Dunlap's Pennsylvania packet , The general advertiser — Philadelphia, Pa., 1775-04-10 00:00:00, page 4

* A material pint is omitted by Mr. Burke in this
speech, viz. the manner in which the Continent re
ceived tins royal affurarice. The Assembly of Virgi
nia, in their uddrefs in answer to Lord Botetourt's
french, express themfehves thus : " We acid not fuffer
our present Lpes, arising from the pleafrg pro/pea
your Lordship bathfo kindly opened and displayed to us,
to be dajhed by the bitter refieaton that any future &d
---,„mifradon avid entertain a acijb to depart from that
plan, wohich affords the farof and mod permanent
foundation of public tranquility and bappinefs ; no, my
Lord, cue arc fare our most gracious Sovereign, un
der ivbatever changes may happen in his confidential
frvan's, ^id remain immutable in the muays of truth
and iufise, and that be is incapable of deceiving his
faithful lunj&'; and we esteem your Lordihip's
information not only as warranted, but even fanc
tified by the royal word."
I Lord North.
It may pofibly b offled, that as bis Maj^fj''"
prefect adminiflrafion are not immortal, their fuc
refers may be inclined to attempt to undo what the
prefect Miniflers foa I have attempted to perform;
and to that objection I can give but tris answer :
that it is my firm opinion, that the plan I have /bated
to you will certainly take place, and that it mill ne
irr be departed from; and fb determined am 1 for
ever to abide h: it. that 1 will be content to be de
clared infamous, if I do not, to the last hour of my
life, at al! tand, in all places, and upon all occa
fsns, exert every power with which 1 either am, or
ever frail be lega!y invested, in order to obtain and
maintain for the continent of America that latistac
lion which I have been authorised to promise this day,
by the confidential servants of ourgracious Sovereign,
who to my certain knowledge rates his hondurJs high,
that he would rather part with his crown than
preserve it by deceit.*
A glorious and true character ! which (since
we fuller his Ministers with impunity to answer far
his ideas of taxation) we ought to make it our
bufine's to enable his Majesty to preserve in all
its luftre. Let him have character, hnce ours is
no more! Let some part of government be kept
in refpe& !
This epistle wa c not the letter of Lord Hill (bo
rough solely, though he held the official pen. It
was the letter of the noble Lord upon the floorf,
2nd of all the King's then Ministers, who (with
1 think the exception of two only) are his Mi
nisters at ths hour. The very firft news that a
British Parliament heard of what it was to do with
the duties which it had given and granted to the
King, was by the publication of the votes of Ame
rican aflembhes. It was in America that your
resolutions were pre declared. It was from thence
that we knew to a certainty, how much exactly,
and not a fciuple more nor less, we were to repeal.
We were unworthy to be let into the secret of our
own condutl. The aflemblies had confidential
c rmmunications from his Majesty's confidential fer
vents. We were nothing but instruments. Do
yon, after this, wonder that you have no weight
ard no relpeft in the Colonies ? After this, are
you furprized, that Parliament is every day and
everv where lefog (I feel it with sorrow, I utter
it w ; :h reluctance) that reverential affection, which
f, endearing a name of authority ought ever to
Cdr with it; that you are obeyed solely from
rdee? to rhe bayonet; and that this Houle, the
ground and pillar of freedom, is itfelf held up
only by the treacherous under-pinning and clumsy
LuttrefTeS of arbitrary power?
If this dignity, which is to stand in the place
of just policy and common lenfe, had been con
fJt.d, there was a time for preserving it, and
for reconciling it with any concession. If in the
feiEon of 1768, that session of idle terror and
empty menaces, you had, as you were often prefled
to do, repealed these taxes, then your strong ope
rations would have come juftified and enforced,
in case your concessions had been returned by out
rages. But, preposterously you began with vio
lence; and before terrors could have any effect,
either good or bad, your Ministers immediately
begged pardon, and promised that repeal to the
obitinate Americans which they haJ refufed in an
easy, good-natured, complying British Parliament.
The assemblies which had been publicly and avow
edly difolved for their contumacy, are called to
gether to receive your submission. Your minifte
fial directors blustered like tragic tyrants here ;
and then went mumping with a fore leg in Ame
rica, canting and whining, and complaining of
fidion which represented them as friends to a
revenue from the Colonies. I hope nobody in this
Rouse will hereafter have the impudence to defend
American taxes in the name of Ministry. The
moment they do, with this letter of attorney in
my hand, I will tell them, in the authorised terms,
they are wretches, " with fadious and seditious
" views; enemies to the peace and prosperity of
" the Mother Country and the Colonies," and
“ fubverters " of the mutual affection and con
" fiderce on which the glory and fafety of the
" B r itish empire depend."
After this letter the question is no more on
propriety or dignity. They are gone already. The
faith of your Sovereign is pledged for the political
principle. The general declaration in the letter
goes to the whole of it. You must therefore ei
ther abandon the scheme of taxing ; or you rnuft
fend the Minivers tarred and feathered to Ameri
ca, who dared to bold out the Royal Faith for a
renunciation of all taxes for revenue. Them you
raft punish, or tin's faith you must preserve. The
pref rvation of this faith is of more consequence
than the duties or ed lead, or white lead, or on
broken^/^f, or . 'afi ordinary, or demi-fne, or
blue royal, or b.,ard, or fool's cap, which you
hive given up, or the three-pence on tea which
you retained. The letter went ftampt with the
public authority of this kingdom. The instruc
tions far the colony government go under no other
fandi®n; and America cannot believe, and will
not obey you, if you do not preserve this channel
of comraunicition facrcd. You are now punishing
PHILADELPHIA: Printed by JOHN DUNLAP, at the Newest Printing-Office in Market-Street, where
Subscriptions at Ten Shillings per Annum, Advertisements, &c. are thankfully res I for this Paper.
Ithe Colonies for anting on d!Tedions, held out
by that very Miniiky which is here shining in
riches, in favour, and in power; and urging the
punishment of tne very offence, to which they had
themselves been the tempters.
Sir, if reasons refpe&ing simply your own com
merce, which is your own convenience, were the
sole grounds of the repeal of the five duties, why
does Lord Hillfborough^ in declaiming in the
name of the King and Ministry their ever having
had an intent to tax for revenue, mention it as
the means " of re-eftablilhing the confidence and
« afeAion cf the Colonies?" Is it a way of foodr
ing others, to assure them that you will take good
cire of )bucff? The medium, the only medium,
for regaining their affe^ion and confidence is, that
you will like off fonething opreffive to their
minds. Sb, the letter Itengly enforces that idea;
k/: hough the ^pe?! of the taxes is promised on
commercial princr ?: vet the means of counter
acting " the infinuatnas of men with factious and
seditious views," is b a disclaimer of the inten
tion of taxing for reverse, as a constant invariable
sentiment and rule of condud in the government
of America.
i remember that the noble Lord on the floor,
not in a former debate to be sure (it would be dis
orderly to refer to it, I suppose I read it some
where) but the noble Lord was pleased to fay,
that he did not conceive how it could enter into
the head of man to impose such taxes as those of
1767. I mean those taxes which he voted for
imposing, and voted for repealing ; as being taxes,
contrary to all the principles of commerce, laid
on Britifo Manufactures.
I dare fay the noble Lord is perfectly well read,
because the duty ot hie particular office requires
he should be so, in all our'revenue laws ; and in
the policy which is to be collected out of them.
Now, Sir, when he had read this- act of American
revenue, and a little recovered from his aftoniih
ment, 1 suppose hemade one step retrogade (it is
but one) and looked at the ad, which stands just
before in the Statute Book. The American re
venue ad is the 45th chapter ; the other to which
I refer, is the 44th of the fame feflion. These
two ads art both to the fame purpose; both reve
nue ads; both taxing out of the kingdom; and
both taxing British manufactures exported. As
the 45th is an ad for railing a revenue in Ame
rica, the 44th is an ad for railing a revenue in the
Isle of Man. The two ads perfectly agree in all
refpeds, except one. In the ad for taxing the
Isle of Man, the noble Lord will find (not, as in
the American ad, four or five articles) but almost
the who e body of Britifli manufactures, taxed from
two and an half to fifteen per cent, and some arti
cles, such as that of spirits, a great deal higher.
You did not think it uncommercial to tax the
whole masses your manufactures, and, let me add,
your agriculture too; for, I now recolled, British
corn is there also taxed up to ten per cent, and
this too in the very head-quarters, the very citadel
of snuggling, the Isle of Man. Now will the no
ble Lord condelcend to tell me why he repealed
the taxes on your manufactures sent out to Ame
rica, and not the taxes on the manufactures ex
ported to the Isle of Man? The principle was
exactly the fame, the objeds charged infinitely
more extensive, the duties without comparison
higher. Why? why, notwithstanding all his
childish pretexts, because the taxes were quietly
submitted to in the Isle of Man; and because they
railed a flame in America. Your reasons were
political, not commercial. The repeal was made,
as Lord Hillfborough's letter well express it, to
regain “ the confidence and affedion of the Colo
" nies, on which the glory and fafety of the Bri
" tilh empire depend." A wife and just motive
surely, if ever there was such. But the mifehief
and difhonour is, that you have not done what you
had given the Colonies just oaufe to exped, when
your ministers disclaimed the idea of taxes for a
revenue. There is nothing simple, nothing manly,
nothing ingenuous, open, decisive, or steady in the
proceeding, with regard either to the continuance
or the repeal of the taxes. The whole has an
air of littleness and fraud. The article of tea is
slurred over in the Circular Letter, as it were by
accident—nothing is laid of a resolution either to
keep that tax, or to give it up. There is no fair
dealing in any part of the tranfadion.
If you mean to follow your true motive and
your public faith, give up your tax on tea for rai
ling a revenue, the principle of which has, in ef
fect, been disclaimed in your name ; and which
produces you no advantage; no, not a penny. Or,
if you choose to go on with a poor pretence instead
of a solid reason, and will still adhere to your cant
of commerce, you have ten thousand times more
strong commercial reasons for giving up this duty
on tea, than for abandoning the five others that
you have already renounced.
The American consumption of teas is annually,
I believe, worth 300,0001. at the least farthing.
If you urge the American violence as ajuftifica
tion of your perseverance in enforcing this tax,
you know that you can never answer this plain
question—Why did you repeal the others given
in the fame ad, whilst the very fame violence sub
sisted ?—But you did not find the violence cease
upon that concellion.—No ! because the conces
sion was far short of fatisfying the principle which
Lord Hillfborough had abjured ; or even the pre
tence on which the repeal of the other taxes was
announced: And because, by enabling the East-
India Company to open a (hop for defeating the
American resolution not to pay that fpecific tax,
you manifeftly fliewed a hankering after the prin
ciple of the ad which you formerly had renounc
ed. Whatever road you take leads to a compli
ance with this motion. It opens to you at the
end of every vifto. Your commerce, your policy,
your promises, your reasons, your pretences, your
consistency, your inconfiltency—all jointly oblige
you to this repeal.
But still it flicks in cur threats, if we go so fir,
the Americans will go farther.—We do not know
that. We ought, from experience, rather to pre
sume the contrary. Do we not know for certain,
that the Americans are going on as fad as possible,
whilst we refufe to gratify them? Can they do
more, or can they do worse, if we yield this point?
I think this concession will rather fix a turnpike
to prevent their further progress. It is impofiible
to answer for bodies of men. But lam sure the
natural effed of fidelity, clemency, kindness in go
vernors, is peace, good-will, order and esteem, on
the part of the governed. I would certainly, at
least, give these fair principles a fair trial ; which,
since the making of this ad to this hour, they ne
ver have had.
Sir, the Hon. Gentleman having spoken what he
thought necessary upon the narrow part of the
fubjed, I have given him, I hope, a fatisfadory
answer. He next presses me by a variety of diced
challenges andoblique reflexions to fay something
on the historical part. 1 shall therefore, Sir, open
myfelf fully on that important and delicate fub
jed; not for the fake of telling you a longftory
(which I know, Mr. Speaker, you are not very
fond of) but for the fake of the weighty instruc
tion that, I flatter myfelf, will necessarily result
from it. It fliall not be longer, if I can help it,
than so serious a matter requires.
Permit me then, Sir, to lead your attention
very far back ; back to the ad of navigation; the
corner-stone of the policy of this country with re
gard to its Colonies Sir, that policy was, from
the beginning, purely commercial; and the com
mercial system was wholly reftridive. It was the
system ofa monopoly. No trade was let loose
from that constraint, but merely to enable the
Colonies to dispose of what, in the course of your
trade, you could not take; or to enable them to
dispose of such articles as we forced upon them,
and for which, without some degree of liberty,
they could not pay. Hence all your fpecific and
detailed enumerations : Hence the innumerable
checks and counter-checks: Hence that infinite
variety of paper chains by which you bind toge
ther this complicated system of the Colonies.
This principle of commercial monopoly runs
through no less than twenty-nine ads of Parlia
ment, from the year 1660 to the unfortunate pe
riod of 1764.
In all those ads the system of commerce is esta
blished, as that, from whence alone you proposed
to make the Colonies contribute (I mean diredly
and by the operation of your superintending legif-
Jative 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 passed with regard to the planta
tions, the words which diftinguiffi revenue laws,
fpecifically as such, were, I think, premeditately
avoided. Ido 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. How
ver, title and formal preambles are not always
idle words; and the lawyers frequently argue
from them. I state these fads to shew, not what
was your right, but what has been your fettled po
licy. Our revenue laws have usually a titt pur
porting their being grants, and the words y&e and
grant usually precede the enading parts. Although
duties were imposed on America in ads of King
Charles the Second, and in ads of King William,
no one title of giving "an aid to his Majesty,"
or any other of the usual titles to revenue ads,
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 ad of George the Second, notwithstanding
the words of donation, confiders it merely as a
regulation of trade, “ An ad for the better fe
“ curing of the trade of his Majesty's Sugar Co
“ lonics in America." This ad was made on
compromise of all, and at the express desire of a
part, of the Colonies themselves. It was there
fore in some measure with their consent: and hav
ing a title diredly purporting no more than a com
mercialregulation, and being in truth nothing more,
the words were puffed by, atatime when no jea
lousy was entertained, and things were little scru
tinized. Even Governor Bernard in his second
printed letter, dated in 1763, gives it as his opi
nion, “ that it was an ad of prohibition, not of
“ revenue." This is certainly true; that no ad
avowedly for the purpose of revenue, and with the
ordinary title and recital taken together, is found
in the statute-book until the year I have mention
ed; that is the year 1764. All before this period
flood on commercial reStion and reftra' t. The
feber, of a Colony i. ,ue by Britifli authority
appeared therefore to tie Americans in the light
ofa great innovation; the words of Governor
Bernard's ninth letter, written in November, 1765,
state this idea very strongly; "it must," fays he,
" have been supposed fa^ an innovation as a par
" liamentary taxation, would cause a great alarm,
" and meet with much apportion in most parts of
" America; it was quite new to the people, and
" had no viable bounds set to it." After stating
the weakness of government there, he fays, “ was
" this a time to introduce so great a novelty as a
" parliamentary inland taxation in America?"
Whatever the right might have been, this mode of
using it was ablolutely new in policy and prac
tice.
Sir, they who are friends to the schemes of
American revenue lay, that the commercial re
straint is full as hard a law for America to live
under. I think so too. I think it, if uncompen
sated, to be a condition of as rigorous servitude
as man can be fubjef t to. But America bore it
from the fundamental ad of navigation until 1764.
—Why? Because men do bear the inevitable con
stitution of their original nature with all its infir
mities. The act of navigation attended the Colo
nies from their infancy, grew with their growth,
and Crengthened with their strength. Th*y were
confirmed in obedience to it, even more by triage
than by law. They scarcely had remembered a
time when they were not fubjed tto such restraint.
Besides, they were indemnified for it by a pecu
niary compenfatidn. Their monopolist happened
to be one of the richest men in the world. By
his immense capital (primarily employed, not for
their benefit, but his own,) they were enabled to
proceed with their fifheries, their agriculture, their
ship-building (and their trade too within the li
mits,) in such a manner as got far the start of
the flow languid operations of unassisted nature.
This capital was a hot-bed to them. Nothing in
the history of mankind is like their progress. For
my part, I never cast an eye on their flourifhing
commerce, and their cultivated and commodious
life, but they seem to me rather antient nations
grown to perfection through a long series of for
tunate events, and a train of fuccefsful industry,
accumulating wealth in many centuries, than the
Colonies of yesterday ; than a set of miserable out
casts, a few years ago, not so much sent as thrown
out, on the bleak and barren shore of a desolate
wilderness three thousand miles from all civilized
intercourse.
Al! this was done by England, whilst England
pursued trade and forgot revenue. You not only
acquired commerce, bruyou dually created the
very objects of trade in America; and by that
creation you raised the trade of this kingdom at
least four-fold. America had the compensation
of your capital, which made her bear her servi
tude. She had another compensation, which you
are now going to take away from her. She hod,
except the commercial restraint, every chara&er
iftic mark of a free people in all her internal con
cerns. She had th^ image of the British confli
tution. She had the substance. She was taxed
by her own representatives. She chose most of
her own magistrates. She paid then; all. She
had io effect the sole disposal of her own internal
government. This whole state of commercial Ser
vitude and civil liberty taken together, is certain
ly 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 aa
outcry, in this House and out ofit, that in Ame
rica the ad of navigation neither is, or ever was,
obeyed. But if you take the Colonies through,
I affirm, that its authority never w^s disputed;
that it was no where disputed for any length cf
time; and on the whole, that it was well observed.
Wherever the ad prefled hard, many individuals
indeed evaded it. This is nothing. These fat
tered individuals never denied the law, and never
obeyed it. Just as it happens whenever the laws
of trade, whenever the laws of revenue, press
hard upon the people in England ; in that case all
your shores are full of contraband. Your right to
give a monopoly to the Eafl-Indh- Company, your
right to lay immense duties on French brandy,
are not disputed in England. You do nm make
this charge on any man. But you know that there
is not a creek from Pentland Frith to the hie of
Wight, in which they do not smuggle immense
quantities of tea, East-India goods, and brandies.
I take it for granted, that the authority of Gov.
Bernard in this point is indisputable. Speaking
of these laws, as they regarded that part of Ame
rica now in so unhappy a condition, he fays, " I
“ believe they are no where better supported than
“ in this province; I do not pretend that is en
“ tirely free from a breach of these laws; but
“ that such a breach, if difeovered, is justly pun
“ ifhed." What more can you fay of the obe
dience to any laws in any country? An obedience
to these laws formed the acknowledgment, insti
tuted by yourselves, for your superiority; and was
the payment you originally imposed for your pro
tection.
Whether you were right or wrong in eftabliffi
ing the Colonies on the principles of commercial
monopoly, rather than on that of revenue, is at
this day a problem of mere speculation. You can
not have both by the fame authority. To join
together the restraints of an universal, internal,
and external monopoly, with an universal, inter
nal, and external taxation, is an unnatural union;
perfect and compensated slavery. You have long
since decided for yourfelf and them; and you and
they have prospered exceedingly under that de
cision.
This nation, Sir, never thought of departing
from that choice until the period immediately on
the close of the last war. Then a scheme of go
vernment new in many things seemed to have been
adopted. I saw, or thought I saw, several fymp
tems of a great change, whilst I fat in your gal
lery, a good while before I had the honour of a
feat in this House. At that period the necessity
was established of keeping up no less than twenty
new regiments, with twenty Colonels capable of
feats in this House. This scheme was adopted
with very general applause from all sides, at the
very time that, by your conquests in America,
your danger from foreign attempts, in that part
of the world, was much lessened, or indeed rather
quite over. W hen this huge encreafe of military
establishment was resolved on, a revenue was to
be found to support so great a burden. Country
gentlemen, the great patrons ofceconomy, and the
great resisters of a Handing armed force, would
not have entered with much alacrity into the vote
for so large and so expensive an army, if they had
been very sure, that they were to continue to pay
for it. But hopes of another kind were held out
to them ; and in particular, I well remember,
that Mr. T ownffiend, in a brilliant harangue OR
this fubjed, did dazzle them, by playing before
their eyes the image of a revenue to be railed in
America.
be Continued.]