whole of the then opposition, instead of feeling humbled by the unhappy
issue of their measures, seemed to be infinitely elated, and cried out,
that the ministry, from envy to the glory of their predecessors, were
prepared to repeal the Stamp Act. Near nine years after, the honorable
gentleman takes quite opposite ground, and now challenges me to put my
hand to my heart and say whether the ministry had resolved on the repeal
till a considerable time after the meeting of Parliament. Though I do
not very well know what the honorable gentleman wishes to infer from the
admission or from the denial of this fact on which he so earnestly
adjures me, I do put my hand on my heart and assure him that they did
_not_ come to a resolution directly to repeal. They weighed this matter
as its difficulty and importance required. They considered maturely
among themselves. They consulted with all who could give advice or
information. It was not determined until a little before the meeting of
Parliament; but it was determined, and the main lines of their own plan
marked out, before that meeting. Two questions arose. (I hope I am not
going into a narrative troublesome to the House.)

[A cry of "Go on, go on!"]

The first of the two considerations was, whether the repeal should be
total, or whether only partial,--taking out everything burdensome and
productive, and reserving only an empty acknowledgment, such as a stamp
on cards or dice. The other question was, on what principle the act
should be repealed. On this head also two principles were started. One,
that the legislative rights of this country with regard to America were
not entire, but had certain restrictions and limitations. The other
principle was, that taxes of this kind were contrary to the fundamental
principles of commerce on which the colonies were founded, and contrary
to every idea of political equity,--by which equity we are bound as much