ght in England. Nothing indeed can be further from the truth
than the idea that England's treatment of her colonies was harsh or
illiberal. Unfortunately the mercantile theory set up an opposition
between the interests of a mother-country and her colonies. A far more
important mitigation of the restrictions imposed on the colonies than
any that came from English liberality, was derived from the constant
violation of them. Few English statesmen knew or cared to know anything
about colonial affairs. Left to themselves the American colonies grew
rich. Their merchants, especially in New England, carried on a brisk and
extremely profitable contraband trade. In exchange for lumber, fish, and
cattle the New England merchants obtained sugar and molasses, and
bullion from the French and Spanish colonies; and vast quantities of rum
were distilled in Boston and exported to Africa to be used in the slave
trade.

England was not altogether a loser by these transactions. The richer a
Boston merchant became, the more British goods did he import, and as he
had to pay for them in bullion, his contraband trade enabled him to meet
his obligations. These advantages were indirect, the loss to the English
West India merchants was obvious and heavy. In order to protect them an
attempt was made in 1733 to stop this contraband trade by the imposition
of heavy duties; but the profits of the trade were so large that the
revenue officers found it to their interest to be careless or actually
conniving, and scarcely any duties were paid. On an average the American
customs cost England from L7,000 to L8,000 a year and did not bring in
quite L2,000. During the war the contraband trade afforded the French
useful supplies, and in 1760 Pitt ordered the colonial governors to
punish those who traded with the enemy. More power was placed in the
hands of the revenue officers by the issue of writs of assistance
enabling them to search for dutiable articles in any place without
alleging specific information. These writs were lawful and were
specially justifiable in time of war. Their lawfulness was
unsuccessfully disputed before the superior court of Massachusetts by a
lawyer named Otis, an eloquent speaker, singularly devoid of moderation.
His speech, in which rhetoric is more conspicuous than a knowledge of
law, attacked the commercial legislation of parliament generally; it was
much admired, and has been regarded by some Americans as the first step
towards