After this no man dreamt that a repeal under this ministry could possibly take place.  The honorable gentleman knows as well as I, that the idea was utterly exploded by those who sway the House.  This speech was made on the ninth day of May, 1769.  Five days after this speech, that is, on the thirteenth of the same month, the public circular letter, a part of which I am going to read to you, was written by Lord Hillsborough, Secretary of State for the Colonies.  After reciting the substance of the king’s speech, he goes on thus:—­

“I can take upon me to assure you, notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary from men with factious and seditious views, that his Majesty’s present administration have at no time entertained a design to propose to Parliament to lay any further taxes upon America, for the purpose of RAISING A REVENUE; and that it is at present their intention to propose, the next session of Parliament, to take off the duties upon glass, paper, and colors, upon consideration of such duties having been laid contrary to the true principles of commerce.

“These have always been, and still are, the sentiments of his Majesty’s present servants, and by which their conduct in respect to America has been governed. And his Majesty relies upon your prudence and fidelity for such an explanation of his measures as may tend to remove the prejudices which have been excited by the misrepresentations of those who are enemies to the peace and prosperity of Great Britain and her colonies, and to reestablish that mutual confidence and affection upon which the glory and safety of the British empire depend.”

Here, Sir, is a canonical boot of ministerial scripture:  the general epistle to the Americans.  What does the gentleman say to it?  Here a repeal is promised,—­promised without condition,—­and while your authority was actually resisted.  I pass by the public promise of a peer relative to the repeal of taxes by this House.  I pass by the use of the king’s name in a matter of supply, that sacred and reserved right of the Commons.  I conceal the ridiculous figure of Parliament hurling its thunders at the gigantic rebellion of America, and then, five days after, prostrate at the feet of those assemblies we affected to despise,—­begging them, by the intervention of our ministerial sureties, to receive our submission, and heartily promising amendment.  These might have been serious matters formerly; but we are grown wiser than our fathers.  Passing, therefore, from the Constitutional consideration to the mere policy, does not this letter imply that the idea of taxing America for the purpose of revenue is an abominable project, when the ministry suppose none but factious men, and with seditious views, could charge them with it? does not this letter adopt and sanctify the American distinction of taxing for a revenue? does it not formally reject all