forms of government; (3) the religious principles of the North; (4) the social institutions of the South; (5) the peculiarities of their education, and (6) their remoteness from Great Britain. He then sums up the first part, by showing that it is vain to think either (1) of removing these causes, or (2) of regarding them as criminal. Reaching the conclusion then, that conciliation is the true policy, he proceeds to inquire what this concession should be. Obviously it should relate to taxation, since taxation is the cause of the contest, Referring to the earlier history of Ireland, Durham, Chester, and Wales, he shows that in every case, either an independent parliament existed, or the territory was admitted to representation in the English Parliament. He then points out that direct representation of the colonies is impracticable, and he shows the evils that would result from the adoption of Lord North's scheme. Finally, he reaches the conclusion that Americans ought to be admitted to the privileges of Englishmen—the privilege of contributing whatever they grant to the Crown through their own legislature. To this end he presents six resolutions, with a brief consideration of which he closes the speech.

This brief outline is perhaps enough to show that the speech is remarkable for its logical order, and for its happy grouping of historical facts. But so far from being a collection of mere matters of fact, it is enriched from beginning to end with thoughts and reflections from a brain teeming with ideas on the science of government. It abounds with passages that have always been greatly admired, and the train of argument is not interrupted by the introduction of matter only remotely relevant to the subject in hand. It may be said therefore to have more of the author's characteristic merits, and fewer of his characteristic defects, than any other of his speeches. Every careful student will probably agree with Sir James Mackintosh in pronouncing it "the most faultless of Mr. Burke's productions."

MR. SPEAKER:

I HOPE, sir, that, notwithstanding the austerity of the chair, your good nature will incline you to some degree of indulgence toward human frailty.36 You will not think it unnatural that those who have an object depending, which strongly engages their hopes and fears, should be somewhat inclined to superstition. As I came into the House full of anxiety about the event of my motion, I found, to my infinite surprise, that the grand penal bill, by which we had passed sentence on the trade and sustenance of America, is to be returned to us from the other House. 37 I do confess, I could not help looking on this event as a fortunate omen. I look upon it as a sort of providential favor, by which we are put once more in possession of our deliberative capacity, upon a business so very questionable in its nature, so very uncertain in its issue. By the return of this bill, which seemed to have taken its flight forever, we are, at this very instant, nearly as free to choose a plan for our American government, as we were on the first day of the session. If, sir, we incline to the side of conciliation, we are not at all embarrassed (unless we please to make ourselves so) by any incongruous mixture of

coercion and restraint. We are therefore called upon, as it were by a superior warning voice, again to attend to America; to attend to the whole of it together; and to review the subject with an unusual degree of care and calm

ness.

Surely it is an awful subject, or there is none so on this side of the grave. When I first had the honor of a seat in this House, the affairs of that continent pressed themselves upon us as the most important and most delicate object of parliamentary attention. My little share in this great deliberation oppressed me. I found myself a partaker in a very high trust; and having no sort of reason to rely on the strength of my natural abilities for the proper execution of that trust, I was obliged to take more than common pains to instruct myself in every thing which relates to our colonies. I was not less under the necessity of forming some fixed ideas concerning the general policy of the British empire. Something of this sort seemed to be indispensable, in order, amid so vast a fluctuation of passions and opinions, to concentre my thoughts; to ballast my conduct; to preserve me from being blown about by every wind of fashionable doctrine. I really did not think it

safe or manly, to have fresh principles to seek upon every fresh mail which should arrive from America.

At that period I had the fortune to find myself in perfect concurrence with a large majority in this House.38 Bowing under that high authority, and penetrated with the sharpness and strength of that early impression, I have continued ever since in my original sentiments without the least deviation. Whether this be owing to an obstinate perseverance in error, or to a religious adherence to what appears to me truth and reason, it is in your equity to judge.

Sir, Parliament having an enlarged view of objects, made, during this interval, more frequent changes in their sentiment and their conduct than could be justified in a particular person upon the contracted scale of private information. But though I do not hazard any thing approaching to a censure on the motives of former Parliaments to all those alterations, one fact is undoubted that under them the state of America has been kept in continual agitation. Every thing administered as remedy to the public complaint, if it did not produce, was at least followed by, a heightening of the

distemper; until, by a variety of experiments, that important country has been brought into her present situation-a situation which I will not miscall, which I dare not name, which I scarcely know how to comprehend in the terms of any description.

In this posture, sir, things stood at the beginning of the session. About that time, a worthy member of great parliamentary experience, who, in the year 1766, filled the chair of the American committee with much ability, took me aside, and, lamenting the present aspect of our politics, told me things were come to such a pass that our former methods of proceeding in the House would be no longer tolerated. That the public tribunal (never too indulgent to a long and unsuccessful opposition) would now scrutinize our conduct with unusual severity. That the very vicissitudes and shiftings of ministerial measures, instead of convicting their authors of inconstancy and want of system, would be taken as an occasion of charging us with a predetermined discontent, which nothing could satisfy; while we accused every measure of vigor as cruel, and every proposal of lenity as weak and irresolute. The public, he said, would not have patience to see us play