ed that her son should have the control. Her constant
injunction to the young Prince was, "Be King, George, be King!" so
that when he came to power George was determined to be King if
self-will could make him one.[2]

[2] See Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p.xxv, S28.

But beneath this spirit of self-will there was a moral principle. In
being King, George III intended to carry out a reform such as neither
George I nor George II could have accomplished, supposing that either
one had possessed the desire to undertake it.

The great Whig (SS479, 507) families of rank and wealth had now held
uninterrupted possession of the government for nearly half a century.
Their influence was so supreme that the sovereign had practically
become a mere cipher, dependent for his authority on the political
support which he received. The King was resolved that this state of
things should continue no longer. He was determined to reassert the
royal authority, secure a government which should reflect his
principles, and have a ministry to whom he could dictate, instead of
one that dictated to him.

For a long time he struggled in vain, but at last succeeded, and found
in Lord North a Prime Minister (S534) who bowed to the royal will, and
endeavored to carry out George III's favorite policy of "governing
for, but never by, the people." That policy finally called forth
Mr. Dunning's famous resolution in the House of Commons (1780). It
boldly declared the King's influence "had increased, was increasing,
and ought to be diminished." But his Majesty's measures had other
consequences, which were more far-reaching and disastrous than any one
in the House of Commons then imagined.

549. Taxation of the American Colonies.

The wars of the two preceding reigns had largely increased the
National Debt (S503), and the Government resolved to compel the
American colonies to share in a more direct degree than they had yet
done the constantly increasing burden of taxation. England then, like
all other European countries, regarded her colonies in a totally
different way from that in which she considers the colonies she now
holds.

It was an open question at that time whether colonial legislative
rights existed save as a matter of concession or favor on the part of
the Home Government. It is true that the Government had found it
expedient to grant or recognize such rights, but it had seldom defined
them clearly, and in many im