f the
colonies had in patience endured the oppressions of the English
commercial restrictions, could that endurance afford any ground for new
oppressions in the shape of direct taxes? If the people of England and
of the colonies stood, as was contended, on the same foot, being both
equally and alike subjects of the British government, why was the trade
of the colonies subject to restrictions not imposed on the mother
country? If parliament had a right to lay taxes of every kind on the
colonies, the commerce of the colonies ought to be as free as that of
England, "otherwise it will be loading them with burdens, at the same
time that they are deprived of strength to sustain them; it will be
forcing them to make bricks without straw." When colonies are deprived
of their natural rights, resistance is at once justifiable; but when
deprived of their civil rights, when great oppressions are imposed upon
them, their remedy is "to lay their complaints at the foot of the
throne, and to suffer patiently rather than disturb the public peace,
which nothing but a denial of justice can excuse them in breaking." But
a colony "treated with injury and violence is become an alien. They were
not sent out to be slaves, but to be the equals of those that remain
behind." It was a great error in the supporters of the British ministry
to count upon the sectional jealousies and clashing interests of the
colonies. Their real interests were the same, and they would not allow
minor differences to divide them, when union was become necessary to
maintain in a constitutional way their rights. How was England to
prevent this union? Was it by quartering armed soldiers in their
families? by depriving the colonists of legal trials in the courts of
common law? or by harassing them by tax-gatherers, and prerogative
judges, and inquisitorial courts? A petty people united in the cause of
liberty is capable of glorious actions--such as adorn the annals of
Switzerland and Holland.

The news of the repeal of the stamp act was joyfully welcomed in
America, but the joy was premature; for, simultaneously with the repeal,
parliament had declared that "it had, and of right ought to have, power
to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." Townshend,[552:A]
afterwards chancellor of the exchequer, brought into parliament a bill
to levy duties in the colonies on glass, paper, painters' colors, and
tea, and it became a law. The duties were external, and did not exceed