In vain will such a minister, or the foul dregs of his power, the tools of corruption and despotism, preach up in the speech that spirit of concord, and that obedience to the laws, which is essential to good order. They have sent the spirit of discord through the land, and I will prophecy, that it will never be extinguished, but by the extinction of their power. Is the spirit of concord to go hand in hand with the Peace and Excise thro' this nation? Is it to be expected between an insolent Exciseman, and a peer, gentleman, freeholder, or farmer, whose private houses are now made liable to be entered and searched at pleasure? Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, and in general all the Cyder countries, are not surely the several counties which are alluded to in the speech. The spirit of concord hath not gone forth among them; but the spirit of liberty has, and a noble opposition has been given to the wicked instruments of oppression. A nation as sensible as the English, will see that a spirit of concord, when they are oppressed, means a tame submission to injury, and that a spirit of liberty ought then to arise, and I am sure ever will, in proportion to the weight of the grievance they feel. Every legal attempt of a contrary tendency to the spirit of concord will be deemed a justifiable resistance, warranted by the spirit of the English constitution.

A despotic minister will always endeavour to dazzle his prince with high-flown ideas of the prerogative and honour of the crown, which the minister will make a parade of firmly maintaining. I wish as much as any man in the kingdom to see the honour of the crown maintained in a manner truly becoming to Royalty. I lament to see it sunk even to prostitution. What a shame was it to see the security of this country, in point of military force complimented away, contrary to the opinion of Royalty itself, and sacrificed to the prejudices and to the ignorance of a set of people, the most unfit from every consideration to be consulted on a matter relative to the security of the house of Hanover? I wish to see the honour of the crown religiously asserted with regard to our allies, and the dignity of it scrupulously maintained with regard to foreign princes. Is it possible such an indignity can have happened, such a sacrifice of the honour of the crown of England, as that a minister should already have kissed his majesty's hand on being appointed to the most insolent and ungrateful court in the world, without a previous assurance of that reciprocal nomination which the meanest court in Europe would insist upon, before she pro

ceeded to an act otherwise so derogatory to her honour? But Electoral Policy has ever been obsequious to the court of Vienna, and forgets the insolence with which count Colloredo left England. Upon a principle of dignity and economy, lord Stermont, a Scottish peer of the loyal house of Murray, kissed his Majesty's hand I think on Wednesday in the Easter week; but this ignominious act has not yet disgraced the nation in the London Gazette. The ministry are not ashamed of doing the thing in private; they are only afraid of the publication. Was it a tender regard for the honour of the late king, or of his present majesty, that invited to court lord George Sackville, in these first days of Peace, to share in the general satisfaction, which all good courtiers received in the indignity offered to lord Ligonier, and on the advancement of -? Was this to show princely gratitude to the eminent services of the accomplished general of the house of Brunswic, who has had so great a share in rescuing Europe from the yoke of France; and whose nephew we hope soon to see made happy in the possession of the most amiable princess in the world? Or, is it meant to assert the honour of the crown only against the united wishes of a loyal and affectionate people, founded in a happy experience of the talents, integrity, and virtue of those, who have had the glory of redeeming their country from bondage and ruin, in order to support, by every art of corruption and intimidation, a weak disjointed, incapable set of - I will call them any thing but ministers- by whom the Favourite still meditates to rule this kingdom with a rod of iron.

The Stuart line has ever been intoxicated with the slavish doctrines of the absolute, independent, unlimited power of the crown. Some of that line were so weakly advised, as to endeavour to reduce them into practice; but the English nation was too spirited to suffer the least encroachment on the ancient liberties of this kingdom. The King of England is only the first magistrate of this country; but is invested by law with the whole executive power. He is, however, responsible to his people for the due execution of the royal functions, in the choice of ministers, etc., equally with the meanest of his subjects in his particular duty. The personal character of our present amiable sovereign makes us easy and happy that so great a power is lodged in such hands; but the favourite has given too just cause for him to escape the general odium. The prerogative of the crown is to exert the constitutional powers entrusted to it in a way, not of blind

favour and partiality, but of wisdom and judgment. This is the spirit of our constitution. The people too have their prerogative, and I hope, the fine words of Dryden will be engraven on our hearts:

Freedom is the English subject's Prerogative.

(The North Briton, ed. Wilkes, Churchill and others, Lond., 1772. No. 45.)

CHAPTER XXVIII

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

202. The Question of Taxation

Grenville

The American Colonies, in their opposition to taxation without representation, gave much opportunity for parliamentary eloquence. The resulting speeches so well epitomise the contending opinions of the statesmen of England upon the current question, that four of them have been selected to place before the reader the views held by the English nation at large. The first of these speeches was delivered by Mr. George Grenville, who had recently been Premier. Only a brief extract has been given, but that contains the main argument of those who favoured taxation.

I cannot understand the difference between external and internal taxes. They are the same in effect, and differ only in name. That this kingdom has the sovereign, the supreme legislative power over America is granted; it cannot be denied; and taxation is a part of that sovereign power. It is one branch of the legislation. It is, it has been, exercised over those who are not, who were never represented. It is exercised over the India Company, the merchants of London, the proprietors of the stocks, and over many great manufacturing towns. It was exercised over the county palatine of Chester and the bishopric of Durham, before they sent any representatives to Parliament. I appeal for proof to the preambles of the Acts which gave them representatives: one in the reign of Henry VIII, the other in that of Charles II. When I proposed to tax America, I asked the House if any gentleman would object to the right; I repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. Protection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is bound to yield obedience. If not, tell me when the Americans were emancipated? When they want the protection of this kingdom they are always very ready to ask for it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most

full and ample manner. The nation has run herself into an immense debt to give them their protection; and now, when they are called upon to contribute a small share toward the public expense an expense arising from themselves - they renounce your authority, insult your officers, and break out - I might almost say - into open rebellion. The seditious spirit of the colonies owes its birth to the factions in this House. Gentlemen are careless of the consequences of what they say, provided it answers the purposes of opposition. We were told we trod on tender ground. We were bid to expect disobedience. What is this but telling the Americans to stand out against the law, to encourage their obstinacy with the expectation of support from hence? "Let us only hold out a little," they would say; "our friends will soon be in power." Ungrateful people of America! Bounties have been extended to them. When I had the honour of serving the Crown, while you yourselves were loaded with an enormous debt you gave bounties on their lumber, on their iron, their hemp, and many other articles. You have relaxed in their favour the Act of Navigation, that palladium of the British commerce; and yet I have been abused in all the public papers as an enemy to the trade of America. I have been particularly charged with giving orders and instructions to prevent the Spanish trade, and thereby stopping the channel by which alone North America used to be supplied with cash for remittances to this country. I defy any man to produce any such orders or instructions. I discouraged no trade but what was illicit, what was prohibited by an Act of Parliament. I desire a West India merchant, well known in the city, a gentleman of character, may be examined. He will tell you that I offered to do everything in my power to advance the trade of America. I was above giving an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place it becomes one to wipe off the aspersion.

(British Orations, ed. C. K. Adams, N. Y., 1897. L, 106.)

203. The Policy of Conciliation

Chatham

Lord Chatham was a consistent upholder of the rights of the American Colonies in their contention with Parliament. No one saw more clearly than he the possible consequences of persistence in oppression, and in his most famous speech on the subject, from which we have quoted a portion, he well sets forth the grievances of the Americans.

The gentleman asks, when were the colonies emancipated?