giving drawbacks here, exacting duties there; committing the power and authority of the Nation on subjects which never could produce any effectual revenue, and this in a manner that all men of sense must ever condemn.

When the Americans saw, by this act of Parliament, that the great question was likely again to return upon them in the progress of time, through the greediness, ignorance, or caprice of statesmen, they met the position in its sly, circuitous, questionable shape; they recurred to their old principles; they revolted against the preamble; they transmitted Petitions; and all failing, they entered into Non-Importation Agreements. This produced Lord Hillsborough's Circular Letter, which I will repeat again and again, till a contrary conduct is pursued; for no satisfactory answer can be given about it, while the present doctrines are avowed. The Americans, thus fortified in their opinions concerning the point of taxation, are unanimous against our power from Nova Scotia to Georgia. If there be any doubt on this fact, why not call Governour Eden? We are told he lately arrived; it would have been becoming to have produced him; but I call on his relations, friends, or any man, to contradict me in this assertion, "that the Americans are unanimous against this power of taxation." They are resolved to resist; and since you have placed them in a situation where they must either be rebels or slaves, the blame must He with those who have drove them to this dilemma.

In discussing the question of resistance, the gentlemen on the other side have great advantages. We stand on difficult ground, since, from its nature, it never can be defined or admitted as lawful. The first Officer of the Crown has fairly expressed my ideas on the subject. The principle should never be extinguished in any Government, much less in a free country; the occasion must ever be referred to the general feelings of mankind. Now, if depriving a trading Town of its commerce; if cutting off whole societies from the benefit of the element which God has given them; if proceeding to deprive them of the fishery, their subsistence; if altering their Charter and annihilating all their rights, without hearing them in their defence; if establishing in its stead a new form of Government, which leaves all things in confusion; if erecting a system of tyranny in their neighbourhood, and establishing (not tolerating) all the absurdities of the Roman Catholick religion— trial by Jury dismissed—Habeas Corpus denied—the Representatives of the people determined useless—inferiour duties levied by Act of Parliament; in short, precedents for the violation of every thing we hold most sacred in this country; I say, if acts like these can vindicate resistance, the Americans can quote them, and God and the world must judge between us. For my own part, I consider with Lord Somers, that "treason against the Constitution is the first species of that crime." Acts of Parliament are sacred things, and yet they may be so made, grinding the face of mankind, that human nature will revolt at their severity. Dudley and Empson were hanged for acting according to Act of Parliament.

I have now stated the arguments which should induce you to pause at least before you take this irretrievable step. I shall examine next the consequences.

Suppose we should succeed in subduing the Americans, is it not clear from henceforward that we must govern them by military force? Must not our Army be increased in proportion? While his Majesty retains the power of moving his Troops from one part of his Dominions to another, can there be any safety for the liberties of this country? If the mortification begins at the extremities, will it not soon communicate to the centre? Every man acquainted with the history of Nations must foresee the consequences. If we fail in the attempt, which is the happiest event that can occur, what difficulties may not disgust, irritation, and all the horrours of civil war engender? While the justice and moderation of this country are blotted from the face of the earth, and the accumulated expense, when the springs of riches are cut off, must shake publick credit to the very centre.

The noble Lord has hinted, "if repealing the Tea Tax would do, he would yield that," and he speaks even faintly on the power of taxation. If these are his principles, we are yet more inexcusable. We are going to punish men for maintaining what we are ready to yield, and to engage the Nation in endless expense, for the sake of a quiddity. Since, whether renounced on the principles of expediency or right, the satisfaction must be equally complete to the Americans.

But the noble Lord alleges, "that yielding the point of taxation would not now do." This is conjecture on his part; but at least it would produce this good effect—we should divide the Americans; we should unite men in this country, and go to the contest with better hopes of success. The proofs the noble Lord gives for his opinion, are several indiscreet acts of different meetings since the late confusion in America. Such detail never affects me. I think no conclusions can be drawn from them. In all civil wars, when the people are let loose to reason on Government, a thousand absurd doctrines are broached. Let us apply this to our own country; let us remember all the ridiculous circumstances which Hudibras has painted better than I can. But should the great cause of Liberty, in which our ancestors were engaged, suffer from such circumstances? To their feelings we may trust; on the reasoning of the multitude there is little dependence. For my own part, I think with Cardinal De Retz, that "any number above one hundred, is at best but a mere mob." [Here the House felt the expressions as too strong.] It never could be my intention to apply the rule to this House, long trained in form and discipline; though sometimes there are doctrines and proceedings, even here, that would surprise a, stranger into this belief.

But the noble Lord says, "Why not petition first and acknowledge the right, and then we will grant freely." Have they not petitioned? Is there a means of supplication and protestation they have not tried? I am convinced they went to the Crown merely as a mode of introducing their petition here. Now you deny hearing their Agents. An honourable gentleman in Administration says, "he wished we had heard their Petitions." Do not then condemn them for not petitioning, till you have declared your resolution to hear them. Can it be expected the Americans will act on the inuendos of a Minister? If you mean fair, why not declare your intentions by some binding act? After the East India Company, who will trust you? You invited them to petition, under hopes and declarations, and afterwards made use of this very petition to deprive them both of their money and their privileges. In the ceded Islands you invited men to settle under the Royal Proclamation, and then levied four and a half per cent, on their produce, which procedure has lately been condemned in the Courts of Law. In Canada you have been guilty of a greater violation, as liberty is dearer than property. Here you have despised the Royal Proclamation, and forfeited your engagements to mankind. I repeat it again, what man or society of men can trust you?

The next objection to the Americans is the Congress. This is now termed an illegal meeting. Government here lay by with great expectation, waiting their Resolves. If they had been favourable to their views, or had any untoward circumstances broke their union, we should have had much eulogium on the Congress. Now they have come to Resolves favourable to the liberties of mankind, all is abuse. I do not know by what law, (except that of common sense) mankind can be regulated on these occasions. What kind of meeting can that be called which was held in this place at the Revolution? Aldermen and old Members of Parliament mixing in consultation. The necessity on these occasions gives rise to the case. You wished to know the sense of the people of America; was ever the judgment of a people so fairly taken? First the occasion is promulgated; the people choose Representatives; these choose Deputies; the Deputies in Congress publish their proceedings: each Member returns to his respective Colony, where his conduct is again approved; no place, no pension, no bribe, to influence his election or bias his vote. But even as to the legality, the manner of meeting is not new; Government itself called a Congress in the Fast war, to apportion the quotas of Men and Troops.

One gentleman has said, "that our situation is quite new, and there is no example in history to direct our steps." I say there is a case directly similar, but we are too conceited to profit from such experience. Philip the Second and his seventeen Provinces, are the counterpart of what We are acting. The debates in his Council on sending the Duke