The resistance against the impost taxes of 1767，was of the same nature，as that which the stamp-tax had experienced．This new grievance of the colonies，was accompanied with circumstances of the most odious kind：the augmentation of the troops，the conduct of a part of them，the harshness of some governors，the frequent adjournments and violent dissolution of the provincial assemblies，all was calculated to put the patience of the Americans to dangerous proof．And yet they never overstepped the boundaries，which the constitution and the laws prescribed to them；and in their numerous addresses and protestations，adhered rigorously to what was allowed by law．When in the year 1770，a violent quarrel arose between some of the royal soldiers，and certain citizens of Boston，which ended in the first bloody scene the colonies had in their contest with England yet witnessed，the courts of law，with a glorious impartiality，acquitted the greatest part of the accused and indicted soldiers.
The continuation of the tax upon tea in the year 1770，had no other consequence than to strengthen the voluntary agreement against the importation of English tea；the resolve in the year 1773，which authorised the East-India company to the exportation of their stores of tea，free from duty，and the actual execution of this resolve，could not，indeed but produce a still more unfavourable operation．This measure was altogether calculated to provoke the colonies to a general insurrection．Yet did they keep themselves rigorously within the limits of a necessary defence．The destruction of the tea at Boston was，in fact，no other than a defensive operation．The sale of this tea，or only a part of it，would have involved the compulsive levy of a tax，by the payment of which the constitution of the colonies and all their rights would have been lost．Yet，even then，they proceeded not beyond what was unavoidable，and measured the resistance as exactly as possible by the attack．The tea was thrown into the sea，and not a single hostile step followed upon this undertaking．Nay，although the public authorities of Boston，and of the whole province，held it for necessary，as much as every single citizen，yet they always undeniably discovered themselves ready to grant the fullest indemnity to the East-India company.
Had the ministry，at this period，been contented with an equitable satisfaction；had they，if they must punish，been content to inflict tolerable and proportionable punishments，there is no doubt but America would have remained with her old constitution．Although a great part of the inhabitants of the colonies，in expectation of a distressing and stormy futurity，urged for energy and for arming，yet was this temper still far from being common．It is，for example，a certain fact，that in the important province of Pennsylvania，the majority of the citizens would have voted against taking a part in the measures at Boston，had not the excessive and unwise harshness of the parliament，in a short time，inflamed and united all minds.
The appearance of the act，which closed the port of Boston，of that which，immediately after，took away the Massachusetts charter，the account of all what had passed in parliament upon that occasion，the visible impossibility of eradicating peaceably such deep rooted bitterness—all these circumstances concurred to render a sudden explosion probable；many of the resolves of parliament were indisputably of a nature to furnish sufficient motive for such an explosion．But the provincial assemblies contented themselves with sending deputies to a general congress．Not one over hasty step disturbed the pacific and lawful character of their conduct in this hard and trying period.
The congress，which assembled at Philadelphia，spoke with energetic freedom of the constitutional rights of the colonies，and of the oppressive measures of parliament；but their first resolves were more moderate，than perhaps England herself had expected．An invitation to a general agreement against all trade with Great-Britain was the only active step they allowed themselves；and after all what the parliament had done，this step was of little importance．How far they were remote，even then，from a total separation，and how much the conduct of the colonies deserved the name of a lawful defence，may be learned from the following conclusion of the remarkable address，which this congress immediately before separating，sent to the king.
We ask only for peace，liberty and security．We wish no diminution of royal prerogatives，we demand no new rights．From the magnanimity and justice of your majesty，and the parliament，we promise ourselves the redress of our grievances；firmly convinced，that when once the causes of our present complaints are removed，our future conduct will not be undeserving of the milder treatment，to which we were in better days accustomed．We call that Being，who tries the inmost heart，to witness，that no other motive，than the fear of the destruction，which threatens us，has had any influence upon our resolutions．We therefore intreat your majesty as the loving father of all your people，bound to you by the ties of blood，by laws，affection，and fidelity，not to permit，in the uncertain expectation of a result，which never can compen-sate for the wretchedness by which it must be attained，any further violation of those sacred ties．So may your majesty in a long and glorious reign，enjoy every earthly bliss，and this bliss，and your undiminished authority descend upon your heirs and their heirs，till time shall be no more.
The American agents in London，Bollan，Franklin and Lee，petitioned to be heard in support of this address，at the bar of the parliament．Their request was rejected.
Soon after，this cruel act，which deprived the colonies of all navigation，and even of the fishery，obtained the force of law；and the very moment，when this harsh law was past，was chosen to make the only proposal of conciliation，which the parliament had ever offered．According to this proposal，which is known by the name of lord North's Conciliatory Plan，every colony，whose representatives would engage to deliver their proportional contribution to the exigencies of the empire，and raise besides the costs of their internal administration，provided their offers should be approved by the king and parliament，was to be secured in the exemption from all further taxation．Not to mention that the only object of this plan notoriously was to divide the colonies，that it was offered them by an armed hand，that the suspicious proviso made the favourable consequences of its acceptance extremely doubtful，it properly decided the true point of contest，in a manner wholly contradictory to the principles of the Americans．The parliament renounced a right which notoriously did not belong to them．But they renounced it，only to exercise，once for all，what they had wished to exercise by piece-meal．The injustice and inconsistency of this proposal could not for a moment escape the notice of the colonies．The second general congress，which assembled on the 10th of May，1775，rejected it upon grounds，the force of which must be felt by every impartial mind．“Should we accede，”say they，in their answer to this proposal，
we should expressly declare a wish to purchase the favour of parliament，without knowing at what price it would be set．We hold it superfluous to extort from us，by violence or threats a proportional contribution，to meet the general exigencies of the state，since all the world knows，and the parliament must themselves acknowledge，that whenever thereto required，in a constitutional manner，we have always richly contributed．It is unjust to require permanent contributions of the colonies，so long as Great-Britain possesses the monopoly of their trade；this monopoly is，in itself，the heaviest of all contributions．It is unjust to wish to tax us doubly．If we must contribute in like proportion with the other parts of the empire，allow us，like them too，a free trade with all the world.
These unanswerable arguments were at an immeasurable distance from the language of insolent rebellion.
When，finally，the congress resolved upon the general arming of the country，defence was still their single，and exclusive object．The constitution had been long since，without their fault，torn to pieces；they might have proclaimed immediately a new one upon its ruins；but they appealed to arms，to maintain the same constitution，of which the colonies had been，with so much violence，deprived.
The surest proof of this glorious moderation was，that they themselves，after the actual breaking out of hostilities，and when a great part of the inhabitants of America，urged for more energetic measures，did not omit another attempt by petitions and remonstrances，to attain the end of their wishes．In the midst of the most vigorous preparations for a desperate defence，they resolved，in the month of July，1775，(8) another address to the king，to which was given the inviting and significant name of the olive branch．Even in this last address，we read with astonishment，among other things，as follows：
Devoted to the person，the family，and the government of your majesty，with all the attachment，which only principle and feeling can inspire，connected with Great-Britain，by the strongest ties that can unite human societies together，deeply afflicted at every event that may weaken this connection，we most solemnly assure your majesty，that we wish nothing more ardently than the restoration of the former harmony between England and the colonies，and a new union，founded upon a lasting basis，capable of propagating that blessed harmony to the latest generations，and transmit to a grateful posterity your majesty's name，surrounded with that immortal glory which was in every age bestowed upon the saviours of the people．We protest to your majesty，that notwithstanding all our sufferings in this unhappy contest，the hearts of your faithful colonists are far from wishing a reconciliation upon conditions，which could be inconsistent with the dignity，or the welfare of the state from which they sprung，and which they love with filial tenderness．If the grievances，which now bow us down with inexpressible pain to the ground，could in any manner be removed，your majesty will at all times find your faithful subjects in America，willing and ready，with their lives and fortunes，to maintain，preserve，and defend the rights and interests of their sovereign，and of their mother country.
This was the address，which Mr．Penn，on the 1st of September，1775，delivered to the earl of Dartmouth，upon which，some days after，he was informed，that no answer could be given．It was not until after this last attempt had proved fruitless，after an unmerciful statute had outlawed American ships，and the levying of foreign troops left them only the choice between the dissolution of their constitution，with unconditional submission，and the same dissolution with the free choice of a new one，that the congress passed the resolve，which reason and necessity prescribed，and declared the colonies independent，because independence was a smaller evil than dependence upon arbitrary will；and their painfully maintained，and painfully defended dependence upon the old laws，was lost forever.
The revolution of America was，therefore，in every sense of the word，a revolution of necessity：England，alone，had by violence effected it：America had contended ten years long，not against England，but against the revolution：America sought not a revolution；she yielded to it，compelled by necessity，not because she wished to extort a better condition than she had before enjoyed，but because she wished to avert a worse one，prepared for her.
Exactly the contrary of all this，was the case in France．The French revolution was offensive in its origin，offensive in its progress，offensive in its whole compass，and in every single characteristic moment of its existence．As the American revolution had exhibited a model of moderation in defence，so the French one displayed an unparalleled example of violence and inexorable fury in attack．As the former had always kept the vigour of its defensive measures in rigorous proportion to the exigency，so the latter，from the weakness of the resistance made against it，became more and more violent and terrible，the more cause it had to grow milder.
Could the destroyers of a throne，could the teachers and heroes of a revolutionary age，themselves have formed the character of a prince，under whom they would begin their dreadful experiment，they never could have succeeded better，than in that，which a cruel destiny delivered into their hands．Lewis the 16th promoted the revolution by all the good，and by all the weak sides of his character．He was certainly not equal to the circumstances，under which he had to act，and to the dangers，which he was to overcome；but what rendered his want of energy truly fatal，were his virtues．Had he been less honourable，less benevolent，less humane，less conscientious，perhaps he might yet have saved the monarchy．The unhappy certainty that it was impossible for him，so much as for a moment，to be a tyrant，made him and the state the victims of the most shameful and most revolting tyranny that the world had ever seen．His noble readiness to encourage every thing，which assumed the name of reform，drew him into the first false steps，which shook his throne．His horror of violence tore the sceptre from his benevolent hands．His integrity was the best ally of those，who plunged France and him into the precipice.
He looked with satisfaction towards that assembly of the states，whose effects had in the council of the wicked been long prepared．They rewarded him by the decrees，which excluded him from the government of the kingdom．He would not suffer his troops to use force against the first insurgents．They rewarded him by the general insurrection of the capital and of all the provinces．He endeavoured，even after having lost all his power，and tasted the bitterest afflictions，such as a dethroned monarch only can know，still to turn the evil to good．They improved this insurmountable royal temper，this pure and real civism，to be guilty with less interruption，while he continued to hope；and to crush him with the load of their present crimes，while he looked forward to a better futurity.
It may boldly be maintained almost every thing that has been said of the resistance of the court and of the great，of their conspiracies，of their cabals against the revolution，was merely a wretched fable．That the injured，the oppressed，the plundered could be no friends to their oppressors and plunderers is self-evident；as far as mere hatred is resistance，there was an enormous mass of resistance against the revolution；the leaders had themselves created these internal，these secret hostilities，of which they so often complained．They must have extirpated human nature herself to secure to themselves forgiveness，or a disposition to favour their cruel operations．But，throughout their whole career，they met with no active resistance，and the only circumstance，which could spread a varnish of credibility over their incessant fictions of plots，counter-revolutions，&c．was，that they deserved all，that they pretended to suffer.
If we follow this revolution through all its periods，we shall find that the strongest motive for effecting any greater usurpation，for maintaining any greater injustice，for committing any greater crime，constantly was，that a smaller one had immediately before succeeded．The single motive for using persecutions，was，that the victims had already suffered others．This was the character of the French revolution，in wholesale and in retail．The sufferers were punishable，merely because they had suffered；in this bitterest of all offensive wars，they seemed so cautiously to shun every thing that made a shew of resistance，that they sooner forgave a struggling，than a defenceless，enemy.
