houses themselves, arrived in Boston. The military officers had been
speculating on what would be done, and Colonel Dalrymple stood ready to
protect the factors. But his assistance was not demanded. Hutchinson
permitted the merchants to reduce the consignees to submission, and even
to compel an English adventurer to re-embark his goods. One and another
of the Boston recusants yielded; even the two sons of Hutchinson
himself, by their father's direction, gave up 18 chests of tea, and
entered fully into the (non-importation) agreement. Four still held out,
and their names, with those of the two sons of Hutchinson, whose
sincerity was questioned, stood recorded as infamous on the journals of
the town of Boston. On the 15th another ship arrived; again the troops
looked on as bystanders, and witnessed the complete victory of the
people."[312]
But in the following month, November, a new turn was given to public
thought, and new feelings of joy were inspired throughout America, by a
dispatch from Lord Hillsborough to the King's personal friend, Lord
Botetourt, Governor of Virginia, promising the repeal of the obnoxious
Revenue Acts, and to impose no further taxes on the colonies. Lord
Hillsborough says:
"I can take upon me to assure you, notwithstanding information to the
contrary from men with factious and seditious views, that his Majesty's
present Administration have at no time entertained a design to propose
to Parliament to lay any further taxes upon America for the purpose of
raising a revenue; and that it is at present their intention to propose,
the next session of Parliament, to take off the duties upon glass, paper
and colours, upon consideration of such duties having been laid contrary
to the true principles of commerce." Lord Hillsborough further informed
Lord Botetourt that "his Majesty relied upon his prudence and fidelity
to make such explanation of his Majesty's measures as would tend to
remove prejudices and to re-establish mutual confidence and affection
between the mother country and the colonies."
In Lord Botetourt's address to the Virginia Assembly, transmitting a
copy of the dispatch, he said:
"It may possibly be objected that as his Majesty's present
Administration are not immortal, their successors may be inclined to
attempt to undo what the present Ministers shall have attempted to
perform; and to that objection I can give but this answer: that it is my
firm opinion that the plan I have stated to you will certainly take
place, and that it will never be departed from; and so determined am I
for ever to abide by it, that I will be content to be declared infamous
if I do not, to the last hour of my life, at all times, in all places,
and upon all occasions, exert every power with which I either am, or
ever shall be, legally invested, in order to obtain and maintain for the
continent of America that satisfaction which I have been authorized to
promise this day by the confidential servants of our gracious Sovereign,
who, to my certain knowledge, rates his honour so high, that he would
rather part with his crown than preserve it by deceit."
These assurances were received by the Virginians with transports of joy,
viewing them as they did as abandoning, never to be resumed, the design
of raising a revenue in America by Act of Parliament. The General
Assembly of Virginia, in reply to Lord Botetourt's address, thus
expressed themselves:
"We are sure our most gracious Sovereign, under whatever changes may
happen in his confidential servants, will remain immutable in the ways
of truth and justice, and that he is incapable of deceiving his faithful
subjects; and we esteem your lordship's information not only as
warranted, but even sanctified by the Royal word."[313]
It was understood and expected on all sides that the unproductive tax on
tea would be repealed with the other articles enumerated in the Revenue
Acts. Such was the wish of Governor Botetourt; such was the advice of
Eden, the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Maryland; Golden, who
now administered the government of New York, on account of the death of
More, assured the Legislature of the greatest probability that the late
duties imposed by authority of Parliament, so much to the
dissatisfaction of the colonies, would be taken off the ensuing
session.[314]
"Thus," says Mr. Bancroft, "all America confined its issue with Great
Britain to the single question of the Act imposing a duty on tea." "Will
not a repeal of all other duties satisfy the colonists?" asked one of
the Ministerial party of Franklin in London. And he frankly answered, 'I
think not; it is not the sum paid in the duty on tea that is complained
of as a burden, but the principle of the Act expressed in the preamble.'
This faithful advice was communicated to the Ministry; but what effect
could it produce when Hillsborough administered the colonies, with
Barnard for his counsellor?[315]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 309: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chapter iii., p. 359.
The following are the resolutions subscribed by the merchants and
traders of New York, dated 27th August, 1768:
I. That we will not send for from Great Britain, either upon our own
account or on commission, this fall, any other goods than what we have
already ordered.
II. That we will not import any kind of merchandise from Great Britain,
either on our own account or on commission, or any otherwise, nor
purchase from any factor or others, any kind of goods imported from
Great Britain directly, or by way of any of the other colonies, or by
way of the West Indies, that shall be shipped from Great Britain after
the first day of November, until the forementioned Acts of Parliament,
imposing duties on paper, glass, etc., be repealed; except only the
articles of coals, salt, sailcloth, wool, card-wool, grindstones, chalk,
lead, tin, sheet-copper, and German steel.
III. We further agree not to import any kind of merchandise from Hamburg
and Holland, directly from thence, nor by any other way whatsoever, more
than we have already ordered, except tiles and bricks.
IV. We also promise to countermand all orders given from Great Britain,
or since the 16th instant, by the first conveyance; ordering those goods
not to be sent, unless the forementioned duties are taken off.
V. And we further agree, that if any person or persons subscribing
hereto shall take any advantage, by importing any kind of goods that are
herein restricted, directly or indirectly, contrary to the true intent
and meaning of this agreement, such person or persons shall by us be
deemed enemies to their country.
VI. Lastly, we agree, that if any goods shall be consigned or sent over
to us, contrary to our agreement in this subscription, such goods so
imported shall be lodged in some public warehouse, there to be kept
under confinement until the forementioned Acts be repealed.]
[Footnote 310: The following is the portrait which Mr. Bancroft has
drawn of the character of Barnard, and I cannot deny its accuracy:
"Trained as a wrangling proctor in an Ecclesiastical Court, he had been
a quarrelsome disputant rather than a statesman. His parsimony went to
the extreme of meanness; his avarice was insatiable and restless. So
long as he connived at smuggling, he reaped a harvest in that way; when
Grenville's sternness inspired alarm, it was his study to make the most
money out of forfeitures and penalties. Professing to respect the
Charter, he was unwearied in zeal for its subversion; declaring his
opposition to taxation by Parliament, he urged it with all his power.
Asserting most solemnly that he had never asked for troops, his letters
reveal his perpetual importunity for ships of war and an armed force.
His reports were often false--partly with design, partly from the
credulity of panic. He placed everything in the most unfavourable light,
and was ready to tell every tale and magnify trivial rumours into acts
of treason. He was despondent when conciliation prevailed in England.
The officers of the army and navy despised him for his cowardice and
duplicity, and did not conceal their contempt." (History of the United
States, Vol. VI., Chap. xli., p. 291.)]
[Footnote 311: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xlii., pp.
308, 309, 311. For the first non-importation resolutions adopted by the
merchants of New York, see note on page 356.
"The trade between Great Britain and her colonies on the continent of
America, on an average of three years (from 1766 to 1769), employed
1,078 ships and 28,910 seamen. The value of goods exported from Great
Britain on the same average was £3,370,900; and of goods exported from
the colonies to Great Britain and elsewhere £3,924,606." (Holmes'
Annals, etc., Vol. II., p. 162.)]
[Footnote 312: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap, xlii., p.
311.
"To the military its inactivity was humiliating. Soldiers and officers
spoke of the people angrily as rebels. The men were rendered desperate
by the firmness with which the local magistrates put them on trial for
every transgression of the provincial laws. Arrests provoked resistance.
'If they touch you, run them through the bodies,' said a captain of the
29th Regiment to his soldiers, and he was indicted for the
speech."--_Ib._, p. 314.]
[Footnote 313: Quoted from Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap.
iii., pp. 363, 364.]
[Footnote 314: Bancroft's History, Vol. VI., Chap, xlii., pp. 315, 316.
"The general tendency to conciliation prevailed. Since the merchants of
Philadelphia chose to confine their agreement for non-importation to the
repeal of Townshend's Act, the merchants of Boston, for the sake of
union, gave up their more extensive covenant, and reverted to their
first stipulations. The dispute about the Billeting Act had ceased in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania; the Legislature of New York, pleased with
the permission to issue colonial bills of credit, disregarded the appeal
from Macdougall to the betrayed inhabitants of that city and colony, and
sanctioned a compromise by a majority of one. South Carolina was
commercially the most closely connected with England. The annual exports
from Charleston reached in value about two and a quarter millions of
dollars, of which three-fourths went directly or indirectly to England.
But however closely the ties of interest bound Carolina to England, the
people were high-spirited; and, notwithstanding the great inconvenience
to their trade, they persevered in the strict observance of their
(non-importation) association, looking with impatient anxiety for the
desired repeal of the Act complained of."--_Ib._, pp. 317, 318.]
[Footnote 315: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap, xlii., p.
318.]
CHAPTER XVI.
EVENTS OF 1770--AN EVENTFUL EPOCH--EXPECTATIONS OF RECONCILIATION AND
UNION DISAPPOINTED.
This was the year of bloody collision and parliamentary decision, which
determined the future relations between Great Britain and the American
colonies. Dr. Ramsay observes:
"From the Royal and Ministerial assurances given in favour of America in
1769, and the subsequent repeal in 1770 of five-sixths of the duties
which had been imposed in 1767, together with the consequent renewal of
the mercantile intercourse between Great Britain and her colonies, many
hoped that the contention between the two countries was finally closed.
In all the provinces, excepting Massachusetts, appearances seemed to
favour that opinion. Many incidents operated there to the prejudice of
that harmony which had begun elsewhere to return. Stationing a military
force among them was a fruitful source of uneasiness. The royal army had
been brought thither with the avowed design of enforcing submission to
the mother country. Speeches from the Throne and addresses from both
Houses of Parliament had taught them to look upon the inhabitants of
Massachusetts as a factious, turbulent people, who aimed at throwing off
all subordination to Great Britain. They, on the other hand, were
accustomed to look upon the soldiery as instruments of tyranny, sent on
purpose to dragoon them out of their liberties.
"Reciprocal insults soured the tempers, and mutual injuries embittered
the passions of the opposite parties. Some fiery spirits, who thought it
an indignity to have troops quartered among them, were constantly
exciting the townspeople to quarrel with the soldiers.
"On the 2nd of March, 1770, a fray took place near Mr. Gray's ropewalk,
between a private soldier of the 20th Regiment and an inhabitant. The
former was supported by his comrades, the latter by the ropemakers, till
several on both sides were involved in the consequences. On the 5th a
more dreadful scene was presented. The soldiers when under arms were
pressed upon, insulted and pelted by the mob, armed with clubs, sticks,
and snowballs covering stones. They were also dared to fire. In this
situation, one of the soldiers, who had received a blow, in resentment
fired at the supposed aggressors. This was followed by a single
discharge from six others. Three of the inhabitants were killed and five
were dangerously wounded. The town was immediately in commotion. Such
were the temper, force, and number of the inhabitants, that nothing but
an engagement to remove the troops out of the town, together with the
advice of moderate men, prevented the townsmen from falling on the
soldiers. Capt. Preston, who commanded, and the party who fired on the
inhabitants, were committed to jail, and afterwards tried. The captain
and six of the men were acquitted. Two were brought in guilty of
manslaughter (and were lightly punished). _It appeared on the trial that
the soldiers were abused, insulted, threatened, and pelted before they
fired._ It was also proved that only seven guns were fired by the eight
prisoners. These circumstances induced the jury to give a favourable
verdict. The result of the trial reflected great honour on John Adams
and Josiah Quincy, the counsel for the prisoners (promising young
lawyers and popular leaders), and also on the integrity of the jury, who
ventured to give an upright verdict in defiance of popular
opinion."[316]
A further hindrance to returning harmony in Massachusetts, as in the
other colonies, was another ill-judged act of the British Ministers in
making the Governor and judges wholly independent of the province in
regard to their salaries, which had always been paid by the local
Legislature in annual grants, but which were now, for the first time,
paid by the Crown. The House of Assembly remonstrated against this
innovation, which struck at the very heart of public liberty, by making
the administrator of the government, and the courts of law, wholly
independent of the people, and wholly dependent on the Crown, all
holding their offices during pleasure of the Crown, and depending upon
it alone for both the amount and payment of their salaries, and that
payment out of a revenue raised by taxing the people without their
consent.
The House addressed the Governor and judges to know whether they would
receive their salaries as heretofore, by grants of the Legislature, or
as stipends from the Crown. Three out of the four judges announced that
they would receive their salaries as heretofore, by grants from the
local Legislature; but Governor Hutchinson and Chief Justice Oliver
announced that they would receive their salaries from the Crown. They
therefore became more and more odious to the inhabitants, while the
discussion of the new question of the relations of the Executive and
Judiciary to the people, upon the grounds of public freedom and the
impartial administration of justice, greatly increased the strength of
the opposition and the importance of the local House of Representatives
as the counterpart of the House of Commons, and as guardians of the
rights of the people.
At an early period of Canadian history, the salaries of governors and
judges were determined and paid by the Crown, out of what was called a
casual and territorial revenue, independent of the representatives of
the people, and the judges held their places during pleasure; but after
much agitation, and a determined popular struggle of several years, a
civil list for both the governors and judges was agreed upon and voted
by the Legislature. The tenure of the offices of judges was made that of
good behaviour, instead of pleasure; and executive councillors and heads
of departments were made dependent upon the confidence of the
Legislature, with the control of revenues of every kind raised in the
country; since which time there have been peace, loyalty, and progress
throughout the provinces of the Canadian Dominion.
To turn now to the affairs of the colonies as discussed and decided upon
in the British Parliament, which met the 9th of January, 1770. The King,
in opening Parliament, expressed his regret that his endeavours to
tranquillize America had not been attended with the desired success, and
that combinations had been formed to destroy the commercial connection
between the colonies and the mother country. The opposition in both
Houses of Parliament dwelt strongly on the prevailing discontents, both
in England and in the colonies. Ministers, admitting these discontents,
imputed them to the spirit of faction, the speeches and writings of
agitators, and to petitions got up and circulated by their influence.
Lords Camden and Shelburne resigned, disapproving of the policy of the
Administration, as did soon after, on the 28th of January, 1770, the
Duke of Grafton, First Lord of the Treasury, and was succeeded by Lord
North as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Chatham, after an absence of
two years, recovered sufficiently to make his clarion voice once more
heard in the councils of the nation against official corruption, and in
defence of liberty and the rights of the colonies, the affairs of which
now occupied the attention of Parliament. The British manufacturers and
merchants who traded to America had sustained immense losses by the
rejection of their goods, through the non-importing associations in
America, and apprehended ruin from their continuance, and therefore
petitioned Parliament, stating their sufferings and imploring relief. On
the 5th of March Lord North introduced a Bill into the Commons for the
repeal of the whole of the Act of 1767, which imposed duties on glass,
red lead, paper, and painters' colours, but retaining the preamble,
which asserted the absolute authority of Parliament to bind the colonies
in all cases whatsoever, and retaining, as an illustration of that
authority, the clause of the Act which imposed a duty on tea. He
said:--"The articles taxed being chiefly British manufactures, ought to
have been encouraged instead of being burdened with assessments. The
duty on tea was continued, for maintaining the parliamentary right of
taxation. An impost of threepence in the pound could never be opposed by
the colonists, unless they were determined to rebel against Great
Britain. Besides, a duty on that article, payable in England, and
amounting to nearly one shilling in the pound, was taken off on its
exportation to America; so that the inhabitants of the colonies saved
ninepence in the pound. The members of the opposition, in both Houses,
advocated the repeal of the clause on tea, and predicted the
inefficiency of the Bill should that clause be retained, and repeated
the arguments on the injustice and inexpediency of taxing America by Act
of Parliament; but the Bill was carried by a large majority, and
assented to by the King on the 12th of April."
The repeal of the obnoxious port duties of 1767 left no pretence for
retaining the duty on _tea_ for raising a _revenue_, as the tea duty, at
the highest computation, would not exceed £16,000 a year; and when Lord
North was pressed to relinquish that remaining cause of contention, he
replied:
"Has the repeal of the Stamp Act taught the Americans obedience? Has our
lenity inspired them with moderation? Can it be proper, while they deny
our legal right to tax them, to acquiesce in the argument of illegality,
and by the repeal of the whole law to give up that honour? No; the most
proper time to exert our right of taxation is when the right is refused.
To temporize is to yield; and the authority of the mother country, if it
is now unsupported, will in reality be relinquished for ever. A total
repeal cannot be thought of till America is prostrate at our feet."
Governor Pownall, who had spent many years in America, and had preceded
Barnard as Governor of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, to include the
repeal of the duty on tea as well as on the articles included in the
original motion of Lord North. In the course of his speech in support of
the amendment he said:
"If it be asked whether it will remove the apprehensions excited by your
resolutions and address of the last year, for bringing to trial in
England persons accused of treason in America? I answer, no. If it be
asked, if this commercial concession would quiet the minds of the
Americans as to the political doubts and fears which have struck them to
the heart throughout the continent? I answer, no; so long as they are
left in doubt whether the Habeas Corpus Act, whether the Bill of Rights,
whether the Common Law as now existing in England, have any operation
and effect in America, they cannot be satisfied. At this hour they know
not whether the civil constitution be not suspended and superseded by
the establishment of a military force. The Americans think that they
have, in return to all their applications, experienced a temper and
disposition that is unfriendly--that the enjoyment and exercise of the
common rights of freemen have been refused to them. Never with these
views will they solicit the favour of this House; never more will they
wish to bring before Parliament the grievances under which they conceive
themselves to labour. Deeply as they feel, they suffer and endure with
alarming silence. For their liberty they are under no apprehensions. It
was first planted under the auspicious genius of the constitution, and
it has grown up into a verdant and flourishing tree; and should any
severe strokes be aimed at the branches, and fate reduce it to the bare
stock, it would only take deeper root, and spring out more hardy and
durable than before. They trust to Providence, and wait with firmness
and fortitude the issue."
The statements of Governor Pownall were the result of long observation
and experience in America, and practical knowledge of the colonists, and
were shown by results to be true to the letter, though treated with
scorn by Lord North, and with aversion by the House of Commons, which
rejected his amendment by a majority of 242 to 204.
The results of the combinations against the use of British manufactures
were illustrated this year by the candidates for the degree of Bachelor
of Arts at Harvard College appearing dressed in black cloth manufactured
wholly in New England. The general plan of non-importation of English
manufactured goods was now relinquished on the repeal of the duties
imposed upon them; but the sentiment of the principal commercial towns
was against the importation of any tea from England. An association was
formed not to drink tea until the Act imposing the duty should be
repealed. This was generally agreed to and observed throughout the
colonies.
But the retaining of threepence in the pound on tea did not excite so
much hostility in the colonies against the Parliament as might have been
expected. The Act of Parliament was virtually defeated, and the expected
revenue from tea failed because of the resolution of the colonial
associations of the people to use no tea, and of the merchants to
import none on which the duty was charged. The merchants found means to
smuggle, from countries to which the authority of Great Britain did not
extend, a sufficient supply of tea for the tea-drinking colonists. Thus
the tea-dealers and tea-drinkers of America exercised their patriotism
and indulged their taste--the one class making an additional threepence
a pound on tea by evading the Act, and the other class enjoying the
luxury of tea as cheap as if no tea-duty Act of Parliament existed, and
with the additional relish of rendering such Act abortive. The
facilities for smuggling tea, arising from the great extent of the
American coasts, and the great number of harbours, and the universality
of the British anti-tea associations, and the unity of popular sentiment
on the subject, rendered the Act of Parliament imposing the duty a
matter of sport rather than a measure of oppression even to the most
scrupulous, as they regarded the Act unconstitutional, and every means
lawful and right by which the obnoxious Act could be evaded and
defeated. It is probable that, in the ordinary course of things, the Act
would have become practically obsolete, and the relations of the
colonies to the mother country have settled down into quietness and
friendliness, but for another event, which not only revived with
increased intensity the original question of dispute, but gave rise to
other occurrences that kindled the flame of the American revolution.
That event was the agreement between the Ministry and the East India
Company, which interfered with the natural and ordinary channels of
trade, and gave to that Company a monopoly of the tea trade of America.
From the diminished exportation of tea from England to the colonies,
there were, in warehouses of the British East India Company, seventeen
millions of pounds of tea for which there was no demand. Lord North and
his colleagues were not willing to lose the expected revenue, as small
as it must be at last from their American Tea Act, and the East India
Company were unwilling to lose the profits of their American tea trade.
An agreement was therefore entered into between the Ministry and the
Company, by which the Company, which was authorized by law to export
their tea free of duty to all places whatsoever, could send their tea
cheaper to the colonies than others who had to pay the exceptionable
duty, and even cheaper than before it had been made a source of
revenue; "for the duty taken off it when exported from Great Britain was
greater than that to be paid for it on its importation into the
colonies. Confident of success in finding a market for their tea, thus
reduced in its price, and also of collecting a duty on its importation
and sale in the colonies, the East India Company freighted several ships
with teas for the different colonies, and appointed agents (or
consignees) for its disposal." This measure united both the English and
American merchants in opposition to it upon selfish grounds of interest,
and the colonists generally upon patriotic grounds. "The merchants in
England were alarmed at the losses that must come to themselves from the
exportations of the East India Company, and from the sales going through
the hands of consignees. Letters were written to colonial patriots,
urging their opposition to the project. The (American merchants)
smugglers, who were both numerous and powerful, could not relish a
scheme which, by underselling them and taking a profitable branch of
business out of their hands, threatened a diminution of their gains. The
colonists were too suspicious of the designs of Great Britain to be
imposed upon.
"The cry of endangered liberty once more excited an alarm from New
Hampshire to Georgia. The first opposition to the execution of the
scheme adopted by the East India Company began with the American
merchants. They saw a profitable branch of their trade likely to be
lost, and the benefits of it transferred to a company in Great Britain.
They felt for the wound that would be inflicted on their country's claim
of exemption from parliamentary taxation; but they felt, with equal
sensibility, for the losses they would sustain by the diversion of the
streams of commerce into unusual channels. Though the opposition
originated in the selfishness of the merchants, it did not end there.
The great body of the people, from principles of the purest patriotism,
were brought over to second their wishes. They considered the whole
scheme as calculated to seduce them into an acquiescence with the views
of Parliament for raising an American revenue. Much pains were taken to
enlighten the colonists on this subject, and to convince them of the
eminent hazard to which their liberties were exposed.
"The provincial patriots insisted largely on the persevering
determination of the parent state to establish her claim of taxation by
compelling the sale of tea in the colonies against the solemn
resolutions and declared sense of the inhabitants, and that at a time
when the commercial intercourse of the two countries was renewed, and
their ancient harmony fast returning. The proposed vendors of the tea
were represented as revenue officers, employed in the collection of an
unconstitutional tax imposed by Great Britain. The colonists contended
that, as the duty and the price of the commodity were inseparably
blended, if the tea were sold every purchaser would pay a tax imposed by
the British Parliament as part of the purchase money."[317]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 316: Colonial History, Vol. I. Chap. iii., pp. 364, 365.
Several American historians have sought to represent the soldiers as the
first aggressors and offenders in this affair. The verdict of the jury
refutes such representations. The accuracy of Dr. Ramsay's statements
given above cannot be fairly questioned; he was a member of South
Carolina Legislature, an officer in the revolutionary army during the
whole war, and a personal friend of Washington. Mr. Hildreth says: "A
weekly paper, the 'Journal of the Times,' was filled with all sorts of
stories, some true, but the greater part false or exaggerated, _on
purpose to keep up prejudice against the soldiers. A mob of men and
boys_, encouraged by the sympathy of the inhabitants, _made a constant
practice to insult and provoke them_. The result to be expected soon
followed. After numerous fights with straggling soldiers, a serious
collision at length took place: a picket guard of eight men, _provoked
beyond endurance by words and blows_, fired into a crowd, killed three
persons and dangerously wounded five others." "The story of the 'Boston
massacre,' for so it was called, exaggerated into a ferocious and
unprovoked assault by brutal soldiers on a defenceless people, produced
everywhere intense excitement. The officer and soldiers of the picket
guard were indicted and tried for murder. They were defended, however,
by John Adams and Josiah Quincy, two young lawyers, the most zealous
among the popular leaders: and so clear a case was made in their behalf,
that they were all acquitted except two, who were found guilty of
manslaughter and slightly punished." (History of the United States,
Chap. xxix., pp. 554, 555, 556.)
Dr. Holmes states that "the soldiers were pressed upon, insulted by the
populace, and dared to fire; one of them, who had received a blow, fired
at the aggressors, and a single discharge from six others succeeded.
Three of the inhabitants were killed and five dangerously wounded. The
town was instantly thrown into the greatest commotion. The drums beat to
arms, and thousands of the inhabitants assembled in the adjacent
streets. The next morning Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson summoned a
Council; and while the subject was in discussion, a message was received
from the town, which had convened in full assembly, declaring it to be
their unanimous opinion 'that nothing can rationally be expected to
restore the peace of the town, and prevent blood and carnage, but the
immediate removal of the troops.' On an agreement to this measure, the
commotion subsided. Captain Preston, who commanded the party of
soldiers, was committed with them to jail, and all were afterwards
tried. The captain and six of the men were acquitted. Two were brought
in guilty of manslaughter. The result of the trial reflected great
honour on John Adams and Josiah Quincy, the counsel for the prisoners,
and on the integrity of the jury." (Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 166,
167.)
How much more honourable and reliable are these straightforward
statements of those American historians of the times, and the verdict of
even a Boston jury, than the sophistical, elaborate, and reiterated
efforts of Mr. Bancroft, in the 43rd and 44th chapters of his History,
to implicate the soldiers as the provoking and guilty causes of the
collision, and impugning the integrity of the counsel for the
prosecution, the court, and the jury.
In the Diary of J. Adams, Vol. II., p. 229, are the following words:
"Endeavours had been systematically pursued for many months by certain
busy characters to excite quarrels, rencounters, and combats, single or
compound, in the night, between the inhabitants of the lower class and
the soldiers, and at all risks to enkindle an immortal hatred between
them."--(Quoted by Mr. Hildreth, Vol. II., p. 409, in a note.)]
[Footnote 317: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp.
370-372.]
CHAPTER XVII.
EVENTS OF 1771, 1772, 1773--THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA REJECTED IN
EVERY PROVINCE OF AMERICA--RESOLUTIONS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN
PHILADELPHIA THE MODEL FOR THOSE OF OTHER COLONIES.
By this unprecedented and unjustifiable combination between the British
Ministry and East India Company to supersede the ordinary channels of
trade, and to force the sale of their tea in America, the returning
peace and confidence between Great Britain and the colonies was
arrested, the colonial merchants of both England and America were roused
and united in opposition to the scheme, meetings were held, associations
were formed, and hostility throughout all the colonies became so general
and intense, that not a chest of the East India Company's tea was sold
from New Hampshire to Georgia, and only landed in one instance, and then
to rot in locked warehouses. In all cases, except in Boston, the
consignees were prevailed upon to resign; and in all cases except two,
Boston and Charleston, the tea was sent back to England without having
been landed. At Charleston, South Carolina, they allowed the tea to be
landed, but not sold; and it rotted in the cellars of the store-houses.
At Philadelphia, the consignees were forced to resign and send the tea
back to England.[318] At New York they did the same. At Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, they sent the tea away to Halifax. At Boston the consignees
were the sons of Hutchinson, the Governor, and he determined that it
should be landed and sold; while the mass of the people, led by
committees of the "Sons of Liberty," were equally determined that the
tea should not be landed or sold.
As this Boston tea affair resulted in the passing of two Acts of
Parliament--the Bill for closing the port of Boston, and the Bill for
suspending the Charter and establishing a new constitution of government
for Massachusetts--and these were followed by an American Congress and a
civil war, I will state the transactions as narrated by three American
historians, agreeing in the main facts, but differing in regard to
incidental circumstances.
Dr. Ramsay narrates the general opposition to the scheme of the East
India Company, and that at Boston in particular, in the following words:
"As the time approached when the arrival of the tea ships might be soon
expected, such measures were adopted as seemed most likely to prevent
the landing of their cargoes. The tea consignees appointed by the East
India Company were in several places compelled to relinquish their
appointments, and no others could be found hardy enough to act in their
stead. The pilots in the River Delaware were warned not to conduct any
of the tea ships into their harbour. In New York, popular vengeance was
denounced against all who would contribute in any measure to forward the
views of the East India Company. The captains of the New York and
Philadelphia ships, being apprised of the resolution of the people, and
fearing the consequence of landing a commodity charged with an odious
duty, in violation of their declared public sentiments, concluded to
return directly to Great Britain without making any entry at the
Custom-house.
"It was otherwise in Massachusetts. The tea ships designed for the
supply of Boston were consigned to the sons, cousins, and particular
friends of Governor Hutchinson. When they were called upon to resign,
they answered that 'it was out of their power.' The Collector refused to
give a clearance unless the vessels were discharged of dutiable
articles. The Governor refused to give a pass for the vessels unless
properly qualified for the Custom-house. The Governor likewise requested
Admiral Montague to guard the passages out of the harbour, and gave
orders to suffer no vessels, coasters excepted, to pass the fortress
from the town without a pass signed by himself. From a combination of
these circumstances the return of the tea vessels from Boston was
rendered impossible. The inhabitants then had no option but to prevent
the landing of the tea, to suffer it to be landed and depend on the
unanimity of the people not to purchase it; to destroy the tea, or to
suffer a deep-laid scheme against their sacred liberties to take effect.
The first would have required incessant watching, by night as well as by
day, for a period of time the duration of which no one could compute.
The second would have been visionary to childishness, by suspending the
liberties of a growing country on the self-denial and discretion of
every tea-drinker in the province. They viewed the tea as the vehicle of
an unconstitutional tax, and as inseparably associated with it. To avoid
the one, they resolved to destroy the other. About seventeen persons,
dressed as Indians, repaired to the tea ships, broke open 342 chests of
tea, and, without doing any other damage, discharged their contents into
the water.
"Thus, by the inflexibility of the Governor, the issue of this business
was different at Boston from what it was elsewhere. The whole cargoes of
tea were returned from New York and Philadelphia; that which was sent to
Charleston was landed and stored, but not offered for sale. Mr.
Hutchinson had repeatedly urged Government to be firm and persevering.
He could not, therefore, consistently with his honour, depart from a
line of conduct he had so often and so strongly recommended to his
superiors. He also believed that the inhabitants would not dare to
perfect their engagements, and flattered himself that they would desist
when the critical moment arrived.
"Admitting the rectitude of the American claims of exemption from
parliamentary taxation, the destruction of the tea by the Bostonians was
warranted by the great law of self-preservation; for it was not possible
for them by any other means to discharge the duty they owed to their
country.
"The event of this business was very different from what had been
expected in England. The colonists acted with so much union and system,
that there was not a single chest of any of the cargoes sent out by the
East India Company sold for their benefit."[319]
The Rev. Dr. Holmes, in his Annals of America, says:
"The crisis now approached when the colonies were to decide whether they
would submit to be taxed by the British Parliament, or practically
support their own principles and meet the consequences. One sentiment
seems to have pervaded the entire continent. The new Ministerial plan
was universally considered as a direct attack on the liberties of the
colonists, which it was the duty of all to oppose. A violent ferment was
everywhere excited; the Corresponding Committees were extremely active;
and it was very generally declared that whoever should, directly or
indirectly, countenance this dangerous invasion of their rights, is an
enemy to his country. The East India Company, confident of finding a
market for their tea, reduced as it now was in its price, freighted
several ships to the colonies with that article, and appointed agents
for the disposal of it. Some cargoes were sent to New York, some to
Philadelphia, some to Charleston (South Carolina), and three to Boston.
The inhabitants of New York and Philadelphia sent the ships back to
London, 'and they sailed up the Thames to proclaim to all the nation
that New York and Pennsylvania would not be enslaved.' The inhabitants
of Charleston unloaded the tea and stored it in cellars, where it could
not be used, and where it finally perished.
"The inhabitants of Boston tried every measure to send back the three
tea ships which had arrived there, but without success. The captains of
the ships had consented, if permitted, to return with their cargoes to
England; but the consignees refused to discharge them from their
obligations, the Custom-house to give them a clearance for their return,
and the Governor refused to grant them a passport for clearing the fort.
It was easily seen that the tea would be gradually landed from the ships
lying so near the town, and that if landed it would be disposed of, and
the purpose of establishing the monopoly and raising a revenue effected.
To prevent this dreaded consequence, a number of armed men, disguised
like Indians, boarded the ships and threw their whole cargoes of tea
into the dock."[320]
A more circumstantial and graphic account of this affair is given by Mr.
J.S. Barry, in his History of Massachusetts, in the following words:
"On Sunday, November 28, 1773, one of the ships arrived, bringing one
hundred and fourteen chests of tea. Immediately the Select Men held a
meeting; and the Committee of Correspondence obtained from Rotch, the
owner of the vessel, a promise not to enter it until Tuesday. The towns
around Boston were summoned to meet on Monday; 'and every friend to his
country, to himself, and to posterity,' was desired to attend, 'to make
a united and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most
destructive measure of administration.'
"At an early hour (Monday, November 29) the people gathered, and by nine
o'clock the concourse was so great that Faneuil Hall was filled to
overflowing. A motion to adjourn to the Old South Meeting-house, the
'Sanctuary of Freedom,' was made and carried; and on reaching that
place, Jonathan Williams was chosen Moderator, and Hancock, Adams,
Young, Molineux, and Warren, fearlessly conducted the business of the
meeting. At least five thousand persons were in and around the building,
and but one spirit animated all. Samuel Adams offered a resolution,
which was unanimously adopted, 'That the tea should be sent back to the
place from whence it came, at all events, and that no duty should be
paid on it.' The consignees asked time for consideration, and 'out of
great tenderness' their request was granted. To prevent any surprise,
however, a watch of twenty-five persons, under Edward Proctor, was
appointed to guard the ship during the night.
"The answer of the consignees was given in the morning (November 30);
and after declaring that it was out of their power to send back the
teas, they expressed their readiness to store them until otherwise
advised. In the midst of the meeting the Sheriff of Suffolk entered,
with a proclamation from the Governor, warning the people to disperse;
but the message was received with derision and hisses, and a unanimous
vote not to disperse. The master and owner of the ship which had lately
arrived were then required to attend; and a promise was extorted from
them that the teas should be returned without landing or paying a duty.
The factors of two other vessels which were daily expected were next
summoned, and similar promises were given by them; upon which the
meeting, after voting to carry into effect, 'at the risk of their lives
and properties,' their former resolves, quietly dissolved.
"After this dissolution, the Committee of Correspondence of Boston and
its vicinity held meetings daily, and gave such directions as
circumstances required. The other ships, on their arrival, anchored
beside the _Dartmouth_ (Rotch's vessel), that one guard might serve for
all; and the inhabitants of a number of towns, at meetings convened for
the purpose, promised to aid Boston whenever their services should be
needed. At the end of twenty days the question must be decided, and if
the teas were landed all was lost. As the crisis drew near the
excitement increased. Hutchinson was confident that no violent measures
would be taken. The wealth of Hancock and others seemed sufficient
security against such measures. But the people had counted the cost,
and had determined to risk all rather than be slaves.
"The eventful day (December 16) at last dawned; and two thousand from
the country, besides the citizens of Boston, assembled in the Old South
Meeting-house at ten o'clock, to decide what should be done. It was
reported that Rotch, the owner of the _Dartmouth_, had been refused a
clearance; and he was immediately instructed to 'protest against the
Custom-house, and apply to the Governor for his pass.' But the Governor
had stolen to his residence at Milton, and at three o'clock in the
afternoon Rotch had not returned. What should be done? 'Shall we abide
by our resolutions?' it was asked. Adams and Young were in favour of
that course; Quincy, distinguished as a statesman and patriot, advised
discretion; but the people cried, 'Our hands have been put to the
plough; we must not look back;' and the whole assemblage of seven
thousand persons voted unanimously that the tea should not be landed.
"Darkness in the meantime had settled upon the town, and in the
dimly-lighted church the audience awaited the return of Rotch. At a
quarter before six he made his appearance, and reported that the
Governor had refused him his pass. 'We can do no more to save the
country,' said Samuel Adams; and a momentary silence ensued. The next
instant a shout was heard at the door; the war-whoop sounded; and forty
or fifty men, disguised as Indians, hurried along to Griffin's Wharf,
posted guards to prevent intrusion, boarded the ships, and in three
hours' time had broken and emptied into the sea three hundred and
forty-two chests of tea. So great was the stillness, that the blows of
the hatchets as the chests were split open were distinctly heard. When
the deed was done, every one retired, and the town was as quiet as if
nothing had occurred."[321]
The foregoing threefold narrative presents substantially the American
case of destroying the East India Company's tea by the inhabitants of
Boston. The account by Mr. Bancroft is more elaborate, digressive,
dramatic, and declamatory, but not so consecutive or concise as the
preceding. Governor Hutchinson, who had advised the very policy which
now recoiled upon himself, corroborates in all essential points the
narrative given above. He states, however, what is slightly intimated
above by Dr. Ramsay, that the opposition commenced by the merchants
against the monopoly of the East India Company, rather than against the
tax itself, which had been paid without murmuring for two years, and
that the parliamentary tax on tea was seized upon, at the suggestion of
merchants in England, to defeat the monopoly of the East India Company,
and to revive and perpetuate the excitement against the British
Parliament which had been created by the Stamp Act, and which was
rapidly subsiding. Governor Hutchinson says:
"When the intelligence first came to Boston it caused no alarm. The
threepenny duty had been paid the last two years without any stir, and
some of the great friends to liberty had been importers of tea. The body
of the people were pleased with the prospect of drinking tea at less
expense than ever. The only apparent discontent was among the importers
of tea, as well those who had been legal importers from England, as
others who had illegally imported from Holland; and the complaint was
against the East India Company for monopolizing a branch of commerce
which had been beneficial to a great number of individual merchants. And
the first suggestion of a design in the Ministry to enlarge the revenue,
and to habituate the colonies to parliamentary taxes, was made from
England; and opposition to the measure was recommended, with an
intimation that it was expected that the tea would not be suffered to be
landed."[322]
The Committees of Correspondence in the several colonies soon availed
themselves of so favourable an opportunity for promoting their great
purpose. It soon appeared to be their general determination, that at
all events the tea should be sent back to England in the same ships
which brought it. The first motions were at Philadelphia (Oct. 18th),
where, at a meeting of the people, every man who should be concerned in
unlading, receiving, or vending the tea, was pronounced an enemy to his
country. This was one of the eight resolves passed at the meeting. The
example was followed by Boston, November 3rd.[323]
Then follows Governor Hutchinson's account of the meetings and
gatherings in Boston: the messages and answers between their Committees
and the consignees, Custom-house officers, and the ultimate throwing of
the tea into the dock, substantially as narrated in the preceding pages,
together with his consultations with his Council, and his remarks upon
the motives and conduct of the parties opposed to him. He admits that
his Council was opposed to the measures which he proposed to suppress
the meetings of the people; he admits the universal hostility of the
people of Boston and of the neighbouring towns to the landing of the
tea; that "while the Governor and Council were sitting on the Monday, in
the Council Chamber, and known to be consulting upon means for
preserving the peace of the town, several thousands of inhabitants of
Boston and other towns were assembled in a public meeting-house at a
small distance, in direct opposition and defiance." He says he "sent the
Sheriff with a proclamation, to be read in the meeting, bearing
testimony against it as an unlawful assembly, and requiring the
Moderator and the people present forthwith to separate at their peril.
Being read, a general hiss followed, and then a question whether they
would surcease further proceedings, as the Governor required, which was
determined in the negative, _nemine contradicente_."
It may be asked upon what legal or even reasonable ground had Governor
Hutchinson the right to denounce a popular meeting which happened at the
same time that he was holding a council, or because such meeting might
entertain and express views differing from or in defiance of those
which he was proposing to his Council?
Or, what authority had Governor Hutchinson to issue a proclamation and
send a Sheriff to forbid a public meeting which the Charter and laws
authorized to be called and held, as much as the Governor was authorized
to call and hold his Council, or as any town or township council or
meeting may be called and held in any province of the Dominion of
Canada? It is not surprising that a public meeting "hissed" a command
which was as lawless as it was powerless. The King himself would not
have ventured to do what Governor Hutchinson did, in like circumstances;
and British subjects in Massachusetts had equal civil rights with
British subjects in England.
Governor Hutchinson admits that the public meeting was not only
numerous, but composed of all classes of inhabitants, and was held in
legal form; and his objection to the legality of the meeting merely
because persons from other towns were allowed to be present, while he
confesses that the inhabitants of Boston at the meeting were unanimous
in their votes, is the most trivial that can be conceived. He says:
"A more determined spirit was conspicuous in this body than in any
former assemblies of the people. It was composed of the lowest, as well,
and probably in as great proportion, as of the superior ranks and
orders, and all had an equal voice. No eccentric or irregular motions,
however, were suffered to take place--all seemed to have been the plan
of but a few--it may be, of a single person. The 'form' of town meeting
was assumed, the Select Men of Boston, town clerks, etc., taking their
usual places; but the inhabitants of any other town being admitted, it
could not assume the name of a 'legal meeting of any town.'" (A trivial
technical objection.)
Referring to another meeting--the last held before the day on which the
tea was thrown into the sea--Governor Hutchinson states:
"The people came into Boston from the adjacent towns within twenty
miles, from some more, from others less, as they were affected; and, as
soon as they were assembled (November 14th, 1773), enjoined the owner of
the ship, at his peril, to demand of the Collector of Customs a
clearance for the ship, and appointed ten of their number a committee to
accompany him, and adjourned for two days to receive the report. Being
reassembled (at the end of the two days), and informed by the owner that
a clearance was refused, he was enjoined immediately to apply to the
Governor for a pass by the Castle. He made an apology to the Governor
for coming upon such an errand, having been compelled to it, and
received an answer that no pass ever had been, or lawfully could be,
given to any vessel which had not first been cleared at the
Custom-house, and that upon his producing a clearance, such pass would
immediately be given by the naval officer."
Governor Hutchinson knew that the Custom-house could not give the
clearance without the landing of the tea and payment of the duty
provided for; he knew that the Custom-house had been applied to in vain
to obtain a clearance. His reference of the owner to the Custom-house
was a mere evasion and pretext to gain time and prevent any decisive
action on the part of the town meeting until the night of the 16th, when
the 20 days after the entry of the ships would have expired, and the
Collector could seize the cargoes for non-payment of duties, place it in
charge of the Admiral at the Castle, and sell it under pretence of
paying the duties. He says: "The body of the people remained in the
meeting-house until they had received the Governor's answer; and then,
after it had been observed to them that, everything else in their power
having been done, it now remained to proceed in the only way left, and
that the owner of the ship having behaved like a man of honour, no
injury ought to be offered to his person or property, the meeting was
declared to be dissolved, and the body of the people repaired to the
wharf and surrounded the immediate actors (who were 'covered with
blankets, and making the appearance of Indians') as a guard and security
until they had finished their work. In two or three hours they hoisted
out of the holds of the ships three hundred and forty-two chests of tea,
and emptied them into the sea. The Governor was unjustly censured by
many people in the province, and much abused by the pamphlet and
newspaper writers in England, for refusing his pass, which it is said
would have saved the property thus destroyed; but he would have been
justly censured if he had granted it. He was bound, as all the Governors
were, by oath, faithfully to observe the Acts of Trade, and to do his
endeavour that the statute of King William, which established a
Custom-house, and is particularly mentioned in the Act, be carried into
execution."
In Governor Hutchinson's own statement and vindication of his conduct,
he admits that the meetings of the people were lawfully called and
regularly conducted; that they were attended by the higher as well as
lower classes of the people; that they exhausted every means in their
power, deliberately and during successive days, to have the tea returned
to England without damage, as was done from the ports of New York and
Philadelphia; and that by his own acts, different from those of New
York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, whose Governors were subject to
the same oaths as himself, the opposers of taxation by the British
Parliament were reduced to the alternative of defeat, or of throwing the
tea in question into the sea, as the Governor had effectually blocked up
every possible way to their having the tea returned to England. Governor
Hutchinson does not pretend to the technical scrupulousness of his oath,
applicable to ordinary cases, binding him to write to the Admiral to
guard the tea by an increased number of armed vessels in the channel of
the harbour, and to prevent any vessel from passing out of the harbour
for sea, without his own permit; nor does he intimate that he himself
was the principal partner in the firm, nominally in the name of his
sons, to whom the East India Company had principally consigned as agents
the sale of the tea in question; much less does he say that in his
letters to England, which had been mysteriously obtained by Dr.
Franklin, and of the publication of which he so strongly and justly
complained, he had urged the virtual deprivation of his country of its
constitution of free government by having the Executive Councillors
appointed and the salaries of the governor, judges, secretary, and
attorney and solicitor-generals paid by the Crown out of the taxes of
the people of the colony, imposed by the Imperial Parliament. Governor
Hutchinson had rendered great service to his country by his History, and
as a public representative, for many years in its Legislature and
Councils, and was long regarded as its chief leader; but he had at
length yielded to the seductions of ambition and avarice, and became an
object of popular hatred instead of being, as he had many years been, a
popular idol. He had sown the seed of which he was now reaping the
fruits.
It is not surprising that, under such circumstances, Governor
Hutchinson's health should become impaired and his spirits depressed,
and that he should seek relief from his burdens and vexations by a visit
to England, for which he applied and obtained permission, and which
proved to be the end of his government of Massachusetts; for General
Gage was appointed to succeed him as Governor, as well as
Commander-in-Chief of the King's forces in America.
In reviewing the last few months of Mr. Hutchinson's government of
Massachusetts, it is obvious that his ill-advised policy and mode of
proceeding--arising, no doubt, in a great measure, from his personal and
family interest in speculation in the new system of tea trade--was the
primary and chief cause of those proceedings in which Boston differed
from New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston in preventing the landing of
the East India Company's tea. Had the authorities in the provinces of
New York and Pennsylvania acted in the same way as did the Governor of
Massachusetts, it cannot be doubted that the same scenes would have been
witnessed at Charleston, Philadelphia, and New York as transpired at
Boston. The eight resolutions which were adopted by the inhabitants of
Philadelphia, in a public town meeting, on the 8th of October, as the
basis of their proceedings against the taxation of the colonies by the
Imperial Parliament, and against the landing of the East India Company's
tea, were adopted by the inhabitants of Boston in a public town meeting
the 3rd of November. The tea was as effectually prevented from being
landed at the ports of New York and Philadelphia as it was at the port
of Boston, and was as completely destroyed in the damp cellars at
Charleston as in the sea water at Boston.[324]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 318: The resolutions adopted by a meeting of the inhabitants
of Philadelphia, on the 18th of October, 1773, afford a specimen of the
spirit of all the colonies, and the model of resolutions adopted in
several of them, even Boston. They were as follows:
"1. That the disposal of their own property is the inherent right of
freemen; that there can be no property in that which another can, of
right, take from us without our consent; that the claim of Parliament to
tax America is, in other words, a claim of right to levy contributions
on us at pleasure.
"2. That the duty imposed by Parliament upon tea landed in America is a
tax on the Americans, or levying contributions on them without their
consent.
"3. That the express purpose for which the tax is levied on the
Americans, namely, for the support of government, administration of
justice, and defence of his Majesty's dominions in America, has a direct
tendency to render Assemblies useless, and to introduce arbitrary
government and slavery.
"4. That a virtuous and steady opposition to this Ministerial plan of
governing America is absolutely necessary to preserve even the shadow of
liberty, and is a duty which every freeman in America owes to his
country, to himself, and to his posterity.
"5. That the resolution lately entered into by the East India Company,
to send out their tea to America, subject to the payment of duties on
its being landed here, is an open attempt to enforce this Ministerial
plan, and a violent attack upon the liberties of America.
"6. That it is the duty of every American to oppose this attempt.
"7. That whosoever shall, directly or indirectly, countenance this
attempt, or in anywise aid or abet in unloading, receiving, or vending
the tea sent or to be sent out by the East India Company, while it
remains subject to the payment of a duty here, is an enemy to his
country.
"8. That a Committee be immediately chosen to wait on those gentlemen
who it is reported are appointed by the East India Company to receive
and sell said tea, and request them, from a regard to their own
character, and the peace and good order of the city and province,
immediately to resign their appointments." (Ramsay's Colonial History,
Vol. I., pp. 372, 373.)]
[Footnote 319: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. 1., Chap. iii., pp.
373-375.]
[Footnote 320: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 181, 182.]
[Footnote 321: Barry's History of Massachusetts, Second Period, Chap.
xiv., pp. 470-473.
The historian adds: "The Governor was in a forlorn state, and was unable
to keep up even a show of authority. Every one was against him. The
Houses were against him. 'The superior judges were intimidated from
acting,' and 'there was not a justice of the peace, sheriff, constable,
or peace-officer in the province who would venture to take cognizance of
any breach of law against the general bent of the people.'"--_Ib._, 473,
474.]
[Footnote 322: Governor Hutchinson, in a note, referring to the
mercantile English letters which contained the suggestion not to allow
the landing of the tea of the East India Company, says:
"These letters were dated in England the beginning of August, and were
received in America the latter end of September and the beginning of
October."
Mr. Bancroft states as follows the causes and circumstances of this
disastrous tea agreement between the British Ministry and East India
Company:
"The continued refusal of North America to receive tea from England had
brought distress upon the East India Company, which had on hand, wanting
a market, great quantities imported in the faith that that agreement (in
the colonies, not to purchase tea imported from England) could not hold.
They were able to pay neither their dividends nor their debts; their
stock depreciated nearly one-half; and the Government must lose their
annual payment of four hundred thousand pounds.
"The bankruptcies, brought on partly by this means, gave such a shock to
credit as had not been experienced since the South Sea year, and the
great manufacturers were sufferers. The directors came to Parliament
with an ample confession of their humbled state, together with
entreaties for assistance and relief, and particularly praying that
leave might be given to export tea free of all duties to America and to
foreign ports. Had such leave been granted in respect of America, it
would have been an excellent commercial regulation, as well as have
restored a good understanding to every part of the empire. Instead of
this, Lord North proposed to give to the Company itself the right of
exporting its teas. The existing law granted on their exportation to
America a drawback of three-fifths only of the duties paid on
importation. Lord North now offered to the East India Company a drawback
of the whole. Trecothick, in the committee, also advised to take off the
import duty in America of threepence the pound, as it produced no income
to the revenue; but the Ministry would not listen to the thought of
relieving America from taxation. 'Then,' added Trecothick in behalf of
the East India Company, 'as much or more may be brought into revenue by
not allowing a full exemption from the duties paid here.' But Lord North
refused to discuss the right of Parliament to tax America, insisting
that no difficulty could arise; that under the new regulation America
would be able to buy tea from the Company at a lower price than from any
other European nation, and that men will always go to the cheapest
market.
"The Ministry was still in its halcyon days; no opposition was made even
by the Whigs; and the measure, which was the King's own, and was
designed to put America to the test, took effect as law from the 10th
day of May, 1773. It was immediately followed by a most carefully
prepared answer from the King to petitions from Massachusetts,
announcing that he 'considered his authority to make laws in Parliament
of sufficient force and validity to bind his subjects in America, in all
cases whatsoever, as essential to the dignity of the Crown, and a right
appertaining to the State, which it was his duty to preserve entire and
inviolate;' that he therefore 'could not but be greatly displeased with
the petitions and remonstrance in which that right was drawn into
question,' but that he 'imputed the unwarrantable doctrines held forth
in the said petitions and remonstrance to the artifices of a few.' All
this while Lord Dartmouth (the new Secretary of State for the Colonies,
successor to Lord Hillsborough) 'had a true desire to see lenient
measures adopted towards the colonies,' not being in the least aware
that he was drifting with the Cabinet towards the very system of
coercion against which he gave the most public and the most explicit
pledges." (History of the United States, Vol. VI., pp. 458-460.)]
[Footnote 323: See these resolutions, in a note on pp. 374, 375.]
[Footnote 324: "In South Carolina, some of the tea was thrown into the
river as at Boston." (English Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., p.
50.)]
CHAPTER XVIII.
EVENTS OF 1774--ALL CLASSES IN THE COLONIES DISCONTENTED--ALL CLASSES
AND ALL THE PROVINCES REJECT THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA.
The year 1774 commenced, among other legacies of 1773, with that of the
discontent of all the colonies,[325] their unanimous rejection of the
East India tea, stamped with the threepenny duty of parliamentary tax,
as the symbol of the absolutism of King and Parliament over the
colonies. The manner of its rejection, by being thrown into the sea at
Boston, was universally denounced by all parties in England. The
accounts of all the proceedings in America against the admission of the
East India tea to the colonial ports, were coloured by the mediums
through which they were transmitted--the royal governors and their
executive officers, who expected large advantages from being assigned
and paid their salaries by the Crown, independent of the local
Legislatures; and the consignees of the East India Company, who
anticipated large profits from their monopoly of its sale. Opposition to
the tea duty was represented as "rebellion"--the assertors of colonial
freedom from imperial taxation without representation were designated
"rebels" and "traitors," notwithstanding their professed loyalty to the
Throne and to the unity of the empire, and that their utmost wishes were
limited to be replaced in the position they occupied after the peace of
Paris, in 1763, and after their unanimous and admitted loyalty, and even
heroism, in defence and support of British supremacy in America.
"Intelligence," says Dr. Holmes, "of the destruction of the tea at
Boston was communicated on the 7th of March (1774), in a message from
the Throne, to both Houses of Parliament. In this communication the
conduct of the colonists was represented as not merely obstructing the
commerce of Great Britain, but as subversive of the British
Constitution. Although the papers accompanying the Royal message
rendered it evident that the opposition to the sale of the tea was
common to all the colonies; yet the Parliament, enraged at the violence
of Boston, selected that town as the object of its legislative
vengeance. Without giving the opportunity of a hearing, a Bill was
passed by which the port of Boston was legally precluded from the
privilege of landing and discharging, or of lading or shipping goods,
wares, and merchandise; and every vessel within the points Aldeston and
Nahant was required to depart within six hours, unless laden with food
or fuel.
"This Act, which shut up the harbour of Boston, was speedily followed by
another, entitled 'An Act for Better Regulating the Government of
Massachusetts,' which provided that the Council, heretofore elected by
the General Assembly, was to be appointed by the Crown; the Royal
Governor was invested with the power of appointing and removing all
Judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, Commissioners of Oyer and
Terminer, the Attorney-General, Provost-Marshal, Justices, Sheriffs,
etc.; town meetings, which were sanctioned by the Charter, were, with
few exceptions, expressly forbidden, without leave previously obtained
of the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, expressing the special business
of said meeting, and with a further restriction that no matters should
be treated of at these meetings except the electing of public officers
and the business expressed in the Governor's permission; jurymen, who
had been elected before by the freeholders and inhabitants of the
several towns, were to be all summoned and returned by the sheriffs of
the respective counties; the whole executive government was taken out
of the hands of the people, and the nomination of all important officers
invested in the King or his Governor.
"In the apprehension that in the execution of these Acts riots would
take place, and that trials or murders committed in suppressing them
would be partially decided by the colonists, it was provided by another
Act, that if any persons were indicted for murder, or any capital
offence, _committed in aiding the magistracy_, the Governor might send
the person so indicted to another county, or to Great Britain, to be
tried.
"These three Acts were passed in such quick succession as to produce the
most inflammatory effects in America, where they were considered as
forming a complete system of tyranny. 'By the first,' said the
colonists, 'the property of unoffending thousands is arbitrarily taken
away for the act of a few individuals; by the second, our chartered
liberties are annihilated; and by the third, our lives may be destroyed
with impunity.'"[326]
The passing of these three Bills through Parliament was attended in each
case with protracted and animated debates.
The first debate or discussion of American affairs took place on the 7th
of March, in proposing an address of thanks to the King for the message
and the communication of the American papers, with an assurance that the
House would not fail to exert every means in their power of effectually
providing for objects so important to the general welfare as maintaining
the due execution of the laws, and for securing the just dependence of
the colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.
In moving this address to pledge Parliament to the exertion of every
means in its power, Mr. Rice said: "The question now brought to issue
is, whether the colonies are or are not the colonies of Great Britain."
Lord North said, "Nothing can be done to re-establish peace, without
additional powers from Parliament." Nugent, now Lord Clare (who had
advocated the Stamp Act, if the revenue from it should not exceed a
peppercorn, as a symbol of parliamentary power), entreated that there
might be no divided counsels. Dowdeswill said: "On the repeal of the
Stamp Act, all America was quiet; but in the following year you would go
in pursuit of your peppercorn--you would collect from peppercorn to
peppercorn--you would establish taxes as tests of obedience. Unravel the
whole conduct of America; you will find out the fault is at home."
Pownall, former Governor of Massachusetts and earnest advocate of
American rights, said: "The dependence of the colonies is a part of the
British Constitution. I hope, for the sake of this country, for the sake
of America, for the sake of general liberty, that this address will pass
with a unanimous vote." Colonel Barré even applauded the good temper
with which the subject had been discussed, and refused to make any
opposition. William Burke, brother of Edmund Burke, said: "I speak as an
Englishman. We applaud ourselves for the struggles we have had for our
constitution; the colonists are our fellow-subjects; they will not lose
theirs without a struggle." Wedderburn, the Solicitor-General, who bore
the principal part in the debate, said: "The leading question is the
dependence or independence of America." The address was adopted without
a division.[327]
On the 14th of March, Lord North explained at large his American policy,
and opened the first part of his plan by asking leave to bring in a Bill
for the instant punishment of Boston. He stated, says the Annual
Register, "that the opposition to the authority of Parliament had always
originated in the colony of Massachusetts, and that colony had been
always instigated to such conduct by the irregular and seditious
proceedings of the town of Boston; that, therefore, for the purpose of
a thorough reformation, it became necessary to begin with that town,
which by a late unpardonable outrage had led the way to the destruction
of the freedom of commerce in all parts of America: that if a severe and
exemplary punishment were not inflicted on this heinous act, Great
Britain would be wanting in the protection she owed to her most
peaceable and meritorious subjects: that had such an insult been offered
to British property in a foreign port, the nation would have been called
upon to demand satisfaction for it.
"He would therefore propose that the town of Boston should be obliged to
pay for the tea which had been destroyed in their port: that the injury
was indeed offered by persons unknown and in disguise, but that the town
magistracy had taken no notice of it, had never made any search for the
offenders, and therefore, by a neglect of manifest duty, became
accomplices in the guilt: that the fining of communities for their
neglect in punishing offences committed within their limits was
justified by several examples. In King Charles the Second's time, the
city of London was fined when Dr. Lamb was killed by unknown persons.
The city of Edinburgh was fined and otherwise punished for the affair of
Captain Porteous. A part of the revenue of the town of Glasgow had been
sequestered until satisfaction was made for the pulling down of Mr.
Campbell's house. These examples were strong in point for such
punishments. The case of Boston was far worse. It was not a single act
of violence; it was a series of seditious practices of every kind, and
carried on for several years.
"He was of opinion, therefore, that it would not be sufficient to punish
the town of Boston by obliging her to make a pecuniary satisfaction for
the injury which, by not endeavouring to prevent or punish, she has, in
fact, encouraged; security must be given in future that trade may be
safely carried on, property protected, laws obeyed, and duties regularly
paid. Otherwise the punishment of a single illegal act is no
reformation. It would be therefore proper to take away from Boston the
privilege of a port until his Majesty should be satisfied in these
particulars, and publicly declare in Council, on a proper certificate of
the good behaviour of the town, that he was so satisfied. Until this
should happen, the Custom-house officers, who were now not safe in
Boston, or safe no longer than while they neglected their duty, should
be removed to Salem, where they might exercise their functions."[328]
The Bill passed the first reading without discussion. At the second
reading, Mr. Byng alone voted no, though there was considerable
discussion. "Mr. Bollan, the agent for the Council of Massachusetts Bay,
presented a petition, desiring to be heard in behalf of said Council and
other inhabitants of Boston; but the House refused to receive the
petition."[329]
At the third reading, the Lord Mayor of London presented a petition in
behalf of several natives and inhabitants of North America then in
London. "It was drawn," says the Annual Register, "with remarkable
ability." The petitioners alleged that "the proceedings were repugnant
to every principle of law and justice, and under such a precedent no
man in America could enjoy a moment's security; for if judgment be
immediately to follow on accusation against the people of America,
supported by persons notoriously at enmity with them, the accused
unacquainted with the charges, and from the nature of their situation
utterly incapable of answering and defending themselves, every fence
against false accusation will be pulled down.
"They asserted that law is executed with as much impartiality in America
as in any part of his Majesty's dominions. They appealed for proof of
this to the fair trial and favourable verdict in the case of Captain
Preston and his soldiers.
"That in such a case the interposition of parliamentary power was full
of danger and without precedent. The persons committing the injury were
unknown. If discovered, the law ought first to be tried. If unknown,
what rule of justice can punish the town for a civil injury committed by
persons not known to them?
"That the instances of the cities of London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow were
wholly dissimilar. All these towns were regularly heard in their own
defence. Their magistrates were of their own choosing (which was not the
case of Boston), and therefore they were more equitably responsible. But
in Boston the King's Governor has the power, and had been advised by his
Council to exert it; if it has been neglected, he alone is
answerable."[330] In conclusion, the petitioners strongly insisted on
the injustice of the Act, and its tendency to alienate the affections of
America from the mother country.
The petition was received, but no particular proceedings took place upon
it.
The Bill passed the House on the 25th of March, and was carried up to
the Lords, where it was likewise warmly debated; but, as in the Commons,
without a division. It received the Royal assent on the 31st of
March.[331]
Dr. Ramsay remarks: "By the operation of the Boston Port Act, the
preceding situation of its inhabitants and that of the East India
Company was reversed. The former had more reason to complain of the
disproportionate penalty to which they were indiscriminately subjected,
than the latter of that outrage on their property, for which punishment
had been inflicted. Hitherto the East India Company were the injured
party; but from the passing of this Act the balance of injury was on the
opposite side. If wrongs received entitled the former to reparation, the
latter had a much stronger title on the same ground. For the act of
seventeen or eighteen individuals, as many thousands were involved in
one general calamity."[332]
Shortly after the passing of the Boston Port Bill, the second Bill was
brought into Parliament, entitled "An Act for the Better Regulating of
the Government of the Province of Massachusetts Bay." This Bill was
brought in on the 28th of March, three days before the Royal assent was
given to the Boston Port Bill. As the town of Boston had received no
notice of the Bill which closed its port, and had therefore no
opportunity to vindicate its conduct or rights; so the Province received
no notice of the Bill which changed its system of government, which
abrogated so much of its Charter as gave to its Legislative Assembly the
choice of the Council; abolished town meetings, except for the choice of
town officers, or on the special permission of the Governor, which gave
to the Crown the appointment and removal of the sheriffs, and to the
sheriffs the selection of the juries, which had hitherto been elected by
the people. After an animated debate, led by Dunning in opposition, the
Bill passed the Commons by a vote of more than three to one.
The third penal Bill brought in and passed was said to have been
specially recommended by the King himself. It authorized, at the
discretion of the Governor, the removal for trial to Nova Scotia or
Great Britain of all magistrates, revenue officers, or soldiers indicted
for murder or other capital offence. Mr. Bancroft says: "As Lord North
brought forward this wholesale Bill of indemnity to the Governor and
soldiers, if they should trample upon the people of Boston and be
charged with murder, it was noticed that he trembled and faltered at
every word; showing that he was the vassal of a stronger will than his
own, and vainly struggled to wrestle down the feelings which his nature
refused to disavow."[333]
Colonel Barré, who had supported the Boston Port Bill, said: "I execrate
the present measure; you have had one meeting of the colonies in
Congress. You may soon have another. The Americans will not abandon
their principles; for if they submit they are slaves." The Bill passed
the Commons by a vote of more than four to one.
The fourth Bill legalized the quartering of troops within the town of
Boston.
The question now arises, What were the effects of these measures upon
the colonies? We answer, the effects of these measures were the very
reverse of what had been anticipated and predicted by their advocates in
England, both in and out of Parliament. The general expectation in
England was that they would not be resisted in America; that Boston and
Massachusetts would submit; that if they should not submit, they would
be isolated from the other provinces, who would not identify themselves
with or countenance the extreme proceedings of Boston and of
Massachusetts. These measures had been adopted by the Government and
Parliament of Great Britain in the months of March and April, and were
to take effect the 1st of June. In the two following months of May and
June, America spoke, and twelve colonies out of thirteen (Georgia alone
excepted) protested against the measures of the British Parliament, and
expressed their sympathy with Boston and Massachusetts. Boston itself
spoke first, and instead of submitting, as had been predicted by Lords
Mansfield and others, held a town meeting as soon as they received
intelligence of the passing of the Boston Port Bill, at which
resolutions were passed expressing their opinion of the impolicy,
injustice, inhumanity and cruelty of this Act, from which they appealed
to God and to the world; also inviting other colonies to join with them
in an agreement to stop all imports and exports to and from Great
Britain and Ireland and the West Indies until the Act should be
repealed.[334]
Mr. Bancroft, remarks:
"The merchants of Newburyport were the first who agreed to suspend all
commerce with Britain and Ireland. Salem, also, the place marked out as
the new seat of government, in a very full town meeting, and after
unimpassioned debates, decided almost unanimously to stop trade, not
with Britain only, but even with the West Indies. If in Boston a few
cravens proposed to purchase a relaxation of the blockade by quailing
before power, the majority were beset by no temptation so strong as that
of routing at once the insignificant number of troops who had come to
overawe them. But Samuel Adams, while he compared their spirit to that
of Sparta or Rome, was ever inculcating patience as the characteristic
of a true patriot; and the people having sent forth their cry to the
continent, waited self-possessed for voices of consolation."[335]
In the meantime, according to the provisions of the Charter, the
Legislature of Massachusetts, the last Wednesday in May, proceeded to
nominate the twenty-eight councillors. Of these, General Gage negatived
the unprecedented number of thirteen, including all the popular leaders
nominated. He laid nothing before the General Assembly but the ordinary
business of the province; but gave notice that the seat of government
would be removed to Salem the 1st of June, in pursuance of the Act for
Closing the Port of Boston.
The Legislature reassembled, according to adjournment, at Salem the 7th
day of June,[336] after ten days' prorogation, and on the 9th the
Council replied to the Governor's speech at the opening of the session.
Their answer was respectful, but firmly and loyally expressive of their
views and feelings. They declared their readiness "on all occasions
cheerfully to co-operate with his Excellency" in every step tending to
"restore harmony" and "extricate the province from their present
embarrassments," which, in their estimation, were attributable to the
conduct of his "two immediate predecessors." They at the same time
affirmed that "the inhabitants of the colony claimed no more than the
rights of Englishmen, without diminution or abridgment;" and that these,
"as it was their indispensable duty, so would it be their constant
endeavour to maintain to the utmost of their power, in perfect
consistence with the truest loyalty to the Crown, the just prerogatives
of which they should ever be zealous to support." To this address the
Governor replied in the following bitter words: "I cannot receive this
address, which contains indecent reflections on my predecessors, who
have been tried and honourably acquitted by the Lords of the Privy
Council, and their conduct approved by the King. I consider this address
as an insult upon his Majesty and the Lords of the Privy Council, and an
affront to myself."
The answer of the Assembly was very courteous, but equally decided with
that of the Council. They congratulated his Excellency on his safe
arrival, and declared that they "honoured him in the most exalted
station of the province, and confided in him to make the known
Constitution and Charter the rule of his administration;" they
"deprecated the removal of the Court to Salem," but expressed a hope
that "the true state of the province, and the character of his Majesty's
subjects in it, their loyalty to their Sovereign and their affection for
the parent country,[337] as well as their invincible attachment to their
just rights and liberties, would be laid before his Majesty, and that he
would be the happy instrument of removing his Majesty's displeasure, and
restoring harmony, which had been long interrupted by the artifices of
interested and designing men."
The House of Representatives, after much private consultation among its
leading members, proceeded with closed doors to the consideration and
adoption, by a majority of 92 to 12, of resolutions declaring the
necessity of a general meeting of all the colonies in Congress, "in
order to consult together upon the present state of the colonies, and
the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of
certain Acts of Parliament respecting America; and to deliberate and
determine upon wise and proper measures to be by them recommended to all
the colonies for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and
liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony
between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently to be desired by
all good men." They elected five gentlemen to represent Massachusetts
to the proposed Congress.
The House also proceeded with all expedition to draw up a declaration of
their sentiments, to be published as a rule for the conduct of the
people of Massachusetts. "This declaration," says Dr. Andrews,
"contained a repetition of grievances; the necessity they were now under
of struggling against lawless power; the disregard of their petitions,
though founded on the clearest and most equitable reasons; the evident
intention of Great Britain to destroy the Constitution transmitted to
them from their ancestors, and to erect upon its ruins a system of
absolute sway, incompatible with their disposition and subversive of the
rights they had uninterruptedly enjoyed during the space of more than a
century and a half. Impelled by these motives, they thought it their
duty to advise the inhabitants of Massachusetts to throw every
obstruction in their power in the way of such evil designs, and
recommended as one of the most effectual, a total disuse of all
importations from Great Britain until an entire redress had been
obtained of every grievance.
"Notwithstanding the secrecy with which this business was carried on,"
continues Dr. Andrews, "the Governor was apprized of it; and on the very
day it was completed, and the report of it made to the House (and
adopted), he dissolved the Assembly, which was the last that was held in
that colony agreeably to the tenor of the Charter."[338]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 325: "The discontents and disorders continue to prevail in a
greater or less degree through all the old colonies on the continent.
The same spirit pervades the whole. Even those colonies which depended
most upon the mother country for the consumption of their productions
entered into similar associations with the others; and nothing was to be
heard of but resolutions for the encouragement of their own
manufactures, the consumption of home products, the discouragement of
foreign articles, and the retrenchment of all superfluities." (English
Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., p. 45.)]
[Footnote 326: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 185, 186. These three
Bills were followed by a fourth, legalizing the quartering of the troops
on the inhabitants in the town of Boston.]
[Footnote 327: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap.
lii, pp. 503-510. Mr. Bancroft says:
"The next day letters arrived from America, manifesting no change in the
conduct of the colonies. Calumny, with its hundred tongues, exaggerated
the turbulence of the people, and invented wild tales of violence. It
was said at the palace, and the King believed, that there was in Boston
a regular committee for tarring and feathering; and that they were next,
to use the King's expression, 'to pitch and feather' Governor Hutchinson
himself. The press was also employed to rouse the national pride, till
the zeal of the English people for maintaining English supremacy became
equal to the passions of the Ministry. Even the merchants and
manufacturers were made to believe that their command of the American
market depended on the enforcement of the British claim of
authority."--_Ib._, p. 511.]
[Footnote 328: Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., pp. 62, 63. "At the
first introduction, the Bill was received with very general applause.
The cry raised against the Americans, partly the natural effect of their
own acts, and partly of the operations of Government, was so strong as
nearly to overbear the most resolute and determined in the opposition.
Several of those who had been the most sanguine favourers of the
colonies now condemned their behaviour and applauded the measure as not
only just but lenient (even Colonel Barré). He said: 'After having
weighed the noble lord's proposition well, I cannot help giving it my
hearty and determined approval.' Others, indeed (as Dowdeswill and
Edmund Burke), stood firmly by their old ground. They contented
themselves, in that stage of the business, with deprecating the Bill;
predicting the most fatal consequences from it, and lamenting the spirit
of the House, which drove on or was driving on to the most violent
measures, by the mischiefs produced by injudicious counsels; one seeming
to render the other necessary. They declared that they would enter
little into a debate which they saw would be fruitless, and only spoke
to clear themselves from having any share in such fatal
proceedings."--_Ib._, pp. 164, 165.]
[Footnote 329: Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., p. 65, which adds:
"This vote of rejection was heavily censured. The opposition cried out
at the inconsistency of the House, who but a few days ago received a
petition from this very man, in this very character; and now, only
because they chose to exert their power in acts of injustice and
contradiction, totally refuse to receive anything from him, as not duly
qualified. But what, they asserted, made this conduct the more
unnecessary and outrageous was, that at that time the House of Lords
were actually hearing Mr. Bollan on his petition, as a person duly
qualified, at their bar. 'Thus,' said they, 'this House is at once in
contradiction to the other and to itself.' As to the reasons given
against his qualifications, they are equally applicable to all American
agents; none of whom are appointed as the Minister now requires they
should be, and thus this House cuts off communication between them and
the colonies whom they are assisting by their acts."]
[Footnote 330: Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., pp. 65, 66.]
[Footnote 331: _Ib._, p. 67.
The Bill underwent a more full and fair discussion in the House of Lords
than in the House of Commons. The amiable Lord Dartmouth, then Secretary
of State for the Colonies, "a man that prayed," desired lenient
measures, called what passed in Boston "commotion," not open
"rebellion." But Lord Mansfield said, "What passed in Boston is the last
overt act of high treason, proceeding from our own lenity and want of
foresight. It is, however, the luckiest event that could befall this
country, for all may now be recovered. Compensation to the East India
Company I regard as no object of the Bill. The sword is drawn, and you
must throw away the scabbard. Pass this Act, and you will be past the
Rubicon. The Americans will then know that we shall not temporize any
longer; if it passes with a tolerable unanimity, Boston will submit, and
all will end in victory without carnage." The Marquis of Rockingham and
the Duke of Richmond warmly opposed the measure, as did Lords Camden and
Shelburne, the latter of whom proved the tranquil and loyal condition in
which he had left the colonies on giving up their administration.]
[Footnote 332: Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iv., p. 379.
"The inhabitants of Boston, distinguished for politeness and hospitality
no less than for industry and opulence, were sentenced, on the short
notice of twenty days, to a deprivation of the means of subsistence. The
rents of landholders ceased, or were greatly diminished. The immense
property in stores and wharves was rendered in a great measure useless.
Labourers and artificers, and many others employed in the numerous
occupations created by an extensive trade, shared the general calamity.
Those of the people who depended on a regular income, and those who
earned their subsistence by daily labour, were equally deprived of the
means of support. Animated, however, by the spirit of freedom, they
endured their privations with inflexible fortitude. Their sufferings
were soon mitigated by the sympathy and relieved by the charity of the
other colonists. Contributions were everywhere raised for their relief.
Corporate bodies, town meetings, and provincial conventions sent them
letters and addresses applauding their conduct and exhorting them to
perseverance. The inhabitants of Marblehead (which was to be the seaport
instead of Boston) generously offered the Boston merchants the use of
their harbour, wharves, warehouses, and their personal attendance, on
the lading or unlading of their goods, free of all expense. The
inhabitants of Salem (the newly appointed capital) concluded an address
to Governor Gage in a manner that reflected great honour on their virtue
and patriotism. 'By shutting up the port of Boston,' they said, 'some
imagine that the course of trade might be turned hither, and to our
benefit; but nature, in the formation of our harbour, forbids our
becoming rivals in commerce with that convenient mart; and were it
otherwise, we must be dead to every idea of justice, lost to all
feelings of humanity, could we indulge one thought to seize on wealth
and raise our fortunes on the ruins of our suffering neighbours.'"
(Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 187, 188.)]
[Footnote 333: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. lii., pp.
525, 526.]
[Footnote 334: Marshall's Colonial History, Chap. xiv., p. 405.
"As soon as the Act was received, the Boston Committee of
Correspondence, by the hand of Joseph Warren, invited eight neighbouring
towns to a conference 'on the critical state of public affairs.' On the
12th, at noon, Metcalf Bowler, the Speaker of the Assembly of Rhode
Island, came before them with the cheering news that, in answer to a
recent circular letter from the body over which he presided, all the
thirteen Governments were pledged to union. Punctually at the hour of
three in the afternoon of that day, the committees from the eight
villages joined them in Faneuil Hall, the cradle of American liberty,
where for ten years the freemen of the town had debated the great
question of justifiable resistance. Placing Samuel Adams at their head,
and guided by a report prepared by Joseph Warren of Boston, Gardener of
Cambridge, and others, they agreed unanimously on the injustice and
cruelty of the Act by which Parliament, without competent jurisdiction,
and contrary as well to natural right as to the laws of all civilized
states, had, without a hearing, set apart, accused, tried and condemmed
the town of Boston." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol.
VII., Chap, i., pp. 35, 36.)]
[Footnote 335: History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap, x., pp.
38, 39.
Referring to General Gage's arrival at Boston, as Commander-in-Chief of
the continent as well as successor to Hutchinson as Governor of
Massachusetts, Mr. Bancroft says:
"On the 17th of May, Gage, who had remained four days with Hutchinson at
Castle William, landed at Long Wharf amidst salutes from ships and
batteries. Received by the Council and civil officers, he was escorted
by the Boston cadets, under Hancock, to the State House, where the
Council presented a loyal address, and his commission was proclaimed
with three volleys of musketry and as many cheers. He then partook of a
public dinner in Faneuil Hall. A hope still lingered that relief might
come through his intercession. But Gage was neither fit to reconcile nor
to subdue. By his mild temper and love of society, he gained the
good-will of his boon companions, and escaped personal enmities; but in
earnest business he inspired neither confidence nor fear. Though his
disposition was far from being malignant, he was so poor in spirit and
so weak of will, so dull in his perceptions and so unsettled in his
opinions, that he was sure to follow the worst advice, and vacillate
between smooth words of concession and merciless severity. He had
promised the King that with four regiments he would play the lion, and
troops beyond his requisition were hourly expected. His instructions
enjoined upon him the seizure and condign punishment of Samuel Adams,
Hancock, Joseph Warren, and other leading patriots; but he stood in such
dread of them that he never so much as attempted their arrest."--_Ib._,
pp. 37, 38.]
[Footnote 336: But before the prorogation, which took place the 28th of
May, the Assembly desired the Governor to appoint the 1st day of June as
a day of fasting and prayer; but he refused, assigning as a reason, in a
letter to Lord Dartmouth, that "the request was only to give an
opportunity for sedition to flow from the pulpit."]
[Footnote 337: "The people of Massachusetts were almost exclusively of
English origin. Beyond any other colony they loved the land of their
ancestors; but their fond attachment made them only the more sensitive
to its tyranny. To subject them to taxation without their consent was
robbing them of their birthright; they scorned the British Parliament as
a 'Junta of the servants of the Crown rather than the representatives of
England.' Not disguising to themselves their danger, but confident of
victory, they were resolved to stand together as brothers for a life of
liberty." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap. i.,
p. 38).]
[Footnote 338: History of the War with America, France and Spain, and
Holland, commencing in 1775, and ending in 1783. By John Andrews, LL.D.,
in four volumes, with Maps and Charts. London: Published by his
Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority, 1788. Vol. I., pp. 137, 138.
A more minute and graphic account of the close of this session of the
Massachusetts Court or Legislature is as follows:
"On the appointed day the doors were closed and the subject was
broached; but before any action could be taken in the premises, a
loyalist member obtained leave of absence and immediately dispatched a
messenger to Gage, to inform him of what was passing. The Governor, in
great haste, sent the Secretary to dissolve the Court. Finding the door
locked, he knocked for admission, but was answered, that 'The House was
upon very important business, which when they had finished, they would
let him in.' Failing to obtain an entrance, he stood upon the steps and
read the proclamation in the hearing of several members and others, and
after reading it in the Council Chamber, returned. The House took no
notice of this message, but proceeded with their business; and, by a
vote of 117 to 12, having determined that a Committee should be
appointed to meet, as soon as may be, the Committees that are or shall
be appointed by the several colonies on this continent to consult
together upon the present state of the colonies, James Bowdoin, Thomas
Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine were selected
for that purpose, and funds were provided for defraying their expenses."
(Barry's History of Massachusetts, Second Period, Chap. xiv., pp. 484,
485.)]
CHAPTER XIX.
1774, UNTIL THE MEETING OF THE FIRST GENERAL CONGRESS IN SEPTEMBER.
The responses to the appeals of Boston and the proposals of the Assembly
of Massachusetts, for a meeting of Congress of all the colonies, were
prompt and general and sympathetic beyond what had been anticipated; and
in some colonies the expressions of approval and offers of co-operation
and assistance preceded any knowledge of what was doing, or had been
done, in Massachusetts.
In Virginia the House of Burgesses were in session when the news arrived
from England announcing the passing by the British Parliament of the
Boston Port Bill; and on the 26th of May the House resolved that the 1st
of June, the day on which that Bill was to go into effect, should be set
apart by the members as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer,
"devoutly to implore the Divine interposition for averting the heavy
calamities which threatened destruction to their civil rights, and the
evils of a civil war, and to give them one heart and one mind to oppose,
by all just and proper means, every injury to American rights." On the
publication of this resolution, the Governor (the Earl of Dunmore)
dissolved the House. But the members, before separating, entered into an
association and signed an agreement, to the number of 87, in which,
among other things, they declared "that an attack made on one of their
sister colonies, to compel submission to arbitrary taxes, was an attack
made on all British America, and threatened ruin to the civil rights of
all, unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied in prevention."
They therefore recommended to their Committee of Correspondence to
communicate with the several Committees of the other provinces, on the
expediency of appointing deputies from the different colonies, to meet
annually in Congress, and to deliberate on the common interests of
America. This measure had already been proposed in town meetings, both
in New York and Boston. The colonies, from New Hampshire to South
Carolina inclusive, adopted this measure; and where the Legislatures
were not in session, elections were made by the people.[339]
While there was a general agreement of sentiment throughout the colonies
in favour of a Congress or Convention of all the colonies to consult on
common rights and interests, and to devise the best means of securing
them, there was also a corresponding sympathy and liberality for the
relief of the inhabitants of Boston, who were considered as suffering
for the maintenance of rights sacred to the liberties of all the
colonies, as all had resisted successfully the landing of the tea, the
badge of their enslavement, though all had not been driven by the
Governor, as in the case of Massachusetts, to destroy it in order to
prevent its being landed. Yet even this had been done to some extent
both in South Carolina and New York.
The town of Boston became an object of interest, and its inhabitants
subjects of sympathy throughout the colonies of America. All the
histories of those times agree "that as soon as the true character of
the Boston Port Act became known in America, every colony, every city,
every village, and, as it were, the inmates of every farm-house, felt
it as a wound of their affections. The towns of Massachusetts abounded
in kind offices. The colonies vied with each other in liberality. The
record kept at Boston shows that 'the patriotic and generous people' of
South Carolina were the first to minister to the sufferers, sending
early in June two hundred barrels of rice, and promising eight hundred
more. At Wilmington, North Carolina, the sum of two thousand pounds
currency was raised in a few days; the women of the place gave
liberally. Throughout all New England the towns sent rye, flour, peas,
cattle, sheep, oil, fish; whatever the land or hook and line could
furnish, and sometimes gifts of money. The French inhabitants of Quebec,
joining with those of English origin, shipped a thousand and forty
bushels of wheat. Delaware was so much in earnest that it devised plans
for sending relief annually. All Maryland and all Virginia were
contributing liberally and cheerfully, being resolved that the men of
Boston, who were deprived of their daily labour, should not lose their
daily bread, nor be compelled to change their residence for want. In
Fairfax county, Washington presided at a spirited meeting, and headed a
subscription paper with his own gift of fifty pounds. A special
chronicle could hardly enumerate all the generous deeds. Cheered by the
universal sympathy, the inhabitants of Boston 'were determined to hold
out and appeal to the justice of the colonies and of the world;'
trusting in God that 'these things should be overruled for the
establishment of liberty, virtue and happiness in America.'"[340]
It is worthy of inquiry, as to how information could be so rapidly
circulated throughout colonies sparsely settled over a territory larger
than that of Europe, and expressions of sentiment and feeling elicited
from their remotest settlements? For, as Dr. Ramsay says, "in the three
first months which followed the shutting up of the port of Boston, the
inhabitants of the colonies, in hundreds of small circles as well as in
their Provincial Assemblies and Congresses, expressed their abhorrence
of the late proceedings of the British Parliament against Massachusetts;
their concurrence in the proposed measure of appointing deputies for a
_General_ Congress; and their willingness to do and suffer whatever
should be judged conducive to the establishment of their
liberties."[341] "In order to understand," says the same author, "the
mode by which this flame was spread with such rapidity over so great an
extent of country, it is necessary to observe that the several colonies
were divided into counties, and these again subdivided into districts,
distinguished by the names of towns, townships, precincts, hundreds, or
parishes. In New England, the subdivisions which are called towns were,
by law, bodies corporate; had their regular meetings, and might be
occasionally convened by their officers. The advantages derived from
these meetings, by uniting the whole body of the people in the measures
taken to oppose the Stamp Act, induced other provinces to follow the
example. Accordingly, under the Association which was formed to oppose
the Revenue Act of 1767, Committees were established, not only in the
capital of every province, but in most of the subordinate districts.
Great Britain, without designing it, had, by her two preceding attempts
at American revenue, taught her colonies not only the advantage but the
means of union. The system of Committees which prevailed in 1765, and
also in 1767, was revived in 1774. By them there was a quick
transmission of intelligence from the capital towns through the
subordinate districts to the whole body of the people; a union of
counsels and measures was effected, among widely disseminated
inhabitants."[342]
It will be observed that the three Acts passed by Parliament in respect
to Massachusetts, and the fourth, for quartering soldiers in towns,
changed the Charter of the province, and multiplied the causes of
difference between Great Britain and the colonies. To the causes of
dissatisfaction in the colonies arising from the taxing of them assumed
by Parliament (now only threepence a pound on tea), the arrangement with
the East India Company and the Courts of Admiralty, depriving the
colonists of the right of trial by jury, were now added the Boston Port
Bill, the Regulating Act, the Act which essentially changed the
chartered Constitution of Massachusetts, and the Act which transferred
Government officers accused of murder, to be removed to England. Mr.
Bancroft justly observes that "the Regulating Act complicated the
question between America and Great Britain. The country, under the
advice of Pennsylvania, might have indemnified the East India Company,
might have obtained by importunity the repeal of the tax on tea, or
might have borne the duty, as it had borne that on wine; but Parliament,
after ten years of premeditation, had exercised the power to abrogate
the laws and to change the Charter of a province without its consent;
and on this arose the conflict of the American Revolution."[343]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 339: Marshall's History of the American Colonies, Chap. xiv.,
pp. 406, 407.
"Resolutions were passed in every colony in which Legislatures were
convened, or delegates assembled in Convention, manifesting different
degrees of resentment, but concurring in the same great principles. All
declared that the cause of Boston was the cause of British America; that
the late Acts respecting that devoted town were tyrannical and
unconstitutional; that the opposition to this unministerial system of
oppression ought to be universally and perseveringly maintained; that
all intercourse with the parent country ought to be suspended, and
domestic manufactures encouraged; and that a General Congress should be
formed for the purpose of uniting and guiding the Councils and directing
the efforts of North America.
"The Committees of Correspondence selected Philadelphia for the place,
and the beginning of September as the time, for the meeting of this
important Council."--_Ib._, pp. 409, 410.]
[Footnote 340: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., pp.
72-75.]
[Footnote 341: Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. v., p. 398.]
[Footnote 342: _Ib._, pp. 395, 396.
"It is, perhaps, impossible for human wisdom to contrive any system more
subservient to these purposes than such a reciprocal exchange of
intelligence by Committees of Correspondence. From want of such a
communication with each other, and consequently of union among
themselves, many States have lost their liberties, and more have been
unsuccessful in their attempts to regain them after they were lost.
"What the eloquence and talents of Demosthenes could not effect among
the States of Greece, might have been effected by the simple device of
Committees of Correspondence. The few have been enabled to keep the many
in subjection in every age from the want of union among the latter.
Several of the provinces of Spain complained of oppression under Charles
the Fifth, and in transports of rage took arms against him; but they
never consulted or communicated with each other. They resisted
separately, and were, therefore, separately subdued."--_Ib._, p. 396.]
[Footnote 343: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
viii., p. 97.
The authority of this new Act was never acknowledged in Massachusetts.
Of the 36 Legislative Councillors nominated by the Crown, one-third of
them declined to accept the appointment, and nearly all who did accept
were soon compelled, by the remonstrances and threats of their
neighbours, to resign. So alarmed was Governor Gage, that after he had
summoned the new Legislature to meet him at Salem, he countermanded his
summons by proclamation; but which was considered unlawful, and the
Assembly met, organized itself, and passed resolutions on grievances,
and adopted other proceedings to further the opposition to the new Act
and other Acts complained of.
Even the Courts could not be held. At Boston the judges took their
seats, and the usual proclamations were made; when the men who had been
returned as jurors, one and all, refused to take the oath. Being asked
why they refused, Thomas Chase, one of the petit jury, gave as his
reason, "that the Chief Justice of the Court stood impeached by the late
representatives of the province." In a paper offered by the jury, the
judges found their authority disputed for further reasons, that the
Charter of the province had been changed with no warrant but an Act of
Parliament, and that three of the judges, in violation of the
Constitution, had accepted seats in the new Council. The Chief Justice
and his colleagues repairing in a body to the Governor represented the
impossibility of exercising their office in Boston or in any other part
of the province; the army was too small for their protection; and
besides, none would act as jurors. Thus the authority of the new
Government, as established by Act of Parliament, perished in the
presence of the Governor, the judges and the army.--_Ib._, pp. 111, 112.
The English historian, Dr. Andrews, remarks on this subject: