the same protection, and enjoying the same blessings, under the guidance and direction of the same common parent whom they loved and venerated, they were one people-one in origin-one in language-one in inheritance-one in dependance-one in interest-one in sympathy-one in destiny.

CHAPTER III.

THE treaty of Paris, wherein France ceded to Great Britain all her possessions east of the Mississippi, was an important æra in the governmental history of the colonies. It relieved them from the agitations and embarrassments so frequent during the existence of that power in America, and which had so much disturbed their tranquillity and impeded their prosperity. Had England taken advantage of the grateful feelings awakened in the colonies by the peace of 1763, she might have secured for ever their loyalty, and their allegiance. We may be permitted to express our surprise at the policy which she pursued, but it was not the province, nor was it in the power, of human ingenuity to uncover the mysterious designs of that Providence who directs the destinies of men and of empires. Already had been developed and set in operation a train of causes whose progressive influences must bring about the independence of these colonies, and make this continent the abode of a great nationthe refuge of the oppressed-the home of free principles --the sanctuary of true religion-the hope of mankind, nor could any human forethought or sagacity stay their tendencies to this result. Peace was proclaimed, but to accomplish it had thrown a heavy burden of debt upon England, while to preserve it it was supposed would require a large increase of her military establishment. Finding her own resources insufficient to sustain this weight of debt, and to supply this increase of expenditure, her Parliament resolved that it was "just and necessary that a revenue should be raised in America." Accordingly an act was passed which recited that "Whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in America for defraying the expenses of defending, securing, and protecting the same, We, the House of Commons, &c., towards raising the same give and grant unto your Majesty the sum of £here follows a specification of duties and imports imposed upon the colonies: the monies arising therefrom to be paid into the receipt of his Majesty's exchequer, to be entered separate, and reserved to be disposed of by Parliament towards defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing America."

In defining their relations with the mother country the several colonies had early taken a distinction between the ordinances of the Crown and the enactments of the Parliament. They admitted that they were bound to render all due allegiance to the former, while they denied the supremacy of the latter. They insisted that in themselves they possessed all legislative powers, and were not bound by any legislative provisions in which their representatives had had no voice, or to which they had not given their consent, and they had always complained of all such acts as grievances. At times, however, the decisions of their judiciary had compelled them to relinquish this position, so far as to acquiesce in the power of Parliament to pass such acts as were made to promote their general interests, or to

regulate their commerce, or to establish their relations with the mother country; and they had even gone so far as to assent to the imposition of duties which were laid for these purposes. But still they had stoutly claimed that the Parliament had no right whatever to levy any internal tax without their assent. As early as the year 1692, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay passed an act wherein they denied the existence of any such right. Subsequently to this the General Assembly of New York passed a similar resolution, wherein the supremacy of the Parliament was denied, not merely on the point of taxation, but with regard to legislation generally.* Now, the colonies generally contended," if a British Parliament, in which we are unrepresented and over which we have no control, can take from us any part of our property, by direct taxation, they may take as much as they please and we have no security for anything that remains, but a forbearance on their part, less likely to be exercised in our favor, as they lighten themselves of the burthens of government in the same proportion that they impose them upon us." Till this period no act had been passed by Parliament for the avowed purpose of raising a revenue. All the previous acts related to the regulation and establishment of their commerce, through which source alone their contributions to the support of the empire of Great Britain were sought to be derived. The causes which had operated to produce their acquiescence in the superintending control which had been thus exercised by Parliament, in the restrictions which were imposed by the Navigation Act, are very vividly pourtrayed in a speech delivered in Parliament at this time,† by Sir Edmund Burke. The colonists,

he says, had submitted to these infringements upon their rights "because men do bear the inevitable con"stitution of their nature with all its infirmities. The "Act of Navigation attended the colonies from their in"fancy, grew with their growth and strengthened "with their strength. They were confirmed in their "obedience to it even more by usage than by law. "They scarcely had remembered a time when they were not subject to such restraints. Besides they were indemnified for it by a pecuniary compensation. "Their monopolist happened to be one of the richest men in the world. By his immense capital-prima"rily employed, not for their benefit, but his own-they were enabled to proceed with their fisheries, their "agriculture, their ship-building-and their trade too in "the limits in such a manner as got far the start of "the slow languid operations of unassisted nature. "This capital was a hot-bed to them. Nothing in the "history of mankind is equal to their progress. For my part I never cast an eye on their flourishing com"merce and their cultivated and commodious life, but "they seem to me rather ancient nations grown to per"fection through a long series of fortunate events, and

a train of successful industry, accumulating wealth "in many centuries, than the colonies of yesterday; "than a set of miserable outcasts a few years ago, not

66

so much sent as thrust out on the bleak and barren "shore of a desolate wilderness, three thousand miles "from all civilized intercourse. All this was done by "England, while England pursued trade and forgot revenue. You not only acquired commerce, but you "actually created the very objects of trade in America; "and by that creation you raised the trade of this king"dom at least fourfold. America had the compensation

"of your capital which made her bear her servitude. "She had another compensation which you are now "going to take away from her. She had except the "commercial restraint--every characteristic mark of a "free people in all her internal concerns. She had the "image of the British Constitution she had the sub"stance. She was taxed by her own representatives, "she chose her own magistrates; she paid them all. "She had in effect the sole disposal of her own internal "government. This whole estate of commercial servi"tude and civil liberty, taken together, is certainly not "freedom; but comparing it with the ordinary circum"stances of human nature, it is a happy and a liberal "condition."

This address not only points out the causes of the submission of the colonies to the legislative powers exercised over them by Parliament, but it also developes those which now inspired their resistance. As we have already observed, till now no act had been passed for the avowed purpose of raising a revenue. The word revenue had not been used in any of those acts which ran through a period of fourteen years,* it was avoided in all the laws respecting them, which always had reference more particularly to trade, and not to revenue, and while these conduced to their mutual advantage and promoted their welfare, they assented to the principle of commercial monopoly thus exercised by the parent state. But the Revenue acts were the introduction of a new, an altogether different, a more oppressive, and an offensive policy. They were an innovation which aimed a fearful blow at the dearest and most sacred rights of the colonies. They were at war with what they had learned to regard as the very spirit and essence