1764.
Disputes between Colonies and Mother Country--Stamp Act--
Patrick Henry--Contested Election--Speaker Robinson--
Randolph--Bland--Pendleton--Wythe--Lee.
THE successful termination of the war with France paved the way for
American independence. Hitherto, from the first settlement of the
colonies, Great Britain, without seeking a direct revenue from them,
with perhaps some inconsiderable exceptions, had been satisfied with the
appointment of their principal officers, and a monopoly of their trade.
Now, when the colonies had grown more capable of resisting impositions,
the mother country rose in her demands. Thus it was that disputes
between Great Britain and the colonies, commencing in 1764 and lasting
about twelve years, brought on the war of the Revolution, and ended in a
disruption of the empire. This result, inevitable sooner or later in the
natural course of events, was only precipitated by the impolitic and
arbitrary measures of the British government. In the general loyalty of
the colonies, new commercial restrictions, although involving a heavy
indirect taxation, would probably have been submitted to for many years
longer; but the novel scheme of direct taxation, without their consent,
was reprobated as contrary to their natural and chartered rights; and a
flame of discontent, bursting forth here and there, finally overspread
the whole country.
There appears, indeed, to have been no essential difference between
internal and external taxation; for it was still taxation; and taxation
without representation. But the internal or direct taxation was new,
obvious, and more offensive. The restrictions of the navigation act,
vehemently resisted at their first enactment, and not less so in
Virginia and other Southern colonies than in the North, had never been
acquiesced in, but only submitted to from necessity; and long eluded
not only by New England, but also by other colonies, by a trade
originally contraband, indeed, but which had lost much of its
illegitimate character by immemorial usage, and had acquired a sort of
prescriptive right by that consent on the part of the British government
which was to be inferred from its apparent acquiescence in the
violation. For a hundred years preceding the Revolution the commerce of
the colonies may be said to have been in the main practically free, as
Great Britain was able to furnish the manufactures which the colony
needed. But now the mother country undertook to enforce the obsolete
navigation act and her revenue laws with a new vigor, which was not
confined to the American colonies, but embraced the whole British
empire. As applied to the colonies the measure was equally impolitic and
unjust: impolitic, because by breaking up the colonial trade with the
West Indies, England crippled her own customer; unjust, because this
trade had grown up by the tacit consent of the government, and a
dissolution of it would be ruinous to the commercial colonies. Besides
these new restraints upon commerce, parliament had long endeavored to
restrict colonial industry; and although these restrictions fell most
heavily on the Northern colonies, their injurious effects were felt by
all of them. As far back as the time of Bacon's rebellion, a patriotic
woman of the colony congratulated her friends that now "Virginia can
build ships, and, like New England, trade to any part of the world." And
the parenthesis of religious liberty and free trade enjoyed by Virginia
under Cromwell was never forgotten. But, inasmuch as these restrictions
fell more heavily on the North than on the South, so the co-operation of
the South was the more meritorious as being more disinterested. And the
oppressions of Great Britain must have been intolerable, when,
notwithstanding all the differences of opinion and of institutions, the
thirteen colonies became united in a compact phalanx of
resistance.[531:A]
The recent war had inspired the provincial troops with more confidence
in themselves, and had rendered the British regulars less formidable in
their eyes. Everything unknown is magnificent.
The success of the allied arms had put an end to the dependency of the
colonies upon the mother country for protection against the French. In
several of the provinces Germans, Dutch, Swedes, and Frenchmen were
found commingled with the Anglican population. Great Britain, by long
wars ably conducted during Pitt's administration, had acquired glory and
an extension of empire; but, in the mean time, she had incurred an
enormous debt. The British officers, entertained with a hospitality in
America, carried back to England exaggerated reports of the wealth of
the colonies. The colonial governors and the British ministry had often
been thwarted and annoyed by the republican and independent, and
sometimes factious spirit, of the colonial assemblies, and longed to see
them curbed. The British merchants complained to the government of the
heavy losses entailed upon them by the depreciated colonial paper
currency. The Church of England was indignant at the violent opposition
to the introduction of bishops into the colonies, at the decision of the
"Parsons' Cause," and other provocations and indignities. The advice of
many governors and military officers had deeply impressed the government
with the necessity of laying direct taxes as the only means of retaining
the control of the colonies. The British administration, in the first
years of the reign of George the Third, was in the hands of a corrupt
oligarchy, and the ministers determined to lessen the burden at home by
levying a direct tax upon the colonies. The loyalty of the Americans had
never been warmer than at the close of the war. They had expended their
treasure and their blood freely; and the recollection of mutual
sufferings and a common glory strengthened their attachment to the
mother country; but these loyal sentiments were destined soon to wither
and expire. The colonies, too, had involved themselves in a heavy debt.
Within three years, intervening between 1756 and 1759, parliament had
granted them a large amount of money to encourage their efforts; yet,
notwithstanding that and the extraordinary supplies appropriated by the
assemblies, a heavy debt still remained unliquidated. When, therefore,
parliament in a few years thereafter undertook to extort money by a
direct tax from provinces to which she had recently granted incomparably
larger sums, it was conceived that the object of the minister, in this
innovation, was not simply to raise the inconsiderable amount of the
tax, but to establish gradually a new and absolute system of "taxation
without representation." It was easy to foresee that it would be made
the instrument of unlimited extortions, and would extinguish the
practical legislative independence of the Anglo-American colonies.
Neither the English parliament, nor those who were represented by the
lords and commons, would pay a farthing of the tax which they imposed on
the colonies. On the contrary, their property would have been exempted
in exact proportion to the burdens laid on the colonies. Taxes without
reason or necessity, and oppressions without end, would have ensued from
submitting to the usurpation.[533:A]
After war had raged for nearly eight years, peace was concluded at
Paris, in February, 1763, by which France ceded Canada, and Spain the
Floridas, to Great Britain. On this occasion the territory of Virginia
was again reduced in extent. The conquests, and the culminating power,
and the arrogant pretensions of the proud island of Great Britain
excited the jealousy and the fears of Europe; while in England the
administration had engendered a formidable opposition at home. In the
year 1763 the national debt had accumulated to an enormous amount; for
which an annual interest of twenty-two millions of dollars was paid. The
minister proposed to levy upon the colonies part of this sum, alleging
that as the recent war had been waged partly on their account, it was
but fair that they should contribute a share of the expense; and the
right was claimed for parliament, according to the British constitution,
to tax every portion of the empire. The absolute right of legislating
for the colonies had long, if not always, been claimed, theoretically,
by England; but she had never exerted it in practice to any sensible
extent in the essential article of taxation. The inhabitants of the
colonies admitted their obligation to share the expense of the war, but
insisted that the necessary revenue could be legitimately levied only by
their own legislatures; that taxation and representation were
inseparable; and that remote colonies not represented in parliament were
entitled to tax themselves. The justice of parliament would prove a
feeble barrier against the demands of avarice; and as in England the
privilege of granting money was the palladium of the people's liberty
against the encroachment of the crown, so the same right was the proper
safeguard of the colonies against the tyranny of the imperial
government. Such were the views of American patriots; yet it was a
subject on which wise and good men might differ in Great Britain and in
America.
Upon the death of the Rev. William Yates, in 1764, the Rev. James
Horrocks succeeded him as President of the College of William and Mary.
About the same time the Rev. William Robinson, commissary, dying, Mr.
Horrocks succeeded him in that place. Rev. John Camm, who aspired to the
office, was disappointed in it owing to some difficulty with Governor
Dinwiddie.
In March, 1764, parliament passed resolutions declaratory of an
intention to impose a stamp-duty in America, and avowing the right and
expediency of taxing the colonies. This was the immediate fountain-head
of the Revolution. These resolutions gave great dissatisfaction in
America; but were popular in England, where the prospect of lightening
their own burdens at the expense of the colonists recommended them to
the English taxpayers. The resolutions met with no overt opposition, but
the public discontents were increased when it came to be known that
large bodies of British soldiers were to be sent over and quartered in
the colonies.
Patrick Henry, during the year, removed from Hanover to Louisa, where he
soon endeared himself to the people, although he never courted their
favor by flattery. He sometimes hunted deer for several days together,
carrying his provision with him, and at night camping out in the woods.
He was known to enter Louisa court in a coarse cloth coat, stained with
the blood of the deer, greasy leather breeches, with leggings for boots,
and a pair of saddle-bags on his arm.[534:A]
In the fall of 1764 there occurred in the house of burgesses a case of
contested election, the parties being James Littlepage, the member
returned for the County of Hanover, and the other candidate, Nathaniel
West Dandridge. Mr. Littlepage was charged with bribery and corruption.
The case was tried before the committee of privileges and elections, and
Mr. Henry appeared as attorney for Mr. Dandridge. Mr. Henry was coarsely
dressed and quite unknown, yet retained his self-possession in spite of
the supercilious smiles of aristocracy. The right of suffrage and the
purity of the elective franchise afforded him a theme for a speech which
astonished the audience; and Judge Winston pronounced the argument
"superior to anything he had ever heard."
The speaker of the house, John Robinson, had held that post for a
quarter of a century, and combining with it the office of treasurer, his
influence was wide and well established. His personal popularity was
great, and embraced men of all classes. His strong and cultivated mind
was set off by polished manners; his presence, imposing and commanding.
Peyton Randolph, the king's attorney-general, in influence second only
to the speaker, was discreet and dignified; thoroughly versed in
legislative proceedings; of excellent judgment, yet without
extraordinary genius; a sound lawyer; in politics conservative;
intolerant to dissenters.
Richard Bland was enlightened and laborious, a profound reasoner, an
ungraceful speaker, but an excellent writer; a wise but over-cautious
statesman, like Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, marching up with fearless
logic to his conclusions, but pausing there, unwilling to carry them
into effect.
Edmund Pendleton was the grandson of Philip Pendleton, a teacher, who
came over to Virginia about the year 1674 with his brother, Nathaniel, a
minister. Philip Pendleton's eldest son, at the age of eighteen, married
Mary Taylor, aged only thirteen, and Edmund was the fourth son of this
union. From a sister was descended General Edmund Pendleton Gaines, of
the United States army. Edmund Pendleton was born (his father dying
before his birth) in 1721, in Caroline County. Left poor and without any
classical education, it is said that after ploughing all day he pursued
his studies at night. Placed in his fourteenth year in the office of
Colonel Benjamin Robinson, (brother of the speaker,) clerk of the county
court of Caroline, he became acquainted with legal forms. He could
hardly have spent much time in ploughing before his fourteenth year. At
the age of sixteen he was appointed clerk to the vestry of St. Mary's
Parish; and the salary derived from that petty office he expended in the
purchase of books, which he diligently read. In his twentieth year he
was licensed to practise the law, after having been strictly examined by
the eminent lawyer Barradall. About the same time young Pendleton was
made clerk of the county court martial. Before he was of age he married,
in opposition to the advice of his friends, Betty Roy, remarkable for
her beauty. Upon being licensed he soon acquired a large practice. His
wife dying in less than two years after the marriage, in his
twenty-fourth year he married Sarah Pollard. He now began to practise in
the general court. In the year 1752 he was elected one of the
representatives of Caroline, and so continued down to the time of the
Revolution. Mr. Wirt says that he was a protege of Speaker Robinson, who
introduced him into the circle of refined society. Mr. Grigsby thinks
that the term protege was inapplicable to him, as he was the architect
of his own fortune. It is certain that Speaker Robinson found in him his
ablest supporter in the question of separating the offices of speaker
and treasurer. Mr. Pendleton became the leader of the conservative
party, who, while they wished to effect a redress of grievances, were
opposed to a revolution of the government, and who stood out against it
until opposition became unavailing. Nevertheless, by his integrity, the
charm of his manners, and his great abilities, he attained and filled
with honor several of the highest posts. As a lawyer, debater,
statesman, he was of the highest order in the colony; yet he read little
besides law, and was without taste for literature. The report of a law
case had for him the charm which a novel has for others. As a writer he
was unskilled, and quite devoid of the graces of style and rhythm. His
voice was melodious, and his articulation distinct; his elocution
graceful and effective; with a serene self-possession that nothing could
disturb, he was ever ready to seize every advantage that occurred in
debate; but he could lay no claim to the lofty powers which "shake the
human soul." Although a new man, he was, as often happens, behind none
in his extreme conservative views in church and state. In a brief
autobiography, he says of himself: "Without any classical education,
without patrimony, without what is called the influence of family
connection, and without solicitation, I have attained the highest
offices of my country. I have often contemplated it as a rare and
extraordinary instance, and pathetically exclaimed, 'Not unto me, not
unto me, O Lord, but unto thy name be the praise!'"[537:A]
George Wythe was born in Elizabeth City, (1726,) his father having been
a burgess from that county. George, on the side of his mother's family,
named Keith, inherited a taste for letters. After studying the law,
having come into possession of a competent estate, he wasted several
years in indolence and dissipation; but he afterwards became a close
student, having imbibed a taste for learning from the society of
Governor Fauquier and Professor Small. He became accomplished in classic
literature, and profoundly versed in the law. He is described as having
been simple and artless, incapable of the little crooked wisdom of
cunning, and his integrity was incorruptible.
Richard Henry Lee was distinguished by a face of the Roman order: his
forehead high but not wide, his head leaning gracefully forward; his
person and face fine. He was an accomplished scholar, of wide reading.
His voice was musical. He had lost the use of one hand by an accident,
and kept it covered with a bandage of black silk; but his gesture was
graceful. His style of eloquence was chaste, classic, electric, and
delightful. As Mr. Jefferson has said that Patrick Henry spoke as Homer
wrote, so Mr. Lee may be, perhaps, compared to Virgil. Henry and Lee
coincided in political views, co-operated in public life, and were
confidential correspondents and warm and constant friends.
FOOTNOTES:
[531:A] Sabine's Loyalists, 36.
[533:A] Letter from R. H. Lee to his sister, Mrs. Corbin, written in
1778. _Hist. Mag._, i. 360.
[534:A] Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry, 37.
[537:A] Wirt's Life of Henry, 47; Old Churches, Ministers, etc., 298;
Grigsby's Convention of '76, p. 46.