course of this
multifarious evidence, had said, "that a very considerable part of the
orders of 1765 transmitted from America had been afterwards suspended;
but that in case the Stamp Act was repealed, those orders were to be
executed in the present year, 1766"; and that, on the repeal of the
Stamp Act, "the exports to the colonies would be at least double the
value of the exports of the past year." He then triumphs exceedingly on
their having fallen short of it on the state of the custom-house
entries. I do not well know what conclusion he draws applicable to his
purpose from these facts. He does not deny that all the orders which
came from America subsequent to the disturbances of the Stamp Act were
on the condition of that act being repealed; and he does not assert
that, notwithstanding that act should be enforced by a strong hand,
still the orders would be executed. Neither does he quite venture to say
that this decline of the trade in 1766 was owing to the repeal. What
does he therefore infer from it, favorable to the enforcement of that
law? It only comes to this, and no more; those merchants, who thought
our trade would be doubled in the subsequent year, were mistaken in
their speculations. So that the Stamp Act was not to be repealed unless
this speculation of theirs was a probable event. But it was not repealed
in order to double our trade in that year, as everybody knows (whatever
some merchants might have said), but lest in that year we should have no
trade at all. The fact is, that during the greatest part of the year
1755, that is, until about the month of October, when the accounts of
the disturbances came thick upon us, the American trade went on as
usual. Before this time, the Stamp Act could not affect it. Afterwards,
the merchants fell into a great consternation; a general stagnation in
trade ensued. But as soon as it was known that the ministry favored the
repeal of the Stamp Act, several of the bolder merchants ventured to
execute their orders; others more timid hung back; in this manner the
trade continued in a state of dreadful fluctuation between the fears of
those who had ventured, for the event of their boldness, and the anxiety
of those whose trade was suspended, until the royal assent was finally
given to the bill of repeal. That the trade of 1766 was not equal to
that of 1765, could not be owing to the repeal; it arose from quite
different causes, of which the author seems not to be aware: 1st