A recent writer, however, has condemned the addition of the declaration of the abstract right to tax with great vehemence.  “Nothing,” says Lord Campbell,[42] “could exceed the folly of accompanying the repeal of the Stamp Act with the statutable declaration of the abstract right to tax.”  But it does not seem difficult to justify the conduct of the ministry in this particular.  For, besides the great weight deservedly attached to Franklin’s assurance that the declaration would not be objected to by the Colonists, and besides the consideration that, on a general view, it was desirable, if not indispensable, to impress on all classes of subjects, whether at home or abroad, the constitutional doctrine of the omnipotence of Parliament, the line of argument adopted by Mr. Pitt and Lord Camden, in denying that omnipotence, left the ministers no alternative but that of asserting it, unless they were prepared to betray their trust as guardians of the constitution.  Forbearance to insist on the Declaratory Act could not fail to have been regarded as an acquiescence on their part in a doctrine which Lord Campbell in the same breath admits to be false.  It may be added, as a consideration of no small practical weight, that, without such a Declaratory Act, the King would have been very reluctant to consent to the other and more important Repealing Act.  And, on the whole, the conduct of the ministry may, we think, be regarded as the wisest settlement both of the law and of the practice.  It asserted the law in a manner which offended no one; and it made a precedent for placing the spirit of statesmanship above the letter of the law, and for forbearing to put forth in its full strength the prerogatives whose character was not fully understood by those who might be affected by them, and also could plead that Parliament itself had contributed to lead them to misunderstand it by its own conduct in never before exerting it.

For the moment, then, contentment and tranquillity were restored in the Colonies.  Unhappily, they were not lasting.  The same year which saw the triumph of the Rockingham administration in the repeal of the Stamp Act, witnessed also its fall before a discreditable intrigue.  And the ministry which succeeded it had not been a year in office before the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townsend, revived the discontents in America which Lord Rockingham had appeased.  It cannot be said, however, that the blame should all belong to him; or that the Rockingham party in the House of Commons were entirely free from a share in it.  They were—­not unnaturally, perhaps—­greatly irritated at the intrigue by which Lord Chatham had superseded them, and were not disinclined to throw difficulties in the way of their successors, for which the events of the next year afforded more than one opportunity.  Lord Chatham, as has been mentioned, was universally recognized as the chief of the new ministry, though he abstained from taking the usual office of First Lord of the