rejoinder he uttered truths that made him the most loved Englishman in
America, when his words were published there. "Your oppressions planted
them in America," he thundered. "They met with pleasure all hardships
compared with those they suffered in their own country. They grew by
your neglect of them: as soon as you began to care for them, deputies
of members of this house were sent to spy out their liberties, to
misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men whose behavior
caused the blood of those Sons of Liberty to recoil within them: men
who were often glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape being
brought to the bar of justice in their own. They 'protected by your
arms'?--They have, amid their constant and laborious industry, nobly
taken up arms for the defense of a country whose frontier was drenched
in blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to
your emolument. And believe me--remember--the same spirit of freedom
which actuated that people at first will accompany them still. They are
as truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous of
their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be
violated." But Grenville had gone too far to retreat; the case went
against America by two hundred and forty-five to forty-nine; and only
Beckford and Conway were on record as denying the power of Parliament
to enact the tax. All petitions from the colonies were refused. "We
have power to tax them, and we will tax them," said one of the
ministers. In the House of Lords the bill was agreed to without debate
or dissent. The king, at the time of signing the bill, was suffering
from one of his periodic attacks of insanity; but the ratification was
accepted as valid nevertheless. Neither Franklin nor any of the other
American agents imagined the act would be forcibly resisted in America.
Even Otis had said, "We must submit." But they reckoned without their
host. The stamp act was a two-edged sword; in aiming to cut down the
liberties of America, it severed the bonds that tied her to the mother
country.
The prospect before the colonies was truly intolerable. No product of
their industry could be exported save to England; none but English
ships might enter their ports; no wool might be moved from one part of
the country to another; no Bible might be printed anywhere; all hats
must come from England; no ore might be mined or worked; duties were
imposed on almost every imported article of use or luxury. No marriage,
promissory note, or other transaction requiring documentary record was
valid except with the government stamp. In a word, convicts in a jail
could hardly be shackled more severely than were these two millions of
the most freedom-loving and intelligent people on the globe. "If this
system were to prevail," remarked Thacher of Boston, "it would
extinguish the flame of liberty all over the world."
But it was not to prevail. Patrick Henry had been elected to the
legislature of Virginia. His first act was to maintain, in committee of
the whole, that the colony had never given up its right to be governed
by its own laws respecting taxation, and that it had been constantly
recognized by England; and that any attempt to vest such power in other
persons tended to destroy British as well as American freedom. In a
passionate peroration he warned George III. to remember the fate of
other tyrants who had trampled on popular liberties. Otis in
Massachusetts suggested the novel idea of summoning a congress from all
the colonies to deliberate on the situation. In New York a writer
declared that while there was no disposition among the colonies to
break with England as long as they were permitted their full rights,
yet they would be "satisfied with no less."--"The Gospel promises
liberty and permits resistance," said Mayhew. Finally, the dauntless
and faithful Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, after considering
Massachusett's suggestion of a union, pronounced, as head of the
committee, in its favor.
In England, meanwhile, the cause of the colonies had been somewhat
favored by the willfulness of the king, who, in order to bring his
court favorites into power, dismissed the Grenville ministry. There
were no persons of ability in the new cabinet, and vacant feebleness
was accounted better for America than resolute will to oppress. The
king himself, however, never wavered in his resolve that the colonies
should be taxed. On the other hand, the colonies were at this time
disposed to think that the king was friendly to their liberties. But
whatever misapprehensions existed on either side were soon to be
finally dispelled.
In August, 1765, the names of the stamp distributers (who were to be
citizens of the colonies) were published in America; and the packages
of stamped paper were dispatched from England. There was an old
elm-tree in Boston, standing near the corner of Essex Street, opposite
Boylston Market. On the morning of the 14th of August, two figures were
descried by early pedestrians hanging from the lower branches of the
tree. "They were dressed in square-skirted coats and small-clothes, and
as their wigs hung down over their faces, they looked like real men.
One was intended to represent the Earl of Bute, who was supposed to
have advised the king to tax America; the other was meant for the
effigy of Andrew Oliver, a gentleman belonging to one of the most
respectable families in Massachusetts, whom the king had appointed to
be the distributer of stamps." It was in vain that Hutchinson ordered
the removal of the effigies; the people had the matter in their own
hands. In the evening a great and orderly crowd marched behind a bier
bearing the figures, gave three cheers for "Liberty, Property and no
stamps," before the State House, where the governor and Hutchinson were
in session, and thence went to the house which Oliver had intended for
his stamp office, tore it down, and burned his image in the fire they
kindled with it, in front of his own residence. "Death to the man who
offers stamped paper to sell!" they shouted. "Beat an alarm!" quavered
Hutchinson to the militia colonel.--"My drummers are in the mob," was
the reply; and when Hutchinson attempted to disperse the crowd, they
forced him to run the gantlet, in the Indian fashion which was too
familiar to New Englanders, and caught him several raps as he ran. "If
Oliver had been there he'd have been murdered," said Governor Bernard,
with conviction; "if he doesn't resign--!" But Oliver, much as he loved
the perquisites of the office, loved his life more, and he resigned
before the mob could threaten him. Bernard, with chattering teeth, was
ensconced in the safest room in the castle. There remained Hutchinson,
in his handsome house in Garden Court Street, near the North Square.
Late at night the mob came surging and roaring in that direction. As
they turned into Garden Court Street, the sound of them was as if a
wild beast had broken loose and was howling for its prey. From the
window, the terrified chief-justice beheld "an immense concourse of
people, rolling onward like a tempestuous flood that had swelled beyond
its bounds and would sweep everything before it. He felt, at that
moment, that the wrath of the people was a thousand-fold more terrible
than the wrath of a king. That was a moment when an aristocrat and a
loyalist might have learned how powerless are kings, nobles, and great
men, when the low and humble range themselves against them. Had
Hutchinson understood and remembered this lesson he need not in after
years have been an exile from his native country, nor finally have laid
his bones in a distant land."
The mob broke into the house, destroyed the valuable furniture,
pictures and library, and completely gutted it. The act was denounced
and repudiated by the better class of patriots, like Adams and Mayhew;
but it served a good purpose. The voice of the infuriated mob is
sometimes the only one that tyranny can hear. One after another all the
colonies refused to accept the stamp act, and every stamp officer was
obliged to resign. Meanwhile the leaders discussed the people's rights
openly. The law was to go into effect on November 1st. "Will you
violate the law of Parliament?" was asked. "The stamp act is against
Magna Charta, and Lord Coke says an act of Parliament against Magna
Charta is for that reason void," was the reply. "Rulers are attorneys,
agents and trustees of the people," said Adams, "and if the trust is
betrayed or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke
the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute
abler and better agents. We have an indisputable right to demand our
privileges against all the power and authority on earth." Never had
there been such unanimity throughout the colonies; but in New York,
General Gage, who had betrayed lack of courage under Amherst a few
years before, but who was now commander-in-chief, declared he would put
down disaffection with a strong hand. There were ships of war in the
harbor, and the fort in the town mounted heavy guns. Major James of the
artillery was intrusted with the preparations. "I'll cram the stamps
down their throats with the end of my sword: if they attempt to rise
I'll drive them out of town for a pack of rascals, with four and twenty
men!" It was easy to pass a stamp act, and to bring stamped paper into
the colonies; but it would take more than Major James, and Governor
Golden, and General Gage himself to make the people swallow them. The
day of the "Sons of Liberty" was dawning.
CHAPTER THIRTEENTH
THE PASSING OF THE RUBICON
Issue was now joined between America and England. They faced each
other--the great, historic figure, and the stripling of a century--and
knew that the limit had been reached. The next move might be
irrevocable.
"You must submit to the tax."--"I will not submit."
Englishmen, with some few eminent exceptions, believed that England was
in the right. If the word of Parliament was not law, what was? If the
law it made could be disregarded, what could stand? A colony was a
child: children must be kept in subjection. Colonies were planted for
the benefit and extension of commerce; if they were permitted to
conduct their commerce without regard to the mother country, their
reason for existence was gone. The protection of a colony was
expensive: why should not the protected one bear a part at least of the
expense? If the mother country allowed the colony to fix the amount it
should pay, what guarantee could she have that it would pay anything?
Could mighty England assume toward little America the attitude of a
tradesman, humbly standing at the door with a bill, asking whether it
would be convenient to pay something on account? If there were to be
condescension, it should not come from America. She clamored for
justice; England would be just: but she must first be obeyed. England
might forgive the debt, but must insist upon acknowledgment that the
debt was due, and upon the right to collect it at pleasure. As for the
plea that taxation should postulate representation, it would not bear
examination. It might be true that Parliament was a theoretically
representative body; but, in fact, it was a gathering of the men in
England best qualified to govern, who were rather selected than
elected. Many of the commons held their seats by favor of the nobility;
the suffrage, as practiced, was a recognition that the people might
have a voice in the government of the country; but that voice was not
to be a deciding one. It was exercised only by a part of the people,
and even then, largely under advice or influence. Many important towns
and districts had no representatives. Americans were as well off as
these Englishmen; on what ground could they demand to be better off?
They must trust to the will of England to secure their advantage in
securing her own; to her wisdom, equity, and benevolence. Why should
they complain of the Navigation Acts? What more did they want than a
market?--and that, England afforded. Why should they feel aggrieved at
the restriction on their manufactures? England could manufacture
articles better than they could, and it was necessary to the well-being
of her manufacturing classes that they should be free from American
competition. Did they object to the measures England took to prevent
smuggling and illicit dealing?--They had only themselves to blame: was
it not notorious that evasions and open violations of the law had for
years existed? Did they object to royal governors?--What better
expedient was there to keep the two countries in touch with each
other--to maintain that "representation" in England which they
craved?--whereas, were they to choose governors from among themselves,
they would soon drift away from sympathy with and understanding of
England. And why all this uproar about the stamp tax? What easier, more
equitable way could be devised to get the financial tribute required
without pressing hard on any one? If Americans would object to that,
they would object to anything; and they must either be abandoned
entirely to their own devices--which of course was out of the
question--or they must be compelled, if they would not do it
voluntarily, to accede to it. Compulsion meant force; force meant a
resident English army; and that army must be supported and accommodated
by those for whose regulation it was established.
Such was the attitude of men like Lord Chief-justice Mansfield, who
spoke on the subject in the House of Lords. He refused to recognize any
essential distinction between external and internal taxes; though, as
Pitt pointed out, the former was designed for the regulation of trade,
and whatever profit arose from it was incidental; while the latter was
imposed to raise revenue for the home government, and was, in effect,
arbitrarily appropriating the property of subjects without their
consent asked or obtained. Pitt disposed of the argument of virtual
representation by denying it point-blank; Americans were not in the
same position with those Englishmen who were not directly represented
in Parliament; because the latter were inhabitants of the kingdom, and
could be, and were indirectly represented in a hundred ways. But while
opposing the right of Parliament to rob America, he asserted in the
strongest terms its right to govern her. "The will of Parliament,
properly signified, must forever keep the colonies dependent upon the
sovereign kingdom of Great Britain. If any idea of renouncing
allegiance has existed, it was but a momentary frenzy. In a good cause,
the force of this country can crush America to atoms. But on this
ground of the stamp act, I am one who will lift up my hands against it.
I rejoice that America has resisted. In such a cause, your success
would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would embrace the pillar of
the state, and pull down the constitution along with her."
The Lords passed the bill against a minority of five. In the Commons,
where Burke ardently spoke in favor of the tax, the majority was even
greater. "It was decided that irresponsible taxation was not a tyranny
but a vested right; that Parliament held legislative power, not as a
representative body but in absolute trust: that it was not and had
never been responsible to the people." This was the new Toryism, which
was to create a new opposition. The debate aroused a discussion of
popular rights in England itself, and the press began to advocate
genuine representation. Meanwhile, it looked ill for the colonies. But
a law which is only engrossed on parchment, and is not also founded in
natural truth and justice, has no binding power, even though it be
supported by the army and navy of England. Humanity was on the side of
America, and made her small numbers and physical weakness as strong as
all that is good and right in the world. All appearances to the
contrary notwithstanding, there is nothing real but right. Had America
fought only for herself, she would have failed.
The instances of mob violence in the colonies at this period were not
to be classed with lawless outbreaks in countries which have a
government of their own. The colonies were subjected to a government
which they did not elect or approve; and the management of their
affairs consequently reverted inevitably and rightly to the body of the
people themselves. They had no officers and no organization, but they
knew what they wanted; and having in view the slowness of
inter-communication, and the differences in the ideas and customs of
the several colonies, the unanimity of their action in the present
juncture is surprising. When their congress met in New York on the 7th
of October, 1765, their debate was less as to principles than as to the
manner of their declaration and enforcement. The watchword, "Join or
die," had been started in September, and was taken up all over the
country. Union was strength, and on union all were resolved. The mob
had put a stop to the execution of the law; it now rested with the
congress to settle in what way and on what grounds the repeal of the
law should be demanded. Against the people and the congress were
arrayed the royal governors and other officials, and the troops. The
former deluged the home government with exhortations to be firm; the
latter waited the word to act, not without misgivings; for here were
two million inhabitants, a third or fourth part of whom might bear arms.
Should the congress base its liberties on charter rights, or on natural
justice and universal reason?--On the latter, said Gadsden of South
Carolina; and the rest acceded. "I wish," Gadsden had said, "that the
charters may not ensnare us at last by drawing different colonies to
act differently in this great cause. There ought to be no New England
man, no New Yorker, known on the continent, but all Americans." It was
a great truth to be enunciated at that time. There were statesmen less
wise in this country a hundred years later. The Duke of Choiseul,
premier of France, and one of the acutest ministers that ever lived,
foresaw the independence of America, and even so early began to take
measures having in view the attitude of France in that contingency.--In
the congress, Otis advocated repeal, not of the stamp act alone, but of
all acts laying a duty on trade; and it was finally agreed to mention
the latter as grievances. Trial by jury was stipulated for instead of
admiralty jurisdiction; taxes should be imposed only by colonial
legislatures, representation in Parliament being impracticable. One or
two of the delegates feared to sign the document embodying these views
and demands; whereupon Dyer of Connecticut observed that since disunion
in these matters was fatal, the remaining delegates ought to sign them;
and this was done, only Ruggles and Ogden, of Massachusetts and of New
Jersey respectively, declining. By this act the colonies became "a
bundle of sticks which could neither be bent nor broken." At the same
time, Samuel Adams addressed a letter to Governor Bernard of
Massachusetts. "To suppose a right in Parliament to tax subjects
without their consent includes the idea of a despotic power," said he.
"The stamp act cancels the very conditions upon which our ancestors,
with toil and blood and at their sole expense, settled this country. It
tends to destroy that mutual confidence and affection, as well as that
equality, which ought to subsist among all his majesty's subjects: and
what is worst of all evils, if his majesty's subjects are not to be
governed according to the known and stated rules of the constitution,
their minds may in time become disaffected."
On the 1st of November, the day when the act was to go into effect,
Colden, governor of New York, "resolved to have the stamps
distributed." The army and navy professed themselves ready to support
him. But the population rose up in a body against it, with Isaac Sears
as leader. "If you fire on us, we'll hang you," they told Colden.
Torchlight processions, with the governor's effigy burned in a bonfire
composed of his own carriages, right under the guns of the fort in
which he had taken refuge, followed. Colden capitulated, and even gave
up the stamps into the custody of the people. Similar scenes were
enacted in the other colonies. The principle of "union and liberty"
became daily more deeply rooted. If England refused to repeal the act,
"we will repeal it ourselves," declared the colonists. John Adams said
that the colonies were already discharged from allegiance, because they
were "out of the king's protection"--protection and allegiance being
reciprocal. The Sons of Liberty became a recognized organization. The
press printed an admonition to George III., brief but pithy: GREAT SIR,
RETREAT, OR YOU ARE RUINED. Otis maintained that the king, by
mismanaging colonial affairs, had practically abdicated, so far as they
were concerned. Israel Putnam, being of an active turn, rode through
Connecticut to count noses, and reported that he could raise a force of
ten thousand men. Meanwhile the routine business of the country went on
with but slight modification, though according to the stamp act nothing
that was done without a stamp was good in law. But it appeared, upon
experiment, that if the law was in the people it could be dispensed
with on paper. And wherever you went, you found a population smilingly
clad in homespun.
Would England repeal the act? The House of Lords voted in favor of
enforcing it, February, 1766. In the Commons, General Howard declared
that if it were passed, rather than imbrue his hands in the blood of
his countrymen, he would sheathe his sword in his own body. The House
divided two to one against the repeal. The king said he was willing to
modify, but not to repeal it. On the 13th Franklin was summoned to the
bar. He showed why the colonies could not and would not pay the tax,
and that, unless it were repealed, their affection for England, and the
commerce depending thereon, would be lost. Would America pay a modified
stamp duty?--he was asked; and bravely replied, "No: never: they will
never submit to it." But could not a military force carry the act into
effect?--"They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do
without them," was the answer. He added that the colonists thought it
hard that a body in which they were not represented should make a merit
of giving what was not its own but theirs. He affirmed a difference
between internal and external taxation, because the former could not be
evaded, whereas articles of consumption, on which the duty formed part
of the price, could be dispensed with at will. "But what if necessaries
of life should be taxed?" asked Grenville, thinking he had Franklin on
the hip. But the American sage crushingly replied, "I do not know a
single article imported into the colonies but what they can either do
without it, or make it for themselves."
In the final debates, Pitt, called on to say whether, should total
repeal be granted, in compliance with American menaces of resistance,
the consequence would not be the overthrow of British authority in
America, gave his voice for repeal as a right. Grenville, on the other
hand, thought that America should learn that "prayers are not to be
brought to Caesar through riot and sedition." The vote for repeal, and
against modified enforcement, was two hundred and seventy-five to one
hundred and sixty-seven. The dissenting members of the Lords signed a
protest, because, should they assent to the repeal merely because it
had passed the lower house, "we in effect vote ourselves useless." This
suggests the "Je ne vois pas la nécessité" of the French epigrammatist.
The Lords took themselves too seriously. Meanwhile, Bow bells were
rung, Pitt was cheered, and flags flew; the news was sent to America in
fast packets, and the rejoicing in the colonies was great. Prisoners
for debt were set free, there were illuminations and bonfires, and
honor was paid to Pitt, Camden, Barre, and to the king, who was eating
his heart with vexation fit having been compelled to assent to what he
called "the fatal repeal."