are the sons and not the bastards of England. . . .  When in this House we grant subsidies to his Majesty, we dispose of that which is our own; but the Americans are not represented here:  when we impose a tax upon them, what is it we do?  We, the Commons of England, give what to his Majesty!  Our own personal property?  No; we give away the property of the Commons of America.  There is absurdity in the very terms.”

The bill was repealed, and agitation was calmed for a while in America.  But ere long, Mr. Pitt resumed office under the title of Lord Chatham, and with office he adopted other views as to the taxes to be imposed; in vain he sought to disguise them under the form of custom-house duties; the taxes on tea, glass, paper, excited in America the same indignation as the stamp-tax.  Resistance was everywhere organized.

“Between 1767 and 1771 patriotic leagues were everywhere formed against the consumption of English merchandise and the exportation of American produce; all exchange ceased between the mother-country and the colonies.  To extinguish the source of England’s riches in America, and to force her to open her eyes to her madness, the colonists shrank from no privation and no sacrifice:  luxury had vanished, rich and poor welcomed ruin rather than give up their political rights” [M.  Cornelis de Witt, Histoire de Washington].  “I expect nothing more from petitions to the king,” said Washington, already one of the most steadfast champions of American liberties, “and I would oppose them if they were calculated to suspend the execution of the pact of non-importation.  As sure as I live, there is no relief to be expected for us but from the straits of Great Britain.  I believe, or at least I hope, that there is enough public virtue still remaining among us to make us deny ourselves everything but the bare necessaries of life in order to obtain justice.  This we have a right to do, and no power on earth can force us to a change of conduct short of being reduced to the most abject slavery. . . .”  He added, in a spirit of strict justice:  “As to the pact of non-exportation, that is another thing; I confess that I have doubts of its being legitimate.  We owe considerable sums to Great Britain; we can only pay them with our produce.  To have a right to accuse others of injustice, we must be just ourselves; and how can we be so if we refuse to pay our debts to Great Britain?  That is what I cannot make out.”

The opposition was as yet within the law, and the national effort was as orderly as it was impassioned.  “There is agitation, there are meetings, there is mutual encouragement to the struggle, the provinces concert opposition together, the wrath against Great Britain grows and the abyss begins to yawn; but such are the habits of order among this people, that, in the midst of this immense ferment among the nation, it is scarcely possible to pick out even a few acts of violence here and there; up to the day when the uprising becomes general, the government of George III. can scarcely find, even in the great centres of opposition, such as Boston, any specious pretexts for its own violence” [M.  Cornelis de Witt, Histoire de Washington].  The declaration of independence was by this time becoming inevitable when Washington and Jefferson were still writing in this strain: