In all those acts the system of commerce is established as that from
whence alone you proposed to make the colonies contribute (I mean
directly and by the operation of your superintending legislative power)
to the strength of the empire. I venture to say, that, during that whole
period, a Parliamentary revenue from thence was never once in
contemplation. Accordingly, in all the number of laws passed with regard
to the plantations, the words which distinguish revenue laws
specifically as such were, I think, premeditately avoided. I do not say,
Sir, that a form of words alters the nature of the law, or abridges the
power of the lawgiver. It certainly does not. How ever, titles and
formal preambles are not always idle words; and the lawyers frequently
argue from them. I state these facts to show, not what was your right,
but what has been your settled policy. Our revenue laws have usually a
_title_, purporting their being _grants_; and the words "_give and
grant_" usually precede the enacting parts. Although duties were imposed
on America in acts of King Charles the Second, and in acts of King
William, no one title of giving "an aid to his Majesty," or any other of
the usual titles to revenue acts, was to be found in any of them till
1764; nor were the words "give and grant" in any preamble until the
sixth of George the Second. However, the title of this act of George the
Second, notwithstanding the words of donation, considers it merely as a
regulation of trade; "An act for the better securing of the trade of his
Majesty's sugar colonies in America." This act was made on a compromise
of all, and at the express desire of a part, of the colonies themselves.
It was therefore in some measure with their consent; and having a title
directly purporting only a _commercial regulation_, and being in truth
nothing more, the words were passed by, at a time when no jealousy was
entertained, and things were little scrutinized. Even Governor Bernard,
in his second printed letter, dated in 1763, gives it as his opinion,
that "it was an act of _prohibition_, not of revenue." This is certainly