Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/215

 1765] The American theory. 183 colonies. "The restraints imposed by several late Acts of Parliament on the trade of this province," declared the General Assembly of Pennsyl- vania, in 1765, "must of necessity be attended with the most fatal consequences." The balance of trade between Great Britain and the colonies was much against the colonies. Formerly the trade with foreign countries enabled them to keep up their credit with Great Britain, by applying the balance they had gained against foreigners ; now the trade was so fettered that it could not be carried on with profit. The supply of coin in the country was small; and, such was the effect of the legislation in question, it could not be much increased. Once exhausted, as soon it must be, it could not well be replaced ; no gold or silver mines had been discovered. How was the balance against them to be dis- charged ? And what of the future ? To go on was ruin. So in effect Dulany wrote and lamented. Moderate men and houses of legislature in the colonies could not believe that Parliament had had accurate knowledge ; what reason, said Governor Hopkins, could be given for a law to cramp trade and ruin the colonies, which must at the same time lessen the consumption of British goods ? Perhaps, as Hamilton later thought, it was punishment ; if it was, the Massachusetts House of Representatives feared that the colonies had been misrepresented as undutiful and disaffected, and so stated to the ministry. But feeling ran high, and England persisted after hearing. The issue then was this the English theory was that the colonies should be of advantage to the mother-country; their prosperity was desired, but desired to that end; the colonies must trade with the mother-country, and, with trifling exceptions, not elsewhere. The American theory was that the colonies should indeed be of advantage to Great Britain, but not to their own disadvantage ; intercourse should be " mutually advantageous." Settled American theory did not reach the point afterwards reached in England, that the government of the colonies should be for the benefit of the colonies alone, though Hamilton, Dulany and others fell little if at all short of it. The subject was peculiar to the colonial relation, and could find no place in the State or Federal constitutions; there was no territorial separation of the federal government from that of the States; all commerce was necessarily carried on with or through the States. The Constitution therefore needed only to declare for uniformity of duties, imposts, and excises, and against preferences in commerce of the ports of one State over those of another. There were a few other complaints falling under the head of abuse of authority ; complaints that private citizens were unnecessarily disarmed, that armies were kept in the colonies, without consent, in time of peace, and that soldiers were wrongfully quartered in private houses. These things, with some variation, found their way into State and Federal constitutions. But the Federal Constitution recognises the right of the CH. VI.