establishment on the Maumee
, the Wabash
, and the Ohio
, by force; or, if his strength was insufficient, to summon the intruder to depart, under highest perils for disobedience.1
Plausible reasons, therefore, existed for the memorial of Hutchinson
; but the more cherished purpose of those who directed the councils of the Congress
, was the secure enjoyment of the emoluments of office without responsibility to the respective American provinces.
‘From past experiments,’ added Clinton
jointly, as they forwarded the ostensibly innocent petition, ‘we are convinced that the colonies will never agree on quotas, which must, therefore, be settled by royal instructions.’2
‘It is necessary for us likewise to observe to your lordships,’ thus they proceeded to explain their main design, ‘on many occasions there has been so little regard paid in several colonies to the royal instructions, that it is requisite to think of some method to enforce them.’3
What methods should be followed to reduce a factious colony had already been settled by the great masters of English jurisprudence.
Two systems of government had long been at variance; the one founded on prerogative, the other on the supremacy of parliament.
The first opinion had been professed by many of the earlier lawyers, who considered the colonies as dependent on the crown alone.
Even after the Revolution, the chief justice
at New York, in 1702, declared, that, ‘in the plantations the ’