state of such discontent, anxiety, and perplexing solicitude; some despairing of a redress, some hoping for it, and all fearing what would be the event. And, had it been the determination of the King and Parliament to have carried the Stamp Act into effect by ships of war and an embarkation of troops, their condition, however unhappy before, would have been inconceivably more so. They must either have submitted to what they thought an insupportable burden, and have parted with their property without any will of their own, or have stood upon their defence; in either of which cases their situation must have been deplorably sad. So far as I am able to judge from that firmness of mind and resolution of spirit which appeared among all sorts of persons, as grounded upon this principle, deeply rooted in their minds, that they had a constitutional right to grant their own moneys and to be tried by their peers, 't is more than probable they would not have submitted unless they had been obliged to it by

a The colonists may reasonably be excused for their mistake (if it was one) in thinking that they were vested with this constitutional right, as it was the opinion of Lord Camden, declared in the House of Lords, and of Mr. Pitt, signified in the House of Commons, that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional. This is said upon the authority of the public prints.1

1 Lord Camden said: "The British Parliament have no right to tax the Americans. Taxation and representation are coëval with and essential to this constitution." Mr. Pitt said: "The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it."- ED.

2 An examination of the newspapers and legislative proceedings of the period admits of no doubt of this. From the passage of the Stamp Act till certain news of its repeal, April, 1766, the newspaper, "The Boston Post Boy," displayed for its heading, in large letters, these words: "The united voice of all His Majesty's free and loyal subjects in AMERICA,LIBERTY and PROPERTY, and no STAMPS."

Dr. Gordon says the Stamp Act was treated with the most indignant

superior power. Not that they had a thought in their hearts, as may have been represented, of being an independent people. They esteemed it both their happiness and their glory to be, in common with the inhabitants of

contempt, by being printed and cried about the streets under the title of The folly of ENGLAND and ruin of AMERICA.

It was now- -May, 1765- that Patrick Henry, in bringing forward his resolutions against the act, exclaimed, "Cæsar had his Brutus; Charles the First had his Cromwell; and George the Third "-" Treason!" cried the Speaker; "Treason!" cried many of the members their example," was the conclusion of the sentence. son," said Henry, "make the most of it!"

may profit by "If this be trea

President John Adams, referring to this sermon in 1815, said: "It has been a question, whether, if the ministry had persevered in support of the Stamp Act, and sent a military force of ships and troops to force its execution, the people of the colonies would then have resisted. Dr. Chauncy and Dr. Mayhew, in sermons which they preached and printed after the repeal of the Stamp Act, have left to posterity their opinions upon this question. If my more extensive familiarity with the sentiments and feelings of the people in the Eastern, Western, and Southern counties of Massachusetts may apologize for my presumption, I subscribe without a doubt to the opinions of Chauncy and Mayhew. What would have been the consequence of resistance in arms?" (See note to page 136.) Dr. Franklin, before the House of Commons in 1766, said: "Suppose a military force sent into America, they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion, but they can make one." ED.

1 Not one of the English colonies, or provinces, would now submit for a moment to the control which the American colonies would then have cheerfully accepted. The royal governors are accepted as pageants on which to hang the local governments, which are essentially independent, but enjoy a nationality by this nominal connection with the crown; and it may be doubted if any of them have that degree of loyalty which once animated the "rebellious" colonies of 1776. Happily time has destroyed the animosities engendered by a vicious policy, and there is now that nobler unity (for we be brethren) which is cultivated by commerce and the amenities of literature and science. In this view, the cordial reception, at this time, of England's royal representative in our chief cities, and by our National Executive, is an event of great interest. See p. 143 and note. -ED.

England, Scotland, and Ireland, the subjects of King George the Third, whom they heartily love and honor, and in defence of whose person and crown they would cheerfully expend their treasure, and lose even their blood. But it was a sentiment they had imbibed, that they should be wanting neither in loyalty to their king, or a due regard to the British Parliament, if they should defend those rights which they imagined were inalienable, upon the foot of justice, by any power on earth.] And had they, upon this principle, whether ill or well founded, stood upon their defence, what must have been the effect? There would have been opened on this American continent a most doleful scene of outrage, violence, desolation, slaughter, and, in a word, all those terrible evils that may be expected as the attendants on a state of civil war. Νο language can describe the distresses, in all their various kinds and degrees, which would have made us miserable. God only knows how long they might have continued, and whether they would have ended in anything short of our total ruin. Nor would the mother country, whatever

a The great Mr. Pitt would not have said, in a certain august assembly, speaking of the Americans, "I rejoice that they have resisted," if, in his judgment, they might not, in consistency with their duty to government, have made a stand against the Stamp Act. 'Tis certainly true there may be such exercise of power, and in instances of such a nature, as to render non-submission warrantable upon the foot of reason and righteousness; otherwise it will be difficult, if possible, to justify the Revolution, and that establishment in consequence of it upon which his present Majesty sits upon the British throne. That non-submission would have been justifiable, had it been determined that the Stamp Act should be enforced, I presume not to say: though none, I believe, who are the friends of liberty, will deny that it would have been justifiable should it be first supposed that this act essentially broke in upon our constitutional rights as Englishmen. Whether it did or not, is a question it would be impertinent in me to meddle with. It is the truth of the fact that the colonists generally and really thought it did, and that it might be opposed without their incurring the guilt of disloyalty or rebellion; and they were led into this way of thinking upon what they imagined were the principles which, in their operation, gave King William and Queen Mary, of blessed memory, the crown of England.1

1 See Dr. Mayhew's Sermon of 1750, p. 39.- Ed.

some might imagine, have been untouched with what was doing in the colonies. Those millions that were due from this continent to Great Britain could not have been paid; a stop, a total stop, would have been put to the importation of those manufactures which are the support of thousands at home, often repeated. And would the British merchants and manufacturers have sat easy in such a state of things? There would, it may be, have been as much clamor, wrath, and strife in the very bowels of the nation as in these distant lands; nor could our destruction have been unconnected with consequences at home infinitely to be dreaded.1

But the longed-for repeal has scattered our fears, removed our difficulties, enlivened our hearts, and laid the foundation for future prosperity, equal to the adverse state we should have been in had the act been continued and enforced.

1 Dr. Chauncy's speculations upon the probable consequences of the enforcement of the Stamp Act, both in the colonies and "at home," as the colonists affectionately called England, the mother country, are singularly coincident with Edmund Burke's" Observations"- published three years later, 1769- — on Grenville's "Present State of the Nation." He said: "We might, I think, without much difficulty, have destroyed our colonies;

.

but four millions of debt due to our merchants, the total cessation of a trade worth four millions more, a large foreign traffic, much home manufacture, a very capital immediate revenue arising from colony imports, indeed the produce of every one of our revenues greatly depending on this trade, all these were very weighty, accumulated considerations; at least well to be weighed before that sword was drawn which, even by its victories, must produce all the evil effects of the greatest national defeat." Really it was a question of life or death, not only to the colonies, but to the commerce of England, — whose dealings with European nations had increased very little since 1700,- which had risen from colony intercourse; "a new world of commerce, in a manner created," says Burke, “grown up to this magnitude and importance within the memory of man; nothing in history is parallel to it." The repeal of the Stamp Act was a commercial necessity; to enforce it would have been like killing the goose that laid the golden egg.-ED.

[We may now be easy in our minds contented with our condition. We may be at peace and quiet among ourselves, every one minding his own business. All ground of complaint that we are "sold for bond-men and bond-women" is removed away, and, instead of being slaves to those who treat us with rigor, we are indulged the full exercise of those liberties which have been transmitted to us as the richest inheritance from our forefathers. We have now greater reason than ever to love, honor, and obey our gracious king, and pay all becoming reverence and respect to his two Houses of Parliament; and may with entire confidence rely on their wisdom, lenity, kindness, and power to promote our welfare. We have now, in a word, nothing to "make us afraid," but may "sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree," in the full enjoyment of the many good things we are favored with in the providence of God.]

Upon such a change in the state of our circumstances, we should be lost to all sense of duty and gratitude, and act as though we had no understanding, if our hearts did not expand with joy. And, in truth, the danger is lest we should exceed in the expressions of it. It may be said of these colonies, as of the Jewish people upon the repeal of the decree of Ahasuerus, which devoted them to destruction, they "had light and gladness, joy and honor; and in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, they had joy and gladness, a feast day, and a good day;" saying within themselves, "the Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad." May the remembrance of this memorable repeal be preserved and handed down to future generations, in every province, in every city, and in every family, so as never to be forgotten.

We now proceed the way being thus prepared for it