of all might, are always in a dangerous position; wherefore true political wisdom should apply itself to both these elements, and heal their defects as completely as possible.

Lord Clare insisted that both right and might were on the side of Great Britain, and cast aside the question relative to the right and might of America; and yet the main question on which every thing depended, was: What might and what right does America already possess, and what is it both called upon by nature and in a condition to acquire?

Grenville's words seemed to answer the question clearly: but that appearance was deceptive; for the Americans maintained that their defence during the last war had been substantially effected by themselves, and that after all the war had been brought upon them solely on England's account. Grenville's maxim also, that "Protection and obedience are reciprocal," may easily be taken to mean that obedience should cease when protection is denied. The truth of Grenville's declaration, that "the right of taxation is a part of the sovereign power," can by no means be denied as a general abstract proposition; but in the particular concrete case in which it was applied to the British Parliament, it was only a premiss, a petitio principii.

Pitt therefore very justly transferred the question to positive grounds, and showed that the form of the English law of taxation presented the most powerful arguments to induce the co-operation and participation of America. But still his views were too much confined to the concrete as those of Grenville were to the abstract. For how could the law of taxation be arbitrarily selected from the whole body of legislation, and the Americans be made contented with such a fragment, while, according to Pitt's harsh declaration, they were to remain without right or participation in any other objects of legislation? Nay more, so unable was Pitt to disengage himself from the prevalent English notions on the subject, that he would allow the Americans a voice only in direct taxation, while he claimed the imposition of all indirect taxes (e. g. custom-house duties) as a monopoly on behalf of England. But in this state, unsatisfactory as it was both in theory and practice, things could by no means remain.

Neither the doctrine of the point of honor, nor of the exist ence and omnipotence of a purely English right, nor yet Pitt's unsatisfactory proposal for an accommodation, could remove the difficulties that presented themselves. Mr. Calvert, therefore, very justly directed attention to existing facts. It was, he observed, of no kind of use to shut one's eyes to them, or to endeavor to solve the difficulty by laying down general propositions, or by referring to former circumstances which were essentially different. An unprejudiced examination of the facts would have

shown that neither old dogmas nor old laws were suited to the present state of things. The majority of the British Parliament mistook, on account of the past, both the present and the future, and wished to play the judge according to defective and disputed custom, whereas there was needed a new legislation for a new world.

Let us return, after these intermediate observations, to the historical facts. The Marquis of Rockingham,* a very sensible and excellent man, who was placed at the head of affairs in the summer of 1765, by no means participated in Grenville's views. He rather listened to those who maintained that the complaints of the Americans, as well as of the English merchants who were very much hindered in their trade, must be attended to; and that unconditional blind obedience was not to be looked for from men whose forefathers had left their native country and suffered the greatest hardships in order to be free.t

After many parliamentary struggles, the Stamp Act was at length (on the 18th of March, 1766) totally repealed in the House of Commons by 275 votes against 167, and in the House of Lords by 105 against 71, on the ground that this tax and the mode of levying it were preposterous. At the same time the unlimited legislative power of Parliament was confirmed by a special act, and in other places the mildness and moderation of the government were greatly extolled.

This repeal of the Stamp Act gave rise in America to great and universal rejoicings; trade sprang up anew, numerous letters of thanks were despatched to England, and all seemed settled and composed. To the objection that Parliament had retained the principle of the right of taxation, and even strengthened it anew, the majority, full of gladness and hope, replied that Parliament, in order to save its honor externally, could not have acted otherwise, but that it would be too wise ever to put the principle into literal execution in America.

The season of commercial restriction, however, had produced in America the proud belief that, with respect to trade, it was less dependent on England than England was on it. A small island like England, it was said, which was indebted to the Americans for the disposal of so many of its wares, should not have the presumption to seek to impose restrictions on an entire hemisphere. Such were the sentiments and views of America.

In the meantime, in the course of July, 1766, a partial change of ministry had occurred. The Marquis of Rockingham's place

*Belsham, v. 177. † Adolphus, i. 388. ‡ Belsham, v. 532.

Burke's Life, p. 183.

Burke on American Taxation, ii. 401.

'was given to a tory,* the Duke of Grafton; Pitt, now created Earl of Chatham, being prevented by ill health from attending to business, had but little influence; and the control of the finances was entrusted to Charles Townshend, a man of splendid abilities, but of fickle and uncertain character. He thought it would be manifesting a sufficient degree of prudence and compliance, if he should refrain from taxing America directly, and merely regulate its commerce, as had so often been done before without opposition. When he proposed accordingly, in June, 1767, to levy duties on glass, paper, painters' colors, and tea entering into the colonies, the bill was passed, almost without opposition, into a law.

As soon as the Americans received news of this, they were unwilling any longer to recognize the former nice and too artificial distinction, that England ought indeed voluntarily to give up direct taxation, but that to indirect taxation she was perfectly entitled. They justly observed, that the prohibition to manufacture certain articles of commerce (as, for instance, hats), and the command to purchase only those of English make, undoubtedly included within themselves a tax, and the new duties would create a revenue at the expense of Americans just as much as the Stamp Act. Agreements were again entered into to import no English goods until the duties were taken off-a sort of indirect compulsion, which was both allowable and very unpleasing to England. The animated declarations of the legislative assemblies against British taxation in any shape, and their open endeavors to enter into closer connection with each other for the sake of more effectual resistance, were regarded by the governors as still more dangerous, on account of their formal nature. When the governors on this account dissolved the assemblies, the malcontents formed private associations, which soon assumed a regular form, and proceeded with great applause to carry out the objects at which they aimed, and especially to support and strengthen the combination against English goods. The occupation of Boston and other places with English troops (September, 1768) increased the general discontent, without adding to the power of government. The payment and quartering of troops was every where refused on the ground of existing laws, and the proposal to grant sums for the salaries of officers in perpetuo was rejected, as it would place the ruling power in the hands of a few irresponsible persons. The command that all evasions of the customs should be tried and punished in England, was termed a violation of the most important principles of the British constitution.†

* Grahame, iv. 249.

↑ Grahame, iv. 276. Belsham, vi. 11, 21. Ramsay, i. 150. Adolphus, i. 358. Politisches Journal, 1781, p. 53.

In this state of things the English government a second time changed its measures. In April, 1770, an act was passed, by 350 votes against 62, granting a partial repeal of the duties levied in the year 1767. Those on glass, paper, and painters' colors, were taken off altogether; but that on tea was raised threepence a pound. By this means, the majority asserted, the burden was diminished, while the principle was preserved. On this occasion Grenville remarked: My strictness was the best means; Rockingham's unconditional repeal of the taxes the next best; but this middle way is the worst of all. Others said: It is absurd to keep up the contention while the advantage is surrendered. And Burke exclaimed: What dignity is derived from perseverance in absurdity is more than I ever could discern.* Regardless of these and similar reproaches, Lord North (who had succeeded to Townshend's place in September, 1770) declared: "A total repeal of the duties cannot be thought of till America lies prostrate at our feet!" Such vaporing was certainly unworthy of a statesman, and created a most disagreeable and exciting sensation in America. The compacts, however, against English goods were immediately dissolved, and retained only against tea.

But unhappily at this time many faulty measures and unfortunate occurrences took place. A constitution was introduced into Canada which gave reason to fear that similar restrictive provisions would be imposed upon the other colonies. The governor of Massachusetts lived in discord with the patriots of that province; he advised harsh measures, as was shown by intercepted correspondence, and made the judges wholly dependent on himself: these things gave rise, in March, 1777, to bloody conflicts in Boston between the people and the troops. Thus violent opposition gradually took the place of respectful remon strances, and there needed but one new error on the part of the English government to stir up the passions also in behalf of the American doctrines.†

In consequence of the diminished export of tea to the colonies, an immense stock of that article had accumulated in the warehouses of the East India Company; for which reason the government gave permission to send it to all places whatever, duty free. As the remission thus granted amounted to a shilling on the pound, while the American import duty was only threepence; as the East India Company ordered their consignees in America to pay this latter tax, which was thus concealed in the price; and lastly, as the price of the tea, by taking off the threepence and by

*Belsham, v. 360. Adolphus, i. 464. Genz Histor. Journal, 1800, ii. 28. Burke on American Taxation, ii. 366.

Ramsay, i. 172. Burke, ii. 363.

the recent abatement of a shilling, was brought much lower than before, it was thought that the Americans would thankfully acknowledge the advantages held out to them, and willingly make purchases. But, on the contrary, they said, "Shall we sell our rights like cowards for a trifling gain in the way of a tax; shall we show ourselves meaner and more selfish than England, who evidently surrenders greater advantages for the present, in order to carry out her claims to unconditional sovereignty ?" Accordingly it was resolved that none of the tea should be bought, and that all ships laden therewith should be prevented from landing their cargoes. This was carried literally into effect in New York and Philadelphia, although not every where: in Charleston the tea was seized and kept till it spoiled; and in Boston seventeen persons disguised as Indians threw, on the 18th of December, 1773, three hundred and forty-two chests of tea into the sea. Not a single chest landed in North America was sold there.*

As soon as Parliament received the news of these events, the majority, without reflecting on the primary cause that produced them, turned their attention solely to the outrages last committed in Boston. But instead of investigating the circumstances of the transaction, and finding out the instigators and participants therein, instead, in short, of taking the fair and proper course, they imposed (March, 1774) a heavy fine on the whole city, and laid an embargo on Boston harbor. In vain did Chatham, Rockingham, and others, declare themselves in favor of milder and conciliatory measures; in vain did Burke remind them that at length opposition was directed only against unjust laws, and that from this very circumstance it was evident how improper it was to condemn without a hearing, and to try to enforce constitutional principles by the military arm.†

The citizens of Boston said to the same effect: "How is it possible that for the offence of individuals and before any legal investigation, an unsuitable, incalculable, and destructive punishment is to be inflicted upon the whole city? How can it be required that dependence on Great Britain should outlive its justice?"

The feeling of right which advocated the propriety of indemnifying the East India Company for the loss of their tea, on the part of those who had caused it, was now excited in a much stronger degree in favor of the innocent inhabitants of Boston; though it was expected that a more equitable and moderate course would be adopted by England. But instead of so doing, Parliament about this time (May, 1774) changed the constitution of Massachusetts in its most essential particulars. It was enacted that the provincial council, hitherto chosen by the representative * Grahame, iv. 329. ↑ Hinton, i. 312.