Although every hope of peace had now well nigh vanished，the Congress were not however so far discouraged，as to decline venturing，even at this period，a last attempt at conciliation．They resolved a second address to the king，in which the colonies under the most forcible assurances of their submission，and of their unabated wish to remain united with Great Britain，intreated in the most urgent manner，that his majesty would give his assent to any plan whatsoever，calculated to pacify this wretched contest．The address was presented on the 1st．of September 1775，by Mr．Penn，of Pennsylvania，one of the most respectable citizens of North America，who was informed“that no answer would be given to it.”Soon after the minister brought into parliament the law，which prohibited all intercourse with the colonies，and declared their ships to be lawful prize；a law，which was justly considered as a declaration of war against America，and by some as a formal abdication of the right of government over the colonies．At the same time，the king concluded alliances with several German princes，who engaged their troops for a great undertaking；and preparations of every kind announced that force alone was to decide the destiny of the British empire．At the close of the session of parliament in February 1776，the bitterness had attained its highest pitch．Even the evident danger，that foreign powers，and France in particular，might take a part in the disturbances in America，and take advantage of England's embarrassment，made no impression upon the ministers and the parliament．When some members of the opposition at the beginning of the year 1776，asserted that according to very authentic accounts，a negociation between the Congress at Philadelphia，and the French court，was already commenced，not only the truth，but even the possibility of this but too well grounded fact was denied．It was maintained“that，such an unexampled fascination，”could not be supposed in any nation，“holding colonies itself，in any government wishing to retain the obedience of their own subjects.”A reasoning，which in itself rested upon very just principles，but which lost all its conclusive weight in the mouth of those，who，by a fascination entirely similar，had come to the point of setting at stake，from mere stupid obstinacy，one of their most precious possessions，and half the existence of their empire.
Since the last months of the year 1775，the war was raging in the bowels of the colonies．The language and the resolves of Parliament in the winter of 1775–1776，taught the Americans that it would be a war for life and death—Every bond of union was broken．Against the return of the old happy days the iron hand of inexorable destiny had barred every gate．On the 4th of July 1776，the Congress declared the Independence of the Thirteen United States.
It belongs not to the purpose of the present essay to continue further this cursory historical recapitulation，since I am here speaking only of the origin of the American revolution．It is however sufficiently known，that the progress and the issue of the war，completely justified the anticipations of those，who would have avoided it at any price．It is equally well known，how much the consequences of this war，have put to shame the expectations of all parties．The supporters of the war，went upon the principle，that every thing must be hazarded to maintain the possession of the colonies，its opponents，upon the principle that every thing must be sacrificed not to lose them；both concurred therefore in the opinion that this loss would give a deep，and perhaps incurable wound to the British empire．Experience has decided．In a few years after the loss of the colonies，England has again become as powerful and flourishing，nay more powerful and flourishing than ever．And whatever of a hurtful nature，that lay in the influence of this event upon the affairs of Europe，has fallen upon France alone；upon France，who，according to the general opinion，was to derive the greatest advantages from the American revolution.
If we duly meditate upon the series of facts，which have been here summarily exhibited，and upon some others equally certain and authentic，which will be touched upon in the sequel，the following points of comparison will arise，to show in its clearest light the essential difference between the American and French revolutions.
1．The American revolution was grounded partly upon principles，of which the right was evident，partly upon such，as it was at least very questionable，whether they were not right，and from beginning to end upon no one that was clearly and decidedly wrong；the French revolution was an uninterrupted series of steps，the wrong of which could not，upon rigorous principles，for a moment be doubted.
The question，concerning the right of a revolution，has，by the frivolous way of thinking，by the shallow sophistry，and even by the immense devastations，and the stupid indifference arisen from them，of this revolutionary age，been in a manner discarded among the idle amusements of scholastic pedants；many who hold themselves for statesmen，think it no longer worth while so much as to start the question；yet in the eyes of the thinking，of the wise and the good，will it ever remain，the first and the last.
The relation between the inhabitants of a distant colony，and the government of the mother country，is never to be compared in all respects with the relation between the government and their immediate subjects．In the former，there lies always something strained，something equivocal，something unnatural；for it cannot be denied，the firmest foundation of all sovereignty is in the wants of the governed，and those wants are weaker，are more questionable，withdraw themselves，to express myself so，from the eyes and the feeling，when the government is a thousand leagues distant from the country，which must obey their laws．Besides，all the European states，which founded，or encouraged the foundation of colonies in the other quarters of the globe，considered these colonies，more or less，as mere instruments to enrich and strengthen the seat of their own power，and treated the people，who inhabited them，merely as the means of an happier，or more agreeable existence for their own．A maxim，which could not easily be reconciled with the general purposes of society，for which the colonies must have as keen a sense as the mother country，and with the consciousness of independent stability，to which they must sooner or later attain．Hence，the right of an European nation over their colonies must necessarily always be a wavering，insecure，undefined，and often undefinable right．If，however，the form of government in the mother country be simple，and the conditions，upon which the colony was founded，were in themselves clear and definite，then that unavoidable misrelation will be less perceptible．The difficulties on the other hand must be much greater，the collisions more frequent and momentous，when the mother country has a complicated constitution，and when the conditions under which the colonies are connected with her，the rights，which they enjoy by virtue of her particular constitution，the place which they are to hold in that constitution，are not in the precisest manner defined at their very origin.
This was in both points the case with the English colonies，in North America．How far the rights and liberties of a new state，founded by Britons，under the British constitution，should extend，and in what particular relation the inhabitants of such a state should stand，with the several component parts of that mixed constitution? this was a question，which at their origin should have been considered with the utmost attention．This question was never once thought of．The colonies originated at a time，when the British constitution itself had not yet attained its last perfection and consistence.(5) Their charters all proceeded from the crown．The parliament had never taken any part in their settlement.
The internal forms of government of these colonies were as various，as the circumstances，under which they had been founded，or formed．Some of the most important had been granted as hereditary property to private persons，so that these，and their heirs，might govern them entirely as they pleased，and were scarcely more than under a nominal dependence upon the crown．In this manner had Maryland been granted to lord Baltimore；North and South-Carolina to lord Clarendon；in this manner Pennsylvania and Delaware belonged to the family of the celebrated Penn．Others，as New Hampshire，New York，New Jersey，and Virginia，were called royal provinces，and in these the king was considered as the immediate sovereign．Lastly，there was a third class of colonies，which were called privileged，and in which the power of the monarch was limited by the original charters．Such was the constitution of Massachusetts，of Rhode Island，and of Connecticut.
The relations between the royal governors，and the provincial assemblies，were in every colony differently defined and modified；but the provincial assemblies were accustomed every where，whether the province was originally privileged，royal，or hereditary，more or less，to exercise the right of enacting laws for the internal police of the province，of levying taxes for meeting the public exigences of the state，and of taking an essential part in every thing belonging to the administration of the country．In no single colony，however its constitution，in respect to its dependance upon the crown，was organized，was there a trace of a constitutional and legal authority，vested in the British parliament．The charters contained none；no definite law，not so much as a partial statute，enacted in Great-Britain，had ever proclaimed，or even made mention of such an authority.
In the beginning，the parliament considered this their absolute exclusion from the sovereignty over the colonies with great indifference；in the preceding century，the bounds of their power in general were so little defined，that not the smallest doubt has been started against the authority of the king，at his pleasure to give，to grant，to constitute，to privilege，to govern，by himself，or allow to be governed by others，an immense continent in America；this distant and uncultivated land，was besides far too much despised for them to concern themselves about its constitution．But when，on the one side，after the revolution of 1688，the influence of parliament upon all the affairs of government had become greater，firmer，and more general；and when，on the other side，the extraordinary importance of the colonies，in their rapidly growing population，in their constantly improving culture，in their unexpected and splendid flourishing state，was daily more evident，the idea by degrees crept into every mind，that so great and essential a part of the British empire could not possibly be altogether withdrawn from the superintendency of parliament，even though nothing should have been said of it hitherto in the public transactions.
In one single，though truly important point，the parliament had always exercised the legislative power over the colonies，in every thing which concerned trade，whether of export，or of import．Although this was precisely the seat of that mighty monopoly，which seemed to give the colonies their whole value，and which，on the other side，could never be so favourable to their progress as liberty would have been，yet they willingly submitted to the regulations and restraints of all kinds，with which the parliament in ample measure provided them．It appeared natural and equitable to themselves，that the supreme legislative power in the empire，should regulate and direct a concern，which interested not exclusively America，but England too，in a much higher degree．The right of the parliament，therefore，to prescribe laws to the colonies relating to commerce，and to every thing connected with it，was never called in question.
But，as soon as the parliament determined to overstep this right，and to levy taxes in America，without the consent of the local representatives，the most vehement resistance could not fail to break out，and this resistance could as little fail to increase，when，in the progress of the contest，the pretention to bind America by act of parliament，in all cases whatsoever，was advanced，and formally derived from what was called the legal supremacy of parliament．The omnipotence of parliament，so often，and so loudly，then resounded by the antagonists of the colonies，was a very just principle for England，but a very invalid one for America．With the parliament，bating the trade laws，to which the colonists submitted from reason and necessity，America had not the least to do．America sent no representatives to parliament，nor did it ever occur to parliament to offer her that power，which would indeed not have been without great difficulties carried into effect．The colonies，nevertheless，possessed all the benefits of the British constitution，and even the greatest part of their forms．Almost in every one of them，there was a representative assembly，which supplied the place of a lower house，and a senate，which answered to the house of peers．These assemblies transacted，under the sanction of the monarch，all the affairs，which in England and Ireland were done by the parliaments．They enacted laws，levied taxes，deliberated upon the exigencies，and upon the administration of their provinces．They formed，in concurrence with the king and his governors，a complete government，organized altogether in the spirit of the English constitution，and needed no co-operation of the British parliament．The constitutions of the several provinces，knew only the king，and the provincial representative bodies，and had no more reference to the parliament of Great-Britain，than to the parliaments of France．They had existed more than a century，without knowing any thing of the English parliament，otherwise than by its commercial regulations，which had not always been to them the most agreeable．The pretended right of parliament to prescribe laws and taxes for them，was an arbitrary assumption，against which the colonies，according to all legal principles，might proceed exactly as Great-Britain would have done，had any of the provincial assemblies undertaken，with the concurrence of the king，to levy taxes in England or Scotland，or to overthrow the municipal constitution of London or Westminster，as the parliament had overthrown the charter of Massachusetts-Bay.
The resistance of the colonies，and the unavoidable insurrection，which was finally produced by the continuance of the attack，were，therefore，inasmuch as they respected the parliament，perfectly right．The parliament was，in regard to the colonies，to be considered as a foreign power．So long as this power had remained within the bounds of its silently acknowledged sphere of operation，the colonies had submitted to it．To give laws beyond those bounds，it was as little authorised，as would have been the legislative power of any other nation．The Americans could resist it with the same right，as they might have resisted the States-General of Holland，or the council of the Indies in Madrid，had these undertaken to impose upon them their manufacturing regulations，or stamp taxes.
The question seems to be more difficult，with what right the colonies could likewise resist the king，who，at any rate，was their legal and acknowledged sovereign? But，if in this respect the lawfulness of their conduct be doubtful，it would at least remain a great point，that its unlawfulness could not be clearly proved，and a closer examination will lead us to a result yet far more favourable to the justification of this conduct.
