We

so honest a man, and so able a one, that he was greatly indulged even by those who could not feel his scruples. therefore requested him to take the paper, and put it in a form he could approve.

Jefferson, in his draft, said:

Our forefathers established civil societies with various forms of constitution. To continue their connection with the friends whom they had left, they arranged themselves by charters of compact under the same common King, who thus completed their powers of full and perfect legislation, and became the link of union between the several parts of the Empire. Some occasional assumptions of power by the Parliament of Great Britain, however unacknowledged by the constitution of our Governments, were finally acquiesced in through warmth of affection.

Dickinson appended to Jefferson's draft a query whether "it might not be proper to take notice of Lord Chatham's Plan, mentioning his great abilities."

In the Declaration drafted by Dickinson, as finally adopted by Congress, it was said:

Our forefathers effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike nations of barbarians. Societies or Governments, vested with perfect Legislatures, were formed under Charters from the Crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the Colonies and the Kingdom from which they derived their origin. .. Towards the close of the late war, it pleased our Sovereign to make a change in his counsels. From that moment the affairs of the British Empire began to fall into confusion.

. Parlia

ment was influenced to adopt the pernicious project [of subduing and plundering the Colonies], and, assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.

But why enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that Parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us, or is subject to our control or influence; but on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours.

At the same time that this conversion of the anti-Imperialists to the general principles of the Federal-Imperialists occurred, a decided change occurred in the views of the Federal-Imperialists. The anti-Imperialists had evidently insisted that, if the British Empire was a political organism, or State, under a Constitution, the matter of money contributions of any part of the State to the defence and welfare of the whole State could not be excepted out of the matters over which the Imperial State, as the Central Government, had power, and the FederalImperialists had evidently been unable to answer this proposition. The anti-Imperialists had evidently insisted, also, that if the British Empire was a State composed of States, there was no reason why the subordinate Member-States should not unite or federate among themselves in any way not inconsistent with their subordination to the Imperial State which might be best in their own interests; and the Federal-Imperialists had evidently assented to this proposition. When this point was reached, it evidently became clear to both parties that the real question at issue was whether the British Empire was a Federal Empire or a Unitary State, and that no settlement was possible except one which went to the root of the matter and settled that question once for all.

That this change of view on the part of the FederalImperialists regarding the matter of the money contri

butions of the Colonies to the Imperial defence and welfare did, in fact, occur, and that it resulted in a substantial unanimity of sentiment in Congress that Great Britain, as the Imperial State, ought to have, under a just and proper Constitution of the Empire, a superintendence over this matter, can be affirmed on no less authority than that of Jefferson and Madison. Writing, at the request of M. Soulés, on September 13, 1786, in criticism of the proof sheets of his Histoire des Troubles de l'Amérique Anglaise, Jefferson, said, speaking of the issues on which the American Revolution was fought:

Dickinson acknowledged, in his Farmer's Letters, that [Parliament] could levy duties, internal or external, payable in Great Britain or in the States. He only required that these duties should be bona fide for the regulation of commerce, and not to raise a solid revenue. He admitted that they might control our commerce, but not tax us. This mysterious system took for a moment in America as well as in Europe. But sounder heads saw in the first moment that he who could put down the loom could stop the spinning-wheel, and he who could stop the spinning-wheel could tie the hand which turned it. They saw that this flimsy fabric could not be supported. Who were to be judges whether duties were imposed with a view to burthen and suppress a branch of manufacture or to raise a revenue? If either party, exclusively of the other, it was plain where that would end. If both parties, it was plain where that would end also. They saw, therefore, no clue to lead them out of their difficulties but reason and right. They dared to follow them, assured that they alone could lead to defensible ground. The first elements of reason showed that the members of Parliament could have no power which the people of the several counties had not-that these had naturally a power over their own farms, and collectively over all England -that if they had any over countries out of England, it must be founded on compact or force. No compact could be shown, and neither party chose to bottom their pretensions on force.

It was objected that this annihilated the Navigation Act. True, it does. The Navigation Act, therefore, becomes a proper subject of treaty between the two nations. Or, if Great Britain does not choose to have its basis questioned, let us go on as we have done. Let no new shackles be imposed, and we will continue to submit to the old. We will consider the restrictions on our commerce now actually existing, as compensations yielded by us for the protections and privileges we actually enjoy, only trusting that if Great Britain, on a revisal of these restrictions, is sensible that some of them are useless to her and oppressive to us, she will repeal them. But on this she shall be free. Place us in the condition we were when the King came to the throne, let us rest so, and we will be satisfied. This was the ground on which all the States very soon found themselves rallied, and there was no other which could be defended.

Madison, speaking reminiscently in the Convention for framing the Constitution of the United States, on August 13, 1787, said:

When the contest was first opened with Great Britain, their power to regulate trade was admitted, their power to raise revenue rejected. An accurate investigation of the subject, afterwards, proved that no line could be drawn between the two cases.

And in a letter to Jefferson of October 24, 1787, Madison said:

How long has it taken to fix, and how imperfectly is yet fixed, the legislative power of corporations, though that power is subordinate in the most complete manner? The line of distinction between the power of regulating trade and that of drawing revenue from it, which was once considered the barrier of our liberties, was found, on fair discussion, to be absolutely untenable.

The documents which evidenced the change in the views of Congress on these three different subjects,

namely, the right of the Imperial State, as the Central Government, to adjudicate the contributions to the Imperial defence and welfare; the right of the Colonies, as subordinate Member-States, to federate or unite; and the necessity for a general settlement which should finally determine the character of the Empire as a federal organism, as opposed to a settlement relating solely to the existing grievances,-were the second Address to the King, of July 8, drafted by Dickinson, as chairman of the committee, the second Address to the People of Great Britain, of the same date, prepared by a committee of which Richard Henry Lee was chairman, and the resolutions on Lord North's Proposals, of July 31, prepared by a committee of which Franklin was chairman, and Jefferson, John Adams, and Richard Henry Lee members.

In the Address to the King, the relationship between Great Britain and the Colonies was called "the Union between the Mother Country and the Colonies," Great Britain was described as "the Sovereign and Parent State," and the Parliament was spoken of as "that august Legislature, the Parliament."

In this Address, the Congress said:

Attached to your Majesty's person, family and government with all devotion that principle and affection can inspire, connected with Great Britain by the strongest ties that can unite societies, and deploring every event that tends in any way to weaken them, we solemnly assure your Majesty that we not only most ardently desire the former harmony between her and these Colonies may be restored, but that a concord may be established between them upon so firm a basis as to perpetuate its blessings, uninterrupted by any future dissensions, to succeeding generations in both countries.

We beg leave to assure your Majesty that notwithstanding the sufferings of your loyal colonists during the course of this present controversy, our breasts retain too tender a regard for