ere a judgment to be formed however of the spirit of colonial
government by a severe examination of its early frame-work, erroneous
conclusions would be drawn. In the worst times the sentiments and habits
of Englishmen tempered the operation of power. Settlers fresh from
English society could not discard the opinions and principles cherished
in Great Britain; nor could the rulers of the day forget that their
conduct would be judged, not by the standard of continental despotisms,
but by British systems of government. The establishment of British
courts of justice and the protection of English laws have been found
with few exceptions an impenetrable shield. The chief examples of
official wrong have been generally connected with the misappropriation
of public resources rather than invasions of personal liberty. How
different the despotism of a Spanish viceroy and the sternest rule of a
British governor! For the last twenty years cases of aggravated
oppression have been exceedingly rare. The genius of British freedom has
ever overshadowed the British colony, and awed the despotic ruler, while
it has encouraged and sheltered the feeblest colonist. The great defect
in official men has been their superciliousness and indolence, rather
than their tyranny, and the popular governors of this hemisphere have
gained the public esteem by their manners rather than their ability. A
genial temper and a feeling heart rarely failed to conciliate the
multitude, while distinguished talents have lost their immediate
influence when in union with a harsh, contemptuous, and fiery
spirit.[281]

For many years the press has exercised a powerful influence on the
affairs of government, and left no avenue of escape to official
ignorance and corruption. Even when jurors were selected by governors,
the most unmeasured denunciations were poured forth without fear of
prosecution. Associations for the redress of grievances have carried
their organizations to the very verge of constitutional order. A
democratic state certainly would never have tolerated the discussion of
its principles and authority in feeble dependencies. But the British
government, secure in its power and serenely conscious of its ability to
check an intrusion on its just authority, has encouraged rather than
repressed the freedom of public discussion and combination. The local
rulers, instructed by their superiors, have long permitted even the
licentiousness of the press. The strength