become powerful and have reached their maturity. But the intention seems to be, not to extend their rights in a natural manner with their increasing power and importance, nor even to maintain them unimpaired; but, from a perverse management or a selfish jealousy, to impose upon them still heavier restrictions.*

It is certain that, even at this early period, nothing but the greatest sagacity, circumspection, and moderation, without violence, could have suggested the right course of action; but the heads of the English government were wanting in those qualities. Fearful that America might become weary of her fetters, they ventured on the dangerous experiment of loading her with yet more galling ones.

In fact, there were but three practical courses to be pursued; and these were, either that the colonies should become independent, or that they should retain their legislative assemblies, or that their representatives should be received into the British Parliament. The fourth expedient, that of taxing America without any representation and without participation in the legislative power, was wholly repugnant to the spirit of the British constitution. Walpole, as we have seen, had totally rejected propositions founded on this principle; and there was as little propriety in appealing respecting America to some former attempts, which perhaps had been successful, as there would have been in citing to Englishmen the proceedings of the Star-Chamber in the time of Charles I., or the dispensing power claimed by James II.

Some few, indeed, may have already entertained the idea of America's complete independence of England: but it had not yet descended to the mass of the people; and it essentially depended on the wisdom of the measures next to be adopted, whether this idea should rapidly spring up, or still be repressed for a long while to come. At that time England could not and would not accustom herself to the thought of different legislative assemblies, in connexion with one executive power; and the reception of even a small number of transatlantic representatives into Parliament seemed to Englishmen as too great a favor, supposing it to be practicable; while the Americans pointed out that they would still be worse off than Englishmen, inasmuch as American members and their votes would be excluded from the House of Lords.t

Such was the state of things, when Lord Grenville, in March, 1765, brought forward a Stamp Act, which was to be no less. binding on America than on England. Its simplicity, although it comprised a countless number of topics, was extolled; and an attempt was made to weaken the opposition offered to it on the score of the sparse population and scattered dwellings in Ame* Adolphus, i. 162. † Grahame, iv. 200. Grahame, iv. 195. Adolphus, i. 203.

rica. Charles Townshend, the chancellor of the exchequer, said on this occasion: "The Americans, planted by our care, fostered into strength and opulence by our indulgence, and protected by our arms, will not grudge to contribute their mite to relieve the mothercountry from her heavy burdens." In vain was it remarked that a stamp duty for thinly peopled America was injudicious,* for the simple reason that the attendant expenses would ten times exceed the amount of the tax; while supervision, examination, and the punishment of delinquencies would be almost impossible. In vain were pressing remonstrances presented by American agents; they were laid aside unnoticed for first of all the colonies must acknowledge the unconditional right of taxation possessed by Parliament, and must submit to the rule, according to which no petition against a pending money-bill could be admitted.†

In just indignation at this frivolous and pedantic mode of thinking and acting, Colonel Barré exclaimed in parliament in reply to Townshend, "It is not the care of England, but her intolerance and tyranny that planted the colonies; they have grown in strength by your neglect, by your interference their progress is impeded, while they have driven back enemies of every kind by their own exertions. The people are true to the king, but also jealous of their freedom; let every one be careful not to violate it!"

Notwithstanding these remonstrances, there were but about forty votes in the lower, and none in the upper House, against the Stamp Bill. To the majority it seemed perfectly natural, and at the same time but of little consequence. On the 22d of March, 1765, it received the royal assent; and scarcely any one in England doubted but that it would also go into effect in America without opposition. But the distribution of the stamps being postponed until the 1st of November, the Americans soon recovered from their first alarm; political clubs were formed, and in numerous publications the existing state of affairs was discussed from many points of view, and in a vehement manner. As early as May, 1765, the legislative assembly of Virginia convened, and resolved-on the motion of Patrick Henry-not to obey. They even denounced as enemies every one who maintained, that any but the provincial assemblies could impose taxes on the colonies. "Cæsar and Charles the First," said Henry, "met their destruction,-let George the Third beware." While many applauded, and others blamed this boldness, the governor dissolved the assembly; but he could not prevent the knowledge of what had taken place from spreading abroad and inciting to imitation. In many places, as Boston, Newport, New York, Portsmouth, † Hinton, i. 272.

Belsham, v., 181.

Newcastle, &c., the enraged multitude gave themselves up to violent excesses. The stamp papers were destroyed, the houses of the stamp distributors plundered, and they themselves were burnt in effigy, and compelled to swear that they would resign their offices.*

Although quiet and more thoughtful citizens disapproved of these proceedings, their views, nevertheless, were constantly becoming bolder and more comprehensive. England, it was said, cannot constitute both head and members at the same time. Where all local principles and regulations are destroyed, slavery exists; and as Parliament was not established, either by law or custom, for America (any more than for Ireland) as it was for England, its power in both countries cannot be one and the same; and its omnipotence in the colonies is a thing not to be spoken of. As the legislative assemblies of the colonies-even with the king's consent-cannot make laws for England, neither can the British Parliament for America. If the rights of the king are less extensive in several of the colonies than in England, be it remembered that with regard to Maryland he expressly renounced the right of taxation. Connecticut and Rhode Island are complete democracies; while other provinces possess, by their charters, the right of declaring war and concluding peace. It is to be considered, moreover, that the French made war upon America chiefly on account of England; and that America, by commercial duties, and by the purchase of English productions and manufactures, does virtually bear a part of the English burdens. Supposing even-which may be doubted-that the moneys received would be well administered and employed in England, still the Americans can now no more consent to arbitrary taxation for useful purposes, than could the English patriots in the time of Charles I.

Among these complaints were heard others respecting injuries to commerce, the quartering on them of an insolent soldiery, the depreciation of the paper currency, &c.† The opposition acquired greater unity, and redoubled importance, by the meeting in New York (in October, 1765) of twenty-eight delegates, from nine provinces, to wit: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. They resolved, that America could be taxed only through its own representatives, and that all their present grievances should be laid before the king and Parliament. New Hampshire had promised to accede to the resolutions adopted; and the other provinces had been prevented by their governors from sending delegates to the meeting in New York.

Simultaneously with the adoption of these political resolutions,

* Ramsay, i. 111. Adolphus, i. 210. Grahame, iv. 203, 213.

† Ramsay, i. 122. Adolphus, i. 213. Hinton, i. 275.

voluntary agreements were entered into to purchase no English manufactures until the repeal of the Stamp Act. The most zealous efforts were made to supply-although imperfectly,— the wants thus occasioned; many things were cheerfully dispensed with; and secret promises were mutually given to ward off, with united exertions, any violence or penalties which this course might entail.

Such a general and well-regulated opposition produced a very great sensation in England; and each party explained the events in conformity with its own views and aims. Mr. Nugent (afterwards Lord Clare) remarked, that a pepper-corn in acknowledgment of the right, was of more value than millions with

Lord Grenville maintained, that the disobedience of the Americans was very great, that the right of taxation was a necessary part of the general legislative power of Parliament, and that protection and obedience were reciprocal. He declared, too, that the insolence and obstinacy of the Americans arose from the party spirit and erroneous views that were exhibited in Parliament. -Mr. Pitt answered with his usual boldness: "I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of our fellow-subjects so lost to every sense of virtue, as voluntari y to give up their liberties, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest. Assert the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies in as strong terms as can be devised; extend it to every point of legislation whatsoever; bind their trade; confine their manufactures;-but do not take their money out of their pockets without their own consent. That you have no right to do; and only in a good cause and on solid grounds can England crush America to atoms."-To this Nicholson Calvert replied: "It matters little to the question whether the Americans are in the right or not,-they think themselves so."+

These few sentences contain, in fact, the brief text of innumerable subsequent discussions and explanations; they defined for years the theoretical and practical position of parties, and have -with slight modifications-so important an influence, even in our own day, that an elucidation of them in this connection cannot well be out of place; especially as it must enable us to decide respecting the truth or falsehood of the reproach, that the American republic sprang from a damnable rebellion.

Respecting the relation of a mother-country to its colonies, no general system had as yet been laid down with scientific exactness; nor were the examples in history so numerous, or of such a kind, that men could draw conclusions from them with certainty, and act accordingly. This insufficiency of the theory and

January, 1766. Parliament. History, xvi. 97-110. Adolphus, i. 225. ↑ Raumer's Beiträge, iii. 289.

practice that had hitherto prevailed, led to sharp, and for the most part arbitrary contradictions; and since none possessed that consummate statesmanship which sees with prophetic eye into the future, and knows how to direct and control it, they lived on from day to day, wondering without reason why temporary remedies and temporary expedients, instead of leading to the desired results, brought forth constantly something new and unexpected.

If a child is begotten, it does not depend on the mother's will whether it shall be born or not, nor upon the parents whether after birth it shall grow up to maturity. Every colony, says Thucydides with his well known acuteness, honors the parent city when the latter acts well towards it; but it becomes estranged by unjust treatment. For those settlers were sent out not to slavery, but that they might remain on a level with them that stay at home.*

The above cited declaration of Lord Clare, respecting the immeasurable importance of even a pepper corn by way of right, may in the first place be explained to mean (and so it was understood by Pitt), that it is an imperative point of honor and the first of duties, not to surrender the smallest portion of one's right, but to pursue it to the extremest iota. This view, which transfers some of the littlenesses, prejudices, and follies of private life into the sphere of politics, involves whole nations in strife without reason or prospect of advantage, instead of skilfully and mildly reconciling them with each other.

This declaration acquires additional weight, when understood to mean that force without right is ever powerless; or rather that in the latter there resides a boundless power that nothing can resist. However, this theory also leads to harm, if not closely examined and essentially corrected. And first of all we find force opposed to right. If we here assume that force and wrong are wholly synonymous, the antithesis at least seems clear, and it may perhaps be proved, from the speculative point of view, that all wrong is in fact powerless or absolutely null and void. But for the practical point of view of historical action, this proof is without efficacy, and totally different means must be employed for overcoming wrong.

There is also a second source of confusion and misapprehension in the fact that the words force and might are often used synonymously one for the other, and hence the saying has crept in, that might is always opposed to right. But in truth different degrees of power and might give rise to different rights; although it is hereby by no means intended to deny that wrong may be found connected with any quantity of might, be it great or small. Great might when separated from right, and good right destitute * De Bell. Pelop. i. 34.