amid diversities of government, the old ancestral repugnance to irresponsible authority. Before the reign of King Charles II. all the colonies in America possessed legislatures in which the people had a distinct voice in the enactment of their own laws. and the imposition of their own taxes.

No formal or extensive political connection had as yet been established between them. From this, indeed, they were prohibited by the very terms of their relation to the mother country. But, notwithstanding this, every circumstance seemed to conspire for their union. "All the people of this country," says Mr. Jay, "were the subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here flowed from the head of the British Empire. They were, in a strict sense, fellow-subjects, and in a variety of respects one people."

Each colony was independent of every other, and none could confer rights and privileges to be exercised elsewhere; but no

1 STORY'S "Com. Abridgment," ch. xvii. p. 75. Boston, 1833.

alien law had ever excited popular antagonism, -no war between them had left behind it the desire for future revenge. On the contrary, uninterrupted peace, and a free commercial intercourse, secured by the legislation of one parent State, had engendered feelings of mutual goodwill.

Thus drawn together by the cord of one common origin, protected by one "common law," and acknowledging one common sovereignty, we are not surprised to note very early attempts at "Union " in spite of prohibitions. In 1643 the New England Colonies formed a "perpetual" league, offensive and defensive. This league existed for forty years its interests were superintended by a delegated Congress. Again, in 1754, a Congress of Commissioners, representing the New England and several of the central colonies, resolved that a Union was absolutely necessary for their preservation; and in 1765, after the passing of the Stamp Act, nine of the Colonies sent delegates to a Congress at New York, and declared their inherent right of self-taxation and trial by jury.

In 1774 a still more formal attempt at union was made by Massachusetts. At her instance a Congress of Delegates from all the colonies assembled at Philadelphia. Referring their appointment "to "to the good people of these colonies," they regularly organized themselves by the adoption of fundamental rules and a declaration of rights. They claimed to be entitled to the "common law" of England, and the benefit of such English statutes as they had respectively found applicable to their circumstances; and they adopted a petition of grievances to the Crown, and demanded redress.

But such redress came not. In vain was the heated oratory of Chatham and the philosophic eloquence of Burke exerted on their behalf in the English Parliament. Both these great men urged upon Lord North to recall the troops and undo all legislation respecting the colonies since the year 1765. Petitions and remonstrances were stifled, or their prayers disregarded.

The crisis of colonial empire had come and passed. The hillsides and river - banks of

New England were already ringing with sharp peals of musketry. The King's troops and the determined colonists had met, and the first blood had been shed. On the 26th May, 1775, Parliament separated, declaring that "if the Americans should persist in rebellion, and the sword must be drawn, the faithful Commons would do everything in their power to support his Majesty and maintain the supremacy of the Legislature." Almost on the same day, the second Congress of Colonial Delegates met in Philadelphia. On this occasion they organized a general system of physical resistance, and adopted a preamble which stated that the exercise of every kind of authority, under the crown of England, should be suppressed." They established a general post; they emitted a large amount of paper money, pledging the united colonies for its redemption, and they appointed General Washington commander-in-chief of the forces.

It is more needful, however, to our present purpose to point out that both these important Congresses of 1774 and 1775 had consisted of delegates chosen partly by the representa

D

tive branches of the colonial legislatures, but principally by conventions of the people, and in some instances the choice of the former was confirmed by the latter.

"Thus was organized," says Mr. Story,1 "under the auspices and with the consent of the people, acting directly in their primary sovereign capacity, and without the intervention of the functionaries, to whom ordinary powers of government were delegated in the colonies, the first general or National Government, which has been very aptly called 'the Revolutionary Government,' since in its origin and powers it was wholly conducted upon revolutionary principles. The Congress thus assembled exercised, de facto and de jure, a sovereign authority, not as as the delegated agents of the governments de facto of the colonies, but in virtue of original powers derived from the People."

On the 4th July, 1776, the long-anticipated result arrived, and Congress passed the celebrated "Declaration of Independence." The foreshadowing idea of unity is embodied

1 STORY'S Commentaries, Abridgment, ch. i. 85.