had said just; that the road by penitence to amendment was, he knew, humiliating and difficult; and that the greater part of mankind were disposed, like Macbeth, to think

"I am in blood

"Stept in so far, that, should I wade no more,

Returning were as tedious as go o'er ;""

and thus they pass towards the further bank, be the channel ever so wide, or the flood ever so deep and rapid. That as this measure was in the same spirit as all the former, he did not doubt but that it would be productive of the very same consequence. That this was, in effect, the Boston port bill, but upon infinitely a larger scale. That evil principles are prolific; this Boston port bill begot this New England bill; this New England bill will beget a Virginia bill; again a Carolina bill, and that will beget a Pennsylvania bill: till, one by one, parliament will ruin all its colonies, and root up all its commerce; until the statute book becomes nothing but a black and bloody roll of proscriptions, a frightful code of rigour and tyranny, a monstrous digest of acts of penalty, incapacity, and general attainder; and that, open it where you will, you will find a title for destroying some trade, or ruining some province: that the scheme of parliament was new and unheard of in any civilized nation," to preserve your authority by destroying your dominions." It was rather the idea of hostility between independent states, where one not being able to conquer another, thinks to reduce its strength gradually, by destroying its trade and cutting off its resources. That this mode was never used by princes towards their subjects in rebellion; the maxim in such cases always was, to cut off the rebels but to spare the country, because its strength. is the strength of the sovereign himself. Here the principle was reversed; the force used against the rebels was trifling (though very expensive), but the trade, which was the wealth of the country, was to be destroyed.

Mr. Burke then entered into the difference of expence, and the loss between the two modes; and proved, in detail,

that these bills would, in all probability, cost the nation more than the maintenance of an army of 40,000 men. That when things were come to violences he thought the sword much the most effectual, and though severe, not so unjust as these universal proscriptions, because it would fall only, on those who resisted. But this act confounded all kinds of people, all sexes, all ages, in one common ruin. That nothing could be at once more foolish, more cruel, and more insulting, than to hold out, as a resource to the starving fishermen, ship-builders, and the infinite number of other mechanics employed in trade and fishery, and ruined by this act, that after the plenty of the ocean, they may poke in the brooks, and rake in the puddles of their respective countries, and diet on what we considered as husks and draft for hogs. It was, he said, foolish and insulting; because, when you deprive a man of his trade and occupation, you deprive him of the means of his livelihood, if there were ever so much fish in the streams, or corn in the fields. That a shoemaker's livelihood goes when a fisherman can no longer pay him for his shoes. He has no resource in other people's plenty. How is he to get at horse-beans or Indian corn, or at the worst of food, for himself and his starving family? Then he shewed, that the ruin of the staple trade of a people involved in it the ruin of the whole community; and proved, by entering minutely into its nature and employment, that the British capital employed in the New England trade, could not possibly be turned to the British fishery; and (treating very lightly the demonstration of Euclid) he shewed, that one year's intermission of the course of the New England foreign trade would be the certain loss of the whole debt now due to the Engl merchants.

But the point on which he rested most, was this: sentence was, in the mildest way, beggary, if not far four great provinces. The condition of their reda was, "when it should be made appear to the governAL the majority of the council in two of these proviams

the laws would be obeyed." By what evidence su há

this to be made to appear? Who is to produce it? What facts are to be proved? What rule has the person who is to make it appear to go by? What rule have the two governors to determine so as to acquit them-in employing or in refusing, either to government here, or to the people there? You sentence, said he, to famine, at least 300,000 people in two provinces, at the mere arbitrary will and pleasure of two men whom you do not know; for you do not know who will be governors when this act takes place. And, lest these two should risk an act of mercy, you add, as a controul to them, the majority of two councils, whom you do not know, and one of them, at present, has no existence! And as to the other provinces, Connecticut and Rhode Island, the act has not left a man in these two provinces, who, by the exertion even of an arbitrary discretion, can relieve 200,000 people more, or any innocent or repenting individual, let their behaviour be what it will. A governor of another province, who can never regularly and officially know their true state, can alone be arbitrary in favour of justice.

This, said he, is because, in these two ill-starred provinces, the people chuse their governors: but is that a crime in individuals, which is the legal constitution of the country? If it be a bad one, England has given it to them, and has not taken even a step towards altering it. On this point, of the unheard-of power given to governors, of starving so many hundreds of thousands at their mere pleasure, of which, he said, no history of real, and even no fabulous invention of fictitious tyranny, had ever furnished an example, he dwelt a long time, and placed it in an infinite variety of lights; and kindled into such warmth, that he was at length called to order. But he continued to repeat the strong terms, as, he said, he had a right to give such epithets to the bill as he pleased, until it had passed the House. If that should be the case, he would then be silent, because it would be against order to speak of it as it deserved, and against prudence, to offend a body of men who had so much power, and would shew, by passing that bill, how harsh a use they were disposed to make of it.

He said, however, he was convinced, by the whole tenor of the debate, as well as by his private conversation, that most of those who would vote for this bill had never read it; that what they did was not out of malice, but out of respect to the opinions of others, who, by presenting them such a bill, shewed how little they deserved this unlimited confidence. He said, that if any were in that situation, he hoped they would have the benefit of the prayer made for those who alone had done an act worse than this, Forgive them, they know not what they do."

66

The question being put, that the bill, with the amendments, be ingrossed, the House divided: Yeas 215: Noes 61.

March 8.

The bill being read, a third time, Mr. Hartley moved, that the following clause be added by way of ryder: "That nothing in the act shall extend to prohibit the importation into any or either of the said provinces, of any fuel, meal, corn, flour, or victual, which shall be brought coastwise from any part of the continent of America." Upon this occasion,

Mr. BURKE was warm against the bill. It was not, he said, sanguinary, it did not mean to shed blood, but to suit some gentlemen's humanity, it only meant to starve five hundred thousand people, men, women, and children at the breast. Some gentlemen had even expressed their approbation of famine in preference to fire and sword. This bill not only had taken from these people the means of subsisting themselves by their own labour, but, rejecting the clause now proposed, took from them the means of being subsisted by the charity of their friends. You had reduced the poor people to beggary, and now you take the beggar's scrip from them. You even dash from the mouth of hunger the morsel which the hand of charity would stretch out to it. On the subject of famine he was fine and pathetic.

The clause was rejected by 188 against 58. After which the

MR. BURKE'S RESOLUTIONS FOR

CONCILIATION WITH

THE COLONIES.

March 22:

ON the order of the day being read,

Mr. BURKE rose and addressed the House as follows: I hope, Sir, that notwithstanding the austerity of the chair, your good nature will incline you to some degree of indulgence towards human frailty. 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*. I do confess, I could not help looking on this event as a fortunate omen. I look upon it as a sort of providential favour; 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 for ever, 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 embarrrassed (unless we please to make

* The act to restrain the trade and commerce of the provinces of Massachuset's Bay and New Hampshire, and colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and Providence Plantation, in North America, to Great Britain, Ireland, and the British islands in the West Indies; and to pro❤ hibit such provinces and colonies from carrying on any fishery on the banks of Newfoundland, and other places therein mentioned, under certain conditions and limitations.