of the Cabinet in 1769, when it was proposed to repeal the act for laying on the Port Duties in America. I have been now informed that his Grace has asserted he was over-ruled and out-voted in Council, and that I sent him a note stating the transaction. I do not say that the noble Duke did not receive such a note; but I deny that it ever came either directly or indirectly from me. The noble Duke who spoke last [Duke of Richmond] has again adverted to my unfortunate letter, which has afforded such ample matter for discussion, both in this and the other House; and has asserted, that it was done with an intention of amusing the Colonies and deceiving them. There is nothing, I trust, I would be further from being guilty of, than deceit, in any shape or to answer any purpose. I am certain such a charge will be found totally groundless in the present instance. I appeal to the obvious and natural construction of the letter itself; and I would recommend to such of your Lordships as may hereafter think it worth your while to take notice of it, to first desire it to be read, in order that the House may be enabled to judge for themselves, and not be misled by any partial interpretation of it. Such a conduct would be candid; I am sure it would be Parliamentary. The words of the letter, so far as they relate to the present subject, were, that his Majesty’s then Ministers engaged for themselves, and desired the respective Governours to assure the several Assemblies, that it was not the intention of this country to lay any tax on America for the purpose of raising a revenue. Supposing, then, that this promise were binding on all successive Administrations, (which I presume will hardly be contended for,) will any noble Lord produce a single instance in which this promise has been violated or departed from? Has there been any tax imposed, or duty levied, since that period? I will not trouble your Lordships with any particular discussion on the right this country has to tax the Colonies. My general sentiments are already fully known. If sovereignty includes everything essential to its inherent power and exercise, it is to the last degree absurd and ridiculous to distinguish between the general legislative right to govern, direct, and control, and the partial limited object of taxation, which is clearly included in that right, and necessarily forms a part of it. It would ill become me to waste your Lordships’ time in pursuing the self-evident consequences which flow from this principle. The point of expediency in the outset of this business might have admitted of argument; the present state of it cannot nor will admit of any. The gentleman [Mr. Grenville] who first proposed the Stamp Act saw this point in a very clear light, and determined to couple the maintenance of the right with the necessity of obliging America to contribute to lighten the burdens she had been accessary in creating. He was a worthy, able man, and in some respects a great man; yet if he could have foreseen all the consequences that have since happened, I have strong reason to believe he would have desisted from his design. The gentlemen who succeeded him acted from principle, and were actuated by the best motives: they found that country in a state little short of civil confusion. From a solicitude to preserve the peace of the empire, they consented to the repeal of the law which created those unhappy disturbances; but even that Administration acknowledged the principle laid down by their predecessors in office; for they accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act with the Declaratory law, which maintains the legislative supremacy of this country in all cases whatever. When the duties were laid on in 1767, I did not attend, nor had I any hand in imposing them; nevertheless, as the right was questioned by America, which is the main point to which I would wish your Lordships to turn your attention, I confess I was of opinion, that unless we resolved entirely to relinquish the sovereignty over that country, we ought by no means to consent to a total repeal. I saw the necessity of retaining a part of the duties, till America should recognize the right of imposing them. I acted strictly up to those ideas; I voted against the total repeal on that ground; and I concurred in advising the latter on the same motives. A full, clear, and specifick acknowledgment of the right I thought necessary; when that was completely secured, I was willing to concede, on the ground of expediency alone. I am still of the same opinion, and shall ever continue to resist, to the utmost of my power, in whatever form it may be brought forward, every proposition for concession or accommodation, short of submission and acknowledgment, such as I have described; because I am perfectly convinced, that if the right of taxation be surrendered, every other beneficial right of sovereignty will soon follow, and America in the end be totally separated from this country.

The noble Duke, on a former occasion, expressed his disapprobation very strongly of the law for altering the Charter of Massachusetts-Bay, passed the last year but one. For my part, I think the law was in every respect extremely necessary. First, as to the right, because every Charter, from the very nature of the grant, is controllable and dissolvable by the Supreme Legislature. Only reflect, my Lords, for an instant, what the consequence would be if the contrary were true. The King might grant exclusive privileges by charter; he might name them in such a manner as to render them totally independent of Parliament; and he might, in fact, by this means, parcel out the whole empire into as many independent communities as he pleased. Surely, my Lords, such an absurdity is not to be endured. I contend that all corporations are under the control of Parliament; that it is competent for Parliament to alter, amend, or abridge the privileges thus granted whenever they see that the interests of the empire demand it. Let us, then, in maintenance of the general principle, make a particular application of it as affecting the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay. Towards the latter end of the reign of Charles II, a policy prevailed which I as heartily disapprove of as any of your Lordships&151;that of dissolving charters at the mere will and pleasure of the Crown, or at least in a mode nearly as exceptionable. I believe, however, that the matter I am going to allude to happened to be an exception to the general abuse of the power exercised by that Monarch. It was discovered that the Charter granted to Massachusetts-Bay was no more than an incorporation of certain persons, for the mere purposes of carrying on trade, under the description of a Chairman and so many Assistant; the vacancies in the latter to be filled up by the Chairman, and the President’s seat, when a vacancy happened, by the majority of the Assistants. What was the consequence? Why, this body of men usurped all the powers of civil government; and, instead of a trading company, erected themselves into a kind of little republick, disclaiming almost all political relation to the parent State. Actuated by those principles of republicanism, which have prevailed among them in a greater or lesser degree since their earliest settlement in that country, the Chairman soon assumed the name of Governour, and his Assistants that of a Council, over whom, for the reason before assigned, the King had no power, for he was not permitted to appoint either. The Charter, on this account, was accordingly dissolved; and though, after the Revolution, the people of that Province did everything in their power to obtain a renewal of it, their endeavours proved unsuccessful. King William’s Council, though they had risked their lives and fortunes in support of the constitutional liberties of their country, could never be prevailed upon to establish or renew claims so derogatory to the legislative rights, the sovereign control, and the essential interests of this country. At length, the people of New-England were obliged to submit. Their country was divided into distinct Governments, and the King reserved to himself the power of appointing the Governour in the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, and provided in another manner for the election of the Council. So the Constitution of that Government stood at the commencement of the present disputes, when it was found that a defect remained, which was very severely felt, and which caused a continual interruption to the carrying on of the publick business. It was this: By King William’s Charter, though the appointment of the Governour was reserved to the Crown, the Council were chosen by the people. By which means the Governour found himself continually thwarted or overruled in Council; consequently, whatever measures he adopted were either weak or inefficacious, and Government became in a great measure useless or inactive. To remedy that evil, the Charter Bill was framed and passed into a law. I am sorry it was not thought of earlier; for I am certain if it had, none of the consequences which are now so strongly felt and so justly lamented would have happened. The hands of Government would have been strengthened, and the promoters of peace and obedience would have had it in their power to exert themselves; none of the rash acts which gave birth