the\nTreasury.\n\nThus, by following the course of Nature, and not the purposes of\npolitics, or the accumulated patchwork of occasional accommodation, this\nvast, expensive department may be methodized, its service proportioned\nto its necessities, and its payments subjected to the inspection of the\nsuperior minister of finance, who is to judge of it on the result of the\ntotal collective exigencies of the state. This last is a reigning\nprinciple through my whole plan; and it is a principle which I hope may\nhereafter be applied to other plans.\n\nBy these regulations taken together, besides the three subordinate\ntreasuries in the lesser principalities, five other subordinate\ntreasuries are suppressed. There is taken away the whole _establishment\nof detail_ in the household: the _treasurer_; the _comptroller_ (for a\ncomptroller is hardly necessary where there is no treasurer); the\n_cofferer of the household_; the _treasurer of the chamber_; the _master\nof the household_; the whole _board of green cloth_;--and a vast number\nof subordinate offices in the department of the _steward of the\nhousehold_,--the whole establishment of the _great wardrobe_,--the\n_removing wardrobe_,--the _jewel office_,--the _robes_,--the _Board of\nWorks_,--almost the whole charge of the _civil branch_ of the _Board of\nOrdnance_, are taken away. All these arrangements together will be found\nto relieve the nation from a vast weight of influence, without\ndistressing, but rather by forwarding every public service. When\nsomething of this kind is done, then the public may begin to breathe.\nUnder other governments, a question of expense is only a question of\neconomy, and it is nothing more: with us, in every question of expense\nthere is always a mixture of constitutional considerations.\n\nIt is, Sir, because I wish to keep this business of subordinate\ntreasuries as much as I can together, that I brought the _ordnance\noffice_ before you, though it is properly a military department. For the\nsame reason I will now trouble you with my thoughts and propositions\nupon two of the greatest _under-treasuries_: I mean the office of\n_paymaster of the land forces_, or _treasurer of the army_, and that of\nthe _treasurer of the navy_. The former of these has long been a great\nobject of public suspicion and uneasiness. Envy, too, has had its share\nin the obloquy which is cast upon this office. But I am sure that it has\nno share at all in the reflections I shall make upon it, or in the\nreformations that I shall propose. I do not grudge to the honorable\ngentleman who at present holds the office any of the effects of his\ntalents, his merit, or his fortune. He is respectable in all these\nparticulars. I follow the constitution of the office without persecuting\nits holder. It is necessary in all matters of public complaint, where\nmen frequently feel right and argue wrong, to separate prejudice from\nreason, and to be very sure, in attempting the redress of a grievance,\nthat we hit upon its real seat and its true nature. Where there is an\nabuse in office, the first thing that occurs in heat is to censure the\nofficer. Our natural disposition leads all our inquiries rather to\npersons than to things. But this prejudice is to be corrected by maturer\nthinking.\n\nSir, the profits of the _pay office_ (as an office) are not too great,\nin my opinion, for its duties, and for the rank of the person who has\ngenerally held it. He has been generally a person of the highest\nrank,--that is to say, a person of eminence and consideration in this\nHouse. The great and the invidious profits of the pay office are from\nthe _bank_ that is held in it. According to the present course of the\noffice, and according to the present mode of accounting there, this bank\nmust necessarily exist somewhere. Money is a productive thing; and when\nthe usual time of its demand can be tolerably calculated, it may with\nprudence be safely laid out to the profit of the holder. It is on this\ncalculation that the business of banking proceeds. But no profit can be\nderived from the use of money which does not make it the interest of the\nholder to delay his account. The process of the Exchequer colludes with\nthis interest. Is this collusion from its want of rigor and strictness\nand great regularity of form? The reverse is true. They have in the\nExchequer brought rigor and formalism to their ultimate perfection. The\nprocess against accountants is so rigorous, and in a manner so unjust,\nthat correctives must from time to time be applied to it. These\ncorrectives being discretionary, upon the case, and generally remitted\nby the Barons to the Lords of the Treasury, as the test judges of the\nreasons for respite, hearings are had, delays are produced, and thus the\nextreme of rigor in office (as usual in all human affairs) leads to the\nextreme of laxity. What with the interested delay of the officer, the\nill-conceived exactness of the court, the applications for dispensations\nfrom that exactness, the revival of rigorous process after the\nexpiration of the time, and the new rigors producing new applications\nand new enlargements of time, such delays happen in the public accounts\nthat they can scarcely ever be closed.\n\nBesides, Sir, they have a rule in the Exchequer, which, I believe, they\nhave founded upon a very ancient statute, that of the 51st of Henry the\nThird, by which it is provided, that, \"when a sheriff or bailiff hath\nbegun his account, none other shall be received to account, until he\nthat was first appointed hath clearly accounted, and that the sum has\nbeen received.\"[38] Whether this clause of that statute be the ground of\nthat absurd practice I am not quite able to ascertain. But it has very\ngenerally prevailed, though I am told that of late they have began to\nrelax from it. In consequence of forms adverse to substantial account,\nwe have a long succession of paymasters and their representatives who\nhave never been admitted to account, although perfectly ready to do so.\n\nAs the extent of our wars has scattered the accountants under the\npaymaster into every part of the globe, the grand and sure paymaster,\nDeath, in all his shapes, calls these accountants to another reckoning.\nDeath, indeed, domineers over everything but the forms of the Exchequer.\nOver these he has no power. They are impassive and immortal. The audit\nof the Exchequer, more severe than the audit to which the accountants\nare gone, demands proofs which in the nature of things are difficult,\nsometimes impossible, to be had. In this respect, too, rigor, as usual,\ndefeats itself. Then the Exchequer never gives a particular receipt, or\nclears a man of his account as far as it goes. A final acquittance (or a\n_quietus_, as they term it) is scarcely ever to be obtained. Terrors and\nghosts of unlaid accountants haunt the houses of their children from\ngeneration to generation. Families, in the course of succession, fall\ninto minorities; the inheritance comes into the hands of females; and\nvery perplexed affairs are often delivered over into the hands of\nnegligent guardians and faithless stewards. So that the demand remains,\nwhen the advantage of the money is gone,--if ever any advantage at all\nhas been made of it. This is a cause of infinite distress to families,\nand becomes a source of influence to an extent that can scarcely be\nimagined, but by those who have taken some pains to trace it. The\nmildness of government, in the employment of useless and dangerous\npowers, furnishes no reason for their continuance.\n\nAs things stand, can you in justice (except perhaps in that over-perfect\nkind of justice which has obtained by its merits the title of the\nopposite vice[39]) insist that any man should, by the course of his\noffice, keep a _bank_ from whence he is to derive no advantage? that a\nman should be subject to demands below and be in a manner refused an\nacquittance above, that he should transmit an original sin and\ninheritance of vexation to his posterity, without a power of\ncompensating himself in some way or other for so perilous a situation?\nWe know, that, if the paymaster should deny himself the advantages of\nhis bank, the public, as things stand, is not the richer for it by a\nsingle shilling. This I thought it necessary to say as to the offensive\nmagnitude of the profits of this office, that we may proceed in\nreformation on the principles of reason, and not on the feelings of\nenvy.\n\nThe treasurer of the navy is, _mutatis mutandis_, in the same\ncircumstances. Indeed, all accountants are. Instead of the present mode,\nwhich is troublesome to the officer and unprofitable to the public, I\npropose to substitute something more effectual than rigor, which is the\nworst exactor in the world. I mean to remove the very temptations to\ndelay; to facilitate the account; and to transfer this bank, now of\nprivate emolument, to the public. The crown will suffer no wrong at\nleast from the pay offices; and its terrors will no longer reign over\nthe families of those who hold or have held them. I propose that these\noffices should be no longer _banks_ or _treasuries_, but mere _offices\nof administration_. I propose, first, that the present paymaster and the\ntreasurer of the navy should carry into the Exchequer the whole body of\nthe vouchers for what they have paid over to deputy-paymasters, to\nregimental agents, or to any of those to whom they have and ought to\nhave paid money. I propose that those vouchers shall be admitted as\nactual payments in their accounts, and that the persons to whom the\nmoney has been paid shall then stand charged in the Exchequer in their\nplace. After this process, they shall be debited or charged for nothing\nbut the money-balance that remains in their hands.\n\nI am conscious, Sir, that, if this balance (which they could not expect\nto be so suddenly demanded by any usual process of the Exchequer) should\nnow be exacted all at once, not only their ruin, but a ruin of others to\nan extent which I do not like to think of, but which I can well\nconceive, and which you may well conceive, might be the consequence. I\ntold you, Sir, when I promised before the holidays to bring in this\nplan, that I never would suffer any man or description of men to suffer\nfrom errors that naturally have grown out of the abusive constitution of\nthose offices which I propose to regulate. If I cannot reform with\nequity, I will not reform at all.\n\nFor the regulation of past accounts, I shall therefore propose such a\nmode, as men, temperate and prudent, make use of in the management of\ntheir private affairs, when their accounts are various, perplexed, and\nof long standing. I would therefore, after their example, divide the\npublic debts into three sorts,--good, bad, and doubtful. In looking over\nthe public accounts, I should never dream of the blind mode of the\nExchequer, which regards things in the abstract, and knows no difference\nin the quality of its debts or the circumstances of its debtors. By this\nmeans it fatigues itself, it vexes others, it often crushes the poor, it\nlets escape the rich, or, in a fit of mercy or carelessness, declines\nall means of recovering its just demands. Content with the eternity of\nits claims, it enjoys its Epicurean divinity with Epicurean languor. But\nit is proper that all sorts of accounts should be closed some time or\nother,--by payment, by composition, or by oblivion. _Expedit reipublicae\nut sit finis litium_. Constantly taking along with me, that an extreme\nrigor is sure to arm everything against it, and at length to relax into\na supine neglect, I propose, Sir, that even the best, soundest, and the\nmost recent dents should be put into instalments, for the mutual benefit\nof the accountant and the public.\n\nIn proportion, however, as I am tender of the past, I would be provident\nof the future. All money that was formerly imprested to the two great\n_pay offices_ I would have imprested in future to the _Bank of England_.\nThese offices should in future receive no more than cash sufficient for\nsmall payments. Their other payments ought to be made by drafts on the\nBank, expressing the service. A check account from both offices, of\ndrafts and receipts, should be annually made up in the\nExchequer,--charging the Bank in account with the cash balance, but not\ndemanding the payment until there is an order from the Treasury, in\nconsequence of a vote of Parliament.\n\nAs I did not, Sir, deny to the paymaster the natural profits of the bank\nthat was in his hands, so neither would I to the Bank of England. A\nshare of that profit might be derived to the public in various ways. My\nfavorite mode is this: that, in compensation for the use of this money,\nthe bank may take upon themselves, first, _the charge of the Mint_, to\nwhich they are already, by their charter, obliged to bring in a great\ndeal of bullion annually to be coined. In the next place, I mean that\nthey should take upon themselves the charge of _remittances to our\ntroops abroad_. This is a species of dealing from which, by the same\ncharter, they are not debarred. One and a quarter per cent will be saved\ninstantly thereby to the public on very large sums of money. This will\nbe at once a matter of economy and a considerable reduction of\ninfluence, by taking away a private contract of an expensive nature. If\nthe Bank, which is a great corporation, and of course receives the least\nprofits from the money in their custody, should of itself refuse or be\npersuaded to refuse this offer upon those terms, I can speak with some\nconfidence that one at least, if not both parts of the condition would\nbe received, and gratefully received, by several bankers of eminence.\nThere is no banker who will not be at least as good security as any\npaymaster of the forces, or any treasurer of the navy, that have ever\nbeen bankers to the public: as rich at least as my Lord Chatham, or my\nLord Holland, or either of the honorable gentlemen who now hold the\noffices, were at the time that they entered into them; or as ever the\nwhole establishment of the Mint has been at any period.\n\nThese, Sir, are the outlines of the plan I mean to follow, in\nsuppressing these two large subordinate treasuries. I now come to\nanother subordinate treasury,--I mean that of the _paymaster of the\npensions_; for which purpose I reenter the limits of the civil\nestablishment: I departed from those limits in pursuit of a principle;\nand, following the same game in its doubles, I am brought into those\nlimits again. That treasury and that office I mean to take away, and to\ntransfer the payment of every name, mode, and denomination of pensions\nto the Exchequer. The present course of diversifying the same object can\nanswer no good purpose, whatever its use may be to purposes of another\nkind. There are also other lists of pensions; and I mean that they\nshould all be hereafter paid at one and the same place. The whole of\nthe new consolidated list I mean to reduce to 60,000_l._ a year, which\nsum I intend it shall never exceed. I think that sum will fully answer\nas a reward to all real merit and a provision for all real public\ncharity that is ever like to be placed upon the list. If any merit of an\nextraordinary nature should emerge before that reduction is completed, I\nhave left it open for an address of either House of Parliament to\nprovide for the case. To all other demands it must be answered, with\nregret, but with firmness, \"The public is poor.\"\n\nI do not propose, as I told you before Christmas, to take away any\npension. I know that the public seem to call for a reduction of such of\nthem as shall appear unmerited. As a censorial act, and punishment of an\nabuse, it might answer some purpose. But this can make no part of _my_\nplan. I mean to proceed by bill; and I cannot stop for such an inquiry.\nI know some gentlemen may blame me. It is with great submission to\nbetter judgments that I recommend it to consideration, that a critical\nretrospective examination of the pension list, upon the principle of\nmerit, can never serve for my basis. It cannot answer, according to my\nplan, any effectual purpose of economy, or of future, permanent\nreformation. The process in any way will be entangled and difficult, and\nit will be infinitely slow: there is a danger, that, if we turn our line\nof march, now directed towards the grand object, into this more\nlaborious than useful detail of operations, we shall never arrive at our\nend.\n\nThe king, Sir, has been by the Constitution appointed sole judge of the\nmerit for which a pension is to be given. We have a right, undoubtedly,\nto canvass this, as we have to canvass every act of government. But\nthere is a material difference between an office to be reformed and a\npension taken away for demerit. In the former case, no charge is implied\nagainst the holder; in the latter, his character is slurred, as well as\nhis lawful emolument affected. The former process is against the thing;\nthe second, against the person. The pensioner certainly, if he pleases,\nhas a right to stand on his own defence, to plead his possession, and to\nbottom his title in the competency of the crown to give him what he\nholds. Possessed and on the defensive as he is, he will not be obliged\nto prove his special merit, in order to justify the act of legal\ndiscretion, now turned into his property, according to his tenure. The\nvery act, he will contend, is a legal presumption, and an implication of\nhis merit. If this be so, from the natural force of all legal\npresumption, he would put us to the difficult proof that he has no merit\nat all. But other questions would arise in the course of such an\ninquiry,--that is, questions of the merit when weighed against the\nproportion of the reward; then the difficulty will be much greater.\n\nThe difficulty will not, Sir, I am afraid, be much less, if we pass to\nthe person really guilty in the question of an unmerited pension: the\nminister himself. I admit, that, when called to account for the\nexecution of a trust, he might fairly be obliged to prove the\naffirmative, and to state the merit for which the pension is given,\nthough on the pensioner himself such a process would be hard. If in this\nexamination we proceed methodically, and so as to avoid all suspicion of\npartiality and prejudice, we must take the pensions in order of time,\nor merely alphabetically. The very first pension to which we come, in\neither of these ways, may appear the most grossly unmerited of any. But\nthe minister may very possibly show that he knows nothing of the putting\non this pension; that it was prior in time to his administration; that\nthe minister who laid it on is dead: and then we are thrown back upon\nthe pensioner himself, and plunged into all our former difficulties.\nAbuses, and gross ones, I doubt not, would appear, and to the correction\nof which I would readily give my hand: but when I consider that pensions\nhave not generally been affected by the revolutions of ministry; as I\nknow not where such inquiries would stop; and as an absence of merit is\na negative and loose thing;--one might be led to derange the order of\nfamilies founded on the probable continuance of their kind of income; I\nmight hurt children; I might injure creditors;--I really think it the\nmore prudent course not to follow the letter of the petitions. If we fix\nthis mode of inquiry as a basis, we shall, I fear, end as Parliament has\noften ended under similar circumstances. There will be great delay, much\nconfusion, much inequality in our proceedings. But what presses me most\nof all is this: that, though we should strike off all the unmerited\npensions, while the power of the crown remains unlimited, the very same\nundeserving persons might afterwards return to the very same list; or,\nif they did not, other persons, meriting as little as they do, might be\nput upon it to an undefinable amount. This, I think, is the pinch of the\ngrievance.\n\nFor these reasons, Sir, I am obliged to waive this mode of proceeding as\nany part of my plan. In a plan of reformation, it would be one of my\nmaxims, that, when I know of an establishment which may be subservient\nto useful purposes, and which at the same time, from its discretionary\nnature, is liable to a very great perversion from those purposes, _I\nwould limit the quantity of the power that might be so abused_. For I am\nsure that in all such cases the rewards of merit will have very narrow\nbounds, and that partial or corrupt favor will be infinite. This\nprinciple is not arbitrary, but the limitation of the specific quantity\nmust be so in some measure. I therefore state 60,000_l._, leaving it\nopen to the House to enlarge or contract the sum as they shall see, on\nexamination, that the discretion I use is scanty or liberal. The whole\namount of the pensions of all denominations which have been laid before\nus amount, for a period of seven years, to considerably more than\n100,000_l._ a year. To what the other lists amount I know not. That\nwill be seen hereafter. But from those that do appear, a saving will\naccrue to the public, at one time or other, of 40,000_l._ a year; and\nwe had better, in my opinion, to let it fall in naturally than to tear\nit crude and unripe from the stalk.[40]\n\nThere is a great deal of uneasiness among the people upon an article\nwhich I must class under the head of pensions: I mean the _great patent\noffices in the Exchequer_. They are in reality and substance no other\nthan pensions, and in no other light shall I consider them. They are\nsinecures; they are always executed by deputy; the duty of the principal\nis as nothing. They differ, however, from the pensions on the list in\nsome particulars. They are held for life. I think, with the public, that\nthe profits of those places are grown enormous; the magnitude of those\nprofits, and the nature of them, both call for reformation. The nature\nof their profits, which grow out of the public distress, is itself\ninvidious and grievous. But I fear that reform cannot be immediate. I\nfind myself under a restriction. These places, and others of the same\nkind, which are held for life, have been considered as property. They\nhave been given as a provision for children; they have been the subject\nof family settlements; they have been the security of creditors. What\nthe law respects shall be sacred to me. If the barriers of law should be\nbroken down, upon ideas of convenience, even of public convenience, we\nshall have no longer anything certain among us. If the discretion of\npower is once let loose upon property, we can be at no loss to determine\nwhose power and what discretion it is that will prevail at last. It\nwould be wise to attend upon the order of things, and not to attempt to\noutrun the slow, but smooth and even course of Nature. There are\noccasions, I admit, of public necessity, so vast, so clear, so evident,\nthat they supersede all laws. Law, being only made for the benefit of\nthe community, cannot in any one of its parts resist a demand which may\ncomprehend the total of the public interest. To be sure, no law can set\nitself up against the cause and reason of all law; but such a case very\nrarely happens, and this most certainly is not such a case. The mere\ntime of the reform is by no means worth the sacrifice of a principle of\nlaw. Individuals pass like shadows; but the commonwealth is fixed and\nstable. The difference, therefore, of to-day and to-morrow, which to\nprivate people is immense, to the state is nothing. At any rate, it is\nbetter, if possible, to reconcile our economy with our laws than to set\nthem at variance,--a quarrel which in the end must be destructive to\nboth.\n\nMy idea, therefore, is, to reduce those offices to fixed salaries, as\nthe present lives and reversions shall successively fall. I mean, that\nthe office of the great auditor (the auditor of the receipt) shall be\nreduced to 3000_l._ a year; and the auditors of the imprest, and the\nrest of the principal officers, to fixed appointments of 1,500_l._ a\nyear each. It will not be difficult to calculate the value of this fall\nof lives to the public, when we shall have obtained a just account of\nthe present income of those places; and we shall obtain that account\nwith great facility, if the present possessors are not alarmed with any\napprehension of danger to their freehold office.\n\nI know, too, that it will be demanded of me, how it comes, that, since I\nadmit these offices to be no better than pensions, I chose, after the\nprinciple of law had been satisfied, to retain them at all. To this,\nSir, I answer, that, conceiving it to be a fundamental part of the\nConstitution of this country, and of the reason of state in every\ncountry, that there must be means of rewarding public service, those\nmeans will be incomplete, and indeed wholly insufficient for that\npurpose, if there should be no further reward for that service than the\ndaily wages it receives during the pleasure of the crown.\n\nWhoever seriously considers the excellent argument of Lord Somers, in\nthe Bankers' Case, will see he bottoms himself upon the very same maxim\nwhich I do; and one of his principal grounds of doctrine for the\nalienability of the domain in England,[41] contrary to the maxim of the\nlaw in France, he lays in the constitutional policy of furnishing a\npermanent reward to public service, of making that reward the origin of\nfamilies, and the foundation of wealth as well as of honors. It is,\nindeed, the only genuine, unadulterated origin of nobility. It is a\ngreat principle in government, a principle at the very foundation of the\nwhole structure. The other judges who held the same doctrine went beyond\nLord Somers with regard to the remedy which they thought was given by\nlaw against the crown upon the grant of pensions. Indeed, no man knows,\nwhen he cuts off the incitements to a virtuous ambition, and the just\nrewards of public service, what infinite mischief he may do his country\nthrough all generations. Such saving to the public may prove the worst\nmode of robbing it. The crown, which has in its hands the trust of the\ndaily pay for national service, ought to have in its hands also the\nmeans for the repose of public labor and the fixed settlement of\nacknowledged merit. There is a time when the weather-beaten, vessels of\nthe state ought to come into harbor. They must at length have a retreat\nfrom the malice of rivals, from the perfidy of political friends, and\nthe inconstancy of the people. Many of the persons who in all times have\nfilled the great offices of state have been younger brothers, who had\noriginally little, if any fortune. These offices do not furnish the\nmeans of amassing wealth. There ought to be some power in the crown of\ngranting pensions out of the reach of its own caprices. An entail of\ndependence is a bad reward of merit.\n\nI would therefore leave to the crown the possibility of conferring some\nfavors, which, whilst they are received as a reward, do not operate as\ncorruption. When men receive obligations from the crown, through the\npious hands of fathers, or of connections as venerable as the paternal,\nthe dependences which arise from thence are the obligations of\ngratitude, and not the fetters of servility. Such ties originate in\nvirtue, and they promote it. They continue men in those habitudes of\nfriendship, those political connections, and those political principles,\nin which they began life. They are antidotes against a corrupt levity,\ninstead of causes of it. What an unseemly spectacle would it afford,\nwhat a disgrace would it be to the commonwealth that suffered such\nthings, to see the hopeful son of a meritorious minister begging his\nbread at the door of that Treasury from whence his father dispensed the\neconomy of an empire, and promoted the happiness and glory of his\ncountry! Why should he be obliged to prostrate his honor and to submit\nhis principles at the levee of some proud favorite, shouldered and\nthrust aside by every impudent pretender on the very spot where a few\ndays before he saw himself adored,--obliged to cringe to the author of\nthe calamities of his house, and to kiss the hands that are red with his\nfather's blood?--No, Sir, these things are unfit,--they are intolerable.\n\nSir, I shall be asked, why I do not choose to destroy those offices\nwhich are pensions, and appoint pensions under the direct title in their\nstead. I allow that in some cases it leads to abuse, to have things\nappointed for one purpose and applied to another. I have no great\nobjection to such a change; but I do not think it quite prudent for me\nto propose it. If I should take away the present establishment, the\nburden of proof rests upon me, that so many pensions, and no more, and\nto such an amount each, and no more, are necessary for the public\nservice. This is what I can never prove; for it is a thing incapable of\ndefinition. I do not like to take away an object that I think answers my\npurpose, in hopes of getting it back again in a better shape. People\nwill bear an old establishment, when its excess is corrected, who will\nrevolt at a new one. I do not think these office-pensions to be more in\nnumber than sufficient: but on that point the House will exercise its\ndiscretion. As to abuse, I am convinced that very few trusts in the\nordinary course of administration have admitted less abuse than this.\nEfficient ministers have been their own paymasters, it is true; but\ntheir very partiality has operated as a kind of justice, and still it\nwas service that was paid. When we look over this Exchequer list, we\nfind it filled with the descendants of the Walpoles, of the Pelhams, of\nthe Townshends,--names to whom this country owes its liberties, and to\nwhom his Majesty owes his crown. It was in one of these lines that the\nimmense and envied employment he now holds came to a certain duke,[42]\nwho is now probably sitting quietly at a very good dinner directly under\nus, and acting _high life below stairs_, whilst we, his masters, are\nfilling our mouths with unsubstantial sounds, and talking of hungry\neconomy over his head. But he is the elder branch of an ancient and\ndecayed house, joined to and repaired by the reward of services done by\nanother. I respect the original title, and the first purchase of merited\nwealth and honor through all its descents, through all its transfers,\nand all its assignments. May such fountains never be dried up! May they\never flow with their original purity, and refresh and fructify the\ncommonwealth for ages!\n\nSir, I think myself bound to give you my reasons as clearly and as fully\nfor stopping in the course of reformation as for proceeding in it. My\nlimits are the rules of law, the rules of policy, and the service of the\nstate. This is the reason why I am not able to intermeddle with another\narticle, which seems to be a specific object in several of the\npetitions: I mean the reduction of exorbitant emoluments to efficient\noffices. If I knew of any real efficient office which did possess\nexorbitant emoluments, I should be extremely desirous of reducing them.\nOthers may know of them: I do not. I am not possessed of an exact common\nmeasure between real service and its reward. I am very sure that states\ndo sometimes receive services which is hardly in their power to reward\naccording to their worth. If I were to give my judgment with regard to\nthis country, I do not think the great efficient offices of the state to\nbe overpaid. The service of the public is a thing which cannot be put to\nauction and struck down to those who will agree to execute it the\ncheapest. When the proportion between reward and service is our object,\nwe must always consider of what nature the service is, and what sort of\nmen they are that must perform it. What is just payment for one kind of\nlabor, and full encouragement for one kind of talents, is fraud and\ndiscouragement to others. Many of the great offices have much duty to\ndo, and much expense of representation to maintain. A Secretary of\nState, for instance, must not appear sordid in the eyes of the ministers\nof other nations; neither ought our ministers abroad to appear\ncontemptible in the courts where they reside. In all offices of duty,\nthere is almost necessarily a great neglect of all domestic affairs. A\nperson in high office can rarely take a view of his family-house. If he\nsees that the state takes no detriment, the state must see that his\naffairs should take as little.\n\nI will even go so far as to affirm, that, if men were willing to serve\nin such situations without salary, they ought not to be permitted to do\nit. Ordinary service must be secured by the motives to ordinary\nintegrity. I do not hesitate to say that that state which lays its\nfoundation in rare and heroic virtues will be sure to have its\nsuperstructure in the basest profligacy and corruption. An honorable and\nfair profit is the best security against avarice and rapacity; as in all\nthings else, a lawful and regulated enjoyment is the best security\nagainst debauchery and excess. For as wealth is power, so all power will\ninfallibly draw wealth to itself by some means or other; and when men\nare left no way of ascertaining their profits but by their means of\nobtaining them, those means will be increased to infinity. This is true\nin all the parts of administration, as well as in the whole. If any\nindividual were to decline his appointments, it might give an unfair\nadvantage to ostentatious ambition over unpretending service; it might\nbreed invidious comparisons; it might tend to destroy whatever little\nunity and agreement may be found among ministers. And, after all, when\nan ambitious man had run down his competitors by a fallacious show of\ndisinterestedness, and fixed himself in power by that means, what\nsecurity is there that he would not change his course, and claim as an\nindemnity ten times more than he has given up?\n\nThis rule, like every other, may admit its exceptions. When a great man\nhas some one great object in view to be achieved in a given time, it may\nbe absolutely necessary for him to walk out of all the common roads,\nand, if his fortune permits it, to hold himself out as a splendid\nexample. I am told that something of this kind is now doing in a country\nnear us. But this is for a short race, the training for a heat or two,\nand not the proper preparation for the regular stages of a methodical\njourney. I am speaking of establishments, and not of men.\n\nIt may be expected, Sir, that, when I am giving my reasons why I limit\nmyself in the reduction of employments, or of their profits, I should\nsay something of those which seem of eminent inutility in the state: I\nmean the number of officers who, by their places, are attendant on the\nperson of the king. Considering the commonwealth merely as such, and\nconsidering those officers only as relative to the direct purposes of\nthe state, I admit that they are of no use at all. But there are many\nthings in the constitution of establishments, which appear of little\nvalue on the first view, which in a secondary and oblique manner produce\nvery material advantages. It was on full consideration that I determined\nnot to lessen any of the offices of honor about the crown, in their\nnumber or their emoluments. These emoluments, except in one or two\ncases, do not much more than answer the charge of attendance. Men of\ncondition naturally love to be about a court; and women of condition\nlove it much more. But there is in all regular attendance so much of\nconstraint, that, if it wore a mere charge, without any compensation,\nyou would soon have the court deserted by all the nobility of the\nkingdom.\n\nSir, the most serious mischiefs would follow from such a desertion.\nKings are naturally lovers of low company. They are so elevated above\nall the rest of mankind that they must look upon all their subjects as\non a level. They are rather apt to hate than to love their nobility, on\naccount of the occasional resistance to their will which will be made by\ntheir virtue, their petulance, or their pride. It must, indeed, be\nadmitted that many of the nobility are as perfectly willing to act the\npart of flatterers, tale-bearers, parasites, pimps, and buffoons, as any\nof the lowest and vilest of mankind can possibly be. But they are not\nproperly qualified for this object of their ambition. The want of a\nregular education, and early habits, and some lurking remains of their\ndignity, will never permit them to become a match for an Italian eunuch,\na mountebank, a fiddler, a player, or any regular practitioner of that\ntribe. The Roman emperors, almost from the beginning, threw themselves\ninto such hands; and the mischief increased every day till the decline\nand final ruin of the empire. It is therefore of very great importance\n(provided the thing is not overdone) to contrive such an establishment\nas must, almost whether a prince will or not, bring into daily and\nhourly offices about his person a great number of his first nobility;\nand it is rather an useful prejudice that gives them a pride in such a\nservitude. Though they are not much the better for a court, a court\nwill be much the better for them. I have therefore not attempted to\nreform any of the offices of honor about the king's person.\n\nThere are, indeed, two offices in his stables which are sinecures: by\nthe change of manners, and indeed by the nature of the thing, they must\nbe so: I mean the several keepers of buck-hounds, stag-hounds,\nfoxhounds, and harriers. They answer no purpose of utility or of\nsplendor. These I propose to abolish. It is not proper that great\nnoblemen should be keepers of dogs, though they were the king's dogs.\n\nIn every part of the scheme, I have endeavored that no primary, and that\neven no secondary, service of the state should suffer by its frugality.\nI mean to touch no offices but such as I am perfectly sure are either of\nno use at all, or not of any use in the least assignable proportion to\nthe burden with which they load the revenues of the kingdom, and to the\ninfluence with which they oppress the freedom of Parliamentary\ndeliberation; for which reason there are but two offices, which are\nproperly state offices, that I have a desire to reform.\n\nThe first of them is the new office of _Third Secretary of State_, which\nis commonly called _Secretary of State for the Colonies_.\n\n_We_ know that all the correspondence of the colonies had been, until\nwithin a few years, carried on by the Southern Secretary of State, and\nthat this department has not been shunned upon account of the weight of\nits duties, but, on the contrary, much sought on account of its\npatronage. Indeed, he must be poorly acquainted with the history of\noffice who does not know how very lightly the American functions have\nalways leaned on the shoulders of the ministerial _Atlas_ who has\nupheld that side of the sphere. Undoubtedly, great temper and judgment\nwas requisite in the management of the colony politics; but the official\ndetail was a trifle. Since the new appointment, a train of unfortunate\naccidents has brought before us almost the whole correspondence of this\nfavorite secretary's office since the first day of its establishment. I\nwill say nothing of its auspicious foundation, of the quality of its\ncorrespondence, or of the effects that have ensued from it. I speak\nmerely of its _quantity_, which we know would have been little or no\naddition to the trouble of whatever office had its hands the fullest.\nBut what has been the real condition of the old office of Secretary of\nState? Have their velvet bags and their red boxes been so full that\nnothing more could possibly be crammed into them?\n\nA correspondence of a curious nature has been lately published.[43] In\nthat correspondence, Sir, we find the opinion of a noble person who is\nthought to be the grand manufacturer of administrations, and therefore\nthe best judge of the quality of his work. He was of opinion that there\nwas but one man of diligence and industry in the whole administration:\nit was the late Earl of Suffolk. The noble lord lamented very justly,\nthat this statesman, of so much mental vigor, was almost wholly disabled\nfrom the exertion of it by his bodily infirmities. Lord Suffolk, dead to\nthe state long before he was dead to Nature, at last paid his tribute to\nthe common treasury to which we must all be taxed. But so little want\nwas found even of his intentional industry, that the office, vacant in\nreality to its duties long before, continued vacant even in nomination\nand appointment for a year after his death. The whole of the laborious\nand arduous correspondence of this empire rested solely upon the\nactivity and energy of Lord Weymouth.\n\nIt is therefore demonstrable, since one diligent man was fully equal to\nthe duties of the two offices, that two diligent men will be equal to\nthe duty of three. The business of the new office, which I shall propose\nto you to suppress, is by no means too much to be returned to either of\nthe secretaries which remain. If this dust in the balance should be\nthought too heavy, it may be divided between them both,--North America\n(whether free or reduced) to the Northern Secretary, the West Indies to\nthe Southern. It is not necessary that I should say more upon the\ninutility of this office. It is burning daylight. But before I have\ndone, I shall just remark that the history of this office is too recent\nto suffer us to forget that it was made for the mere convenience of the\narrangements of political intrigue, and not for the service of the\nstate,--that it was made in order to give a color to an exorbitant\nincrease of the civil list, and in the same act to bring a new accession\nto the loaded compost-heap of corrupt influence.\n\nThere is, Sir, another office which was not long since closely connected\nwith this of the American Secretary, but has been lately separated from\nit for the very same purpose for which it had been conjoined: I mean the\nsole purpose of all the separations and all the conjunctions that have\nbeen lately made,--a job. I speak, Sir, of the _Board of Trade and\nPlantations_. This board is a sort of temperate bed of influence, a sort\nof gently ripening hothouse, where eight members of Parliament receive\nsalaries of a thousand a year for a certain given time, in order to\nmature, at a proper season, a claim to two thousand, granted for doing\nless, and on the credit of having toiled so long in that inferior,\nlaborious department.\n\nI have known that board, off and on, for a great number of years. Both\nof its pretended objects have been much the objects of my study, if I\nhave a right to call any pursuits of mine by so respectable a name. I\ncan assure the House, (and I hope they will not think that I risk my\nlittle credit lightly,) that, without meaning to convey the least\nreflection upon any one of its members, past or present, it is a board\nwhich, if not mischievous, is of no use at all.\n\nYou will be convinced, Sir, that I am not mistaken, if you reflect how\ngenerally it is true, that commerce, the principal object of that\noffice, flourishes most when it is left to itself. Interest, the great\nguide of commerce, is not a blind one. It is very well able to find its\nown way; and its necessities are its best laws. But if it were possible,\nin the nature of things, that the young should direct the old, and the\ninexperienced instruct the knowing,--if a board in the state was the\nbest tutor for the counting-house,--if the desk ought to read lectures\nto the anvil, and the pen to usurp the place of the shuttle,--yet in any\nmatter of regulation we know that board must act with as little\nauthority as skill. The prerogative of the crown is utterly inadequate\nto the object; because all regulations are, in their nature, restrictive\nof some liberty. In the reign, indeed, of Charles the First, the\nCouncil, or Committees of Council, were never a moment unoccupied with\naffairs of trade. But even where they had no ill intention, (which was\nsometimes the case,) trade and manufacture suffered infinitely from\ntheir injudicious tampering. But since that period, whenever regulation\nis wanting, (for I do not deny that sometimes it may be wanting,)\nParliament constantly sits; and Parliament alone is competent to such\nregulation. We want no instruction from boards of trade, or from any\nother board; and God forbid we should give the least attention to their\nreports! Parliamentary inquiry is the only mode of obtaining\nParliamentary information. There is more real knowledge to be obtained\nby attending the detail of business in the committees above stairs than\never did come, or ever will come, from any board in this kingdom, or\nfrom all of them together. An assiduous member of Parliament will not be\nthe worse instructed there for not being paid a thousand a year for\nlearning his lesson. And now that I speak of the committees above\nstairs, I must say, that, having till lately attended them a good deal,\nI have observed that no description of members give so little\nattendance, either to communicate or to obtain instruction upon matters\nof commerce, as the honorable members of the grave Board of Trade. I\nreally do not recollect that I have ever seen one of them in that sort\nof business. Possibly some members may have better memories, and may\ncall to mind some job that may have accidentally brought one or other of\nthem, at one time or other, to attend a matter of commerce.\n\nThis board, Sir, has had both its original formation and its\nregeneration in a job. In a job it was conceived, and in a job its\nmother brought it forth. It made one among those showy and specious\nimpositions which one of the experiment-making administrations of\nCharles the Second held out to delude the people, and to be substituted\nin the place of the real service which they might expect from a\nParliament annually sitting. It was intended, also, to corrupt that\nbody, whenever it should be permitted to sit. It was projected in the\nyear 1668, and it continued in a tottering and rickety childhood for\nabout three or four years: for it died in the year 1673, a babe of as\nlittle hopes as ever swelled the bills of mortality in the article of\nconvulsed or overlaid children who have hardly stepped over the\nthreshold of life.\n\nIt was buried with little ceremony, and never more thought of until the\nreign of King William, when, in the strange vicissitude of neglect and\nvigor, of good and ill success that attended his wars, in the year 1695,\nthe trade was distressed beyond all example of former sufferings by the\npiracies of the French cruisers. This suffering incensed, and, as it\nshould seem, very justly incensed, the House of Commons. In this\nferment, they struck, not only at the administration, but at the very\nconstitution of the executive government. They attempted to form in\nParliament a board for the protection of trade, which, as they planned\nit, was to draw to itself a great part, if not the whole, of the\nfunctions and powers both of the Admiralty and of the Treasury; and\nthus, by a Parliamentary delegation of office and officers, they\nthreatened absolutely to separate these departments from the whole\nsystem of the executive government, and of course to vest the most\nleading and essential of its attributes in this board. As the executive\ngovernment was in a manner convicted of a dereliction of its functions,\nit was with infinite difficulty that this blow was warded off in that\nsession. There was a threat to renew the same attempt in the next. To\nprevent the effect of this manoeuvre, the court opposed another\nmanoeuvre to it, and, in the year 1696, called into life this Board of\nTrade, which had slept since 1673.\n\nThis, in a few words, is the history of the regeneration of the Board of\nTrade. It has perfectly answered its purposes. It was intended to quiet\nthe minds of the people, and to compose the ferment that was then\nstrongly working in Parliament. The courtiers were too happy to be able\nto substitute a board which they knew would be useless in the place of\none that they feared would be dangerous. Thus the Board of Trade was\nreproduced in a job; and perhaps it is the only instance of a public\nbody which has never degenerated, but to this hour preserves all the\nhealth and vigor of its primitive institution.\n\nThis Board of Trade and Plantations has not been of any use to the\ncolonies, as colonies: so little of use, that the flourishing\nsettlements of New England, of Virginia, and of Maryland, and all our\nwealthy colonies in the West Indies, were of a date prior to the first\nboard of Charles the Second. Pennsylvania and Carolina were settled\nduring its dark quarter, in the interval between the extinction of the\nfirst and the formation of the second board. Two colonies alone owe\ntheir origin to that board. Georgia, which, till lately, has made a very\nslow progress,--and never did make any progress at all, until it had\nwholly got rid of all the regulations which the Board of Trade had\nmoulded into its original constitution. That colony has cost the nation\nvery great sums of money; whereas the colonies which have had the\nfortune of not being godfathered by the Board of Trade never cost the\nnation a shilling, except what has been so properly spent in losing\nthem. But the colony of Georgia, weak as it was, carried with it to the\nlast hour, and carries, even in its present dead, pallid visage, the\nperfect resemblance of its parents. It always had, and it now has, an\n_establishment_, paid by the public of England, for the sake of the\ninfluence of the crown: that colony having never been able or willing to\ntake upon itself the expense of its proper government or its own\nappropriated jobs.\n\nThe province of Nova Scotia was the youngest and the favorite child of\nthe Board. Good God! what sums the nursing of that ill-thriven,\nhard-visaged, and ill-favored brat has cost to this wittol nation! Sir,\nthis colony has stood us in a sum of not less than seven hundred\nthousand pounds. To this day it has made no repayment,--it does not even\nsupport those offices of expense which are miscalled its government; the\nwhole of that job still lies upon the patient, callous shoulders of the\npeople of England.\n\nSir, I am going to state a fact to you that will serve to set in full\nsunshine the real value of formality and official superintendence. There\nwas in the province of Nova Scotia one little neglected corner, the\ncountry of the _neutral French_; which, having the good-fortune to\nescape the fostering care of both France and England, and to have been\nshut out from the protection and regulation of councils of commerce and\nof boards of trade, did, in silence, without notice, and without\nassistance, increase to a considerable degree. But it seems our nation\nhad more skill and ability in destroying than in settling a colony. In\nthe last war, we did, in my opinion, most inhumanly, and upon pretences\nthat in the eye of an honest man are not worth a farthing, root out this\npoor, innocent, deserving people, whom our utter inability to govern, or\nto reconcile, gave us no sort of right to extirpate. Whatever the\nmerits of that extirpation might have been, it was on the footsteps of a\nneglected people, it was on the fund of unconstrained poverty, it was on\nthe acquisitions of unregulated industry, that anything which deserves\nthe name of a colony in that province has been formed. It has been\nformed by overflowings from the exuberant population of New England, and\nby emigration from other parts of Nova Scotia of fugitives from the\nprotection of the Board of Trade.\n\nBut if all of these things were not more than sufficient to prove to you\nthe inutility of that expensive establishment, I would desire you to\nrecollect, Sir, that those who may be very ready to defend it are very\ncautious how they employ it,--cautious how they employ it even in\nappearance and pretence. They are afraid they should lose the benefit of\nits influence in Parliament, if they deemed to keep it up for any other\npurpose. If ever there were commercial points of great weight, and most\nclosely connected with our dependencies, they are those which have been\nagitated and decided in Parliament since I came into it. Which of the\ninnumerable regulations since made had their origin or their improvement\nin the Board of Trade? Did any of the several East India bills which\nhave been successively produced since 1767 originate there? Did any one\ndream of referring them, or any part of them, thither? Was anybody so\nridiculous as even to think of it? If ever there was an occasion on\nwhich the Board was fit to be consulted, it was with regard to the acts\nthat were preludes to the American war, or attendant on its\ncommencement. Those acts were full of commercial regulations, such as\nthey were: the Intercourse Bill; the Prohibitory Bill; the Fishery\nBill. If the Board was not concerned in such things, in what particular\nwas it thought fit that it should be concerned? In the course of all\nthese bills through the House, I observed the members of that board to\nbe remarkably cautious of intermeddling. They understood decorum better;\nthey know that matters of trade and plantations are no business of\ntheirs.\n\nThere were two very recent occasions, which, if the idea of any use for\nthe Board had not been extinguished by prescription, appeared loudly to\ncall for their interference.\n\nWhen commissioners were sent to pay his Majesty's and our dutiful\nrespects to the Congress of the United States, a part of their powers\nunder the commission were, it seems, of a commercial nature. They were\nauthorized, in the most ample and undefined manner, to form a commercial\ntreaty with America on the spot. This was no trivial object. As the\nformation of such a treaty would necessarily have been no less than the\nbreaking up of our whole commercial system, and the giving it an entire\nnew form, one would imagine that the Board of Trade would have sat day\nand night to model propositions, which, on our side, might serve as a\nbasis to that treaty. No such thing. Their learned leisure was not in\nthe least interrupted, though one of the members of the Board was a\ncommissioner, and might, in mere compliment to his office, have been\nsupposed to make a show of deliberation on the subject. But he knew that\nhis colleagues would have thought he laughed in their faces, had he\nattempted to bring anything the most distantly relating to commerce or\ncolonies before _them_. A noble person, engaged in the same commission,\nand sent to learn his commercial rudiments in New York, (then under the\noperation of an act for the universal prohibition of trade,) was soon\nafter put at the head of that board. This contempt from the present\nministers of all the pretended functions of that board, and their manner\nof breathing into its very soul, of inspiring it with its animating and\npresiding principle, puts an end to all dispute concerning their opinion\nof the clay it was made of. But I will give them heaped measure.\n\nIt was but the other day, that the noble lord in the blue ribbon carried\nup to the House of Peers two acts, altering, I think much for the\nbetter, but altering in a great degree, our whole commercial system:\nthose acts, I mean, for giving a free trade to Ireland in woollens, and\nin all things else, with independent nations, and giving them an equal\ntrade to our own colonies. Here, too, the novelty of this great, but\narduous and critical improvement of system, would make you conceive that\nthe anxious solicitude of the noble lord in the blue ribbon would have\nwholly destroyed the plan of summer recreation of that board, by\nreferences to examine, compare, and digest matters for Parliament. You\nwould imagine that Irish commissioners of customs, and English\ncommissioners of customs, and commissioners of excise, that merchants\nand manufacturers of every denomination, had daily crowded their outer\nrooms. _Nil horum_. The perpetual virtual adjournment, and the unbroken\nsitting vacation of that board, was no more disturbed by the Irish than\nby the plantation commerce, or any other commerce. The same matter made\na large part of the business which occupied the House for two sessions\nbefore; and as our ministers were not then mellowed by the mild,\nemollient, and engaging blandishments of our dear sister into all the\ntenderness of unqualified surrender, the bounds and limits of a\nrestrained benefit naturally required much detailed management and\npositive regulation. But neither the qualified propositions which were\nreceived, nor those other qualified propositions which were rejected by\nministers, were the least concern of theirs, or were they ever thought\nof in the business.\n\nIt is therefore, Sir, on the opinion of Parliament, on the opinion of\nthe ministers, and even on their own opinion of their inutility, that I\nshall propose to you to _suppress the Board of Trade and Plantations_,\nand to recommit all its business to the Council, from whence it was very\nimprovidently taken; and which business (whatever it might be) was much\nbetter done, and without any expense; and, indeed, where in effect it\nmay all come at last. Almost all that deserves the name of business\nthere is the reference of the plantation acts to the opinion of\ngentlemen of the law. But all this may be done, as the Irish business of\nthe same nature has always been done, by the Council, and with a\nreference to the Attorney and Solicitor General.\n\nThere are some regulations in the household, relative to the officers of\nthe yeomen of the guards, and the officers and band of gentlemen\npensioners, which I shall likewise submit to your consideration, for the\npurpose of regulating establishments which at present are much abused.\n\nI have now finished all that for the present I shall trouble you with on\nthe _plan of reduction_. I mean next to propose to you the _plan of\narrangement_, by which I mean to appropriate and fix the civil list\nmoney to its several services according to their nature: for I am\nthoroughly sensible, that, if a discretion wholly arbitrary can be\nexercised over the civil list revenue, although the most effectual\nmethods may be taken to prevent the inferior departments from exceeding\ntheir bounds, the plan of reformation will still be left very imperfect.\nIt will not, in my opinion, be safe to permit an entirely arbitrary\ndiscretion even in the First Lord of the Treasury himself; it will not\nbe safe to leave with him a power of diverting the public money from its\nproper objects, of paying it in an irregular course, or of inverting\nperhaps the order of time, dictated by the proportion of value, which\nought to regulate his application of payment to service.\n\nI am sensible, too, that the very operation of a plan of economy which\ntends to exonerate the civil list of expensive establishments may in\nsome sort defeat the capital end we have in view,--the independence of\nParliament; and that, in removing the public and ostensible means of\ninfluence, we may increase the fund of private corruption. I have\nthought of some methods to prevent an abuse of surplus cash under\ndiscretionary application,--I mean the heads of _secret service, special\nservice, various payments_, and the like,--which I hope will answer, and\nwhich in due time I shall lay before you. Where I am unable to limit the\nquantity of the sums to be applied, by reason of the uncertain quantity\nof the service, I endeavor to confine it to its _line_, to secure an\nindefinite application to the definite service to which it belongs,--not\nto stop the progress of expense in its line, but to confine it to that\nline in which it professes to move.\n\nBut that part of my plan, Sir, upon which I principally rest, that on\nwhich I rely for the purpose of binding up and securing the whole, is to\nestablish a fixed and invariable order in all its payments, which it\nshall not be permitted to the First Lord of the Treasury, upon any\npretence whatsoever, to depart from. I therefore divide the civil list\npayments into _nine_ classes, putting each class forward according to\nthe importance or justice of the demand, and to the inability of the\npersons entitled to enforce their pretensions: that is, to put those\nfirst who have the most efficient offices, or claim the justest debts,\nand at the same time, from the character of that description of men,\nfrom the retiredness or the remoteness of their situation, or from their\nwant of weight and power to enforce their pretensions, or from their\nbeing entirely subject to the power of a minister, without any\nreciprocal power of awing, ought to be the most considered, and are the\nmost likely to be neglected,--all these I place in the highest classes;\nI place in the lowest those whose functions are of the least importance,\nbut whose persons or rank are often of the greatest power and influence.\n\nIn the first class I place the _judges_, as of the first importance. It\nis the public justice that holds the community together; the ease,\ntherefore, and independence of the judges ought to supersede all other\nconsiderations, and they ought to be the very last to feel the\nnecessities of the state, or to be obliged either to court or bully a\nminister for their right; they ought to be as _weak solicitors on their\nown demands_ as strenuous assertors of the rights and liberties of\nothers. The judges are, or ought to be, of a _reserved_ and retired\ncharacter, and wholly unconnected with the political world.\n\nIn the second class I place the foreign ministers. The judges are the\nlinks of our connections with one another; the foreign ministers are the\nlinks of our connection with other nations. They are not upon the spot\nto demand payment, and are therefore the most likely to be, as in fact\nthey have sometimes been, entirely neglected, to the great disgrace and\nperhaps the great detriment of the nation.\n\nIn the third class I would bring all the tradesmen who supply the crown\nby contract or otherwise.\n\nIn the fourth class I place all the domestic servants of the king, and\nall persons in efficient offices whose salaries do not exceed two\nhundred pounds a year.\n\nIn the fifth, upon account of honor, which ought to give place to\nnothing but charity and rigid justice, I would place the pensions and\nallowances of his Majesty's royal family, comprehending of course the\nqueen, together with the stated allowance of the privy purse.\n\nIn the sixth class I place those efficient offices of duty whose\nsalaries may exceed the sum of two hundred pounds a year.\n\nIn the seventh class, that mixed mass, the whole pension list.\n\nIn the eighth, the offices of honor about the king.\n\nIn the ninth, and the last of all, the salaries and pensions of the\nFirst Lord of the Treasury himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and\nthe other Commissioners of the Treasury.\n\nIf, by any possible mismanagement of that part of the revenue which is\nleft at discretion, or by any other mode of prodigality, cash should be\ndeficient for the payment of the lowest classes, I propose that the\namount of those salaries where the deficiency may happen to fall shall\nnot be carried as debt to the account of the succeeding year, but that\nit shall be entirely lapsed, sunk, and lost; so that government will be\nenabled to start in the race of every new year wholly unloaded, fresh in\nwind and in vigor. Hereafter no civil list debt can ever come upon the\npublic. And those who do not consider this as saving, because it is not\na certain sum, do not ground their calculations of the future on their\nexperience of the past.\n\nI know of no mode of preserving the effectual execution of any duty, but\nto make it the direct interest of the executive officer that it shall be\nfaithfully performed. Assuming, then, that the present vast allowance to\nthe civil list is perfectly adequate to all its purposes, if there\nshould be any failure, it must be from the mismanagement or neglect of\nthe First Commissioner of the Treasury; since, upon the proposed plan,\nthere can be no expense of any consequence which he is not himself\npreviously to authorize and finally to control. It is therefore just, as\nwell as politic, that the loss should attach upon the delinquency.\n\nIf the failure from the delinquency should be very considerable, it will\nfall on the class directly above the First Lord of the Treasury, as well\nas upon himself and his board. It will fall, as it ought to fall, upon\noffices of no primary importance in the state; but then it will fall\nupon persons whom it will be a matter of no slight importance for a\nminister to provoke: it will fall upon persons of the first rank and\nconsequence in the kingdom,--upon those who are nearest to the king, and\nfrequently have a more interior credit with him than the minister\nhimself. It will fall upon masters of the horse, upon lord\nchamberlains, upon lord stewards, upon grooms of the stole, and lords of\nthe bedchamber. The household troops form an army, who will be ready to\nmutiny for want of pay, and whose mutiny will be _really_ dreadful to a\ncommander-in-chief. A rebellion of the thirteen lords of the bedchamber\nwould be far more terrible to a minister, and would probably affect his\npower more to the quick, than a revolt of thirteen colonies. What an\nuproar such an event would create at court! What _petitions_, and\n_committees_, and _associations_, would it not produce! Bless me! what a\nclattering of white sticks and yellow sticks would be about his head!\nwhat a storm of gold keys would fly about the ears of the minister! what\na shower of Georges, and thistles, and medals, and collars of S.S. would\nassail him at his first entrance into the antechamber, after an\ninsolvent Christmas quarter!--a tumult which could not be appeased by\nall the harmony of the new year's ode. Rebellion it is certain there\nwould be; and rebellion may not now, indeed, be so critical an event to\nthose who engage in it, since its price is so correctly ascertained at\njust a thousand pound.\n\nSir, this classing, in my opinion, is a serious and solid security for\nthe performance of a minister's duty. Lord Coke says, that the staff was\nput into the Treasurer's hand to enable him to support himself when\nthere was no money in the Exchequer, and to beat away importunate\nsolicitors. The method which I propose would hinder him from the\nnecessity of such a broken staff to lean on, or such a miserable weapon\nfor repulsing the demands of worthless suitors, who, the noble lord in\nthe blue ribbon knows, will bear many hard blows on the head, and many\nother indignities, before they are driven from the Treasury. In this\nplan, he is furnished with an answer to all their importunity,--an\nanswer far more conclusive than if he had knocked them down with his\nstaff:--\"Sir, (or my Lord,) you are calling for my own salary,--Sir, you\nare calling for the appointments of my colleagues who sit about me in\noffice,--Sir, you are going to excite a mutiny at court against me,--you\nare going to estrange his Majesty's confidence from me, through the\nchamberlain, or the master of the horse, or the groom of the stole.\"\n\nAs things now stand, every man, in proportion to his consequence at\ncourt, tends to add to the expenses of the civil list, by all manner of\njobs, if not for himself, yet for his dependants. When the new plan is\nestablished, those who are now suitors for jobs will become the most\nstrenuous opposers of them. They will have a common interest with the\nminister in public economy. Every class, as it stands low, will become\nsecurity for the payment of the preceding class; and thus the persons\nwhose insignificant services defraud those that are useful would then\nbecome interested in their payment. Then the powerful, instead of\noppressing, would be obliged to support the weak; and idleness would\nbecome concerned in the reward of industry. The whole fabric of the\ncivil economy would become compact and connected in all its parts; it\nwould be formed into a well-organized body, where every member\ncontributes to the support of the whole, and where even the lazy stomach\nsecures the vigor of the active arm.\n\nThis plan, I really flatter myself, is laid, not in official formality,\nnor in airy speculation, but in real life, and in human nature, in what\n\"comes home\" (as Bacon says) \"to the business and bosoms of men.\" You\nhave now, Sir, before you, the whole of my scheme, as far as I have\ndigested it into a form that might be in any respect worthy of your\nconsideration. I intend to lay it before you in five bills.[44] The plan\nconsists, indeed, of many parts; but they stand upon a few plain\nprinciples. It is a plan which takes nothing from the civil list without\ndischarging it of a burden equal to the sum carried to the public\nservice. It weakens no one function necessary to government; but, on the\ncontrary, by appropriating supply to service, it gives it greater vigor.\nIt provides the means of order and foresight to a minister of finance,\nwhich may always keep all the objects of his office, and their state,\ncondition, and relations, distinctly before him. It brings forward\naccounts without hurrying and distressing the accountants: whilst it\nprovides for public convenience, it regards private rights. It\nextinguishes secret corruption almost to the possibility of its\nexistence. It destroys direct and visible influence equal to the offices\nof at least fifty members of Parliament. Lastly, it prevents the\nprovision for his Majesty's children from being diverted to the\npolitical purposes of his minister.\n\nThese are the points on which I rely for the merit of the plan. I pursue\neconomy in a secondary view, and only as it is connected with these\ngreat objects. I am persuaded, that even for supply this scheme will be\nfar from unfruitful, if it be executed to the extent I propose it. I\nthink it will give to the public, at its periods, two or three hundred\nthousand pounds a year; if not, it will give them a system of economy,\nwhich is itself a great revenue. It gives me no little pride and\nsatisfaction to find that the principles of my proceedings are in many\nrespects the very same with those which are now pursued in the plans of\nthe French minister of finance. I am sure that I lay before you a scheme\neasy and practicable in all its parts. I know it is common at once to\napplaud and to reject all attempts of this nature. I know it is common\nfor men to say, that such and such things are perfectly right, very\ndesirable,--but that, unfortunately, they are not practicable. Oh, no,\nSir! no! Those things-which are not practicable are not desirable. There\nis nothing in the world really beneficial that does not lie within the\nreach of an informed understanding and a well-directed pursuit. There is\nnothing that God has judged good for us that He has not given us the\nmeans to accomplish, both in the natural and the moral world. If we cry,\nlike children, for the moon, like children we must cry on.\n\nWe must follow the nature of our affairs, and conform ourselves to our\nsituation. If we do, our objects are plain and compassable. Why should\nwe resolve to do nothing, because what I propose to you may not be the\nexact demand of the petition, when we are far from resolved to comply\neven with what evidently is so? Does this sort of chicanery become us?\nThe people are the masters. They have only to express their wants at\nlarge and in gross. We are the expert artists, we are the skilful\nworkmen, to shape their desires into perfect form, and to fit the\nutensil to the use. They are the sufferers, they tell the symptoms of\nthe complaint; but we know the exact seat of the disease, and how to\napply the remedy according to the rules of art. How shocking would it be\nto see us pervert our skill into a sinister and servile dexterity, for\nthe purpose of evading our duty, and defrauding our employers, who are\nour natural lords, of the object of their just expectations! I think the\nwhole not only practicable, but practicable in a very short time. If we\nare in earnest about it, and if we exert that industry and those talents\nin forwarding the work, which, I am afraid, may be exerted in impeding\nit, I engage that the whole may be put in complete execution within a\nyear. For my own part, I have very little to recommend me for this or\nfor any task, but a kind of earnest and anxious perseverance of mind,\nwhich, with all its good and all its evil effects, is moulded into my\nconstitution. I faithfully engage to the House, if they choose to\nappoint me to any part in the execution of this work, (which, when they\nhave made it theirs by the improvements of their wisdom, will be worthy\nof the able assistance they may give me,) that by night and by day, in\ntown or in country, at the desk or in the forest, I will, without regard\nto convenience, ease, or pleasure, devote myself to their service, not\nexpecting or admitting any reward whatsoever. I owe to this country my\nlabor, which is my all; and I owe to it ten times more industry, if ten\ntimes more I could exert. After all, I shall be an unprofitable servant.\n\nAt the same time, if I am able, and if I shall be permitted, I will lend\nan humble helping hand to any other good work which is going on. I have\nnot, Sir, the frantic presumption to suppose that this plan contains in\nit the whole of what the public has a right to expect in the great work\nof reformation they call for. Indeed, it falls infinitely short of it.\nIt falls short even of my own ideas. I have some thoughts, not yet fully\nripened, relative to a reform in the customs and excise, as well as in\nsome other branches of financial administration. There are other things,\ntoo, which form essential parts in a great plan for the purpose of\nrestoring the independence of Parliament. The contractors' bill of last\nyear it is fit to revive; and I rejoice that it is in better hands than\nmine. The bill for suspending the votes of custom-house officers,\nbrought into Parliament several years ago by one of our worthiest and\nwisest members,[45]--would to God we could along with the plan revive\nthe person who designed it! but a man of very real integrity, honor, and\nability will be found to take his place, and to carry his idea into full\nexecution. You all see how necessary it is to review our military\nexpenses for some years past, and, if possible, to bind up and close\nthat bleeding artery of profusion; but that business also, I have reason\nto hope, will be undertaken by abilities that are fully adequate to it.\nSomething must be devised (if possible) to check the ruinous expense of\nelections.\n\nSir, all or most of these things must be done. Every one must take his\npart. If we should be able, by dexterity, or power, or intrigue, to\ndisappoint the expectations of our constituents, what will it avail us?\nWe shall never be strong or artful enough to parry, or to put by, the\nirresistible demands of our situation. That situation calls upon us, and\nupon our constituents too, with a voice which _will_ be heard. I am sure\nno man is more zealously attached than I am to the privileges of this\nHouse, particularly in regard to the exclusive management of money. The\nLords have no right to the disposition, in any sense, of the public\npurse; but they have gone further in self-denial[46] than our utmost\njealousy could have required. A power of examining accounts, to censure,\ncorrect, and punish, we never, that I know of, have thought of denying\nto the House of Lords. It is something more than a century since we\nvoted that body useless: they have now voted themselves so. The whole\nhope of reformation is at length cast upon _us_; and let us not deceive\nthe nation, which does us the honor to hope everything from our virtue.\nIf _all_ the nation are not equally forward to press this duty upon us,\nyet be assured that they all equally expect we should perform it. The\nrespectful silence of those who wait upon your pleasure ought to be as\npowerful with you as the call of those who require your service as their\nright. Some, without doors, affect to feel hurt for your dignity,\nbecause they suppose that menaces are held out to you. Justify their\ngood opinion by showing that no menaces are necessary to stimulate you\nto your duty. But, Sir, whilst we may sympathize with them in one point\nwho sympathize with us in another, we ought to attend no less to those\nwho approach us like men, and who, in the guise of petitioners, speak to\nus in the tone of a concealed authority. It is not wise to force them to\nspeak out more plainly what they plainly mean.--But the petitioners are\nviolent. Be it so. Those who are least anxious about your conduct are\nnot those that love you most. Moderate affection and satiated enjoyment\nare cold and respectful; but an ardent and injured passion is tempered\nup with wrath, and grief, and shame, and conscious worth, and the\nmaddening sense of violated right. A jealous love lights his torch from\nthe firebrands of the furies. They who call upon you to belong _wholly_\nto the people are those who wish you to return to your _proper_\nhome,--to the sphere of your duty, to the post of your honor, to the\nmansion-house of all genuine, serene, and solid satisfaction. We have\nfurnished to the people of England (indeed we have) some real cause of\njealousy. Let us leave that sort of company which, if it does not\ndestroy our innocence, pollutes our honor; let us free ourselves at once\nfrom everything that can increase their suspicions and inflame their\njust resentment; let us cast away from us, with a generous scorn, all\nthe love-tokens and symbols that we have been vain and light enough to\naccept,--all the bracelets, and snuff-boxes, and miniature pictures, and\nhair devices, and all the other adulterous trinkets that are the pledges\nof our alienation and the monuments of our shame. Let us return to our\nlegitimate home, and all jars and all quarrels will be lost in embraces.\nLet the commons in Parliament assembled be one and the same thing with\nthe commons at large. The distinctions that are made to separate us are\nunnatural and wicked contrivances. Let us identify, let us incorporate\nourselves with the people. Let us cut all the cables and snap the chains\nwhich tie us to an unfaithful shore, and enter the friendly harbor that\nshoots far out into the main its moles and jetties to receive us. \"War\nwith the world, and peace with our constituents.\" Be this our motto, and\nour principle. Then, indeed, we shall be truly great. Respecting\nourselves, we shall be respected by the world. At present all is\ntroubled, and cloudy, and distracted, and full of anger and turbulence,\nboth abroad and at home; but the air may be cleared by this storm, and\nlight and fertility may follow it. Let us give a faithful pledge to the\npeople, that we honor, indeed, the crown, but that we _belong_ to them;\nthat we are their auxiliaries, and not their task-masters,--the\nfellow-laborers in the same vineyard, not lording over their rights, but\nhelpers of their joy; that to tax them is a grievance to ourselves, but\nto cut off from our enjoyments to forward theirs is the highest\ngratification we are capable of receiving. I feel, with comfort, that we\nare all warmed with these sentiments, and while we are thus warm, I wish\nwe may go directly and with a cheerful heart to this salutary work.\n\nSir, I move for leave to bring in a bill, \"For the better regulation of\nhis Majesty's civil establishments, and of certain public offices; for\nthe limitation of pensions, and the suppression of sundry useless,\nexpensive, and inconvenient places, and for applying the moneys saved\nthereby to the public service.\"[47]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLord North stated, that there was a difference between this bill for\nregulating the establishments and some of the others, as they affected\nthe ancient patrimony of the crown, and therefore wished them to be\npostponed till the king's consent could be obtained. This distinction\nwas strongly controverted; but when it was insisted on as a point of\ndecorum _only_, it was agreed to postpone them to another day.\nAccordingly, on the Monday following, viz. Feb. 14, leave was given, on\nthe motion of Mr. Burke, without opposition, to bring in--\n\n1st, \"A bill for the sale of the forest and other crown lands, rents,\nand hereditaments, with certain exceptions, _and for applying the\nproduce thereof to the public service_; and for securing, ascertaining,\nand satisfying _tenant rights_, and common and other rights.\"\n\n2nd, \"A bill for the more perfectly uniting to the crown the\nPrincipality of Wales and the County Palatine of Chester, and for the\nmore commodious administration of justice within the same; as also for\nabolishing certain offices now appertaining thereto, _for quieting\ndormant claims, ascertaining and securing tenant rights_, and for the\nsale of all forest lands, and other lands, tenements, and hereditaments,\nheld by his Majesty in right of the said Principality, or County\nPalatine of Chester, _and for applying the produce thereof to the public\nservice_.\"\n\n3rd, \"A bill for uniting to the crown the Duchy and County Palatine of\nLancaster, for the suppression of unnecessary offices now belonging\nthereto, for the _ascertainment and security of tenant and other\nrights_, and for the sale of all rents, lands, tenements, and\nhereditaments, and forests, within the said Duchy and County Palatine,\nor either of them, _and for applying the produce thereof to the public\nservice_.\"\n\nAnd it was ordered that Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, Lord John Cavendish, Sir\nGeorge Savile, Colonel Barre, Mr. Thomas Townshend, Mr. Byng, Mr.\nDunning, Sir Joseph Mawbey, Mr. Recorder of London, Sir Robert Clayton,\nMr. Frederick Montagu, the Earl of Upper Ossory, Sir William Guise, and\nMr. Gilbert do prepare and bring in the same.\n\nAt the same time, Mr. Burke moved for leave to bring in--\n\n4th, \"A bill for uniting the Duchy of Cornwall to the crown; for the\nsuppression of certain unnecessary offices now belonging thereto; for\nthe _ascertainment and security of tenant and other rights_; and for\nthe sale of certain rents, lands, and tenements, within or belonging to\nthe said Duchy; _and for applying the produce thereof to the public\nservice_.\"\n\nBut some objections being made by the Surveyor-General of the Duchy\nconcerning the rights of the Prince of Wales, now in his minority, and\nLord North remaining perfectly silent, Mr. Burke, at length, though he\nstrongly contended against the principle of the objection, consented to\nwithdraw this last motion _for the present_, to be renewed upon an early\noccasion.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[31] This term comprehends various retributions made to persons whose\noffices are taken away, or who in any other way suffer by the new\narrangements that are made.\n\n[32] Edict registered 29th January, 1780.\n\n[33] Thomas Gilbert, Esq., member for Lichfield.\n\n[34] Here Lord North shook his head, and told those who sat near him\nthat Mr. Probert's pension was to depend on his success. It may be so.\nMr. Probert's pension was, however, no essential part of the question;\nnor did Mr. B. care whether he still possessed it or not. His point was,\nto show the ridicule of attempting an improvement of the Welsh revenue\nunder its present establishment.\n\n[35] Case of Richard Lee, Esq., appellant, against George Venables Lord\nVernon, respondent, in the year 1775.\n\n[36] Vide Lord Talbot's speech in Almon's Parliamentary Register. Vol\nVII. p. 79, of the Proceedings of the Lords.\n\n[37] More exactly, 378,616_l._ 10 _s._ 1-3/4 _d._\n\n[38] Et quaunt viscount ou baillif eit comence de acompter, nul autre ne\nseit resceu de aconter tanque le primer qe soit assis eit peraccompte,\net qe la somme soit resceu.--Stat. 5. Ann Dom. 1266.\n\n[39] Summum jus summa injuria.\n\n[40] It was supposed by the Lord Advocate, in a subsequent debate, that\nMr. Burke, because he objected to an inquiry into the pension list for\nthe purpose of economy and relief of the public, would have it withheld\nfrom the judgment of Parliament for all purposes whatsoever. This\nlearned gentleman certainly misunderstood him. His plan shows that he\nwished the whole list to be easily accessible; and he knows that the\npublic eye is of itself a great guard against abuse.\n\n[41] Before the statute of Queen Anne, which limited the alienation of\nland.\n\n[42] Duke of Newcastle, whose dining-room is under the House of Commons.\n\n[43] Letters between Dr. Addington and Sir James Wright.\n\n[44] Titles of the bills read.\n\n[45] W. Dowdeswell, Esq., Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1765.\n\n[46] Rejection of Lord Shelburne's motion in the House of Lords.\n\n[47] The motion was seconded by Mr. Fox.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\nAT THE\n\nGUILDHALL IN BRISTOL, PREVIOUS TO THE LATE ELECTION IN THAT CITY,\n\nUPON\n\nCERTAIN POINTS RELATIVE TO HIS PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT.\n\n1780.\n\n\n\n\nMr. Mayor, and Gentlemen,--I am extremely pleased at the appearance of\nthis large and respectable meeting. The steps I may be obliged to take\nwill want the sanction of a considerable authority; and in explaining\nanything which may appear doubtful in my public conduct, I must\nnaturally desire a very full audience.\n\nI have been backward to begin my canvass. The dissolution of the\nParliament was uncertain; and it did not become me, by an unseasonable\nimportunity, to appear diffident of the effect of my six years'\nendeavors to please you. I had served the city of Bristol honorably, and\nthe city of Bristol had no reason to think that the means of honorable\nservice to the public were become indifferent to me.\n\nI found, on my arrival here, that three gentlemen had been long in eager\npursuit of an object which but two of us can obtain. I found that they\nhad all met with encouragement. A contested election in such a city as\nthis is no light thing. I paused on the brink of the precipice. These\nthree gentlemen, by various merits, and on various titles, I made no\ndoubt were worthy of your favor. I shall never attempt to raise myself\nby depreciating the merits of my competitors. In the complexity and\nconfusion of these cross pursuits, I wished to take the authentic public\nsense of my friends upon a business of so much delicacy. I wished to\ntake your opinion along with me, that, if I should give up the contest\nat the very beginning, my surrender of my post may not seem the effect\nof inconstancy, or timidity, or anger, or disgust, or indolence, or any\nother temper unbecoming a man who has engaged in the public service. If,\non the contrary, I should undertake the election, and fail of success, I\nwas full as anxious that it should be manifest to the whole world that\nthe peace of the city had not been broken by my rashness, presumption,\nor fond conceit of my own merit.\n\nI am not come, by a false and counterfeit show of deference to your\njudgment, to seduce it in my favor. I ask it seriously and unaffectedly.\nIf you wish that I should retire, I shall not consider that advice as a\ncensure upon my conduct, or an alteration in your sentiments, but as a\nrational submission to the circumstances of affairs. If, on the\ncontrary, you should think it proper for me to proceed on my canvass, if\nyou will risk the trouble on your part, I will risk it on mine. My\npretensions are such as you cannot be ashamed of, whether they succeed\nor fail.\n\nIf you call upon me, I shall solicit the favor of the city upon manly\nground. I come before you with the plain confidence of an honest servant\nin the equity of a candid and discerning master. I come to claim your\napprobation, not to amuse you with vain apologies, or with professions\nstill more vain and senseless. I have lived too long to be served by\napologies, or to stand in need of them. The part I have acted has been\nin open day; and to hold out to a conduct which stands in that clear and\nsteady light for all its good and all its evil, to hold out to that\nconduct the paltry winking tapers of excuses and promises,--I never\nwill do it. They may obscure it with their smoke, but they never can\nillumine sunshine by such a flame as theirs.\n\nI am sensible that no endeavors have been left untried to injure me in\nyour opinion. But the use of character is to be a shield against\ncalumny. I could wish, undoubtedly, (if idle wishes were not the most\nidle of all things,) to make every part of my conduct agreeable to every\none of my constituents; but in so great a city, and so greatly divided\nas this, it is weak to expect it.\n\nIn such a discordancy of sentiments it is better to look to the nature\nof things than to the humors of men. The very attempt towards pleasing\neverybody discovers a temper always flashy, and often false and\ninsincere. Therefore, as I have proceeded straight onward in my conduct,\nso I will proceed in my account of those parts of it which have been\nmost excepted to. But I must first beg leave just to hint to you that we\nmay suffer very great detriment by being open to every talker. It is not\nto be imagined how much of service is lost from spirits full of activity\nand full of energy, who are pressing, who are rushing forward, to great\nand capital objects, when you oblige them to be continually looking\nback. Whilst they are defending one service, they defraud you of an\nhundred. Applaud us when we run, console us when we fall, cheer us when\nwe recover; but let us pass on,--for God's sake, let us pass on!\n\nDo you think, Gentlemen, that every public act in the six years since I\nstood in this place before you, that all the arduous things which have\nbeen done in this eventful period which has crowded into a few years'\nspace the revolutions of an age, can be opened to you on their fair\ngrounds in half an hour's conversation?\n\nBut it is no reason, because there is a bad mode of inquiry, that there\nshould be no examination at all. Most certainly it is our duty to\nexamine; it is our interest, too: but it must be with discretion, with\nan attention to all the circumstances and to all the motives; like sound\njudges, and not like cavilling pettifoggers and quibbling pleaders,\nprying into flaws and hunting for exceptions. Look, Gentlemen, to the\n_whole tenor_ of your member's conduct. Try whether his ambition or his\navarice have justled him out of the straight line of duty,--or whether\nthat grand foe of the offices of active life, that master vice in men of\nbusiness, a degenerate and inglorious sloth, has made him flag and\nlanguish in his course. This is the object of our inquiry. If our\nmember's conduct can bear this touch, mark it for sterling. He may have\nfallen into errors, he must have faults; but our error is greater, and\nour fault is radically ruinous to ourselves, if we do not bear, if we do\nnot even applaud, the whole compound and mixed mass of such a character.\nNot to act thus is folly; I had almost said it is impiety. He censures\nGod who quarrels with the imperfections of man.\n\nGentlemen, we must not be peevish with those who serve the people; for\nnone will serve us, whilst there is a court to serve, but those who are\nof a nice and jealous honor. They who think everything, in comparison of\nthat honor, to be dust and ashes, will not bear to have it soiled and\nimpaired by those for whose sake they make a thousand sacrifices to\npreserve it immaculate and whole. We shall either drive such men from\nthe public stage, or we shall send them to the court for protection,\nwhere, if they must sacrifice their reputation, they will at least\nsecure their interest. Depend upon it, that the lovers of freedom will\nbe free. None will violate their conscience to please us, in order\nafterwards to discharge that conscience, which they have violated, by\ndoing us faithful and affectionate service. If we degrade and deprave\ntheir minds by servility, it will be absurd to expect that they who are\ncreeping and abject towards us will ever be bold and incorruptible\nassertors of our freedom against the most seducing and the most\nformidable of all powers. No! human nature is not so formed: nor shall\nwe improve the faculties or better the morals of public men by our\npossession of the most infallible receipt in the world for making cheats\nand hypocrites.\n\nLet me say, with plainness, I who am no longer in a public character,\nthat, if, by a fair, by an indulgent, by a gentlemanly behavior to our\nrepresentatives, we do not give confidence to their minds and a liberal\nscope to their understandings, if we do not permit our members to act\nupon a _very_ enlarged view of things, we shall at length infallibly\ndegrade our national representation into a confused and scuffling bustle\nof local agency. When the popular member is narrowed in his ideas and\nrendered timid in his proceedings, the service of the crown will be the\nsole nursery of statesmen. Among the frolics of the court, it may at\nlength take that of attending to its business. Then the monopoly of\nmental power will be added to the power of all other kinds it possesses.\nOn the side of the people there will be nothing but impotence: for\nignorance is impotence; narrowness of mind is impotence; timidity is\nitself impotence, and makes all other qualities that go along with it\nimpotent and useless.\n\nAt present it is the plan of the court to make its servants\ninsignificant. If the people should fall into the same humor, and should\nchoose their servants on the same principles of mere obsequiousness and\nflexibility and total vacancy or indifference of opinion in all public\nmatters, then no part of the state will be sound, and it will be in vain\nto think of saving it.\n\nI thought it very expedient at this time to give you this candid\ncounsel; and with this counsel I would willingly close, if the matters\nwhich at various times have been objected to me in this city concerned\nonly myself and my own election. These charges, I think, are four in\nnumber: my neglect of a due attention to my constituents, the not paying\nmore frequent visits here; my conduct on the affairs of the first Irish\nTrade Acts; my opinion and mode of proceeding on Lord Beauchamp's\nDebtors' Bills; and my votes on the late affairs of the Roman Catholics.\nAll of these (except perhaps the first) relate to matters of very\nconsiderable public concern; and it is not lest you should censure me\nimproperly, but lest you should form improper opinions on matters of\nsome moment to you, that I trouble you at all upon the subject. My\nconduct is of small importance.\n\nWith regard to the first charge, my friends have spoken to ms of it in\nthe style of amicable expostulation,--not so much blaming the thing as\nlamenting the effects. Others, less partial to me, were less kind in\nassigning the motives. I admit, there is a decorum and propriety in a\nmember of Parliament's paying a respectful court to his constituents. If\nI were conscious to myself that pleasure, or dissipation, or low,\nunworthy occupations had detained me from personal attendance on you, I\nwould readily admit my fault, and quietly submit to the penalty. But,\nGentlemen, I live at an hundred miles' distance from Bristol; and at the\nend of a session I come to my own house, fatigued in body and in mind,\nto a little repose, and to a very little attention to my family and my\nprivate concerns. A visit to Bristol is always a sort of canvass, else\nit will do more harm than good. To pass from the toils of a session to\nthe toils of a canvass is the furthest thing in the world from repose. I\ncould hardly serve you _as I have done_, and court you too. Most of you\nhave heard that I do not very remarkably spare myself in _public_\nbusiness; and in the _private_ business of my constituents I have done\nvery near as much as those who have nothing else to do. My canvass of\nyou was not on the 'change, nor in the county meetings, nor in the clubs\nof this city: it was in the House of Commons; it was at the\nCustom-House; it was at the Council; it was at the Treasury; it was at\nthe Admiralty. I canvassed you through your affairs, and not your\npersons. I was not only your representative as a body; I was the agent,\nthe solicitor of individuals; I ran about wherever your affairs could\ncall me; and in acting for you, I often appeared rather as a ship-broker\nthan as a member of Parliament. There was nothing too laborious or too\nlow for me to undertake. The meanness of the business was raised by the\ndignity of the object. If some lesser matters have slipped through my\nfingers, it was because I filled my hands too full, and, in my eagerness\nto serve you, took in more than any hands could grasp. Several gentlemen\nstand round me who are my willing witnesses; and there are others who,\nif they were here, would be still better, because they would be\nunwilling witnesses to the same truth. It was in the middle of a summer\nresidence in London, and in the middle of a negotiation at the Admiralty\nfor your trade, that I was called to Bristol; and this late visit, at\nthis late day, has been possibly in prejudice to your affairs.\n\nSince I have touched upon this matter, let me say, Gentlemen, that, if I\nhad a disposition or a right to complain, I have some cause of complaint\non my side. With a petition of this city in my hand, passed through the\ncorporation without a dissenting voice, a petition in unison with almost\nthe whole voice of the kingdom, (with whose formal thanks I was covered\nover,) whilst I labored on no less than five bills for a public reform,\nand fought, against the opposition of great abilities and of the\ngreatest power, every clause and every word of the largest of those\nbills, almost to the very last day of a very long session,--all this\ntime a canvass in Bristol was as calmly carried on as if I were dead. I\nwas considered as a man wholly out of the question. Whilst I watched and\nfasted and sweated in the House of Commons, by the most easy and\nordinary arts of election, by dinners and visits, by \"How do you dos,\"\nand \"My worthy friends,\" I was to be quietly moved out of my seat,--and\npromises were made, and engagements entered into, without any exception\nor reserve, as if my laborious zeal in my duty had been a regular\nabdication of my trust.\n\nTo open my whole heart to you on this subject, I do confess, however,\nthat there were other times, besides the two years in which I did visit\nyou, when I was not wholly without leisure for repeating that mark of\nmy respect. But I could not bring my mind to see you. You remember that\nin the beginning of this American war (that era of calamity, disgrace,\nand downfall, an era which no feeling mind will ever mention without a\ntear for England) you were greatly divided,--and a very strong body, if\nnot the strongest, opposed itself to the madness which every art and\nevery power were employed to render popular, in order that the errors of\nthe rulers might be lost in the general blindness of the nation. This\nopposition continued until after our great, but most unfortunate victory\nat Long Island. Then all the mounds and banks of our constancy were\nborne down, at once, and the frenzy of the American war broke in upon us\nlike a deluge. This victory, which seemed to put an immediate end to all\ndifficulties, perfected us in that spirit of domination which our\nunparalleled prosperity had but too long nurtured. We had been so very\npowerful, and so very prosperous, that even the humblest of us were\ndegraded into the vices and follies of kings. We lost all measure\nbetween means and ends; and our headlong desires became our politics and\nour morals. All men who wished for peace, or retained any sentiments of\nmoderation, were overborne or silenced; and this city was led by every\nartifice (and probably with the more management because I was one of\nyour members) to distinguish itself by its zeal for that fatal cause. In\nthis temper of yours and of my mind, I should sooner have fled to the\nextremities of the earth than hate shown myself here. I, who saw in\nevery American victory (for you have had a long series of these\nmisfortunes) the germ and seed of the naval power of France and Spain,\nwhich all our heat and warmth against America was only hatching into\nlife,--I should not have been a welcome visitant, with the brow and the\nlanguage of such feelings. When afterwards the other face of your\ncalamity was turned upon you, and showed itself in defeat and distress,\nI shunned you full as much. I felt sorely this variety in our\nwretchedness; and I did not wish to have the least appearance of\ninsulting you with that show of superiority, which, though it may not be\nassumed, is generally suspected, in a time of calamity, from those whose\nprevious warnings have been despised. I could not bear to show you a\nrepresentative whose face did not reflect that of his constituents,--a\nface that could not joy in your joys, and sorrow in your sorrows. But\ntime at length has made us all of one opinion, and we have all opened\nour eyes on the true nature of the American war,--to the true nature of\nall its successes and all its failures.\n\nIn that public storm, too, I had my private feelings. I had seen blown\ndown and prostrate on the ground several of those houses to whom I was\nchiefly indebted for the honor this city has done me. I confess, that,\nwhilst the wounds of those I loved were yet green, I could not bear to\nshow myself in pride and triumph in that place into which their\npartiality had brought me, and to appear at feasts and rejoicings in the\nmidst of the grief and calamity of my warm friends, my zealous\nsupporters, my generous benefactors. This is a true, unvarnished,\nundisguised state of the affair. You will judge of it.\n\nThis is the only one of the charges in which I am personally concerned.\nAs to the other matters objected against me, which in their turn I shall\nmention to you, remember once more I do not mean to extenuate or excuse.\nWhy should I, when the things charged are among those upon which I\nfound all my reputation? What would be left to me, if I myself was the\nman who softened and blended and diluted and weakened all the\ndistinguishing colors of my life, so as to leave nothing distinct and\ndeterminate in my whole conduct?\n\nIt has been said, and it is the second charge, that in the questions of\nthe Irish trade I did not consult the interest of my constituents,--or,\nto speak out strongly, that I rather acted as a native of Ireland than\nas an English member of Parliament.\n\nI certainly have very warm good wishes for the place of my birth. But\nthe sphere of my duties is my true country. It was as a man attached to\nyour interests, and zealous for the conservation of your power and\ndignity, that I acted on that occasion, and on all occasions. You were\ninvolved in the American war. A new world of policy was opened, to which\nit was necessary we should conform, whether we would or not; and my only\nthought was how to conform to our situation in such a manner as to unite\nto this kingdom, in prosperity and in affection, whatever remained of\nthe empire. I was true to my old, standing, invariable principle, that\nall things which came from Great Britain should issue as a gift of her\nbounty and beneficence, rather than as claims recovered against a\nstruggling litigant,--or at least, that, if your beneficence obtained no\ncredit in your concessions, yet that they should appear the salutary\nprovisions of your wisdom and foresight, not as things wrung from you\nwith your blood by the cruel gripe of a rigid necessity. The first\nconcessions, by being (much against my will) mangled and stripped of the\nparts which were necessary to make out their just correspondence and\nconnection in trade, were of no use. The next year a feeble attempt was\nmade to bring the thing into better shape. This attempt, (countenanced\nby the minister,) on the very first appearance of some popular\nuneasiness, was, after a considerable progress through the House, thrown\nout by _him_.\n\nWhat was the consequence? The whole kingdom of Ireland was instantly in\na flame. Threatened by foreigners, and, as they thought, insulted by\nEngland, they resolved at once to resist the power of France and to cast\noff yours. As for us, we were able neither to protect nor to restrain\nthem. Forty thousand men were raised and disciplined without commission\nfrom the crown. Two illegal armies were seen with banners displayed at\nthe same time and in the same country. No executive magistrate, no\njudicature, in Ireland, would acknowledge the legality of the army which\nbore the king's commission; and no law, or appearance of law, authorized\nthe army commissioned by itself. In this unexampled state of things,\nwhich the least error, the least trespass on the right or left, would\nhave hurried down the precipice into an abyss of blood and confusion,\nthe people of Ireland demand a freedom of trade with arms in their\nhands. They interdict all commerce between the two nations. They deny\nall new supply in the House of Commons, although in time of war. They\nstint the trust of the old revenue, given for two years to all the\nking's predecessors, to six months. The British Parliament, in a former\nsession, frightened into a limited concession by the menaces of Ireland,\nfrightened out of it by the menaces of England, was now frightened back\nagain, and made an universal surrender of all that had been thought the\npeculiar, reserved, uncommunicable rights of England: the exclusive\ncommerce of America, of Africa, of the West Indies,--all the\nenumerations of the Acts of Navigation,--all the manufactures,--iron,\nglass, even the last pledge of jealousy and pride, the interest hid in\nthe secret of our hearts, the inveterate prejudice moulded into the\nconstitution of our frame, even the sacred fleece itself, all went\ntogether. No reserve, no exception; no debate, no discussion. A sudden\nlight broke in upon us all. It broke in, not through well-contrived and\nwell-disposed windows, but through flaws and breaches,--through the\nyawning chasms of our ruin. We were taught wisdom by humiliation. No\ntown in England presumed to have a prejudice, or dared to mutter a\npetition. What was worse, the whole Parliament of England, which\nretained authority for nothing but surrenders, was despoiled of every\nshadow of its superintendence. It was, without any qualification, denied\nin theory, as it had been trampled upon in practice. This scene of shame\nand disgrace has, in a manner, whilst I am speaking, ended by the\nperpetual establishment of a military power in the dominions of this\ncrown, without consent of the British legislature,[48] contrary to the\npolicy of the Constitution, contrary to the Declaration of Right; and by\nthis your liberties are swept away along with your supreme\nauthority,--and both, linked together from the beginning, have, I am\nafraid, both together perished forever.\n\nWhat! Gentlemen, was I not to foresee, or foreseeing, was I not to\nendeavor to save you from all these multiplied mischiefs and disgraces?\nWould the little, silly, canvass prattle of obeying instructions, and\nhaving no opinions but yours, and such idle, senseless tales, which\namuse the vacant ears of unthinking men, have saved you from \"the\npelting of that pitiless storm,\" to which the loose improvidence, the\ncowardly rashness, of those who dare not look danger in the face so as\nto provide against it in time, and therefore throw themselves headlong\ninto the midst of it, have exposed this degraded nation, beat down and\nprostrate on the earth, unsheltered, unarmed, unresisting? Was I an\nIrishman on that day that I boldly withstood our pride? or on the day\nthat I hung down my head, and wept in shame and silence over the\nhumiliation of Great Britain? I became unpopular in England for the one,\nand in Ireland for the other. What then? What obligation lay on me to be\npopular? I was bound to serve both kingdoms. To be pleased with my\nservice was their affair, not mine.\n\nI was an Irishman in the Irish business, just as much as I was an\nAmerican, when, on the same principles, I wished you to concede to\nAmerica at a time when she prayed concession at our feet. Just as much\nwas I an American, when I wished Parliament to offer terms in victory,\nand not to wait the well-chosen hour of defeat, for making good by\nweakness and by supplication a claim of prerogative, preeminence, and\nauthority.\n\nInstead of requiring it from me, as a point of duty, to kindle with your\npassions, had you all been as cool as I was, you would have been saved\ndisgraces and distresses that are unutterable. Do you remember our\ncommission? We sent out a solemn embassy across the Atlantic Ocean, to\nlay the crown, the peerage, the commons of Great Britain at the feet of\nthe American Congress. That our disgrace might want no sort of\nbrightening and burnishing, observe who they were that composed this\nfamous embassy. My Lord Carlisle is among the first ranks of our\nnobility. He is the identical man who, but two years before, had been\nput forward, at the opening of a session, in the House of Lords, as the\nmover of an haughty and rigorous address against America. He was put in\nthe front of the embassy of submission. Mr. Eden was taken from the\noffice of Lord Suffolk, to whom he was then Under-Secretary of\nState,--from the office of that Lord Suffolk who but a few weeks before,\nin his place in Parliament, did not deign to inquire where a congress of\nvagrants was to be found. This Lord Suffolk sent Mr. Eden to find these\nvagrants, without knowing where his king's generals were to be found who\nwere joined in the same commission of supplicating those whom they were\nsent to subdue. They enter the capital of America only to abandon it;\nand these assertors and representatives of the dignity of England, at\nthe tail of a flying army, let fly their Parthian shafts of memorials\nand remonstrances at random behind them. Their promises and their\noffers, their flatteries and their menaces, were all despised; and we\nwere saved the disgrace of their formal reception only because the\nCongress scorned to receive them; whilst the State-house of independent\nPhiladelphia opened her doors to the public entry of the ambassador of\nFrance. From war and blood we went to submission, and from submission\nplunged back again to war and blood, to desolate and be desolated,\nwithout measure, hope, or end. I am a Royalist: I blushed for this\ndegradation of the crown. I am a Whig: I blushed for the dishonor of\nParliament. I am a true Englishman: I felt to the quick for the\ndisgrace of England. I am a man: I felt for the melancholy reverse of\nhuman affairs in the fall of the first power in the world.\n\nTo read what was approaching in Ireland, in the black and bloody\ncharacters of the American war, was a painful, but it was a necessary\npart of my public duty. For, Gentlemen, it is not your fond desires or\nmine that can alter the nature of things; by contending against which,\nwhat have we got, or shall ever get, but defeat and shame? I did not\nobey your instructions. No. I conformed to the instructions of truth and\nNature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a\nconstancy that became me. A representative worthy of you ought to be a\nperson of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your opinions,--but to\nsuch opinions as you and I _must_ have five years hence. I was not to\nlook to the flash of the day. I knew that you chose me, in my place,\nalong with others, to be a pillar of the state, and not a weathercock on\nthe top of the edifice, exalted for my levity and versatility, and of no\nuse but to indicate the shiftings of every fashionable gale. Would to\nGod the value of my sentiments on Ireland and on America had been at\nthis day a subject of doubt and discussion! No matter what my sufferings\nhad been, so that this kingdom had kept the authority I wished it to\nmaintain, by a grave foresight, and by an equitable temperance in the\nuse of its power.\n\nThe next article of charge on my public conduct, and that which I find\nrather the most prevalent of all, is Lord Beauchamp's bill: I mean his\nbill of last session, for reforming the law-process concerning\nimprisonment. It is said, to aggravate the offence, that I treated the\npetition of this city with contempt even in presenting it to the House,\nand expressed myself in terms of marked disrespect. Had this latter part\nof the charge been true, no merits on the side of the question which I\ntook could possibly excuse me. But I am incapable of treating this city\nwith disrespect. Very fortunately, at this minute, (if my bad eyesight\ndoes not deceive me,) the worthy gentleman[49] deputed on this business\nstands directly before me. To him I appeal, whether I did not, though it\nmilitated with my oldest and my most recent public opinions, deliver the\npetition with a strong and more than usual recommendation to the\nconsideration of the House, on account of the character and consequence\nof those who signed it. I believe the worthy gentleman will tell you,\nthat, the very day I received it, I applied to the Solicitor, now the\nAttorney General, to give it an immediate consideration; and he most\nobligingly and instantly consented to employ a great deal of his very\nvaluable time to write an explanation of the bill. I attended the\ncommittee with all possible care and diligence, in order that every\nobjection of yours might meet with a solution, or produce an alteration.\nI entreated your learned recorder (always ready in business in which you\ntake a concern) to attend. But what will you say to those who blame me\nfor supporting Lord Beauchamp's bill, as a disrespectful treatment of\nyour petition, when you hear, that, out of respect to you, I myself was\nthe cause of the loss of that very bill? For the noble lord who brought\nit in, and who, I must say, has much merit for this and some other\nmeasures, at my request consented to put it off for a week, which the\nSpeaker's illness lengthened to a fortnight; and then the frantic\ntumult about Popery drove that and every rational business from the\nHouse. So that, if I chose to make a defence of myself, on the little\nprinciples of a culprit, pleading in his exculpation, I might not only\nsecure my acquittal, but make merit with the opposers of the bill. But I\nshall do no such thing. The truth is, that I did occasion the loss of\nthe bill, and by a delay caused by my respect to you. But such an event\nwas never in my contemplation. And I am so far from taking credit for\nthe defeat of that measure, that I cannot sufficiently lament my\nmisfortune, if but one man, who ought to be at large, has passed a year\nin prison by my means. I am a debtor to the debtors. I confess judgment.\nI owe what, if ever it be in my power, I shall most certainly\npay,--ample atonement and usurious amends to liberty and humanity for my\nunhappy lapse. For, Gentlemen, Lord Beauchamp's bill was a law of\njustice and policy, as far as it went: I say, as far as it went; for its\nfault was its being in the remedial part miserably defective.\n\nThere are two capital faults in our law with relation to civil debts.\nOne is, that every man is presumed solvent: a presumption, in\ninnumerable cases, directly against truth. Therefore the debtor is\nordered, on a supposition of ability and fraud, to be coerced his\nliberty until he makes payment. By this means, in all cases of civil\ninsolvency, without a pardon from his creditor, he is to be imprisoned\nfor life; and thus a miserable mistaken invention of artificial science\noperates to change a civil into a criminal judgment, and to scourge\nmisfortune or indiscretion with a punishment which the law does not\ninflict on the greatest crimes.\n\nThe next fault is, that the inflicting of that punishment is not on the\nopinion of an equal and public judge, but is referred to the arbitrary\ndiscretion of a private, nay, interested, and irritated, individual. He,\nwho formally is, and substantially ought to be, the judge, is in reality\nno more than ministerial, a mere executive instrument of a private man,\nwho is at once judge and party. Every idea of judicial order is\nsubverted by this procedure. If the insolvency be no crime, why is it\npunished with arbitrary imprisonment? If it be a crime, why is it\ndelivered into private hands to pardon without discretion, or to punish\nwithout mercy and without measure?\n\nTo these faults, gross and cruel faults in our law, the excellent\nprinciple of Lord Beauchamp's bill applied some sort of remedy. I know\nthat credit must be preserved: but equity must be preserved, too; and it\nis impossible that anything should be necessary to commerce which is\ninconsistent with justice. The principle of credit was not weakened by\nthat bill. God forbid! The enforcement of that credit was only put into\nthe same public judicial hands on which we depend for our lives and all\nthat makes life dear to us. But, indeed, this business was taken up too\nwarmly, both here and elsewhere. The bill was extremely mistaken. It was\nsupposed to enact what it never enacted; and complaints were made of\nclauses in it, as novelties, which existed before the noble lord that\nbrought in the bill was born. There was a fallacy that ran through the\nwhole of the objections. The gentlemen who opposed the bill always\nargued as if the option lay between that bill and the ancient law. But\nthis is a grand mistake. For, practically, the option is between not\nthat bill and the old law, but between that bill and those occasional\nlaws called acts of grace. For the operation of the old law is so\nsavage, and so inconvenient to society, that for a long time past, once\nin every Parliament, and lately twice, the legislature has been obliged\nto make a general arbitrary jail-delivery, and at once to set open, by\nits sovereign authority, all the prisons in England.\n\nGentlemen, I never relished acts of grace, nor ever submitted to them\nbut from despair of better. They are a dishonorable invention, by which,\nnot from humanity, not from policy, but merely because we have not room\nenough to hold these victims of the absurdity of our laws, we turn loose\nupon the public three or four thousand naked wretches, corrupted by the\nhabits, debased by the ignominy of a prison. If the creditor had a right\nto those carcasses as a natural security for his property, I am sure we\nhave no right to deprive him of that security. But if the few pounds of\nflesh were not necessary to his security, we had not a right to detain\nthe unfortunate debtor, without any benefit at all to the person who\nconfined him. Take it as you will, we commit injustice. Now Lord\nBeauchamp's bill intended to do deliberately, and with great caution and\ncircumspection, upon each several case, and with all attention to the\njust claimant, what acts of grace do in a much greater measure, and with\nvery little care, caution, or deliberation.\n\nI suspect that here, too, if we contrive to oppose this bill, we shall\nbe found in a struggle against the nature of things. For, as we grow\nenlightened, the public will not bear, for any length of time, to pay\nfor the maintenance of whole armies of prisoners, nor, at their own\nexpense, submit to keep jails as a sort of garrisons, merely to fortify\nthe absurd principle of making men judges in their own cause. For credit\nhas little or no concern in this cruelty. I speak in a commercial\nassembly. You know that credit is given because capital _must_ be\nemployed; that men calculate the chances of insolvency; and they either\nwithhold the credit, or make the debtor pay the risk in the price. The\ncounting-house has no alliance with the jail. Holland understands trade\nas well as we, and she has done much more than this obnoxious bill\nintended to do. There was not, when Mr. Howard visited Holland, more\nthan one prisoner for debt in the great city of Rotterdam. Although Lord\nBeauchamp's act (which was previous to this bill, and intended to feel\nthe way for it) has already preserved liberty to thousands, and though\nit is not three years since the last act of grace passed, yet, by Mr.\nHoward's last account, there were near three thousand again in jail. I\ncannot name this gentleman without remarking that his labors and\nwritings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He has\nvisited all Europe,--not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces or the\nstateliness of temples, not to make accurate measurements of the remains\nof ancient grandeur nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art,\nnot to collect medals or collate manuscripts,--but to dive into the\ndepths of dungeons, to plunge into the infection of hospitals, to survey\nthe mansions of sorrow and pain, to take the gauge and dimensions of\nmisery, depression, and contempt, to remember the forgotten, to attend\nto the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate the\ndistresses of all men in all countries. His plan is original; and it is\nas full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery, a\ncircumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labor is felt\nmore or less in every country; I hope he will anticipate his final\nreward by seeing all its effects fully realized in his own. He will\nreceive, not by retail, but in gross, the reward of those who visit the\nprisoner; and he has so forestalled and monopolized this branch of\ncharity, that there will be, I trust, little room to merit by such acts\nof benevolence hereafter.\n\nNothing now remains to trouble you with but the fourth charge against\nme,--the business of the Roman Catholics. It is a business closely\nconnected with the rest. They are all on one and the same principle. My\nlittle scheme of conduct, such as it is, is all arranged. I could do\nnothing but what I have done on this subject, without confounding the\nwhole train of my ideas and disturbing the whole order of my life.\nGentlemen, I ought to apologize to you for seeming to think anything at\nall necessary to be said upon this matter. The calumny is fitter to be\nscrawled with the midnight chalk of incendiaries, with \"No Popery,\" on\nwalls and doors of devoted houses, than to be mentioned in any civilized\ncompany. I had heard that the spirit of discontent on that subject was\nvery prevalent here. With pleasure I find that I have been grossly\nmisinformed. If it exists at all in this city, the laws have crushed its\nexertions, and our morals have shamed its appearance in daylight. I have\npursued this spirit wherever I could trace it; but it still fled from\nme. It was a ghost which all had heard of, but none had seen. None would\nacknowledge that he thought the public proceeding with regard to our\nCatholic dissenters to be blamable; but several were sorry it had made\nan ill impression upon others, and that my interest was hurt by my share\nin the business. I find with satisfaction and pride, that not above four\nor five in this city (and I dare say these misled by some gross\nmisrepresentation) have signed that symbol of delusion and bond of\nsedition, that libel on the national religion and English character, the\nProtestant Association. It is, therefore, Gentlemen, not by way of cure,\nbut of prevention, and lest the arts of wicked men may prevail over the\nintegrity of any one amongst us, that I think it necessary to open to\nyou the merits of this transaction pretty much at large; and I beg your\npatience upon it: for, although the reasonings that have been used to\ndepreciate the act are of little force, and though the authority of the\nmen concerned in this ill design is not very imposing, yet the\naudaciousness of these conspirators against the national honor, and the\nextensive wickedness of their attempts, have raised persons of little\nimportance to a degree of evil eminence, and imparted a sort of sinister\ndignity to proceedings that had their origin in only the meanest and\nblindest malice.\n\nIn explaining to you the proceedings of Parliament which have been\ncomplained of, I will state to you,--first, the thing that was\ndone,--next, the persons who did it,--and lastly, the grounds and\nreasons upon which the legislature proceeded in this deliberate act of\npublic justice and public prudence.\n\nGentlemen, the condition of our nature is such that we buy our blessings\nat a price. The Reformation, one of the greatest periods of human\nimprovement, was a time of trouble and confusion. The vast structure of\nsuperstition and tyranny which had been for ages in rearing, and which\nwas combined with the interest of the great and of the many, which was\nmoulded into the laws, the manners, and civil institutions of nations,\nand blended with the frame and policy of states, could not be brought to\nthe ground without a fearful struggle; nor could it fall without a\nviolent concussion of itself and all about it. When this great\nrevolution was attempted in a more regular mode by government, it was\nopposed by plots and seditions of the people; when by popular efforts,\nit was repressed as rebellion by the hand of power; and bloody\nexecutions (often bloodily returned) marked the whole of its progress\nthrough all its stages. The affairs of religion, which are no longer\nheard of in the tumult of our present contentions, made a principal\ningredient in the wars and politics of that time: the enthusiasm of\nreligion threw a gloom over the politics; and political interests\npoisoned and perverted the spirit of religion upon all sides. The\nProtestant religion, in that violent struggle, infected, as the Popish\nhad been before, by worldly interests and worldly passions, became a\npersecutor in its turn, sometimes of the new sects, which carried their\nown principles further than it was convenient to the original reformers,\nand always of the body from whom they parted: and this persecuting\nspirit arose, not only from the bitterness of retaliation, but from the\nmerciless policy of fear.\n\nIt was long before the spirit of true piety and true wisdom, involved in\nthe principles of the Reformation, could be depurated from the dregs and\nfeculence of the contention with which it was carried through. However,\nuntil this be done, the Reformation is not complete: and those who think\nthemselves good Protestants, from their animosity to others, are in\nthat respect no Protestants at all. It was at first thought necessary,\nperhaps, to oppose to Popery another Popery, to get the better of it.\nWhatever was the cause, laws were made in many countries, and in this\nkingdom in particular, against Papists, which are as bloody as any of\nthose which had been enacted by the Popish princes and states: and where\nthose laws were not bloody, in my opinion, they were worse; as they were\nslow, cruel outrages on our nature, and kept men alive only to insult in\ntheir persons every one of the rights and feelings of humanity. I pass\nthose statutes, because I would spare your pious ears the repetition of\nsuch shocking things; and I come to that particular law the repeal of\nwhich has produced so many unnatural and unexpected consequences.\n\nA statute was fabricated in the year 1699, by which the saying mass (a\nchurch service in the Latin tongue, not exactly the same as our liturgy,\nbut very near it, and containing no offence whatsoever against the laws,\nor against good morals) was forged into a crime, punishable with\nperpetual imprisonment. The teaching school, an useful and virtuous\noccupation, even the teaching in a private family, was in every Catholic\nsubjected to the same unproportioned punishment. Your industry, and the\nbread of your children, was taxed for a pecuniary reward to stimulate\navarice to do what Nature refused, to inform and prosecute on this law.\nEvery Roman Catholic was, under the same act, to forfeit his estate to\nhis nearest Protestant relation, until, through a profession of what he\ndid not believe, he redeemed by his hypocrisy what the law had\ntransferred to the kinsman as the recompense of his profligacy. When\nthus turned out of doors from his paternal estate, he was disabled from\nacquiring any other by any industry, donation, or charity; but was\nrendered a foreigner in his native land, only because he retained the\nreligion, along with the property, handed down to him from those who had\nbeen the old inhabitants of that land before him.\n\nDoes any one who hears me approve this scheme of things, or think there\nis common justice, common sense, or common honesty in any part of it? If\nany does, let him say it, and I am ready to discuss the point with\ntemper and candor. But instead of approving, I perceive a virtuous\nindignation beginning to rise in your minds on the mere cold stating of\nthe statute.\n\nBut what will you feel, when you know from history how this statute\npassed, and what were the motives, and what the mode of making it? A\nparty in this nation, enemies to the system of the Revolution, were in\nopposition to the government of King William. They knew that our\nglorious deliverer was an enemy to all persecution. They knew that he\ncame to free us from slavery and Popery, out of a country where a third\nof the people are contented Catholics under a Protestant government. He\ncame with a part of his army composed of those very Catholics, to\noverset the power of a Popish prince. Such is the effect of a tolerating\nspirit; and so much is liberty served in every way, and by all persons,\nby a manly adherence to its own principles. Whilst freedom is true to\nitself, everything becomes subject to it, and its very adversaries are\nan instrument in its hands.\n\nThe party I speak of (like some amongst us who would disparage the best\nfriends of their country) resolved to make the king either violate his\nprinciples of toleration or incur the odium of protecting Papists. They\ntherefore brought in this bill, and made it purposely wicked and absurd\nthat it might be rejected. The then court party, discovering their game,\nturned the tables on them, and returned their bill to them stuffed with\nstill greater absurdities, that its loss might lie upon its original\nauthors. They, finding their own ball thrown back to them, kicked it\nback again to their adversaries. And thus this act, loaded with the\ndouble injustice of two parties, neither of whom intended to pass what\nthey hoped the other would be persuaded to reject, went through the\nlegislature, contrary to the real wish of all parts of it, and of all\nthe parties that composed it. In this manner these insolent and\nprofligate factions, as if they were playing with balls and counters,\nmade a sport of the fortunes and the liberties of their\nfellow-creatures. Other acts of persecution have been acts of malice.\nThis was a subversion of justice from wantonness and petulance. Look\ninto the history of Bishop Burnet. He is a witness without exception.\n\nThe effects of the act have been as mischievous as its origin was\nludicrous and shameful. From that time, every person of that communion,\nlay and ecclesiastic, has been obliged to fly from the face of day. The\nclergy, concealed in garrets of private houses, or obliged to take a\nshelter (hardly safe to themselves, but infinitely dangerous to their\ncountry) under the privileges of foreign ministers, officiated as their\nservants and under their protection. The whole body of the Catholics,\ncondemned to beggary and to ignorance in their native land, have been\nobliged to learn the principles of letters, at the hazard of all their\nother principles, from the charity of your enemies. They have been taxed\nto their ruin at the pleasure of necessitous and profligate relations,\nand according to the measure of their necessity and profligacy. Examples\nof this are many and affecting. Some of them are known by a friend who\nstands near me in this hall. It is but six or seven years since a\nclergyman, of the name of Malony, a man of morals, neither guilty nor\naccused of anything noxious to the state, was condemned to perpetual\nimprisonment for exercising the functions of his religion; and after\nlying in jail two or three years, was relieved by the mercy of\ngovernment from perpetual imprisonment, on condition of perpetual\nbanishment. A brother of the Earl of Shrewsbury, a Talbot, a name\nrespectable in this country whilst its glory is any part of its concern,\nwas hauled to the bar of the Old Bailey, among common felons, and only\nescaped the same doom, either by some error in the process, or that the\nwretch who brought him there could not correctly describe his person,--I\nnow forget which. In short, the persecution would never have relented\nfor a moment, if the judges, superseding (though with an ambiguous\nexample) the strict rule of their artificial duty by the higher\nobligation of their conscience, did not constantly throw every\ndifficulty in the way of such informers. But so ineffectual is the power\nof legal evasion against legal iniquity, that it was but the other day\nthat a lady of condition, beyond the middle of life, was on the point of\nbeing stripped of her whole fortune by a near relation to whom she had\nbeen a friend and benefactor; and she must have been totally ruined,\nwithout a power of redress or mitigation from the courts of law, had\nnot the legislature itself rushed in, and by a special act of Parliament\nrescued her from the injustice of its own statutes. One of the acts\nauthorizing such things was that which we in part repealed, knowing what\nour duty was, and doing that duty as men of honor and virtue, as good\nProtestants, and as good citizens. Let him stand forth that disapproves\nwhat we have done!\n\nGentlemen, bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. In such a country as\nthis they are of all bad things the worst,--worse by far than anywhere\nelse; and they derive a particular malignity even from the wisdom and\nsoundness of the rest of our institutions. For very obvious reasons you\ncannot trust the crown with a dispensing power over any of your laws.\nHowever, a government, be it as bad as it may, will, in the exercise of\na discretionary power, discriminate times and persons, and will not\nordinarily pursue any man, when its own safety is not concerned. A\nmercenary informer knows no distinction. Under such a system, the\nobnoxious people are slaves not only to the government, but they live at\nthe mercy of every individual; they are at once the slaves of the whole\ncommunity and of every part of it; and the worst and most unmerciful men\nare those on whose goodness they most depend.\n\nIn this situation, men not only shrink from the frowns of a stern\nmagistrate, but they are obliged to fly from their very species. The\nseeds of destruction are sown in civil intercourse, in social habitudes.\nThe blood of wholesome kindred is infected. Their tables and beds are\nsurrounded with snares. All the means given by Providence to make life\nsafe and comfortable are perverted into instruments of terror and\ntorment. This species of universal subserviency, that makes the very\nservant who waits behind your chair the arbiter of your life and\nfortune, has such a tendency to degrade and abase mankind, and to\ndeprive them of that assured and liberal state of mind which alone can\nmake us what we ought to be, that I vow to God I would sooner bring\nmyself to put a man to immediate death for opinions I disliked, and so\nto get rid of the man and his opinions at once, than to fret him with a\nfeverish being, tainted with the jail-distemper of a contagious\nservitude, to keep him above ground an animated mass of putrefaction,\ncorrupted himself, and corrupting all about him.\n\nThe act repealed was of this direct tendency; and it was made in the\nmanner which I have related to you. I will now tell you by whom the bill\nof repeal was brought into Parliament. I find it has been industriously\ngiven out in this city (from kindness to me, unquestionably) that I was\nthe mover or the seconder. The fact is, I did not once open my lips on\nthe subject during the whole progress of the bill. I do not say this as\ndisclaiming my share in that measure. Very far from it. I inform you of\nthis fact, lest I should seem to arrogate to myself the merits which\nbelong to others. To have been the man chosen out to redeem our\nfellow-citizens from slavery, to purify our laws from absurdity and\ninjustice, and to cleanse our religion from the blot and stain of\npersecution, would be an honor and happiness to which my wishes would\nundoubtedly aspire, but to which nothing but my wishes could possibly\nhave entitled me. That great work was in hands in every respect far\nbetter qualified than mine. The mover of the bill was Sir George\nSavile.\n\nWhen an act of great and signal humanity was to be done, and done with\nall the weight and authority that belonged to it, the world could cast\nits eyes upon none but him. I hope that few things which have a tendency\nto bless or to adorn life have wholly escaped my observation in my\npassage through it. I have sought the acquaintance of that gentleman,\nand have seen him in all situations. He is a true genius; with an\nunderstanding vigorous, and acute, and refined, and distinguishing even\nto excess; and illuminated with a most unbounded, peculiar, and original\ncast of imagination. With these he possesses many external and\ninstrumental advantages; and he makes use of them all. His fortune is\namong the largest,--a fortune which, wholly unincumbered as it is with\none single charge from luxury, vanity, or excess, sinks under the\nbenevolence of its dispenser. This private benevolence, expanding itself\ninto patriotism, renders his whole being the estate of the public, in\nwhich he has not reserved a _peculium_ for himself of profit, diversion,\nor relaxation. During the session the first in and the last out of the\nHouse of Commons, he passes from the senate to the camp; and seldom\nseeing the seat of his ancestors, he is always in Parliament to serve\nhis country or in the field to defend it. But in all well-wrought\ncompositions some particulars stand out more eminently than the rest;\nand the things which will carry his name to posterity are his two bills:\nI mean that for a limitation of the claims of the crown upon landed\nestates, and this for the relief of the Roman Catholics. By the former\nhe has emancipated property; by the latter he has quieted conscience;\nand by both he has taught that grand lesson to government and\nsubject,--no longer to regard each other as adverse parties.\n\nSuch was the mover of the act that is complained of by men who are not\nquite so good as he is,--an act most assuredly not brought in by him\nfrom any partiality to that sect which is the object of it. For among\nhis faults I really cannot help reckoning a greater degree of prejudice\nagainst that people than becomes so wise a man. I know that he inclines\nto a sort of disgust, mixed with a considerable degree of asperity, to\nthe system; and he has few, or rather no habits with any of its\nprofessors. What he has done was on quite other motives. The motives\nwere these, which he declared in his excellent speech on his motion for\nthe bill: namely, his extreme zeal to the Protestant religion, which he\nthought utterly disgraced by the act of 1699; and his rooted hatred to\nall kind of oppression, under any color, or upon any pretence\nwhatsoever.\n\nThe seconder was worthy of the mover and the motion. I was not the\nseconder; it was Mr. Dunning, recorder of this city. I shall say the\nless of him because his near relation to you makes you more particularly\nacquainted with his merits. But I should appear little acquainted with\nthem, or little sensible of them, if I could utter his name on this\noccasion without expressing my esteem for his character. I am not afraid\nof offending a most learned body, and most jealous of its reputation for\nthat learning, when I say he is the first of his profession. It is a\npoint settled by those who settle everything else; and I must add (what\nI am enabled to say from my own long and close observation) that there\nis not a man, of any profession, or in any situation, of a more erect\nand independent spirit, of a more proud honor, a more manly mind, a more\nfirm and determined integrity. Assure yourselves, that the names of two\nsuch men will bear a great load of prejudice in the other scale before\nthey can be entirely outweighed.\n\nWith this mover and this seconder agreed the _whole_ House of Commons,\nthe _whole_ House of Lords, the _whole_ Bench of Bishops, the king, the\nministry, the opposition, all the distinguished clergy of the\nEstablishment, all the eminent lights (for they were consulted) of the\ndissenting churches. This according voice of national wisdom ought to be\nlistened to with reverence. To say that all these descriptions of\nEnglishmen unanimously concurred in a scheme for introducing the\nCatholic religion, or that none of them understood the nature and\neffects of what they were doing so well as a few obscure clubs of people\nwhose names you never heard of, is shamelessly absurd. Surely it is\npaying a miserable compliment to the religion we profess, to suggest\nthat everything eminent in the kingdom is indifferent or even adverse to\nthat religion, and that its security is wholly abandoned to the zeal of\nthose who have nothing but their zeal to distinguish them. In weighing\nthis unanimous concurrence of whatever the nation has to boast of, I\nhope you will recollect that all these concurring parties do by no means\nlove one another enough to agree in any point which was not both\nevidently and importantly right.\n\nTo prove this, to prove that the measure was both clearly and materially\nproper, I will next lay before you (as I promised) the political grounds\nand reasons for the repeal of that penal statute, and the motives to its\nrepeal at that particular time.\n\nGentlemen, America--When the English nation seemed to be dangerously,\nif not irrecoverably divided,--when one, and that the most growing\nbranch, was torn from the parent stock, and ingrafted on the power of\nFrance, a great terror fell upon this kingdom. On a sudden we awakened\nfrom our dreams of conquest, and saw ourselves threatened with an\nimmediate invasion, which we were at that time very ill prepared to\nresist. You remember the cloud that gloomed over us all. In that hour of\nour dismay, from the bottom of the hiding-places into which the\nindiscriminate rigor of our statutes had driven them, came out the body\nof the Roman Catholics. They appeared before the steps of a tottering\nthrone, with one of the most sober, measured, steady, and dutiful\naddresses that was ever presented to the crown. It was no holiday\nceremony, no anniversary compliment of parade and show. It was signed by\nalmost every gentleman of that persuasion, of note or property, in\nEngland. At such a crisis, nothing but a decided resolution to stand or\nfall with their country could have dictated such an address, the direct\ntendency of which was to cut off all retreat, and to render them\npeculiarly obnoxious to an invader of their own communion. The address\nshowed what I long languished to see, that all the subjects of England\nhad cast off all foreign views and connections, and that every man\nlooked for his relief from every grievance at the hands only of his own\nnatural government.\n\nIt was necessary, on our part, that the natural government should show\nitself worthy of that name. It was necessary, at the crisis I speak of,\nthat the supreme power of the state should meet the conciliatory\ndispositions of the subject. To delay protection would be to reject\nallegiance. And why should it be rejected, or even coldly and\nsuspiciously received? If any independent Catholic state should choose\nto take part with this kingdom in a war with France and Spain, that\nbigot (if such a bigot could be found) would be heard with little\nrespect, who could dream of objecting his religion to an ally whom the\nnation would not only receive with its freest thanks, but purchase with\nthe last remains of its exhausted treasure. To such an ally we should\nnot dare to whisper a single syllable of those base and invidious topics\nupon which some unhappy men would persuade the state to reject the duty\nand allegiance of its own members. Is it, then, because foreigners are\nin a condition to set our malice at defiance, that with _them_ we are\nwilling to contract engagements of friendship, and to keep them with\nfidelity and honor, but that, because we conceive some descriptions of\nour countrymen are not powerful enough to punish our malignity, we will\nnot permit them to support our common interest? Is it on that ground\nthat our anger is to be kindled by their offered kindness? Is it on that\nground that they are to be subjected to penalties, because they are\nwilling by actual merit to purge themselves from imputed crimes? Lest by\nan adherence to the cause of their country they should acquire a title\nto fair and equitable treatment, are we resolved to furnish them with\ncauses of eternal enmity, and rather supply them with just and founded\nmotives to disaffection than not to have that disaffection in existence\nto justify an oppression which, not from policy, but disposition, we\nhave predetermined to exercise?\n\nWhat shadow of reason could be assigned, why, at a time when the most\nProtestant part of this Protestant empire found it for its advantage to\nunite with the two principal Popish states, to unite itself in the\nclosest bonds with France and Spain, for our destruction, that we should\nrefuse to unite with our own Catholic countrymen for our own\npreservation? Ought we, like madmen, to tear off the plasters that the\nlenient hand of prudence had spread over the wounds and gashes which in\nour delirium of ambition we had given to our own body? No person ever\nreprobated the American war more than I did, and do, and ever shall. But\nI never will consent that we should lay additional, voluntary penalties\non ourselves, for a fault which carries but too much of its own\npunishment in its own nature. For one, I was delighted with the proposal\nof internal peace. I accepted the blessing with thankfulness and\ntransport. I was truly happy to find _one_ good effect of our civil\ndistractions: that they had put an end to all religious strife and\nheart-burning in our own bowels. What must be the sentiments of a man\nwho would wish to perpetuate domestic hostility when the causes of\ndispute are at an end, and who, crying out for peace with one part of\nthe nation on the most humiliating terms, should deny it to those who\noffer friendship without any terms at all?\n\nBut if I was unable to reconcile such a denial to the contracted\nprinciples of local duty, what answer could I give to the broad claims\nof general humanity? I confess to you freely, that the sufferings and\ndistresses of the people of America in this cruel war have at times\naffected me more deeply than I can express. I felt every gazette of\ntriumph as a blow upon my heart, which has an hundred times sunk and\nfainted within me at all the mischiefs brought upon those who bear the\nwhole brunt of war in the heart of their country. Yet the Americans are\nutter strangers to me; a nation among whom I am not sure that I have a\nsingle acquaintance. Was I to suffer my mind to be so unaccountably\nwarped, was I to keep such iniquitous weights and measures of temper and\nof reason, as to sympathize with those who are in open rebellion against\nan authority which I respect, at war with a country which by every title\nought to be, and is, most dear to me,--and yet to have no feeling at all\nfor the hardships and indignities suffered by men who by their very\nvicinity are bound up in a nearer relation to us, who contribute their\nshare, and more than their share, to the common prosperity, who perform\nthe common offices of social life, and who obey the laws, to the full as\nwell as I do? Gentlemen, the danger to the state being out of the\nquestion, (of which, let me tell you, statesmen themselves are apt to\nhave but too exquisite a sense,) I could assign no one reason of\njustice, policy, or feeling, for not concurring most cordially, as most\ncordially I did concur, in softening some part of that shameful\nservitude under which several of my worthy fellow-citizens were\ngroaning.\n\nImportant effects followed this act of wisdom. They appeared at home and\nabroad, to the great benefit of this kingdom, and, let me hope, to the\nadvantage of mankind at large. It betokened union among ourselves. It\nshowed soundness, even on the part of the persecuted, which generally is\nthe weak side of every community. But its most essential operation was\nnot in England. The act was immediately, though very imperfectly, copied\nin Ireland; and this imperfect transcript of an imperfect act, this\nfirst faint sketch of toleration, which did little more than disclose a\nprinciple and mark out a disposition, completed in a most wonderful\nmanner the reunion to the state of all the Catholics of that country. It\nmade us what we ought always to have been, one family, one body, one\nheart and soul, against the family combination and all other\ncombinations of our enemies. We have, indeed, obligations to that\npeople, who received such small benefits with so much gratitude, and for\nwhich gratitude and attachment to us I am afraid they have suffered not\na little in other places.\n\nI dare say you have all hoard of the privileges indulged to the Irish\nCatholics residing in Spain. You have likewise heard with what\ncircumstances of severity they have been lately expelled from the\nseaports of that kingdom, driven into the inland cities, and there\ndetained as a sort of prisoners of state. I have good reason to believe\nthat it was the zeal to our government and our cause (somewhat\nindiscreetly expressed in one of the addresses of the Catholics of\nIreland) which has thus drawn down on their heads the indignation of the\ncourt of Madrid, to the inexpressible loss of several individuals, and,\nin future, perhaps to the great detriment of the whole of their body.\nNow that our people should be persecuted in Spain for their attachment\nto this country, and persecuted in this country for their supposed\nenmity to us, is such a jarring reconciliation of contradictory\ndistresses, is a thing at once so dreadful and ridiculous, that no\nmalice short of diabolical would wish to continue any human creatures in\nsuch a situation. But honest men will not forget either their merit or\ntheir sufferings. There are men (and many, I trust, there are) who, out\nof love to their country and their kind, would torture their invention\nto find excuses for the mistakes of their brethren, and who, to stifle\ndissension, would construe even doubtful appearances with the utmost\nfavor: such men will never persuade themselves to be ingenious and\nrefined in discovering disaffection and treason in the manifest,\npalpable signs of suffering loyalty. Persecution is so unnatural to\nthem, that they gladly snatch the very first opportunity of laying aside\nall the tricks and devices of penal politics, and of returning home,\nafter all their irksome and vexatious wanderings, to our natural family\nmansion, to the grand social principle that unites all men, in all\ndescriptions, under the shadow of an equal and impartial justice.\n\nMen of another sort, I mean the bigoted enemies to liberty, may,\nperhaps, in their politics, make no account of the good or ill affection\nof the Catholics of England, who are but an handful of people, (enough\nto torment, but not enough to fear,) perhaps not so many, of both sexes\nand of all ages, as fifty thousand. But, Gentlemen, it is possible you\nmay not know that the people of that persuasion in Ireland amount at\nleast to sixteen or seventeen hundred thousand souls. I do not at all\nexaggerate the number. A _nation_ to be persecuted! Whilst we were\nmasters of the sea, embodied with America, and in alliance with half the\npowers of the Continent, we might, perhaps, in that remote corner of\nEurope, afford to tyrannize with impunity. But there is a revolution in\nour affairs, which makes it prudent to be just. In our late awkward\ncontest with Ireland about trade, had religion been thrown in, to\nferment and embitter the mass of discontents, the consequences might\nhave been truly dreadful. But, very happily, that cause of quarrel was\npreviously quieted by the wisdom of the acts I am commending.\n\nEven in England, where I admit the danger from the discontent of that\npersuasion to be less than in Ireland, yet even here, had we listened to\nthe counsels of fanaticism and folly, we might have wounded ourselves\nvery deeply, and wounded ourselves in a very tender part. You are\napprised that the Catholics of England consist mostly of our best\nmanufacturers. Had the legislature chosen, instead of returning their\ndeclarations of duty with correspondent good-will, to drive them to\ndespair, there is a country at their very door to which they would be\ninvited,--a country in all respects as good as ours, and with the finest\ncities in the world ready built to receive them. And thus the bigotry of\na free country, and in an enlightened age, would have repeopled the\ncities of Flanders, which, in the darkness of two hundred years ago, had\nbeen desolated by the superstition of a cruel tyrant. Oar manufactures\nwere the growth of the persecutions in the Low Countries. What a\nspectacle would it be to Europe, to see us at this time of day balancing\nthe account of tyranny with those very countries, and by our\npersecutions driving back trade and manufacture, as a sort of vagabonds,\nto their original settlement! But I trust we shall be saved this last of\ndisgraces.\n\nSo far as to the effect of the act on the interests of this nation. With\nregard to the interests of mankind at large, I am sure the benefit was\nvery considerable. Long before this act, indeed, the spirit of\ntoleration began to gain ground in Europe. In Holland the third part of\nthe people are Catholics; they live at ease, and are a sound part of the\nstate. In many parts of Germany, Protestants and Papists partake the\nsame cities, the same councils, and even the same churches. The\nunbounded liberality of the king of Prussia's conduct on this occasion\nis known to all the world; and it is of a piece with the other grand\nmaxims of his reign. The magnanimity of the Imperial court, breaking\nthrough the narrow principles of its predecessors, has indulged its\nProtestant subjects, not only with property, with worship, with liberal\neducation, but with honors and trusts, both civil and military. A worthy\nProtestant gentleman of this country now fills, and fills with credit,\nan high office in the Austrian Netherlands. Even the Lutheran obstinacy\nof Sweden has thawed at length, and opened a toleration to all\nreligions. I know, myself, that in France the Protestants begin to be at\nrest. The army, which in that country is everything, is open to them;\nand some of the military rewards and decorations which the laws deny are\nsupplied by others, to make the service acceptable and honorable. The\nfirst minister of finance in that country is a Protestant. Two years'\nwar without a tax is among the first fruits of their liberality.\nTarnished as the glory of this nation is, and far as it has waded into\nthe shades of an eclipse, some beams of its former illumination still\nplay upon its surface; and what is done in England is still looked to,\nas argument, and as example. It is certainly true, that no law of this\ncountry ever met with such universal applause abroad, or was so likely\nto produce the perfection of that tolerating spirit which, as I\nobserved, has been long gaining ground in Europe: for abroad it was\nuniversally thought that we had done what I am sorry to say we had not;\nthey thought we had granted a full toleration. That opinion was,\nhowever, so far from hurting the Protestant cause, that I declare, with\nthe most serious solemnity, my firm belief that no one thing done for\nthese fifty years past was so likely to prove deeply beneficial to our\nreligion at large as Sir George Savile's act. In its effects it was \"an\nact for tolerating and protecting Protestantism throughout Europe\"; and\nI hope that those who were taking steps for the quiet and settlement of\nour Protestant brethren in other countries will, even yet, rather\nconsider the steady equity of the greater and better part of the people\nof Great Britain than the vanity and violence of a few.\n\nI perceive, Gentlemen, by the manner of all about me, that you look with\nhorror on the wicked clamor which has been raised on this subject, and\nthat, instead of an apology for what was done, you rather demand from me\nan account, why the execution of the scheme of toleration was not made\nmore answerable to the large and liberal grounds on which it was taken\nup. The question is natural and proper; and I remember that a great and\nlearned magistrate,[50] distinguished for his strong and systematic\nunderstanding, and who at that time was a member of the House of\nCommons, made the same objection to the proceeding. The statutes, as\nthey now stand, are, without doubt, perfectly absurd. But I beg leave to\nexplain the cause of this gross imperfection in the tolerating plan, as\nwell and as shortly as I am able. It was universally thought that the\nsession ought not to pass over without doing _something_ in this\nbusiness. To revise the whole body of the penal statutes was conceived\nto be an object too big for the time. The penal statute, therefore,\nwhich was chosen for repeal (chosen to show our disposition to\nconciliate, not to perfect a toleration) was this act of ludicrous\ncruelty of which I have just given you the history. It is an act which,\nthough not by a great deal so fierce and bloody as some of the rest, was\ninfinitely more ready in the execution. It was the act which gave the\ngreatest encouragement to those pests of society, mercenary informers\nand interested disturbers of household peace; and it was observed with\ntruth, that the prosecutions, either carried to conviction or\ncompounded, for many years, had been all commenced upon that act. It was\nsaid, that, whilst we were deliberating on a more perfect scheme, the\nspirit of the age would never come up to the execution of the statutes\nwhich remained, especially as more steps, and a cooeperation of more\nminds and powers, were required towards a mischievous use of them, than\nfor the execution of the act to be repealed: that it was better to\nunravel this texture from below than from above, beginning with the\nlatest, which, in general practice, is the severest evil. It was\nalleged, that this slow proceeding would be attended with the advantage\nof a progressive experience,--and that the people would grow reconciled\nto toleration, when they should find, by the effects, that justice was\nnot so irreconcilable an enemy to convenience as they had imagined.\n\nThese, Gentlemen, were the reasons why we left this good work in the\nrude, unfinished state in which good works are commonly left, through\nthe tame circumspection with which a timid prudence so frequently\nenervates beneficence. In doing good, we are generally cold, and\nlanguid, and sluggish, and of all things afraid of being too much in the\nright. But the works of malice and injustice are quite in another style.\nThey are finished with a bold, masterly hand, touched as they are with\nthe spirit of those vehement passions that call forth all our energies,\nwhenever we oppress and persecute.\n\nThus this matter was left for the time, with a full determination in\nParliament not to suffer other and worse statutes to remain for the\npurpose of counteracting the benefits proposed by the repeal of one\npenal law: for nobody then dreamed of defending what was done as a\nbenefit, on the ground of its being no benefit at all. We were not then\nripe for so mean a subterfuge.\n\nI do not wish to go over the horrid scene that was afterwards acted.\nWould to God it could be expunged forever from the annals of this\ncountry! But since it must subsist for our shame, let it subsist for our\ninstruction. In the year 1780 there were found in this nation men\ndeluded enough, (for I give the whole to their delusion,) on pretences\nof zeal and piety, without any sort of provocation whatsoever, real or\npretended, to make a desperate attempt, which would have consumed all\nthe glory and power of this country in the flames of London, and buried\nall law, order, and religion under the ruins of the metropolis of the\nProtestant world. Whether all this mischief done, or in the direct train\nof doing, was in their original scheme, I cannot say; I hope it was not:\nbut this would have been the unavoidable consequence of their\nproceedings, had not the flames they had lighted up in their fury been\nextinguished in their blood.\n\nAll the time that this horrid scene was acting, or avenging, as well as\nfor some time before, and ever since, the wicked instigators of this\nunhappy multitude, guilty, with every aggravation, of all their crimes,\nand screened in a cowardly darkness from their punishment, continued,\nwithout interruption, pity, or remorse, to blow up the blind rage of the\npopulace with a continued blast of pestilential libels, which infected\nand poisoned the very air we breathed in.\n\nThe main drift of all the libels and all the riots was, to force\nParliament (to persuade us was hopeless) into an act of national perfidy\nwhich has no example. For, Gentlemen, it is proper you should all know\nwhat infamy we escaped by refusing that repeal, for a refusal of which,\nit seems, I, among others, stand somewhere or other accused. When we\ntook away, on the motives which I had the honor of stating to you, a few\nof the innumerable penalties upon an oppressed and injured people, the\nrelief was not absolute, but given on a stipulation and compact between\nthem and us: for we bound down the Roman Catholics with the most solemn\noaths to bear true allegiance to this government, to abjure all sort of\ntemporal power in any other, and to renounce, under the same solemn\nobligations, the doctrines of systematic perfidy with which they stood\n(I conceive very unjustly) charged. Now our modest petitioners came up\nto us, most humbly praying nothing more than that we should break our\nfaith, without any one cause whatsoever of forfeiture assigned; and when\nthe subjects of this kingdom had, on their part, fully performed their\nengagement, we should refuse, on our part, the benefit we had stipulated\non the performance of those very conditions that were prescribed by our\nown authority, and taken on the sanction of our public faith: that is to\nsay, when we had inveigled them with fair promises within our door, we\nwere to shut it on them, and, adding mockery to outrage, to tell\nthem,--\"Now we have got you fast: your consciences are bound to a power\nresolved on your destruction. We have made you swear that your religion\nobliges you to keep your faith: fools as you are! we will now let you\nsee that our religion enjoins us to keep no faith with you.\" They who\nwould advisedly call upon us to do such things must certainly have\nthought us not only a convention of treacherous tyrants, but a gang of\nthe lowest and dirtiest wretches that ever disgraced humanity. Had we\ndone this, we should have indeed proved that there were _some_ in the\nworld whom no faith could bind; and we should have _convicted_ ourselves\nof that odious principle of which Papists stood _accused_ by those very\nsavages who wished us, on that accusation, to deliver them over to their\nfury.\n\nIn this audacious tumult, when our very name and character as gentlemen\nwas to be cancelled forever, along with the faith and honor of the\nnation, I, who had exerted myself very little on the quiet passing of\nthe bill, thought it necessary then to come forward. I was not alone;\nbut though some distinguished members on all sides, and particularly on\nours, added much to their high reputation by the part they took on that\nday, (a part which will be remembered as long as honor, spirit, and\neloquence have estimation in the world,) I may and will value myself so\nfar, that, yielding in abilities to many, I yielded in zeal to none.\nWith warmth and with vigor, and animated with a just and natural\nindignation, I called forth every faculty that I possessed, and I\ndirected it in every way in which I could possibly employ it. I labored\nnight and day. I labored in Parliament; I labored out of Parliament.\nIf, therefore, the resolution of the House of Commons, refusing to\ncommit this act of unmatched turpitude, be a crime, I am guilty among\nthe foremost. But, indeed, whatever the faults of that House may have\nbeen, no one member was found hardy enough to propose so infamous a\nthing; and on full debate we passed the resolution against the petitions\nwith as much unanimity as we had formerly passed the law of which these\npetitions demanded the repeal.\n\nThere was a circumstance (justice will not suffer me to pass it over)\nwhich, if anything could enforce the reasons I have given, would fully\njustify the act of relief, and render a repeal, or anything like a\nrepeal, unnatural, impossible. It was the behavior of the persecuted\nRoman Catholics under the acts of violence and brutal insolence which\nthey suffered. I suppose there are not in London less than four or five\nthousand of that persuasion from my country, who do a great deal of the\nmost laborious works in the metropolis; and they chiefly inhabit those\nquarters which were the principal theatre of the fury of the bigoted\nmultitude. They are known to be men of strong arms and quick feelings,\nand more remarkable for a determined resolution than clear ideas or much\nforesight. But, though provoked by everything that can stir the blood of\nmen, their houses and chapels in flames, and with the most atrocious\nprofanations of everything which they hold sacred before their eyes, not\na hand was moved to retaliate, or even to defend. Had a conflict once\nbegun, the rage of their persecutors would have redoubled. Thus fury\nincreasing by the reverberation of outrages, house being fired for\nhouse, and church for chapel, I am convinced that no power under heaven\ncould have prevented a general conflagration, and at this day London\nwould have been a tale. But I am well informed, and the thing speaks it,\nthat their clergy exerted their whole influence to keep their people in\nsuch a state of forbearance and quiet, as, when I look back, fills me\nwith astonishment,--but not with astonishment only. Their merits on that\noccasion ought not to be forgotten; nor will they, when Englishmen come\nto recollect themselves. I am sure it were far more proper to have\ncalled them forth, and given them the thanks of both Houses of\nParliament, than to have suffered those worthy clergymen and excellent\ncitizens to be hunted into holes and corners, whilst we are making\nlow-minded inquisitions into the number of their people; as if a\ntolerating principle was never to prevail, unless we were very sure that\nonly a few could possibly take advantage of it. But, indeed, we are not\nyet well recovered of our fright. Our reason, I trust, will return with\nour security, and this unfortunate temper will pass over like a cloud.\n\nGentlemen, I have now laid before you a few of the reasons for taking\naway the penalties of the act of 1699, and for refusing to establish\nthem on the riotous requisition of 1780. Because I would not suffer\nanything which may be for your satisfaction to escape, permit me just to\ntouch on the objections urged against our act and our resolves, and\nintended as a justification of the violence offered to both Houses.\n\"Parliament,\" they assert, \"was too hasty, and they ought, in so\nessential and alarming a change, to have proceeded with a far greater\ndegree of deliberation.\" The direct contrary. Parliament was too slow.\nThey took fourscore years to deliberate on the repeal of an act which\nought not to have survived a second session. When at length, after a\nprocrastination of near a century, the business was taken up, it\nproceeded in the most public manner, by the ordinary stages, and as\nslowly as a law so evidently right as to be resisted by none would\nnaturally advance. Had it been read three times in one day, we should\nhave shown only a becoming readiness to recognize, by protection, the\nundoubted dutiful behavior of those whom we had but too long punished\nfor offences of presumption or conjecture. But for what end was that\nbill to linger beyond the usual period of an unopposed measure? Was it\nto be delayed until a rabble in Edinburgh should dictate to the Church\nof England what measure of persecution was fitting for her safety? Was\nit to be adjourned until a fanatical force could be collected in London,\nsufficient to frighten us out of all our ideas of policy and justice?\nWere we to wait for the profound lectures on the reason of state,\necclesiastical and political, which the Protestant Association have\nsince condescended to read to us? Or were we, seven hundred peers and\ncommoners, the only persons ignorant of the ribald invectives which\noccupy the place of argument in those remonstrances, which every man of\ncommon observation had heard a thousand times over, and a thousand times\nover had despised? All men had before heard what they dare to say, and\nall men at this day know what they dare to do; and I trust all honest\nmen are equally influenced by the one and by the other.\n\nBut they tell us, that those our fellow-citizens whose chains we have a\nlittle relaxed are enemies to liberty and our free Constitution.--Not\nenemies, I presume, to their _own_ liberty. And as to the Constitution,\nuntil we give them some share in it, I do not know on what pretence we\ncan examine into their opinions about a business in which they have no\ninterest or concern. But, after all, are we equally sure that they are\nadverse to our Constitution as that our statutes are hostile and\ndestructive to them? For my part, I have reason to believe their\nopinions and inclinations in that respect are various, exactly like\nthose of other men; and if they lean more to the crown than I and than\nmany of you think _we_ ought, we must remember that he who aims at\nanother's life is not to be surprised, if he flies into any sanctuary\nthat will receive him. The tenderness of the executive power is the\nnatural asylum of those upon whom the laws have declared war; and to\ncomplain that men are inclined to favor the means of their own safety is\nso absurd, that one forgets the injustice in the ridicule.\n\nI must fairly tell you, that so far as my principles are concerned,\n(principles that I hope will only depart with my last breath,) that I\nhave no idea of a liberty unconnected with honesty and justice. Nor do I\nbelieve that any good constitutions of government, or of freedom, can\nfind it necessary for their security to doom any part of the people to a\npermanent slavery. Such a constitution of freedom, if such can be, is in\neffect no more than another name for the tyranny of the strongest\nfaction; and factions in republics have been, and are, full as capable\nas monarchs of the most cruel oppression and injustice. It is but too\ntrue, that the love, and even the very idea, of genuine liberty is\nextremely rare. It is but too true that there are many whose whole\nscheme of freedom is made up of pride, perverseness, and insolence. They\nfeel themselves in a state of thraldom, they imagine that their souls\nare cooped and cabined in, unless they have some man or some body of men\ndependent on their mercy. This desire of having some one below them\ndescends to those who are the very lowest of all; and a Protestant\ncobbler, debased by his poverty, but exalted by his share of the ruling\nchurch, feels a pride in knowing it is by his generosity alone that the\npeer whose footman's instep he measures is able to keep his chaplain\nfrom a jail. This disposition is the true source of the passion which\nmany men in very humble life have taken to the American war. _Our_\nsubjects in America; _our_ colonies; _our_ dependants. This lust of\nparty power is the liberty they hunger and thirst for; and this Siren\nsong of ambition has charmed ears that one would have thought were never\norganized to that sort of music.\n\nThis way of _proscribing the citizens by denominations and general\ndescriptions_, dignified by the name of reason of state, and security\nfor constitutions and commonwealths, is nothing better at bottom than\nthe miserable invention of an ungenerous ambition which would fain hold\nthe sacred trust of power, without any of the virtues or any of the\nenergies that give a title to it,--a receipt of policy, made up of a\ndetestable compound of malice, cowardice, and sloth. They would govern\nmen against their will; but in that government they would be discharged\nfrom the exercise of vigilance, providence, and fortitude; and\ntherefore, that they may sleep on their watch, they consent to take some\none division of the society into partnership of the tyranny over the\nrest. But let government, in what form it may be, comprehend the whole\nin its justice, and restrain the suspicious by its vigilance,--let it\nkeep watch and ward,--let it discover by its sagacity, and punish by its\nfirmness, all delinquency against its power, whenever delinquency exists\nin the overt acts,--and then it will be as safe as ever God and Nature\nintended it should be. Crimes are the acts of individuals, and not of\ndenominations: and therefore arbitrarily to class men under general\ndescriptions, in order to proscribe and punish them in the lump for a\npresumed delinquency, of which perhaps but a part, perhaps none at all,\nare guilty, is indeed a compendious method, and saves a world of trouble\nabout proof; but such a method, instead of being law, is an act of\nunnatural rebellion against the legal dominion of reason and justice;\nand this vice, in any constitution that entertains it, at one time or\nother will certainly bring on its ruin.\n\nWe are told that this is not a religious persecution; and its abettors\nare loud in disclaiming all severities on account of conscience. Very\nfine indeed! Then, let it be so: they are not persecutors; they are only\ntyrants. With all my heart. I am perfectly indifferent concerning the\npretexts upon which we torment one another,--or whether it be for the\nconstitution of the Church of England, or for the constitution of the\nState of England, that people choose to make their fellow-creatures\nwretched. When we were sent into a place of authority, you that sent us\nhad yourselves but one commission to give. You could give us none to\nwrong or oppress, or even to suffer any kind of oppression or wrong, on\nany grounds whatsoever: not on political, as in the affairs of America;\nnot on commercial, as in those of Ireland; not in civil, as in the laws\nfor debt; not in religious, as in the statutes against Protestant or\nCatholic dissenters. The diversified, but connected, fabric of\nuniversal justice is well cramped and bolted together in all its parts;\nand depend upon it, I never have employed, and I never shall employ, any\nengine of power which may come into my hands to wrench it asunder. All\nshall stand, if I can help it, and all shall stand connected. After all,\nto complete this work, much remains to be done: much in the East, much\nin the West. But, great as the work is, if our will be ready, our powers\nare not deficient.\n\nSince you have suffered me to trouble you so much on this subject,\npermit me, Gentlemen, to detain you a little longer. I am, indeed, most\nsolicitous to give you perfect satisfaction. I find there are some of a\nbetter and softer nature than the persons with whom I have supposed\nmyself in debate, who neither think ill of the act of relief, nor by any\nmeans desire the repeal,--yet who, not accusing, but lamenting, what was\ndone, on account of the consequences, have frequently expressed their\nwish that the late act had never been made. Some of this description,\nand persons of worth, I have met with in this city. They conceive that\nthe prejudices, whatever they might be, of a large part of the people,\nought not to have been shocked,--that their opinions ought to have been\npreviously taken, and much attended to,--and that thereby the late\nhorrid scenes might have been prevented.\n\nI confess, my notions are widely different; and I never was less sorry\nfor any action of my life. I like the bill the better on account of the\nevents of all kinds that followed it. It relieved the real sufferers; it\nstrengthened the state; and, by the disorders that ensued, we had clear\nevidence that there lurked a temper somewhere which ought not to be\nfostered by the laws. No ill consequences whatever could be attributed\nto the act itself. We knew beforehand, or we were poorly instructed,\nthat toleration is odious to the intolerant, freedom to oppressors,\nproperty to robbers, and all kinds and degrees of prosperity to the\nenvious. We knew that all these kinds of men would gladly gratify their\nevil dispositions under the sanction of law and religion, if they could:\nif they could not, yet, to make way to their objects, they would do\ntheir utmost to subvert all religion and all law. This we certainly\nknew. But, knowing this, is there any reason, because thieves break in\nand steal, and thus bring detriment to you, and draw ruin on themselves,\nthat I am to be sorry that you are in possession of shops, and of\nwarehouses, and of wholesome laws to protect them? Are you to build no\nhouses, because desperate men may pull them down upon their own heads?\nOr, if a malignant wretch will cut his own throat, because he sees you\ngive alms to the necessitous and deserving, shall his destruction be\nattributed to your charity, and not to his own deplorable madness? If we\nrepent of our good actions, what, I pray you, is left for our faults and\nfollies? It is not the beneficence of the laws, it is the unnatural\ntemper which beneficence can fret and sour, that is to be lamented. It\nis this temper which, by all rational means, ought to be sweetened and\ncorrected. If froward men should refuse this cure, can they vitiate\nanything but themselves? Does evil so react upon good, as not only to\nretard its motion, but to change its nature? If it can so operate, then\ngood men will always be in the power of the bad,--and virtue, by a\ndreadful reverse of order, must lie under perpetual subjection and\nbondage to vice.\n\nAs to the opinion of the people, which some think, in such cases, is to\nbe implicitly obeyed,--near two years' tranquillity, which follows the\nact, and its instant imitation in Ireland, proved abundantly that the\nlate horrible spirit was in a great measure the effect of insidious art,\nand perverse industry, and gross misrepresentation. But suppose that the\ndislike had been much more deliberate and much more general than I am\npersuaded it was,--when we know that the opinions of even the greatest\nmultitudes are the standard of rectitude, I shall think myself obliged\nto make those opinions the masters of my conscience. But if it may be\ndoubted whether Omnipotence itself is competent to alter the essential\nconstitution of right and wrong, sure I am that such _things_ as they\nand I are possessed of no such power. No man carries further than I do\nthe policy of making government pleasing to the people. But the widest\nrange of this politic complaisance is confined within the limits of\njustice. I would not only consult the interest of the people, but I\nwould cheerfully gratify their humors. We are all a sort of children\nthat must be soothed and managed. I think I am not austere or formal in\nmy nature. I would bear, I would even play my part in, any innocent\nbuffooneries, to divert them. But I never will act the tyrant for their\namusement. If they will mix malice in their sports, I shall never\nconsent to throw them any living, sentient creature whatsoever, no, not\nso much as a kitling, to torment.\n\n\"But if I profess all this impolitic stubbornness, I may chance never to\nbe elected into Parliament.\"--It is certainly not pleasing to be put out\nof the public service. But I wish to be a member of Parliament to have\nmy share of doing good and resisting evil. It would therefore be absurd\nto renounce my objects in order to obtain my seat. I deceive myself,\nindeed, most grossly, if I had not much rather pass the remainder of my\nlife hidden in the recesses of the deepest obscurity, feeding my mind\neven with the visions and imaginations of such things, than to be placed\non the most splendid throne of the universe, tantalized with a denial of\nthe practice of all which can make the greatest situation any other than\nthe greatest curse. Gentlemen, I have had my day. I can never\nsufficiently express my gratitude to you for having set me in a place\nwherein I could lend the slightest help to great and laudable designs.\nIf I have had my share in any measure giving quiet to private property\nand private conscience,--if by my vote I have aided in securing to\nfamilies the best possession, peace,--if I have joined in reconciling\nkings to their subjects, and subjects to their prince,--if I have\nassisted to loosen the foreign holdings of the citizen, and taught him\nto look for his protection to the laws of his country, and for his\ncomfort to the good-will of his countrymen,--if I have thus taken my\npart with the best of men in the best of their actions, I can shut the\nbook: I might wish to read a page or two more, but this is enough for my\nmeasure. I have not lived in vain.\n\nAnd now, Gentlemen, on this serious day, when I come, as it were, to\nmake up my account with you, let me take to myself some degree of honest\npride on the nature of the charges that are against me. I do not here\nstand before you accused of venality, or of neglect of duty. It is not\nsaid, that, in the long period of my service, I have, in a single\ninstance, sacrificed the slightest of your interests to my ambition or\nto my fortune. It is not alleged, that, to gratify any anger or revenge\nof my own, or of my party, I have had a share in wronging or oppressing\nany description of men, or any one man in any description. No! the\ncharges against me are all of one kind: that I have pushed the\nprinciples of general justice and benevolence too far,--further than a\ncautious policy would warrant, and further than the opinions of many\nwould go along with me. In every accident which may happen through life,\nin pain, in sorrow, in depression, and distress, I will call to mind\nthis accusation, and be comforted.\n\nGentlemen, I submit the whole to your judgment. Mr. Mayor, I thank you\nfor the trouble you have taken on this occasion: in your state of health\nit is particularly obliging. If this company should think it advisable\nfor me to withdraw, I shall respectfully retire; if you think otherwise,\nI shall go directly to the Council-House and to the 'Change, and without\na moment's delay begin my canvass.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nBRISTOL, September 6, 1780.\n\nAt a great and respectable meeting of the friends of EDMUND BURKE, Esq.,\nheld at the Guildhall this day, the Right Worshipful the Mayor in the\nchair:--Resolved, That Mr. Burke, as a representative for this city, has\ndone all possible honor to himself as a senator and a man, and that we\ndo heartily and honestly approve of his conduct, as the result of an\nenlightened loyalty to his sovereign, a warm and zealous love to his\ncountry through its widely extended empire, a jealous and watchful care\nof the liberties of his fellow-subjects, an enlarged and liberal\nunderstanding of our commercial interest, a humane attention to the\ncircumstances of even the lowest ranks of the community, and a truly\nwise, politic, and tolerant spirit, in supporting the national church,\nwith a reasonable indulgence to all who dissent from it; and we wish to\nexpress the most marked abhorrence of the base arts which have been\nemployed, without regard to truth and reason, to misrepresent his\neminent services to his country.\n\nResolved, That this resolution be copied out, and signed by the\nchairman, and be by him presented to Mr. Burke, as the fullest\nexpression of the respectful and grateful sense we entertain of his\nmerits and services, public and private, to the citizens of Bristol, as\na man and a representative.\n\nResolved, That the thanks of this meeting be given to the Right\nWorshipful the Mayor, who so ably and worthily presided in this meeting.\n\nResolved, That it is the earnest request of this meeting to Mr. Burke,\nthat he should again offer himself a candidate to represent this city in\nParliament; assuring him of that full and strenuous support which is due\nto the merits of so excellent a representative.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis business being over, Mr. Burke went to the Exchange, and offered\nhimself as a candidate in the usual manner. He was accompanied to the\nCouncil-House, and from thence to the Exchange, by a large body of most\nrespectable gentlemen, amongst whom were the following members of the\ncorporation, viz.: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Alderman Smith, Mr. Alderman Deane,\nMr. Alderman Gordon, William Weare, Samuel Munckley, John Merlott, John\nCrofts, Levy Ames, John Fisher Weare, Benjamin Loscombe, Philip\nProtheroe, Samuel Span, Joseph Smith, Richard Bright and John Noble,\nEsquires.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[48] Irish Perpetual Mutiny Act.\n\n[49] Mr. Williams.\n\n[50] The Chancellor.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH AT BRISTOL,\n\nON\n\nDECLINING THE POLL\n\n1780.\n\n\n\n\n     BRISTOL, Saturday, 9th Sept, 1780.\n\n     This morning the sheriff and candidates assembled as usual at the\n     Council-House, and from thence proceeded to Guildhall. Proclamation\n     being made for the electors to appear and give their votes, Mr.\n     BURKE stood forward on the hustings, surrounded by a great number\n     of the corporation and other principal citizens, and addressed\n     himself to the whole assembly as follows.\n\n\nGentlemen,--I decline the election. It has ever been my rule through\nlife to observe a proportion between my efforts and my objects. I have\nnever been remarkable for a bold, active, and sanguine pursuit of\nadvantages that are personal to myself.\n\nI have not canvassed the whole of this city in form, but I have taken\nsuch a view of it as satisfies my own mind that your choice will not\nultimately fall upon me. Your city, Gentlemen, is in a state of\nmiserable distraction, and I am resolved to withdraw whatever share my\npretensions may have had in its unhappy divisions. I have not been in\nhaste; I have tried all prudent means; I have waited for the effect of\nall contingencies. If I were fond of a contest, by the partiality of my\nnumerous friends (whom you know to be among the most weighty and\nrespectable people of the city) I have the means of a sharp one in my\nhands. But I thought it far better, with my strength unspent, and my\nreputation unimpaired, to do, early and from foresight, that which I\nmight be obliged to do from necessity at last.\n\nI am not in the least surprised nor in the least angry at this view of\nthings. I have read the book of life for a long time, and I have read\nother books a little. Nothing has happened to me, but what has happened\nto men much better than me, and in times and in nations full as good as\nthe age and country that we live in. To say that I am no way concerned\nwould be neither decent nor true. The representation of _Bristol_ was an\nobject on many accounts dear to me; and I certainly should very far\nprefer it to any other in the kingdom. My habits are made to it; and it\nis in general more unpleasant to be rejected after long trial than not\nto be chosen at all.\n\nBut, Gentlemen, I will see nothing except your former kindness, and I\nwill give way to no other sentiments than those of gratitude. From the\nbottom of my heart I thank you for what you have done for me. You have\ngiven me a long term, which is now expired. I have performed the\nconditions, and enjoyed all the profits to the full; and I now surrender\nyour estate into your hands, without being in a single tile or a single\nstone impaired or wasted by my use. I have served the public for fifteen\nyears. I have served you in particular for six. What is past is well\nstored; it is safe, and out of the power of fortune. What is to come is\nin wiser hands than ours; and He in whose hands it is best knows whether\nit is best for you and me that I should be in Parliament, or even in the\nworld.\n\nGentlemen, the melancholy event of yesterday reads to us an awful\nlesson against being too much troubled about any of the objects of\nordinary ambition. The worthy gentleman[51] who has been snatched from\nus at the moment of the election, and in the middle of the contest,\nwhilst his desires were as warm and his hopes as eager as ours, has\nfeelingly told us what shadows we are and what shadows we pursue.\n\nIt has been usual for a candidate who declines to take his leave by a\nletter to the sheriffs: but I received your trust in the face of day,\nand in the face of day I accept your dismission. I am not--I am not at\nall ashamed to look upon you; nor can my presence discompose the order\nof business here. I humbly and respectfully take my leave of the\nsheriffs, the candidates, and the electors, wishing heartily that the\nchoice may be for the best, at a time which calls, if ever time did\ncall, for service that is not nominal. It is no plaything you are about.\nI tremble, when I consider the trust I have presumed to ask. I confided,\nperhaps, too much in my intentions. They were really fair and upright;\nand I am bold to say that I ask no ill thing for you, when, on parting\nfrom this place, I pray, that, whomever you choose to succeed me, he may\nresemble me exactly in all things, except in my abilities to serve, and\nmy fortune to please you.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[51] Mr. Coombe.\n\n\n\n\nSPEECH\n\n(DECEMBER 1, 1783)\n\nUPON\n\nTHE QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER'S LEAVING THE CHAIR IN ORDER FOR THE HOUSE\nTO RESOLVE ITSELF INTO A COMMITTEE\n\nON\n\nMR. FOX'S EAST INDIA BILL.\n\n\n\n\nMr. Speaker,--I thank you for pointing to me. I really wished much to\nengage your attention in an early stage of the debate. I have been long\nvery deeply, though perhaps ineffectually, engaged in the preliminary\ninquiries, which have continued without intermission for some years.\nThough I have felt, with some degree of sensibility, the natural and\ninevitable impressions of the several matters of fact, as they have been\nsuccessively disclosed, I have not at any time attempted to trouble you\non the merits of the subject, and very little on any of the points which\nincidentally arose in the course of our proceedings. But I should be\nsorry to be found totally silent upon this day. Our inquiries are now\ncome to their final issue. It is now to be determined whether the three\nyears of laborious Parliamentary research, whether the twenty years of\npatient Indian suffering, are to produce a substantial reform in our\nEastern administration; or whether our knowledge of the grievances has\nabated our zeal for the correction of them, and our very inquiry into\nthe evil was only a pretext to elude the remedy which is demanded from\nus by humanity, by justice, and by every principle of true policy.\nDepend upon it, this business cannot be indifferent to our fame. It will\nturn out a matter of great disgrace or great glory to the whole British\nnation. We are on a conspicuous stage, and the world marks our demeanor.\n\nI am therefore a little concerned to perceive the spirit and temper in\nwhich the debate has been all along pursued upon one side of the House.\nThe declamation of the gentlemen who oppose the bill has been abundant\nand vehement; but they have been reserved and even silent about the\nfitness or unfitness of the plan to attain the direct object it has in\nview. By some gentlemen it is taken up (by way of exercise, I presume)\nas a point of law, on a question of private property and corporate\nfranchise; by others it is regarded as the petty intrigue of a faction\nat court, and argued merely as it tends to set this man a little higher\nor that a little lower in situation and power. All the void has been\nfilled up with invectives against coalition, with allusions to the loss\nof America, with the activity and inactivity of ministers. The total\nsilence of these gentlemen concerning the interest and well-being of the\npeople of India, and concerning the interest which this nation has in\nthe commerce and revenues of that country, is a strong indication of the\nvalue which they set upon these objects.\n\nIt has been a little painful to me to observe the intrusion into this\nimportant debate of such company as _quo warranto_, and _mandamus_, and\n_certiorari_: as if we were on a trial about mayors and aldermen and\ncapital burgesses, or engaged in a suit concerning the borough of\nPenryn, or Saltash, or St. Ives, or St. Mawes. Gentlemen have argued\nwith as much heat and passion as if the first things in the world were\nat stake; and their topics are such as belong only to matter of the\nlowest and meanest litigation. It is not right, it is not worthy of us,\nin this manner to depreciate the value, to degrade the majesty, of this\ngrave deliberation of policy and empire.\n\nFor my part, I have thought myself bound, when a matter of this\nextraordinary weight came before me, not to consider (as some gentlemen\nare so fond of doing) whether the bill originated from a Secretary of\nState for the Home Department or from a Secretary for the Foreign, from\na minister of influence or a minister of the people, from Jacob or from\nEsau.[52] I asked myself, and I asked myself nothing else, what part it\nwas fit for a member of Parliament, who has supplied a mediocrity of\ntalents by the extreme of diligence, and who has thought himself obliged\nby the research of years to wind himself into the inmost recesses and\nlabyrinths of the Indian detail,--what part, I say, it became such a\nmember of Parliament to take, when a minister of state, in conformity to\na recommendation from the throne, has brought before us a system for the\nbetter government of the territory and commerce of the East. In this\nlight, and in this only, I will trouble you with my sentiments.\n\nIt is not only agreed, but demanded, by the right honorable\ngentleman,[53] and by those who act with him, that a _whole_ system\nought to be produced; that it ought not to be an _half-measure_; that it\nought to be no _palliative_, but a legislative provision, vigorous,\nsubstantial, and effective.--I believe that no man who understands the\nsubject can doubt for a moment that those must be the conditions of\nanything deserving the name of a reform in the Indian government; that\nanything short of them would not only be delusive, but, in this matter,\nwhich admits no medium, noxious in the extreme.\n\nTo all the conditions proposed by his adversaries the mover of the bill\nperfectly agrees; and on his performance of them he rests his cause. On\nthe other hand, not the least objection has been taken with regard to\nthe efficiency, the vigor, or the completeness of the scheme. I am\ntherefore warranted to assume, as a thing admitted, that the bills\naccomplish what both sides of the House demand as essential. The end is\ncompletely answered, so for as the direct and immediate object is\nconcerned.\n\nBut though there are no direct, yet there are various collateral\nobjections made: objections from the effects which this plan of reform\nfor Indian administration may have on the privileges of great public\nbodies in England; from its probable influence on the constitutional\nrights, or on the freedom and integrity, of the several branches of the\nlegislature.\n\nBefore I answer these objections, I must beg leave to observe, that, if\nwe are not able to contrive some method of governing India _well_, which\nwill not of necessity become the means of governing Great Britain _ill_,\na ground is laid for their eternal separation, but none for sacrificing\nthe people of that country to our Constitution. I am, however, far from\nbeing persuaded that any such incompatibility of interest does at all\nexist. On the contrary, I am certain that every means effectual to\npreserve India from oppression is a guard to preserve the British\nConstitution from its worst corruption. To show this, I will consider\nthe objections, which, I think, are four.\n\n1st, That the bill is an attack on the chartered rights of men.\n\n2ndly, That it increases the influence of the crown.\n\n3rdly, That it does _not_ increase, but diminishes, the influence of the\ncrown, in order to promote the interests of certain ministers and their\nparty.\n\n4thly, That it deeply affects the national credit.\n\nAs to the first of these objections, I must observe that the phrase of\n\"the chartered rights _of men_\" is full of affectation, and very unusual\nin the discussion of privileges conferred by charters of the present\ndescription. But it is not difficult to discover what end that ambiguous\nmode of expression, so often reiterated, is meant to answer.\n\nThe rights of _men_--that is to say, the natural rights of mankind--are\nindeed sacred things; and if any public measure is proved mischievously\nto affect them, the objection ought to be fatal to that measure, even if\nno charter at all could be set up against it. If these natural rights\nare further affirmed and declared by express covenants, if they are\nclearly defined and secured against chicane, against power and\nauthority, by written instruments and positive engagements, they are in\na still better condition: they partake not only of the sanctity of the\nobject so secured, but of that solemn public faith itself which secures\nan object of such importance. Indeed, this formal recognition, by the\nsovereign power, of an original right in the subject, can never be\nsubverted, but by rooting up the holding radical principles of\ngovernment, and even of society itself. The charters which we call by\ndistinction _great_ are public instruments of this nature: I mean the\ncharters of King John and King Henry the Third. The things secured by\nthese instruments may, without any deceitful ambiguity, be very fitly\ncalled _the chartered rights of men_.\n\nThese charters have made the very name of a charter dear to the heart of\nevery Englishman. But, Sir, there may be, and there are, charters, not\nonly different in nature, but formed on principles _the very reverse_ of\nthose of the Great Charter. Of this kind is the charter of the East\nIndia Company. _Magna Charta_ is a charter to restrain power and to\ndestroy monopoly. The East India charter is a charter to establish\nmonopoly and to create power. Political power and commercial monopoly\nare _not_ the rights of men; and the rights to them derived from\ncharters it is fallacious and sophistical to call \"the chartered rights\nof men.\" These chartered rights (to speak of such charters and of their\neffects in terms of the greatest possible moderation) do at least\nsuspend the natural rights of mankind at large, and in their very frame\nand constitution are liable to fall into a direct violation of them.\n\n\nIt is a charter of this latter description (that is to say, a charter of\npower and monopoly) which is affected by the bill before you. The bill,\nSir, does without question affect it: it does affect it essentially and\nsubstantially. But, having stated to you of what description the\nchartered rights are which this bill touches, I feel no difficulty at\nall in acknowledging the existence of those chartered rights in their\nfullest extent. They belong to the Company in the surest manner, and\nthey are secured to that body by every sort of public sanction. They are\nstamped by the faith of the king; they are stamped by the faith of\nParliament: they have been bought for money, for money honestly and\nfairly paid; they have been bought for valuable consideration, over and\nover again.\n\nI therefore freely admit to the East India Company their claim to\nexclude their fellow-subjects from the commerce of half the globe. I\nadmit their claim to administer an annual territorial revenue of seven\nmillions sterling, to command an army of sixty thousand men, and to\ndispose (under the control of a sovereign, imperial discretion, and with\nthe due observance of the natural and local law) of the lives and\nfortunes of thirty millions of their fellow-creatures. All this they\npossess by charter, and by Acts of Parliament, (in my opinion,) without\na shadow of controversy.\n\nThose who carry the rights and claims of the Company the furthest do not\ncontend for more than this; and all this I freely grant. But, granting\nall this, they must grant to me, in my turn, that all political power\nwhich is set over men, and that all privilege claimed or exercised in\nexclusion of them, being wholly artificial, and for so much a derogation\nfrom the natural equality of mankind at large, ought to be some way or\nother exercised ultimately for their benefit.\n\nIf this is true with regard to every species of political dominion and\nevery description of commercial privilege, none of which can be\noriginal, self-derived rights, or grants for the mere private benefit of\nthe holders, then such rights, or privileges, or whatever else you\nchoose to call them, are all in the strictest sense _a trust_: and it is\nof the very essence of every trust to be rendered _accountable_,--and\neven totally to _cease_, when it substantially varies from the purposes\nfor which alone it could have a lawful existence.\n\nThis I conceive, Sir, to be true of trusts of power vested in the\nhighest hands, and of such, as seem to hold of no human creature. But\nabout the application of this principle to subordinate _derivative_\ntrusts I do not see how a controversy can be maintained. To whom, then,\nwould I make the East India Company accountable? Why, to Parliament, to\nbe sure,--to Parliament, from whom their trust was derived,--to\nParliament, which alone is capable of comprehending the magnitude of its\nobject, and its abuse, and alone capable of an effectual legislative\nremedy. The very charter, which is held out to exclude Parliament from\ncorrecting malversation with regard to the high trust vested in the\nCompany, is the very thing which at once gives a title and imposes a\nduty on us to interfere with effect, wherever power and authority\noriginating from ourselves are perverted from their purposes, and become\ninstruments of wrong and violence.\n\nIf Parliament, Sir, had nothing to do with this charter, we might have\nsome sort of Epicurean excuse to stand aloof, indifferent spectators of\nwhat passes in the Company's name in India and in London. But if we are\nthe very cause of the evil, we are in a special manner engaged to the\nredress; and for us passively to bear with oppressions committed under\nthe sanction of our own authority is in truth and reason for this House\nto be an active accomplice in the abuse.\n\nThat the power, notoriously grossly abused, has been bought from us is\nvery certain. But this circumstance, which is urged against the bill,\nbecomes an additional motive for our interference, lest we should be\nthought to have sold the blood of millions of men for the base\nconsideration of money. We sold, I admit, all that we had to sell,--that\nis, our authority, not our control. We had not a right to make a market\nof our duties.\n\nI ground myself, therefore, on this principle:--that, if the abuse is\nproved, the contract is broken, and we reenter into all our rights, that\nis, into the exercise of all our duties. Our own authority is, indeed,\nas much a trust originally as the Company's authority is a trust\nderivatively; and it is the use we make of the resumed power that must\njustify or condemn us in the resumption of it. When we have perfected\nthe plan laid before us by the right honorable mover, the world will\nthen see what it is we destroy, and what it is we create. By that test\nwe stand or fall; and by that test I trust that it will be found, in the\nissue, that we are going to supersede a charter abused to the full\nextent of all the powers which it could abuse, and exercised in the\nplenitude of despotism, tyranny, and corruption,--and that in one and\nthe same plan we provide a real chartered security for _the rights of\nmen_, cruelly violated under that charter.\n\nThis bill, and those connected with it, are intended to form the _Magna\nCharta_ of Hindostan. Whatever the Treaty of Westphalia is to the\nliberty of the princes and free cities of the Empire, and to the three\nreligions there professed,--whatever the Great Charter, the Statute of\nTallage, the Petition of Right, and the Declaration of Right are to\nGreat Britain, these bills are to the people of India. Of this benefit I\nam certain their condition is capable: and when I know that they are\ncapable of more, my vote shall most assuredly be for our giving to the\nfull extent of their capacity of receiving; and no charter of dominion\nshall stand as a bar in my way to their charter of safety and\nprotection.\n\nThe strong admission I have made of the Company's rights (I am conscious\nof it) binds me to do a great deal. I do not presume to condemn those\nwho argue _a priori_ against the propriety of leaving such extensive\npolitical powers in the hands of a company of merchants. I know much is,\nand much more may be, said against such a system. But, with my\nparticular ideas and sentiments, I cannot go that way to work. I feel an\ninsuperable reluctance in giving my hand to destroy any established\ninstitution of government, upon a theory, however plausible it may be.\nMy experience in life teaches me nothing clear upon the subject. I have\nknown merchants with the sentiments and the abilities of great\nstatesmen, and I have seen persons in the rank of statesmen with the\nconceptions and character of peddlers. Indeed, my observation has\nfurnished me with nothing that is to be found in any habits of life or\neducation, which tends wholly to disqualify men for the functions of\ngovernment, but that by which the power of exercising those functions is\nvery frequently obtained: I mean a spirit and habits of low cabal and\nintrigue; which I have never, in one instance, seen united with a\ncapacity for sound and manly policy.\n\nTo justify us in taking the administration of their affairs out of the\nhands of the East India Company, on my principles, I must see several\nconditions. 1st, The object affected by the abuse should be great and\nimportant. 2nd, The abuse affecting this great object ought to be a\ngreat abuse. 3d, It ought to be habitual, and not accidental. 4th, It\nought to be utterly incurable in the body as it now stands constituted.\nAll this ought to be made as visible to me as the light of the sun,\nbefore I should strike off an atom of their charter. A right honorable\ngentleman[54] has said, and said, I think, but once, and that very\nslightly, (whatever his original demand for a plan might seem to\nrequire,) that \"there are abuses in the Company's government.\" If that\nwere all, the scheme of the mover of this bill, the scheme of his\nlearned friend, and his own scheme of reformation, (if he has any,) are\nall equally needless. There are, and must be, abuses in all governments.\nIt amounts to no more than a nugatory proposition. But before I consider\nof what nature these abuses are, of which the gentleman speaks so very\nlightly, permit me to recall to your recollection the map of the country\nwhich this abused chartered right affects. This I shall do, that you may\njudge whether in that map I can discover anything like the first of my\nconditions: that is, whether the object affected by the abuse of the\nEast India Company's power be of importance sufficient to justify the\nmeasure and means of reform applied to it in this bill.\n\nWith very few, and those inconsiderable intervals, the British dominion,\neither in the Company's name, or in the names of princes absolutely\ndependent upon the Company, extends from the mountains that separate\nIndia from Tartary to Cape Comorin, that is, one-and-twenty degrees of\nlatitude!\n\nIn the northern parts it is a solid mass of land, about eight hundred\nmiles in length, and four or five hundred broad. As you go southward, it\nbecomes narrower for a space. It afterwards dilates; but, narrower or\nbroader, you possess the whole eastern and northeastern coast of that\nvast country, quite from the borders of Pegu.--Bengal, Bahar, and\nOrissa, with Benares, (now unfortunately in our immediate possession,)\nmeasure 161,978 square English miles: a territory considerably larger\nthan the whole kingdom of France. Oude, with its dependent provinces, is\n53,286 square miles: not a great deal less than England. The Carnatic,\nwith Tanjore and the Circars, is 65,948 square miles: very considerably\nlarger than England. And the whole of the Company's dominions,\ncomprehending Bombay and Salsette, amounts to 281,412 square miles:\nwhich forms a territory larger than any European dominion, Russia and\nTurkey excepted. Through all that vast extent of country there is not a\nman who eats a mouthful of rice but by permission of the East India\nCompany.\n\nSo far with regard to the extent. The population of this great empire is\nnot easy to be calculated. When the countries of which it is composed\ncame into our possession, they were all eminently peopled, and eminently\nproductive,--though at that time considerably declined from their\nancient prosperity. But since they are come into our hands!----!\nHowever, if we make the period of our estimate immediately before the\nutter desolation of the Carnatic, and if we allow for the havoc which\nour government had even then made in these regions, we cannot, in my\nopinion, rate the population at much less than thirty millions of souls:\nmore than four times the number of persons in the island of Great\nBritain.\n\nMy next inquiry to that of the number is the quality and description of\nthe inhabitants. This multitude of men does not consist of an abject and\nbarbarous populace; much less of gangs of savages, like the Guaranies\nand Chiquitos, who wander on the waste borders of the River of Amazons\nor the Plate; but a people for ages civilized and\ncultivated,--cultivated by all the arts of polished life, whilst we\nwere yet in the woods. There have been (and still the skeletons remain)\nprinces once of great dignity, authority, and opulence. There are to be\nfound the chiefs of tribes and nations. There is to be found an ancient\nand venerable priesthood, the depository of their laws, learning, and\nhistory, the guides of the people whilst living and their consolation in\ndeath; a nobility of great antiquity and renown; a multitude of cities,\nnot exceeded in population and trade by those of the first class in\nEurope; merchants and bankers, individual houses of whom have once vied\nin capital with the Bank of England, whose credit had often supported a\ntottering state, and preserved their governments in the midst of war and\ndesolation; millions of ingenious manufacturers and mechanics; millions\nof the most diligent, and not the least intelligent, tillers of the\nearth. Here are to be found almost all the religions professed by\nmen,--the Braminical, the Mussulman, the Eastern and the Western\nChristian.\n\nIf I were to take the whole aggregate of our possessions there, I should\ncompare it, as the nearest parallel I can find, with the Empire of\nGermany. Our immediate possessions I should compare with the Austrian\ndominions: and they would not suffer in the comparison. The Nabob of\nOude might stand for the King of Prussia; the Nabob of Arcot I would\ncompare, as superior in territory, and equal in revenue, to the Elector\nof Saxony. Cheit Sing, the Rajah of Benares, might well rank with the\nPrince of Hesse, at least; and the Rajah of Tanjore (though hardly equal\nin extent of dominion, superior in revenue) to the Elector of Bavaria.\nThe polygars and the Northern zemindars, and other great chiefs, might\nwell class with the rest of the princes, dukes, counts, marquises, and\nbishops in the Empire; all of whom I mention to honor, and surely\nwithout disparagement to any or all of those most respectable princes\nand grandees.\n\nAll this vast mass, composed of so many orders and classes of men, is\nagain infinitely diversified by manners, by religion, by hereditary\nemployment, through all their possible combinations. This renders the\nhandling of India a matter in an high degree critical and delicate. But,\noh, it has been handled rudely indeed! Even some of the reformers seem\nto have forgot that they had anything to do but to regulate the tenants\nof a manor, or the shopkeepers of the next county town.\n\nIt is an empire of this extent, of this complicated nature, of this\ndignity and importance, that I have compared to Germany and the German\ngovernment,--not for an exact resemblance, but as a sort of a middle\nterm, by which India might be approximated to our understandings, and,\nif possible, to our feelings, in order to awaken something of sympathy\nfor the unfortunate natives, of which I am afraid we are not perfectly\nsusceptible, whilst we look at this very remote object through a false\nand cloudy medium.\n\nMy second condition necessary to justify me in touching the charter is,\nwhether the Company's abuse of their trust with regard to this great\nobject be an abuse of great atrocity. I shall beg your permission to\nconsider their conduct in two lights: first the political, and then the\ncommercial. Their political conduct (for distinctness) I divide again\ninto two heads: the external, in which I mean to comprehend their\nconduct in their federal capacity, as it relates to powers and states\nindependent, or that not long since were such; the other\ninternal,--namely, their conduct to the countries, either immediately\nsubject to the Company, or to those who, under the apparent government\nof native sovereigns, are in a state much lower and much more miserable\nthan common subjection.\n\nThe attention, Sir, which I wish to preserve to method will not be\nconsidered as unnecessary or affected. Nothing else can help me to\nselection out of the infinite mass of materials which have passed under\nmy eye, or can keep my mind steady to the great leading points I have in\nview.\n\nWith regard, therefore, to the abuse of the external federal trust, I\nengage myself to you to make good these three positions. First, I say,\nthat from Mount Imaus, (or whatever else you call that large range of\nmountains that walls the northern frontier of India,) where it touches\nus in the latitude of twenty-nine, to Cape Comorin, in the latitude of\neight, that there is not a _single_ prince, state, or potentate, great\nor small, in India, with whom they have come into contact, whom they\nhave not sold: I say _sold_, though sometimes they have not been able to\ndeliver according to their bargain. Secondly, I say, that there is not a\n_single treaty_ they have ever made which they have not broken. Thirdly,\nI say, that there is not a single prince or state, who ever put any\ntrust in the Company, who is not utterly ruined; and that none are in\nany degree secure or flourishing, but in the exact proportion to their\nsettled distrust and irreconcilable enmity to this nation.\n\nThese assertions are universal: I say, in the full sense, _universal_.\nThey regard the external and political trust only; but I shall produce\nothers fully equivalent in the internal. For the present, I shall\ncontent myself with explaining my meaning; and if I am called on for\nproof, whilst these bills are depending, (which I believe I shall not,)\nI will put my finger on the appendixes to the Reports, or on papers of\nrecord in the House or the Committees, which I have distinctly present\nto my memory, and which I think I can lay before you at half an hour's\nwarning.\n\nThe first potentate sold by the Company for money was the Great\nMogul,--the descendant of Tamerlane. This high personage, as high as\nhuman veneration can look at, is by every account amiable in his\nmanners, respectable for his piety, according to his mode, and\naccomplished in all the Oriental literature. All this, and the title\nderived under his _charter_ to all that we hold in India, could not save\nhim from the general _sale_. Money is coined in his name; in his name\njustice is administered; he is prayed for in every temple through the\ncountries we possess;--but he was sold.\n\nIt is impossible, Mr. Speaker, not to pause here for a moment, to\nreflect on the inconstancy of human greatness, and the stupendous\nrevolutions that have happened in our age of wonders. Could it be\nbelieved, when I entered into existence, or when you, a younger man,\nwere born, that on this day, in this House, we should be employed in\ndiscussing the conduct of those British subjects who had disposed of the\npower and person of the Grand Mogul? This is no idle speculation. Awful\nlessons are taught by it, and by other events, of which it is not yet\ntoo late to profit.\n\nThis is hardly a digression: but I return to the sale of the Mogul. Two\ndistricts, Corah and Allahabad, out of his immense grants, were reserved\nas a royal demesne to the donor of a kingdom, and the rightful sovereign\nof so many nations.--After withholding the tribute of 260,000_l._ a\nyear, which the Company was, by the _charter_ they had received from\nthis prince, under the most solemn obligation to pay, these districts\nwere sold to his chief minister, Sujah ul Dowlah; and what may appear to\nsome the worst part of the transaction, these two districts were sold\nfor scarcely two years' purchase. The descendant of Tamerlane now stands\nin need almost of the common necessaries of life; and in this situation\nwe do not even allow him, as bounty, the smallest portion of what we owe\nhim in justice.\n\nThe next sale was that of the whole nation of the Rohillas, which the\ngrand salesman, without a pretence of quarrel, and contrary to his own\ndeclared sense of duty and rectitude, sold to the same Sujah ul Dowlah.\nHe sold the people to utter _extirpation_, for the sum of four hundred\nthousand pounds. Faithfully was the bargain performed on our side. Hafiz\nRhamet, the most eminent of their chiefs, one of the bravest men of his\ntime, and as famous throughout the East for the elegance of his\nliterature and the spirit of his poetical compositions (by which he\nsupported the name of Hafiz) as for his courage, was invaded with an\narmy of an hundred thousand men, and an English brigade. This man, at\nthe head of inferior forces, was slain valiantly fighting for his\ncountry. His head was cut off, and delivered for money to a barbarian.\nHis wife and children, persons of that rank, were seen begging an\nhandful of rice through the English camp. The whole nation, with\ninconsiderable exceptions, was slaughtered or banished. The country was\nlaid waste with fire and sword; and that land, distinguished above most\nothers by the cheerful face of paternal government and protected labor,\nthe chosen seat of cultivation and plenty, is now almost throughout a\ndreary desert, covered with rushes, and briers, and jungles full of wild\nbeasts.\n\nThe British officer who commanded in the delivery of the people thus\nsold felt some compunction at his employment. He represented these\nenormous excesses to the President of Bengal, for which he received a\nsevere reprimand from the civil governor; and I much doubt whether the\nbreach caused by the conflict between the compassion of the military and\nthe firmness of the civil governor be closed at this hour.\n\nIn Bengal, Surajah Dowlah was sold to Mir Jaffier; Mir Jaffier was sold\nto Mir Cossim; and Mir Cossim was sold to Mir Jaffier again. The\nsuccession to Mir Jaffier was sold to his eldest son;--another son of\nMir Jaffier, Mobarech ul Dowlah, was sold to his step-mother. The\nMahratta Empire was sold to Ragobah; and Ragobah was sold and delivered\nto the Peishwa of the Mahrattas. Both Ragobah and the Peishwa of the\nMahrattas were offered to sale to the Rajah of Berar. Scindia, the chief\nof Malwa, was offered to sale to the same Rajah; and the Subah of the\nDeccan was sold to the great trader, Mahomet Ali, Nabob of Arcot. To the\nsame Nabob of Arcot they sold Hyder Ali and the kingdom of Mysore. To\nMahomet Ali they twice sold the kingdom of Tanjore. To the same Mahomet\nAli they sold at least twelve sovereign princes, called the Polygars.\nBut to keep things even, the territory of Tinnevelly, belonging to their\nnabob, they would have sold to the Dutch; and to conclude the account of\nsales, their great customer, the Nabob of Arcot himself, and his lawful\nsuccession, has been sold to his second son, Amir ul Omrah, whose\ncharacter, views, and conduct are in the accounts upon your table. It\nremains with you whether they shall finally perfect this last bargain.\n\nAll these bargains and sales were regularly attended with the waste and\nhavoc of the country,--always by the buyer, and sometimes by the object\nof the sale. This was explained to you by the honorable mover, when he\nstated the mode of paying debts due from the country powers to the\nCompany. An honorable gentleman, who is not now in his place, objected\nto his jumping near two thousand miles for an example. But the southern\nexample is perfectly applicable to the northern claim, as the northern\nis to the southern; for, throughout the whole space of these two\nthousand miles, take your stand where you will, the proceeding is\nperfectly uniform, and what is done in one part will apply exactly to\nthe other.\n\nMy second assertion is, that the Company never has made a treaty which\nthey have not broken. This position is so connected with that of the\nsales of provinces and kingdoms, with the negotiation of universal\ndistraction in every part of India, that a very minute detail may well\nbe spared on this point. It has not yet been contended, by any enemy to\nthe reform, that they have observed any public agreement. When I hear\nthat they have done so in any one instance, (which hitherto, I confess,\nI never heard alleged,) I shall speak to the particular treaty. The\nGovernor General has even amused himself and the Court of Directors in\na very singular letter to that board, in which he admits he has not been\nvery delicate with regard to public faith; and he goes so far as to\nstate a regular estimate of the sums which the Company would have lost,\nor never acquired, if the rigid ideas of public faith entertained by his\ncolleagues had been observed. The learned gentleman[55] over against me\nhas, indeed, saved me much trouble. On a former occasion, he obtained no\nsmall credit for the clear and forcible manner in which he stated, what\nwe have not forgot, and I hope he has not forgot, that universal,\nsystematic breach of treaties which had made the British faith\nproverbial in the East.\n\nIt only remains, Sir, for me just to recapitulate some heads.--The\ntreaty with the Mogul, by which we stipulated to pay him 260,000_l._\nannually, was broken. This treaty they have broken, and not paid him a\nshilling. They broke their treaty with him, in which they stipulated to\npay 400,000_l._ a year to the Subah of Bengal. They agreed with the\nMogul, for services admitted to have been performed, to pay Nudjif Cawn\na pension. They broke this article with the rest, and stopped also this\nsmall pension. They broke their treaties with the Nizam, and with Hyder\nAli. As to the Mahrattas, they had so many cross treaties with the\nstates-general of that nation, and with each of the chiefs, that it was\nnotorious that no one of these agreements could be kept without grossly\nviolating the rest. It was observed, that, if the terms of these several\ntreaties had been kept, two British armies would at one and the same\ntime have met in the field to cut each other's throats. The wars which\ndesolate India originated from a most atrocious violation of public\nfaith on our part. In the midst of profound peace, the Company's troops\ninvaded the Mahratta territories, and surprised the island and fortress\nof Salsette. The Mahrattas nevertheless yielded to a treaty of peace by\nwhich solid advantages were procured to the Company. But this treaty,\nlike every other treaty, was soon violated by the Company. Again the\nCompany invaded the Mahratta dominions. The disaster that ensued gave\noccasion to a new treaty. The whole army of the Company was obliged in\neffect to surrender to this injured, betrayed, and insulted people.\nJustly irritated, however, as they were, the terms which they prescribed\nwere reasonable and moderate, and their treatment of their captive\ninvaders of the most distinguished humanity. But the humanity of the\nMahrattas was of no power whatsoever to prevail on the Company to attend\nto the observance of the terms dictated by their moderation. The war was\nrenewed with greater vigor than ever; and such was their insatiable lust\nof plunder, that they never would have given ear to any terms of peace,\nif Hyder Ali had not broke through the Ghauts, and, rushing like a\ntorrent into the Carnatic, swept away everything in his career. This was\nin consequence of that confederacy which by a sort of miracle united the\nmost discordant powers for our destruction, as a nation in which no\nother could put any trust, and who were the declared enemies of the\nhuman species.\n\nIt is very remarkable that the late controversy between the several\npresidencies, and between them and the Court of Directors, with relation\nto these wars and treaties, has not been, which of the parties might be\ndefended for his share in them, but on which of the parties the guilt\nof all this load of perfidy should be fixed. But I am content to admit\nall these proceedings to be perfectly regular, to be full of honor and\ngood faith; and wish to fix your attention solely to that single\ntransaction which the advocates of this system select for so\ntranscendent a merit as to cancel the guilt of all the rest of their\nproceedings: I mean the late treaties with the Mahrattas.\n\nI make no observation on the total cession of territory, by which they\nsurrendered all they had obtained by their unhappy successes in war, and\nalmost all they had obtained under the treaty of Poorunder. The\nrestitution was proper, if it had been voluntary and seasonable. I\nattach on the spirit of the treaty, the dispositions it showed, the\nprovisions it made for a general peace, and the faith kept with allies\nand confederates,--in order that the House may form a judgment, from\nthis chosen piece, of the use which has been made (and is likely to be\nmade, if things continue in the same hands) of the trust of the federal\npowers of this country.\n\nIt was the wish of almost every Englishman that the Mahratta peace might\nlead to a general one; because the Mahratta war was only a part of a\ngeneral confederacy formed against us, on account of the universal\nabhorrence of our conduct which prevailed in every state, and almost in\nevery house in India. Mr. Hastings was obliged to pretend some sort of\nacquiescence in this general and rational desire. He therefore\nconsented, in order to satisfy the point of honor of the Mahrattas, that\nan article should be inserted to admit Hyder Ali to accede to the\npacification. But observe, Sir, the spirit of this man,--which, if it\nwere not made manifest by a thousand things, and particularly by his\nproceedings with regard to Lord Macartney, would be sufficiently\nmanifest by this. What sort of article, think you, does he require this\nessential head of a solemn treaty of general pacification to be? In his\ninstruction to Mr. Anderson, he desires him to admit \"a _vague_ article\"\nin favor of Hyder. Evasion and fraud were the declared basis of the\ntreaty. These _vague_ articles, intended for a more vague performance,\nare the things which have damned our reputation in India.\n\nHardly was this vague article inserted, than, without waiting for any\nact on the part of Hyder, Mr. Hastings enters into a negotiation with\nthe Mahratta chief, Scindia, for a partition of the territories of the\nprince who was one of the objects to be secured by the treaty. He was to\nbe parcelled out in three parts: one to Scindia; one to the Peishwa of\nthe Mahrattas; and the third to the East India Company, or to (the old\ndealer and chapman) Mahomet Ali.\n\nDuring the formation of this project, Hyder dies; and before his son\ncould take any one step, either to conform to the tenor of the article\nor to contravene it, the treaty of partition is renewed on the old\nfooting, and an instruction is sent to Mr. Anderson to conclude it in\nform.\n\nA circumstance intervened, during the pendency of this negotiation, to\nset off the good faith of the Company with an additional brilliancy, and\nto make it sparkle and glow with a variety of splendid faces. General\nMatthews had reduced that most valuable part of Hyder's dominions called\nthe country of Biddanore. When the news reached Mr. Hastings, he\ninstructed Mr. Anderson to contend for an alteration in the treaty of\npartition, and to take the Biddanore country out of the common stock\nwhich was to be divided, and to keep it for the Company.\n\nThe first ground for this variation was its being a separate conquest\nmade before the treaty had actually taken place. Here was a new proof\ngiven of the fairness, equity, and moderation of the Company. But the\nsecond of Mr. Hastings's reasons for retaining the Biddanore as a\nseparate portion, and his conduct on that second ground, is still more\nremarkable. He asserted that that country could not be put into the\npartition stock, because General Matthews had received it on the terms\nof some convention which might be incompatible with the partition\nproposed. This was a reason in itself both honorable and solid; and it\nshowed a regard to faith somewhere, and with some persons. But in order\nto demonstrate his utter contempt of the plighted faith which was\nalleged on one part as a reason for departing from it on another, and to\nprove his impetuous desire for sowing a new war even in the prepared\nsoil of a general pacification, he directs Mr. Anderson, if he should\nfind strong difficulties impeding the partition on the score of the\nsubtraction of Biddanore, wholly to abandon that claim, and to conclude\nthe treaty on the original terms. General Matthews's convention was just\nbrought forward sufficiently to demonstrate to the Mahrattas the\nslippery hold which they had on their new confederate; on the other\nhand, that convention being instantly abandoned, the people of India\nwere taught that no terms on which they can surrender to the Company are\nto be regarded, when farther conquests are in view.\n\nNext, Sir, let me bring before you the pious care that was taken of our\nallies under that treaty which is the subject of the Company's\napplauses. These allies were Ragonaut Row, for whom we had engaged to\nfind a throne; the Guickwar, (one of the Guzerat princes,) who was to be\nemancipated from the Mahratta authority, and to grow great by several\naccessions of dominion; and, lastly, the Rana of Gohud, with whom we had\nentered into a treaty of partition for eleven sixteenths of our joint\nconquests. Some of these inestimable securities called _vague_ articles\nwere inserted in favor of them all.\n\nAs to the first, the unhappy abdicated Peishwa, and pretender to the\nMahratta throne, Ragonaut Row, was delivered up to his people, with an\narticle for safety, and some provision. This man, knowing how little\nvague the hatred of his countrymen was towards him, and well apprised of\nwhat black crimes he stood accused, (among which our invasion of his\ncountry would not appear the least,) took a mortal alarm at the security\nwe had provided for him. He was thunderstruck at the article in his\nfavor, by which he was surrendered to his enemies. He never had the\nleast notice of the treaty; and it was apprehended that he would fly to\nthe protection of Hyder Ali, or some other, disposed or able to protect\nhim. He was therefore not left without comfort; for Mr. Anderson did him\nthe favor to send a special messenger, desiring him to be of good cheer\nand to fear nothing. And his old enemy, Scindia, at our request, sent\nhim a message equally well calculated to quiet his apprehensions.\n\nBy the same treaty the Guickwar was to come again, with no better\nsecurity, under the dominion of the Mahratta state. As to the Rana of\nGohud, a long negotiation depended for giving him up. At first this was\nrefused by Mr. Hastings with great indignation; at another stage it was\nadmitted as proper, because he had shown himself a most perfidious\nperson. But at length a method of reconciling these extremes was found\nout, by contriving one of the usual articles in his favor. What I\nbelieve will appear beyond all belief, Mr. Anderson exchanged the final\nratifications of that treaty by which the Rana was nominally secured in\nhis possessions, in the camp of the Mahratta chief, Scindia, whilst he\nwas (really, and not nominally) battering the castle of Gwalior, which\nwe had given, agreeably to treaty, to this deluded ally. Scindia had\nalready reduced the town, and was at the very time, by various\ndetachments, reducing, one after another, the fortresses of our\nprotected ally, as well as in the act of chastising all the rajahs who\nhad assisted Colonel Camac in his invasion. I have seen in a letter from\nCalcutta, that the Rana of Gohud's agent would have represented these\nhostilities (which went hand in hand with the protecting treaty) to Mr.\nHastings, but he was not admitted to his presence.\n\nIn this manner the Company has acted with their allies in the Mahratta\nwar. But they did not rest here. The Mahrattas were fearful lest the\npersons delivered to them by that treaty should attempt to escape into\nthe British territories, and thus might elude the punishment intended\nfor them, and, by reclaiming the treaty, might stir up new disturbances.\nTo prevent this, they desired an article to be inserted in the\nsupplemental treaty, to which they had the ready consent of Mr.\nHastings, and the rest of the Company's representatives in Bengal. It\nwas this: \"That the English and Mahratta governments mutually agree not\nto afford refuge to any _chiefs, merchants, or other persons_, flying\nfor protection to the territories of the other.\" This was readily\nassented to, and assented to without any exception whatever in favor of\nour surrendered allies. On their part a reciprocity was stipulated which\nwas not unnatural for a government like the Company's to ask,--a\ngovernment conscious that many subjects had been, and would in future\nbe, driven to fly from its jurisdiction.\n\nTo complete the system of pacific intention and public faith which\npredominate in those treaties, Mr. Hastings fairly resolved to put all\npeace, except on the terms of absolute conquest, wholly out of his own\npower. For, by an article in this second treaty with Scindia, he binds\nthe Company not to make any peace with Tippoo Sahib without the consent\nof the Peishwa of the Mahrattas, and binds Scindia to him by a\nreciprocal engagement. The treaty between France and England obliges us\nmutually to withdraw our forces, if our allies in India do not accede to\nthe peace within four months; Mr. Hastings's treaty obliges us to\ncontinue the war as long as the Peishwa thinks fit. We are now in that\nhappy situation, that the breach of the treaty with France, or the\nviolation of that with the Mahrattas, is inevitable; and we have only to\ntake our choice.\n\nMy third assertion, relative to the abuse made of the right of war and\npeace, is, that there are none who have ever confided in us who have not\nbeen utterly ruined. The examples I have given of Ragonaut Row, of\nGuickwar, of the Rana of Gohud, are recent. There is proof more than\nenough in the condition of the Mogul,--in the slavery and indigence of\nthe Nabob of Oude,--the exile of the Rajah of Benares,--the beggary of\nthe Nabob of Bengal,--the undone and captive condition of the Rajah and\nkingdom of Tanjore,--the destruction of the Polygars,--and, lastly, in\nthe destruction of the Nabob of Arcot himself, who, when his dominions\nwere invaded, was found entirely destitute of troops, provisions,\nstores, and (as he asserts) of money, being a million in debt to the\nCompany, and four millions to others: the many millions which he had\nextorted from so many extirpated princes and their desolated countries\nhaving (as he has frequently hinted) been expended for the ground-rent\nof his mansion-house in an alley in the suburbs of Madras. Compare the\ncondition of all these princes with the power and authority of all the\nMahratta states, with the independence and dignity of the Subah of the\nDeccan, and the mighty strength, the resources, and the manly struggle\nof Hyder Ali,--and then the House will discover the effects, on every\npower in India, of an easy confidence or of a rooted distrust in the\nfaith of the Company.\n\nThese are some of my reasons, grounded on the abuse of the external\npolitical trust of that body, for thinking myself not only justified,\nbut bound, to declare against those chartered rights which produce so\nmany wrongs. I should deem myself the wickedest of men, if any vote of\nmine could contribute to the continuance of so great an evil.\n\nNow, Sir, according to the plan I proposed, I shall take notice of the\nCompany's internal government, as it is exercised first on the dependent\nprovinces, and then as it affects those under the direct and immediate\nauthority of that body. And here, Sir, before I enter into the spirit of\ntheir interior government, permit me to observe to you upon a few of the\nmany lines of difference which are to be found between the vices of the\nCompany's government and those of the conquerors who preceded us in\nIndia, that we may be enabled a little the better to see our way in an\nattempt to the necessary reformation.\n\nThe several irruptions of Arabs, Tartars, and Persians into India were,\nfor the greater part, ferocious, bloody, and wasteful in the extreme:\nour entrance into the dominion of that country was, as generally, with\nsmall comparative effusion of blood,--being introduced by various frauds\nand delusions, and by taking advantage of the incurable, blind, and\nsenseless animosity which the several country powers bear towards each\nother, rather than by open force. But the difference in favor of the\nfirst conquerors is this. The Asiatic conquerors very soon abated of\ntheir ferocity, because they made the conquered country their own. They\nrose or fell with the rise or fall of the territory they lived in.\nFathers there deposited the hopes of their posterity; and children there\nbeheld the monuments of their fathers. Here their lot was finally cast;\nand it is the natural wish of all that their lot should not be cast in a\nbad land. Poverty, sterility, and desolation are not a recreating\nprospect to the eye of man; and there are very few who can bear to grow\nold among the curses of a whole people. If their passion or their\navarice drove the Tartar lords to acts of rapacity or tyranny, there was\ntime enough, even in the short life of man, to bring round the ill\neffects of an abuse of power upon the power itself. If hoards were made\nby violence and tyranny, they were still domestic hoards; and domestic\nprofusion, or the rapine of a more powerful and prodigal hand, restored\nthem to the people. With many disorders, and with few political checks\nupon power, Nature had still fair play; the sources of acquisition were\nnot dried up; and therefore the trade, the manufactures, and the\ncommerce of the country flourished. Even avarice and usury itself\noperated both for the preservation and the employment of national\nwealth. The husbandman and manufacturer paid heavy interest, but then\nthey augmented the fund from whence they were again to borrow. Their\nresources were dearly bought, but they were sure; and the general stock\nof the community grew by the general effort.\n\nBut under the English government all this order is reversed. The Tartar\ninvasion was mischievous; but it is our protection that destroys India.\nIt was their enmity; but it is our friendship. Our conquest there, after\ntwenty years, is as crude as it was the first day. The natives scarcely\nknow what it is to see the gray head of an Englishman. Young men (boys\nalmost) govern there, without society and without sympathy with the\nnatives. They have no more social habits with the people than if they\nstill resided in England,--nor, indeed, any species of intercourse, but\nthat which is necessary to making a sudden fortune, with a view to a\nremote settlement. Animated with all the avarice of age and all the\nimpetuosity of youth, they roll in one after another, wave after wave;\nand there is nothing before the eyes of the natives but an endless,\nhopeless prospect of new flights of birds of prey and passage, with\nappetites continually renewing for a food that is continually wasting.\nEvery rupee of profit made by an Englishman is lost forever to India.\nWith us are no retributory superstitions, by which a foundation of\ncharity compensates, through ages, to the poor, for the rapine and\ninjustice of a day. With us no pride erects stately monuments which\nrepair the mischiefs which pride had produced, and which adorn a country\nout of its own spoils. England has erected no churches, no\nhospitals,[56] no palaces, no schools; England has built no bridges,\nmade no high-roads, cut no navigations, dug out no reservoirs. Every\nother conqueror of every other description has left some monument,\neither of state or beneficence, behind him. Were we to be driven out of\nIndia this day, nothing would remain to tell that it had been possessed,\nduring the inglorious period of our dominion, by anything better than\nthe orang-outang or the tiger.\n\nThere is nothing in the boys we send to India worse than in the boys\nwhom we are whipping at school, or that we see trailing a pike or\nbending over a desk at home. But as English youth in India drink the\nintoxicating draught of authority and dominion before their heads are\nable to bear it, and as they are full grown in fortune long before they\nare ripe in principle, neither Nature nor reason have any opportunity to\nexert themselves for remedy of the excesses of their premature power.\nThe consequences of their conduct, which in good minds (and many of\ntheirs are probably such) might produce penitence or amendment, are\nunable to pursue the rapidity of their flight. Their prey is lodged in\nEngland; and the cries of India are given to seas and winds, to be blown\nabout, in every breaking up of the monsoon, over a remote and unhearing\nocean. In India all the vices operate by which sudden fortune is\nacquired: in England are often displayed, by the same persons, the\nvirtues which dispense hereditary wealth. Arrived in England, the\ndestroyers of the nobility and gentry of a whole kingdom will find the\nbest company in this nation at a board of elegance and hospitality. Here\nthe manufacturer and husbandman will bless the just and punctual hand\nthat in India has torn the cloth from the loom, or wrested the scanty\nportion of rice and salt from the peasant of Bengal, or wrung from him\nthe very opium in which he forgot his oppressions and his oppressor.\nThey marry into your families; they enter into your senate; they ease\nyour estates by loans; they raise their value by demand; they cherish\nand protect your relations which lie heavy on your patronage; and there\nis scarcely an house in the kingdom that does not feel some concern and\ninterest that makes all reform of our Eastern government appear\nofficious and disgusting, and, on the whole, a most discouraging\nattempt. In such an attempt you hurt those who are able to return\nkindness or to resent injury. If you succeed, you save those who cannot\nso much as give you thanks. All these things show the difficulty of the\nwork we have on hand: but they show its necessity, too. Our Indian\ngovernment is in its best state a grievance. It is necessary that the\ncorrectives should be uncommonly vigorous, and the work of men sanguine,\nwarm, and even impassioned in the cause. But it is an arduous thing to\nplead against abuses of a power which originates from your own country,\nand affects those whom we are used to consider as strangers.\n\nI shall certainly endeavor to modulate myself to this temper; though I\nam sensible that a cold style of describing actions, which appear to me\nin a very affecting light, is equally contrary to the justice due to\nthe people and to all genuine human feelings about them. I ask pardon of\ntruth and Nature for this compliance. But I shall be very sparing of\nepithets either to persons or things. It has been said, (and, with\nregard to one of them, with truth,) that Tacitus and Machiavel, by their\ncold way of relating enormous crimes, have in some sort appeared not to\ndisapprove them; that they seem a sort of professors of the art of\ntyranny; and that they corrupt the minds of their readers by not\nexpressing the detestation and horror that naturally belong to horrible\nand detestable proceedings. But we are in general, Sir, so little\nacquainted with Indian details, the instruments of oppression under\nwhich the people suffer are so hard to be understood, and even the very\nnames of the sufferers are so uncouth and strange to our ears, that it\nis very difficult for our sympathy to fix upon these objects. I am sure\nthat some of us have come down stairs from the committee-room with\nimpressions on our minds which to us were the inevitable results of our\ndiscoveries, yet, if we should venture to express ourselves in the\nproper language of our sentiments to other gentlemen not at all prepared\nto enter into the cause of them, nothing could appear more harsh and\ndissonant, more violent and unaccountable, than our language and\nbehavior. All these circumstances are not, I confess, very favorable to\nthe idea of our attempting to govern India at all. But there we are;\nthere we are placed by the Sovereign Disposer; and we must do the best\nwe can in our situation. The situation of man is the preceptor of his\nduty.\n\nUpon the plan which I laid down, and to which I beg leave to return, I\nwas considering the conduct of the Company to those nations which are\nindirectly subject to their authority. The most considerable of the\ndependent princes is the Nabob of Oude. My right honorable friend,[57]\nto whom we owe the remedial bills on your table, has already pointed out\nto you, in one of the reports, the condition of that prince, and as it\nstood in the time he alluded to. I shall only add a few circumstances\nthat may tend to awaken some sense of the manner in which the condition\nof the people is affected by that of the prince, and involved in\nit,--and to show you, that, when we talk of the sufferings of princes,\nwe do not lament the oppression of individuals,--and that in these cases\nthe high and the low suffer together.\n\nIn the year 1779, the Nabob of Oude represented, through the British\nresident at his court, that the number of Company's troops stationed in\nhis dominions was a main cause of his distress,--and that all those\nwhich he was not bound by treaty to maintain should be withdrawn, as\nthey had greatly diminished his revenue and impoverished his country. I\nwill read you, if you please, a few extracts from these representations.\n\nHe states, \"that the country and cultivation are abandoned, and this\nyear in particular, from the excessive drought of the season, deductions\nof many lacs having been allowed to the farmers, who are still left\nunsatisfied\"; and then he proceeds with a long detail of his own\ndistress, and that of his family and all his dependants; and adds, \"that\nthe new-raised brigade is not only quite useless to my government, but\nis, moreover, the cause of much loss both in revenues and customs. The\ndetached body of troops under European officers bring nothing _but\nconfusion to the affairs of my government, and are entirely their own\nmasters_.\" Mr. Middleton, Mr. Hastings's confidential resident, vouches\nfor the truth of this representation in its fullest extent. \"I am\nconcerned to confess that there is too good ground for this plea. _The\nmisfortune hat been general throughout the whole of the vizier's_ [the\nNabob of Oude] _dominions_, obvious to everybody; and so _fatal_ have\nbeen its consequences, that no person of either credit or character\nwould enter into engagements with government for farming the country.\"\nHe then proceeds to give strong instances of the general calamity, and\nits effects.\n\nIt was now to be seen what steps the Governor-General and Council took\nfor the relief of this distressed country, long laboring under the\nvexations of men, and now stricken by the hand of God. The case of a\ngeneral famine is known to relax the severity even of the most rigorous\ngovernment.--Mr. Hastings does not deny or show the least doubt of the\nfact. The representation is humble, and almost abject. On this\nrepresentation from a great prince of the distress of his subjects, Mr.\nHastings falls into a violent passion,--such as (it seems) would be\nunjustifiable in any one who speaks of any part of _his_ conduct. He\ndeclares \"that the _demands_, the _tone_ in which they were asserted,\nand the _season_ in which they were made, are all equally alarming, and\nappear to him to require an adequate degree of firmness in this board in\n_opposition_ to them.\" He proceeds to deal out very unreserved language\non the person and character of the Nabob and his ministers. He declares,\nthat, in a division between him and the Nabob, \"_the strongest must\ndecide_.\" With regard to the urgent and instant necessity from the\nfailure of the crops, he says, \"that _perhaps_ expedients _may be found_\nfor affording a _gradual_ relief from the burden of which he so heavily\ncomplains, and it shall be my endeavor to seek them out\": and lest he\nshould be suspected of too much haste to alleviate sufferings and to\nremove violence, he says, \"that these must be _gradually_ applied, and\ntheir complete _effect_ may be _distant_; and this, I conceive, _is all_\nhe can claim of right.\"\n\nThis complete effect of his lenity is distant indeed. Rejecting this\ndemand, (as he calls the Nabob's abject supplication,) he attributes it,\nas he usually does all things of the kind, to the division in their\ngovernment, and says, \"This is a powerful motive with _me_ (however\ninclined I might be, _upon any other occasion_, to yield to some _part_\nof his demand) to give them an _absolute and unconditional refusal_ upon\nthe present,--and even _to bring to punishment, if my influence can\nproduce that effect, those incendiaries who have endeavored to make\nthemselves the instruments of division between us_.\"\n\nHere, Sir, is much heat and passion,--but no more consideration of the\ndistress of the country, from a failure of the means of subsistence, and\n(if possible) the worse evil of an useless and licentious soldiery, than\nif they were the most contemptible of all trifles. A letter is written,\nin consequence, in such a style of lofty despotism as I believe has\nhitherto been unexampled and unheard of in the records of the East. The\ntroops were continued. The _gradual_ relief, whose effect was to be so\n_distant_, has _never_ been substantially and beneficially applied,--and\nthe country is ruined.\n\nMr. Hastings, two years after, when it was too late, saw the absolute\nnecessity of a removal of the intolerable grievance of this licentious\nsoldiery, which, under pretence of defending it, held the country under\nmilitary execution. A new treaty and arrangement, according to the\npleasure of Mr. Hastings, took place; and this new treaty was broken in\nthe old manner, in every essential article. The soldiery were again\nsent, and again set loose. The effect of all his manoeuvres, from which\nit seems he was sanguine enough to entertain hopes, upon the state of\nthe country, he himself informs us,--\"The event has proved the _reverse_\nof these hopes, and _accumulation of distress, debasement, and\ndissatisfaction_ to the Nabob, and _disappointment and disgrace to\nme_.--Every measure [which he had himself proposed] has been _so\nconducted_ as to give him cause of displeasure. There are no officers\nestablished by which his affairs could be regularly conducted: mean,\nincapable, and indigent men have been appointed. A number of the\ndistricts without authority, and without the means of personal\nprotection; some of them have been murdered by the zemindars, and those\nzemindars, instead of punishment, have been permitted to retain their\nzemindaries, with independent authority; _all_ the other zemindars\nsuffered to rise up in rebellion, and to insult the authority of the\nsircar, without any attempt made to suppress them; and the Company's\ndebt, instead of being discharged by the assignments and extraordinary\nsources of money provided for that _purpose, is likely to exceed even\nthe amount at which it stood at the time in which the arrangement with\nhis Excellency was concluded_.\" The House will smile at the resource on\nwhich the Directors take credit as such a certainty in their curious\naccount.\n\nThis is Mr. Hastings's own narrative of the effects of his own\nsettlement. This is the state of the country which we have been told is\nin perfect peace and order; and, what is curious, he informs us, that\n_every part of this was foretold to him in the order and manner in which\nit happened_, at the very time he made his arrangement of men and\nmeasures.\n\nThe invariable course of the Company's policy is this: either they set\nup some prince too odious to maintain himself without the necessity of\ntheir assistance, or they soon render him odious by making him the\ninstrument of their government. In that case troops are bountifully sent\nto him to maintain his authority. That he should have no want of\nassistance, a civil gentleman, called a Resident, is kept at his court,\nwho, under pretence of providing duly for the pay of these troops, gets\nassignments on the revenue into his hands. Under his provident\nmanagement, debts soon accumulate; new assignments are made for these\ndebts; until, step by step, the whole revenue, and with it the whole\npower of the country, is delivered into his hands. The military do not\nbehold without a virtuous emulation the moderate gains of the civil\ndepartment. They feel that in a country driven to habitual rebellion by\nthe civil government the military is necessary; and they will not permit\ntheir services to go unrewarded. Tracts of country are delivered over to\ntheir discretion. Then it is found proper to convert their commanding\nofficers into farmers of revenue. Thus, between the well-paid civil and\nwell-rewarded military establishment, the situation of the natives may\nbe easily conjectured. The authority of the regular and lawful\ngovernment is everywhere and in every point extinguished. Disorders and\nviolences arise; they are repressed by other disorders and other\nviolences. Wherever the collectors of the revenue and the farming\ncolonels and majors move, ruin is about them, rebellion before and\nbehind them. The people in crowds fly out of the country; and the\nfrontier is guarded by lines of troops, not to exclude an enemy, but to\nprevent the escape of the inhabitants.\n\nBy these means, in the course of not more than four or five years, this\nonce opulent and flourishing country, which, by the accounts given in\nthe Bengal consultations, yielded more than three crore of sicca rupees,\nthat is, above three millions sterling, annually, is reduced, as far as\nI can discover, in a matter purposely involved in the utmost perplexity,\nto less than one million three hundred thousand pounds, and that exacted\nby every mode of rigor that can be devised. To complete the business,\nmost of the wretched remnants of this revenue are mortgaged, and\ndelivered into the hands of the usurers at Benares (for there alone are\nto be found some lingering remains of the ancient wealth of these\nregions) at an interest of near _thirty per cent per annum_.\n\nThe revenues in this manner failing, they seized upon the estates of\nevery person of eminence in the country, and, under the name of\n_resumption_, confiscated their property. I wish, Sir, to be understood\nuniversally and literally, when I assert that there is not left one man\nof property and substance for his rank in the whole of these provinces,\nin provinces which are nearly the extent of England and Wales taken\ntogether: not one landholder, not one banker, not one merchant, not one\neven of those who usually perish last, the _ultimum moriens_ in a ruined\nstate, not one farmer of revenue.\n\nOne country for a while remained, which stood as an island in the midst\nof the grand waste of the Company's dominion. My right honorable friend,\nin his admirable speech on moving the bill, just touched the situation,\nthe offences, and the punishment of a native prince, called Fizulla\nKhan. This man, by policy and force, had protected himself from the\ngeneral extirpation of the Rohilla chiefs. He was secured (if that were\nany security) by a treaty. It was stated to you, as it was stated by the\nenemies of that unfortunate man, \"that the whole of his country _is_\nwhat the whole country of the Rohillas _was_, cultivated like a garden,\nwithout one neglected spot in it.\" Another accuser says,--\"Fyzoolah\nKhan, though a bad soldier, [that is the true source of his misfortune,]\nhas approved himself a good aumil,--having, it is supposed, in the\ncourse of a few years, at least _doubled_ the population and revenue of\nhis country.\" In another part of the correspondence he is charged with\nmaking his country an asylum for the oppressed peasants who fly from the\nterritories of Oude. The improvement of his revenue, arising from this\nsingle crime, (which Mr. Hastings considers as tantamount to treason,)\nis stated at an hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year.\n\nDr. Swift somewhere says, that he who could make two blades of grass\ngrow where but one grew before was a greater benefactor to the human\nrace than all the politicians that ever existed. This prince, who would\nhave been deified by antiquity, who would have been ranked with Osiris,\nand Bacchus, and Ceres, and the divinities most propitious to men, was,\nfor those very merits, by name attacked by the Company's government, as\na cheat, a robber, a traitor. In the same breath in which he was\naccused as a rebel, he was ordered at once to furnish five thousand\nhorse. On delay, or (according to the technical phrase, when any\nremonstrance is made to them) \"_on evasion_,\" he was declared a violator\nof treaties, and everything he had was to be taken from him. Not one\nword, however, of horse in this treaty.\n\nThe territory of this Fizulla Khan, Mr. Speaker, is less than the County\nof Norfolk. It is an inland country, full seven hundred miles from any\nseaport, and not distinguished for any one considerable branch of\nmanufacture whatsoever. From this territory several very considerable\nsums had at several times been paid to the British resident. The demand\nof cavalry, without a shadow or decent pretext of right, amounted to\nthree hundred thousand a year more, at the lowest computation; and it is\nstated, by the last person sent to negotiate, as a demand of little use,\nif it could be complied with,--but that the compliance was impossible,\nas it amounted to more than his territories could supply, if there had\nbeen no other demand upon him. Three hundred thousand pounds a year from\nan inland country not so large as Norfolk!\n\nThe thing most extraordinary was to hear the culprit defend himself from\nthe imputation of his virtues, as if they had been the blackest\noffences. He extenuated the superior cultivation of his country. He\ndenied its population. He endeavored to prove that he had often sent\nback the poor peasant that sought shelter with him.--I can make no\nobservation on this.\n\nAfter a variety of extortions and vexations, too fatiguing to you, too\ndisgusting to me, to go through with, they found \"that they ought to be\nin a better state to warrant forcible means\"; they therefore contented\nthemselves with a gross sum of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds for\ntheir present demand. They offered him, indeed, an indemnity from their\nexactions in future for three hundred thousand pounds more. But he\nrefused to buy their securities,--pleading (probably with truth) his\npoverty; but if the plea were not founded, in my opinion very wisely:\nnot choosing to deal any more in that dangerous commodity of the\nCompany's faith; and thinking it better to oppose distress and unarmed\nobstinacy to uncolored exaction than to subject himself to be considered\nas a cheat, if he should make a treaty in the least beneficial to\nhimself.\n\nThus they executed an exemplary punishment on Fizulla Khan for the\nculture of his country. But, conscious that the prevention of evils is\nthe great object of all good regulation, they deprived him of the means\nof increasing that criminal cultivation in future, by exhausting his\ncoffers; and that the population of his country should no more be a\nstanding reproach and libel on the Company's government, they bound him\nby a positive engagement not to afford any shelter whatsoever to the\nfarmers and laborers who should seek refuge in his territories from the\nexactions of the British residents in Oude. When they had done all this\neffectually, they gave him a full and complete acquittance from all\ncharges of rebellion, or of any intention to rebel, or of his having\noriginally had any interest in, or any means of, rebellion.\n\nThese intended rebellions are one of the Company's standing resources.\nWhen money has been thought to be heaped up anywhere, its owners are\nuniversally accused of rebellion, until they are acquitted of their\nmoney and their treasons at once. The money once taken, all accusation,\ntrial, and punishment ends. It is so settled a resource, that I rather\nwonder how it comes to be omitted in the Directors' account; but I take\nit for granted this omission will be supplied in their next edition.\n\nThe Company stretched this resource to the full extent, when they\naccused two old women, in the remotest corner of India, (who could have\nno possible view or motive to raise disturbances,) of being engaged in\nrebellion, with an intent to drive out the English nation, in whose\nprotection, purchased by money and secured by treaty, rested the sole\nhope of their existence. But the Company wanted money, and the old women\n_must_ be guilty of a plot. They were accused of rebellion, and they\nwere convicted of wealth. Twice had great sums been extorted from them,\nand as often had the British faith guarantied the remainder. A body of\nBritish troops, with one of the military farmers-general at their head,\nwas sent to seize upon the castle in which these helpless women resided.\nTheir chief eunuchs, who were their agents, their guardians, protectors,\npersons of high rank according to the Eastern manners, and of great\ntrust, were thrown into dungeons, to make them discover their hidden\ntreasures; and there they lie at present. The lands assigned for the\nmaintenance of the women were seized and confiscated. Their jewels and\neffects were taken, and set up to a pretended auction in an obscure\nplace, and bought at such a price as the gentlemen thought proper to\ngive. No account has ever been transmitted of the articles or produce of\nthis sale. What money was obtained is unknown, or what terms were\nstipulated for the maintenance of these despoiled and forlorn\ncreatures: for by some particulars it appears as if an engagement of the\nkind was made.\n\nLet me here remark, once for all, that though the act of 1773 requires\nthat an account of all proceedings should be diligently transmitted,\nthat this, like all the other injunctions of the law, is totally\ndespised, and that half at least of the most important papers are\nintentionally withheld.\n\nI wish you, Sir, to advert particularly, in this transaction, to the\nquality and the numbers of the persons spoiled, and the instrument by\nwhom that spoil was made. These ancient matrons, called the Begums, or\nPrincesses, were of the first birth and quality in India: the one\nmother, the other wife, of the late Nabob of Oude, Sujah Dowlah, a\nprince possessed of extensive and flourishing dominions, and the second\nman in the Mogul Empire. This prince (suspicious, and not unjustly\nsuspicious, of his son and successor) at his death committed his\ntreasures and his family to the British faith. That family and household\nconsisted of _two thousand women_, to which were added two other\nseraglios of near kindred, and said to be extremely numerous, and (as I\nam well informed) of about fourscore of the Nabob's children, with all\nthe eunuchs, the ancient servants, and a multitude of the dependants of\nhis splendid court. These were all to be provided, for present\nmaintenance and future establishment, from the lands assigned as dower,\nand from the treasures which he left to these matrons, in trust for the\nwhole family.\n\nSo far as to the objects of the spoil. The _instrument_ chosen by Mr.\nHastings to despoil the relict of Sujah Dowlah was _her own son_, the\nreigning Nabob of Oude. It was the pious hand of a son that was selected\nto tear from his mother and grandmother the provision of their age, the\nmaintenance of his brethren, and of all the ancient household of his\nfather. [_Here a laugh, from some young members_.] The laugh is\n_seasonable_, and the occasion decent and proper.\n\nBy the last advices, something of the sum extorted remained unpaid. The\nwomen, in despair, refuse to deliver more, unless their lands are\nrestored, and their ministers released from prison; but Mr. Hastings and\nhis council, steady to their point, and consistent to the last in their\nconduct, write to the resident to stimulate the son to accomplish the\nfilial acts he had brought so near to their perfection. \"We desire,\" say\nthey in their letter to the resident, (written so late as March last,)\n\"that you will inform us if any, and what means, have been taken for\nrecovering the balance due from the Begum [Princess] at Fyzabad; and\nthat, if necessary, you _recommend_ it to the vizier to enforce _the\nmost effectual means_ for that purpose.\"\n\nWhat their effectual means of enforcing demands on women of high rank\nand condition are I shall show you, Sir, in a few minutes, when I\nrepresent to you another of these plots and rebellions, which _always_\nin India, though so _rarely_ anywhere else, are the offspring of an easy\ncondition and hoarded riches.\n\nBenares is the capital city of the Indian religion. It is regarded as\nholy by a particular and distinguished sanctity; and the Gentoos in\ngeneral think themselves as much obliged to visit it once in their lives\nas the Mahometans to perform their pilgrimage to Mecca. By this means\nthat city grew great in commerce and opulence; and so effectually was it\nsecured by the pious veneration of that people, that in all wars and in\nall violences of power there was so sure an asylum both for poverty and\nwealth, (as it were under a divine protection,) that the wisest laws and\nbest assured free constitution could not better provide for the relief\nof the one or the safety of the other; and this tranquillity influenced\nto the greatest degree the prosperity of all the country, and the\nterritory of which it was the capital. The interest of money there was\nnot more than half the usual rate in which it stood in all other places.\nThe reports have fully informed you of the means and of the terms in\nwhich this city and the territory called Ghazipoor, of which it was the\nhead, came under the sovereignty of the East India Company.\n\nIf ever there was a subordinate dominion pleasantly circumstanced to the\nsuperior power, it was this. A large rent or tribute, to the amount of\ntwo hundred and sixty thousand pounds a year, was paid in monthly\ninstalments with the punctuality of a dividend at the Bank. If ever\nthere was a prince who could not have an interest in disturbances, it\nwas its sovereign, the Rajah Cheit Sing. He was in possession of the\ncapital of his religion, and a willing revenue was paid by the devout\npeople who resorted to him from all parts. His sovereignty and his\nindependence, except his tribute, was secured by every tie. His\nterritory was not much less than half of Ireland, and displayed in all\nparts a degree of cultivation, ease, and plenty, under his frugal and\npaternal management, which left him nothing to desire, either for honor\nor satisfaction.\n\nThis was the light in which this country appeared to almost every eye.\nBut Mr. Hastings beheld it askance. Mr. Hastings tells us that it was\n_reported_ of this Cheit Sing, that his father left him a million\nsterling, and that he made annual accessions to the hoard. Nothing could\nbe so obnoxious to indigent power. So much wealth could not be innocent.\nThe House is fully acquainted with the unfounded and unjust requisitions\nwhich were made upon this prince. The question has been most ably and\nconclusively cleared up in one of the reports of the select committee,\nand in an answer of the Court of Directors to an extraordinary\npublication against them by their servant, Mr. Hastings. But I mean to\npass by these exactions as if they were perfectly just and regular; and\nhaving admitted them, I take what I shall now trouble you with only as\nit serves to show the spirit of the Company's government, the mode in\nwhich it is carried on, and the maxims on which it proceeds.\n\nMr. Hastings, from whom I take the doctrine, endeavors to prove that\nCheit Sing was no sovereign prince, but a mere zemindar, or common\nsubject, holding land by rent. If this be granted to him, it is next to\nbe seen under what terms he is of opinion such a landholder, that is a\nBritish subject, holds his life and property under the Company's\ngovernment. It is proper to understand well the doctrines of the person\nwhose administration has lately received such distinguished approbation\nfrom the Company. His doctrine is,--\"That the Company, or the _person\ndelegated by it_, holds _an absolute_ authority over such\nzemindars;--that he [such a subject] owes _an implicit_ and _unreserved_\nobedience to its authority, at the _forfeiture_ even of his _life_ and\n_property_, at the DISCRETION of those who held _or fully represented_\nthe sovereign authority;--and that _these_ rights are _fully_ delegated\n_to him_, Mr. Hastings.\"\n\nSuch is a British governor's idea of the condition of a great zemindar\nholding under a British authority; and this kind of authority he\nsupposes fully delegated to _him_,--though no such delegation appears in\nany commission, instruction, or act of Parliament. At his _discretion_\nhe may demand of the substance of any zemindar, over and above his rent\nor tribute, even, what he pleases, with a sovereign authority; and if he\ndoes not yield an _implicit, unreserved_ obedience to all his commands,\nhe forfeits his lands, his life, and his property, at Mr. Hastings's\n_discretion_. But, extravagant, and even frantic, as these positions\nappear, they are less so than what I shall now read to you; for he\nasserts, that, if any one should urge an exemption from more than a\nstated payment, or should consider the deeds which passed between him\nand the Board \"as bearing _the quality and force_ of a treaty between\nequal states,\" he says, \"that such an opinion is itself criminal to the\nstate of which he is a subject; and that he was himself amenable to its\njustice, if he gave _countenance_ to such a _belief_.\" Here is a new\nspecies of crime invented, that of countenancing a belief,--but a belief\nof what? A belief of that which the Court of Directors, Hastings's\nmasters, and a committee of this House, have decided as this prince's\nindisputable right.\n\nBut supposing the Rajah of Benares to be a mere subject, and that\nsubject a criminal of the highest form; let us see what course was taken\nby an upright English magistrate. Did he cite this culprit before his\ntribunal? Did he make a charge? Did he produce witnesses? These are not\nforms; they are parts of substantial and eternal justice. No, not a word\nof all this. Mr. Hastings concludes him, _in his own mind_, to be\nguilty: he makes this conclusion on reports, on hearsays, on\nappearances, on rumors, on conjectures, on presumptions; and even these\nnever once hinted to the party, nor publicly to any human being, till\nthe whole business was done.\n\nBut the Governor tells you his motive for this extraordinary proceeding,\nso contrary to every mode of justice towards either a prince or a\nsubject, fairly and without disguise; and he puts into your hands the\nkey of his whole conduct:--\"I will suppose, for a moment, that I have\nacted with unwarrantable rigor towards Cheit Sing, and even with\ninjustice.--Let my MOTIVE be consulted. I left Calcutta, impressed with\na belief that _extraordinary means_ were necessary, and those exerted\nwith a _steady hand_, to preserve the Company's _interests from sinking\nunder the accumulated weight which oppressed them_. I saw a _political\nnecessity_ for curbing the _overgrown_ power of a great member of their\ndominion, and _for making it contribute to the relief of their pressing\nexigencies_.\" This is plain speaking; after this, it is no wonder that\nthe Rajah's wealth and his offence, the necessities of the judge and the\nopulence of the delinquent, are never separated, through the whole of\nMr. Hastings's apology. \"The justice and _policy_ of exacting _a large\npecuniary mulct_.\" The resolution \"_to draw from his guilt the means of\nrelief to the Company's distresses.\"_ His determination \"to make him\n_pay largely_ for his pardon, or to execute a severe vengeance for past\ndelinquency.\" That \"as his _wealth was great_, and the _Company's\nexigencies_ pressing, he thought it a measure of justice and policy to\nexact from him a large pecuniary mulct _for their relief_.\"--\"The sum\"\n(says Mr. Wheler, bearing evidence, at his desire, to his intentions)\n\"to which the Governor declared his resolution to extend his fine was\nforty or fifty lacs, _that is, four or five hundred thousand pounds_;\nand that, if he refused, he was to be removed from his zemindary\nentirely; or by taking possession of his forts, to obtain, _out of the\ntreasure deposited in them_, the above sum for the Company.\"\n\nCrimes so convenient, crimes so politic, crimes so necessary, crimes so\nalleviating of distress, can never be wanting to those who use no\nprocess, and who produce no proofs.\n\nBut there is another serious part (what is not so?) in this affair. Let\nus suppose that the power for which Mr. Hastings contends, a power which\nno sovereign ever did or ever can vest in any of his subjects, namely,\nhis own sovereign authority, to be conveyed by the act of Parliament to\nany man or body of men whatsoever; it certainly was never given to Mr.\nHastings. The powers given by the act of 1773 were formal and official;\nthey were given, not to the Governor-General, but to the major vote of\nthe board, as a board, on discussion amongst themselves, in their public\ncharacter and capacity; and their acts in that character and capacity\nwere to be ascertained by records and minutes of council. The despotic\nacts exercised by Mr. Hastings were done merely in his _private_\ncharacter; and, if they had been moderate and just, would still be the\nacts of an usurped authority, and without any one of the legal modes of\nproceeding which could give him competence for the most trivial exertion\nof power. There was no proposition or deliberation whatsoever in\ncouncil, no minute on record, by circulation or otherwise, to authorize\nhis proceedings; no delegation of power to impose a fine, or to take\nany step to deprive the Rajah of Benares of his government, his\nproperty, or his liberty. The minutes of consultation assign to his\njourney a totally different object, duty, and destination. Mr. Wheler,\nat his desire, tells us long after, that he had a confidential\nconversation with him on various subjects, of which this was the\nprincipal, in which Mr. Hastings notified to him his secret intentions;\n\"and that he _bespoke_ his support of the measures which he intended to\npursue towards him (the Rajah).\" This confidential discourse, and\n_bespeaking_ of support, could give him no power, in opposition to an\nexpress act of Parliament, and the whole tenor of the orders of the\nCourt of Directors.\n\nIn what manner the powers thus usurped were employed is known to the\nwhole world. All the House knows that the design on the Rajah proved as\nunfruitful as it was violent. The unhappy prince was expelled, and his\nmore unhappy country was enslaved and ruined; but not a rupee was\nacquired. Instead of treasure to recruit the Company's finances, wasted\nby their wanton wars and corrupt jobs, they were plunged into a new war,\nwhich shook their power in India to its foundation, and, to use the\nGovernor's own happy simile, might have dissolved it like a magic\nstructure, if the talisman had been broken.\n\nBut the success is no part of my consideration, who should think just\nthe same of this business, if the spoil of one rajah had been fully\nacquired, and faithfully applied to the destruction of twenty other\nrajahs. Not only the arrest of the Rajah in his palace was unnecessary\nand unwarrantable, and calculated to stir up any manly blood which\nremained in his subjects, but the despotic style and the extreme\ninsolence of language and demeanor, used to a person of great condition\namong the politest people in the world, was intolerable. Nothing\naggravates tyranny so much as contumely. _Quicquid superbia in\ncontumeliis_ was charged by a great man of antiquity, as a principal\nhead of offence against the Governor-General of that day. The unhappy\npeople were still more insulted. A relation, but an _enemy_ to the\nfamily, a notorious robber and villain, called Ussaun Sing, kept as a\nhawk in a mew, to fly upon this nation, was set up to govern there,\ninstead of a prince honored and beloved. But when the business of insult\nwas accomplished, the revenue was too serious a concern to be intrusted\nto such hands. Another was set up in his place, as guardian to an\ninfant.\n\nBut here, Sir, mark the effect of all these _extraordinary_ means, of\nall this policy and justice. The revenues, which had been hitherto paid\nwith such astonishing punctuality, fell into arrear. The new prince\nguardian was deposed without ceremony,--and with as little, cast into\nprison. The government of that once happy country has been in the utmost\nconfusion ever since such good order was taken about it. But, to\ncomplete the contumely offered to this undone people, and to make them\nfeel their servitude in all its degradation and all its bitterness, the\ngovernment of their sacred city, the government of that Benares which\nhad been so respected by Persian and Tartar conquerors, though of the\nMussulman persuasion, that, even in the plenitude of their pride, power,\nand bigotry, no magistrate of that sect entered the place, was now\ndelivered over by English hands to a Mahometan; and an Ali Ibrahim Khan\nwas introduced, under the Company's authority, with power of life and\ndeath, into the sanctuary of the Gentoo religion. After this, the taking\noff a slight payment, cheerfully made by pilgrims to a chief of their\nown rites, was represented as a mighty benefit.\n\nIt remains only to show, through the conduct in this business, the\nspirit of the Company's government, and the respect they pay towards\nother prejudices, not less regarded in the East than those of religion:\nI mean the reverence paid to the female sex in general, and particularly\nto women of high rank and condition. During the general confusion of the\ncountry of Ghazipoor, Panna, the mother of Cheit Sing, was lodged with\nher train in a castle called Bidge Gur, in which were likewise deposited\na large portion of the treasures of her son, or more probably her own.\nTo whomsoever they belonged was indifferent: for, though no charge of\nrebellion was made on this woman, (which was rather singular, as it\nwould have cost nothing,) they were resolved to secure her with her\nfortune. The castle was besieged by Major Popham.\n\nThere was no great reason to apprehend that soldiers ill paid, that\nsoldiers who thought they had been defrauded of their plunder on former\nservices of the same kind, would not have been sufficiently attentive to\nthe spoil they were expressly come for; but the gallantry and generosity\nof the profession was justly suspected, as being likely to set bounds to\nmilitary rapaciousness. The Company's first civil magistrate discovered\nthe greatest uneasiness lest the women should have anything preserved to\nthem. Terms tending to put some restraint on military violence were\ngranted. He writes a letter to Mr. Popham, referring to some letter\nwritten before to the same effect, which I do not remember to have seen;\nbut it shows his anxiety on this subject. Hear himself:--\"I think\n_every_ demand she has made on you, except that of safety and respect to\nher person, is unreasonable. If the reports brought to me are true, your\nrejecting her offers, or _any negotiation,_ would soon obtain you the\nfort upon your own terms. I apprehend she will attempt to _defraud the\ncaptors of a considerable part of their booty, by being suffered to\nretire without examination_. But this is your concern, not mine. I\nshould _be very sorry_ that your officers and soldiers lost _any_ part\nof the reward to which they are so well entitled; but you must be the\nbest judge of the _promised_ indulgence to the Ranny: what you have\nengaged for I will certainly ratify; but as to suffering the Ranny to\nhold the purgunna of Hurlich, or any other zemindary, without being\nsubject to the authority of the zemindar, _or any lands whatsoever_, or\nindeed making _any_ condition with her for a _provision_, I will _never\nconsent_.\"\n\nHere your Governor stimulates a rapacious and licentious soldiery to the\npersonal search of women, lest these unhappy creatures should avail\nthemselves of the protection of their sex to secure any supply for their\nnecessities; and he positively orders that no stipulation should be made\nfor any provision for them. The widow and mother of a prince, well\ninformed of her miserable situation, and the cause of it, a woman of\nthis rank became a suppliant to the domestic servant of Mr. Hastings,\n(they are his own words that I read,) \"imploring his intercession that\nshe may be relieved _from the hardships and dangers of her present\nsituation_, and offering to surrender the fort, and the _treasure and\nvaluable effects_ contained in it, provided she can be assured _of\nsafety and protection to her person and honor_, and to that of her\nfamily and attendants.\" He is so good as to consent to this, \"provided\nshe surrenders everything of value, with the reserve _only_ of such\narticles as _you_ shall think _necessary_ to her condition, or as you\n_yourself_ shall be disposed to indulge her with.--But should she refuse\nto execute the promise she has made, or delay it beyond the term of\ntwenty-four hours, it is _my positive_ injunction that you immediately\nput a stop to any further intercourse or negotiation with her, and on no\npretext renew it. If she disappoints or _trifles_ with me, after I have\nsubjected _my duan_ to the disgrace of returning ineffectually, and of\ncourse myself to discredit, I shall consider it as a _wanton_ affront\nand indignity _which I can never forgive_; nor will I grant her _any_\nconditions whatever, but leave her exposed _to those_ dangers which she\nhas chosen to risk, rather than trust to the clemency and generosity of\nour government. I think she cannot be ignorant of these consequences,\nand will not venture to incur them; and it is for this reason I place a\ndependence on her offers, and have consented to send my duan to her.\"\nThe dreadful secret hinted at by the merciful Governor in the latter\npart of the letter is well understood in India, where those who suffer\ncorporeal indignities generally expiate the offences of others with\ntheir own blood. However, in spite of all these, the temper of the\nmilitary did, some way or other, operate. They came to terms which have\nnever been transmitted. It appears that a fifteenth per cent of the\nplunder was reserved to the captives, of which the unhappy mother of\nthe Prince of Benares was to have a share. This ancient matron, born to\nbetter things [_A laugh from certain young gentlemen]_--I see no cause\nfor this mirth. A good author of antiquity reckons among the calamities\nof his time \"_nobilissimarum faeminarum exilia et fugas_.\" I say, Sir,\nthis ancient lady was compelled to quit her house, with three hundred\nhelpless women and a multitude of children in her train. But the lower\nsort in the camp, it seems, could not be restrained. They did not forget\nthe good lessons of the Governor-General. They were unwilling \"to be\ndefrauded of a considerable part of their booty by suffering them to\npass without examination.\"--They examined them, Sir, with a vengeance;\nand the sacred protection of that awful character, Mr. Hastings's\n_maitre d'hotel,_ could not secure them from insult and plunder. Here is\nPopham's narrative of the affair:--\n\n\"The Ranny came out of the fort, with her family and dependants, the\ntenth, at night, owing to which such attention was not paid to her as I\nwished; and I am exceedingly sorry to inform you that _the\nlicentiousness of our followers was beyond the bounds of control; for,\nnotwithstanding all I could do, her people were plundered on the road of\nmost of the things which they brought out of the fort, by which means\none of the articles of surrender has been much infringed_. The distress\nI have felt upon this occasion cannot be expressed, and can only be\nallayed by a firm performance of the other articles of the treaty, which\nI shall make it my business to enforce.--The suspicions which the\nofficers had of treachery, and the delay made to our getting possession,\nhad enraged them, as well as the troops, so much, that the treaty was at\nfirst regarded as void; but this determination was soon succeeded by\npity and compassion for the unfortunate besieged.\"--After this comes, in\nhis due order, Mr. Hastings; who is full of sorrow and indignation, &c.,\n&c., &c., according to the best and most authentic precedents\nestablished upon such occasions.\n\nThe women being thus disposed of, that is, completely despoiled, and\npathetically lamented, Mr. Hastings at length recollected the great\nobject of his enterprise, which, during his zeal lest the officers and\nsoldiers should lose any part of their reward, he seems to have\nforgot,--that is to say, \"to draw from the Rajah's guilt the means of\nrelief to the Company's distresses.\" This was to be the stronghold of\nhis defence. This compassion to the Company, he knew by experience,\nwould sanctify a great deal of rigor towards the natives. But the\nmilitary had distresses of their own, which they considered first.\nNeither Mr. Hastings's authority, nor his supplications, could prevail\non them to assign a shilling to the claim he made on the part of the\nCompany. They divided the booty amongst themselves. Driven from his\nclaim, he was reduced to petition for the spoil as a loan. But the\nsoldiers were too wise to venture as a loan what the borrower claimed as\na right. In defiance of all authority, they shared among themselves\nabout two hundred thousand pounds sterling, besides what had been taken\nfrom the women.\n\nIn all this there is nothing wonderful. We may rest assured, that, when\nthe maxims of any government establish among its resources extraordinary\nmeans, and those exerted with a strong hand, that strong hand will\nprovide those extraordinary means for _itself_. Whether the soldiers had\nreason or not, (perhaps much might be said for them,) certain it is,\nthe military discipline of India was ruined from that moment; and the\nsame rage for plunder, the same contempt of subordination, which blasted\nall the hopes of extraordinary means from your strong hand at Benares,\nhave very lately lost you an army in Mysore. This is visible enough from\nthe accounts in the last gazette.\n\nThere is no doubt but that the country and city of Benares, now brought\ninto the same order, will very soon exhibit, if it does not already\ndisplay, the same appearance with those countries and cities which are\nunder better subjection. A great master, Mr. Hastings, has himself been\nat the pains of drawing a picture of one of these countries: I mean the\nprovince and city of Furruckabad. There is no reason to question his\nknowledge of the facts; and his authority (on this point at least) is\nabove all exception, as well for the state of the country as for the\ncause. In his minute of consultation, Mr. Hastings describes forcibly\nthe consequences which arise from the degradation into which we have\nsunk the native government. \"The total want (says he) of all order,\nregularity, or authority, in his (the Nabob of Furruckabad's)\ngovernment, and to which, among other obvious causes, it may no doubt be\nowing that the country of Furruckabad is become _almost an entire waste,\nwithout cultivation or inhabitants_,--that the capital, which but a very\nshort time ago was distinguished as one of the most populous and opulent\ncommercial cities in Hindostan, at present exhibits nothing but _scenes\nof the most wretched poverty, desolation, and misery_,--and that the\n_Nabob himself_, though in the possession of a tract of country which,\nwith only common care, is notoriously capable of yielding an annual\nrevenue of between thirty and forty lacs, (three or four hundred\nthousand pounds,) with _no military establishment_ to maintain, scarcely\ncommands _the means of a bare subsistence_.\"\n\nThis is a true and unexaggerated picture, not only of Furruckabad, but\nof at least three fourths of the country which we possess, or rather lay\nwaste, in India. Now, Sir, the House will be desirous to know for what\npurpose this picture was drawn. It was for a purpose, I will not say\nlaudable, but necessary: that of taking the unfortunate prince and his\ncountry out of the hands of a sequestrator sent thither by the Nabob of\nOude, the mortal enemy of the prince thus ruined, and to protect him by\nmeans of a British resident, who might carry his complaints to the\nsuperior resident at Oude, or transmit them to Calcutta. But mark how\nthe reformer persisted in his reformation. The effect of the measure was\nbetter than was probably expected. The prince began to be at ease; the\ncountry began to recover; and the revenue began to be collected. These\nwere alarming circumstances. Mr. Hastings not only recalled the\nresident, but he entered into a formal stipulation with the Nabob of\nOude never to send an English subject again to Furruckabad; and thus the\ncountry, described as you have heard by Mr. Hastings, is given up\nforever to the very persons to whom he had attributed its ruin,--that\nis, to the sezawals or sequestrators of the Nabob of Oude.\n\nSuch was the issue of the first attempt to relieve the distresses of the\ndependent provinces. I shall close what I have to say on the condition\nof the northern dependencies with the effect of the last of these\nattempts. You will recollect, Sir, the account I have not long ago\nstated to you, as given by Mr. Hastings, of the ruined condition of the\ndestroyer of others, the Nabob of Oude, and of the recall, in\nconsequence, of Hannay, Middleton, and Johnson. When the first little\nsudden gust of passion against these gentlemen was spent, the sentiments\nof old friendship began to revive. Some healing conferences were held\nbetween them and the superior government. Mr. Hannay was permitted to\nreturn to Oude; but death prevented the further advantages intended for\nhim, and the future benefits proposed for the country by the provident\ncars of the Council-General.\n\nOne of these gentlemen was accused of the grossest peculations; two of\nthem by Mr. Hastings himself, of what he considered as very gross\noffences. The Court of Directors were informed, by the Governor-General\nand Council, that a severe inquiry would be instituted against the two\nsurvivors; and they requested that court to suspend its judgment, and to\nwait the event of their proceedings. A mock inquiry has been instituted,\nby which the parties could not be said to be either acquitted or\ncondemned. By means of the bland and conciliatory dispositions of the\ncharter-governors, and proper private explanations, the public inquiry\nhas in effect died away; the supposed peculators and destroyers of Oude\nrepose in all security in the bosoms of their accusers; whilst others\nsucceed to them to be instructed by their example.\n\nIt is only to complete the view I proposed of the conduct of the Company\nwith regard to the dependent provinces, that I shall say _any_ thing at\nall of the Carnatic, which is the scene, if possible, of greater\ndisorder than the northern provinces. Perhaps it were better to say of\nthis centre and metropolis of abuse, whence all the rest in India and in\nEngland diverge, from whence they are fed and methodized, what was said\nof Carthage,--\"_De Carthagine satius est silere quam parum dicere_.\"\nThis country, in all its denominations, is about 46,000 square miles.\nIt may be affirmed universally, that not one person of substance or\nproperty, landed, commercial, or moneyed, excepting two or three\nbankers, who are necessary deposits and distributors of the general\nspoil, is left in all that region. In that country, the moisture, the\nbounty of Heaven, is given but at a certain season. Before the era of\nour influence, the industry of man carefully husbanded that gift of God.\nThe Gentoos preserved, with a provident and religious care, the precious\ndeposit of the periodical rain in reservoirs, many of them works of\nroyal grandeur; and from these, as occasion demanded, they fructified\nthe whole country. To maintain these reservoirs, and to keep up an\nannual advance to the cultivators for seed and cattle, formed a\nprincipal object of the piety and policy of the priests and rulers of\nthe Gentoo religion.\n\nThis object required a command of money; and there was no pollam, or\ncastle, which in the happy days of the Carnatic was without some hoard\nof treasure, by which the governors were enabled to combat with the\nirregularity of the seasons, and to resist or to buy off the invasion of\nan enemy. In all the cities were multitudes of merchants and bankers,\nfor all occasions of moneyed assistance; and on the other hand, the\nnative princes were in condition to obtain credit from them. The\nmanufacturer was paid by the return of commodities, or by imported\nmoney, and not, as at present, in the taxes that had been originally\nexacted from his industry. In aid of casual distress, the country was\nfull of choultries, which were inns and hospitals, where the traveller\nand the poor were relieved. All ranks of people had their place in the\npublic concern, and their share in the common stock and common\nprosperity. But _the chartered rights of men_, and the right which it\nwas thought proper to set up in the Nabob of Arcot, introduced a new\nsystem. It was their policy to consider hoards of money as crimes,--to\nregard moderate rents as frauds on the sovereign,--and to view, in the\nlesser princes, any claim of exemption from more than settled tribute as\nan act of rebellion. Accordingly, all the castles were, one after the\nother, plundered and destroyed; the native princes were expelled; the\nhospitals fell to ruin; the reservoirs of water went to decay; the\nmerchants, bankers, and manufacturers disappeared; and sterility,\nindigence, and depopulation overspread the face of these once\nflourishing provinces.\n\nThe Company was very early sensible of these mischiefs, and of their\ntrue cause. They gave precise orders, \"that the native princes, called\npolygars, should _not be extirpated_.\" \"The rebellion\" (so they choose\nto call it) \"of the polygars may, they fear, _with, too much justice_,\nbe attributed to the maladministration of the Nabob's collectors.\" \"They\nobserve with concern, that their troops have been put to _disagreeable_\nservices.\" They might have used a stronger expression without\nimpropriety. But they make amends in another place. Speaking of the\npolygars, the Directors say that \"it was repugnant to humanity to\n_force_ them to such dreadful extremities _as they underwent\";_ that\nsome examples of severity _might_ be necessary, \"when they fell into\nthe Nabob's hands,\" _and not by the destruction of the country_; \"that\n_they fear_ his government is _none of the mildest_, and that there is\n_great oppression_ in collecting his revenues.\" They state, that the\nwars in which he has involved the Carnatic had been a cause of its\ndistresses; \"that those distresses have been certainly great, but those\nby _the Nabob's oppressions_ they believe _to be greater than all_.\"\nPray, Sir, attend to the reason for their opinion that the government of\nthis their instrument is more calamitous to the country than the ravages\nof war:--Because, say they, his oppressions are \"_without intermission_;\nthe others are temporary;--by all which _oppressions_ we believe the\nNabob has great wealth in store.\" From this store neither he nor they\ncould derive any advantage whatsoever, upon the invasion of Hyder Ali,\nin the hour of their greatest calamity and dismay.\n\nIt is now proper to compare these declarations with the Company's\nconduct. The principal reason which they assigned against the\n_extirpation_ of the polygars was, that the _weavers_ were protected in\ntheir fortresses. They might have added, that the Company itself, which\nstung them to death, had been warmed in the bosom of these unfortunate\nprinces: for, on the taking of Madras by the French, it was in their\nhospitable pollams that most of the inhabitants found refuge and\nprotection. But notwithstanding all these orders, reasons, and\ndeclarations, they at length gave an indirect sanction, and permitted\nthe use of a very direct and irresistible force, to measures which they\nhad over and over again declared to be false policy, cruel, inhuman, and\noppressive. Having, however, forgot all attention to the princes and the\npeople, they remembered that they had some sort of interest in the\ntrade of the country; and it is matter of curiosity to observe the\nprotection which they afforded to this their natural object.\n\nFull of anxious cares on this head, they direct, \"that, in reducing the\npolygars, they [their servants] were to be _cautious_ not to deprive the\n_weavers and manufacturers_ of the protection they often met with in the\nstrongholds of the polygar countries\"; and they write to their\ninstrument, the Nabob of Arcot, concerning these poor people in a most\npathetic strain. \"We _entreat_ your Excellency,\" (say they,) \"in\nparticular, to make the manufacturers the object of your _tenderest\ncare;_ particularly when you _root out_ the polygars, you do not deprive\nthe _weavers of the protection they enjoyed under them_.\" When they root\nout the protectors in favor of the oppressor, they show themselves\nreligiously cautious of the rights of the protected. When they extirpate\nthe shepherd and the shepherd's dog, they piously recommend the helpless\nflock to the mercy, and even to the _tenderest care,_ of the wolf. This\nis the uniform strain of their policy,--strictly forbidding, and at the\nsame time strenuously encouraging and enforcing, every measure that can\nruin and desolate the country committed to their charge. After giving\nthe Company's idea of the government of this their instrument, it may\nappear singular, but it is perfectly consistent with their system, that,\nbesides wasting for him, at two different times, the most exquisite spot\nupon the earth, Tanjore, and all the adjacent countries, they have even\nvoluntarily put their own territory, that is, a large and fine country\nadjacent to Madras, called their jaghire, wholly out of their\nprotection,--and have continued to farm their subjects, and their\nduties towards these subjects, to that very Nabob whom they themselves\nconstantly represent as an habitual oppressor and a relentless tyrant.\nThis they have done without any pretence of ignorance of the objects of\noppression for which this prince has thought fit to become their renter;\nfor he has again and again told them that it is for the sole purpose of\nexercising authority he holds the jaghire lands; and he affirms (and I\nbelieve with truth) that he pays more for that territory than the\nrevenues yield. This deficiency he must make up from his other\nterritories; and thus, in order to furnish the means of oppressing one\npart of the Carnatic, he is led to oppress all the rest.\n\nThe House perceives that the livery of the Company's government is\nuniform. I have described the condition of the countries indirectly, but\nmost substantially, under the Company's authority. And now I ask,\nwhether, with this map of misgovernment before me, I can suppose myself\nbound by my vote to continue, upon any principles of pretended public\nfaith, the management of these countries in those hands. If I kept such\na faith (which in reality is no better than a _fides latronum_) with\nwhat is called the Company, I must break the faith, the covenant, the\nsolemn, original, indispensable oath, in which I am bound, by the\neternal frame and constitution of things, to the whole human race.\n\nAs I have dwelt so long on these who are indirectly under the Company's\nadministration, I will endeavor to be a little shorter upon the\ncountries immediately under this charter-government. These are the\nBengal provinces. The condition of these provinces is pretty fully\ndetailed in the Sixth and Ninth Reports, and in their Appendixes. I\nwill select only such principles and instances as are broad and general.\nTo your own thoughts I shall leave it to furnish the detail of\noppressions involved in them. I shall state to you, as shortly as I am\nable, the conduct of the Company:--1st, towards the landed\ninterests;--next, the commercial interests;--3rdly, the native\ngovernment;--and lastly, to their own government.\n\nBengal, and the provinces that are united to it, are larger than the\nkingdom of France, and once contained, as France does contain, a great\nand independent landed interest, composed of princes, of great lords, of\na numerous nobility and gentry, of freeholders, of lower tenants, of\nreligious communities, and public foundations. So early as 1769, the\nCompany's servants perceived the decay into which these provinces had\nfallen under English administration, and they made a strong\nrepresentation upon this decay, and what they apprehended to be the\ncauses of it. Soon after this representation, Mr. Hastings became\nPresident of Bengal. Instead of administering a remedy to this\nmelancholy disorder, upon the heels of a dreadful famine, in the year\n1772, the succor which the new President and the Council lent to this\nafflicted nation was--shall I be believed in relating it?--the landed\ninterest of a whole kingdom, of a kingdom to be compared to France, was\nset up to public auction! They set up (Mr. Hastings set up) the whole\nnobility, gentry, and freeholders to the highest bidder. No preference\nwas given to the ancient proprietors. They must bid against every\nusurer, every temporary adventurer, every jobber and schemer, every\nservant of every European,--or they were obliged to content themselves,\nin lieu of their extensive domains, with their house, and such a\npension as the state auctioneers thought fit to assign. In this general\ncalamity, several of the first nobility thought (and in all appearance\njustly) that they had better submit to the necessity of this pension,\nthan continue, under the name of zemindars, the objects and instruments\nof a system by which they ruined their tenants and were ruined\nthemselves. Another reform has since come upon the back of the first;\nand a pension having been assigned to these unhappy persons, in lieu of\ntheir hereditary lands, a new scheme of economy has taken place, and\ndeprived them of that pension.\n\nThe menial servants of Englishmen, persons (to use the emphatical phrase\nof a ruined and patient Eastern chief) \"_whose fathers they would not\nhave set with the dogs of their flock_\" entered into their patrimonial\nlands. Mr. Hastings's banian was, after this auction, found possessed of\nterritories yielding a rent of one hundred and forty thousand pounds a\nyear.\n\nSuch an universal proscription, upon any pretence, has few examples.\nSuch a proscription, without even a pretence of delinquency, has none.\nIt stands by itself. It stands as a monument to astonish the\nimagination, to confound the reason of mankind. I confess to you, when I\nfirst came to know this business in its true nature and extent, my\nsurprise did a little suspend my indignation. I was in a manner\nstupefied by the desperate boldness of a few obscure young men, who,\nhaving obtained, by ways which they could not comprehend, a power of\nwhich they saw neither the purposes nor the limits, tossed about,\nsubverted, and tore to pieces, as if it were in the gambols of a boyish\nunluckiness and malice, the most established rights, and the most\nancient and most revered institutions, of ages and nations. Sir, I will\nnot now trouble you with any detail with regard to what they have since\ndone with these same lands and landholders, only to inform you that\nnothing has been suffered to settle for two seasons together upon any\nbasis, and that the levity and inconstancy of these mock legislators\nwere not the least afflicting parts of the oppressions suffered under\ntheir usurpation; nor will anything give stability to the property of\nthe natives, but an administration in England at once protecting and\nstable. The country sustains, almost every year, the miseries of a\nrevolution. At present, all is uncertainty, misery, and confusion. There\nis to be found through these vast regions no longer one landed man who\nis a resource for voluntary aid or an object for particular rapine. Some\nof them were not long since great princes; they possessed treasures,\nthey levied armies. There was a zemindar in Bengal, (I forget his name,)\nthat, on the threat of an invasion, supplied the subah of these\nprovinces with the loan of a million sterling. The family at this day\nwants credit for a breakfast at the bazaar.\n\nI shall now say a word or two on the Company's care of the commercial\ninterest of those kingdoms. As it appears in the Reports that persons in\nthe highest stations in Bengal have adopted, as a fixed plan of policy,\nthe destruction of all intermediate dealers between the Company and the\nmanufacturer, native merchants have disappeared of course. The spoil of\nthe revenues is the sole capital which purchases the produce and\nmanufactures, and through three or four foreign companies transmits the\nofficial gains of individuals to Europe. No other commerce has an\nexistence in Bengal. The transport of its plunder is the only traffic of\nthe country. I wish to refer you to the Appendix to the Ninth Report for\na full account of the manner in which the Company have protected the\ncommercial interests of their dominions in the East.\n\nAs to the native government and the administration of justice, it\nsubsisted in a poor, tottering manner for some years. In the year 1781 a\ntotal revolution took place in that establishment. In one of the usual\nfreaks of legislation of the Council of Bengal, the whole criminal\njurisdiction of these courts, called the Phoujdary Judicature, exercised\ntill then by the principal Mussulmen, was in one day, without notice,\nwithout consultation with the magistrates or the people there, and\nwithout communication with the Directors or Ministers here, totally\nsubverted. A new institution took place, by which this jurisdiction was\ndivided between certain English servants of the Company and the Gentoo\nzemindars of the country, the latter of whom never petitioned for it,\nnor, for aught that appears, ever desired this boon. But its natural use\nwas made of it: it was made a pretence for new extortions of money.\n\nThe natives had, however, one consolation in the ruin of their\njudicature: they soon saw that it fared no better with the English\ngovernment itself. That, too, after destroying every other, came to its\nperiod. This revolution may well be rated for a most daring act, even\namong the extraordinary things that have been doing in Bengal since our\nunhappy acquisition of the means of so much mischief.\n\nAn establishment of English government for civil justice, and for the\ncollection of revenue, was planned and executed by the President and\nCouncil of Bengal, subject to the pleasure of the Directors, in the year\n1772. According to this plan, the country was divided into six\ndistricts, or provinces. In each of these was established a provincial\ncouncil, which administered the revenue; and of that council, one\nmember, by monthly rotation, presided in the courts of civil resort,\nwith an appeal to the council of the province, and thence to Calcutta.\nIn this system (whether in other respects good or evil) there were some\ncapital advantages. There was, in the very number of persons in each\nprovincial council, authority, communication, mutual check, and control.\nThey were obliged, on their minutes of consultation, to enter their\nreasons and dissents; so that a man of diligence, of research, and\ntolerable sagacity, sitting in London, might, from these materials, be\nenabled to form some judgment of the spirit of what was going on on the\nfurthest banks of the Ganges and Burrampooter.\n\nThe Court of Directors so far ratified this establishment, (which was\nconsonant enough to their general plan of government,) that they gave\nprecise orders that no alteration should be made in it without their\nconsent. So far from being apprised of any design against this\nconstitution, they had reason to conceive that on trial it had been more\nand more approved by their Council-General, at least by the\nGovernor-General, who had planned it. At the time of the revolution, the\nCouncil-General was nominally in two persons, virtually in one. At that\ntime measures of an arduous and critical nature ought to have been\nforborne, even if, to the fullest council, this specific measure had\nnot been prohibited by the superior authority. It was in this very\nsituation that one man had the hardiness to conceive and the temerity to\nexecute a total revolution in the form and the persons composing the\ngovernment of a great kingdom. Without any previous step, at one stroke,\nthe whole constitution, of Bengal, civil and criminal, was swept away.\nThe counsellors were recalled from their provinces; upwards of fifty of\nthe principal officers of government were turned out of employ, and\nrendered dependent on Mr. Hastings for their immediate subsistence, and\nfor all hope of future provision. The chief of each council, and one\nEuropean collector of revenue, was left in each province.\n\nBut here, Sir, you may imagine a new government, of some permanent\ndescription, was established in the place of that which had been thus\nsuddenly overturned. No such thing. Lest these chiefs, without councils,\nshould be conceived to form the ground-plan of some future government,\nit was publicly declared that their continuance was only temporary and\npermissive. The whole subordinate British administration of revenue was\nthen vested in a committee in Calcutta, all creatures of the\nGovernor-General; and the provincial management, under the permissive\nchief, was delivered over to native officers.\n\nBut that the revolution and the purposes of the revolution might be\ncomplete, to this committee were delegated, not only the functions of\nall the inferior, but, what will surprise the House, those of the\nsupreme administration of revenue also. Hitherto the Governor-General\nand Council had, in their revenue department, administered the finances\nof those kingdoms. By the new scheme they are delegated to this\ncommittee, who are only to report their proceedings for approbation.\n\nThe key to the whole transaction is given in one of the instructions to\nthe committee,--\"that it is not necessary that they should enter\ndissents.\" By this means the ancient plan of the Company's\nadministration was destroyed; but the plan of concealment was perfected.\nTo that moment the accounts of the revenues were tolerably clear,--or at\nleast means were furnished for inquiries, by which they might be\nrendered satisfactory. In the obscure and silent gulf of this committee\neverything is now buried. The thickest shades of night surround all\ntheir transactions. No effectual means of detecting fraud,\nmismanagement, or misrepresentation exist. The Directors, who have dared\nto talk with such confidence on their revenues, know nothing about them.\nWhat used to fill volumes is now comprised under a few dry heads on a\nsheet of paper. The natives, a people habitually made to concealment,\nare the chief managers of the revenue throughout the provinces. I mean\nby natives such wretches as your rulers select out of them as most\nfitted for their purposes. As a proper keystone to bind the arch, a\nnative, one Gunga Govind Sing, a man turned out of his employment by Sir\nJohn Clavering for malversation in office, is made the corresponding\nsecretary, and, indeed, the great moving principle of their new board.\n\nAs the whole revenue and civil administration was thus subverted, and a\nclandestine government substituted in the place of it, the judicial\ninstitution underwent a like revolution. In 1772 there had been six\ncourts, formed out of the six provincial councils. Eighteen new ones\nare appointed in their place, with each a judge, taken from the _junior_\nservants of the Company. To maintain these eighteen courts, a tax is\nlevied on the sums in litigation, of two and one half per cent on the\ngreat, and of five per cent on the less. This money is all drawn from\nthe provinces to Calcutta. The chief justice (the same who stays in\ndefiance of a vote of this House, and of his Majesty's recall) is\nappointed at once the treasurer and disposer of these taxes, levied\nwithout any sort of authority from the Company, from the Crown, or from\nParliament.\n\nIn effect, Sir, every legal, regular authority, in matters of revenue,\nof political administration, of criminal law, of civil law, in many of\nthe most essential parts of military discipline, is laid level with the\nground; and an oppressive, irregular, capricious, unsteady, rapacious,\nand peculating despotism, with a direct disavowal of obedience to any\nauthority at home, and without any fixed maxim, principle, or rule of\nproceeding to guide them in India, is at present the state of your\ncharter-government over great kingdoms.\n\nAs the Company has made this use of their trust, I should ill discharge\nmine, if I refused to give my most cheerful vote for the redress of\nthese abuses, by putting the affairs of so large and valuable a part of\nthe interests of this nation and of mankind into some steady hands,\npossessing the confidence and assured of the support of this House,\nuntil they can be restored to regularity, order, and consistency.\n\nI have touched the heads of some of the grievances of the people and the\nabuses of government. But I hope and trust you will give me credit, when\nI faithfully assure you that I have not mentioned one fourth part of\nwhat has come to my knowledge in your committee; and further, I have\nfull reason to believe that not one fourth part of the abuses are come\nto my knowledge, by that or by any other means. Pray consider what I\nhave said only as an index to direct you in your inquiries.\n\nIf this, then, Sir, has been the use made of the trust of political\npowers, internal and external, given by you in the charter, the next\nthing to be seen is the conduct of the Company with regard to the\ncommercial trust. And here I will make a fair offer:--If it can be\nproved that they have acted wisely, prudently, and frugally, as\nmerchants, I shall pass by the whole mass of their enormities as\nstatesmen. That they have not done this their present condition is proof\nsufficient. Their distresses are said to be owing to their wars. This is\nnot wholly true. But if it were, is not that readiness to engage in\nwars, which distinguishes them, and for which the Committee of Secrecy\nhas so branded their politics, founded on the falsest principles of\nmercantile speculation?\n\nThe principle of buying cheap and selling dear is the first, the great\nfoundation of mercantile dealing. Have they ever attended to this\nprinciple? Nay, for years have they not actually authorized in their\nservants a total indifference as to the prices they were to pay?\n\nA great deal of strictness in driving bargains for whatever we contract\nis another of the principles of mercantile policy. Try the Company by\nthat test. Look at the contracts that are made for them. Is the Company\nso much as a good commissary to their own armies? I engage to select for\nyou, out of the innumerable mass of their dealings, all conducted very\nnearly alike, one contract only the excessive profits on which during a\nshort term would pay the whole of their year's dividend. I shall\nundertake to show that upon two others the inordinate profits given,\nwith the losses incurred in order to secure those profits, would pay a\nyear's dividend more.\n\nIt is a third property of trading-men to see that their clerks do not\ndivert the dealings of the master to their own benefit. It was the other\nday only, when their Governor and Council taxed the Company's investment\nwith a sum of fifty thousand pounds, as an inducement to persuade only\nseven members of their Board of Trade to give their _honor_ that they\nwould abstain from such profits upon that investment, as they must have\nviolated their _oaths_, if they had made at all.\n\nIt is a fourth quality of a merchant to be exact in his accounts. What\nwill be thought, when you have fully before you the mode of accounting\nmade use of in the Treasury of Bengal? I hope you will have it soon.\nWith regard to one of their agencies, when it came to the material part,\nthe prime cost of the goods on which a commission of fifteen per cent\nwas allowed, to the astonishment of the factory to whom the commodities\nwere sent, the Accountant-General reports that he did not think himself\nauthorized to call for _vouchers_ relative to this and other\nparticulars,--because the agent was upon his _honor_ with regard to\nthem. A new principle of account upon honor seems to be regularly\nestablished in their dealings and their treasury, which in reality\namounts to an entire annihilation of the principle of all accounts.\n\nIt is a fifth property of a merchant, who does not meditate a\nfraudulent bankruptcy, to calculate his probable profits upon the money\nhe takes up to vest in business. Did the Company, when they bought goods\non bonds bearing eight per cent interest, at ten and even twenty per\ncent discount, even ask themselves a question concerning the possibility\nof advantage from dealing on these terms?\n\nThe last quality of a merchant I shall advert to is the taking care to\nbe properly prepared, in cash or goods in the ordinary course of sale,\nfor the bills which are drawn on them. Now I ask, whether they have ever\ncalculated the clear produce of any given sales, to make them tally with\nthe four million of bills which are come and coming upon them, so as at\nthe proper periods to enable the one to liquidate the other. No, they\nhave not. They are now obliged to borrow money of their own servants to\npurchase their investment. The servants stipulate five per cent on the\ncapital they advance, if their bills should not be paid at the time when\nthey become due; and the value of the rupee on which they charge this\ninterest is taken at two shillings and a penny. Has the Company ever\ntroubled themselves to inquire whether their sales can bear the payment\nof that interest, and at that rate of exchange? Have they once\nconsidered the dilemma in which they are placed,--the ruin of their\ncredit in the East Indies, if they refuse the bills,--the ruin of their\ncredit and existence in England, if they accept them?\n\nIndeed, no trace of equitable government is found in their politics, not\none trace of commercial principle in their mercantile dealing: and hence\nis the deepest and maturest wisdom of Parliament demanded, and the best\nresources of this kingdom must be strained, to restore them,--that is,\nto restore the countries destroyed by the misconduct of the Company, and\nto restore the Company itself, ruined by the consequences of their plans\nfor destroying what they were bound to preserve.\n\nI required, if you remember, at my outset, a proof that these abuses\nwere habitual. But surely this is not necessary for me to consider as a\nseparate head; because I trust I have made it evident beyond a doubt, in\nconsidering the abuses themselves, that they are regular, permanent, and\nsystematical.\n\nI am now come to my last condition, without which, for one, I will never\nreadily lend my hand to the destruction of any established government,\nwhich is,--that, in its present state, the government of the East India\nCompany is absolutely incorrigible.\n\nOf this great truth I think there can be little doubt, after all that\nhas appeared in this House. It is so very clear, that I must consider\nthe leaving any power in their hands, and the determined resolution to\ncontinue and countenance every mode and every degree of peculation,\noppression, and tyranny, to be one and the same thing. I look upon that\nbody incorrigible, from the fullest consideration both of their uniform\nconduct and their present real and virtual constitution.\n\nIf they had not constantly been apprised of all the enormities committed\nin India under their authority, if this state of things had been as much\na discovery to them as it was to many of us, we might flatter ourselves\nthat the detection of the abuses would lead to their reformation. I will\ngo further. If the Court of Directors had not uniformly condemned every\nact which this House or any of its committees had condemned, if the\nlanguage in which they expressed their disapprobation against enormities\nand their authors had not been much more vehement and indignant than any\never used in this House, I should entertain some hopes. If they had not,\non the other hand, as uniformly commended all their servants who had\ndone their duty and obeyed their orders as they had heavily censured\nthose who rebelled, I might say, These people have been in an error, and\nwhen they are sensible of it they will mend. But when I reflect on the\nuniformity of their support to the objects of their uniform censure, and\nthe state of insignificance and disgrace to which all of those have been\nreduced whom they approved, and that even utter ruin and premature death\nhave been among the fruits of their favor, I must be convinced, that in\nthis case, as in all others, hypocrisy is the only vice that never can\nbe cured.\n\nAttend, I pray you, to the situation and prosperity of Benfield,\nHastings, and others of that sort. The last of these has been treated by\nthe Company with an asperity of reprehension that has no parallel. They\nlament \"that the power of disposing of their property for perpetuity\nshould fall into such hands.\" Yet for fourteen years, with little\ninterruption, he has governed all their affairs, of every description,\nwith an absolute sway. He has had himself the means of heaping up\nimmense wealth; and during that whole period, the fortunes of hundreds\nhave depended on his smiles and frowns. He himself tells you he is\nincumbered with two hundred and fifty young gentlemen, some of them of\nthe best families in England, all of whom aim at returning with vast\nfortunes to Europe in the prime of life. He has, then, two hundred and\nfifty of your children as his hostages for your good behavior; and\nloaded for years, as he has been, with the execrations of the natives,\nwith the censures of the Court of Directors, and struck and blasted with\nresolutions of this House, he still maintains the most despotic power\never known in India. He domineers with an overbearing sway in the\nassemblies of his pretended masters; and it is thought in a degree rash\nto venture to name his offences in this House, even as grounds of a\nlegislative remedy.\n\nOn the other hand, consider the fate of those who have met with the\napplauses of the Directors. Colonel Monson, one of the best of men, had\nhis days shortened by the applauses, destitute of the support, of the\nCompany. General Clavering, whose panegyric was made in every dispatch\nfrom England, whose hearse was bedewed with the tears and hung round\nwith the eulogies of the Court of Directors, burst an honest and\nindignant heart at the treachery of those who ruined him by their\npraises. Uncommon patience and temper supported Mr. Francis a while\nlonger under the baneful influence of the commendation of the Court of\nDirectors. His health, however, gave way at length; and in utter\ndespair, he returned to Europe. At his return, the doors of the India\nHouse were shut to this man who had been the object of their constant\nadmiration. He has, indeed, escaped with life; but he has forfeited all\nexpectation of credit, consequence, party, and following. He may well\nsay, \"_Me nemo ministro fur erit, atque ideo nulli comes exeo_.\" This\nman, whose deep reach of thought, whose large legislative conceptions,\nand whose grand plans of policy make the most shining part of our\nReports, from whence we have all learned our lessons, if we have learned\nany good ones,--this man, from whose materials those gentlemen who have\nleast acknowledged it have yet spoken as from a brief,--this man, driven\nfrom his employment, discountenanced by the Directors, has had no other\nreward, and no other distinction, but that inward \"sunshine of the soul\"\nwhich a good conscience can always bestow upon itself. He has not yet\nhad so much as a good word, but from a person too insignificant to make\nany other return for the means with which he has been furnished for\nperforming his share of a duty which is equally urgent on us all.\n\nAdd to this, that, from the highest in place to the lowest, every\nBritish subject, who, in obedience to the Company's orders, has been\nactive in the discovery of peculations, has been ruined. They have been\ndriven from India. When they made their appeal at home, they were not\nheard; when they attempted to return, they were stopped. No artifice of\nfraud, no violence of power, has been omitted to destroy them in\ncharacter as well as in fortune.\n\nWorse, far worse, has been the fate of the poor creatures, the natives\nof India, whom the hypocrisy of the Company has betrayed into complaint\nof oppression and discovery of peculation. The first women in Bengal,\nthe Ranny of Rajeshahi, the Ranny of Burdwan, the Ranny of Ambooah, by\ntheir weak and thoughtless trust in the Company's honor and protection,\nare utterly ruined: the first of these women, a person of princely rank,\nand once of correspondent fortune, who paid above two hundred thousand a\nyear quit-rent to the state, is, according to very credible information,\nso completely beggared as to stand in need of the relief of alms.\nMahomed Reza Khan, the second Mussulman in Bengal, for having been\ndistinguished by the ill-omened honor of the countenance and protection\nof the Court of Directors, was, without the pretence of any inquiry\nwhatsoever into his conduct, stripped of all his employments, and\nreduced to the lowest condition. His ancient rival for power, the Rajah\nNundcomar, was, by an insult on everything which India holds respectable\nand sacred, hanged in the face of all his nation by the judges you sent\nto protect that people: hanged for a pretended crime, upon an _ex post\nfacto_ British act of Parliament, in the midst of his evidence against\nMr. Hastings. The accuser they saw hanged. The culprit, without\nacquittal or inquiry, triumphs on the ground of that murder: a murder,\nnot of Nundcomar only, but of all living testimony, and even of evidence\nyet unborn. From that time not a complaint has been heard from the\nnatives against their governors. All the grievances of India have found\na complete remedy.\n\nMen will not look to acts of Parliament, to regulations, to\ndeclarations, to votes, and resolutions. No, they are not such fools.\nThey will ask, What is the road to power, credit, wealth, and honors?\nThey will ask, What conduct ends in neglect, disgrace, poverty, exile,\nprison, and gibbet? These will teach them the course which they are to\nfollow. It is your distribution of these that will give the character\nand tone to your government. All the rest is miserable grimace.\n\nWhen I accuse the Court of Directors of this habitual treachery in the\nuse of reward and punishment, I do not mean to include all the\nindividuals in that court. There have been, Sir, very frequently men of\nthe greatest integrity and virtue amongst them; and the contrariety in\nthe declarations and conduct of that court has arisen, I take it, from\nthis,--that the honest Directors have, by the force of matter of fact on\nthe records, carried the reprobation of the evil measures of the\nservants in India. This could not be prevented, whilst these records\nstared them in the face; nor were the delinquents, either here or there,\nvery solicitous about their reputation, as long as they were able to\nsecure their power. The agreement of their partisans to censure them\nblunted for a while the edge of a severe proceeding. It obtained for\nthem a character of impartiality, which enabled them to recommend with\nsome sort of grace, what will always carry a plausible appearance, those\ntreacherous expedients called moderate measures. Whilst these were under\ndiscussion, new matter of complaint came over, which seemed to antiquate\nthe first. The same circle was here trod round once more; and thus\nthrough years they proceeded in a compromise of censure for punishment,\nuntil, by shame and despair, one after another, almost every man who\npreferred his duty to the Company to the interest of their servants has\nbeen driven from that court.\n\nThis, Sir, has been their conduct: and it has been the result of the\nalteration which was insensibly made in their constitution. The change\nwas made insensibly; but it is now strong and adult, and as public and\ndeclared as it is fixed beyond all power of reformation: so that there\nis none who hears me that is not as certain as I am, that the Company,\nin the sense in which it was formerly understood, has no existence.\n\nThe question is not, what injury you may do to the proprietors of India\nstock; for there are no such men to be injured. If the active, ruling\npart of the Company, who form the General Court, who fill the offices\nand direct the measures, (the rest tell for nothing,) were persons who\nheld their stock as a means of their subsistence, who in the part they\ntook were only concerned in the government of India for the rise or fall\nof their dividend, it would be indeed a defective plan of policy. The\ninterest of the people who are governed by them would not be their\nprimary object,--perhaps a very small part of their consideration at\nall. But then they might well be depended on, and perhaps more than\npersons in other respects preferable, for preventing the peculations of\ntheir servants to their own prejudice. Such a body would not easily have\nleft their trade as a spoil to the avarice of those who received their\nwages. But now things are totally reversed. The stock is of no value,\nwhether it be the qualification of a Director or Proprietor; and it is\nimpossible that it should. A Director's qualification may be worth about\ntwo thousand five hundred pounds,--and the interest, at eight per cent,\nis about one hundred and sixty pounds a year. Of what value is that,\nwhether it rise to ten, or fall to six, or to nothing; to him whose son,\nbefore he is in Bengal two months, and before he descends the stops of\nthe Council-Chamber, sells the grant of a single contract for forty\nthousand pounds? Accordingly, the stock is bought up in qualifications.\nThe vote is not to protect the stock, but the stock is bought to acquire\nthe vote; and the end of the vote is to cover and support, against\njustice, some man of power who has made an obnoxious fortune in India,\nor to maintain in power those who are actually employing it in the\nacquisition of such a fortune,--and to avail themselves, in return, of\nhis patronage, that he may shower the spoils of the East, \"barbaric\npearl and gold,\" on them, their families, and dependants. So that all\nthe relations of the Company are not only changed, but inverted. The\nservants in India are not appointed by the Directors, but the Directors\nare chosen by them. The trade is carried on with their capitals. To them\nthe revenues of the country are mortgaged. The seat of the supreme power\nis in Calcutta. The house in Leadenhall Street is nothing more than a\n'change for their agents, factors, and deputies to meet in, to take care\nof their affairs and support their interests,--and this so avowedly,\nthat we see the known agents of the delinquent servants marshalling and\ndisciplining their forces, and the prime spokesmen in all their\nassemblies.\n\nEverything has followed in this order, and according to the natural\ntrain of events. I will close what I have to say on the incorrigible\ncondition of the Company, by stating to you a few facts that will leave\nno doubt of the obstinacy of that corporation, and of their strength\ntoo, in resisting the reformation of their servants. By these facts you\nwill be enabled to discover the sole grounds upon which they are\ntenacious of their charter.\n\nIt is now more than two years, that upon account of the gross abuses and\nruinous situation of the Company's affairs, (which occasioned the cry of\nthe whole world long before it was taken up here,) that we instituted\ntwo committees to inquire into the mismanagements by which the Company's\naffairs had been brought to the brink of ruin. These inquiries had been\npursued with unremitting diligence, and a great body of facts was\ncollected and printed for general information. In the result of those\ninquiries, although the committees consisted of very different\ndescriptions, they were unanimous. They joined in censuring the conduct\nof the Indian administration, and enforcing the responsibility upon two\nmen, whom this House, in consequence of these reports, declared it to be\nthe duty of the Directors to remove from their stations, and recall to\nGreat Britain,--\"_because they had acted in a manner repugnant to the\nhonor and policy of this nation, and thereby brought great calamities on\nIndia and enormous expenses on the East India Company_.\"\n\nHere was no attempt on the charter. Here was no question of their\nprivileges. To vindicate their own honor, to support their own\ninterests, to enforce obedience to their own orders,--these were the\nsole object of the monitory resolution of this House. But as soon as the\nGeneral Court could assemble, they assembled to demonstrate who they\nreally were. Regardless of the proceedings of this House, they ordered\nthe Directors not to carry into effect any resolution they might come to\nfor the removal of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Hornby. The Directors, still\nretaining some shadow of respect to this House, instituted an inquiry\nthemselves, which continued from June to October, and, after an\nattentive perusal and full consideration of papers, resolved to take\nsteps for removing the persons who had been the objects of our\nresolution, but not without a violent struggle against evidence. Seven\nDirectors went so far as to enter a protest against the vote of their\ncourt. Upon this the General Court takes the alarm: it reassembles; it\norders the Directors to rescind their resolution, that is, not to recall\nMr. Hastings and Mr. Hornby, and to despise the resolution of the House\nof Commons. Without so much as the pretence of looking into a single\npaper, without the formality of instituting any committee of inquiry,\nthey superseded all the labors of their own Directors and of this House.\n\nIt will naturally occur to ask, how it was possible that they should not\nattempt some sort of examination into facts, as a color for their\nresistance to a public authority proceeding so very deliberately, and\nexerted, apparently at least, in favor of their own. The answer, and the\nonly answer which can be given, is, that they were afraid that their\ntrue relation should be mistaken. They were afraid that their patrons\nand masters in India should attribute their support of them to an\nopinion of their cause, and not to an attachment to their power. They\nwere afraid it should be suspected that they did not mean blindly to\nsupport them in the use they made of that power. They determined to show\nthat they at least were set against reformation: that they were firmly\nresolved to bring the territories, the trade, and the stock of the\nCompany to ruin, rather than be wanting in fidelity to their nominal\nservants and real masters, in the ways they took to their private\nfortunes.\n\nEven since the beginning of this session, the same act of audacity was\nrepeated, with the same circumstances of contempt of all the decorum of\ninquiry on their part, and of all the proceedings of this House. They\nagain made it a request to their favorite, and your culprit, to keep his\npost,--and thanked and applauded him, without calling for a paper which\ncould afford light into the merit or demerit of the transaction, and\nwithout giving themselves a moment's time to consider, or even to\nunderstand, the articles of the Mahratta peace. The fact is, that for a\nlong time there was a struggle, a faint one indeed, between the Company\nand their servants. But it is a struggle no longer. For some time the\nsuperiority has been decided. The interests abroad are become the\nsettled preponderating weight both in the Court of Proprietors and the\nCourt of Directors. Even the attempt you have made to inquire into their\npractices and to reform abuses has raised and piqued them to a far more\nregular and steady support. The Company has made a common cause and\nidentified themselves with the destroyers of India. They have taken on\nthemselves all that mass of enormity; they are supporting what you have\nreprobated; those you condemn they applaud, those you order home to\nanswer for their conduct they request to stay, and thereby encourage to\nproceed in their practices. Thus the servants of the East India Company\ntriumph, and the representatives of the people of Great Britain are\ndefeated.\n\nI therefore conclude, what you all conclude, that this body, being\ntotally perverted from the purposes of its institution, is utterly\nincorrigible; and because they are incorrigible, both in conduct and\nconstitution, power ought to be taken out of their hands,--just on the\nsame principles on which have been made all the just changes and\nrevolutions of government that have taken place since the beginning of\nthe world.\n\nI will now say a few words to the general principle of the plan which is\nset up against that of my right honorable friend. It is to recommit the\ngovernment of India to the Court of Directors. Those who would commit\nthe reformation of India to the destroyers of it are the enemies to\nthat reformation. They would make a distinction between Directors and\nProprietors, which, in the present state of things, does not, cannot\nexist. But a right honorable gentleman says, he would keep the present\ngovernment of India in the Court of Directors, and would, to curb them,\nprovide salutary regulations. Wonderful! That is, he would appoint the\nold offenders to correct the old offences; and he would render the\nvicious and the foolish wise and virtuous by salutary regulations. He\nwould appoint the wolf as guardian of the sheep; but he has invented a\ncurious muzzle, by which this protecting wolf shall not be able to open\nhis jaws above an inch or two at the utmost. Thus his work is finished.\nBut I tell the right honorable gentleman, that controlled depravity is\nnot innocence, and that it is not the labor of delinquency in chains\nthat will correct abuses. Will these gentlemen of the direction\nanimadvert on the partners of their own guilt? Never did a serious plan\nof amending of any old tyrannical establishment propose the authors and\nabettors of the abuses as the reformers of them. If the undone people of\nIndia see their old oppressors in confirmed power, even by the\nreformation, they will expect nothing but what they will certainly\nfeel,--continuance, or rather an aggravation, of all their former\nsufferings. They look to the seat of power, and to the persons who fill\nit; and they despise those gentlemen's regulations as much as the\ngentlemen do who talk of them.\n\nBut there is a cure for everything. Take away, say they, the Court of\nProprietors, and the Court of Directors will do their duty. Yes,--as\nthey have done it hitherto. That the evils in India have solely arisen\nfrom the Court of Proprietors is grossly false. In many of them the\nDirectors were heartily concurring; in most of them they were\nencouraging, and sometimes commanding; in all they were conniving.\n\nBut who are to choose this well-regulated and reforming Court of\nDirectors?--Why, the very Proprietors who are excluded from all\nmanagement, for the abuse of their power. They will choose, undoubtedly,\nout of themselves, men like themselves; and those who are most forward\nin resisting your authority, those who are most engaged in faction or\ninterest with the delinquents abroad, will be the objects of their\nselection. But gentlemen say, that, when this choice is made, the\nProprietors are not to interfere in the measures of the Directors,\nwhilst those Directors are busy in the control of their common patrons\nand masters in India. No, indeed, I believe they will not desire to\ninterfere. They will choose those whom they know may be trusted, safely\ntrusted, to act in strict conformity to their common principles,\nmanners, measures, interests, and connections. They will want neither\nmonitor nor control. It is not easy to choose men to act in conformity\nto a public interest against their private; but a sure dependence may be\nhad on those who are chosen to forward their private interest at the\nexpense of the public. But if the Directors should slip, and deviate\ninto rectitude, the punishment is in the hands of the General Court, and\nit will surely be remembered to them at their next election.\n\nIf the government of India wants no reformation, but gentlemen are\namusing themselves with a theory, conceiving a more democratic or\naristocratic mode of government for these dependencies, or if they are\nin a dispute only about patronage, the dispute is with me of so little\nconcern that I should not take the pains to utter an affirmative or\nnegative to any proposition in it. If it be only for a theoretical\namusement that they are to propose a bill, the thing is at best\nfrivolous and unnecessary. But if the Company's government is not only\nfull of abuse, but is one of the most corrupt and destructive tyrannies\nthat probably ever existed in the world, (as I am sure it is,) what a\ncruel mockery would it be in me, and in those who think like me, to\npropose this kind of remedy for this kind of evil!\n\nI now come to the third objection,--that this bill will increase the\ninfluence of the crown. An honorable gentleman has demanded of me,\nwhether I was in earnest when I proposed to this House a plan for the\nreduction of that influence. Indeed, Sir, I was much, very much, in\nearnest my heart was deeply concerned in it; and I hope the public has\nnot lost the effect of it. How far my judgment was right, for what\nconcerned personal favor and consequence to myself, I shall not presume\nto determine; nor is its effect upon _me_, of any moment. But as to this\nbill, whether it increases the influence of the crown, or not, is a\nquestion I should be ashamed to ask. If I am not able to correct a\nsystem of oppression and tyranny, that goes to the utter ruin of thirty\nmillions of my fellow-creatures and fellow-subjects, but by some\nincrease to the influence of the crown, I am ready here to declare that\nI, who have been active to reduce it, shall be at least as active and\nstrenuous to restore it again. I am no lover of names; I contend for the\nsubstance of good and protecting government, let it come from what\nquarter it will.\n\nBut I am not obliged to have recourse to this expedient. Much, very\nmuch, the contrary. I am sure that the influence of the crown will by no\nmeans aid a reformation of this kind, which can neither be originated\nnor supported but by the uncorrupt public virtue of the representatives\nof the people of England. Let it once get into the ordinary course of\nadministration, and to me all hopes of reformation are gone. I am far\nfrom knowing or believing that this bill will increase the influence of\nthe crown. We all know that the crown has ever had some influence in the\nCourt of Directors, and that it has been extremely increased by the acts\nof 1773 and 1780. The gentlemen who, as part of their reformation,\npropose \"a more active control on the part of the crown,\" which is to\nput the Directors under a Secretary of State specially named for that\npurpose, must know that their project will increase it further. But that\nold influence has had, and the new will have, incurable inconveniences,\nwhich cannot happen under the Parliamentary establishment proposed in\nthis bill. An honorable gentleman,[58] not now in his place, but who is\nwell acquainted with the India Company, and by no means a friend to this\nbill, has told you that a ministerial influence has always been\npredominant in that body,--and that to make the Directors pliant to\ntheir purposes, ministers generally caused persons meanly qualified to\nbe chosen Directors. According to his idea, to secure subserviency, they\nsubmitted the Company's affairs to the direction of incapacity. This was\nto ruin the Company in order to govern it. This was certainly influence\nin the very worst form in which it could appear. At best it was\nclandestine and irresponsible. Whether this was done so much upon system\nas that gentleman supposes, I greatly doubt. But such in effect the\noperation of government on that court unquestionably was; and such,\nunder a similar constitution, it will be forever. Ministers must be\nwholly removed from the management of the affairs of India, or they will\nhave an influence in its patronage. The thing is inevitable. Their\nscheme of a new Secretary of State, \"with a more vigorous control,\" is\nnot much better than a repetition of the measure which we know by\nexperience will not do. Since the year 1773 and the year 1780, the\nCompany has been under the control of the Secretary of State's office,\nand we had then three Secretaries of State. If more than this is done,\nthen they annihilate the direction which they pretend to support; and\nthey augment the influence of the crown, of whose growth they affect so\ngreat an horror. But in truth this scheme of reconciling a direction\nreally and truly deliberative with an office really and substantially\ncontrolling is a sort of machinery that can be kept in order but a very\nshort time. Either the Directors will dwindle into clerks, or the\nSecretary of State, as hitherto has been the course, will leave\neverything to them, often through design, often through neglect. If both\nshould affect activity, collision, procrastination, delay, and, in the\nend, utter confusion, must ensue.\n\nBut, Sir, there is one kind of influence far greater than that of the\nnomination to office. This gentlemen in opposition have totally\noverlooked, although it now exists in its full vigor; and it will do so,\nupon their scheme, in at least as much force as it does now. That\ninfluence this bill cuts up by the roots. I mean the _influence of\nprotection_. I shall explain myself.--The office given to a young man\ngoing to India is of trifling consequence. But he that goes out an\ninsignificant boy in a few years returns a great nabob. Mr. Hastings\nsays he has two hundred and fifty of that kind of raw materials, who\nexpect to be speedily manufactured into the merchantable quality I\nmention. One of these gentlemen, suppose, returns hither laden with\nodium and with riches. When he comes to England, he comes as to a\nprison, or as to a sanctuary; and either is ready for him, according to\nhis demeanor. What is the influence in the grant of any place in India,\nto that which is acquired by the protection or compromise with such\nguilt, and with the command of such riches, under the dominion of the\nhopes and fears which power is able to hold out to every man in that\ncondition? That man's whole fortune, half a million perhaps, becomes an\ninstrument of influence, without a shilling of charge to the civil list:\nand the influx of fortunes which stand in need of this protection is\ncontinual. It works both ways: it influences the delinquent, and it may\ncorrupt the minister. Compare the influence acquired by appointing, for\ninstance, even a Governor-General, and that obtained by protecting him.\nI shall push this no further. But I wish gentlemen to roll it a little\nin their own minds.\n\nThe bill before you cuts off this source of influence. Its design and\nmain scope is, to regulate the administration of India upon the\nprinciples of a court of judicature,--and to exclude, as far as human\nprudence can exclude, all possibility of a corrupt partiality, in\nappointing to office, or supporting in office, or covering from inquiry\nand punishment, any person who has abused or shall abuse his authority.\nAt the board, as appointed and regulated by this bill, reward and\npunishment cannot be shifted and reversed by a whisper. That commission\nbecomes fatal to cabal, to intrigue, and to secret representation, those\ninstruments of the ruin of India. He that cuts off the means of\npremature fortune, and the power of protecting it when acquired, strikes\na deadly blow at the great fund, the bank, the capital stock of Indian\ninfluence, which cannot be vested anywhere, or in any hands, without\nmost dangerous consequences to the public.\n\nThe third and contradictory objection is, that this bill does not\nincrease the influence of the crown; on the contrary, that the just\npower of the crown will be lessened, and transferred to the use of a\nparty, by giving the patronage of India to a commission nominated by\nParliament and independent of the crown. The contradiction is glaring,\nand it has been too well exposed to make it necessary for me to insist\nupon it. But passing the contradiction, and taking it without any\nrelation, of all objections that is the most extraordinary. Do not\ngentlemen know that the crown has not at present the grant of a single\noffice under the Company, civil or military, at home or abroad? So far\nas the crown is concerned, it is certainly rather a gainer; for the\nvacant offices in the new commission are to be filled up by the king.\n\nIt is argued, as a part of the bill derogatory to the prerogatives of\nthe crown, that the commissioners named in the bill are to continue for\na short term of years, too short in my opinion,--and because, during\nthat time, they are not at the mercy of every predominant faction of the\ncourt. Does not this objection lie against the present Directors,--none\nof whom are named by the crown, and a proportion of whom hold for this\nvery term of four years? Did it not lie against the Governor-General and\nCouncil named in the act of 1773,--who were invested by name, as the\npresent commissioners are to be appointed in the body of the act of\nParliament, who were to hold their places for a term of years, and were\nnot removable at the discretion of the crown? Did it not lie against the\nreappointment, in the year 1780, upon the very same terms? Yet at none\nof these times, whatever other objections the scheme might be liable to,\nwas it supposed to be a derogation to the just prerogative of the crown,\nthat a commission created by act of Parliament should have its members\nnamed by the authority which called it into existence. This is not the\ndisposal by Parliament of any office derived from the authority of the\ncrown, or now disposable by that authority. It is so far from being\nanything new, violent, or alarming, that I do not recollect, in any\nParliamentary commission, down to the commissioners of the land-tax,\nthat it has ever been otherwise.\n\nThe objection of the tenure for four years is an objection to all places\nthat are not held during pleasure; but in that objection I pronounce the\ngentlemen, from my knowledge of their complexion and of their\nprinciples, to be perfectly in earnest. The party (say these gentlemen)\nof the minister who proposes this scheme will be rendered powerful by\nit; for he will name his party friends to the commission. This objection\nagainst party is a party objection; and in this, too, these gentlemen\nare perfectly serious. They see, that, if, by any intrigue, they should\nsucceed to office, they will lose the _clandestine_ patronage, the true\ninstrument of clandestine influence, enjoyed in the name of subservient\nDirectors, and of wealthy, trembling Indian delinquents. But as often as\nthey are beaten off this ground, they return to it again. The minister\nwill name his friends, and persons of his own party. Whom should he\nname? Should he name his adversaries? Should he name those whom he\ncannot trust? Should he name those to execute his plans who are the\ndeclared enemies to the principles of his reform? His character is here\nat stake. If he proposes for his own ends (but he never will propose)\nsuch names as, from their want of rank, fortune, character, ability, or\nknowledge, are likely to betray or to fall short of their trust, he is\nin an independent House of Commons,--in an House of Commons which has,\nby its own virtue, destroyed the instruments of Parliamentary\nsubservience. This House of Commons would not endure the sound of such\nnames. He would perish by the means which he is supposed to pursue for\nthe security of his power. The first pledge he must give of his\nsincerity in this great reform will be in the confidence which ought to\nbe reposed in those names.\n\nFor my part, Sir, in this business I put all indirect considerations\nwholly out of my mind. My sole question, on each clause of the bill,\namounts to this:--Is the measure proposed required by the necessities of\nIndia? I cannot consent totally to lose sight of the real wants of the\npeople who are the objects of it, and to hunt after every matter of\nparty squabble that may be started on the several provisions. On the\nquestion of the duration of the commission I am clear and decided. Can\nI, can any one who has taken the smallest trouble to be informed\nconcerning the affairs of India, amuse himself with so strange an\nimagination as that the habitual despotism and oppression, that the\nmonopolies, the peculations, the universal destruction of all the legal\nauthority of this kingdom, which have been for twenty years maturing to\ntheir present enormity, combined with the distance of the scene, the\nboldness and artifice of delinquents, their combination, their excessive\nwealth, and the faction they have made in England, can be fully\ncorrected in a shorter term than four years? None has hazarded such an\nassertion; none who has a regard for his reputation will hazard it.\n\nSir, the gentlemen, whoever they are, who shall be appointed to this\ncommission, have an undertaking of magnitude on their hands, and their\nstability must not only be, but it must be thought, real; and who is it\nwill believe that anything short of an establishment made, supported,\nand fixed in its duration, with all the authority of Parliament, can be\nthought secure of a reasonable stability? The plan of my honorable\nfriend is the reverse of that of reforming by the authors of the abuse.\nThe best we could expect from them is, that they should not continue\ntheir ancient, pernicious activity. To those we could think of nothing\nbut applying _control_; as we are sure that even a regard to their\nreputation (if any such thing exists in them) would oblige them to\ncover, to conceal, to suppress, and consequently to prevent all cure of\nthe grievances of India. For what can be discovered which is not to\ntheir disgrace? Every attempt to correct an abuse would be a satire on\ntheir former administration. Every man they should pretend to call to\nan account would be found their instrument, or their accomplice. They\ncan never see a beneficial regulation, but with a view to defeat it. The\nshorter the tenure of such persons, the better would be the chance of\nsome amendment.\n\nBut the system of the bill is different. It calls in persons in no wise\nconcerned with any act censured by Parliament,--persons generated with,\nand for, the reform, of which they are themselves the most essential\npart. To these the chief regulations in the bill are helps, not fetters:\nthey are authorities to support, not regulations to restrain them. From\nthese we look for much more than innocence. From these we expect zeal,\nfirmness, and unremitted activity. Their duty, their character, binds\nthem to proceedings of vigor; and they ought to have a tenure in their\noffice which precludes all fear, whilst they are acting up to the\npurposes of their trust,--a tenure without which none will undertake\nplans that require a series and system of acts. When they know that they\ncannot be whispered out of their duty, that their public conduct cannot\nbe censured without a public discussion, that the schemes which they\nhave begun will not be committed to those who will have an interest and\ncredit in defeating and disgracing them, then we may entertain hopes.\nThe tenure is for four years, or during their good behavior. That good\nbehavior is as long as they are true to the principles of the bill; and\nthe judgment is in either House of Parliament. This is the tenure of\nyour judges; and the valuable principle of the bill is to make a\njudicial administration for India. It is to give confidence in the\nexecution of a duty which requires as much perseverance and fortitude\nas can fall to the lot of any that is born of woman.\n\nAs to the gain by party from the right honorable gentleman's bill, let\nit be shown that this supposed party advantage is pernicious to its\nobject, and the objection is of weight; but until this is done, (and\nthis has not been attempted,) I shall consider the sole objection from\nits tendency to promote the interest of a party as altogether\ncontemptible. The kingdom is divided into parties, and it ever has been\nso divided, and it ever will be so divided; and if no system for\nrelieving the subjects of this kingdom from oppression, and snatching\nits affairs from ruin, can be adopted, until it is demonstrated that no\nparty can derive an advantage from it, no good can ever be done in this\ncountry. If party is to derive an advantage from the reform of India,\n(which is more than I know or believe,) it ought to be that party which\nalone in this kingdom has its reputation, nay, its very being, pledged\nto the protection and preservation of that part of the empire. Great\nfear is expressed that the commissioners named in this bill will show\nsome regard to a minister out of place. To men made like the objectors\nthis must appear criminal. Let it, however, be remembered by others,\nthat, if the commissioners should be his friends, they cannot be his\nslaves. But dependants are not in a condition to adhere to friends, nor\nto principles, nor to any uniform line of conduct. They may begin\ncensors, and be obliged to end accomplices. They may be even put under\nthe direction of those whom they were appointed to punish.\n\nThe fourth and last objection is, that the bill will hurt public credit.\nI do not know whether this requires an answer. But if it does, look to\nyour foundations. The sinking fund is the pillar of credit in this\ncountry; and let it not be forgot, that the distresses, owing to the\nmismanagement, of the East India Company, have already taken a million\nfrom that fund by the non-payment of duties. The bills drawn upon the\nCompany, which are about four millions, cannot be accepted without the\nconsent of the Treasury. The Treasury, acting under a Parliamentary\ntrust and authority, pledges the public for these millions. If they\npledge the public, the public must have a security in its hands for the\nmanagement of this interest, or the national credit is gone. For\notherwise it is not only the East India Company, which is a great\ninterest, that is undone, but, clinging to the security of all your\nfunds, it drags down the rest, and the whole fabric perishes in one\nruin. If this bill does not provide a direction of integrity and of\nability competent to that trust, the objection is fatal; if it does,\npublic credit must depend on the support of the bill.\n\nIt has been said, If you violate this charter, what security has the\ncharter of the Bank, in which public credit is so deeply concerned, and\neven the charter of London, in which the rights of so many subjects are\ninvolved? I answer, In the like case they have no security at all,--no,\nno security at all. If the Bank should, by every species of\nmismanagement, fall into a state similar to that of the East India\nCompany,--if it should be oppressed with demands it could not answer,\nengagements which it could not perform, and with bills for which it\ncould not procure payment,--no charter should protect the mismanagement\nfrom correction, and such public grievances from redress. If the city\nof London had the means and will of destroying an empire, and of cruelly\noppressing and tyrannizing over millions of men as good as themselves,\nthe charter of the city of London should prove no sanction to such\ntyranny and such oppression. Charters are kept, when their purposes are\nmaintained: they are violated, when the privilege is supported against\nits end and its object.\n\nNow, Sir, I have finished all I proposed to say, as my reasons for\ngiving my vote to this bill. If I am wrong, it is not for want of pains\nto know what is right. This pledge, at least, of my rectitude I have\ngiven to my country.\n\nAnd now, having done my duty to the bill, let me say a word to the\nauthor. I should leave him to his own noble sentiments, if the unworthy\nand illiberal language with which he has been treated, beyond all\nexample of Parliamentary liberty, did not make a few words\nnecessary,--not so much in justice to him as to my own feelings. I must\nsay, then, that it will be a distinction honorable to the age, that the\nrescue of the greatest number of the human race that ever were so\ngrievously oppressed from the greatest tyranny that was ever exercised\nhas fallen to the lot of abilities and dispositions equal to the\ntask,--that it has fallen to one who has the enlargement to comprehend,\nthe spirit to undertake, and the eloquence to support so great a measure\nof hazardous benevolence. His spirit is not owing to his ignorance of\nthe state of men and things: he well knows what snares are spread about\nhis path, from personal animosity, from court intrigues, and possibly\nfrom popular delusion. But he has put to hazard his ease, his security,\nhis interest, his power, even his darling popularity, for the benefit\nof a people whom he has never seen. This is the road that all heroes\nhave trod before him. He is traduced and abused for his supposed\nmotives. He will remember that obloquy is a necessary ingredient in the\ncomposition of all true glory: he will remember that it was not only in\nthe Roman customs, but it is in the nature and constitution of things,\nthat calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph. These thoughts\nwill support a mind which only exists for honor under the burden of\ntemporary reproach. He is doing, indeed, a great good,--such as rarely\nfalls to the lot, and almost as rarely coincides with the desires, of\nany man. Let him use his time. Let him give the whole length of the\nreins to his benevolence. He is now on a great eminence, where the eyes\nof mankind are turned to him. He may live long, he may do much; but here\nis the summit: he never can exceed what he does this day.\n\nHe has faults; but they are faults that, though they may in a small\ndegree tarnish the lustre and sometimes impede the march of his\nabilities, have nothing in them to extinguish the fire of great virtues.\nIn those faults there is no mixture of deceit, of hypocrisy, of pride,\nof ferocity, of complexional despotism, or want of feeling for the\ndistresses of mankind. His are faults which might exist in a descendant\nof Henry the Fourth of France, as they did exist in that father of his\ncountry. Henry the Fourth wished that he might live to see a fowl in the\npot of every peasant in his kingdom. That sentiment of homely\nbenevolence was worth all the splendid sayings that are recorded of\nkings. But he wished perhaps for more than could be obtained, and the\ngoodness of the man exceeded the power of the king. But this gentleman,\na subject, may this day say this at least with truth,--that he secures\nthe rice in his pot to every man in India. A poet of antiquity thought\nit one of the first distinctions to a prince whom he meant to celebrate,\nthat through a long succession of generations he had been the progenitor\nof an able and virtuous citizen who by force of the arts of peace had\ncorrected governments of oppression and suppressed wars of rapine.\n\n    Indole proh quanta juvenis, quantumque daturus\n    Ausoniae populis ventura in saecula civem!\n    Ille super Gangem, super exauditus et Indos,\n    Implebit terras voce, et furialia bella\n    Fulmine compescet linguae.--\n\nThis was what was said of the predecessor of the only person to whose\neloquence it does not wrong that of the mover of this bill to be\ncompared. But the Ganges and the Indus are the patrimony of the fame of\nmy honorable friend, and not of Cicero. I confess I anticipate with joy\nthe reward of those whose whole consequence, power, and authority exist\nonly for the benefit of mankind; and I carry my mind to all the people,\nand all the names and descriptions, that, relieved by this bill, will\nbless the labors of this Parliament, and the confidence which the best\nHouse of Commons has given to him who the best deserves it. The little\ncavils of party will not be heard where freedom and happiness will be\nfelt. There is not a tongue, a nation, or religion in India, which will\nnot bless the presiding care and manly beneficence of this House, and of\nhim who proposes to you this great work. Your names will never be\nseparated before the throne of the Divine Goodness, in whatever\nlanguage, or with whatever rites, pardon is asked for sin, and reward\nfor those who imitate the Godhead in His universal bounty to His\ncreatures. These honors you deserve, and they will surely be paid, when\nall the jargon of influence and party and patronage are swept into\noblivion.\n\nI have spoken what I think, and what I feel, of the mover of this bill.\nAn honorable friend of mine, speaking of his merits, was charged with\nhaving made a studied panegyric. I don't know what his was. Mine, I am\nsure, is a studied panegyric,--the fruit of much meditation, the result\nof the observation of near twenty years. For my own part, I am happy\nthat I have lived to see this day; I feel myself overpaid for the labors\nof eighteen years, when, at this late period, I am able to take my\nshare, by one humble vote, in destroying a tyranny that exists to the\ndisgrace of this nation and the destruction of so large a part of the\nhuman species.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[52] An allusion made by Mr. Powis.\n\n[53] Mr. Pitt.\n\n[54] Mr. Pitt.\n\n[55] Mr. Dundas, Lord Advocate of Scotland.\n\n[56] The paltry foundation at Calcutta is scarcely worth naming as an\nexception.\n\n[57] Mr. Fox.\n\n[58] Governor Johnstone.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nREPRESENTATION TO HIS MAJESTY,\n\nMOVED IN\n\nTHE HOUSE OF COMMONS\n\nBY THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE, AND SECONDED BY WILLIAM WINDHAM, ESQ.,\n\nON MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1784,\n\nAND NEGATIVED.\n\nWITH A PREFACE AND NOTES.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe representation now given to the public relates to some of the most\nessential privileges of the House of Commons. It would appear of little\nimportance, if it were to be judged by its reception in the place where\nit was proposed. There it was rejected without debate. The subject\nmatter may, perhaps, hereafter appear to merit a more serious\nconsideration. Thinking men will scarcely regard the _penal_ dissolution\nof a Parliament as a very trifling concern. Such a dissolution must\noperate forcibly as an example; and it much imports the people of this\nkingdom to consider what lesson that example is to teach.\n\nThe late House of Commons was not accused of an interested compliance to\nthe will of a court. The charge against them was of a different nature.\nThey were charged with being actuated by an extravagant spirit of\nindependency. This species of offence is so closely connected with\nmerit, this vice bears so near a resemblance to virtue, that the flight\nof a House of Commons above the exact temperate medium of independence\nought to be correctly ascertained, lest we give encouragement to\ndispositions of a less generous nature, and less safe for the people; we\nought to call for very solid and convincing proofs of the existence, and\nof the magnitude, too, of the evils which are charged to an independent\nspirit, before we give sanction to any measure, that, by checking a\nspirit so easily damped, and so hard to be excited, may affect the\nliberty of a part of our Constitution, which, if not free, is worse than\nuseless.\n\nThe Editor does not deny that by possibility such an abuse may exist:\nbut, _prima fronte_, there is no reason to presume it. The House of\nCommons is not, by its complexion, peculiarly subject to the distempers\nof an independent habit. Very little compulsion is necessary, on the\npart of the people, to render it abundantly complaisant to ministers and\nfavorites of all descriptions. It required a great length of time, very\nconsiderable industry and perseverance, no vulgar policy, the union of\nmany men and many tempers, and the concurrence of events which do not\nhappen every day, to build up an independent House of Commons. Its\ndemolition was accomplished in a moment; and it was the work of ordinary\nhands. But to construct is a matter of skill; to demolish, force and\nfury are sufficient.\n\nThe late House of Commons has been punished for its independence. That\nexample is made. Have we an example on record of a House of Commons\npunished for its servility? The rewards of a senate so disposed are\nmanifest to the world. Several gentlemen are very desirous of altering\nthe constitution of the House of Commons; but they must alter the frame\nand constitution of human nature itself, before they can so fashion it,\nby any mode of election, that its conduct will not be influenced by\nreward and punishment, by fame and by disgrace. If these examples take\nroot in the minds of men, what members hereafter will be bold enough\nnot to be corrupt, especially as the king's highway of obsequiousness is\nso very broad and easy? To make a passive member of Parliament, no\ndignity of mind, no principles of honor, no resolution, no ability, no\nindustry, no learning, no experience, are in the least degree necessary.\nTo defend a post of importance against a powerful enemy requires an\nEliot; a drunken invalid is qualified to hoist a white flag, or to\ndeliver up the keys of the fortress on his knees.\n\nThe gentlemen chosen into this Parliament, for the purpose of this\nsurrender, were bred to better things, and are no doubt qualified for\nother service. But for this strenuous exertion of inactivity, for the\nvigorous task of submission and passive obedience, all their learning\nand ability are rather a matter of personal ornament to themselves than\nof the least use in the performance of their duty.\n\nThe present surrender, therefore, of rights and privileges without\nexamination, and the resolution to support any minister given by the\nsecret advisers of the crown, determines not only on all the power and\nauthority of the House, but it settles the character and description of\nthe men who are to compose it, and perpetuates that character as long as\nit may be thought expedient to keep up a phantom of popular\nrepresentation.\n\nIt is for the chance of some amendment before this new settlement takes\na permanent form, and while the matter is yet soft and ductile, that the\nEditor has republished this piece, and added some notes and explanations\nto it. His intentions, he hopes, will excuse him to the original mover,\nand to the world. He acts from a strong sense of the incurable ill\neffects of holding out the conduct of the late House of Commons as an\nexample to be shunned by future representatives of the people.\n\n\n\n\nMOTION\n\nRELATIVE TO\n\nTHE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE.\n\n\nLUNAE, 14 deg. DIE JUNII, 1784.\n\n\nA motion was made, That a representation be presented to his Majesty,\nmost humbly to offer to his royal consideration, that the address of\nthis House, upon his Majesty's speech from the throne, was dictated\nsolely by our conviction of his Majesty's own most gracious intentions\ntowards his people, which, as we feel with gratitude, so we are ever\nready to acknowledge with cheerfulness and satisfaction.\n\nImpressed with these sentiments, we were willing to separate from our\ngeneral expressions of duty, respect, and veneration to his Majesty's\nroyal person and his princely virtues all discussion whatever with\nrelation to several of the matters suggested and several of the\nexpressions employed in that speech.\n\nThat it was not fit or becoming that any decided opinion should be\nformed by his faithful Commons on that speech, without a degree of\ndeliberation adequate to the importance of the object. Having afforded\nourselves due time for that deliberation, we do now most humbly beg\nleave to represent to his Majesty, that, in the speech from the throne,\nhis ministers have thought proper to use a language of a very alarming\nimport, unauthorized by the practice of good times, and irreconcilable\nto the principles of this government.\n\nHumbly to express to his Majesty, that it is the privilege and duty of\nthis House to guard the Constitution from all infringement on the part\nof ministers, and, whenever the occasion requires it, to warn them\nagainst any abuse of the authorities committed to them; but it is very\nlately,[59] that, in a manner not more unseemly than irregular and\npreposterous, ministers have thought proper, by admonition from the\nthrone, implying distrust and reproach, to convey the expectations of\nthe people to us, their sole representatives,[60] and have presumed to\ncaution us, the natural guardians of the Constitution, against any\ninfringement of it on our parts.\n\nThis dangerous innovation we, his faithful Commons, think it our duty to\nmark; and as these admonitions from the throne, by their frequent\nrepetition, seem intended to lead gradually to the establishment of an\nusage, we hold ourselves bound thus solemnly to protest against them.\n\nThis House will be, as it ever ought to be, anxiously attentive to the\ninclinations and interests of its constituents; nor do we desire to\nstraiten any of the avenues to the throne, or to either House of\nParliament. But the ancient order in which the rights of the people have\nbeen exercised is not a restriction of these rights. It is a method\nprovidently framed in favor of those privileges which it preserves and\nenforces, by keeping in that course which has been found the most\neffectual for answering their ends. His Majesty may receive the opinions\nand wishes of individuals under their signatures, and of bodies\ncorporate under their seals, as expressing their own particular sense;\nand he may grant such redress as the legal powers of the crown enable\nthe crown to afford. This, and the other House of Parliament, may also\nreceive the wishes of such corporations and individuals by petition. The\ncollective sense of his people his Majesty is to receive from his\nCommons in Parliament assembled. It would destroy the whole spirit of\nthe Constitution, if his Commons were to receive that sense from the\nministers of the crown, or to admit them to be a proper or a regular\nchannel for conveying it.\n\nThat the ministers in the said speech declare, \"His Majesty has a just\nand confident reliance that we (his faithful Commons) are animated with\nthe same sentiments of loyalty, and the same attachment to our excellent\nConstitution which he had the happiness to see so fully manifested in\nevery part of the kingdom.\"\n\nTo represent, that his faithful Commons have never foiled in loyalty to\nhis Majesty. It is new to them to be reminded of it. It is unnecessary\nand invidious to press it upon them by any example. This recommendation\nof loyalty, after his Majesty has sat for so many years, with the full\nsupport of all descriptions of his subjects, on the throne of this\nkingdom, at a time of profound peace, and without any pretence of the\nexistence or apprehension of war or conspiracy, becomes in itself a\nsource of no small jealousy to his faithful Commons; as many\ncircumstances lead us to apprehend that therein the ministers have\nreference to some other measures and principles of loyalty, and to some\nother ideas of the Constitution, than the laws require, or the practice\nof Parliament will admit.\n\nNo regular communication of the proofs of loyalty and attachment to the\nConstitution, alluded to in the speech from the throne, have been laid\nbefore this House, in order to enable us to judge of the nature,\ntendency, or occasion of them, or in what particular acts they were\ndisplayed; but if we are to suppose the manifestations of loyalty (which\nare held out to us as an example for imitation) consist in certain\naddresses delivered to his Majesty, promising support to his Majesty in\nthe exercise of his prerogative, and thanking his Majesty for removing\ncertain of his ministers, on account of the votes they have given upon\nbills depending in Parliament,--if this be the example of loyalty\nalluded to in the speech from the throne, then we must beg leave to\nexpress our serious concern for the impression which has been made on\nany of our fellow-subjects by misrepresentations which have seduced them\ninto a seeming approbation of proceedings subversive of their own\nfreedom. We conceive that the opinions delivered in these papers were\nnot well considered; nor were the parties duly informed of the nature of\nthe matters on which they were called to determine, nor of those\nproceedings of Parliament which they were led to censure.\n\nWe shall act more advisedly.--The loyalty we shall manifest will not be\nthe same with theirs; but, we trust, it will be equally sincere, and\nmore enlightened. It is no slight authority which shall persuade us (by\nreceiving as proofs of loyalty the mistaken principles lightly taken up\nin these addresses) obliquely to criminate, with the heavy and\nungrounded charge of disloyalty and disaffection, an uncorrupt,\nindependent, and reforming Parliament.[61] Above all, we shall take care\nthat none of the rights and privileges, always claimed, and since the\naccession of his Majesty's illustrious family constantly exercised by\nthis House, (and which we hold and exercise in trust for the Commons of\nGreat Britain, and for their benefit,) shall be constructively\nsurrendered, or even weakened and impaired, under ambiguous phrases and\nimplications of censure on the late Parliamentary proceedings. If these\nclaims are not well founded, they ought to be honestly abandoned; if\nthey are just, they ought to be steadily and resolutely maintained.\n\nOf his Majesty's own gracious disposition towards the true principles of\nour free Constitution his faithful Commons never did or could entertain\na doubt; but we humbly beg leave to express to his Majesty our\nuneasiness concerning other new and unusual expressions of his\nministers, declaratory of a resolution \"to support in their _just\nbalance_ the rights and privileges of every branch of the legislature.\"\n\nIt were desirable that all hazardous theories concerning a balance of\nrights and privileges (a mode of expression wholly foreign to\nParliamentary usage) might have been forborne. His Majesty's faithful\nCommons are well instructed in their own rights and privileges, which\nthey are determined to maintain on the footing upon which they were\nhanded down from their ancestors; they are not unacquainted with the\nrights and privileges of the House of Peers; and they know and respect\nthe lawful prerogatives of the crown: but they do not think it safe to\nadmit anything concerning the existence of a balance of those rights,\nprivileges, and prerogatives; nor are they able to discern to what\nobjects ministers would apply their fiction of a balance, nor what they\nwould consider as a just one. These unauthorized doctrines have a\ntendency to stir improper discussions, and to lead to mischievous\ninnovations in the Constitution.[62]\n\nThat his faithful Commons most humbly recommend, instead of the\ninconsiderate speculations of unexperienced men, that, on all occasions,\nresort should be had to the happy practice of Parliament, and to those\nsolid maxims of government which have prevailed since the accession of\nhis Majesty's illustrious family, as furnishing the only safe principles\non which the crown and Parliament can proceed.\n\nWe think it the more necessary to be cautious on this head, as, in the\nlast Parliament, the present ministers had thought proper to\ncountenance, if not to suggest, an attack upon the most clear and\nundoubted rights and privileges of this House.[63]\n\nFearing, from these extraordinary admonitions, and from the new\ndoctrines, which seem to have dictated several unusual expressions, that\nhis Majesty has been abused by false representations of the late\nproceedings in Parliament, we think it our duty respectfully to inform\nhis Majesty, that no attempt whatever has been made against his lawful\nprerogatives, or against the rights and privileges of the Peers, by the\nlate House of Commons, in any of their addresses, votes, or resolutions;\nneither do we know of any proceeding by bill, in which it was proposed\nto abridge the extent of his royal prerogative: but, if such provision\nhad existed in any bill, we protest, and we declare, against all\nspeeches, acts, or addresses, from any persons whatsoever, which have a\ntendency to consider such bills, or the persons concerned in them, as\njust objects of any kind of censure and punishment from the throne.\nNecessary reformations may hereafter require, as they have frequently\ndone in former times, limitations and abridgments, and in some cases an\nentire extinction, of some branch of prerogative. If bills should be\nimproper in the form in which they appear in the House where they\noriginate, they are liable, by the wisdom of this Constitution, to be\ncorrected, and even to be totally set aside, elsewhere. This is the\nknown, the legal, and the safe remedy; but whatever, by the\nmanifestation of the royal displeasure, tends to intimidate individual\nmembers from proposing, or this House from receiving, debating, and\npassing bills, tends to prevent even the beginning of every reformation\nin the state, and utterly destroys the deliberative capacity of\nParliament. We therefore claim, demand, and insist upon it, as our\nundoubted right, that no persons shall be deemed proper objects of\nanimadversion by the crown, in any mode whatever, for the votes which\nthey give or the propositions which they make in Parliament.\n\nWe humbly conceive, that besides its share of the legislative power, and\nits right of impeachment, that, by the law and usage of Parliament, this\nHouse has other powers and capacities, which it is bound to maintain.\nThis House is assured that our humble advice on the exercise of\nprerogative will be heard with the same attention with which it has ever\nbeen regarded, and that it will be followed by the same effects which it\nhas ever produced, during the happy and glorious reigns of his Majesty's\nroyal progenitors,--not doubting but that, in all those points, we shall\nbe considered as a council of wisdom and weight to advise, and not\nmerely as an accuser of competence to criminate.[64] This House claims\nboth capacities; and we trust that we shall be left to our free\ndiscretion which of them we shall employ as best calculated for his\nMajesty's and the national service. Whenever we shall see it expedient\nto offer our advice concerning his Majesty's servants, who are those of\nthe public, we confidently hope that the personal favor of any minister,\nor any set of ministers, will not be more dear to his Majesty than the\ncredit and character of a House of Commons. It is an experiment full of\nperil to put the representative wisdom and justice of his Majesty's\npeople in the wrong; it is a crooked and desperate design, leading to\nmischief, the extent of which no human wisdom can foresee, to attempt\nto form a prerogative party in the nation, to be resorted to as occasion\nshall require, in derogation, from the authority of the Commons of Great\nBritain in Parliament assembled; it is a contrivance full of danger, for\nministers to set up the representative and constituent bodies of the\nCommons of this kingdom as two separate and distinct powers, formed to\ncounterpoise each other, leaving the preference in the hands of secret\nadvisers of the crown. In such a situation of things, these advisers,\ntaking advantage of the differences which may accidentally arise or may\npurposely be fomented between them, will have it in their choice to\nresort to the one or the other, as may best suit the purposes of their\nsinister ambition. By exciting an emulation and contest between the\nrepresentative and the constituent bodies, as parties contending for\ncredit and influence at the throne, sacrifices will be made by both; and\nthe whole can end in nothing else than the destruction of the dearest\nrights and liberties of the nation. If there must be another mode of\nconveying the collective sense of the people to the throne than that by\nthe House of Commons, it ought to be fixed and defined, and its\nauthority ought to be settled: it ought not to exist in so precarious\nand dependent a state as that ministers should have it in their power,\nat their own mere pleasure, to acknowledge it with respect or to reject\nit with scorn.\n\nIt is the undoubted prerogative of the crown to dissolve Parliament; but\nwe beg leave to lay before his Majesty, that it is, of all the trusts\nvested in his Majesty, the most critical and delicate, and that in which\nthis House has the most reason to require, not only the good faith, but\nthe favor of the crown. His Commons are not always upon a par with his\nministers in an application to popular judgment; it is not in the power\nof the members of this House to go to their election at the moment the\nmost favorable for them. It is in the power of the crown to choose a\ntime for their dissolution whilst great and arduous matters of state and\nlegislation are depending, which may be easily misunderstood, and which\ncannot be fully explained before that misunderstanding may prove fatal\nto the honor that belongs and to the consideration that is due to\nmembers of Parliament.\n\nWith his Majesty is the gift of all the rewards, the honors,\ndistinctions, favors, and graces of the state; with his Majesty is the\nmitigation of all the rigors of the law: and we rejoice to see the crown\npossessed of trusts calculated to obtain good-will, and charged with\nduties which are popular and pleasing. Our trusts are of a different\nkind. Our duties are harsh and invidious in their nature; and justice\nand safety is all we can expect in the exercise of them. We are to offer\nsalutary, which is not always pleasing counsel: we are to inquire and to\naccuse; and the objects of our inquiry and charge will be for the most\npart persons of wealth, power, and extensive connections: we are to make\nrigid laws for the preservation of revenue, which of necessity more or\nless confine some action or restrain some function which before was\nfree: what is the most critical and invidious of all, the whole body of\nthe public impositions originate from us, and the hand of the House of\nCommons is seen and felt in every burden that presses on the people.\nWhilst ultimately we are serving them, and in the first instance whilst\nwe are serving his Majesty, it will be hard indeed, if we should see a\nHouse of Commons the victim of its zeal and fidelity, sacrificed by his\nministers to those very popular discontents which shall be excited by\nour dutiful endeavors for the security and greatness of his throne. No\nother consequence can result from such an example, but that, in future,\nthe House of Commons, consulting its safety at the expense of its\nduties, and suffering the whole energy of the state to be relaxed, will\nshrink from every service which, however necessary, is of a great and\narduous nature,--or that, willing to provide for the public necessities,\nand at the same time to secure the means of performing that task, they\nwill exchange independence for protection, and will court a subservient\nexistence through the favor of those ministers of state or those secret\nadvisers who ought themselves to stand in awe of the Commons of this\nrealm.\n\nA House of Commons respected by his ministers is essential to his\nMajesty's service: it is fit that they should yield to Parliament, and\nnot that Parliament should be new-modelled until it is fitted to their\npurposes. If our authority is only to be held up when we coincide in\nopinion with his Majesty's advisers, but is to be set at nought the\nmoment it differs from them, the House of Commons will sink into a mere\nappendage of administration, and will lose that independent character\nwhich, inseparably connecting the honor and reputation with the acts of\nthis House, enables us to afford a real, effective, and substantial\nsupport to his government. It is the deference shown to our opinion,\nwhen we dissent from the servants of the crown, which alone can give\nauthority to the proceedings of this House, when it concurs with their\nmeasures.\n\nThat authority once lost, the credit of his Majesty's crown will be\nimpaired in the eyes of all nations. Foreign powers, who may yet wish to\nrevive a friendly intercourse with this nation, will look in vain for\nthat hold which gave a connection with Great Britain the preference to\nan affiance with any other state. A House of Commons of which ministers\nwere known to stand in awe, where everything was necessarily discussed\non principles fit to be openly and publicly avowed, and which could not\nbe retracted or varied without danger, furnished a ground of confidence\nin the public faith which the engagement of no state dependent on the\nfluctuation of personal favor and private advice can ever pretend to. If\nfaith with the House of Commons, the grand security for the national\nfaith itself, can be broken with impunity, a wound is given to the\npolitical importance of Great Britain which will not easily be healed.\n\nThat there was a great variance between the late House of Commons and\ncertain persons, whom his Majesty has been advised to make and continue\nas ministers, in defiance of the advice of that House, is notorious to\nthe world. That House did not confide in those ministers; and they\nwithheld their confidence from them for reasons for which posterity will\nhonor and respect the names of those who composed that House of Commons,\ndistinguished for its independence. They could not confide in persons\nwho have shown a disposition to dark and dangerous intrigues. By these\nintrigues they have weakened, if not destroyed, the clear assurance\nwhich his Majesty's people, and which all nations, ought to have of what\nare and what are not the real acts of his government.\n\nIf it should be seen that his ministers may continue in their offices\nwithout any signification to them of his Majesty's displeasure at any of\ntheir measures, whilst persons considerable for their rank, and known to\nhave had access to his Majesty's sacred person, can with impunity abuse\nthat advantage, and employ his Majesty's name to disavow and counteract\nthe proceedings of his official servants, nothing but distrust, discord,\ndebility, contempt of all authority, and general confusion, can prevail\nin his government.\n\nThis we lay before his Majesty, with humility and concern, as the\ninevitable effect of a spirit of intrigue in his executive government:\nan evil which we have but too much reason to be persuaded exists and\nincreases. During the course of the last session it broke out in a\nmanner the most alarming. This evil was infinitely aggravated by the\nunauthorized, but not disavowed, use which has been made of his\nMajesty's name, for the purpose of the most unconstitutional, corrupt,\nand dishonorable influence on the minds of the members of Parliament\nthat ever was practised in this kingdom. No attention even to exterior\ndecorum, in the practice of corruption and intimidation employed on\npeers, was observed: several peers were obliged under menaces to retract\ntheir declarations and to recall their proxies.\n\nThe Commons have the deepest interest in the purity and integrity of the\nPeerage. The Peers dispose of all the property in the kingdom, in the\nlast resort; and they dispose of it on their honor, and not on their\noaths, as all the members of every other tribunal in the kingdom must\ndo,--though in them the proceeding is not conclusive. We have,\ntherefore, a right to demand that no application shall be made to peers\nof such a nature as may give room to call in question, much less to\nattaint, our sole security for all that we possess. This corrupt\nproceeding appeared to the House of Commons, who are the natural\nguardians of the purity of Parliament, and of the purity of every branch\nof judicature, a most reprehensible and dangerous practice, tending to\nshake the very foundation of the authority of the House of Peers; and\nthey branded it as such by their resolution.\n\nThe House had not sufficient evidence to enable them legally to punish\nthis practice, but they had enough to caution them against all\nconfidence in the authors and abettors of it. They performed their duty\nin humbly advising his Majesty against the employment of such ministers;\nbut his Majesty was advised to keep those ministers, and to dissolve\nthat Parliament. The House, aware of the importance and urgency of its\nduty with regard to the British interests in India, which were and are\nin the utmost disorder, and in the utmost peril, most humbly requested\nhis Majesty not to dissolve the Parliament during the course of their\nvery critical proceedings on that subject. His Majesty's gracious\ncondescension to that request was conveyed in the royal faith, pledged\nto a House of Parliament, and solemnly delivered from the throne. It was\nbut a very few days after a committee had been, with the consent and\nconcurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appointed for an inquiry\ninto certain accounts delivered to the House by the Court of Directors,\nand then actually engaged in that inquiry, that the ministers,\nregardless of the assurance given from the crown to a House of Commons,\ndid dissolve that Parliament. We most humbly submit to his Majesty's\nconsideration the consequences of this their breach of public faith.\n\nWhilst the members of the House of Commons, under that security, were\nengaged in his Majesty's and the national business, endeavors were\nindustriously used to calumniate those whom it was found impracticable\nto corrupt. The reputation of the members, and the reputation of the\nHouse itself, was undermined in every part of the kingdom.\n\nIn the speech from the throne relative to India, we are cautioned by the\nministers \"not to lose sight of the effect any measure may have on the\nConstitution of our country.\" We are apprehensive that a calumnious\nreport, spread abroad, of an attack upon his Majesty's prerogative by\nthe late House of Commons, may have made an impression on his royal\nmind, and have given occasion to this unusual admonition to the present.\nThis attack is charged to have been made in the late Parliament by a\nbill which passed the House of Commons, in the late session of that\nParliament, for the regulation of the affairs, for the preservation of\nthe commerce, and for the amendment of the government of this nation, in\nthe East Indies.\n\nThat his Majesty and his people may have an opportunity of entering into\nthe ground of this injurious charge, we beg leave humbly to acquaint his\nMajesty, that, far from having made any infringement whatsoever on any\npart of his royal prerogative, that bill did, for a limited time, give\nto his Majesty certain powers never before possessed by the crown; and\nfor this his present ministers (who, rather than fall short in the\nnumber of their calumnies, employ some that are contradictory) have\nslandered this House, as aiming at the extension of an unconstitutional\ninfluence in his Majesty's crown. This pretended attempt to increase the\ninfluence of the crown they were weak enough to endeavor to persuade his\nMajesty's people was amongst the causes which excited his Majesty's\nresentment against his late ministers.\n\nFurther, to remove the impressions of this calumny concerning an attempt\nin the House of Commons against his prerogative, it is proper to inform\nhis Majesty, that the territorial possessions in the East Indies never\nhave been declared by any public judgment, act, or instrument, or any\nresolution of Parliament whatsoever, to be the subject matter of his\nMajesty's prerogative; nor have they ever been understood as belonging\nto his ordinary administration, or to be annexed or united to his crown;\nbut that they are acquisitions of a new and peculiar description,[65]\nunknown to the ancient executive constitution of this country.\n\nFrom time to time, therefore, Parliament provided for their government\naccording to its discretion, and to its opinion of what was required by\nthe public necessities. We do not know that his Majesty was entitled,\nby prerogative, to exercise any act of authority whatsoever in the\nCompany's affairs, or that, in effect, such authority has ever been\nexercised. His Majesty's patronage was not taken away by that bill;\nbecause it is notorious that his Majesty never originally had the\nappointment of a single officer, civil or military, in the Company's\nestablishment in India: nor has the least degree of patronage ever been\nacquired to the crown in any other manner or measure than as the power\nwas thought expedient to be granted by act of Parliament,--that is, by\nthe very same authority by which the offices were disposed of and\nregulated in the bill which his Majesty's servants have falsely and\ninjuriously represented as infringing upon the prerogative of the crown.\n\nBefore the year 1773 the whole administration of India, and the whole\npatronage to office there, was in the hands of the East India Company.\nThe East India Company is not a branch of his Majesty's prerogative\nadministration, nor does that body exercise any species of authority\nunder it, nor indeed from any British title that does not derive all its\nlegal validity from acts of Parliament.\n\nWhen a claim was asserted to the India territorial possessions in the\noccupation of the Company, these possessions were not claimed as parcel\nof his Majesty's patrimonial estate, or as a fruit of the ancient\ninheritance of his crown: they were claimed for the public. And when\nagreements were made with the East India Company concerning any\ncomposition for the holding, or any participation of the profits, of\nthose territories, the agreement was made with the public; and the\npreambles of the several acts have uniformly so stated it. These\nagreements were not made (even nominally) with his Majesty, but with\nParliament: and the bills making and establishing such agreements always\noriginated in this House; which appropriated the money to await the\ndisposition of Parliament, without the ceremony of previous consent from\nthe crown even so much as suggested by any of his ministers: which\nprevious consent is an observance of decorum, not indeed of strict\nright, but generally paid, when a new appropriation takes place in any\npart of his Majesty's prerogative revenues.\n\nIn pursuance of a right thus uniformly recognized and uniformly acted\non, when Parliament undertook the reformation of the East India Company\nin 1773, a commission was appointed, as the commission in the late bill\nwas appointed; and it was made to continue for a term of years, as the\ncommission in the late bill was to continue; all the commissioners were\nnamed in Parliament, as in the late bill they were named. As they\nreceived, so they held their offices, wholly independent of the crown;\nthey held them for a fixed term; they were not removable by an address\nof either House or even of both Houses of Parliament, a precaution\nobserved in the late bill relative to the commissioners proposed\ntherein; nor were they bound by the strict rules of proceeding which\nregulated and restrained the late commissioners against all possible\nabuse of a power which could not fail of being diligently and zealously\nwatched by the ministers of the crown, and the proprietors of the stock,\nas well as by Parliament. Their proceedings were, in that bill, directed\nto be of such a nature as easily to subject them to the strictest\nrevision of both, in case of any malversation.\n\nIn the year 1780, an act of Parliament again made provision for the\ngovernment of those territories for another four years, without any sort\nof reference to prerogative; nor was the least objection taken at the\nsecond, more than at the first of those periods, as if an infringement\nhad been made upon the rights of the crown: yet his Majesty's ministers\nhave thought fit to represent the late commission as an entire\ninnovation on the Constitution, and the setting up a new order and\nestate in the nation, tending to the subversion of the monarchy itself.\n\nIf the government of the East Indies, other than by his Majesty's\nprerogative, be in effect a fourth order in the commonwealth, this order\nhas long existed; because the East India Company has for many years\nenjoyed it in the fullest extent, and does at this day enjoy the whole\nadministration of those provinces, and the patronage to offices\nthroughout that great empire, except as it is controlled by act of\nParliament.\n\nIt was the ill condition and ill administration of the Company's affairs\nwhich induced this House (merely as a temporary establishment) to vest\nthe same powers which the Company did before possess, (and no other,)\nfor a limited time, and under very strict directions, in proper hands,\nuntil they could be restored, or farther provision made concerning them.\nIt was therefore no creation whatever of a new power, but the removal of\nan old power, long since created, and then existing, from the management\nof those persons who had manifestly and dangerously abused their trust.\nThis House, which well knows the Parliamentary origin of all the\nCompany's powers and privileges, and is not ignorant or negligent of the\nauthority which may vest those powers and privileges in others, if\njustice and the public safety so require, is conscious to itself that it\nno more creates a new order in the state, by making occasional trustees\nfor the direction of the Company, than it originally did in giving a\nmuch more permanent trust to the Directors or to the General Court of\nthat body. The monopoly of the East India Company was a derogation from\nthe general freedom of trade belonging to his Majesty's people. The\npowers of government, and of peace and war, are parts of prerogative of\nthe highest order. Of our competence to restrain the rights of all his\nsubjects by act of Parliament, and to vest those high and eminent\nprerogatives even in a particular company of merchants, there has been\nno question. We beg leave most humbly to claim as our right, and as a\nright which this House has always used, to frame such bills for the\nregulation of that commerce, and of the territories held by the East\nIndia Company, and everything relating to them, as to our discretion\nshall seem fit; and we assert and maintain that therein we follow, and\ndo not innovate on, the Constitution.\n\nThat his Majesty's ministers, misled by their ambition, have\nendeavored, if possible, to form a faction in the country against the\npopular part of the Constitution; and have therefore thought proper to\nadd to their slanderous accusation against a House of Parliament,\nrelative to his Majesty's prerogative, another of a different nature,\ncalculated for the purpose of raising fears and jealousies among the\ncorporate bodies of the kingdom, and of persuading uninformed persons\nbelonging to those corporations to look to and to make addresses to\nthem, as protectors of their rights, under their several charters, from\nthe designs which they, without any ground, charged the then House of\nCommons to have formed against _charters in general_. For this purpose\nthey have not scrupled to assert that the exertion of his Majesty's\nprerogative in the late precipitate change in his administration, and\nthe dissolution of the late Parliament, were measures adopted in order\nto rescue the people and their rights out of the hands of the House of\nCommons, their representatives.\n\nWe trust that his Majesty's subjects are not yet so far deluded as to\nbelieve that the charters, or that any other of their local or general\nprivileges, can have a solid security in any place but where that\nsecurity has always been looked for, and always found,--in the House of\nCommons. Miserable and precarious indeed would be the state of their\nfranchises, if they were to find no defence but from that quarter from\nwhence they have always been attacked![66] But the late House of\nCommons, in passing that bill, made no attack upon any powers or\nprivileges, except such as a House of Commons has frequently attacked,\nand will attack, (and they trust, in the end, with their wonted\nsuccess,)--that is, upon those which are corruptly and oppressively\nadministered; and this House do faithfully assure his Majesty, that we\nwill correct, and, if necessary for the purpose, as far as in us lies,\nwill wholly destroy, every species of power and authority exercised by\nBritish subjects to the oppression, wrong, and detriment of the people,\nand to the impoverishment and desolation of the countries subject to it.\n\nThe propagators of the calumnies against that House of Parliament have\nbeen indefatigable in exaggerating the supposed injury done to the East\nIndia Company by the suspension of the authorities which they have in\nevery instance abused,--as if power had been wrested by wrong and\nviolence from just and prudent hands; but they have, with equal care,\nconcealed the weighty grounds and reasons on which that House had\nadopted the most moderate of all possible expedients for rescuing the\nnatives of India from oppression, and for saving the interests of the\nreal and honest proprietors of their stock, as well as that great\nnational, commercial concern, from imminent ruin.\n\nThe ministers aforesaid have also caused it to be reported that the\nHouse of Commons have confiscated the property of the East India\nCompany. It is the reverse of truth. The whole management was a trust\nfor the proprietors, under their own inspection, (and it was so provided\nfor in the bill,) and under the inspection of Parliament. That bill, so\nfar from confiscating the Company's property, was the only one which,\nfor several years past, did not, in some shape or other, affect their\nproperty, or restrain them in the disposition of it.\n\nIt is proper that his Majesty and all his people should be informed that\nthe House of Commons have proceeded, with regard to the East India\nCompany, with a degree of care, circumspection, and deliberation, which\nhas not been equalled in the history of Parliamentary proceedings. For\nsixteen years the state and condition of that body has never been wholly\nout of their view. In the year 1767 the House took those objects into\nconsideration, in a committee of the whole House. The business was\npursued in the following year. In the year 1772 two committees were\nappointed for the same purpose, which examined into their affairs with\nmuch diligence, and made very ample reports. In the year 1773 the\nproceedings were carried to an act of Parliament, which proved\nineffectual to its purpose. The oppressions and abuses in India have\nsince rather increased than diminished, on account of the greatness of\nthe temptations, and convenience of the opportunities, which got the\nbetter of the legislative provisions calculated against ill practices\nthen in their beginnings; insomuch that, in 1781, two committees were\nagain instituted, who have made seventeen reports. It was upon the most\nminute, exact, and laborious collection and discussion of facts, that\nthe late House of Commons proceeded in the reform which they attempted\nin the administration of India, but which has been frustrated by ways\nand means the most dishonorable to his Majesty's government, and the\nmost pernicious to the Constitution of this kingdom. His Majesty was so\nsensible of the disorders in the Company's administration, that the\nconsideration of that subject was no less than six times recommended to\nthis House in speeches from the throne.\n\nThe result of the Parliamentary inquiries has been, that the East India\nCompany was found totally corrupted, and totally perverted from the\npurposes of its institution, whether political or commercial; that the\npowers of war and peace given by the charter had been abused, by\nkindling hostilities in every quarter for the purposes of rapine; that\nalmost all the treaties of peace they have made have only given cause to\nso many breaches of public faith; that countries once the most\nflourishing are reduced to a state of indigence, decay, and\ndepopulation, to the diminution of our strength, and to the infinite\ndishonor of our national character; that the laws of this kingdom are\nnotoriously, and almost in every instance, despised; that the servants\nof the Company, by the purchase of qualifications to vote in the General\nCourt, and, at length, by getting the Company itself deeply in their\ndebt, have obtained the entire and absolute mastery in the body by which\nthey ought to have been ruled and coerced. Thus their malversations in\noffice are supported, instead of being checked by the Company. The whole\nof the affairs of that body are reduced to a most perilous situation;\nand many millions of innocent and deserving men, who are under the\nprotection of this nation, and who ought to be protected by it, are\noppressed by a most despotic and rapacious tyranny. The Company and\ntheir servants, having strengthened themselves by this confederacy, set\nat defiance the authority and admonitions of this House employed to\nreform them; and when this House had selected certain principal\ndelinquents, whom they declared it the duty of the Company to recall,\nthe Company held out its legal privileges against all reformation,\npositively refused to recall them, and supported those who had fallen\nunder the just censure of this House with new and stronger marks of\ncountenance and approbation.\n\nThe late House, discovering the reversed situation of the Company, by\nwhich the nominal servants are really the masters, and the offenders are\nbecome their own judges, thought fit to examine into the state of their\ncommerce; and they have also discovered that their commercial affairs\nare in the greatest disorder; that their debts have accumulated beyond\nany present or obvious future means of payment, at least under the\nactual administration of their affairs; that this condition of the East\nIndia Company has begun to affect the sinking fund itself, on which the\npublic credit of the kingdom rests,--a million and upwards being due to\nthe customs, which that House of Commons whose intentions towards the\nCompany have been so grossly misrepresented were indulgent enough to\nrespite. And thus, instead of confiscating their property, the Company\nreceived without interest (which in such a case had been before charged)\nthe use of a very large sum of the public money. The revenues are under\nthe peculiar care of this House, not only as the revenues originate from\nus, but as, on every failure if the funds set apart for the support of\nthe national credit, or to provide for the national strength and safety,\nthe task of supplying every deficiency falls upon his Majesty's faithful\nCommons, this House must, in effect, tax the people. The House,\ntherefore, at every moment, incurs the hazard of becoming obnoxious to\nits constituents.\n\nThe enemies of the late House of Commons resolved, if possible, to bring\non that event. They therefore endeavored to misrepresent the provident\nmeans adopted by the House of Commons for keeping off this invidious\nnecessity, as an attack on the rights of the East India Company: for\nthey well knew, that, on the one hand, if, for want of proper regulation\nand relief, the Company should become insolvent, or even stop payment,\nthe national credit and commerce would sustain a heavy blow; and that\ncalamity would be justly imputed to Parliament, which, after such long\ninquiries, and such frequent admonitions from his Majesty, had neglected\nso essential and so urgent an article of their duty: on the other hand,\nthey knew, that, wholly corrupted as the Company is, nothing effectual\ncould be done to preserve that interest from ruin, without taking for a\ntime the national objects of their trust out of their hands; and then a\ncry would be industriously raised against the House of Commons, as\ndepriving British subjects of their legal privileges. The restraint,\nbeing plain and simple, must be easily understood by those who would be\nbrought with great difficulty to comprehend the intricate detail of\nmatters of fact which rendered this suspension of the administration of\nIndia absolutely necessary on motives of justice, of policy, of public\nhonor, and public safety.\n\nThe House of Commons had not been able to devise a method by which the\nredress of grievances could be effected through the authors of those\ngrievances; nor could they imagine how corruptions could be purified by\nthe corrupters and the corrupted; nor do we now conceive how any\nreformation can proceed from the known abettors and supporters of the\npersons who have been guilty of the misdemeanors which Parliament has\nreprobated, and who for their own ill purposes have given countenance to\na false and delusive state of the Company's affairs, fabricated to\nmislead Parliament and to impose upon the nation.[67]\n\nYour Commons feel, with a just resentment, the inadequate estimate which\nyour ministers have formed of the importance of this great concern.\nThey call on us to act upon the principles of those who have not\ninquired into the subject, and to condemn those who with the most\nlaudable diligence have examined and scrutinized every part of it. The\ndeliberations of Parliament have been broken; the season of the year is\nunfavorable; many of us are new members, who must be wholly unacquainted\nwith the subject, which lies remote from the ordinary course of general\ninformation.\n\nWe are cautioned against an infringement of the Constitution; and it is\nimpossible to know what the secret advisers of the crown, who have\ndriven out the late ministers for their conduct in Parliament, and have\ndissolved the late Parliament for a pretended attack upon prerogative,\nwill consider as such an infringement. We are not furnished with a rule,\nthe observance of which can make us safe from the resentment of the\ncrown, even by an implicit obedience to the dictates of the ministers\nwho have advised that speech; we know not how soon those ministers may\nbe disavowed, and how soon the members of this House, for our very\nagreement with them, may be considered as objects of his Majesty's\ndispleasure. Until by his Majesty's goodness and wisdom the late example\nis completely done away, we are not free.\n\nWe are well aware, in providing for the affairs of the East, with what\nan adult strength of abuse, and of wealth and influence growing out of\nthat abuse, his Majesty's Commons had, in the last Parliament, and still\nhave, to struggle. We are sensible that the influence of that wealth, in\na much larger degree and measure than at any former period, may have\npenetrated into the very quarter from whence alone any real reformation\ncan be expected.[68]\n\nIf, therefore, in the arduous affairs recommended to us, our proceedings\nshould be ill adapted, feeble, and ineffectual,--if no delinquency\nshould be prevented, and no delinquent should be called to account,--if\nevery person should be caressed, promoted, and raised in power, in\nproportion to the enormity of his offences,--if no relief should be\ngiven to any of the natives unjustly dispossessed of their rights,\njurisdictions, and properties,--if no cruel and unjust exactions should\nbe forborne,--if the source of no peculation or oppressive gain should\nbe cut off,--if, by the omission of the opportunities that were in our\nhands, our Indian empire should fall into ruin irretrievable, and in its\nfall crush the credit and overwhelm the revenues of this country,--we\nstand acquitted to our honor and to our conscience, who have reluctantly\nseen the weightiest interests of our country, at times the most critical\nto its dignity and safety, rendered the sport of the inconsiderate and\nunmeasured ambition of individuals, and by that means the wisdom of his\nMajesty's government degraded in the public estimation, and the policy\nand character of this renowned nation rendered contemptible in the eyes\nof all Europe.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt passed in the negative.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[59] See King's Speech, Dec. 5, 1782, and May 19, 1784.\n\n[60] \"I shall never submit to the doctrines I have heard this day from\nthe woolsack, that the other House [House of Commons] are the only\nrepresentatives and guardians of the people's rights. I boldly maintain\nthe contrary. I say this House [House of Lords] _is equally the\nrepresentatives of the people_.\"--Lord Shelburne's Speech, April 8,\n1778. _Vide_ Parliamentary Register, Vol. X. p. 892.\n\n[61] In that Parliament the House of Commons by two several resolutions\nput an end to the American war. Immediately on the change of ministry\nwhich ensued, in order to secure their own independence, and to prevent\nthe accumulation of new burdens on the people by the growth of a civil\nlist debt, they passed the Establishment Bill. By that bill thirty-six\noffices tenable by members of Parliament were suppressed, and an order\nof payment was framed by which the growth of any fresh debt was rendered\nimpracticable. The debt on the civil list from the beginning of the\npresent reign had amounted to one million three hundred thousand pounds\nand upwards. Another act was passed for regulating the office of the\nPaymaster-General and the offices subordinate to it. A million of public\nmoney had sometimes been in the hands of the paymasters: this act\nprevented the possibility of any money whatsoever being accumulated in\nthat office in future. The offices of the Exchequer, whose emoluments in\ntime of war were excessive, and grew in exact proportion to the public\nburdens, were regulated,--some of them suppressed, and the rest reduced\nto fixed salaries. To secure the freedom of election against the crown,\na bill was passed to disqualify all officers concerned in the collection\nof the revenue in any of its branches from voting in elections: a most\nimportant act, not only with regard to its primary object, the freedom\nof election, but as materially forwarding the due collection of revenue.\nFor the same end, (the preserving the freedom of election,) the House\nrescinded the famous judgment relative to the Middlesex election, and\nexpunged it from the journals. On the principle of reformation of their\nown House, connected with a principle of public economy, an act passed\nfor rendering contractors with government incapable of a seat in\nParliament. The India Bill (unfortunately lost in the House of Lords)\npursued the same idea to its completion, and disabled all servants of\nthe East India Company from a seat in that House for a certain time, and\nuntil their conduct was examined into and cleared. The remedy of\ninfinite corruptions and of infinite disorders and oppressions, as well\nas the security of the most important objects of public economy,\nperished with that bill and that Parliament. That Parliament also\ninstituted a committee to inquire into the collection of the revenue in\nall its branches, which prosecuted its duty with great vigor, and\nsuggested several material improvements.\n\n[62] If these speculations are let loose, the House of Lords may quarrel\nwith their share of the legislature, as being limited with regard to the\norigination of grants to the crown and the origination of money bills.\nThe advisers of the crown may think proper to bring its negative into\nordinary use,--and even to dispute, whether a mere negative, compared\nwith the deliberative power exercised in the other Houses, be such a\nshare in the legislature as to produce a due balance in favor of that\nbranch, and thus justify the previous interference of the crown in the\nmanner lately used. The following will serve to show how much foundation\nthere is for great caution concerning these novel speculations. Lord\nShelburne, in his celebrated speech, April 8th, 1778, expresses himself\nas follows. (_Vide_ Parliamentary Register, Vol. X.)\n\n\"The noble and learned lord on the woolsack, in the debate which opened\nthe business of this day, asserted that your Lordships were incompetent\nto make any alteration in a money bill or a bill of supply, I should be\nglad to see the matter fairly and fully discussed, and the subject\nbrought forward and argued upon precedent, as well as all its collateral\nrelations. I should be pleased to see the question fairly committed,\nwere it for no other reason but to hear the sleek, smooth contractors\nfrom the other House come to this bar and declare, that they, and they\nonly, _could frame a money bill_, and they, and they _only_, could\ndispose of the _property of the peers of Great Britain_. Perhaps some\narguments more plausible than those I heard this day from the woolsack,\nto show that the Commons have an uncontrollable, unqualified right to\nbind your Lordships' property, may be urged by them. At present, I beg\nleave to differ from the noble and learned lord; for, until the claim,\nafter a solemn discussion of this House, is openly and directly\nrelinquished, I shall continue to be of opinion that your Lordships have\na right to after, _amend_, or reject a money bill.\"\n\nThe Duke of Richmond also, in his letter to the volunteers of Ireland,\nspeaks of several of the powers exercised by the House of Commons in the\nlight of usurpations; and his Grace is of opinion, that, when the people\nare restored to what he conceives to be their rights, in electing the\nHouse of Commons, the other branches of the legislature ought to be\nrestored to theirs.--_Vide_ Remembrancer, Vol. XVI.\n\n[63] By an act of Parliament, the Directors of the East India Company\nare restrained from acceptance of bills drawn, from India, beyond a\ncertain amount, without the consent of the Commissioners of the\nTreasury. The late House of Commons, finding bills to an immense amount\ndrawn upon that body by their servants abroad, and knowing their\ncircumstances to be exceedingly doubtful, came to a resolution\nprovidently, cautioning the Lords of the Treasury against the acceptance\nof these bills, until the House should otherwise direct. The Court Lords\nthen took occasion to declare against the resolution as illegal, by the\nCommons undertaking to direct in the execution of a trust created by act\nof Parliament. The House, justly alarmed at this resolution, which went\nto the destruction of the whole of its superintending capacity, and\nparticularly in matters relative to its own province of money, directed\na committee to search the journals, and they found a regular series of\nprecedents, commencing from the remotest of those records, and carried\non to that day, by which it appeared that the House interfered, by an\nauthoritative advice and admonition, upon every act of executive\ngovernment without exception, and in many much stronger cases than that\nwhich the Lords thought proper to quarrel with.\n\n[64] \"I observe, at the same time, that there is _no charge or\ncomplaint_ suggested against my present ministers.\"--The King's Answer,\n25th February, 1784, to the Address of the House of Common. _Vide_\nResolutions of the House of Commons, printed for Debrett, p. 31.\n\n[65] The territorial possessions in the East Indies were acquired to the\nCompany, in virtue of grants from the Great Mogul, in the nature of\noffices and jurisdictions, to be held under _him_, and dependent upon\n_his_ crown, with the express condition of being obedient to orders from\n_his_ court, and of paying an annual tribute to _his_ treasury. It is\ntrue that no obedience is yielded to these orders, and for some time\npast there has been no payment made of this tribute. But it is under a\ngrant so conditioned that they still hold. To subject the King of Great\nBritain as tributary to a foreign power by the acts of his subjects; to\nsuppose the grant valid, and yet the condition void; to suppose it good\nfor the king, and insufficient for the Company; to suppose it an\ninterest divisible between the parties: these are some few of the many\nlegal difficulties to be surmounted, before the Common Law of England\ncan acknowledge the East India Company's Asiatic affairs to be a subject\nmatter of _prerogative_, so as to bring it within the verge of English\njurisprudence. It is a very anomalous species of power and property\nwhich is held by the East India Company. Our English prerogative law\ndoes not furnish principles, much less precedents, by which it can be\ndefined or adjusted. Nothing but the eminent dominion of Parliament over\nevery British subject, in every concern, and in every circumstance in\nwhich he is placed, can adjust this new, intricate matter. Parliament\nmay act wisely or unwisely, justly or unjustly; but Parliament alone is\ncompetent to it.\n\n[66] The attempt upon charters and the privileges of the corporate\nbodies of the kingdom in the reigns of Charles the Second and James the\nSecond was made by the _crown_. It was carried on by the ordinary course\nof law, in courts instituted for the security of the property and\nfranchises of the people. This attempt made by the _crown_ was attended\nwith complete success. The corporate rights of the city of London, and\nof all the companies it contains, were by solemn judgment of law\ndeclared forfeited, and all their franchises, privileges, properties,\nand estates were of course seized into the hands of the _crown_. The\ninjury was from the crown: the redress was by Parliament. A bill was\nbrought into the _House of Commons_, by which the judgment against the\ncity of London, and against the companies, was reversed: and this bill\npassed the House of Lords without any complaint of trespass on their\njurisdiction, although the bill was for a reversal of a judgment in law.\nBy this act, which is in the second of William and Mary, chap. 8, the\nquestion of forfeiture of that charter is forever taken out of the power\nof any court of law: no cognizance can be taken of it except in\nParliament.\n\nAlthough the act above mentioned has declared the judgment against the\ncorporation of London to be _illegal_ yet Blackstone makes no scruple of\nasserting, that, \"perhaps, in strictness of law, the proceedings in most\nof them [the Quo Warranto causes] were sufficiently regular,\" leaving it\nin doubt, whether this regularity did not apply to the corporation of\nLondon, as well as to any of the rest; and he seems to blame the\nproceeding (as most blamable it was) not so much on account of\nillegality as for the crown's having employed a legal proceeding for\npolitical purposes. He calls it \"an exertion of _an act of law_ for the\npurposes of the state.\"\n\nThe same security which was given to the city of London, would have been\nextended to all the corporations, if the House of Commons could have\nprevailed. But the bill for that purpose passed but by a majority of one\nin the Lords; and it was entirely lost by a prorogation, which is the\nact of the crown. Small, indeed, was the security which the corporation\nof London enjoyed before the act of William and Mary, and which all the\nother corporations, secured by no statute, enjoy at this hour, if strict\nlaw was employed against them. The use of strict law has always been\nrendered very delicate by the same means by which the almost unmeasured\nlegal powers residing (and in many instances dangerously residing) in\nthe crown are kept within due bounds: I mean, that strong superintending\npower in the House of Commons which inconsiderate people have been\nprevailed on to condemn as trenching on prerogative. Strict law is by no\nmeans such a friend to the rights of the subject as they have been\ntaught to believe. They who have been most conversant in this kind of\nlearning will be most sensible of the danger of submitting corporate\nrights of high political importance to these subordinate tribunals. The\ngeneral heads of law on that subject are vulgar and trivial. On them\nthere is not much question. But it is far from easy to determine what\nspecial acts, or what special neglect of action, shall subject\ncorporations to a forfeiture. There is so much laxity in this doctrine,\nthat great room is left for favor or prejudice, which might give to the\ncrown an entire dominion over those corporations. On the other hand, it\nis undoubtedly true that every subordinate corporate right ought to be\nsubject to control, to superior direction, and even to forfeiture upon\njust cause. In this reason and law agree. In every judgment given on a\ncorporate right of great political importance, the policy and prudence\nmake no small part of the question. To these considerations a court of\nlaw is not competent; and, indeed, an attempt at the least intermixture\nof such ideas with the matter of law could have no other effect than\nwholly to corrupt the judicial character of the court in which such a\ncause should come to be tried. It is besides to be remarked, that, if,\nin virtue of a legal process, a forfeiture should be adjudged, the court\nof law has no power to modify or mitigate. The whole franchise is\nannihilated, and the corporate property goes into the hands of the\ncrown. They who hold the new doctrines concerning the power of the House\nof Commons ought well to consider in such a case by what means the\ncorporate rights could be revived, or the property could be recovered\nout of the hands of the crown. But Parliament can do what the courts\nneither can do nor ought to attempt. Parliament is competent to give due\nweight to all political considerations. It may modify, it may mitigate,\nand it may render perfectly secure, all that it does not think fit to\ntake away. It is not likely that Parliament will ever draw to itself the\ncognizance of questions concerning ordinary corporations, farther than\nto protect them, in case attempts are made to induce a forfeiture of\ntheir franchises.\n\nThe case of the East India Company is different even from that of the\ngreatest of these corporations. No monopoly of trade, beyond their own\nlimits, is vested in the corporate body of any town or city in the\nkingdom. Even within these limits the monopoly is not general. The\nCompany has the monopoly of the trade of half the world. The first\ncorporation of the kingdom has for the object of its jurisdiction only a\nfew matters of subordinate police. The East India Company governs an\nempire, through all its concerns and all its departments, from the\nlowest office of economy to the highest councils of state,--an empire to\nwhich Great Britain is in comparison but a respectable province. To\nleave these concerns without superior cognizance would be madness; to\nleave them to be judged in the courts below, on the principles of a\nconfined jurisprudence, would be folly. It is well, if the whole\nlegislative power is competent to the correction of abuses which are\ncommensurate to the immensity of the object they affect. The idea of an\nabsolute power has, indeed, its terrors; but that objection lies to\nevery Parliamentary proceeding; and as no other can regulate the abuses\nof such a charter, it is fittest that sovereign authority should be\nexercised, where it is most likely to be attended with the most\neffectual correctives. These correctives are furnished by the nature and\ncourse of Parliamentary proceedings, and by the infinitely diversified\ncharacters who compose the two Houses. In effect and virtually, they\nform a vast number, variety, and succession of judges and jurors. The\nfulness, the freedom, and publicity of discussion leaves it easy to\ndistinguish what are acts of power, and what the determinations of\nequity and reason. There prejudice corrects prejudice, and the different\nasperities of party zeal mitigate and neutralize each other. So far from\nviolence being the general characteristic of the proceedings of\nParliament, whatever the beginnings of any Parliamentary process may be,\nits general fault in the end is, that it is found incomplete and\nineffectual.\n\n[67] The purpose of the misrepresentation being now completely answered,\nthere is no doubt but the committee in this Parliament, appointed by the\nministers themselves, will justify the grounds upon which the last\nParliament proceeded, and will lay open to the world the dreadful state\nof the Company's affairs, and the grossness of their own calumnies upon\nthis head. By delay the new assembly is come into the disgraceful\nsituation of allowing a dividend of eight per cent by act of Parliament,\nwithout the least matter before them to justify the granting of any\ndividend at all.\n\n[68] This will be evident to those who consider the number and\ndescription of Directors and servants of the East India Company chosen\ninto the present Parliament. The light in which the present ministers\nhold the labors of the House of Commons in searching into the disorders\nin the Indian administration, and all its endeavors for the reformation\nof the government there, without any distinction of times, or of the\npersons concerned, will appear from the following extract from a speech\nof the present Lord Chancellor. After making a high-flown panegyric on\nthose whom the House of Commons had condemned by their resolutions, he\nsaid:--\"Let us not be misled by reports from committees of _another_\nHouse, to which, I again repeat, _I pay as much attention as I would do\nto the history of Robinson Crusoe,_ Let the conduct of the East India\nCompany be fairly and fully inquired into. Let it be acquitted or\ncondemned by evidence brought to the bar of the House. Without entering\nvery deeply into the subject, let me reply in a few words to an\nobservation which fell from a noble and learned lord, that the Company's\nfinances are distressed, and that they owe at this moment a million\nsterling to the nation. When such a charge is brought, will Parliament\nin its justice forget that the Company is restricted from employing\n_that credit which its great and flourishing situation_ gives to it?\"\n\n\n\nEND OF VOL. II.","title":"The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. 02 (of 12)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":164134}