of the produce of the Plantations, which are to be brought to England only. The Act of Trade says that there shall be answered and paid to your Majesty, if bond shall not be first given to bring such commodities to England, the rates there specified. Here we find the precise idea of duties laid as a regulation of trade. But in the year 1696, in King William’s reign, we find, for the first time, these duties converted into a revenue; they are directed to be paid, whether bond be given or not. Revenue officers, under the directions of the Lord High Treasurer, are established. If, therefore, we are to repeal all acts which grant duties as revenue, in 1696, not in 1764, was the system changed. If, therefore, on that principle we go back to 1763, we must of necessity go back to 1672. But lest gentlemen should doubt whether duties granted to his Majesty were ever before 1764 appropriated to revenue, let them refer to the Civil List Act of 1st George I., there they will find that the Plantation duties which, by the 25th Car. II, “were granted to his Majesty, his heirs and successors forever, shall be brought and paid into the receipt of the Exchequer, for the purposes in this act expressed,” namely, the forming a fund for the Civil List.

But, sir, before this time the tax of six pence a month laid upon all American seamen, and always paid by them, was laid in King William’s time, for the purpose of augmenting the revenues of Greenwich Hospital.

The Americans require the repeal of the Post Office Act of the 5th George III; that act, sir, laid no new duties, it made new regulations; but it was the Post Office Act of 10th Anne which granted duties in America, for the purpose of enabling her Majesty to carry on the war.

It appears, therefore, as they were not, so they could not, be content with what was done in 1766.

But to come to the precise proposition of this day: It is a proposal of a bill formed on the resolutions which the gentleman moved last year; and that proposition, although grounded, first, on the complaint which the Americans make of their grievances; second, on the declaration of their rights; and third, on the plan of the preliminaries which they throw out; although they require, as such preliminary, that we should go back to 1763, that proposition does not extend to a full remedy of their grievances, and to their idea of their rights; it does not go even to 1763, it goes only back to 1766. It is very ready to repeal every act except the acts of the Administration of that gentleman’s friends. The Declaratory Act is not to be repealed. The Revenue Act of the 6th George III is not to be repealed. Let us first see what the effect of this plan of concession made last year was : It came last year in resolutions, it is now formed into a bill. Why, sir, since this plan was proposed, the Congress, reiterating their demand of the repeal of all the acts of revenue and restriction since 1763, specify particularly the Declaratory Law, and the Revenue Act of 1766. After having recited fifteen heads of grievances, hear what they say in their own words: “But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that Parliament of right bind us in all cases whatsoever. What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power?”

Upon the effect which this plan has had last year we may fairly put the issue of the effect that may be expected from it this year, especially when this year we find in the preliminaries of the Congress the removal of the troops as well as concessions, which does not make part of this gentleman’s plan. Whatever expectations that gentleman may have of confidence from the Americans, in consequence of this plan, he may be assured, that while the Americans are very willing to avail themselves of the assistance of him and his friends, other persons will have their confidence. The gentleman and his friends bid as low as they can in conscience go; but others have bid lower: some are ready to go back to 1763; others think you should go still further. The Americans expect that we should go further; for see on what ground they put themselves, when they ask only the repeal of the revenue and restrictive laws passed since 1763. Take it in their own words:

“Resolved, That the Congress do confine themselves at present to the consideration of such rights as have been infringed since the year 1763, postponing the further consideration of the general state of American rights to a future day.”

From the first spring of this sad business, having been for modes of policy in preference to measures of force, I have always thought, and invariably said, that your system called for revision and amendment; I have been against all partial concession and repeals. I think it should be laid on some basis which is solid and may be permanent; on such whereon the liberties of America being fixed, the sovereignty of the empire might be established. Repeals upon every partial complaint, and concessions upon every clamour, is not the way; this would produce nothing but endless successions of quarrels, and patching up of those quarrels. InducieE, helium, pax rursum. It should be taken up on some great and general system. And such I now expect, and shall therefore, although I give no negative, move the previous question on any parts of a scheme moved on partial grounds, that of previous concessions.

But to consider the purport of the bill itself. Although it is grounded on the complaints of the American grievances, and of the violation of their rights, it does not go to the redress and remedy. They complain of laws laying duties and granting them for the express purpose of revenue; yet it goes only back to the year 1766. You have seen that the remedy, to be real and efficient, must carry us back to 1672. They complain of the Admiralty jurisdiction: now that, sir, is as old as the Act of Navigation. By that act, ships navigated contrary to law were to be seized, might be brought to the Court of Admiralty in England, on the express principle that there should be no party juries. For the ease, and not the aggrieving of the subject, Courts of Admiralty were afterwards established in the Colonies; and all this system stood established before the period of 1764. To my argument it is nothing how far this is right or wrong, grievous or otherwise: but the Americans complain of it as a grievance; and if the bill which is to redress their grievance, and to concede to their complaints, must go to the bottom; if it means or hopes to gain their confidence,-this bill does not go far enough; there are others who are willing to go farther.

On this ground, he said that the present proposition would not produce the effect it proposed; that it was but a part of a system proposed as an expedient, or rather an experiment to a partial purpose. On the assurance that this business of America would be now taken up on some great and general system in the whole, and the speech had announced some plan, which, from the method adopted by the honourable gentleman, should be disposed of first, he moved the previous question.

Lord George Germaine said, as he had held but one conduct in this American business, as he had been direct and explicit in that conduct, he now entered into office on the same principles, on the same line of conduct; and he hoped he should be always found decisive, direct, and firm in it. On the point of the legislative authority of this country, be should always maintain that sovereignty which was established and founded on the Constitution. On the point of taxation, although he should never concede the right, he should never object to the withholding the exercise of it, if other modes could be adopted. But if we are to have no peace unless we give up the right, the contest is brought to a fair issue; we are equal to the contest; our internal resources are great; and we can never despair of that assistance which we may want.

Gentlemen call for answers to several questions: I stand forth, as far as my judgment can, and my advice goes, to give an answer. Are we, say some gentlemen, to give up taxation? Are we to have no American revenue? I do hope we shall; I trust we shall draw a revenue from America. Whether that shall be by the exercise of our right of taxation, or whether by any other mode, I do not think material. If the Americans, willing to join their aid to the common supply, and willing to share our common burdens with us, can propose any mode which will make them easy, which will remove their fears and jealousies, I shall be ready to adopt it. I wish they were in the situation of the year 1763, if the Government of this country was so likewise. If our present system is wrong, let us avow it, consider, and rectify it. They have a right to every liberty which they can enjoy, consistent with the sovereignty and supremacy of this country. Let them be happy. Nobody can wish them more so than I do. But I have never changed my opinion as to the legislative supremacy of this country. What I have always held, I now stand in office to maintain. To the questions, What force is necessary? What