The manner of proceeding in the duties on paper and glass, imposed by the same act, was exactly in the same spirit.  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 finance by flinging away your revenue; you allowed the whole drawback on export, and then 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.

Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America than to see you go out of the plain highroad 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 three-pence.  But no commodity will bear three-pence, 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, 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 you,—­it 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.