able, still acted from the impulse, whether originating with themselves, or derived from others, of taxing the colonies by the aid of their parliamentary majority. This seemed to them a much more easy, simple, and desirable method of ruling them, than any other. Every day they engaged more deeply in the design, and each successive warning of its danger, served only to throw a glare on their obstinacy, without enlightening them as to the consequences of their arrogant injustice.*

Chapter XX.

Origin of the Plan for Taxing America-Conduct of Parliament -Influence of the King-Dr. Franklin's Opinions of Colonial Grants-Agency of the Crown Officers.

It is now perhaps impossible to ascertain with perfect clearness, the origin of that system of colo

These consequences however, were perceived by some minds, and the immediate danger at least was apt to be exaggerated. In Mr. Pitt's speech for the repeal of the stamp act in 1766, he says: "The gentleman (Mr. Grenville) boasts of his bounties to America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied the national treasures. I am no courtier of America--I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the parliament has a right to bind, to restrain American. Our legis. lative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman, if he can, to sell his lands, and embark for that country."

nial taxation, which led to the Independence of the United States, and to the long train of consequences which have been ever since in a course of development. The share which the sovereign, the ministry, the parliament at large, or particular individuals had in maturing the design, is as obscure, as it is notorious what part they took in the execution. The credit of the scheme, every party is willing to relinquish to others; and as in the case of most unfortunate enterprises, to impute the blame to any causes but their own mistakes.

With a policy as destitute of generosity, as it was of wisdom, the English government actually assigned as a reason for imposing new taxes, the exertions and sacrifices made by the colonies, in the war that secured the acquisition of Canada.* The government and the nation began to be jealous of the growing importance of their American possessions, and under a vague apprehension of their prospective independence, resolved to prepare timely checks to this alarming prosperity, by a method that should also replenish their own coffers. The idea was popular with the great body of proprietors in England, who knew or cared very little about their fellow subjects in America; until a lively interest was awakened by the expectation of

"To render these proceedings more irritating to the colonies, the principal argument used, in favour of their ability to pay such duties, was the liberality of the grants of their assemblies, during the late war. Never could any argument be more insulting, and mortifying to a people, habituated to the granting of their own money.”—Burke's Works, Vol. 1. p. 338.

being able to load them at will, with the burthens of the nation. The conduct of the great majority of the English landholders, who were steady advocates for American taxation, and for the American war, affords a striking lesson to shew, how men who may be highly estimable as individuals, will pursue, as a body, a blind and selfish career.

Burke in his speech on American taxation, which he proves had its origin at the epoch of the peace, in 1763, in shewing how the country gentlemen, were induced to vote for the increase of the army, says, "But hopes of another kind were held out to them, and in particular, I well remember, that Mr. Townshend, in a brilliant harangue upon this subject, did dazzle them, by playing before their eyes the image of a revenue to be raised in America." He goes on to remark that Mr. Grenville matured the new system, of which these hints of Mr. Townshend were the first glimmerings; he admits that with honest intentions he was the father of the fatal scheme;* though he doubts whether it

In the debate of the House of Commons, on the 15th of May, 1777, the following summary is given in the "Parliamentary Debates"-" Mr. Jenkin son lamenting the necessity of the war, the loss it was to the kingdom, but upholding the indispensable authority of parliament, and blaming the bad policy of some late ministers, reprobated in the strongest terms the Tea Act: he condemned the whole measure as impolitic, futile, childish, and paltry. Then turning to the Stamp Act, he said, that measure was not Mr. Grenville's; if the act was a good one, the merit of it was not due to Mr. Grenville: if it was a bad one, the error or the ill policy of it did not belong to him; the measure was not his." The authority of Mr. Jenkinson, on this matter, will be thought superior to any other, when it is recollected, that this gentleman, afterwards Earl of Liverpool, was brought forward by Lord Bute, to whom he was at first private secretary; and that he succeeded that noble

was entirely the result of his own speculation, but rather that his opinions, coincided with the instructions which he received. Lord Chatham and others attributed its origin to that "secret influence behind the throne," which formed a part of the "double cabinet," which there can be no doubt existed effectively, though not ostensibly, from the accession of George the third, till the termination of the American war.

How far the sovereign himself was responsible for the scheme of an American revenue, will perhaps never be known; unless some authentic, private memoirs should hereafter disclose the share, which each person had in the undertaking. History does not record many sovereigns, whose character was more estimable than that of George the third. He possessed firmness, integrity and good sense and his reign, one of the most remarkable for its length to be found in the annals of the world, was unquestionably the era of more momentous events, than ever before occurred in the life of a single monarch. The school in which he was educated, was not very favourable to sincerity, nor very friendly to constitutional maxims of government. The influence of his mother's court and disposition, though they fortunately left him a virtuous man in his private character, yet gave him an inclination towards some

man, in possessing the entire confidence of the king, in being entrusted with a knowledge of all his views, and being generally supposed to be the head, of that double cabinet, which whether imaginary or not, was so often denounced by Chatham, Burke, and others.

arbitrary ideas, and nourished an impatient pride, against parliamentary controul.*

The bias during almost half of his reign, kept alive a feeling of reserve with the acknowledged ministers of the Crown, and checked a thorough and frank cordiality towards his parliament. Though he was "born a Briton" and was far more naturalized than his predecessor and grandfather, who retained a good deal of the accent, idiom, and attachments of their German origin; yet his electorate was a possession very near his heart, and the pride of the absolute, German Prince, cherished his paternal domain of Hanover, the mea paupera regna, as a country where there was no interference with his wishes from the intractable or factious Lords and Commons who represented the wealth of Britain. His family, though they were transferred from a principality of moderate resources, to one of the most considerable thrones in the world, still felt for the former all the attachment arising from an exclusive possession, and less satisfaction with the latter, where constitutional usages prevailed to divide their

"I have no hesitation or scruple to say, that the commencement of the reign of George the third, was the commencement of another Stuart's reign: and if it had not been checked by James Otis and others, first, and by the great Chatham and others afterwards, it would have been as arbitrary, as any of the four. I will not say it would have extinguished civil and religious liberty upon earth; but it would have gone great lengths towards it, and would have cost mankind even more than the French revolution to preserve it. The most sublime, profound and prophetic expression of Chatham's oratory, that he ever uttered was, I rejoice that America has resisted; two millions of people reduced to servitude, would be fit instruments to make slaves of the rest,"" President Adams' Letters.