named the judges, removed them at pleasure, fixed
the amount of their salaries, and paid them out of funds that were independent of legislative grants.
The system, established as yet in one only of the older provinces, was designed for all. In no part of the continent was opposition to the British
government more deeply rooted, more rational and steadfast, than in New York, where the popular lawyers continued their appeals, through the weekly press, to the public mind, and, supported by the great landholders, excited the people to menace resistance and to forebode independence.
It began to be widely known, that at the end of the war some general regulation of the governments of the colonies would be attempted; and the officers of the crown who wished to escape the responsibility attached to a dependence on the people, were quite certain that a provision would be made for their independent support.1
The purpose of raising a revenue by parliament at the peace was no longer concealed; and chastisement was prepared for Maryland
, the refractory provinces which had so much tasked the attention of the great English lawyers, Mansfield
, Charles Yorke
, and Pratt
The perseverance of Maryland
in disobeying the royal requisition was laid before the king, who expressed what was called ‘just displeasure’ at the ‘obstinate’ disobedience of the Assembly of that province.
He censured them as not ‘animated by a sense of their duty to their king and country.’
‘Though there is little room,’ added Egremont
, ‘to expect a change in persons who seem determined to adhere to their own ’