the mother country. For many years, when they spoke, or wrote, or thought of England, it was under the filial and affectionate idea of "home." "And even at the commencement of the controversy with Great Britain," if we credit those who lived at that time, "there existed no desire, nor intention, of becoming independent."

Testimony with respect to the filial disposition of the colonies towards the mother country abounds. "I profess," said Pownal, who had been governor and commander-inchief of Massachusetts Bay-governor of South Carolina, &c. &c.

I profess," said he, in 1765, "an affection for the colonies, because, having lived among their people, in a private, as well as public character, I know them-I know that in their private social relations, there is not a more friendly, and in their political one, a more zealously loyal people in all his majesty's dominions. They would sacrifice their dearest interest for the honor of their mother country. I have a right to say this, because experience has given me a practical knowledge, and this impression of them. They have no other idea of this country than as their home; they have no other word by which to express it, and til of late, it has been constantly expressed by the name of

home."

To the same effect is the testimony of Dr. Franklin. "Scotland," said he, in 1768, "has had its rebellions; Ireland has had its rebellions; England its plots against the reigning family; but America is free from this reproach;" "No people were ever known more truly loyal: the protestant succession in the house of Hanover was their idol."

Sec. 3. For these feelings of affection for the mother country, the colonies deserve the highest encomium. Causes existed, which might have justified a less degree of attachment, and were calculated to produce it. These were the oppression and losses which they endured; the shackles imposed upon them; the restraints upon their commerce; the parsimony with which aid was administered by the mother country; the maleadmi

nistration—the peculation and arbitrary conduct of the royal governors-these things were suffi cient, and more than sufficient, to stifle every feel. ing of affection, and shake the last remains of their allegiance.

Yet through all this oppressive subordination -through the calamities of war-through the attempt to wrest from them their charters, and their dearest rights-they could say, and did say, "England, with all thy faults, I love thee still."

Nor is it probable that these friendly dispositions of the colonies would at this time have been withdrawn, had not Great Britain interrupted them by a grievous change of policy towards the inhabitants touching the subject of revenue and taxation.

Sec. 4 Before the peace of '63, this subject had been wisely let alone. The colonies had been permitted to tax themselves, without the interference of the parliament. Till this period, it had sufficed for the mother country so to control their commerce, as to monopolize its benefits to herself. But from and after this period, the ancient system was set aside, and a different and oppressive policy adopted. The first act, the avowed purpose of which was a revenue from the colonies, passed the parliament, Sept. 29th, 1764, the preamble to which began thus-" Whereas, it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same, we the commons," &c. The act then proceeds to lay a duty on "clayed sugar, indigo, coffee, &c. &c. being the produce of a colony not under the dominion of his majesty."

Sec. 5. This act the colonies could not approve. They could not approve of it, because it recognized the existence of a right to tax them-a right

not founded in justice, and which since their existence, nearly one hundred and fifty years, had, until now, seldom been named. But the colonies could submit to it, although unpleasant and unjust, nor would this act alone have led to permanent disaffection, had it not been followed by other acts, still 'more unjust and oppressive.

On the subject of the right of the British parliament to tax the colonies, it was asserted in the mother country, "to be essential to the unity, and of course to the prosperity, of the empire, that the British parliament should have a right of taxation over every part of the royal dominions." In the colonies, it was contended, "that taxation and representation were inseparable, and that they could not be safe, if their property might be taken from them, without their consent." This claim of the right of taxation on the one side, and the denial of it on the other, was the very hinge on which the revolution turned.

Sec. 6. In accordance with the policy to be observed towards America, the next year, 1765, the famous stamp act passed both houses of parlia ment. This ordained that instruments of writing, such as deeds, bonds, notes, &c. among the colonies, should be null and void, unless executed on stamped paper, for which a duty should be paid. to the crown.

When this bill was brought in, the ministers, and particularly Charles Townshend, exclaimed:

"These Americans, our own children, planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence, protected by our arms, until they are grown to a good degree of strength and opulence; will they now turn their backs upon us, and grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy load which overwhelms us?"

Col. Barre caught the words, and, with a vehemence becoming a soldier, rose and said:

"Planted by your care! No! your oppression planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny into a then uncultivated land, where they were exposed to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others, to the savage cruelty of the enemy of the country,

46

a people, the most subtle, and, I take upon me to say, the most truly terrible of any people that ever inhabited any part of God's earth; and yet actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all these hardships with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own country, from the hands of those that should have been their friends. They nourished by your indulgence! They grew by your neglect; as soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them, in one department and another, who were, perhaps, the deputies of the deputies of some members of this house, sent to spy out their liberty, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them: men, whose behaviour, on many occasions, has caused the blood of these sons of liberty to recoil within them: men, promoted to the highest seats of justice, some of whom, to my knowledge, were glad, by going to foreign countries, to escape the vengeance of the laws in their own.

"They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken. up arms in your defence, have exerted their valor amidst their constant and laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose frontiers, while drenched in blood, its interior parts have yielded for your enlargement the little savings of their frugality and the fruits of their toils. And believe me, remember, I this day told you so, that the same spirit which actuated that people at first, will continue with them still."

The night after this act passed, Doctor Franklin, who was then in London, wrote to Charles Thompson, afterwards secretary of the Continental Congress, "The sun of liberty is set; the Americans must light the lamps of industry and economy." To which Mr. Thompson answered, "Be assured we shall light torches quite of another sort" -thus predicting the convulsions which were about to follow.

Sec. 7. On the arrival of the news of the stamp act in America, a general indignation spread through the country, and resolutions were passed against the act, by most of the colonial assemblies.

The assembly of Virginia was the first public body that met, after the news of the act reached America. Towards the close of the session, the following resolutions were introduced into the house of burgesses, by Patrick Henry

a lawyer, at that time a young man, but highly distinguished for the strength of his intellect, and the power of his eloquence.

Resolved, that the first adventurers and settlers of this his majesty's colony and dominions of Virginia, brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all others his majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in this his majesty's colony, all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the people of Great Britain.

Resolved, that by the two royal charters, granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are entitled to all privileges of faithful, liege, and natural born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realms of England.

Resolved, that his majesty's most liege people of this his most ancient colony, have enjoyed the right of being thus governed by their own authority, in the article of taxes and internal police, and that the same have never been forfeited, nor any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the king and people of Great Britain.

Resolve, therefore, that the general assembly of this colony, together with his majesty, or his substitutes, have, in their respective capacity, the only exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of the colony; and that any attempts to vest such power in any person or persons whatever, other than the general assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust; and has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.

There

The debate on these resolutions was animated, and even violent. Nothing like them had ever transpired in America. They evinced a settled purpose of resistance; and conveyed to the ministry of Great Britain a lesson, which had they read with unprejudiced minds, might have saved them the fruitless struggle of a seven years war. were those, in the house of burgesses, who strongly op posed the resolutions; but the bold and powerful eloquence of Henry bore them down, and carried the resolutions through. In the heat of the debate, he boldly asserted, that the king had acted the part of a tyrant; and alluding to the fate of other tyrants, he exclaimed, "Cæsar had his Brutus, Charles I. his Cromwell, and George III."-here pausing a moment till the cry of "treason, treason," resounding from several parts of the house, had ended-he added—“ may