This deterred great numbers, efpecially of the Prefbyterian denomination, who had emigrated from Ireland, from fettling within the limits. of these governments, and fomented a spirit of discord between those who belonged to, and those who diffented from, the established church. The firft emigrants from England for colonifing America, left the Mother Country at a time when the dread of arbitrary power was the predominant paffion of the nation. Except the very modern charter of Georgia, in the year 1732, all the English Colonies obtained their charters and their greatest number of European fettlers, between the years 1603 and 1688. In this period a remarkable struggle between prerogative and privilege commenced, and was carried on till it terminated in a revolution highly favourable to the liberties of the people. In the year 1621, when the English House of Commons claimed freedom of fpeech," as their ancient and undoubted right, and an inheritance. tranfmitted to them from their ancestors;" King James the Firft replied, "that he could not allow of their ftyle, in mentioning their ancient and undoubted rights, but would rather have wished they had faid, that their privileges were derived from the grace and permiffion of their fovereign." This was the opening of a difpute which occupied the tongues, pens, and fwords, of the most active men in the nation, for a period of feventy years. It is remarkable that the fame period is exactly co-incident with the fettlement of the English Colonies. James, educated in the arbitrary fentiments of the divine right of Kings, conceived his fubjects to be his property, and that their privileges were matters of grace and favour flowing from his generofity. This high claim of prerogative excited oppofition in fupport of the rights of the people. In the progrefs of the difpute, Charles the First, son of King James, in attempting to levy fhip-money, and other revenues without confent of Parliament, involved himself in a war with his fubjects, in which, after various conflicts, he was brought to the block and fuffered death as an enemy to the conftitution of his country. Though the monarchy was restored under Charles the Second, and tranfmitted to James the Second, yet the fame arbitrary maxims being pursued, the nation, tenacious of its rights, invited the Prince of Orange to the fovereignty of the island, and expelled the reigning family from the throne. While these spirited exertions were made, in fupport of the liberties of the parent ifle, the English Colonies, were fettled, and chiefly with inhabitants of that class of people, which was moft hoftile to the claims of prerogative. Every tranfaction in that period of English hiftory, fupported the pofition that the people have a right to refift their fovereign, when when he invades their liberties, and to transfer the crown from one to another, when the good of the community requires it. The English Colonists were from their first fettlement in America, devoted to liberty, on English ideas, and English principles. They not only conceived themselves to inherit the privileges of Englishmen, but though in a colonial fituation, actually poffeffed them. After a long war between King and Parliament, and a Revolutionthefe privileges were fettled on the following fundamental principles : "That it was the undoubted right of English subjects, being freemen or freeholders, to give their property, only by their own confent. That the Houfe of Commons exercifed the fole right of granting the money of the people of England, because that House alone, represented them. That taxes were the free gifts of the people to their rulers. That the authority of fovereigns was to be exercifed only for the good of their fubjects. That it was the right of the people to meet together, and peaceably to confider of their grievances-to petition for a redress of them, and finally, when intolerable grievances were unredreffed, to feek relief, on the failure of petitions and remonftrances, by forcible means." Opinions of this kind generally prevailing, produced, among the Colonists, a more determined spirit of oppofition to all encroachments on their rights, than would probably have taken place, had they emigrated from the Mother Country in the preceding century, when the doctrines of paffive obedience, non-refiftance, and the divine right of kings, were generally received. That attachment to their fovereign, which was diminished in the first emigrants to America, by being removed to a great distance from his influence, was ftill farther diminished in their defcendants. When the American revolution commenced, the inhabitants of the Colonies were for the most part, the third and fourth, and fometimes the fifth or fixth generation, from the original emigrants. In the fame degree as they were removed from the parent ftock, they were weaned from that partial attachment, which bound their forefathers to the place of their nativity. The affection for the Mother Country, as far as it was a natural paffion, wore away in fucceffive generations, till at laft it had fcarcely any exiftence. The mercantile intercourfe, which connects different countries, was, in the early periods of the English Colonies, far fhort of that degree, which is neceffary to perpetuate a friendly union. Had the firft great colonial eftablishments been made in the Southern Provinces, where the fuitableness of native commodities would have maintained a brisk and direct trade with England---the conftant exchange of good offices be tween ཤྭཀ ལ་ tween the two countries would have been more likely to perpetuate their friendship. But as the Eaftern Provinces were the first, which were thickly fettled, and they did not for a long time cultivate an extensive trade with England, their defcendants speedily loft the fond attachment, which their forefathers felt to their Parent State. The bulk of the people in New-England knew little of the Mother Country, having only heard of her as a diftant kingdom, the rulers of which had, in the preceding century, perfecuted and banished their ancestors to the woods of America. The distance of America from Great-Britain generated ideas in the minds of the Colonists favourable to liberty. Three thoufand miles of ocean feparated them from the Mother Country. Seas rolled, and months paffed, between orders and their execution. In large governments the circulation of power is enfeebled at the extremities. This refults from the nature of things, and is the eternal law of extenfive or detached empire. Colonists, growing up to maturity, at fuch an immenfe diftance from the feat of government, perceived the obligation of dependence much more feebly, than the inhabitants of the parent ifle, who not only faw, but daily felt, the fangs of power. The wide extent and nature of the country contributed to the fame effect. The natural feat of freedom is among high mountains and pathlefs deferts, fuch as abound in the wilds of America. The religion of the Colonists alfo nurtured a love for liberty. They were chiefly Proteftants, and all Proteftantism is founded on a ftrong claim to natural liberty, and the right of private judgment. A majority of them were of that clafs of men, who, in England, are called Diffenters. Their tenets being the Proteftantifm of the Proteftant religion, are hoflile to all interference of authority in matters of opinion, and predifpofe to a jealoufy for civil liberty. They who belonged to the Church of England were for the most part independents, as far as church government and hierarchy were concerned. They used the liturgy of that church, but were without bishops, and were strangers to those fyftems, which make religion an engine of ftate. That policy, which unites the loweft curate with the greatest metropolitan, and connects both with the fovereign, was unknown among the Colonists. Their religion was their own, and neither imposed by authority, nor made fubfervient to political purposes. Though there was a variety of fects, they all agreed in the communion of liberty, and all reprobated the courtly doctrines of paffive obedience, and non-refiftance. The fame difpofitions were foftered by the ufual modes of education in the Colonies. The tudy of law was common and fashionable, The infinity of disputes, in a new a new and free country, made it lucrative, and multiplied its followers. No order of men has, in all ages, been more favourable to liberty, than lawyers. Where they are not won over to the fervice of government, they are formidable adverfaries to it. Profeffionally taught the rights of human nature, they keenly and quickly perceive every attack made on them. While others judge of bad principles by the actual grievances they occafion, lawyers difcover them at a diftance, and trace future mifchiefs from gilded innovations, The reading of thofe Colonies who were inclined to books, generally favoured the caufe of liberty. Large libraries were uncommon in the New World. Difquifitions on abftruse subjects, and curious refearches into antiquity, did not accord with the genius of a people, fettled in an uncultivated country, where every furrounding object impelled to action, and little leifure was left for fpeculation, Their books were generally fmall in fize, and few in number: a great part of them confifted of those fashionable authors, who have defended the cause of liberty, Cat's letters, the Independent Whig, and fuch productions, were common in one extreme of the Colonies, while in the other, hiftories of the Puritans kept alive the remembrance of the fufferings of their forefathers, and inspired a warm attachment, both to the civil and the religious rights of human nature, In the Southern Colonies, flavery nurtured a spirit of liberty among the free inhabitants. All mafters of flaves who enjoy perfonal liberty will be both proud and jealous of their freedom. It is, in their opinion, not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege. In them, the haughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of liberty. Nothing could more effectually animate the oppofition of a planter to the claims of Great-Britain, than a conviction that thofe claims in their extent de. graded him to a degree of dependence on his fellow fubjects, equally humiliating with that which exifted between his flaves and himself. The ftate of fociety in the Colonies favoured a fpirit of liberty and independence. Their inhabitants were all of one rank. Kings, nobles, and bishops, were unknown among them. From their first fettlements, the English provinces received impreffions favourable to democratic forms of government. Their dependent fituation forbad any inordinate ambition, among their native fons, and the humility of their fociety, abftracted as they were from the fplendour and amufements of the Old World, held forth few allurements to invite the refidence of such from the Mother Country as afpired to hereditary honours. In modern Europe, the remains of the feudal fyftem have occafioned an order of men fuperior to that of the commonalty, but, as few of that clafs migrated migrated to the Colonies, they were fettled with the yeomanry. Their inhabitants, unaccustomed to that diftinction of ranks, which the policy of Europe has established, were strongly impreffed with an opinion, that all men are by nature equal. They could not easily be perfuaded that their grants of land, or their civil rights, flowed from the munificence of Princes. Many of them had never heard of Magna Charta, and those who knew the circumftances of the remarkable period of English history, when that was obtained, did not reft their claims to liberty and property on the tranfactions of that important day. They looked up to Heaven as the fource of their rights, and claimed, not from the promifes of kings, but from the parent of the univerfe. The political creed of an American Colonist was short but fubftantial. He believed that God made all mankind originally equal: that he endowed them with the rights of life, property, and as much liberty as was confiftent with the rights of others. That he had bestowed on his vaft family of the human race, the earth for their fupport, and that all government was a political inftitution between men naturally equal, not for the aggrandizement of one, or a few, but for the general happiness of the whole community. Impreffed with fentiments of this kind, they grew up, from their earliest infancy, with that confidence which is well calculated to inspire a love for liberty, and a prepoffeffion in favour of independence. In confequence of the vast extent of vacant country, every Colonist was, or eafily might be, a freeholder. Settled on lands of his own, he was both farmer and landlord---producing all the neceffaries of life from his own grounds, he felt himself both free and independent. Each individual might hunt, fish, or fowl, without injury to his neighbours. Thefe immunities which, in old countries, are guarded by the fanction of penal laws, and monopolized by a few, are the common privileges of all in America. Colonists, growing up in the enjoyment of such rights, felt the restraint of law more feebly than they, who are educated in countries, where long habits have made fubmiffion familiar. The mind of man naturally relishes liberty--wherever from the extent of a new and unfettled country, fome abridgements thereof are ufelefs, and others impracticable, this natural defire of freedom is ftrengthened, and the independent mind revolts at the idea of fubjection. The Colonists were also preferved from the contagion of minifterial influence by their distance from the metropolis. Remote from the feat of power and corruption, they were not over-awed by the one, nor debauched by the other. Few were the means of detaching individuals from the intereft of the public. High offices were neither fufficiently numerous nor lucrative to purchase many adherents, and the most valuVOL, I, 3 G able |