SPEECH OF MR. BURKE ON AMERICAN TAXATION, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 19,1774. INTRODUCTION. THE measures of the different British ministers respecting American taxation, from the passing of the Stamp Act in 1765 to the repeal of all taxes except that on tea in 1770, have been detailed already, in connection with the speeches of Lord Chatham. Lord North's policy in respect to America was arbitrary and fluctuating. It was well described by a contemporary writer as "a heterogeneous mixture of concession and coercion; of concession not tending to conciliate, and of coercion that could not be carried into execution at once exciting hatred for the intention and contempt for the weakness." After the destruction of the tea in the harbor of Boston, violent measures prevailed. In March, 1774, laws were passed depriv ing Massachusetts of her charter, and closing the port of Boston against all commerce. Some, however, who had supported Lord North in these measures, thought they should be accompanied by an act indicative of a desire to conciliate. Accordingly, Mr. Rose Fuller, of Rye, who usually voted with the ministry, moved on the 19th of April, 1774, "that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the duty of threepence per pound on tea, payable in all his Majesty's dominions in America," with a view to repealing the same. Mr. Burke seconded the proposal, and sustained it in the following speech. The unfavorable circumstances under which he commenced, and the complete mastery which he soon gained over his audience, have been already described. The applause so lavishly be stowed upon this speech was richly merited. No one had ever been delivered in the Parliament of Great Britain so full at once of deep research, cogent reasoning, cutting sarcasm, graphic description, profound political wisdom, and fervid declamation. Lord Chatham alone had surpassed it in glowing and impassioned eloquence. In discussing the subject, Mr. Burke confined himself to the single question, " Ought the tax on tea to be abandoned, and with it the entire scheme of raising a parliamentary revenue out of the colonies?" The measure had been popular throughout all England, except in a few commercial cities; and, whether wisely adopted or not, there were strong objections to an abandonment of the system while America remained in the attitude of open resistance. Instead of reserving these objections to be answered in form at the close of the main argument, Mr. Burke disposes of them at once in a preliminary head, under what he calls "the narrow" view of the subject; i. e, the mere question of repeal. Here he obviates the difficulties referred to; not speaking to the several points, however, under the name of objections, but rather turning the ta bles on Lord North with admirable dexterity, and showing that by his previous concessions he had himself opened the way for an immediate and entire repeal. Mr. Burke next enters on his main argument by giving a historical sketch of the colonial system of England from the passing of the Navigation Act in 1651. He shows that this system did not originally contemplate any direct taxation of the colonies. He traces the steps by which the scheme of obtaining a revenue from America was introduced and modified; sketches the character of the men concerned; and urges a return to the original principles of the Naviga tion Act, as the only means of restoring peace to the empire. It would be difficult to find any oration, ancient or modern, in which the matter is more admirably arranged. The several parts support each other, and the whole forms a complete system of thought. The sketches of Mr. Grenville, Mr. Townsend, Lord Chatham, and his administration, are not strictly excrescences, though it would be unsafe for any man less gifted than Mr. Burke to arrest the progress of the discussion, and conduct the audience through such a picture-gallery of statesmen. They do, in one sense, form a part of the argument; for it was the character of the men that decided the character of the measares, and showed how England had been led to adopt a system which ought forever to be abandoned. Even the glowing picture of General Conway's reception by "the trading interest," as they "jumped upon him like children on a long-absent father," and "clung upon him as captives about their redeemer," when he carried through the repeal of the Stamp Act, adds force to the argument, for it shows how Amer. ican taxation was regarded by those who were best informed on the subject. The language of this speech is racy and pungent. It is nowhere so polished or rounded off as to lose its sharpness. The folly of American taxation is exposed in the keenest terms, from the opening paragraph, where the House is spoken of as having, "for nine long years," been "lashed round and round this miserable circle of occasional arguments and temporary expedients," to the closing sentence, in which Mr Burke tells the ministry, "Until you come back to that system (the system of the Navigation Act], there will be no peace for England." SPEECH, &c. SIR,-I agree with the honorable gentleman' who spoke last, that this subject is not new in this House. Very disagreeably to this House, very unfortunately to this nation, and to the peace and prosperity of this whole empire, no topic has been more familiar to us. For nine long years, session after session, we have been lashed round and round this miserable circle of occasional arguments and temporary expedients. I am sure our heads must turn, and our stomachs nauseate with them. We have had them in every shape; we have looked at them in every point of view. Invention is exhausted; reason is fatigued; experience has given judgment; but obstinacy is not yet conquered. The honorable gentleman has made one endeavor more to diversify the form of this disgusting argument. He has thrown out a speech composed almost entirely of challenges. Challenges are serious things; and, as he is a man of prudence as well as resolution, I dare say he has very well weighed those challenges before he delivered them. I had long the happiness to sit at the same side of the House, and to agree with the honorable gentleman on all the American questions. My sentiments, I am sure, are well known to him; and I thought I had been perfectly acquainted with his. Though I find myself mistaken, he will still permit me to use the privilege of an old friendship; he will permit me to apply myself to the House under the sanction of his authority; and on the various grounds he has measured out, to submit to you the poor opinions which I have formed upon a matter of importance enough to demand the fullest consideration I could bestow upon it. He has stated to the House two grounds of Two modes deliberation, one narrow and simple, of discussion. and merely confined to the question on your paper; the other more large and complicated; comprehending the whole series of the parliamentary proceedings with regard to America, their causes, and their consequences. With regard to the latter ground, he states it as useless, and thinks it may be even dangerous to enter into so extensive a field of inquiry. Yet, to my surprise, he has hardly laid down this restrictive proposition, to which his authority would have given so much weight, when directly, and with the same authority, he condemns it, and declares it absolutely necessary to enter into the most ample historical detail. His zeal has thrown him a little out of his usual accuracy. In this perplexity, what shall we do, sir, who are willing to submit to the law he gives us ? He has reprobated in one part of his speech the rule he had laid down for debate in the other; and, after narrowng the ground for all those who are to speak after him, he takes an excursion himself, as un 1 Chas. Wolfran Cornwall, Esq., one of the Lords of the Treasury, and afterward Speaker of the House of Commons. bounded as the subject and the extent of his great abilities. The broad Sir, when I can not obey all his laws, I will do the best I can. I will endeavor to obey such of them as have the sanction of his view the example; and to stick to that rule, proper one. which, though not consistent with the other, is the most rational. He was certainly in the right when he took the matter largely. I can not prevail on myself to agree with him in his censure of his own conduct. It is not, he will give me leave to say, either useless or dangerous. He asserts that retrospect is not wise; and the proper, the only proper subject of inquiry is, not how we got into this difficulty, but how we are to get out of it." In other words, we are, according to him, to consult our invention and to reject our experience. The mode of deliberation he recommends is diametrically opposite to every rule of reason, and every principle of good sense established among mankind; for that sense and that reason I have always understood absolutely to prescribe, whenever we are involved in difficulties from the measures we have pursued, that we should take a strict review of those measures, in order to correct our errors, if they should be corrigible; or at least to avoid a dull uniformity in mischief, and the unpitied calamity of being repeatedly caught in the same snare. Sir, I will freely follow the honorable gentle. man in his historical discussion, without the least management for men or measures, farther than as they shall seem to me to deserve it. But before I go into that large consideration, because I would omit nothing that can give the House satisfaction, I wish to tread, I. The NARROW GROUND, to which alone the honorable gentleman, in one part of his objections to speech, has so strictly confined us. the repeal mand more? (1.) He desires to know whether, if we were to repeal this tax agreeably to the Will not the proposition of the honorable gentle- Americans de man who made the motion, the Americans would not take post on this concession, in order to make a new attack on the next body of taxes; and whether they would not call for a repeal of the duty on wine as loudly as they do now for the repeal of the duty on tea? Sir, I can give no security on this subject. But I will do all that I can, and all that can be fairly demanded. To the experience which the honorable gentleman reprobates in one instant and reverts to in the next; to that experience, without the least wavering or hesitation on my part, I steadily appeal; and would to God there was no other arbiter to decide on the vote with which the House is to conclude this day! When Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in the year 1766, I affirm, first, that the Americans did not, in consequence of this measure, call upon you to give up the former parliamentary revenue which subsisted in that country, or even any one of the articles which compose it. I affirm, also, that when, departing from the maxims of that repeal, you revived the scheme of taxation, and thereby filled the minds of the colonists with new jealousy, and all sorts of apprehension, then it was that they quarreled with the old taxes as well as the new; then it was, and not till then, that they questioned all the parts of your legislative power; and by the battery of such questions have shaken the solid structure of this empire to its deepest foundations. Of those two propositions I shall, before I have done, give such convincing, such damning proof, that, however the contrary may be whispered in circles, or bawled in newspapers, they never more will dare to raise their voices in this House. I speak with great confidence. I have reason for it. The ministers are with me. They, at least, are convinced that the repeal of the Stamp Act had not, and that no repeal can have, the consequences which the honorable gentleman who defends their measures is so much alarmed at. To their conduct I refer him for a conclusive answer to his objection. I carry my proof irresistibly into the very body of both ministry and Parliament; not on any general reasoning growing out of collateral matter, but on the conduct of the honorable gentleman's ministerial friends on the new revenue itself. The act of 1767, which grants this tea duty, sets forth in its preamble that it was expedient to raise a revenue in America for the support of the civil government there, as well as for purposes still more extensive. To this support the act assigns six branches of duties. About two years after this act passed, the ministry-I mean the present ministry-thought it expedient to repeal five of the duties, and to leave, for reasons best known to themselves, only the sixth standing. Suppose any person, at the time of that repeal, had thus addressed the minister: "Condemning, as you do, the repeal of the Stamp Act, why do you venture to repeal the duties upon glass, paper, and painters' colors? Let your pretense for the repeal be what it will, are you not thoroughly convinced that your concessions will produce, not satisfaction, but insolence, in the Americans; and that the giving up these taxes will necessitate the giving up of all the rest?" This objection was as palpable then as it is now; and it was as good for preserving the five duties as for retaining the sixth. Besides, the minister will recollect, that the repeal of the Stamp Act had but just preceded his repeal; and the ill policy of that measure (had it been so impolitic as it has been represented), and the mischiefs it produced, were quite recent. Upon the principles, therefore, of the honorable gentleman, upon the principles of the minister himself, the minister has nothing at all to answer. He stands 2 There is reason to believe that the colonies would not have made any opposition to duties imposed for the mere regulation of trade. Lord North, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was minister at the time of this repeal, March 5th, condemned by himself, and by all his associates, old and new, as a destroyer, in the first trust of finance, in the revenues; and in the first rank of honor, as a betrayer of the dignity of his country. Most men, especially great men, do not always know their well-wishers. I come to rescue that noble Lord out of the hands of those he calls his friends, and even out of his own. I will do him the justice he is denied at home. He has not been this wicked or imprudent man. He knew that a repeal had no tendency to produce the mischiefs which give so much alarm to his honorable friend. His work was not bad in its principle, but imperfect in its execution; and the motion on your paper presses him only to complete a proper plan, which, by some unfortunate and unaccountable error, he had left unfinished. I hope, sir, the honorable gentleman who spoke last is thoroughly satisfied, and satisfied out of the proceedings of the ministry on their own favorite act, that his fears from a repeal are groundless. If he is not, I leave him, and the noble Lord who sits by him, to settle the matter, as well as they can, together; for if the repeal of American taxes destroys all our government in America—he is the man!—and he is the worst of all the repealers, because he is the last.1 a repeal? (2.) But I hear it continually rung in my ears, now and formerly, "the preamble! Will consistwhat will become of the preamble, if ency permit you repeal this tax?" I am sorry to be compelled so often to expose the calamities and disgraces of Parliament. The preamble of this law, standing as it now stands, has the lie direct given to it by the provisionary part of the act; if that can be called provisionary which makes no provision. I should be afraid to express myself in this manner, especially in the face of such a formidable array of ability as is now drawn up before me, composed of the ancient household troops of that side of the House, and the new recruits from this, if the matter were not clear and indisputable. Nothing but truth could give me this firmness; but plain truth and clear evidence can be beat down by no ability. The clerk will be so good as to turn to the act, and to read this favorite preamble. [It was read in the following words: "Whereas it is expedient that a revenue should be raised in your Majesty's dominions in America, for making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of the admiristration of justice and support of civil government in such provinces where it shall be found necessary, and toward farther defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions."] You have heard this pompous performance. Now where is the revenue which is to do all these mighty things? Five sixths repealedabandoned-sunk gone-lost forever. Does The pungency of this argumentum ad hominem is increased by the ingenious turn given to it by Mr. Burke, that he is defending Lord North against his own friends and adherents. Tea is the poor solitary tea duty support the purposes | lead, and red lead, and painters' colors? an object of far other importance. Tea is per- those taxes principles. Sir, it is not a pleasant consideration; but nothing in the world can read so awful and so instructive a lesson, as the conduct of ministry in this business, upon the mischief of not having large and liberal ideas in the management of great affairs.6 Never have the servants of the state looked at the whole of your complicated interests in one connected view. They have taken things by bits and scraps, some at one time and one pretense, and some at another, just as they pressed, without any sort of regard to their relations or dependencies. They never had any kind of system, right or wrong, but only invented occasionally some miserable tale for the day, in order meanly to sneak out of difficulties into which they had proudly strutted. And they were put to all these shifts and devices, full of meanness and full of mischief, in order to pilfer piecemeal a repeal of an act which they had not the generous courage, when they found and felt their error, honorably and fairly to disclaim. By such management, by the irresistible operation of feeble counsels, so paltry a sum as threepence in the eyes of a financier, so insignificant an article as tea in the eyes of a philosopher, have shaken the pillars of a commercial empire that circled the dia Company It has been said again and again, that the five Pretense that taxes were repealed on commercial ore pealed principles. It is so said in the paper on commercial in my hand—a paper which I constantly carry about, which I have often used, and shall often use again. What is got by this paltry pretense of commercial principles I know not; for, if your government in America is destroyed by the repeal of taxes, it is of no consequence upon what ideas the repeal is grounded. Repeal this tax, too, upon commercial principles, if you please. These principles will serve as well now as they did formerly. But you know that, either your objection to a repeal from these supposed consequences has no validity, or that this pretense never could remove it. This commercial motive never was believed by any man, either in America, which this letter is meant to soothe, or in England, which it is meant to deceive. It was impossible it should; because ev-whole globe. ery man, in the least acquainted with the detail of commerce, must know, that several of the articles on which the tax was repealed were fitter objects of duties than almost any other articles that could possibly be chosen; without comparison more so than the tea that was left taxed, as infinitely less liable to be eluded by contraband. The tax upon red and white lead was of this naYou have, in this kingdom, an advantage in lead that amounts to a monopoly. When you find yourself in this situation of advantage, you sometimes venture to tax even your own export. You did so, soon after the last war, when, upon this principle, you ventured to impose a duty on coals. In all the articles of American contraband trade, who ever heard of the smuggling of red lead and white lead? You might, therefore, well enough, without danger of contraband, • Mr. Burke here pauses for a moment in the progand without injury to commerce (if this were the whole consideration), have taxed these commodi-eralizations with which he so often strengthens and ress of his argument, to give us one of those fine genties. The same may be said of glass. Besides, dignifies his discussion of a particular point, by ris some of the things taxed were so trivial, that the ing to some broader truth with which it is connected. loss of the objects themselves, and their utter an- The stinging force of his imagery in some parts, and uihilation out of American commerce, would have the beauty of it in others, are worthy of attention. been comparatively as nothing. But is the arti- In the next paragraph he puts the argument on a cle of tea such an object in the trade of England new ground, viz., that the wants of the East India as not to be felt, or felt but slightly, like white Company ought to have prevented a quarrel about $ Lord Hillsborough's circular letter to the governors of the colonies concerning the repeal of some of the duties laid in the act of 1767. ture. Do you forget that, in the very last year, you stood on the precipice of a general The wants of bankruptcy? Your danger was in- the East In deed great. You were distressed in forbid the tax. the affairs of the East India Company; and you well know what sort of things are involved in the comprehensive energy of that significant appellation. I am not called upon to enlarge to you on that danger, which you thought proper yourselves to aggravate, and to display to the world with all the parade of indiscreet declamation. The monopoly of the most lucrative trades and the possession of imperial revenues had brought you to the verge of beggary and ruin. Such was your representation · - such, in some measure, was your case. The vent of ten millions of pounds of this commodity, now locked up by the tea with the colonies, which would have furnished an immense market, if they had not been led to com bine against the use of it by abhorrence of the tax : he then returns to the subject of the preamble. you charged the duty (which you had before discharged) payable in the colonies, where it was certain the collection would devour it to the bone, if any revenue were ever suffered to be collected at all. One spirit pervades and animates the whole mass. operation of an injudicious tax, and rotting in the finance by flinging away your revenue; you alwarehouses of the Company, would have pre-lowed the whole drawback on export, and then vented all this distress, and all that series of desperate measures which you thought yourselves obliged to take in consequence of it. America would have furnished that vent, which no other part of the world can furnish but America; where tea is next to a necessary of life, and where the demand grows upon the supply. I hope our dear-bought East India committees have done us at least so much good as to let us know, that without a more extensive sale of that article, our East India revenues and acquisitions can have no certain connection with this country. It is through the American trade of tea that your East India conquests are to be prevented from erushing you with their burden. They are ponderous indeed; and they must have that great country to lean upon, or they tumble upon your head. It is the same folly that has lost you at once the benefit of the West and of the East. This folly has thrown open folding doors to contraband, and will be the means of giving the profits of the trade of your colonies to every nation but yourselves. Never did a people suffer so much for the empty words of a preamble. It must be given up. For on what principle does it stand? This famous revenue stands, at this hour, on all the debate, as a description of revenue not as yet known in all the comprehensive, but too comprehensive! vocabulary of financea preambulary tax. It is, indeed, a tax of sophistry, a tax of pedantry, a tax of disputation, a tax of war and rebellion, a tax for any thing but benefit to the imposers, or satisfaction to the subject. Ought so small a tax to be com plained of? (3.) Well! but, whatever it is, gentlemen will force the colonists to take the teas. You will force them? Has seven years' struggle been yet able to force them? O, but it seems we are yet in the right. The tax is "trifling—in effect, it is rather an exoneration than an imposition; three fourths of the duty formerly payable on teas exported to America is taken off; the place of collection is only shifted; instead of the retention of a shilling from the drawback here, it is threepence custom paid in America." All this, sir, is very true. But this is the very folly and mischief of the act. Incredible as it may seem, you know that you have deliberately thrown away a large duty which you held secure and quiet in your hands, for the vain hope of getting one three fourths less, through every hazard, through certain litigation, and possibly through war. foolish by tlus The manner of proceeding in the duties on Shown to be paper and glass imposed by the same very fut that act, was exactly in the same spirit. it is small. There are heavy excises on those articles when used in England. On export, these excises are drawn back. But instead of withholding the drawback, which might have been done, with ease, without charge, without possibility of smuggling; and instead of applying the money (money already in your hands) according to your pleasure, you began your operations in Could any thing be a subject of more just alarm to America than to see you go out of the plain high road of finance, and give up your most certain revenues and your clearest interest merely for the sake of insulting your colonies? No man ever doubted that the commodity of tea could bear an imposition of threepence. But no commodity will bear threepence, or will bear a penny, when the general feelings of men are irritated, and two millions of people are resolved not to pay. The feelings of the colonies were formerly the feelings of Great Britain. Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden when called upon for the payment of twenty shillings." Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave. It is the weight of that preamble, of which you are so fond, and not the weight of the duty, that the Americans are unable and unwilling to bear. It is then, sir, upon the principle of this measure, and nothing else, that we are at issue. It is a principle of political expediency. Your act of 1767 asserts that it is expedient to raise a revenue in America; your act of 1769 [March, 1770], which takes away that revenue, contradicts the act of 1767; and, by something much stronger than words, asserts that it is not expedient. It is a reflection upon your wisdom to persist in a solemn parliamentary declaration of the expediency of any object, for which, at the same time, you make no sort of provision. And pray, sir, let not this circumstance escape youit is very material—that the preamble of this act, which we wish to repeal, is not declaratory of a right, as some gentlemen seem to argue it; it is only a recital of the expediency of a certain exercise of a right supposed already to have been asserted; an exercise you are now contending for by ways and means, which you confess, though they were obeyed, to be utterly insufficient for their purpose. You are, therefore, at this moment in the awkward situation of fighting for a phantom-a quiddity-a thing that wants not only a substance, but even a name; for a thing which is neither abstract right, nor profitable enjoyment. (4.) They tell you, sir, that your dignity is tied to it. I know not how it happens, will dignity but this dignity of yours is a terrible permit a reencumbrance to you, for it has of late been at war with your interest, your equity, and every idea of your policy. Show the thing you peal? 7 The refusal of this celebrated man to pay "shipmoney," when illegally demanded by Charles I., is known to all. |