ained
by force. The reason why free trade is better than dominion was a
secret obscurely buried in the breast of economists.

Whilst the expulsion of the French from their Transatlantic empire
governed the situation, the immediate difficulty was brought on by the
new reign. The right of searching houses and ships for contraband was
conveyed by certain warrants called Writs of Assistance, which
required no specified designation, no oath or evidence, and enabled
the surprise visit to be paid by day or night. They were introduced
under Charles II, and had to be renewed within six months of the
demise of the crown. The last renewal had been at the death of George
II; and it was now intended that they should be efficacious, and
should protect the revenue from smugglers. Between 1727 and 1761 many
things had changed, and the colonies had grown to be richer, more
confident, more self-respecting. They claimed to extend to the
Mississippi, and had no French or Spaniards on their borders.
Practically, there was no neighbour but England, and they had a
patrimony such as no Englishman had dreamt of. The letter of the law,
the practice of the last generation, were no argument with the heirs
of unbounded wealth and power, and did not convince them that they
ought to lose by the aid which they had given against France. The
American jurists argued that this was good by English law, but could
not justly be applied to America, where the same constitutional
safeguards did not exist--where the cases would be tried by judges
without a jury, by judges who could be dismissed at pleasure, by
judges who were paid by fees which increased with the amount of the
property confiscated, and were interested in deciding against the
American importer, and in favour of the revenue. That was a technical
and pedestrian argument which every lawyer could understand, without
passing the limits of accustomed thought.

Then James Otis spoke, and lifted the question to a different level,
in one of the memorable speeches in political history. Assuming, but
not admitting, that the Boston custom-house officers were acting
legally, and within the statute, then, he said, the statute was wrong.
Their action might be authorised by parliament; but if so, parliament
had exceeded its authority, like Charles with his shipmoney, and James
with the dispensing power. There are principles which override
precedents. The laws of England may be a very good thing, bu