being his sentiments, he could not possibly give his assent to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.

He concluded with expressing a wish that (in this great and trying crisis, in which the power, the authority, the importance of Parliament, was at stake; in which the question was, whether the King, Lords, and Commons, should continue, as he had always understood them to be, the great governing power of the whole British empire, or if America was henceforward to be subject to the King alone, while Parliament was reduced to a level with one of the Provincial Assemblies) gentlemen would lay aside the animosity of party, and confine their views singly to their country; that he knew that, while this Government subsisted, there must be different parties, and that the Minister, merely because he was Minister, must be opposed; that he did not wish it otherwise—he was afraid such opposition was necessary to supply the want of publick virtue; but that though such opposition was to be expected in the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceedings, there were some cases of much too serious a nature to admit of it; and such he thought the present case to be.

Governour Johnstone. Sir, the speech of the honourable Baronet, who spoke last, is very much like that we have just heard from the Throne, full of assumed false facts and general undisputed axioms, which the people in America are as ready to close with as their adversaries on this side. For instance, the honourable gentleman says “the Americans had some reasons for their conduct in the first of those disputes; but now they have refused their just proportion of taxes, by rejecting Lord North’s conciliatory proposition of last year, and resisting the constitutional authority of Parliament, he is ready to devote them to destruction.” Who does not see that the whole question, even according to this honourable gentleman, turns upon just proportion and constitutional authority? Now, I deny that the people of America have ever refused to contribute their just proportion, when called upon in a constitutional way; and those who assert the contrary, ought to prove it. If the honourable gentleman vindicates the severity of his conduct against his fellow-subjects in America, for rejecting the proposition of last year, which the noble Lord introduced about the middle of the session, I think he rests on as feeble ground as any man ever stood on. How does he vindicate the severities in which he concurred, before it could be known whether the subjects in America would accede to this marvellous indulgence or not? His mind must have been strangely biased to the noble Lord, if this could turn the scale of his reason. I really thought this foolish piece of paper had been so universally condemned, that I should never again have heard any arguments founded on so flimsy a foundation. The purpose was clearly to amuse the people on this side the Atlantick, and to divide the people on that. Having failed in its effect, I understood from many friends of Government, that every rational argument, in support of the proposition, had been reprobated; for what, indeed, can be more truly ridiculous, than, in a dispute concerning the power of taxation, seriously to say to a sensible people, We admit there are many unanswerable reasons why this assembly are unfit to impose taxes upon you; and, therefore, if you will only tax yourselves to our satisfaction, we will forbear the exercise of a right to which we declare, by the proposition, we are incompetent. But some men will say, the Parliament can judge sufficiently well of the gross sum, though unfit and incapable of determining on the manner in which it is to be raised. Who, that is accustomed to reason accurately, does not perceive that the estimate of supply must be regulated from a thorough knowledge of the ways and means, and that they are united in common sense, as well as by the English Constitution, to reside in the same persons. But the honourable Baronet forgets that the main argument which drew the concession of the conciliatory proposition, turns on this: The Americans have no representatives in the British Parliament; they have not the security of other subjects residing in Britain, who may not be represented, namely—that the members in taxing them must tax themselves; on the contrary, it is the interest of every member to lay as much as possible on America, to ease himself. This was the consideration which “drew iron tears from Pluto’s cheek,” and has affected so many members, not remarkably tender towards the feeling of their fellow-creature. But let us consider if this irresistible objection, as it has been called by one of the friends of Administration, against taxing America by the British Parliament, does not equally apply, when we approve of the sum offered, and tax them in the lump, as when we tax them by detail.

However, sir, absurd as this appears, it is not my capital objection to that mode of raising money, nor is it the objection of the Americans; they maintain the power of giving and granting their own money, by their own free and voluntary consent, is the only security they can retain for the just administration of Government, at so great a distance from the seat of empire; that it is the main spring in their several establishments upon which the meeting and power of their several Assemblies depend, from whence the singular prosperity of the British Colonies, above all others on the face of the earth, have flowed. They admit you have the power of limiting the means by which they may acquire property, but they deny you the power of disposing of this property after it is so acquired. Thus in his Majesty’s speech the same general undefined axioms prevail. “To be a subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences, is to be the freest member of any civil society in the known world.” All America, with one voice, agree in this truth; their writings and their actions proclaim their belief: but they maintain, as I assert in their behalf, that one of the unalienable consequences of that situation is, the giving and granting of aids for the support of Government, according to the exigency that shall appear to their own understanding; and that to tax them in an assembly where they have no representatives, and by men who have no interest in the subsidy they impose, is contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution, and, in its consequences, must deprive them of all the essential rights of a British subject. Another essential right of a British subject is trial by jury. Has not this been abrogated in many cases by the late acts of Parliament, and totally destroyed in all civil causes in the extensive Province of Quebeck? The writ of habeas corpus is another essential right of a British subject. Has not this also been done away? I forbear to enumerate the other oppressive proceedings, contrary to the whole tenor of our Government; dissolving of charters without evidence, trial, or forfeiture; laws to deny the natural gifts of the elements, confounding the innocent with the guilty; because when once the three great pillars of the British Constitution are removed—taxing without representatives, trial without jury, imprisonment without relief by writ of habeas corpus—the whole must necessarily fall into confusion, and the rest is not worth contending for. The people in America wisely foresee the suppression of all their rights, in the train of those iniquitous innovations. They perceive that everything which is dear to a freeman is at stake, and they are willing, as becomes the children of their ancestors, to put all to the risk, and sacrifice their lives and fortunes, rather than give up the liberty of a subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences.

The honourable Baronet has concluded his speech with another reason for inducing us to join in the coercive measures proposed by the Address, which is still more extraordinary, saying, “Whether we succeed or not may be uncertain; but if we fail, we shall even then be no worse than we were.” These are the very words of the noble Lord on the Treasury bench last year. I am persuaded the worthy Baronet has words of his own so much at will that he borrows from no man; but I am more surprised he can sanctify such opinions by his voice. If America is forced to invite foreign powers to share in her commerce; if she is driven to the necessity of following the example of Holland and Switzerland; if our armies are destroyed, our fleets wrecked, our treasures wasted, our reputation for justice and humanity lost, our Senates corrupted by the emoluments which must fall to individuals in the prosecution of so expensive a war, and four shillings land tax entailed on us forever, will the honourable gentleman say we are only where we were? What objects can call the attention of the House in a stronger degree than those I have enumerated? And yet they are all involved in the question now before you, if you reject the amendment proposed. I say, it is unfair in Administration, and an affront to every individual member of the House, without any information laid on your table, without evidence brought to your bar, destitute of every material by which a rational creature can resolve, to require he should give his unlimited sanction to measures of such moment, on the very first day, perhaps, of his arrival