without their consent, and allowed them representa- tives.
Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham?
He might have taken a higher example in Wales that was never taxed by parliament till it was incorporated.
I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman, but I draw my ideas of freedom from the vital powers of the British constitution—not from the crude and fallacious notions too much relied upon, as if we were but in the morning of liberty.1 I can acknowledge no veneration for any procedure, law, or ordinance, that is repugnant to reason, and the first elements of our constitution; and,
he added, sneering at Grenville
, who was once so much of a republican as to have opposed the whigs,
I shall never bend with the pliant suppleness of some who have cried aloud for freedom, only to have an occasion of renouncing or destroying it.2
The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed, and are not represented—the India Company, merchants, stockholders, manufacturers.
Surely, many of these are represented in other capacities.
It is a misfortune that more are not actually represented.
But they are all inhabitants, and as such are virtually represented.
Many have it in their option to be actually represented.
They have connection with those that elect, and they have influence over them.
Not one of the ministers who have taken the lead of government since the accession of King William, ever recommended a tax like this of the Stamp Act. Lord Halifax, educated in the House of Commons, Lord Oxford, Lord Orford, a great revenue minister, never thought of this.3 None of these ever dreamed of robbing the colonies of their constitutional rights,