Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/220

188 Universal authority of Parliament denied. [1774 of the empire upon the close of the French war in America, shortly afterwards put the claim of right, plainly following on the first position, universally; Parliament had the right to legislate for the colonies, " in all cases whatsoever." As the first claim was denied in the colonies, so still more, of course, was the second. Thus was raised one of the greatest issues of legal right which has ever stirred the English race. Well for the world that there were men in America equal to their part in it ; for the dispute was of a kind to affect the history of the world ; the future of distant and foreign races, as well as of all those of English blood, might be turned by it. During all the time embraced in the troubles now under con- sideration, all Americans, Whigs or "patriots," with few exceptions, as well as Tories or "loyalists," were devoted to the colonial relation. The stand taken by the Whigs against the mother-country was taken accordingly ; and it should be distinctly observed that their opposition to the policy adopted by the British government was the opposition of colonists, seeking their ends for the colonies as such. In other words, their theory of rights was a theory of the colonial relation between Great Britain and her American possessions, the thirteen colonies ; they believed it to be the true theory of rights touching that relation. The sincerity of the professions of loyalty by the Whig or generally dominant party in the colonies was indeed doubted in England and sneered at by the Tories in America ; but the profession was stoutly made throughout the time in question, and there is evidence enough that it was made with sincerity. But even if it were true that the Whigs were already bent upon separation, the basis of their contention was the colonial relation ; and the subject must be considered upon the ground upon which it was put. The Continental Congress of September, 1774, put the claim of exemption of the colonies from the general authority of Parliament on three grounds of legal right, to wit, rights fixed (a) by the "im- mutable laws" of human nature, (b) by the British Constitution, and (c) by the colonial charters. How was the claim supported ? How was it opposed in America, that is by the loyalists? The several grounds will be considered in order, by way of answer. First, then, of the laws of nature. (a) Laws of Nature. The contention on this point, beginning with the Stamp Act troubles, in 1764, was, that the rights of the colonists were not all or chiefly derived from the sovereign power of Great Britain, or from Great Britain in any way. Rights were not necessarily created by legislatures or by municipal law; they were not necessarily created at all. The greatest rights were original, inherent in man ; they arose from law indeed, but from that law only which, through the social instinct, draws