The abstract right was unquestionably on the side of the minister and the Parliament who had imposed the tax.  But he is not worthy of the name of statesman who conceives absolute rights and metaphysical distinctions to be the proper foundation for measures of government, and pays no regard to custom, to precedent, to the habits and feelings of the people to be governed; who, disregarding the old and most true adage, summum jus summa injuria, omits to take into his calculations the expediency of his actions when legislating for a nation which he is in the daily habit of weighing in his private affairs.  The art or science of government are phrases in common use; but they would be void of meaning if all that is requisite be to ascertain the strict right or power, and then unswervingly to act upon it in all its rigor.  And, therefore, while it must be admitted that the character of the power vested in King, Lords, and Commons assembled in Parliament is unlimited and illimitable, and that the legal competency to enact a statute depends in no degree whatever on the wisdom or folly, the justice or wickedness, of the statute, the advice given to a constitutional sovereign by his advisers must be guided by other considerations.  To quote by anticipation the language addressed to the Commons on this subject by Burke eight years afterward, the proper policy was “to leave the Americans as they anciently stood ...  To be content to bind America by laws of trade.  Parliament had always done it.  And this should be the reason for binding their trade.  Not to burden them by taxes; Parliament was not used to do so from the beginning; and this should be the reason for not taxing.  These are the arguments of states and kingdoms."[39]

The ministry were strong enough to carry their resolutions through both Houses.  Their measure was divided into two acts, one known as the Declaratory Act, asserting the absolute and universal authority of Parliament; the other repealing the Stamp Act of the preceding year.  And both were passed without alteration, though the Lords divided against them on both the second and third readings of the bill for repeal founded on them,[40] some of them entering long protests in the journals of the House.  The right to tax was asserted, but the tax itself was repealed.  And Franklin’s estimate of the feelings on the subject entertained by his countrymen was fully verified by the reception which the intelligence met with in the Colonies.  To quote the description of Lord Stanhope:  “In America the repeal of the Stamp Act was received with universal joy and acclamation.  Fireworks and festivals celebrated the good news, while addresses and thanks to the King were voted by all the Assemblies....  The words of the Declaratory Act, indeed, gave the Americans slight concern.  They fully believed that no practical grievance could arise from it.  They looked upon it merely as a salve to the wounded pride of England; as only that ‘bridge of gold’ which, according to the old French saying, should always be allowed to a retreating assailant."[41]