[Footnote 247: "The main body of the French army, which, after the

battle of the Plains of Abraham, retired to Montreal, and which still

consisted of ten battalions of regulars, had been reinforced by 6,000

Canadian militia and a body of Indians. Here the Marquis de Vaudreuil,

Governor-General of Canada, had fixed his head-quarters and determined

to make his last stand. For this purpose (after the unsuccessful attempt

of M. de Levi to retake Quebec) he called in all his detachments, and

collected around him the whole force of the colony." (Holmes' Annals,

Vol. II., pp. 98, 99.)]

[Footnote 248: "In the month of April, when the Upper St. Lawrence was

so open as to admit of transportation by water, his artillery, military

stores and heavy baggage were embarked at Montreal and fell down the

river, under convoy of six frigates; and M. de Levi, after a march of

ten days, arrived with his army at Point aux Tremble, within a few miles

of Quebec. General Murray, to whom the care of maintaining the English

conquest had been entrusted, had taken every precaution to preserve it,

but his soldiers had suffered so by the extreme cold of winter, and by

the want of vegetables and fresh provisions, that instead of 5,000, the

original number of the garrison, there were not at this time above 3,000

men fit for service. With this small but valiant body he resolved to

meet him in the field; and on the 28th of April marched out to the

Heights of Abraham, where, near Sillery, he attacked the French under M.

de Levi with great impetuosity. He was received with firmness; and after

a fierce encounter, finding himself outflanked and in danger of being

surrounded by superior numbers, he called off his troops and retired

into the city. In this action the loss of the English was near 1,000

men, and that of the French still greater. The French general lost no

time in improving his victory. On the very evening of the battle he

opened trenches before the town; but it was the 11th of May before he

could mount his batteries and bring his guns to bear upon the

fortifications. By that time General Murray, who had been indefatigable,

had completed some outworks, and planted so immense an artillery on its

ramparts, that the fire was very superior to that of the besiegers, and

in a manner silenced their batteries. A British fleet most opportunely

arriving a few days after, M. de Levi immediately raised the siege and

precipitately retired to Montreal." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., pp. 98,

99.)]

[Footnote 249: "General Amherst made application to Massachusetts for

the same number of men for the service of the next year as they had

raised the last (1759). _The reduction of Canada was still the object.

This alone was found to be a sufficient stimulus to the Assembly, and

they needed no other arguments from the Governor. The generous

compensations which had been every year made by Parliament not only

alleviated the burden of taxes, which otherwise would have been heavy,

but by the importation of such large sums of specie increased commerce_,

and it was the opinion of some _that the war added to the wealth of the

province_, though the compensation did not amount to one-half the

charges of government.

"The Assembly, at the session in January, 1760, first granted a large

bounty to the men in garrison at Louisburg and Nova Scotia, to encourage

them to continue in the service. A vote was then passed for raising

5,000 men more, upon the same encouragement as those of the last year

had received. Soon after the Governor received letters from Mr. Pitt

making the like requests as had been made by him the last year, and

giving the same assurance of compensation. At the beginning of the year

the English interest in Canada was in a precarious state. Quebec had

been besieged in the spring, after a battle in which General Murray had

lost a considerable part of his garrison. Fortunately, Lord Colville

(with the English fleet) arrived at a critical time and caused the siege

to be raised.

"The danger being over, and there being no probability of any French

force from Europe, it seemed agreed that all Canada must fall in the

course of the summer. The Massachusetts enlistments went on but slowly.

Only 3,300 of the proposed 5,000 men enlisted, and 700 only remained in

garrison at Louisburg and Nova Scotia." (Hutchinson's History of

Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp. 79, 80.)]

[Footnote 250: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., pp. 99, 100. Russell's Europe,

Vol. V., Letter 34.

General Amherst, in his orders to the army, dated "Camp before Montreal,

8th September, 1760," announces this great event in the following words:

"The general sees with infinite pleasure the successes which have

crowned the indefatigable efforts of his Majesty's troops and faithful

subjects in North America. The Marquis Vandreuil has capitulated the

troops of France in Canada; they have laid down their arms, and are to

serve no more during the war. The whole country submits to the dominion

of Great Britain. The three armies are entitled to the general's thanks

on this occasion, and he assures them that he will take the first

opportunity of acquainting his Majesty with the zeal and bravery which

have always been exerted by the officers and soldiers of the regular and

provincial troops, and also by his faithful Indian allies. The general

is confident that when the troops are informed that the country is the

King's, they will not disgrace themselves by the least appearance of

inhumanity or unsoldierlike behaviour by taking any plunder; but that

the Canadians, now become British subjects, may feel the good effects of

his Majesty's protection."]

[Footnote 251: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 113.

There were still troubles on the borders of some of the provinces with

tribes of Indians, but none to excite serious alarm, and hostile Indians

were soon brought to submission. The majority of the high-spirited and

powerful Cherokee nation spurned every offer of peace; but

Lieutenant-Colonel James Grant, in command of the Highlanders and a

provincial regiment raised in South Carolina, to act in conjunction with

the regular forces, with the addition of some Indian allies--in all

about 2,600 men--defeated them, destroyed their towns, magazines and

cornfields, and drove them for shelter and subsistence to the mountains,

when their chieftains solicited peace.

"This reduction of the Cherokees was among the last humbling strokes

given to the power of France in North America." (Heevatt, II., 244-254;

quoted in Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 108).]

[Footnote 252: Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 256,

257.]

[Footnote 253: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p.

79.]

[Footnote 254: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p.

101.]

[Footnote 255: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp.

101, 102.]

CHAPTER IX.

RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH FOREIGN

COUNTRIES.

I. The position of England in respect to the other European Powers after

the Peace of Paris, 1763.

Mr. Bancroft remarks: "At the peace of 1763, the fame of England was

exalted throughout Europe above that of all other nations. She had

triumphed over those whom she called her hereditary enemies, and

retained half a continent as the monument of her victories. Her American

dominions stretched without dispute from the Atlantic to the

Mississippi, from the Gulf of Mexico to Hudson's Bay; and in her older

possessions that dominion was rooted firmly in the affections of the

colonists as in their institutions and laws."[256]

The envy and fears of Europe were excited at this vast extension of

British territory and power, which they regarded as the foundation of

her still more formidable future greatness. "Her navy, her commerce, and

her manufactures had greatly increased when she held but a part of the

continent, and when she was bounded by the formidable powers of France

and Spain. Her probable future greatness, when without a rival, with a

growing vent for her manufactures and increasing employment for her

marine, threatened to destroy that balance of power which European

sovereigns have for a long time endeavoured to preserve. Kings are

republicans with respect to each other, and behold with democratic

jealousy any one of their order towering above the rest. The

aggrandizement of one tends to excite a combination, or at least the

wishes of many, to reduce him to the common level. From motives of this

kind, the naval superiority of Great Britain was received with jealousy

by her neighbours. They were in general disposed to favour any

convulsion which promised a diminution of her overgrown power."[257]

This great increase of the naval and territorial power of Great Britain

excited apprehension at home as well as jealousies abroad. Some of her

own statesmen and philanthropists entertained doubts as to whether the

extent and diversity of her vast territorial acquisitions would add to

the strength or happiness of the mother country; and the policy of

centralization and uniformity decided upon, created the discord and

hastened the disintegration which reflective minds had apprehended.

II. The position of the American Colonies in regard to England and other

nations clearly signalized a system of government which the English

statesmen of the times failed to appreciate. The maxim of the King was

not merely to reign, but to rule; and the policy of his Ministers, of

successive Administrations, was to enfeeble what was colonial and to

strengthen what was imperial; whereas the extension of colonial

territory had brought a large accession of colonial experience and

intelligence, which required to be entwined around the throne by the

silken cords of kindness and interest, instead of being bandaged to

England by 29 Acts of Parliament, every one of which indicated the loss

of some sacred birthright or privilege of Englishmen and their posterity

as soon as they emigrated from the eastern to the western shores of the

Atlantic. Those who emigrated to or were born in America were no less

Englishmen than those who remained or were born in England, and were

entitled to all the rights and privileges of Englishmen; among which is

the election of representatives who make laws and provide means for

their government. The original design of colonization by the British

Government was doubtless the extension of its power; the design of

English merchants and manufacturers in promoting colonization was

obviously the extension of their trade, and therefore their own

enrichment; while the design of the colonists themselves, in leaving

their native land and becoming adventurers and settlers in new

countries, was as manifestly the improvement of their own condition and

that of their posterity. As long as the threefold design of these three

parties to colonization harmonized, there could be no cause or occasion

of collision between them, and they would cordially co-operate in

advancing the one great object of growing national greatness by

enlarging the commerce and dominions of Great Britain. This was the case

in the earlier stages of American colonization. The colonists needed the

naval and diplomatic protection of England against foreign invasion, and

the manufactures of England for their own wants and conveniences, while

England needed the productions of the colonial forests and waters. The

colonial trade became a monopoly of England, and its transportation to

and from the colonies was confined to English ships and sailors. Even

manufactures in the colonies were forbidden, or restricted, as well as

their trade with foreign countries, except by way of England; so that

the colonies became so many trading ports for English merchandise, and

the American traders were little other than factors of English

merchants.

However this system of monopoly and restriction might answer the

purposes of English merchants and manufacturers, might contribute to

build up the mercantile navy of England, and even be politic on the part

of Government in colonial infancy, it could not fail ere long to cause

friction with the colonies, and was utterly unsuitable to their

circumstances as they advanced to manhood.[258] As the colonies

increased in wealth and population, their commerce increased with each

other and with the mother country, and overflowed to the French and

Spanish colonies in the West Indies. Even before the termination of the

war of 1755, a considerable commerce had been carried on between the

British and Spanish colonies; the latter needed many of the productions

and importations of the former, and the former needed the gold and

silver, molasses and sugar, of the latter. The British colonies sent

lumber, fish, and large quantities of goods imported from England, to

the Spanish colonies, and received chiefly in payment gold and silver,

with which they made remittances to England for the goods purchased

there.[259] Such was the position of the colonies in respect to Great

Britain and other European Powers at the peace of Paris in 1763; and

such the friendly and affectionate feelings of the colonies towards the

mother country down to that period.

III. The treaty of Paris was ratified in February, 1763; and on the 17th

of March following, the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted among the

estimates the following item, which was adopted by the Commons:

"Upon account, to enable his Majesty to give a proper compensation to

the respective provinces in North America, for the expenses incurred by

them in the levying, clothing, and paying of the troops raised by the

same, according to the active vigour and strenuous efforts of the

respective provinces shall be thought by his Majesty to merit, £133,333

6s. 8d."

The several provinces gratefully acknowledged the compensation granted

them; of which Massachusetts received the largest share.

This was the last practical recognition on the part of the British

Government of the loyal co-operation of the colonies in the war which

established the supremacy of Great Britain in North America. From that

time forward the instructions, regulations, and measures of the British

Government seem to have been dictated by a jealousy of the growing

wealth and power of the colonies, and to have been designed to weaken

the colonies in order to strengthen the parent state. The policy of the

British Administration was undoubtedly to extinguish all military spirit

in the colonies, by creating a standing army which the colonies were to

support, but wholly independent of them; to discountenance and forbid

colonial manufactures, so as to render the colonies entirely dependent

upon Great Britain for manufactured goods, hardware, and tools of every

description; to destroy their trade with foreign countries by virtually

prohibitory duties, so as to compel the colonies to go to the English

market for every article of grocery or luxury, in whatever climate or

country produced; to restrict the colonial shipping, as well as

productions, to British ports alone, and even to tax the trade of the

colonies with each other. All the monies arising from the various duties

thus imposed were to be paid, not into the provincial treasuries, as

heretofore, but into the English exchequer, and to be at the disposal of

the British Parliament.

Had the British Government regarded the colonists as Englishmen in their

rights and privileges as well as in their duties and obligations; had

the British policy been to develop the manufactures and resources of the

American colonies equally with those of England, and to leave to their

local Legislatures (the only Parliaments in which the colonists had

representation by their own election) to legislate on all purely

domestic matters, to dispose of all colonial revenues, and to provide

for their own protection, as before the war with France, and as is done

in the provinces and Dominion of Canada, I doubt not but the American

colonies would have remained in heart and policy an integral portion of

the British empire, and become the strong right arm of Great Britain in

regard to both national resources and national strength. I cannot,

therefore, but regard the mistaken policy of the King and his Ministers

as the primary cause of the alienation and severance of the American

colonies from the mother country.

IV. The proceedings after the peace of Paris, 1763, which caused the

alienation of the colonies from Great Britain, commenced on the part of

the mother country, towards which, at that time, the language of the

colonies was most affectionate and grateful. The first act of the

British Government which caused disquiet in the colonies was the

rigorous enforcement of the Navigation Act--an Act first passed by the

Commonwealth Parliament more than a century before, which had been

amended and extended by successive Acts under Charles the Second, which

had been beneficial both to the mother country and the colonies, which

had given to the naval and mercantile marine of Great Britain their

superiority, but which had, in the application of its provisions to the

trade between the English, Spanish, and French colonies of America,

become almost obsolete by the common consent and practice of colonial

governors, custom-house officers, and merchants. But shortly after the

treaty of Paris instructions were sent to the colonies, directing the

strict enforcement of the Navigation Act. "On the 10th of March, 1764,

the House of Commons agreed to a number of resolutions respecting the

American trade; upon which a Bill was brought in, and passed into a law,

laying heavy duties on the articles imported into the colonies from the

French and other islands of the West Indies, and ordered these duties to

be paid in specie into the exchequer of Great Britain. The Americans

complained much of this new law, and of the unexampled hardship of being

first deprived of obtaining specie, and next being ordered to pay the

new duties in specie into the treasury at London, which they said must

speedily drain them of all the specie they had. But what seemed

particularly hard upon them was a Bill brought in the same session, and

passed into a law, 'to _restrain_ the currency of paper money in the

colonies.'

"At the end of the session the King thanked the House of Commons for the

'wise regulations which had been established to augment the public

revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of his

Crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great

Britain.'"[262]

Though the Bill and regulations referred to legalized in a manner the

heretofore illicit trade between the colonies and the French and Spanish

West India islands, they practically ruined the trade by the burden of

duties imposed, and thus distressed and ruined many who were engaged in

it.[263] It is not surprising that such a policy of restricting both

the import and export trade of the colonies to England, apart from the

methods of enforcing it, should produce general dissatisfaction in the

colonies, and prompt to combinations against such extortion, and for the

supply of their own wants, as far as possible independent of English

manufactures. Popular meetings were held, and associations were formed

in several provinces, pledging their members against purchasing or

wearing clothing of English manufacture, and to set about manufacturing

woollens, cottons, etc., for themselves, the materials for which they

had in great abundance of their own production. Ladies and gentlemen of

the wealthiest and most fashionable classes of society appeared in

homespun; and merchants pledged themselves to order no more goods from

England, and to countermand the orders they had previously given.[264]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 256: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap. v., p. 78.

"The Spaniards having taken part in the war, were, at the termination of

it, induced to relinquish to the same Power both East and West Florida

(in exchange for Cuba). This peace gave Great Britain possession of an

extent of country equal in dimensions to several of the kingdoms of

Europe." (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 391.)]

[Footnote 257: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap.

v., pp. 321, 322.]

[Footnote 258: "From the first settlement of English America till the

close of the war of 1755, the general conduct of Great Britain towards

her colonies affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to

colonization. From that era, it is equally worthy of the attention of

those who wish for the reduction of great empires to small ones. In the

first period, Great Britain regarded the provinces as instruments of

commerce. Without the care of their internal police, or seeking a

revenue from them, she contented herself with the monopoly of their

trade. She treated them as a judicious mother does her dutiful children.

They shared in every privilege belonging to her native sons, and but

slightly felt the inconveniences of subordination. Small was the

catalogue of grievances with which even democratic jealousy charged the

parent state, antecedent to the period before mentioned. Till the year

1764, the colonial regulations seemed to have no other object but the

common good of the whole empire. Exceptions to the contrary were few,

and had no appearance of system. When the approach of the colonies to

manhood made them more capable of resisting impositions, Great Britain

changed her ancient system, under which her colonies had long

flourished. When policy would rather have dictated a relaxation of

authority, she rose in her demands and multiplied her restraints."

(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., page 323).]

[Footnote 259: "This trade, though it did not clash with the spirit of

the British navigation laws, was forbidden by their letter. On account

of the advantages which all parties, and particularly Great Britain,

reaped from this intercourse, it had long been winked at by persons in

power[260]; but at the period before mentioned (1764), some new

regulations were adopted by which it was almost destroyed.[261] This was

effected by cutters whose commanders were enjoined to take the usual

custom-house oaths, and to act in the capacity of revenue officers. So

sudden a stoppage of an accustomed and beneficial commerce, by an

unusually rigid execution of old laws, was a serious blow to the

northern colonies. It was their misfortune that, though they stood in

need of vast quantities of British manufactures, their country produced

very little that afforded a direct remittance to pay for them. They were

therefore under the necessity of seeking elsewhere a market for their

produce, and, by a circuitous route, acquiring the means of supporting

their credit with the mother country. This they had found by trading

with the Spanish and French colonies in their neighbourhood. From them

they acquired gold, silver, and valuable commodities, the ultimate

profits of which centred in Great Britain. This intercourse gave life to

business of every denomination, and established a reciprocal circulation

of money and merchandise, to the benefit of all parties concerned. Why a

trade essential to the colonies, and which, so far from being

detrimental, was indirectly advantageous to Great Britain, should be so

narrowly watched, so severely restrained, was not obvious to the

Americans. Instead of viewing the parent state, as formerly, in the

light of an affectionate mother, they conceived her as beginning to be

influenced by the narrow views of an illiberal stepdame."--_Ib._, pp.

324, 325.]

[Footnote 260: Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, in a letter to Richard

Jackson, Grenville's Secretary in the Exchequer, September, 1763, says,

"The real cause of the illicit trade in this Province (Massachusetts)

has been _the indulgence of the officers of the Customs_; and we are

told that the cause of this indulgence has been that they are quartered

upon for more than their legal fees, and that without bribery and

corruption they must starve."

As a specimen of this "bribery and corruption," the deposition on oath

of the Deputy Collector of his Majesty's Customs at the port of Salem is

given, to the effect that every time he had been in the office it had

been customary for the Collector to receive of the masters of the

vessels entering from Lisbon casks of wine, boxes of fruit, etc., which

was a gratuity for suffering their vessels to be entered with salt or

ballast only, and passing over unnoticed such cargoes of wine, fruit,

etc., which were prohibited to be imported into his Majesty's

plantations; part of which wine, fruit, etc., the Collector used to

share with Governor Barnard. (Bancroft's History of the United States,

Vol. V., Chap, ix., p. 158, in a note.)]

[Footnote 261: "The sad story of colonial oppression commenced in 1764.

Great Britain then adopted regulations respecting her colonies which,

after disturbing the ancient harmony of the two countries for about

twelve years, terminated in the dismemberment of the empire. These

consisted in restricting their former commerce, but more especially in

subjecting them to taxation by the British Parliament. By adhering to

the spirit of her Navigation Act, in the course of a century the trade

of Great Britain had increased far beyond the expectation of her most

sanguine sons; but by rigidly enforcing the strict letter of the same in

a different situation of public affairs, effects directly the reverse

were produced."--_Ib._, p. 324.]

[Footnote 262: Prior Documents; or a Collection of Interesting Authentic

Papers relating to the Dispute between Great Britain and America,

showing the causes and progress of that misunderstanding from 1764 to

1775, pp. 1, 2; London, 1777.

"Four great wars within seventy years had overwhelmed Great Britain with

heavy debts and excessive taxation. Her recent conquests, so far from

relieving her embarrassments, had greatly increased that debt, which

amounted now to £140,000,000, near $700,000,000. Even in the midst of

the struggle, in the success of which they had so direct an interest,

the military contributions of the colonial assemblies had been sometimes

reluctant and capricious, and always irregular and unequal. They might,

perhaps, refuse to contribute at all towards a standing army in time of

peace, of which they would naturally soon become jealous. It seemed

necessary, therefore, by some exertion of metropolitan authority, to

extract from the colonies for this purpose a regular and certain

revenue." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II. Chap.

xxviii., p. 516.)

This was avowed by the great commoner, Pitt himself, the special friend

of America. "In the course of the war between France and England, some

of the colonies made exertions so far beyond their equitable quota as to

merit a reimbursement from the national treasury; but this was not

universally the case. In consequence of internal discord, together with

their greater domestic security, the necessary supplies had not been

raised in due time by others of the provincial assemblies. That a

British Minister should depend on the colonial assemblies for the

execution of his plans, did not well accord with the decisive genius of

Pitt; but it was not prudent, by any innovation, to irritate the

colonies during a war in which, from local circumstances, their

exertions were peculiarly beneficial. The advantages that would result

from an ability to draw forth the resources of the colonies, by the same

authority which commanded the wealth of the mother country, might, in

these circumstances, have suggested the idea of taxing the colonies by

authority of the British Parliament. Mr. Pitt is said to have told Dr.

Franklin that 'when the war closed, if he should be in the Ministry, he

would take measures to prevent the colonies from having a power to

refuse or delay the supplies that might be wanted for national

purposes,' but he did not mention what those measures should be."

(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 320, 321.)]

[Footnote 263: In the work mentioned in last note, "Prior Documents,"

etc., extracts of letters are given, showing the effects of the acts and

regulations of commerce, even in the West Indies. I give one of these

extracts as a specimen:

_Extract of a letter from Kingston, in Jamaica, to a merchant in London,

dated January 27th, 1765._

"Kingston, which used to be a place of great trade and hurry, is become

as still as a desert since we were so wise as to banish our best

friends, the Spaniards; and now the current of that valuable commerce is

turned in favour of the French and the Dutch, who have made their ports

free, and, taking the advantage of our misconduct, have promised them

safety, and so deal with them for all the European goods, upon the same

terms as the English did. Were I to depend upon the sale of goods I had

from you, I should not be able to remit the money these two or three

years."

_Extract of a letter from Jamaica, to a friend in London, dated May

12th, 1763:_

"We are in the most deplorable state ever known in the island; the

channel through which all the money we had came among us, is entirely

stopped up."--_Ib._, p. 4.]

[Footnote 264: Prior Documents, etc., pp. 4, 5. Annual Register, Vol

VII., Chap. vi.

"The Act which gave rise to these movements and combinations against

importing goods from England, passed in the spring of 1764, was known as

the 'Sugar Act,' reducing by one-half the duties imposed by the old

'Molasses Act' on foreign sugar and molasses imported into the colonies;

levying duties on coffee, pimento, French and East India goods, and

wines from Madeira and the Azores, which hitherto had been free; and

adding iron and lumber to the 'enumerated articles' which could not be

exported except to England. This Act was the first Act ever passed by

Parliament which avowed the purpose, as it did in its preamble, of

'raising a _revenue_ for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting

and securing his Majesty's dominions in America.' This Act gave

increased jurisdiction to the Admiralty Courts, and provided new and

more efficient means for enforcing the collection of the revenue."

(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxviii., pp.

520, 521.)

"In order to remedy the deficiency of British goods, the colonists

betook themselves to a variety of domestic manufactures. In a little

time large quantities of common cloths were brought to market; and

these, though dearer and of worse quality, were cheerfully preferred to

similar articles imported from Britain. That wool might not be wanting,

they entered into resolutions to abstain from eating lambs. Foreign

elegancies were laid aside. The women were as exemplary as the men in

various instances of self-denial. With great readiness they refused

every article of decoration for their persons, and of luxury for their

tables. These restrictions, which the colonists had voluntarily imposed

on themselves, were so well observed, that multitudes of artificers in

England were reduced to great distress, and some of their most

flourishing manufactories were in a great measure at a standstill."

(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 346.)

"This economy became so general at Boston, that the consumption of

British merchandise was diminished this year (1764) upwards of £10,000

sterling." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 128.)]

CHAPTER X.

STAMP ACT--ITS EFFECTS IN AMERICA--VIRGINIA LEADS THE OPPOSITION TO

IT--RIOTS AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN BOSTON--PETITIONS AGAINST THE

STAMP ACT IN ENGLAND--REJOICINGS AT ITS REPEAL IN ENGLAND AND

AMERICA--THE DECLARATORY ACT.

The intensity of the flame of colonial dissatisfaction, and which caused

it to burst forth into a conflagration of complaint and resistance in

all the colonies, was the announcement of a measure to raise a _revenue_

in the colonies, by Act of Parliament, on the very day, March 10th,

1764, that the Bills which bore so hard on the trade currency of the

colonies were passed. Mr. Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer,

introduced sundry resolutions relative to the imposition of _stamp duty_

in America. These resolutions affirmed the right, the equity, the

policy, and even the necessity of taxing the colonies.[265]

"The resolutions were not followed this year by any Bill, being only to

be held out as an _intention_ for next year. They were proposed and

agreed to, in a thin House, late at night, and just at the rising,

without any debate."[266] A year from that date, March 10th, 1765, Mr.

Grenville introduced his long-expected measure for raising a revenue in

the colonies by a duty on stamps--a measure prepared by fifty-five

resolutions (in Committee of Ways and Means), on which were based the

provisions of the _Stamp Act_, which provided among other things that a

tax should be paid on all newspapers, all law papers, all ships' papers,

property transfers, college diplomas, and marriage licenses. A fine of

£10 was imposed for each non-compliance with the Act, the enforcement of

which was not left to the ordinary courts and juries, but to Courts of

Admiralty without juries, the officers of which were appointed by the

Crown, and paid fees out of the fines which they imposed--the informer

receiving one-half. The year's notice[267] of this Bill had given the

opportunity of discussing the merits of it on both sides of the

Atlantic. The King, at the opening of the session, had presented the

colonial question as one of "obedience to the laws and respect for the

legislative authority of the kingdom;" and the Lords and Commons, in

reply, declared their intention to pursue every plan calculated for the

public advantage, and to proceed therein "with that temper and firmness

which will best conciliate and ensure due submission to the laws and

reverence for the legislative authority of Great Britain." As it was a

money Bill, no petitions were allowed to be presented to the Commons

against it. Several members spoke against it, of whom General Conway and

Colonel Barré were the principal, both of whom had served in

America;[268] but the Bill was passed by a majority of five to one. In

America, the old, loyal Church of England colony of Virginia led the way

in opposition to the Bill, the General Assembly of Burgesses being in

session when the news of its having been passed by the British

Parliament reached America; and the resolutions which that Assembly

passed covered the whole ground of colonial opposition to the Stamp

Act.[269] The Assembly of Virginia sent copies of its resolutions to the

other colonies, and several of their Legislatures adopted the same or

similar resolutions. Two days after adopting the resolutions, the

Governor dismissed the Legislature and ordered new elections; but at the

new elections all who voted for the resolutions were re-elected, and all

who opposed them were rejected; so that the newly-elected Assembly was

even more unanimous against the Stamp Act than the Assembly which had

been dismissed. It was said "the fire began in Virginia;" "Virginia

rang the alarm bell;" "Virginia gave the signal for the continent." The

petition from the Assembly of New York was stronger than that from

Virginia--"so bold that when it reached London no one would present it

to Parliament." The remonstrance of Massachusetts was feebler, it having

been modified by the Lieutenant-Governor, Hutchinson, and the Governor,

Barnard. Rhode Island followed New York and Virginia. The Legislature of

Connecticut protested at once against the stamp tax, and sent decided

instructions to their agent in London to insist firmly upon their rights

of taxation and trial by jury. When the news of these things reached

England, and the colonial agents made their remonstrances, it was asked,

"Will the colonies resist?" That was not believed to be possible even by

Franklin; but though no physical resistance was thought of in any part

of America, yet the opposition to the Stamp Act became increasingly

intense among all classes, from the first announcement of it in May to

the prescribed time of its going into operation, the 1st of November;

and armed resistance seems to have been viewed as a possible alternative

in the future. It was as yet looked upon as a contest between the

colonists and the Parliament and advisers of the King, and not with the

King himself, to whom ardent loyalty was professed and no doubt felt. It

was at length proposed that a general Congress of representatives of all

the colonies should be held to confer on the measures necessary to be

taken.

The Massachusetts Legislature met the latter part of May, and

recommended, on the 6th of June, the calling of a Congress, to be

composed of "Committees from the Houses of Representatives or Burgesses

in the several colonies," to meet at New York on the first Tuesday of

October following, there to consult "on the difficulties in which the

colonies were and must be placed by the late Acts of Parliament levying

duties and taxes upon them, and to consider of a general and humble

address to his Majesty and the Parliament to implore relief." A circular

letter was prepared and sent to the Speakers of the Legislative

Assemblies of other colonies; and a Committee was chosen for

Massachusetts. On the 7th of October a Congress met at New York,

consisting of 28 delegates from the Assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode

Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, the Delaware counties, Maryland, and South Carolina. The

session of this convention or congress lasted three weeks; the members

were found to be of one opinion on the principal subjects discussed. A

declaration of the rights and grievances of the colonies was agreed to,

in which all the privileges of Englishmen were claimed as the birthright

of the colonists, including the right of being taxed only by their own

consent. A petition to the King and memorials to each House of

Parliament were prepared and adopted. The Assemblies of Virginia, North

Carolina, and Georgia were prevented by their Governors from sending

representatives to the Congress; but they forwarded petitions to England

similar to those adopted by the Congress.[270] It is worthy of remark,

that, with the exception of Boston, the proceedings of the populace, as

well as of the Conventions and Legislative Assemblies, against the Stamp

Act, were conducted in a legal and orderly manner, such as to command

respect in England as well as in America. But in Boston there had always

been a mob, which, under the direction and auspices of men behind the

scenes, and opposed to British rule in any form, was ready to come forth

as opportunity offered in lawless violence against the authority of the

Crown and its officers. In England, eighty years before, mobs were

employed to intimidate the Court, Lords, and Commons in passing the Bill

of Attainder against Strafford, and against Bishops and Episcopacy. The

Rev. Dr. Burgess, the most popular Puritan minister in London at that

time, called them his "band-dogs," to be let loose or restrained as

occasion required.[271] Such men as the "band-dogs" of Boston, who

found a good opportunity for the exercise of their vocation during the

discussions of the local Legislature and public meetings against the

Stamp Act, not content with the harmless acts of patriotism of hanging

Lord Bute and Mr. Andrew Oliver (the proposed distributors of the

stamps) in effigy and then making bonfires of them, they levelled Mr.

Oliver's office buildings to the ground, and broke the windows and

destroyed most of the furniture of his house. Some days afterwards they

proceeded to the house of William Story, Deputy Registrar of the Court

of Admiralty, and destroyed his private papers, as well as the records

and files of the Court. They next entered and purloined the house of

Benjamin Hallowell, jr., Comptroller of the Customs, and regaled

themselves to intoxication with the liquors which they found in his

cellar. They then, as Mr. Hildreth says, "proceeded to the mansion of

Governor Hutchinson, in North Square. The Lieutenant-Governor and his

family fled for their lives.[272] The house was completely gutted, and

the contents burned in bonfires kindled in the square. Along with

Hutchinson's public and private papers perished many invaluable

manuscripts relating to the history of the province, which Hutchinson

had been thirty years in collecting, and which it was impossible to

replace."[273] The universal and intense opposition of all ranks in all

the colonies (except a few of the office-holders) was re-echoed and

strengthened by opposition and remonstrances from the merchants and

manufacturers in England and Scotland connected with the American

trade.[274] Parliament met the 17th December, 1765, when one reason

assigned in the Royal speech for calling Parliament together earlier

than usual was the importance of matters which had occurred in America,

all papers connected with which would be laid before them. After the

Christmas recess, the Parliament met the 17th of January, 1766, when

American affairs were again commended in a speech from the Throne as a

principal object of parliamentary deliberations. Both Houses, in their

replies to the King, showed that they regarded American affairs in the

same important light as his Majesty; and for more than two months those

affairs constituted the principal subject of parliamentary debate, and

the leading topics of conversation among all classes. The application of

the Commons was unwearied; their sittings continued until after

midnight, and sometimes even until morning; the number of petitions they

received, the multitude of papers and the witnesses they had to examine,

occupied much time, accompanied by continual debates. The authors of the

Stamp Act were now in opposition, and made most strenuous efforts in its

justification. The debates turned chiefly on two questions: 1. Whether

the Legislature of Great Britain had, or had not, a right of taxation

over the colonies; 2. Whether the late laws, especially the Stamp Act,

were just and expedient. In the ultimate decision of the first question

both parties agreed, and the House affirmed, without a division, "That

the Parliament of Great Britain had a right to bind the colonies in all

cases whatsoever," without any distinction in regard to taxation. As to

the second question, Parliament decided, after very warm and protracted

debates, in favour of the total repeal of the Stamp Act. Accordingly two

Bills were brought in, pursuant to these resolutions: the one, a

declaratory Bill, entitled "An Act for securing the defence of the

American colonies of Great Britain," and asserting the right of

Parliament to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever; the other, for

the total repeal of the Stamp Act.

[Colonel Barré's celebrated reply to Charles Townsend, and review of it,

on the passing of the Stamp Act, will be found in Appendix A. to this

chapter; and Lord Chancellor Camden's opinion, and the great commoner

Pitt's memorable sayings in the discussion on the _repeal_ of the Stamp

Act, will be found in Appendix B.]

The Declaratory Act, though avowing the absolute power of Parliament to

bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and rescinding, as far as an

Act of Parliament could, all the declarations and resolutions which had

been adopted by the Colonial Assemblies and public meetings against the

authority of Parliament, attracted very little attention amid the

absorbing interest centred in the Stamp Act, and the universal

rejoicings on both sides of the Atlantic at its repeal. The Declaratory

Act, as it was called, passed the Commons the beginning of February; and

on the 18th of the month, after a vehement discussion, closed by the

speeches of Messrs. Grenville and Pitt, the House of Commons, at three

o'clock in the morning, repealed the Stamp Act by a majority of 275 to

167. The House of Lords, after warm and protracted discussions, voted

for its repeal by a majority of 100 to 71; and three days afterwards,

the 18th of March, the royal assent was given to the Act--"An event,"

says the Annual Register for 1766, "that caused more universal joy

throughout the British dominions than perhaps any other that can be

remembered."

"Ships in the River Thames displayed their colours, and houses were

illuminated all over the city. It was no sooner known in America, than

the colonists rescinded their resolutions, and recommenced their

mercantile intercourse with the mother country. They presented their

homespun clothes to the poor, and imported more largely than ever. The

churches resounded with thanksgivings; and their public and private

rejoicings knew no bounds. By letters, addresses, and other means,

almost all the colonies showed unequivocal marks of acknowledgment and

gratitude. So sudden a calm after so violent a storm is without a

parallel in history. By the judicious sacrifice of one law, Great

Britain procured an acquiescence in all that remained."[275]

APPENDIX A. TO CHAPTER X.

DISCUSSION BETWEEN CHARLES TOWNSEND AND COLONEL BARRÉ IN THE DEBATE ON

PASSING THE STAMP ACT, REFERRED TO ON PAGE 293.

It was during the discussion on this Bill that Colonel Barré made the

famous retort to Mr. Charles Townsend, head of the Board of Trade. Mr.

Townsend made an able speech in support of the Bill and the equity of

the taxation, and insisted that the colonies had borne but a small

proportion of the expenses of the last war, and had yet obtained by it

immense advantages at a vast expense to the mother country. He concluded

in the following words:

"And now will these American children, planted by our care, nourished

by our indulgence to a degree of strength and opulence, and protected by

our arms, grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy

burden under which we lie?"

As he sat down, Colonel Barré rose and replied with great energy, and,

under the influence of intense excitement, uttered the following

impassioned retort to the concluding words of Charles Townsend's speech:

"_They planted by your care!_ No; your oppressions planted them in

America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated,

inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the

hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others to the

cruelties of a savage foe--the most subtle, and I will take upon me to

say the most formidable of any people upon the face of God's earth; and

yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all

hardships with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own

country from the hands of those who should have been their friends.

"_They nourished by your indulgence!_ They grew by your neglect of them.

As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in

sending persons to rule over them, in one department and another, who

were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some members of this House,

sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to

prey upon them; men whose behaviour, on many occasions, has caused the

blood of those _sons of liberty_ to recoil within them; men promoted to

the highest seats of justice--some who, to my knowledge, were glad, by

going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to the bar of a

Court of justice in their own.

"_They protected by your arms!_ They have nobly taken up arms in your

defence; have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious

industry, for the defence of a country whose frontier was drenched in

blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your

emolument. And, believe me--remember, I this day told you so--the same

spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany

them still. But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God

knows, I do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I

deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However superior to me

in general knowledge and experience the respectable body of this House

may be, yet I claim to know more of America than most of you, having

seen and been conversant in that country. The people, I believe, are as

truly loyal as any subjects the King has; but a people jealous of their

liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated.

But the subject is too delicate; I will say no more."

_Remarks on the Speeches of Mr. Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré._

Perhaps the English language does not present a more eloquent and

touching appeal than these words of Colonel Barré, the utterances of a

sincere and patriotic heart. They were taken down by a friend at the

time of delivery, sent across the Atlantic, published and circulated in

every form throughout America, and probably produced more effect upon

the minds of the colonists than anything ever uttered or written. Very

likely not one out of a thousand of those who have read them, carried

away by their eloquence and fervour, has ever thought of analysing them

to ascertain how far they are just or true; yet I am bound to say that

their misstatements are such as to render their argument fallacious from

beginning to end, with the exception of their just tribute to the

character of the American colonists.

The words of Charles Townsend were insulting to the colonists to the

last degree, and were open to the severest rebuke. He assumed that

because the settlements in America were infant settlements, in

comparison with those of the mother country, the settlers themselves

were but children, and should be treated as such; whereas the fathers of

new settlements and their commerce, the guiding spirits in their

advancement, are the most advanced men of their nation and age, the

pioneers of enterprise and civilization; and as such they are entitled

to peculiar respect and consideration, instead of their being referred

to as children, and taxed without their consent by men who, whatever

their rank in the society and public affairs of England, could not

compare with them in what constituted real manhood greatness. But though

Charles Townsend's insulting haughtiness to the American colonists, and

his proposal to treat them as minors, destitute of the feelings and

rights of grown-up Englishmen, merited the severest rebuke, yet that did

not justify the statements and counter-pretensions on which Colonel

Barré founded that rebuke. Let us briefly examine some of his

statements.

1. He says that the oppressions of England planted the settlers in

America, who fled from English tyranny to a then uncultivated,

inhospitable country.

In reply it may be affirmed, as a notorious fact, that the southern and

middle colonies, even to Pennsylvania, were nationalized by the kings of

England from their commencement, and were frequently assisted by both

King and Parliament. The Dutch and the Swedes were the fathers of the

settlements of New York and New Jersey. The "Pilgrim Fathers," the

founders of the Plymouth colony, did, however, flee from persecution in

England in the first years of King James, but found their eleven years'

residence in Holland less agreeable than settlement under English rule,

or rather English indulgence, in America. The founders of the

Massachusetts Bay settlement were a Puritan section of the Church of

England, of which they professed to be devoted members after they

embarked for America. A wealthy company of them determined to found a

settlement in America, where they could enjoy the pure worship of the

Church of England without the ceremonies enjoined by Archbishop

Laud--where they could convert the savage Indians, and pursue the fur

and fish trade, and agriculture; but they were no more driven to America

by the "tyranny" of England, than the hundreds of thousands of Puritans

who remained in England, overthrew the monarchy, beheaded the king,

abolished the Church of England, first established Presbyterianism and

then abolished it, and determined upon the establishment of

Congregationalism at the moment of Cromwell's death. But those "Puritan

Fathers" who came to Massachusetts Bay, actually came under the auspices

of a "Royal Charter," which they cherished as the greatest boon

conferred upon any people. But among their first acts after their

arrival at Massachusetts Bay was that to abolish the Church of England

worship itself, and set up the Congregational worship in its place; to

proscribe the Common Prayer Book, and forbid its use even in private

families, and to banish those who persisted in its use. And instead of

converting and christianizing the savage heathen--the chief professed

object of their emigration, and so expressed in their Royal Charter of

incorporation--they never sent a missionary or established a school

among them for more than twelve years; and then the first and long the

only missionary among the Indians was John Elliott, self-appointed, and

supported by contributions from England. But during those twelve years,

and afterwards, they slew the Indians by thousands, as the Canaanites

and Amalekites, to be rooted out of the land which God had given to "the

saints" (that is, to themselves), to be possessed and enjoyed by them.

The savage foe, whose arms were bows and arrows,[276] were made

"formidable" in defence of their homes, which they had inherited from

their forefathers; and if, in defence and attempted recovery of their

homes when driven from them, they inflicted, after their own mode of

warfare, "cruelties" upon their invaders, yet they themselves were the

greatest sufferers, almost to annihilation.[277]

2. "The colonies being nourished by the indulgence" of England, assumed

by Charles Townsend, is the second ground of Colonel Barré's retort, who

affirmed that the colonies grew by England's neglect of them, and that

as soon as she began to care for them, that care was exercised in

sending persons to rule over them in one department or another, etc.

In reply, let it be remembered that three out of the four New England

colonies--Plymouth, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--elected their own

governors and officers from the beginning to the end of their colonial

existence, as did Massachusetts during the first half century of her

first Charter, which she forfeited by her usurpations, persecutions, and

encroachments upon the rights of others, as I have shown in Chapter VI.

of this history; and it has been shown in Chapter VII., on the authority

of Puritan ministers, jurists, and historians, that during the seventy

years that Massachusetts was ruled under the second Royal Charter, her

governors being appointed by the Crown, she advanced in social unity, in

breadth and dignity of legislation, and in equity of government,

commerce, and prosperity, beyond anything she had enjoyed and manifested

under the first Charter--so much so, that the neighbouring colonies

would have gladly been favoured with her system of government. It is

possible there may have been individual instances of inefficiency, and

even failure of character, in some officers of the Government during a

period of seventy years, as is the case in all Governments, but such

instances were few, if they occurred at all, and such as to afford no

just pretext for the rhapsody and insinuations of Colonel Barré on the

subject.

3. In the third place, Colonel Barré denied that the colonies had been

defended by the arms of England, and said, on the contrary, "they have

nobly taken arms in your defence." It is true the colonists carried on

their own local contests with the Indians. The northern colonies

conceived the idea of driving the French out of America, and twice

attacked Quebec for that purpose, but they failed; and the French and

Indians made such encroachments upon them that they implored aid from

England "to prevent their being driven into the sea." It was not until

England "nobly took up arms" in their behalf, and sent navies and armies

for their "defence," that the progress of French arms and Indian

depredations were arrested in America, and the colonists were delivered

from enemies who had disturbed their peace and endangered their safety

for more than a century. At the close of the last French war, the

colonies themselves, through their Legislatures, gratefully acknowledged

their indebtedness to the mother country for their deliverance and

safety, which, without her aid, they said they never could have secured.

APPENDIX B.

OPINIONS OF MR. GRENVILLE, MR. PITT, AND LORD CAMDEN (FORMERLY CHIEF

JUSTICE PRATT) ON THE STAMP ACT AND ITS REPEAL.

The great commoner, Pitt, was not present in the Commons when the

Declaratory and Stamp Acts were passed in 1765; but he was present at

one sitting when an address to the King, in reply to a speech from the

Throne, relating to opposition in America to the Stamp Act, was

discussed, and in which the propriety of repealing that Act was mooted

and partially argued. Mr. Pitt held the right of Parliament to impose

external taxes on the colonies by imposing duties on goods imported into

them, but not to impose internal taxes, such as the Stamp Act imposed.

In the course of his speech Mr. Pitt said:

"It is a long time since I have attended in Parliament. When the

resolution was taken in the House to tax America, I was ill in bed. If I

could have endured to have been carried in my bed, so great was the

agitation of my mind for the consequences, I would have solicited some

kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony

against it. It is now an Act that has been passed. I would speak with

decency of every act of this House; but I must beg the indulgence to

speak of it with freedom.

"As my health and life are so very infirm and precarious, that I may not

be able to attend on the day that may be fixed by this House for the

consideration of America, I must now, though somewhat unseasonably,

leaving the expediency of the Stamp Act to some other time, speak to a

point of infinite moment--I mean the right. On a question that may

mortally wound the freedom of three millions of virtuous and brave

subjects beyond the Atlantic Ocean, I cannot be silent. America being

neither really nor virtually represented in Westminster, cannot be held

legally, or constitutionally, or reasonably subject to obedience to any

money bill of this kingdom. The colonies are, equally with yourselves,

entitled to all the natural rights of mankind, and the peculiar

privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by the laws, and equally

participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans

are the sons, not the bastards, of England. As subjects, they are

entitled to the common right of representation, and cannot be bound to

pay taxes without their consent....

"The Commons of America, represented in their several Assemblies, have

ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional

right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been

slaves if they had not enjoyed it....

"If this House suffers the Stamp Act to continue in force, France will

gain more by your colonies than she ever could have done if her arms in

the last war had been victorious.

"I never shall own the justice of taxing America internally until she

enjoys the right of representation. In every other point of legislation

the authority of Parliament is like the north star, fixed for the

reciprocal benefit of the parent country and her colonies. The British

Parliament, as the supreme gathering and legislative power, has always

bound them by her laws, by her regulations of their trade and

manufactures, and even in the more absolute interdiction of both. The

power of Parliament, like the circulation from the human heart, active,

vigorous, and perfect in the smallest fibre of the arterial system, may

be known in the colonies by the prohibition of their carrying a hat to

market over the line of one province into another; or by breaking down

the loom in the most distant corner of the British empire in America;

and if this power were denied, I would not permit them to manufacture a

lock of wool, or form a horse-shoe or hob-nail. But I repeat the House

has no right to lay an internal tax upon America, that country not being

represented."

After Pitt ceased, a pause ensued, when General Conway rose and said:

"I not only adopt all that has just been said, but believe it expresses

the sentiments of most if not all the King's servants and wish it may be

the unanimous opinion of this House."

Mr. Grenville, author of the Stamp Act, now leader of the opposition,

recovering by this time his self-possession, replied at length to Mr.

Pitt. Among other things he said:

"The disturbances in America began in July, and now we are in the middle

of January; lately they were only occurrences; they are now grown to

tumults and riots; they border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I

have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to

produce revolution. The government over them being dissolved, a

revolution will take place in America.

"External and internal taxation are the same in effect, and only differ

in name. That the sovereign has the supreme legislative power over

America cannot be denied; and taxation is a part of sovereign power. It

is one branch of the legislation. It has been and it is exercised over

those who are not and were never represented. It is exercised over the

India Company, the merchants of London, the proprietors of the stocks,

and over many great manufacturing towns." ...

"To hold that the King, by the concession of a Charter, can exempt a

family or a colony from taxation by Parliament, degrades the

constitution of England. If the colonies, instead of throwing off

entirely the authority of Parliament, had presented a petition to send

to it deputies elected among themselves, this step would have evoked

their attachment to the Crown and their affection for the mother

country, and would have merited attention.

"The Stamp Act is but a pretext of which they make use to arrive at

independence. (French report.) It was thoroughly considered, and not

hurried at the end of the session. It passed through the different

stages in full Houses, with only one division. When I proposed to tax

America, I asked the House if any gentleman would object to the right; I

repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. Protection and

obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is

bound to yield obedience. If not, tell us when they were emancipated?

When they wanted the protection of this kingdom, they were always ready

to ask it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most

full and ample manner. The nation has run itself into an immense debt to

give it to them; and now that they are called upon to contribute a small

share towards an expense arising from themselves, they renounce your

authority, insult your officers, and break out, I might almost say, into

open rebellion.

"The seditious spirit of the colonists owes its birth to the factions in

this House. We were told we tread on tender ground; we were told to

expect disobedience. What was this but telling the Americans to stand

out against the law, to encourage their obstinacy, with the expectation

of support from hence? Let us only hold back a little, they would say;

our friends will soon be in power.

"Ungrateful people of America! When I had the honour to serve the Crown,

while you yourselves were loaded with an enormous debt of one hundred

and forty millions sterling, and paid a revenue of ten millions

sterling, you have given bounties on their timber, on their iron, their

hemp, and many other articles. You have restored in their favour the Act

of Navigation, that palladium of British commerce. I offered to do

everything in my power to advance the trade of America. I discouraged no

trade but what was prohibited by Act of Parliament. I was above giving

an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place it becomes me to

wipe off the aspersion."

When Grenville sat down, several members got up; but the House clamoured

for Pitt, who seemed to rise. A point of order was decided in favour of

his speaking, and the cry of "Go on, go on!" resounded from all parts of

the House. Pitt, addressing the Speaker, said:

"Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They

have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy Act, and

that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of

speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not

discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise; no gentleman ought to

be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who

calumniates it might and ought to have profited. He ought to have

desisted from his project. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate;

America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has

resisted." (At this word the members of the House were startled as

though an electric spark had darted through them all.) "I rejoice that

America has resisted. If its millions of inhabitants had submitted,

taxes would soon have been laid on Ireland; and if ever this nation

should have a tyrant for its king, six millions of freemen, so dead to

all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would

be fit instruments to make slaves of the rest." ...

"The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed and are not

represented--the East India Company, merchants, stockholders,

manufacturers. Surely many of these are represented in other capacities.

It is a misfortune that more are not actually represented. But they are

all inhabitants of Great Britain, and as such are virtually represented.

They have connection with those that elect, and they have influence over

them.

"Not one of the Ministers who have taken the lead of government since

the accession of King William ever recommended a tax like this of the

Stamp Act. Lord Halifax, educated in the House of Commons; Lord Oxford,

Lord Orford, a great revenue minister (Walpole), never thought of this.

None of these ever dreamed of robbing the colonies of their

constitutional rights. This was reserved to mark the era of the late

Administration.

"The gentleman boasts of his bounties to America. Are not these bounties

intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If so, where is the

peculiar merit to America? If they are not, he has misapplied the

national treasures.

"If the gentleman cannot understand the difference between internal and

external taxes, I cannot help it. But there is a plain distinction

between taxes levied for purposes of _raising revenue_ and duties

imposed for the _regulation of trade_, for the accommodation of the

subject, although in the consequences some revenue may incidentally

arise for the latter.

"The gentleman asks when were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know

when they were made slaves? But I do not dwell upon words. The profits

to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies through all its branches

is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly

through the last war. The estates that were rented at two thousand

pounds a year threescore years ago, are at three thousand pounds at

present. You owe this to America. This is the price that America pays

for your protection;[278] and shall a miserable financier come with a

boast that he can fetch a peppercorn into the exchequer to the loss of

millions to the nation?[279] I dare not say how much higher these

profits may be augmented. Omitting the immense increase of people in the

northern colonies by natural population, and the emigration from every

part of Europe, I am convinced the whole commercial system may be

altered to advantage." ...

"Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my

opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and

immediately; that the reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was

founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign

authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong

terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of

legislation, that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures,

and exercise every power whatsoever except that of taking their money

out of their pockets without their consent.

"Let us be content with the advantage which Providence has bestowed upon

us. We have attained the highest glory and greatness. Let us strive long

to preserve them for our own happiness and that of our posterity."[280]

The effect of Pitt's speech was prodigious, combining cogency of

argument with fervour of feeling, splendour of eloquence, and matchless

oratorical power. The very next day the Duke of Grafton advised the King

to send for Pitt; but the King declined, though in a state of "extreme

agitation." Nevertheless, the Duke of Grafton himself sought an

interview with Pitt, who showed every disposition to unite with certain

members and friends of the liberal Rockingham Administration to promote

the repeal of the Stamp Act and the pacification of America; but it was

found that many of the friends and advocates of America did not agree

with Pitt in denying the right of Parliament to tax America, though they

deemed it inexpedient and unjust. Pitt could not therefore accept

office. Mr. Bancroft remarks: "The principle of giving up all taxation

over the colonies, on which the union was to have rested, had implacable

opponents in the family of Hardwicke, and in the person of Rockingham's

own private secretary (Edmund Burke). 'If ever one man lived more

zealous than another for the supremacy of Parliament, and the rights of

the imperial crown, it was Edmund Burke.' He was the advocate of 'an

unlimited legislative power over the colonies.' 'He saw not how the

power of taxation could be given up, without giving up the rest.' 'If

Pitt was able to see it, Pitt saw further than he could.' His wishes

were very earnest 'to keep the whole body of this authority perfect and

entire.' He was jealous of it; he was honestly of that opinion; and

Rockingham, after proceeding so far, and finding in Pitt all the

encouragement that he expected, let the negotiation drop. Conway and

Grafton were compelled to disregard their own avowals on the question of

the right of taxation; the Ministry conformed to the opinion, which was

that of Charles Yorke, the Attorney-General, and still more of Edmund

Burke."[281]

While the repeal of the Stamp Act was under discussion in the Commons,

Dr. Franklin--then Deputy Postmaster-General for America--was summoned

to give evidence at the bar of the House. His examination was long and

minute. His thorough knowledge of all the subjects, his independence and

candour made a deep impression, but he was dismissed from office the day

after giving his evidence. Some of the questions and answers are as

follows:

Question.--What is your name and place of abode?

Answer.--Franklin, of Philadelphia.

Q.--Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves?

A.--Certainly; many and very heavy taxes.

Q.--What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania levied by the laws

of the colony?

A.--There are taxes on all estates, real and personal; a poll-tax;

a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and businesses,

according to their profits; an excise on all wine, rum, and other

spirits; and a duty of £10 per head on all negroes imported; with

some other duties.

Q.--For what purpose are those taxes levied?

A.--For the support of the civil and military establishment of the

country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last

war.

Q.--Are not you concerned in the management of the post-office in

America?

A.--Yes. I am Deputy Postmaster-General of North America.

Q.--Don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all the

inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?

A.--The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except in

a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did, sending

for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage amounting,

in many cases, to much more than that of the stamps themselves.

Q.--Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to

pay the stamp duty?

A.--In my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the

colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.

Q.--Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all

to be laid out in America?

A.--I know it is appropriated by the Act to the American service;

but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers

are, not in the colonies that pay it.

Q.--Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where the

troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the old

colonies?

A.--I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know of

no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come from the

colonies where it was spent, directly to England; for I have always

observed that in every colony the more plenty the means of

remittance to England, the more goods are sent for, and the more

trade with England carried on.

Q.--What may be the amount of one year's imports into Pennsylvania

from Britain?

A.--I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports

from Britain to be above £500,000.

Q.--What may be the amount of the produce of your province exported

to Britain?

A.--It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted in

Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed £40,000.

Q.--How then do you pay the balance?

A.--The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West Indies,

and sold in our own island, or to the French, Spaniards, Danes and

Dutch; by the same carried to other colonies in North America, as

to New England, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Carolina and Georgia; by

the same carried to different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal

and Italy. In all which places we receive either money, bills of

exchange, or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which

together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants and

mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the freights

made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to discharge the

balance, and pay for British manufactures continually used in the

province, or sold to foreigners by our traders.

Q.--Do you think it right that America should be protected by this

country and pay no part of the expense?

A.--That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid,

during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many millions.

Q.--Were not you reimbursed by Parliament?

A.--We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced

beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected

from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.

Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about £500,000, and the

reimbursements in the whole did not exceed £60,000.

Q.--You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania; what do

they amount to in the pound?

A.--The tax on all estates, real and personal, to eighteen-pence in

the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of trades and

professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make full

half-a-crown in the pound.

Q.--Do you not think the people of America would submit to pay the

stamp duty if it were moderated?

A.--No, never, unless compelled by the force of arms.

Q.--What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before the

year 1763?

A.--The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the

government of the Crown, and paid, in all their courts, obedience

to Acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are in the several

old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons,

or armies, to keep them in subjection. They were governed by this

country at the expense only of a little pen, ink and paper. They

were led by a thread. They had not only a respect, but an affection

for Great Britain, for its laws, its customs and manners, and even

a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce.

Natives of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to

be an Old-Englandman was of itself a character of some respect, and

gave a kind of rank among us.

Q.--And what is their temper now?

A.--Oh! very much altered.

Q.--Did you ever hear the authority of Parliament to make laws for

America questioned till lately?

A.--The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all

laws, except such as should levy internal taxes. It was never

disputed in levying duties to regulate commerce.

Q.--In what light did the people of America use to consider the

Parliament of Great Britain?

A.--They considered the Parliament as the great bulwark and

security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it

with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they

thought, might possibly at times attempt to oppress them; but they

relied on it, that the Parliament on application would always give

redress. They remembered with gratitude a strong instance of this,

when a Bill was brought into Parliament, with a clause to make

royal instructions laws in the colonies, which the House of Commons

would not pass, and it was thrown out.

Q.--And have they not still the same respect for Parliament?

A.--No; it is greatly lessened.

Q.--To what causes is that owing?

A.--To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their

trade by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the

colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among

themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps;

taking away at the same time trial by juries, and refusing to see

and hear their humble petitions.

Q.--Don't you think they would submit to the Stamp Act if it was

modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to

some particulars of small moment?

A.--No; they will never submit to it.

Q.--What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same

principle of that of the Stamp Act; how would the Americans receive

it?

A.--Just as they do this. They would not pay it.

Q.--Have not you heard of the resolutions of this House, and of the

House of Lords, asserting the right of Parliament relating to

America, including a power to tax the people there?

A.--Yes; I have heard of such resolutions.

Q.--What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions?

A.--They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.

Q.--Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the Parliament

had no right to levy taxes and duties there?

A.--I never heard any objection to the right of levying duties to

regulate commerce; but a right to levy internal taxes was never

supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there.

Q.--You say the colonies have always submitted to external taxes,

and object to the right of Parliament only in levying internal

taxes; now, can you show that there is any kind of difference

between the two taxes to the colony on which they may be laid?

A.--I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a duty

levied on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first

cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is offered

for sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do not like it

at that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. But

an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent, if

not levied by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we

shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each

other, neither purchase, nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall

neither marry nor make our wills unless we pay such and such sums,

and thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by

the consequences of refusing to pay it.

Q.--But supposing the internal tax or duty to be levied on the

necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that be the

same thing in its effects as an internal tax?

A.--I do not know a single article imported into the northern

colonies, but what they can either do without or make themselves.

Q.--Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to

them?

A.--No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and good

management, they may very well supply themselves with all they

want.

Q.--Considering the resolution of Parliament as to the right, do

you think, if the Stamp Act is repealed, that the North Americans

will be satisfied?

A.--I believe they will.

Q.--Why do you think so?

A.--I think the resolutions of right will give them very little

concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into practice.

The colonies will probably consider themselves in the same

situation in that respect with Ireland; they know you claim the

same right with regard to Ireland, but you never exercise it. And

they may believe you never will exercise it in the colonies, any

more than in Ireland, unless on some very extraordinary occasion.

Q.--But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary occasion? Is

not the Parliament?

A.--Though the Parliament may judge of the occasion, the people

will think it can never exercise such right till representatives

from the colonies are admitted into Parliament, and that, whenever

the occasion arises, representatives will be ordered.

Q.--Did the Americans ever dispute the controlling power of

Parliament to regulate the commerce?

A.--No.

Q.--Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act

into execution??

A.--I do not see how a military force can be applied to that

purpose.

Q.--Why may it not?

A.--Suppose a military force sent into America, they will find

nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man

to take stamps, who refuses to do without them. They will not find

a rebellion; they may indeed make one.

Q.--If the Act is not repealed, what do you think will be the

consequences?

A.--A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America

bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that

respect and affection.

Q.--How can the commerce be affected?

A.--You will find that, if the Act is not repealed, they will take

very little of your manufactures in a short time.

Q.--Is it in their power to do without them?

A.--I think they may very well do without them.

Q.--Is it their interest not to take them?

A.--The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere

conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, etc., with a

little industry they can make at home; the second they can do

without, till they are able to provide them among themselves; and

the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike off

immediately. They are mere articles of fashion, purchased and

consumed because the fashion in a respected country, but will now

be detested and rejected. The people have already struck off, by

general agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mournings,

and many thousand pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.

Q.--Suppose an Act of internal regulations connected with a tax,

how would they receive it?

A.--I think it would be objected to.

Q.--Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?

A.--Their opinion is, that when aids to the Crown are wanted, they

are to be asked of the several Assemblies, according to the

old-established usage, who will, as they always have done, grant

them freely; and that their money ought not to be given away

without their consent by persons at a distance, unacquainted with

their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the Crown

is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their

Sovereign, and they think it extremely hard and unjust that a body

of men, in which they have no representation, should make a merit

to itself of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs,

and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and

importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.

Q.--But is not the post-office, which they have long received, a

tax as well as a regulation?

A.--No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of the

nature of a tax; it is merely a _quantum meruit_ for a service

done; no person is compellable to pay the money if he does not

choose to receive the service. A man may still, as before the Act,

send his letter by a servant, a special messenger, or a friend, if

he thinks it cheaper and safer.

Q.--But do they not consider the regulations of the post-office, by

the Act of last year, as a tax?

A.--By the regulations of last year, the rate of postage was

generally abated near thirty per cent. through all America; they

certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.

Q.--If an excise was laid by Parliament, which they might likewise

avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised, would they

then object to it?

A.--They would certainly object to it, as an excise is unconnected

with any service done, and is merely an aid which they think ought

to be asked of them, and granted by them if they are to pay it, and

can be granted for them by no others whatsoever, whom they have not

empowered for that purpose.

Q.--You say they do not object to the right of Parliament in

levying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now, is

there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of

goods and an excise on their consumption?

A.--Yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have

just mentioned, they think you can have no right to levy within

their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain by your fleets

the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you

may have therefore a natural and equitable right to some toll or

duty on merchandise carried through that part of your dominions,

towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the

safety of that carriage.

Q.--Supposing the Stamp Act continued and was enforced, do you

imagine that ill-humour will induce the Americans to give as much

for worse manufactures of their own, and use them preferably to

better ones of yours?

A.--Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one

passion as another--their resentment as their pride.

Q.--What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the

distribution of the stamps in every part of America?

A.--A very great force; I can't say what, if the disposition of

America is for a general resistance.

Q.--If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the Americans

think they could oblige the Parliament to repeal every external tax

law now in force?

A.--It is hard to answer questions of what people at such a

distance will think.

Q.--But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of

repealing the Act?

A.--I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a

conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it that,

while the same expediency subsists, you will never attempt to make

such another.

Q--What do you mean by its inexpediency?

A.--I mean its inexpediency on several accounts: the poverty and

inability of those who were to pay the tax, the general discontent

it has occasioned, and the impracticability of enforcing it.

Q.--If the Act should be repealed, and the Legislature should show

its resentment to the opposers of the Stamp Act, would the colonies

acquiesce in the authority of the Legislature? What is your opinion

they would do?

A.--I don't doubt at all that if the Legislature repeal the Stamp

Act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.

Q.--But if the Legislature should think fit to ascertain its right

to levy taxes, by any Act levying a small tax, contrary to their

opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?

A.--The proceedings of the people in America have been considered

too much together. The proceedings of the Assemblies have been very

different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as

having no connection with each other. The Assemblies have only

peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have

taken no measures for opposition by force; they have not built a

fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition in order to

such opposition. The ringleaders of riots they think ought to be

punished; they would punish them themselves if they could. Every

sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as

otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or estate.

But as to an internal tax, how small soever, levied by the

Legislature here on the people there, while they have no

representatives in this Legislature, I think it will never be

submitted to. They will oppose it to the last. They do not consider

it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your

taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money

by taxes among themselves, and to grant large sums, equal to their

abilities, upon requisition from the Crown. They have not only

granted equal to their abilities, but during all the last war they

granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion

with this country, you yourselves being judges, to the amount of

many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and readily,

only on a sort of promise from the Secretary of State that it

should be recommended to Parliament to make them compensation. It

was accordingly recommended to Parliament, in the most honourable

manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and

abused here, in papers and pamphlets and speeches, as ungrateful,

unreasonable, and unjust in having put this nation to immense

expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that

expense. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed near 25,000 men

during the last war--a number equal to those sent from Britain, and

far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing

this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for many years

to come, for discharging that debt. The Government here was at that

time very sensible of this. The colonies were recommended to

Parliament. Every year the King sent down to the House a written

message to this purport: That his Majesty, being highly sensible of

the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North

America had exerted themselves in defence of his Majesty's just

rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to take the

same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper

compensation. You will find those messages on your journals every

year of the war to the very last, and you did accordingly give

£200,000 annually to the Crown, to be distributed in such

compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs

that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the

burden, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or

had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room

or reason for compensation. Indeed, the sums reimbursed them were

by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their

proportion; but they never murmured at that: they esteemed their

Sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the

approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of

compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this Act to force

money from an unwilling people. They had not refused giving money

for the purposes of the Act; no requisition had been made; they

were always willing and ready to do what could reasonably be

expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered.

Q.--But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in Europe,

would North America contribute to the support of it?

A.--I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would

permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British empire,

and as having one common interest with it; they may be looked on

here as foreigners, but they do not consider themselves as such.

They are zealous for the honour and prosperity of this nation, and,

while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as

far as their little power goes.

Q.--Do you think the Assemblies have a right to levy money on the

subject there, to grant to the Crown?

A.--I certainly think so; they have always done it.

Q.--Would they do this for a British concern; as, suppose, a war in

some part of Europe that did not affect them?

A.--Yes, for anything that concerned the general interest. They

consider themselves as a part of the whole.

Q.--What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the

colonies for aids?

A.--A letter from the Secretary of State.

Q.--Is this all you mean--a letter from the Secretary of State?

A.--I mean the usual way of requisition--in a circular letter from

the Secretary of State, by his Majesty's command, reciting the

occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to grant such aids as

became their royalty and were suitable to their abilities.

Q.--Did the Secretary of State ever write for money for the Crown?

A.--The requisitions have been to raise, clothe, and pay men, which

cannot be done without money.

Q.--Would they grant money alone if called on?

A.--In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they have

money or can make it.

Q.--What used to be the pride of the Americans?

A.--To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.

Q.--What is now their pride?

A.--To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new

ones.[282]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 265: "An American revenue was, in England, a very popular

measure. The cry in favour of it was so strong as to silence the voice

of petitions to the contrary. The equity of compelling the Americans to

contribute to the common expenses of the empire satisfied many, who,

without inquiring into the policy or justice of taxing their

unrepresented fellow-subjects, readily assented to the measures adopted

by Parliament for that purpose. The prospect of easing their own burdens

at the expense of the colonists, dazzled the eyes of gentlemen of landed

interest, so as to keep out of their view the probable consequences of

the innovation."

"The disposition to tax the colonies was also strengthened by

exaggerated accounts of their wealth. It was said that the American

planters lived in affluence and with inconsiderable taxes; while the

inhabitants of Great Britain were borne down by such aggressive burdens

as to make a bare existence a matter of extreme difficulty. The officers

who had served in America during the late war contributed to this

delusion. Their observations were founded on what they had seen in the

cities, and at a time when large sums were spent by Government in

support of fleets and armies, and when American commodities were in

great demand. To treat with attention those who came to fight for them,

and also to gratify their own pride, the colonists had made a parade of

their riches, by frequently and sumptuously entertaining the gentlemen

of the British army. These, judging from what they saw, without

considering the general state of the country, concurred in representing

the colonists as very able to contribute largely towards defraying the

common expenses of the empire." (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I.,

Chap. iii., pp. 332-335.)]

[Footnote 266: Prior Documents, etc., p. 5.

"The taxes of Great Britain exceeded by £3,000,000 what they were in

1754, before the war; yet the present object was only to make the

colonies maintain their own army. Besides the taxes on trade, which were

immediately to be imposed, Mr. Grenville gave notice in the House that

it was his intention, in the next session, to bring in a Bill imposing

_stamp duties_ in America; and the reasons for giving such notice were,

because he understood some people entertained doubts of the power of

Parliament to impose internal taxes on the colonies, and because that,

of all the schemes which had fallen under his consideration, he thought

a Stamp Act was the best. But he was not so wedded to it as to be

unwilling to give it up for any one that might appear more eligible; or

if the colonies themselves thought any other mode would be more

expedient, he should have no objection to come to it by Act of

Parliament. At that time the merits of the question were opened at

large. The opponents of the Government were publicly called upon to

deny, if they thought it fitting, the right of the Legislature to impose

any tax, internal or external, on the colonies; and not a single member

ventured to controvert the right. Upon a solemn question asked in a full

House, there was not one negative." (Bancroft's History of the United

States, Vol. V., Chap. ix., pp. 186, 187.)]

[Footnote 267: Mr. Grenville gave the year's notice apparently from

motives of kindness and courtesy to the colonies, "in order that the

colonies might have time to offer a compensation for the revenues which

such a tax might produce. Accordingly, when the agents of these colonies

waited upon him to thank him for this mark of his consideration, he told

them that he was ready to receive proposals from the colonies for any

other tax that might be equivalent in its produce to the stamp tax,

hinting withal that their principals would now have it in their power,

by agreeing to this tax, to establish a precedent for their being

consulted (by the Ministry, we suppose) before any tax was imposed upon

them by Parliament.

"Many persons at this side of the water, and perhaps the agents

themselves, looked upon this as a humane and generous proceeding. But

the colonies seemed to consider it as an affront rather than a

compliment. At least not one of them authorized its agent to consent to

the stamp duty, or to offer any compensation for it; and some of them

went so far as to send over petitions, to be presented to the King,

Lords, and Commons, positively and directly questioning the authority

and jurisdiction of Parliament over their properties." (Annual Register,

Vol. VIII., Chap. ix., p. 33.)]

[Footnote 268: See Appendix to this chapter for a summary and review of

the speeches of Mr. Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré.]

[Footnote 269: "The province of Virginia took the lead. On the 29th May,

1765, the House of Burgesses of Virginia adopted the following

resolutions:

"Whereas the honourable House of Commons in England have of late drawn

into question how far the General Assembly of this province hath power

to enact laws for levying taxes and imposing duties payable by the

people of this his Majesty's most ancient colony; for settling and

ascertaining the same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of

this present General Assembly have come to the following resolutions:

1. "_Resolved_,--That the first adventurers and settlers of this his

Majesty's colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them, and

transmitted to their posterity, and all other his Majesty's subjects

since inhabiting his Majesty's colony, all the privileges and immunities

that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of

Great Britain.

2. "_Resolved_,--That by the two Royal Charters granted by King James

the First, the colonies aforesaid are declared entitled to all

privileges of faithful liege and natural-born subjects, to all intents

and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of

England.

3. "_Resolved_,--That his Majesty's liege people of this most ancient

colony have enjoyed the right of having been thus far governed by their

own Assembly in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the

same have never been forfeited, or in any other way yielded up, but have

been constantly recognized by the King and people of Great Britain.

4. "_Resolved_, therefore,--That the General Assembly of this colony,

together with his Majesty or his substitute, have, in their

representative capacity, the only exclusive right and power to levy

taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that

every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever

other than the General Assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional,

and unjust, and has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as

American freedom." (Prior Documents, etc., pp. 6, 7.)

These resolutions were introduced by Patrick Henry, in an eloquent and

animated speech, in the course of which the following extraordinary

scene occurred: In an exciting tone he exclaimed, "Cæsar had his Brutus!

Charles the First had his Cromwell! and George the Third----" The

Speaker, greatly excited, cried out "Treason! treason!" which was

re-echoed from all sides. Then Henry, fixing his eye on the Speaker, and

pointing his finger towards him, raised his voice above the confusion

and concluded, "And George the Third may profit by their example. If

this be treason, make the most of it." (Elliott's History, etc., Vol.

II., p. 252.)

Mr Bancroft says: "The resolutions were published in the newspapers

throughout America, and by _men of all parties_--_by Royalists_ in

office not less than by the public bodies in the colonies--were received

without dispute as the avowed sentiments of the 'Old Dominion.'"

(History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap, xiii., p. 278.)]

[Footnote 270: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., page 135. Hildreth's History of

the United States, Vol. II., pp. 530, 531.]

[Footnote 271: Cornelius Burgess, a Puritan minister, used to say of the

rabble:

"These are my band-dogs. I can set them on; I can fetch them off again."

(Rapin's History of England, Vol. IX., p. 410, in a note.)]

[Footnote 272: "On Sunday, 25th August (the day before these riots were

renewed), Dr. Mayhew preached in the west meeting house, from the text,

Galatians, chap. v. verse 12: 'I would they were even cut off which

trouble you.' Although the sermon was regular enough, the text then

seemed significant, and Hutchinson (History) states that some were

excited by it. (Doubtless the 'Band-dogs' of Dr. Mayhew.) At any rate,

in the night the bonfires brought together their crowds, who, grown bold

by success, proceeded to express their hatred against the Admiralty

Courts and the Custom-houses by attacking and damaging the houses of two

officers, Story and Hallowell. In these they found good wines, which

served to inflame their blood; and then their shout was, 'Hutchinson!

Hutchinson!' A friend hastened to his house to warn him of his danger.

He barred his windows, determined to resist their fury; but his family

dragged him away with them in their flight. The mob rushed on, and

beating down his windows, sacked the house (one of the finest in Boston)

and destroyed everything, even a valuable collection of books and

manuscripts.

"This excess shocked the wise friends of liberty, and in a public

meeting the citizens discovered the destruction, and set their faces

against any further demonstrations of the sort. Rewards were offered for

the rioters, and Mackintosh and some others were apprehended, but were

rescued by their friends; and it was found impossible to proceed against

them." (Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., pp. 254, 255.)

"Mayhew sent the next day a special apology and disclaimer to

Hutchinson. The inhabitants of Boston, at a town meeting, unanimously

expressed their abhorrence of these proceedings, and a civil guard was

organized to prevent their repetition. Yet the rioters, though well

known, went unpunished--a sure sign of the secret concurrence of the

mass of the community. Those now committed were revolutionary acts,

designed to intimidate--melancholy forerunners of civil war."

(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xxviii., p.

528.)]

[Footnote 273: _Ib._, p. 527.

1. Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, whose house was thus sacked and his

valuable papers destroyed, was the historian of his native province of

Massachusetts Bay, whom I have quoted so frequently in the present

volume of this history. Of his history, Mr. Bancroft, a bitter enemy of

Hutchinson's, says:

"At the opening of the year 1765, the people of New England were reading

the history of the first sixty years of the Colony of Massachusetts, by

Hutchinson. This work is so ably executed that as yet it remains without

a rival; and his knowledge was so extensive that, with the exception of

a few concealments, it exhausts the subject. Nothing so much revived the

ancestral spirit which a weaving of the gloomy superstitions, mixed with

Puritanism, had for a long time overshadowed." (History of the United

States, Vol. V., Chap, xi., p. 228.)

2. But though mob violence distinguished Boston on this as well as on

other occasions, the opposition was such throughout the colonies, from

New Hampshire to Georgia, that all those who had been appointed to

receive and distribute the stamps were compelled, by the remonstrances

and often threats of their fellow-colonists, to resign the office; and

the stamped paper sent from England to the ports of the various

provinces was either returned back by the vessel that brought it, or put

into a place of sate keeping. "Though the Stamp Act was to have operated

from the 1st of November, yet the legal proceedings in Courts were

carried on as before. Vessels entered and departed without stamped

papers. The printers boldly printed and circulated their newspapers, and

found a sufficient number of readers, though they used common paper, in

defiance of the Act of Parliament. In most departments, by common

consent, business was carried on as though no stamp law existed. This

was accompanied by spirited resolutions to risk all consequences rather

than submit to use the paper required by the Stamp Act. While these

matters were in agitation, the colonists entered into associations

against importing British manufactures till the Stamp Act should be

repealed. Agreeably to the free constitution of Great Britain, the

subject was at liberty to buy, or not to buy, as he pleased. By

suspending their future purchases until the repeal of the Stamp Act, the

colonists made it the interest of merchants and manufacturers in England

to solicit its repeal. They had usually taken so great a proportion of

British manufactures, amounting annually to two or three millions

sterling, that they threw some thousands in the mother country out of

employment, and induced them, from a regard to their own interest, to

advocate the measures wished for by America." (Ramsay's Colonial

History, Vol. I., pp. 345, 346).]