a civil government and make laws, under certain restrictions with reference to the crown. This plan prevailed in Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, and the Jerseys. The most remarkable of the proprietary governments was that of Pennsylvania, on account of the peculiar character and humane purposes of its founder. Pennsylvania and Maryland were the only colonies, which remained under the proprietary system till the revolution; the others had reverted to the crown, and become royal governments at a much earlier date.

This system, in fact, answered but indifferently the ends of colonization. It was suited only to an old country, where the lands were held in large portions, and the people accustomed to the condition of tenants. In a new country, where all are laborers, it is essential to the prosperity of the community, and the happiness of the people individually, that the land should be held in small parcels and in fee simple by the laborers themselves. Each man will feel, that his exertions are for his own benefit and for that of his family, and out of regard to his interest he will become an efficient and faithful member of the body politic, to whose laws and restraints he chooses to submit. There was a marked difference, in this respect, between the proprietary and charter governments. The New England colonists,' says Mr. Pitkin, clung to their charters as the ark of their political safety, in opposition to the claims of the king and parliament; while those under the proprietary governments, and especially in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Carolina, on the other hand, sought refuge and protection from the oppression of the proprietors, under a royal government.' In short, under the proprietors, even those who were personally least objectionable, the people were always restless, full of complaints, and struggling for a change.

The rule of taxation, adopted by the proprietors, gave the greatest offence, and caused serious difficulties, particularly in Pennsylvania. They insisted on having their property, which in lands extended to a large portion of the province, exempted from taxation, even when this was laid for the defence of the colony, and for the mutual protection of property. So inequitable a demand very naturally incensed the people. The deputy governors, who resided in the colony, were instructed not to sanction money bills, which did not recognise this exemption. The assembly considered this a breach of chartered right, and sent a remonstrance to the king by the hands of Dr

Franklin. He succeeded in bringing the proprietors to consent, that their estates should bear a proportional assessment, although they afterwards endeavored to revoke this decision. The disputes and difficulties increased, till they were superseded by the more stirring events, which finally broke the chain of colonial dependence.

The third mode of governing the colonies, by royal governments, is described in the following brief summary of the author.

The governor and the council were appointed by the crown, and the people elected representatives to serve in the colonial legislatures. The governor held his office by a commission from the king, and was to be governed by such royal instructions, as he from time to time received. The council derived their authority, both executive and legislative, from the same instructions. In their legislative capacity, they constituted the upper house, having a negative on the acts of the representatives; and in their executive capacity they acted as advisers of the governor. The latter had a negative on the acts of both houses; and the acts themselves, though approved by the governor, were finally subject to the revision of the crown. The judges and most of the other officers were, also, appointed by the king. The judges held their offices during the pleasure of the crown; and the governor, as well as the judges, were at first dependent upon the colonial legis latures for their salaries.' Vol. 1. p. 71.

Under this system the people complained of many oppres sions from the governors; but that it was more acceptable than the proprietary system, is to be inferred from the fact, that the colonists under the proprietors wished the latter to be exchanged for the former. The royal governors were too independent of the assemblies. They would refuse to convene them regularly, or prorogue them in a fit of passion or caprice, when they were not yielding to their demands, and harass them by insisting on some odious prerogative, or making claims as odious, or affixing their veto to important bills. The assemblies commonly revenged themselves by withholding grants of money, and passing high-toned resolutions, and now and then sending a spirited remonstrance to the crown. The contest, begun in ill humor, and continued with recrimination, usually ended in reproaches and mutual disrespect. The history of Virginia and New York afford illustrations in point.

Were it consistent with our present object, it would be interesting to accompany the author through the several stages

of colonial history, and witness from step to step the progress of those principles and occurrences, which paved the way to the opening scenes of the revolution. This curious research has never yet been prosecuted with the aid of all the lights that are to be thrown upon it. The great landmarks, however, are already fixed; and it must be the fortunate enterprise of some future historian to complete the task, when time shall unfold its records, and the past give up its treasures to the present. On two great topics, representation and taxation, there was an incessant difference of opinion between the king and parliament, and the colonists. The governors and assemblies were frequently in a quarrel on these points. The colonists claimed it as the basis of their rights, to make the laws by which they were to be governed, and to impose the taxes they were to pay. The contest respecting the former was confined to the royal governments, for the right of representation was secured by charter to the people under the charter and proprietary systems. It was decided by the law authorities in England, that the king could alter or annul at pleasure the laws passed by the assemblies under the royal governments. This decision was founded on the notion, that the right of representation depended on the will of the king, and was derived to the colonies by the commissions and instructions of the crown. These doctrines struck at the very root of freedom, making the assemblies a mere cipher, and virtually taking from the people all participation in the government. They were a fruitful source of animosity and contention.

The subject of taxation spread into much wider consequences, because it applied equally to all the colonies. From the beginning, the colonists had at various times declared, that no taxes could be levied except by the representatives of the people, chosen by themselves. They uniformly acted on this principle, in opposition to the repeated attempts of the governors to extort money on various pretences. No systematic plan was adopted, however, as a ministerial measure, for laying internal taxes on the colonies, till the French power had become reduced in America. Such a project had been suggested to Walpole and Pitt during their administrations, but never adopted or matured. I will leave the taxation of the Americans,' said Walpole, for some of my successors, who may have more courage than I have, and be less a friend to com

merce.' After the termination of the French war, it was deemed a favorable opportunity to carry the project into effect, under pretence of raising money to discharge the debt incurred in that war, chiefly, it was said, on account of the colonies, to protect them against a powerful enemy. This was a short-sighted and impolitic view of the matter; for after the colonists were freed from the fear of their old enemies, the French, on their frontiers, it was not likely they would be more ready to yield to what they deemed oppressive demands from the mother country. This juncture was, therefore, unwisely chosen for the experiment, as the result proved. The stamp act was passed, and its fate was such, as hardly to encourage a future attempt. Yet the same ignorance of the temper and feelings of the colonists, the same infatuation of the ministry, spurred on by the mortification of a former defeat, and a fixed resolution to subdue the refractory spirit of the colonies, prompted to a speedy repetition of the same measure. The anecdote in the following extract shows in what manner men are sometimes impelled to act, on important occasions, without regard to the merits of the question.

'A new administration was formed, under the direction of Mr Pitt, composed of men of different political principles and parties. The Duke of Grafton was placed at the head of the treasury, Lord Shelburne was joined with General Conway, as one of the secretaries of state. Charles Townshend was made chancellor of the exchequer, Camden, lord chancellor, Pitt had the privy seal, and was made a peer, with the title of the Earl of Chatham, and Lord North and George Cooke were joint paymasters. Under this chequered administration, afterwards so ludicrously described by Mr Burke, the scheme of taxing America was revived. In May 1767, the new chancellor of the exechequer submitted a plan of this kind to parliament. Charles Townshend was a man of genius and talents, but of high passions, eccentric, and versatile. He had warmly supported Lord Grenville, in the passage of the stamp act, and had voted with the Marquis of Rockingham, in its repeal. The ex-minister, Grenville, may indeed be considered the real author of the second plan for taxing the colonies. He lost no opportunity, in the House of Commons, of passing severe censures on the Americans, for their obstinacy and ingratitude in refusing to pay their proportion of the public expenses; nor was he sparing of his complaints against the ministry and parliament, for their weakness and cowardice in yielding to the claims of the colonists.

'Declaiming, as usual, one evening, on American affairs, he addressed himself particularly to the ministers,-" You are cowards," he said; " you are afraid of the Americans, you dare not tax America." This he repeated in different language. Upon this Townshend took fire, immediately rose and said, "Fear, fear, cowards, dare not tax America! I dare tax America."

'Grenville stood silent for a moment, and then said,-" Dare you tax America? I wish to God I could see it." Townshend replied, "I will, I will.”

Soon after this he submitted to the House a bill imposing duties on glass, paper, paste-board, white and red lead, painters' colors, and tea, imported into the colonies.' Vol. 1. pp. 216, 217.

Mr Pitkin refers for this anecdote to the manuscript papers of Dr William S. Johnson, who was then in England as agent for Connecticut.

From this date the author's work acquires a new interest. By bringing into view only the political history of the revolution he is enabled to go more fully into that subject, than previous writers. We do not agree with all his positions, but doubtless they are as accurate as could be made from the materials to which he had access. For instance, he tells us, that 'the project of reducing Canada was brought before Congress soon after the arrival of the French minister, and was warmly supported, if not suggested by him.' Now, so far from supporting such a measure, the French minister was expressly instructed not to listen to it; and this was the uniform tenor of the instructions of the French government, not only to their ministers in this country, but to their military officers. It has been said, that France wished the Americans to seize Canada, that it might be ceded to her on a treaty of peace. This is not true, although such a suggestion was made to France by Congress. To all hints of this sort, alike in regard to Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Floridas, the French ministry replied, that the king could not aid the Americans in projects of conquest; that he was pledged to support them in their claim to the territory of the United States, which they had declared independent, and this pledge he would faithfully execute; but as he did not undertake to assist them in pushing conquests, nor did he think it for their interest, and as he had no wish to gain any accessions of territory for himself on the American continent, he must decline uniting with them in any such schemes. The policy of France in adopting this course we shall not stop to examine, but the fact is unquestionable.