of her power. She is never to intrude into the place of the others, whilst they are equal to the common ends of their institution. But in order to enable parliament to answer all these ends of provident and benificent superintendance, her powers must be boundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of parliament limited, may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions are, not obeyed. What! Shall there be no reserved power in the empire, to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole? We are engaged in war-the secretary of state calls upon the colonies to contribute-some would do it, I think most would cheerfully furnish whatever is demanded -one or two, suppose, hang back, and, easing themselves, let the stress of the draft lie on the otherssurely it is proper, that some authority might legally say "Tax yourselves for the common supply, or parliament will do it for you." This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania for some short time towards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internal dissentions in the colony. But, whether the fact were so, or otherwise, the case is equally to be provided for by a competent sovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power; nor ever used in the first instance. This is what I meant, when I have said at various times, that I con sider the power of taxing in parliament as an instrument of empire, and not as a means of supply.

Such, sir, is my idea of the constitution of the British empire, as distinguished from the constitution of Britain; and on these grounds I think subordination and liberty may be sufficiently reconciled through the whole; whether to serve a refining speculatist, or a factious demagoogue, I know not; but enough surely for the ease and happiness of man.

Sir, whilst we held this happy course, we drew more from the colonies than all the impotent violence of despotism ever could extort from them. We did this abundantly in the last war. It has never been once denied; and what reason have we to imagine

that the colonies would not have proceeded in supplying government as liberally, if you had not stepped in and hindered them from contributing, by interrupting the channel in which their liberality flowed with so strong a course; by attempting to take, instead of being satisfied to receive? Sir William Temple says, that Holland has loaded itself with ten times the impositions which it revolted from Spain rather than submit to. He says true. Tyranny is a poor provider. It knows neither how to accumulate, nor how to extract.

I charge therefore to this new and unfortunate system the loss not only of peace, of union, and of commerce, but even of revenue, which its friends are contending for. It is morally certain, that we have lost at least a million of free grants since the peace. I think we have lost a great deal more; and that those who look for a revenue from the provinces, never could have pursued, even in that light, a course more directly repugnant to their purposes.

Now, sir, I trust I have shown, first on that narrow ground which the honourable gentleman measured, that you are like to lose nothing by complying with the motion, except what you have lost already. I have shown afterwards, that in time of peace you flourished in commerce, and when war required it, had sufficient aid from the colonies, while you pursued your ancient policy; that you threw every thing into confusion when you made the stamp act; and that you restored every thing to peace and order when you repealed it. I have shown that the re vival of the system of taxation has produced the very worst effects; and that the partial repeal has produced not partial good, but universal evil. Let these considerations, founded on facts, not one of which can be denied, bring us back to our reason by the road of our experience.

I cannot, as I have said, answer for mixed measures; but surely this mixture of lenity would give the whole a better chance of success. When you once regain confidence, the way will be clear before

you. Then you may enforce the act of navigation when it ought to be enforced. You will yourselves open it where it ought still further to be opened. Proceed in what you do, whatever you do, from policy, and not from rancœur. Let us act like men, let us act like statesmen. Let us hold some sort of consistent conduct. It is agreed that a revenue is not to be had in America. If we lose the profit, let us get rid of the odium.

On this business of America, I confess I am serious even to sadness. I have had but one opinion concerning it since I sat, and before I sat in parliament. The noble lord* will, as usual, probably, attribute the part taken by me and my friends in this business, to a desire of getting his places. Let him enjoy this happy and original idea. If I deprived him of it, I should take away most of his wit, and all his argument. But I had rather bear the brunt of all his wit, and indeed blows much heavier, than stand answerable to God for embracing a system that tends to the destruction of some of the very best and fairest of his works. But I know the map of England, as well as the noble lord, or as any other person; and I know that the way I take is not the road to preferment. My excellent and honourable friend under me on the floor,† has trod that road with great toil for upwards of twenty years together. He is not yet arrived at the noble lord's destination. However, the tracks of my worthy friend are those I have ever wished to follow; because I know they lead to honour. Long may we tread the same road together; whoever may accompany us, or whoever may laugh at us on our journey. I honestly and solemnly declare, I have in all seasons adhered to the system of 1766, for no other reason, than that I think it laid deep in your truest interests— and that, by limiting the exercise, it fixes on the firmest foundations, a real, consistent, well grounded authority in parliament. Until you come back to that system, there will be no peace for England.

*Lord North.

† Mr. Dowdeswell.

LORD CHATHAM'S SPEECH,

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, JANUARY THE 9th, 1770, IN REPLY TO LORD MANSFIELD, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADDRESS TO THE THRONE.

DISGUSTED with the conduct of the cabinet over which he presided, without the power of control or direction, lord Chatham resigned his place late in the year 1768, and with a mind soured by discontent, and enfeebled by the anguish of disease, retreated from publick life to the privacy of the country, where he resided for nearly two years.

During his retirement, he estranged himself so entirely from the concerns of politicks and the strife of party, that his former lofty pretensions and commanding influence in the state dwindled to insignificance, and he to whom every eye was once directed, attracted, for that time, little regard or attention.

This relaxation, however, produced, very unexpectedly, the restoration of his health, and by a reconciliation with his nearest relative, lord Temple, the solace of whose friendship he seems to have required, his mind, long clouded and oppressed, again shone forth with a brightness and intensity of force, not surpassed in the meridian of its splendid career.

At the meeting of parliament, January 9th 1770, he resumed his seat in the House of Lords, and on the motion for the address to the throne, pronounced one of the most celebrated of his speeches, which, unfortunately, is imperfectly preserved. He commenced it in a very impressive manner. "At my

advanced period of life, my lords, bowing under the weight of my infirmities, I might, perhaps, have stood