twenty thousand pounds a year was barely enough. England had an
aristocracy the proudest in the world, for it had not only rank
but wealth. The English people were certain of the invincible
superiority of their nation. Every Englishman was taught, as
Disraeli said of a later period, to believe that he occupied a
position better than any one else of his own degree in any other
country in the world. The merchant in England was believed to
surpass all others in wealth and integrity, the manufacturer to
have no rivals in skill, the British sailor to stand in a class
by himself, the British officer to express the last word in
chivalry. It followed, of course, that the motherland was
superior to her children overseas. The colonies had no
aristocracy, no great landowners living in stately palaces. They
had almost no manufactures. They had no imposing state system
with places and pensions from which the fortunate might reap a
harvest of ten or even twenty thousand pounds a year. They had no
ancient universities thronged by gilded youth who, if noble,
might secure degrees without the trying ceremony of an
examination. They had no Established Church with the ancient
glories of its cathedrals. In all America there was not even a
bishop. In spite of these contrasts the English Whigs insisted
upon the political equality with themselves of the American
colonists. The Tory squire, however, shared Samuel Johnson's view
that colonists were either traders or farmers and that colonial
shopkeeping society was vulgar and contemptible.

George III was ill-fitted by nature to deal with the crisis. The
King was not wholly without natural parts, for his own firm will
had achieved what earlier kings had tried and failed to do; he
had mastered Parliament, made it his obedient tool and himself