something oppressive to their minds. Sir, the letter strongly enforces
that idea: for though the repeal of the taxes is promised on commercial
principles, yet the means of counteracting the "insinuations of men with
factious and seditious views" is by a disclaimer of the intention of
taxing for revenue, as a constant, invariable sentiment and rule of
conduct in the government of America.

I remember that the noble lord on the floor, not in a former debate to
be sure, (it would be disorderly to refer to it, I suppose I read it
somewhere,) but the noble lord was pleased to say, that he did not
conceive how it could enter into the head of man to impose such taxes as
those of 1767: I mean those taxes which he voted for imposing, and voted
for repealing,--as being taxes, contrary to all the principles of
commerce, laid on _British manufactures_.

I dare say the noble lord is perfectly well read, because the duty of
his particular office requires he should be so, in all our revenue laws,
and in the policy which is to be collected out of them. Now, Sir, when
he had read this act of American revenue, and a little recovered from
his astonishment, I suppose he made one step retrograde (it is but one)
and looked at the act which stands just before in the statute-book. The
American revenue act is the forty-fifth chapter; the other to which I
refer is the forty-fourth of the same session. These two acts are both
to the same purpose: both revenue acts; both taxing out of the kingdom;
and both taxing British manufactures exported. As the forty-fifth is an
act for raising a revenue in America, the forty-fourth is an act for
raising a revenue in the Isle of Man. The two acts perfectly agree in
all respects, except one. In the act for taxing the Isle of Man the
noble lord will find, not, as in the American act, four or fire
articles, but almost the _whole body_ of British manufactures, taxed