Here again may be cited the dispassionate opinion of Adam Smith:
"Though the policy of Great Britain with regard to the trade of her
colonies has been dictated by the same mercantile spirit as that of
other nations, it has, upon the whole, been less illiberal and
oppressive than that of any of them." To the same effect Mr Lecky: "It
is a gross ... misrepresentation to describe the commercial policy of
England as exceptionally tyrannical." In fact, the expense of
protecting Newfoundland and America against French attacks was serious
and constant. That the colonies owed contribution to that defence is
clear, for it would be involved in any other view that an American
enjoyed a natural right to be protected against France at the charges
of a Londoner. In the face of all this the colonies were conspicuously
and notoriously unable to agree upon any principle of allocating
grants. In this respect Newfoundland was no better than the American
colonies. "We should be extremely concerned," wrote a merchant
officially consulted on the point, "to see any species of taxes
introduced into this island which would inevitably be burdensome and
inconvenient to the trade and fishing in general, and we trust that in
the wisdom of His Majesty's Ministers no such innovation will take
place."

The attempt, then, to tax from home was defensible, and Chatham was
clearly wrong in denying its legality. On the other hand, to persevere
in the attempt was the folly of weakness, mistaking obstinacy for
strength.

It must be remembered, as a partial extenuation of English selfishness
in Newfoundland, that the long arm of England was ever extended for
the colony's protection, and that the charges therefor were defrayed
by the English taxpayer. Hence the view followed, naturally but