presses me by a variety of direct challenges and oblique reflections to say something on the historical part. I shall therefore, Sir, open myself fully on that important and delicate subject; not for the sake of telling you a long story (which, I know, Mr. Speaker, you are not particularly fond of,) but for the sake of the weighty instruction that, I flatter myself, will necessarily result from it. It shall not be longer, if I can help it, than so serious a matter requires.

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

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

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

All this was done by England, whilst England pursued trade and forgot revenue. You not only acquired commerce, but you actually created the very objects of trade in America; and by that creation you raised the trade of this Kingdom at least four-fold. America had the compensation of your capital, which made her bear her servitude. She had another compensation, which you are now going to take away from her. She had, except the commercial restraint, every characteristic mark of a free People in all her internal concerns. She had the image of the British constitution. She had the substance. She was taxed by her own Representatives. She chose most of her own Magistrates. She paid them all. She had in effect the sole disposal of her own internal Government. This whole state of commercial servitude and civil liberty taken together, is certainly not perfect freedom; but comparing it with the ordinary circumstances of human nature, it was an happy and liberal condition.

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

Whether you were right or wrong in establishing the Colonies on the principles of commercial monopoly, rather than on that of revenue, is at this day a problem of mere