fuch articles as we forced upon them, and for which, without some degree of liberty, they could not pay. Hence all your fpecifick and detailed enumerations: hence the innumerable checks and counterchecks: hence that infinite variety of paper chains by which you bind together this complicated fyftem 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 thofe acts the fyftem of commerce is eftablifhed, as that, from whence alone you propofed to make the colonies contribute (I mean directly and by the operation of your fuperintending legiflative power) to the strength of the empire. I venture to fay, that during that whole period, a parliamentary revenue from thence was never once in contemplation. Accordingly, in all the number of laws paffed with regard to the plantations, the words which diftinguish revenue laws, fpecifically as fuch, were, I think, premeditately avoided. I do not fay, Sir, that a form of words alters the nature of the law, or abridges the power of the lawgiver. It certainly does not. However, titles and formal preambles are not always idle words; and the lawyers frequently argue from them. I ftate thefe facts to fhew, not what was your right, but what has been your fettled policy. Our revenue laws have ufually a title, purporting their

being

being grants; and the words give and grant usually precede the enacting parts. Although duties were impofed 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 6th of George the Second. However the title of this act of George the Second, notwithftanding the words of donation, confiders it merely as a regulation of trade, "an act for the better fecuring of the trade "of his majesty's fugar colonies in America." This act was made on a compromife of all, and at the exprefs defire of a part, of the colonies themfelves. It was therefore in fome measure with their confent; and having a title directly purporting only a commercial regulation, and being in truth nothing more, the words were paffed by, at a time when no jealousy was entertained, and things were little fcrutinized. Even governour Bernard, in his fecond printed letter, dated in 1763, gives it at his opinion, that "it was an act of prohibition, not of revenue.' This is certainly true, that no act avowedly for the purpofe of revenue, and with the ordinary title and recital taken together, is 'found in the ftatute book until the year I have mentioned; that is, the year 1764. All before this period ftood on commercial regulation and re

ftraint.

ftraint. The fcheme of a colony revenue by British authority appeared therefore to the Americans in the light of a great innovation; the words of Governour Bernard's ninth letter, written in Nov. 1765. ftate this idea very ftrongly; "it muft," fays he, "have been fuppofed, fuch an innovation "as a parliamentary taxation, would caufe 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 ftating the weaknefs of government there, he fays, "was this a time to introduce fo great a novelty as "a parliamentary inland taxation in America ?" Whatever the right might have been, this mode of ufing it was abfolutely new in policy and practice.

66

Sir, they who are friends to the fchemes of American revenue fay, that the commercial reftraint is full as hard a law for America to live under. I think fo too. I think it, if uncompenfated, to be a condition of as rigorous fervitude as men can be fubject to. But America bore it from the fundamental act of navigation until 1764.-Why? because men do bear the inevitable conftitution of their original nature with all its infirmities. The act of navigation attended the colonies from their infancy, grew with their growth, and ftrengthened with their ftrength. They were confirmed in obedience to it, even more by ufage than by law. They fcarcely had remembered a time

when

when they were not fubject to fuch reftraint. Befides, they were indemnified for it by a pecuniary compenfation. Their monopolift happened to be one of the richest men in the world. By his immenfe capital (primarily employed, not for their benefit, but his own) they were enabled to proceed with their fisheries, their agriculture, their fhip-building (and their trade too within the limits), in fuch a manner as got far the start of the flow languid operations of unaffifted nature. This capital was a hot-bed to them. Nothing in the hiftory of mankind is like their progrefs. For my part, I never caft an eye on their flourishing commerce, and their cultivated and commodious life, but they seem to me rather antient nations grown to perfection through a long feries of fortunate events, and a train of fuccefsful industry, accumulating wealth in many centuries, than the colonies of yesterday; than a fet of miferable out-cafts, a few years ago, not fo much fent as thrown out, on the bleak and barren fhore of a defolate wilderness three thousand miles from all civilized intercourfe.

All this was done by England, whilft 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 leaft four-fold. America had the compenfation of

your

your capital, which made her bear her fervitude. She had another compenfation, which you are now going to take away from her. She had, except the commercial restraint, every characteristick mark of a free people in all her internal concerns. She had the image of the British conftitution. She had the fubftance. She was taxed by her own representatives. She chose most of her own magiftrates. She paid them all. She had in effect the fole difpofal of her own internal government. This whole ftate of commercial fervitude 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 a liberal condition.

I know, Sir, that great and not unfuccefsful pains have 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 difputed for any length of time; and on the whole, that it was well obferved. Wherever the act preffed hard, many individuals indeed evaded it. This is nothing. Thefe fcattered individuals never denied the law, and never obeyed it. Juft as it happens whenever the laws of trade, whenever the laws of revenue, press hard upon the people in England; in that cafe all VOL. II.

C c

your