with most difficulty by those of the parent land.
moral world knows only one rule of right; but men in their pride create differences among themselves.
The ray from the eternal fountain of justice suffers a deflection, as it falls from absolute princes on their subjects, from an established church on heretics, from masters of slaves on men in bondage, from hereditary nobles on citizens and peasants, from a privileged caste on an oppressed one.
Something of this perverseness of pride has prevailed in the metropolitan state towards its colonies; it is stamped indelibly on the statute book of Great Britain
, where all may observe and measure its intensity.
That same pride ruled without check in the palace, and was little restrained in the house of lords: it broke forth in the conduct of the administration and its subordinates; it tinged the British
colonial state papers of the last century so thoroughly, that historians who should follow them implicitly as guides, would be as erroneous in their facts as the ministers of that day were in their policy.
This haughty feeling has so survived the period of revolutionary strife, that even now it sometimes hangs as a heavy bias on the judgment even of Englishmen professing liberal opinions.
more easily recovered their equanimity.
They intended resistance to a trifling tax and a preamble, and they won peace with liberty; the vastness of the acquisition effaced the remembrance of a transient attempt at oppression, and left no rankling discontent behind.
The tone of our writers has often been deferentially forbearing; those of our countrymen who have written most fully of the war of our revolution, brought to their task no prejudices against England