trating the strength and prosperity of the colonies, drove them to a more close and narrow survey of the foundation of parliamentary supremacy. Doubts were soon infused into their minds; and from doubts they passed by an easy transition to a denial, first of the power of taxation, and next of all authority whatever to bind them by its laws.[1] One of the most distinguished of our writers[2] during the contest admits, that he entered upon the inquiry " with a view and expectation of being able to trace some constitutional line between those cases, in which we ought, and those, in which we ought not to acknowledge the power of parliament over us. In the prosecution of his inquiries he became fully convinced, that such a line does not exist; and that there can be no medium between acknowledging and denying that power in all cases."
§ 193. If other colonies did not immediately arrive at the same conclusion, it was easy to foresee, that the struggle would ultimately be maintained upon the general ground; and that a common interest and a common desire of security, if not of independence, would gradually bring all the colonies to feel the absolute necessity of adhering to it, as their truest and safest defence.[3] In 1773, Massachusetts found no difficulty in contending in the broadest terms for an unlimited independence of parliament; and in a bold and decided tone denied all its power of legislation over them. A distinction was taken between subjection to parliament, and allegi-- ↑ 1 Jefferson's Corresp. 6, 7, 12, 104 to 116.
- ↑ 3 Wilson's Works, 203; Mass. State Papers, 339, 340.
- ↑ 3 Wilson's Works, 221, 222, 226, 227, 229, 237, 238; 2 Wilson's Works, 54, 55, 58 to 63; 1 Pitk. Hist. 242, 243, 246, 248, 249, 250; Mass. State Papers, 331, 333, 337, 339, 342 to 351, 352 to 364; 4 Debrett's Parl. Debates, 251, &c. note; Marsh. Hist. Colon, ch. 14, p. 412, 483; 1 Jefferson's Corresp. 6, 7, 12, 100, 104 to 116.
