developed the theory to be considered. The result of the French and Indian wars removed a great obstacle to American independence, and from 1763 on the drift of political conditions was steadily in the direction of separation from the mother country. The long experience of the colonies in the art of self-government, their remoteness from England, and the difficulties of successful administration from so distant a base,, the clash of colonial interest with Britain's nationalist policy, all were conditions likely to find expression at a favorable opportunity, in terms of political independence. The crisis came when the home government in England endeavored to tighten the long-relaxed bonds of union and to establish over the colonies a more complete administrative control.1

The immediate occasion of the conflict was a, question of colonial taxation. In 1764 came the Declaratory Resolves, indicating the intention of the ministry to levy a tax on America. This was followed in 1765 by the famous Stamp Act, which aroused the opposition that found best expression in the Stamp Act Congress. This act was re

1 The following works are especially useful in the study of this period: Richard Frothingham, Rise of the Republic of the United States; George Bancroft, United States, Vols. III and IV; W. E. H. Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century; M. C. Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution; W. M. Sloane, The French War and the Revolution.

pealed the next year, but at the same time the significant declaration was made that Parliament possessed the undoubted power to bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." The excitement over this assertion of Parliamentary authority had not died away before the Townsend Act was passed (1767), imposing taxes on such commodities as glass and tea, and providing means for the enforcement of the same. Though this act also was repealed (1770), with the exception of the duty on tea, the resistance continued to be as bitter as before. In 1773 the colonists instituted what proved to be a powerful agency in the development of their organization, namely, the Committees of Correspondence between the colonies. In the meantime fuel was added to the flames of colonial discontent by the instructions sent to the royal governors and by the Regulating Act for Massachusetts. The Boston Port Bill, passed in 1774, aroused universal indignation and sympathy, and led up to the first Continental Congress of 1774. In the following spring came the clash of arms at Lexington; in May, 1775, the Continental Congress made its declaration on taking up arms against Great • Britain; and finally, all hope of reconciliation having been destroyed, the Declaration of Indepen-. dence was issued. During this period of thirteen years there was incessant debate upon questions of colonial policy, of constitutional law, and of political theory. These were topics of absorbing

interest among the colonists, and occupied the minds of the ablest thinkers of that day. In 1776 began the work of constitution-making in the various ⚫ ⚫ states, and opportunity was given for the development or application of constructive theory. This process was completed by 1784, and with this date the epoch of the Revolutionary theory may be said to have closed.

The argument with which the colonists began their resistance was constitutional in nature, involving the legal relations between the home. government and the colonies. To this doctrine brief notice must now be given, in order that the full significance of the Revolutionary political theory may appear. The contention of the

Patriots was that the course of the British Parliament, in taxing the American colonies, was not merely inexpedient and unjust, but actually contrary to the principles of the British Constitution. Consequently they affirmed that the government, in attempting to enforce such legislation, was wholly outside of legal and constitutional right. The basis for this claim was not always clearly stated, and was sometimes shifted, but the main features of it may be noted here.

It was asserted, on the one hand, that the colonists owed their allegiance, not to Parliament, but to the king. From him they had received their charters, and to him, and not to Parliament, they were accountable. Britain and the colonies, it was

said, are distinct states, as were England and Scotland before the union; they are bound together only by their common allegiance to a common king. "The fealty and allegiance of the Americans," said John Adams, "is undoubtedly due to the person of the King George III, whom God long preserve and prosper."1 In accordance with the charters received from him and of other express or implied contracts, the colonists owe obedience to the king, although not to Parliament. This body has no authority to tax, it was urged, except for the regulation of colonial trade, and this is not strictly a right, but exists "merely by the consent of the colonies, founded on the obvious necessity of a case which was never in contemplation of that law, nor provided for by it."2 The various Acts of Trade were even compared to commercial treaties between the colonies and Great Britain.

.

By some of the Patriots a distinction was drawn between acts of Parliament levying external taxes

1 See John Adams, Works, IV, 146; Answer of the Massachusetts House of Representatives to the Speech of the Governor, 1773, in Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America, 287–294; Stephen Hopkins, The Rights of the Colonies Examined (1764), reprinted in R. I. Records, VI, 416; Richard Bland, An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies (1766); Jefferson, Summary View of the Rights of the Colonists (1774). See Adams's reply to the argument that the king owed his position to an act of Parliament, Works, IV, 114.

2 Adams, IV, 33. Cf. Hopkins, R. I. Records, VI, 420.

for the purpose of general regulation of the trade of the kingdom, and on the other hand acts levying internal taxes on the colonies.1 The authority of Parliament to levy the former was conceded on the ground of necessity for the general interest, but it was denied that the imposition of an internal tax was a constitutional exercise of power.

Another line of reasoning was that by the terms of the charters the colonists were entitled to all the rights and privileges of native-born English citizens. They were to be as free in America as if they had remained in England. As Hopkins said, "There would be found very few people in the world, willing to leave their native country and go through the fatigue and hardship of planting in a new and uncultivated one for the sake of losing their freedom." On this basis the assertion was made that the colonists possessed the right of Englishmen to be taxed only in case they were represented. This, they held, was the most fundamental of all the rights of Englishmen, and one of which they could not be deprived by any act of Parliament. Inasmuch as the colonists were not represented in Parliament, it followed they were not liable to internal taxation by that body.

It was also argued that, owing to the local conditions, American representation was impracticable or impossible, and consequently that such taxes

1 This idea was developed most clearly by Pitt in the House of Commons.