or
at Burton Pynsent, or at Hayes in Kent, where he would neither see
nor speak to anybody. But he still retained the privy seal, and still
retained the emoluments of office, and the king was afraid to deprive
him of them.

{A.D. 1768}

Parliament, in this session, extended the act which restricted the
East India Company's dividends to ten per cent.; but scarcely any
other business was transacted beside the voting of supplies. The king
prorogued parliament on the 10th of March, and on the 12th of that month
it was dissolved by proclamation, it having nearly completed its legal
term of seven years.

PROCEEDINGS IN AMERICA.

The new Revenue Act, which imposed duties on various articles of
merchandise, excited great resentment in America. It was looked upon by
the colonists, indeed, as a deceptive measure, having a similar object
to that of the Stamp Act, and it had the effect of reviving a question,
which the British parliament should have endeavoured to have consigned
to utter oblivion. The Americans, animated by a spirit of resistance,
would now no longer acknowledge that distinction between external and
internal taxation, on which they had at first grounded their claim
for relief. Their presses teemed with invectives against the British
legislature, and it was confidently asserted that England was resolved
to reduce the colonies to a state of abject slavery. The assembly of
Massachusets Bay took the lead in opposing the government, and it soon
engaged the other colonies to join in resisting the mother-country.
A petition was likewise sent by that house to the king, and letters,
signed by their speaker, to several of the British cabinet, containing
statements of their rights and grievances, and soliciting relief.

A letter was also sent to Mr. De Berdt, their agent in London,
instructing him to oppose the obnoxious measure on every ground of right
and policy. This letter adverted to the appropriation of the revenue
intended to be thus unconstitutionally raised--stating that it was to
supply a support for governors and judges, and a standing army. On both
these grounds, as well as its unconstitutional nature, the house opposed
it, remarking, on the subject of the standing army, in the following
terms, by way of remonstrance:--"As Englishmen and British subjects, we
have an aversion to a standing army, which we reckon dangerous to our
civil liberties; and considering the examples of ancient times, it seems
a