The True Life Stories of the Declaration of Independence Signers. Charles Augustus Goodrich

left to themselves, for one hundred, or one hundred and fifty years, upon the fortune and capital of private adventurers, to encounter every difficulty and danger. What towns have we built for them? What forests have we cleared? What country have we conquered for them from the Indians! Name the officers — name the troops — the expeditions — their dates. — Where are they to be found? Not on the journals of this kingdom. They are no where to be found.

      "In all the wars, which have been common to us and them, they have taken their full share. But in all their own dangers, in the difficulties belonging separately to their situation, in all the Indian wars, which did not immediately concern us, we left them to themselves, to struggle their way through. For the whim of a minister, you can bestow half a million to build a town, and to plant a royal colony of Nova Scotia; a greater sum than you have bestowed upon every other colony together.

      "And, notwithstanding all these, which are the real facts, now that they have struggled through their difficulties, and begin to hold up their heads, and to shew an empire, which promises to be foremost in the world, we claim them, and theirs, as implicitly belonging to us, without any consideration of their own rights. We charge them with ingratitude, without the least regard to truth, just as if this kingdom had for a century and a half attended to no other subject; as if all our revenue, all our power, all our thought, had been bestowed upon them, and all our national debt had been contracted in the Indian wars of America ; totally forgetting the subordination in commerce and manufactures in which we have bound them, and for which, at least, we owe them help towards their protection.

      "Look at the preamble of the act of navigation, and every other American act, and see if the interest of this country is not the avowed object. If they make a hat, or a piece of steel, an act of parliament calls it a nuisance; a tilting hammer, a steel furnace, must be abated in America, as a nuisance. Sir, I speak from facts. I call your books of statutes and journals to witness."

      Of an equally high and honourable character, is the testimony of Pounal, one of the royal governors in America. "I profess," said he, in 1765, " an affection for the colonies, because, having lived amongst those people in a private as well as in a public character, I know them; I know that in their private, social relations, there is not a more friendly, and in their political ones, a more zealously loyal people, in all his majesty's dominions. When fairly and openly dealt with, there is not a people who have a truer sense of the necessary powers of government . They would sacrifice their dearest interests for the honour and prosperity of their mother country. I have a right to say this, because experience has given me a practical knowledge, and this impression of them.

      "The duty of a colony is affection for the mother country. Here I may affirm, that in whatever form and temper this affection can lie in the human breast, in that form, by the deepest and most permanent affection, it ever did lie in the breast of the American people. They have no other idea of this country, than as their home; they have no other word by which to express it; and till of late, it has constantly been expressed by the name of home. That powerful affection, the love of our native country, which operates in every breast, operates in this people towards England, which they consider as their native country; nor is this a mere passive impression, a mere opinion in speculation — it has been wrought up in them to a vigilant and active zeal for the service of this country."

      This affection for the parent country, and devotedness to her interests ; this promptness to assist her, though unassisted by her themselves; this liberality in emptying their treasuries, and shedding their blood, were felt and cherished by the colonies, before, and for years after, the peace of 1763. They continued to be thus cherished, and thus manifested, until exactions and oppressions "left not a hook to hang a doubt on," that they must either passively submit to the arbitrary impositions of a jealous and rapacious parent, or rise in defence of those rights, which had been given to them by the God of nature, in common with his other children.

      The peace of 1763, while it secured to Great Britain all the country east of the Mississippi, and annihilated the French power in America, restored peace to the colonies, and put an end to the calamities of a French and Indian war, by which they had been harrassed for nearly a century. The joy consequent upon an event so auspicious, was universal and sincere. But that joy was soon to be diminished by the agitation of the question, in England, as to the taxation of the colonies.

      The project of laying internal taxes upon the American provinces, and drawing a revenue from them, had been suggested to the ministry, during the administrations of Sir Robert Walpole and Mr. Pitt. But to these wise and sagacious statesmen it appeared to be a measure of doubtful right, and of still more doubtful policy. "I will leave the taxation of the Americans," said Walpole, " for some of my successors, who may have more courage than I have, and are less friendly to commerce than I am."

      After the termination of the French war, the consideration of the subject was renewed, and that moment seized as a favourable one, to commence the operation of the system. During the war, a heavy debt had been incurred by Great Britain, for the benefit and protection, as it was said, of the American colonies. It was, therefore, no more than an act of justice, that they should assist in the payment of that debt.

      In the winter of 1764, Lord Grenville, who had recently been elevated to the premiership, announced to the agents of the colonies, then in England, his intention of drawing a revenue from them, and that, for this purpose, he should propose, in the ensuing session of parliament, a duty on stamps.

      This intention of the minister being communicated to the colonies, the whole country immediately caught the alarm. Not only among private citizens, but also among public and corporate bodies, the same feeling of indignation prevailed; the same opinion of the injustice and unconstitutional character of the proposed measure was expressed, and the same disposition to resist it exhibited.

      The house of representatives, in Massachusetts, in the following June, declared, " That the sole right of giving and granting the money of the people of that province, was vested in them, or their representatives; and that the imposition of duties and taxes by the parliament of Great Britain, upon a people not represented in the house of commons, is absolutely irreconcilable with their rights. That no man can justly take the property of another, without his consent; upon which original principles, the power of making laws for levying taxes, one of the main pillars of the British constitution, is evidently founded."

      Petitions, from several of the colonies, were immediately prepared, and forwarded to their agents in England, to be presented at the approaching meeting of parliament, when the contemplated measure was to be brought forward. The language of these petitions, though respectful, was in accordance with the spirit which pervaded the country. They acknowledged the right of parliament to regulate trade, but would not for a moment admit the existence of a right in the mother country, to impose duties for the purpose of a revenue. They did not claim this exemption as a privilege; they founded it on a basis more honourable and solid; it was challenged as their indefeasible right.

      The above petitions reached England in season, and were offered to the acceptance and consideration of parliament: But no intreaties of the agents, could induce that body even to receive them; on the twofold ground, that the petitioners questioned the right of parliament to pass the contemplated bill; and, moreover, it was an ancient standing rule of the house, "that no petition should be received against a money bill." In the house of commons, the bill passed, by the large majority of 250 to 50. In the house of lords, the vote was nearly unanimous; and on the 22d of March, (1765,) it received the royal sanction.

      By the act thus passed, duties were imposed not only on most of the written instruments used in judicial and commercial proceedings; but also upon those which were necessary in the ordinary transactions of the colonies. Deeds, indentures,. pamphlets, newspapers, advertisements, almanacs, and even degrees conferred by seminaries of learning, were among the enumerated articles on which a tax was laid.

      The discussions on the above bill, before its final passage, were unusually animated. The principle involved in it was felt to be important, both by its friends and opposers; and the measure was seen to be pregnant with consequences of the most serious nature. "It may be doubted," says an historian,* "whether, upon any other occasion, either in times past or present, there has been displayed more vigour or acuteness of intellect,