This was the consequence of a determination in the king and ministry to check and subdue the growing spirit of independence in the colonies; but Andross overacted his part; and his tyrannical proceedings only served to alienate the people's affections from the parent state, and prepare the way for that independence which the king dreaded.

The colonies under Charles and James, had been despoiled of their charters, and suffered the tyranny of Andross with a spirit of just indignation. King William was more favorable to the colonies; Connecticut resumed her old charter, and Massachusetts obtained a new one, in which the king retained the power of appointing the governor, and the governor was vested with the power of negativing the choice of councillors, made by the house of representatives. It was supposed that this power in the king would secure a predominant influence to the crown over the legislature and colony. But it had the contrary effect, and created a fruitful source of animosity between the two branches of the legislature, which ended only with the revolution. The governor and council were advocates for the extension of royal prerogative; the house of representatives was confided in, as the guardian of the rights of the people. In queen Ann's reign a new attempt was made to abolish the colony charters, and place the appointment of a general government in the crown, but it was frustrated.

The government of New-York, like that of Massachusetts, was what was called a royal government; the king appointed the governor, who had the power of approving the speaker of the house of representatives. But in this kind of government, the assembly was bound to provide the governor with his salary. This was an unceasing source of discord. When a good understanding did not subsist between the governor and the assembly, which often happened, the assembly withheld a grant of the governor's salary, to compel him to give his assent to some favorite bill of theirs-the governor, on the other hand, if he wished to obtain a large grant, or to carry some

favorite point, withheld his assent to their favorite bills, until they had complied with his wishes.

By the charter of Pennsylvania, the proprietary and his heirs and assigns, were governors of the province; the council and assembly were to be chosen by the freemen. But in sales of land, the proprietary not only took purchase-money, but reserved an annual quit-rent, with the pretext of furnishing the means of supporting the government with dignity. The proprietary himself seldom resided in America, but delegated a substitute, to act in the capacity of president or governor, who had a treble vote in enacting laws. In a few years, controversies arose between the governor and assembly; and the governor prevailed on certain members to withdraw from the house, to prevent the passing of laws disagreeable to him. This the assembly voted to be treachery. In short, that province was distracted by disputes between the governor and assembly, respecting supplies of money, salaries, quit-rents, paper currency, and other matters, from the first settlement to the revolution. A history of these dissensions, written by Dr. Franklin, forms a large volume.

By the original constitution of Carolina, the governor and principal civil officers were appointed or approved by the proprietors, in the Palatine's court in England. As early as the year 1687, a controversy arose between governor Colleton and the house of assembly, respecting the tenure of lands and the payment of quit-rent. The governor demanded the rent, although not one acre of land in a thousand was cultivated-the payment proved burdensome, and the people declined it. Hence arose a contention, which did not end, till the assembly renounced the authority of the governor, and held assemblies in opposition to him. This ferment subsided, in a degree, under governors Ludwell and Archdale.But the interest of the proprietors, who urged for rents, and attempted to restrain the authority of the people by repealing all laws that enlarged the powers of the assembly, or abridged their own, was so repugnant to the wishes and demands of the

colony, that it was impossible to preserve harmony, and in 1719 the people revolted.

The people gave notice to governor Johnson of their intention to throw off the yoke of the proprietors, elected deputies to the assembly, which was held in opposition to the governor's authority; and notwithstanding his popularity and remonstrances, the assembly openly declared their intention to renounce the authority of the proprietors, and submit to the crown.The governor attempted to dissolve the assembly, but they ordered the proclamation to be torn from the marshal's hand. They proceeded to elect James Moore their governor, and he was proclaimed with applauses. An account of these proceedings being transmitted to England, the Carolinians had a hearing before the council of regents, (the king being in Hanover) who decided that the proprietors had done acts that amounted to a forfeiture of their charter, which was accordingly annulled in 1720, and Carolina taken under royal government. The crown, in 1728, purchased the property of seven of the owners, for seventeen thousand, five hundred pounds.

From the history of the colonies, it appears that the principles of their opposition to the parent state, were mostly planted in the minds of the first settlers, or in their primitive constitutions of government. In New-England, an enmity to the ecclesiastical power of the English church naturally fostered an enmity to monarchy; and this enmity was increased by repeated attempts of the crown to establish its power and prerogatives in the colonies. This enmity gradually matured into habitual and systematized opposition, which was greatly encouraged and confirmed by the speculations on government found in the writings of Locke, Sidney and others. The authority of these writers was reinforced by the parliamentary discussions on royal prerogative and popular liberty, at the revolution in England. In the proprietary and royal governments, the endless contentions between the governors and assemblies, encouraged a spirit of investigation into the extent of the power of the crown, and formed the principle of

opposition into habit. The open rupture therefore between Great Britain and the colonies, was not the sudden effect of a tumultuous opposition to a particular act of parliament, but the effect of hostile principles and habits which had grown out of a long series of events, and which a few measures of the British government ripened into action.

The proceedings of the British parliament, which manifested a settled determination to keep America subject to the crown, and subservient to the interests of Great-Britain, were the direct causes of an opposition to her claims, which ended in an appeal to arms. As early as 1750, an act was passed in parliament, to encourage the exportation of iron in pigs and bars, from America to London; and to prevent the erecting of any mill in the colonies for slitting or rolling iron, or any plating forge, or furnace for making steel. The purpose of the British government was to check the growth of manufactures in the colonies, and to compel them to export their iron, and import the manufactures of England. This arbitrary law was enforced, to the destruction of some machines of the kinds mentioned, and the dissatisfaction of the colonies.

After the peace of 1763, the British parliament formed a plan of raising a revenue by taxing the colonies. The pretext for it, was to obtain indemnification for the great expenses of Great Britain in defending the colonies, and to enable her to discharge the debt incurred in the preceding war. But a more influential motive, was to check the increasing spirit of opposition, which, it was apprehended, would, in time, mature into a revolt; the parliament, therefore, determined to assert its sovereignty and establish the immediate exercise of authority over the colonies. For this purpose, an act was passed for laying a duty on all paper, vellum or parchment, used in America, and declaring all writings on unstamped materials to be null and void. This act received the royal assent on the 22d of March, 1765.

When the news of the stamp act reached the colonies, the people every where manifested alarm, and a determination to

oppose its execution. The assembly of Virginia first declared its opposition to the act by a number of spirited resolves; but Massachusetts took the lead in this important crisis, and maintained it in every stage of the subsequent revolution. In all the colonies however, the determined spirit of resistance prevented the execution of the act. The stamp-masters were burnt in effigy and popular tumults succeeded. In Boston, the friends of the British measures, and the crown officers were insulted; their houses demolished; and among other damages, the populace destroyed a valuable collection of original papers, concerning the history of the colonies, which governor Hutchinson had made, and intended to publish. This loss was irreparable. To render the opposition complete, the merchants associated, and agreed to a resolution not to import any more goods from Great-Britain, until the stamp law should be repealed.

The British parliament, previous to the repeal of the stamp law, passed an act declaring that "they had, and of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever " -They alledged that the colonies were planted by their care, nourished by their indulgence, and protected by their arms, and their money-And therefore the colonies owed allegiance, subjection and graditude to the parent state. The colonies denied very justly that they were planted by the British government. Not one of them was settled at the expense of the crown; but with a vast expense of individuals, and with hardships and sufferings beyond description or credibility. Nor did the government of England expend any money or furnish any force for protecting the colonies, for sixty years after the settlement of Plymouth. On the other hand, the government neglected the colonies, while feeble and poor; and did not extend a protecting arın, until the colonies had conquered and expelled several Indian tribes-had overcome the difficulties of settlement-had acquired a good degree of strength, and began to have a valuable commerce. Then the