Читать книгу The History of the American Revolution - David Ramsay - Страница 13

CHAPTER II

The Origin of the disputes between Great-Britain and her Colonies, in the Year 1764, and its progress till 1773.

1750

FROM THE FIRST SETTLEMENT of English America, till the close of the war of 1755, the conduct of Great-Britain towards her colonies, affords an useful lesson to those who are disposed to colonisation. From that era, it is equally worthy of the attention of those who wish for the reduction of great empires to small ones. In the first period, Great-Britain regarded the provinces as instruments of commerce. Without charging herself with the care of their internal police, or seeking a revenue from them; she contented herself with a monopoly of their trade. She treated them as a judicious mother does her dutiful children. They shared in every privilege belonging to her native sons, and but slightly felt the inconveniences of subordination. Small was the catalogue of grievances, with which even democratical jealousy charged the parent state, antecedent to the period before [43] mentioned. The following appear to have been the chief. An act of the British parliament for prohibiting the cutting down pitch and tar trees, not being within a fence or enclosure, and sundry acts which operated against colonial manufactures. By one of these, it was made illegal after the 24th of June, 1750, to erect in the colonies, any mill or other engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any plating forge, to work with a tilt-hammer, or any furnace for making steel. By another, hatters were restrained from taking more than two apprentices at a time, or any for less than seven years, and from employing negroes in the business. The colonists were also prohibited from transporting hats, and home manufactured woolens, from one province to another. These regulations were for the most part evaded, but if carried into execution, would have been slightly inconvenient, and only to a few. The articles, the manufacturing of which, were thus prohibited, could be purchased, at a cheaper rate, from England, and the hands who made them, could be as well employed in agriculture.

1763

Though these restrictions were a species of affront, by their implying, that the colonists had not sense enough to discover their own interest, and though they seemed calculated to crush their native talents, and to keep them in a constant state of inferiority, without any hope of arriving at those advantages, to which, by the native riches of their country, they were prompted to aspire, yet if no other grievances had been superadded, to what existed in 1763, these would have been soon forgotten, for their pressure was neither great, nor universal. The good resulting to the colonies, from their connection with Great-Britain, infinitely outweighed the evil.

1764

Till the year 1764, the colonial regulations seemed to have no other object, but the common good of the whole empire. Exceptions, to the contrary, were few, and had no appearance of system. When the approach of the colonies to manhood, made them more capable of resisting impositions, Great-Britain changed the ancient system, under which her colonies had long flourished. When policy would rather have dictated a relaxation of authority, she rose in her demands, and multiplied her restraints.

[44] From the conquest of Canada, in 1759, some have supposed, that France began secretly to lay schemes, for wresting those colonies from Great-Britain, which she was not able to conquer. Others alledge, that from that period, the colonists, released from all fears of dangerous neighbours, fixed their eyes on independence, and took sundry steps, preparatory to the adoption of the measure. Without recurring to either of these opinions, the known selfishness of human nature is sufficient to account for that demand on the one side, and that refusal on the other, which occasioned the revolution. It was natural for Great-Britain, to wish for an extension of her authority over the colonies, and equally so for them, on their approach to maturity, to be more impatient of subordination, and to resist every innovation, for increasing the degree of their dependence.

The sad story of colonial oppression commenced in the year 1764. Great-Britain, then, adopted new regulations, respecting her colonies, which, after disturbing the ancient harmony of the two countries, for about twelve years, terminated in a dismemberment of the empire.

1764

These consisted in restricting their former commerce, but more especially in subjecting them to taxation, by the British Parliament. By adhering to the spirit of her navigation act, in the course of a century, the trade of Great-Britain had encreased far beyond the expectation of her most sanguine sons, but by rigidly enforcing the strict letter of the same, in a different situation of public affairs, effects, directly the reverse, were produced.

From the enterprising, commercial spirit of the colonists, the trade of America, after filling all its proper channels to the brim, swelled out on every side, overflowed its proper banks, with a rich redundance. In the cure of evils, which are closely connected with the causes of national prosperity, vulgar precaution ought not to be employed. In severely checking a contraband trade, which was only the overflowing of an extensive fair trade, the remedy was worse then the disease.

1764

For some time before and after the termination of the war of 1755, a considerable intercourse had been carried [45] on between the British and Spanish colonies, consisting of the manufactures of Great Britain, imported by the former, and sold to the latter, by which the British colonies acquired gold and silver, and were enabled to make remittances to the Mother Country. This trade, though it did not clash with the spirit of the British navigation laws, was forbidden by their letter. On account of the advantages, which all parties, and particularly Great-Britain, reaped from this intercourse, it had long been winked at, by persons in power, but at the period beforementioned, some new regulations were adopted, by which it was almost destroyed. This was effected by armed cutters, whose commanders were enjoined to take the usual custom-house oaths, and to act in the capacity of revenue officers. So sudden a stoppage of an accustomed and beneficial commerce, by an unusually rigid execution of old laws, was a serious blow to the Northern colonies. It was their misfortune, that though they stood in need of vast quantities of British manufactures, their country produced very little, that afforded a direct remittance, to pay for them. They were, therefore, under a necessity of seeking elsewhere, a market for their produce, and by a circuitous route, acquiring the means of supporting their credit, with the Mother Country. This they found, by trading with the Spanish and French colonies, in their neighbourhood. From them they acquired gold, silver, and valuable commodities, the ultimate profits of which, centered in Great-Britain. This intercourse gave life to business of every denomination, and established a reciprocal circulation of money and merchandize, to the benefit of all parties concerned. Why a trade, essential to the colonies, and which, so far from being detrimental, was indirectly advantageous to Great-Britain, should be so narrowly watched, and so severely restrained, could not be accounted for by the Americans, without supposing, that the rulers of Great-Britain were jealous of their adventurous commercial spirit, and of their increasing number of seamen. Their actual sufferings were great, but their apprehensions were greater. Instead of viewing the parent state, as formerly, in the light of an affectionate [46] mother, they conceived her, as beginning to be influenced by the narrow views of an illiberal stepdame.

After the 29th of September, 1764, the trade between the British, and the French, and Spanish colonies, was in some degree legalised, but under circumstances, that brought no relief to the colonists, for it was loaded with such enormous duties, as were equivalent to a prohibition. The preamble to the act, for this purpose, was alarming. “Whereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised in America, for defraying the expences, of defending, protecting, and securing the same, We, the commons, &c. towards raising the same, give, and grant unto your Majesty, the sum of’’ (here followed a specification of duties upon foreign clayed sugar, indigo, and coffee, of foreign produce, upon all wines, except French, upon all wrought silk, and all calicoes, and upon every gallon of melasses, and syrups, being the produce of a colony, not under the dominion of his Majesty). It was also enacted, that the monies, arising from the importation of these articles, into the colonies, should be paid into the receipt of his Majesty’s exchequer, there to be entered separate, and reserved, to be disposed of by Parliament, toward defraying the necessary expences, of defending, protecting, and securing America. Till that act passed, no act avowedly for the purpose of revenue, and with the ordinary title and recital of such, was to be found in the parliamentary statute book. The wording of it made the colonists fear, that the Parliament would go on, in charging them with such taxes, as they pleased, and for the support of such military force, as they should think proper. The act was the more disgusting, because the monies, arising from it, were ordered to be paid in specie, and regulations were adopted, against colonial paper money. To obstruct the avenues of acquiring gold and silver, and at the same time to interdict the use of paper money, appeared to the colonists as a farther evidence, that their interests were either misunderstood, or disregarded. The imposition of duties, for the purpose of raising a revenue, in America, was considered as a dangerous innovation, but the methods adopted, for securing their collection, [47] were resented as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was enacted by Parliament, that whenever offences should be committed against the acts, which imposed them, the prosecutor might bring his action for the penalty, in the courts of admiralty, by which means the defendant lost the advantage of being tried by a jury, and was subjected to the necessity of having his case decided upon, by a single man, a creature of the crown, whose salary was to be paid out of forfeitures, adjudged by himself; and also according to a course of law, which exempted the prosecutor from the trouble of proving his accusation, and obliged the defendant, either to evince his innocence, or to suffer. By these regulations, the guards, which the constitution had placed round property, and the fences, which the ancestors of both countries had erected, against arbitrary power, were thrown down, as far as they concerned the colonists, charged with violating the laws, for raising a revenue in America.

They who directed public affairs in Great-Britain feared, that if the collection of these duties was enforced, only in the customary way, payment would be often eluded. To obviate that disposition which the colonists discovered to screen one another, in disobeying offensive acts of parliament, regulations were adopted, bearing hard on their constitutional rights. Unwilling as the colonists were to be excluded by the imposition of enormous duties, from an accustomed and beneficial line of business; it is not wonderful that they were disposed to represent these innovations of the Mother Country, in the most unfavourable point of view. The heavy losses to which many individuals were subjected, and the general distress of the mercantile interest, in several of the oldest colonies, soured the minds of many. That the Mother Country should infringe her own constitution, to cramp the commerce of her colonies, was a fruitful subject of declamation: but these murmurings would have evaporated in words, had Great-Britain proceeded to no farther innovations. Instead of this, she adopted the novel idea of raising from the colonies, an efficient revenue, by direct internal taxes, laid by authority of her parliament.

[48] Though all the colonists disrelished, and many, from the pressure of actual sufferings, complained of the British restrictions on their manufactures and commerce, yet a great majority was disposed to submit to both. Most of them acknowledged that the exercise of these powers was incident to the sovereignty of the Mother Country, especially when guarded by an implied contract, that they were to be only used for the common benefit of the empire. It was generally allowed, that as the planting of colonies was not designed to erect an independent government, but to extend an old one, the Parent State had a right to restrain their trade in every way, which conduced to the common emolument.

They for the most part considered the Mother Country as authorised to name ports and nations, to which alone their merchandize should be carried, and with which alone they should trade: but the novel claim of taxing them without their consent, was universally reprobated, as contrary to their natural, chartered, and constitutional rights. In opposition to it, they not only alledged the general principles of liberty, but ancient usage. During the first 150 years of their existence, they had been left to tax themselves and in their own way. If there were any exceptions to this general rule, they were too inconsiderable to merit notice. In the war of 1755, the events of which were fresh in the recollection of every one, the parliament had in no instance attempted to raise either men or money in the colonies, by its own authority. As the claim of taxation on one side, and the refusal of it on the other, was the very hinge on which the revolution turned, it merits a particular discussion.

Colonies were formerly planted by warlike nations, to keep their enemies in awe, to give vent to a surplus of inhabitants, or to discharge a number of discontented and troublesome citizens. But in modern ages, the spirit of violence, being in some measure sheathed in commerce, colonies have been settled, by the nations of Europe, for the purposes of trade. These were to be attained by their raising, for the Mother Country, such [49] commodities as she did not produce, and supplying themselves from her with such things as they wanted. In subserviency to these views, Great-Britain planted colonies, and made laws, obliging them to carry to her, all their products which she wanted, and all their raw materials which she chose to work up. Besides this restriction, she forbad them to procure manufactures from any other part of the globe, or even the products of European countries, which could rival her, without being first brought to her ports. By a variety of laws, she regulated their trade, in such a manner, as was thought most conducive to their mutual advantage, and her own particular welfare. This principle of commercial monopoly, ran through no less than 29 acts of parliament from 1660, to 1764. In all these acts, the system of commerce was established, as that, from which alone, their contributions to the strength of the empire, were expected. During this whole period, a parliamentary revenue was no part of the object of colonisation. Accordingly, in all the laws which regarded them, the technical words of revenue laws, were avoided. Such have usually a title purporting their being “grants,” and the words “give and grant,” usually precede their enacting clauses. Although duties were imposed on America, by previous acts of parliament, no one title of “giving an aid to his majesty,” or any other of the usual titles to revenue acts, was to be found in any of them. They were intended as regulations of trade, and not as sources of national supplies. Till the year 1764, all stood on commercial regulation, and restraint.

While Great-Britain attended to this first system of colonisation, her American settlements, though exposed in unknown climates, and unexplored wildernesses, grew and flourished, and in the same proportion; the trade and riches of the Mother Country encreased. Some estimate may be made of this increase, from the following statement. The whole export trade of England, including that to the colonies, in the year 1704, amounted to £6,509,000 sterling: but so immensely had the colonies increased, that the exports to them alone [50] in the year 1772, amounted to £6,022,132 sterling, and they were yearly increasing. In the short space of 68 years, the colonies added nearly as much to the export commerce of Great-Britain, as she had grown to by a progressive increase of improvement in 1700 years. And this increase of colonial trade, was not at the expence of the general trade of the kingdom, for that increased in the same time, from six millions, to sixteen millions.

In this auspicious period, the Mother Country contented herself with exercising her supremacy in superintending the general concerns of the colonies, and in harmonising the commercial interest of the whole empire. To this the most of them bowed down with such a filial submission as demonstrated that they, though not subjected to parliamentary taxes, could be kept in due subordination, and in perfect subserviency to the grand views of colonisation.

Immediately after the peace of Paris, 1763, a new scene was opened. The national debt of Great-Britain, then amounted to 148 millions, for which an interest of nearly 5 millions, was annually paid. While the British minister was digesting plans for diminishing this amazing load of debt, he conceived the idea of raising a substantial revenue in the British colonies, from taxes laid by the parliament of the parent state. On the one hand it was urged that the late war originated on account of the colonies—that it was reasonable, more especially as it had terminated in a manner so favourable to their interest, that they should contribute to the defraying of the expences it had occasioned. Thus far both parties were agreed, but Great-Britain contended, that her parliament as the supreme power, was constitutionally vested with an authority to lay them on every part of the empire. This doctrine, plausible in itself, and conformable to the letter of the British constitution, when the whole dominions were represented in one assembly, was reprobated in the colonies, as contrary to the spirit of the same government, when the empire became so far extended, as to have many distinct representative assemblies. The colonists believed that the chief excellence of the [51] British constitution consisted in the right of subjects to grant, or withhold taxes, and in their having a share in enacting the laws, by which they were to be bound.

They conceived, that the superiority of the British constitution, to other forms of government was, not because their supreme council was called Parliament, but because, the people had a share in it, by appointing members, who constituted one of its constituent branches, and without whose concurrence, no law, binding on them, could be enacted. In the Mother Country, it was asserted to be essential to the unity of the empire, that the British Parliament should have a right of taxation, over every part of the royal dominions. In the colonies, it was believed, that taxation and representation were inseparable, and that they could neither be free, nor happy, if their property could be taken from them, without their consent. The common people in America reasoned on this subject, in a summary way: “If a British Parliament,” said they, “in which we are unrepresented, and over which we have no control, can take from us any part of our property, by direct taxation, they may take as much as they please, and we have no security for any thing, that remains, but a forbearance on their part, less likely to be exercised in our favour, as they lighten themselves of the burthens of government, in the same proportion, that they impose them on us.” They well knew, that communities of mankind, as well as individuals, have a strong propensity to impose on others, when they can do it with impunity, and, especially, when there is a prospect, that the imposition will be attended with advantage to themselves. The Americans, from that jealousy of their liberties, which their local situation nurtured, and which they inherited from their forefathers, viewed the exclusive right of laying taxes on themselves, free from extraneous influence, in the same light, as the British Parliament views its peculiar privilege of raising money, independent of the crown. The parent state appeared to the colonists to stand in the same relation to their local legislatures, as the monarch of Great-Britain, to the British [52] Parliament. His prerogative is limited by that palladium of the people’s liberty, the exclusive privilege of granting their own money. While this right rests in the hands of the people, their liberties are secured. In the same manner reasoned the colonists “in order to be stiled freemen, our local assemblies, elected by ourselves, must enjoy the exclusive privilege of imposing taxes upon us.” They contended, that men settled in foreign parts to better their condition, and not to submit their liberties—to continue the equals, not to become the slave of their less adventurous fellow-citizens, and that by the novel doctrine of parliamentary power, they were degraded from being the subjects of a King, to the low condition of being subjects of subjects. They argued, that it was essentially involved in the idea of property, that the possessor had such a right therein, that it was a contradiction to suppose any other man, or body of men, possessed a right to take it from him, without his consent. Precedents, in the history of England, justified this mode of reasoning. The love of property strengthened it, and it had a peculiar force on the minds of colonists, 3000 miles removed from the seat of government, and growing up to maturity, in a new world, where, from the extent of country, and the state of society, even the necessary restraints of civil government, were impatiently born. On the other hand, the people of Great-Britain revolted against the claims of the colonists. Educated in habits of submission to parliamentary taxation, they conceived it to be the height of contumacy for their colonists to refuse obedience to the power, which they had been taught to revere. Not adverting to the common interest, which existed between the people of Great-Britain, and their representatives, they believed, that the same right existed, although the same community of interests was wanting. The pride of an opulent, conquering nation, aided this mode of reasoning. “What,” said they, “shall we, who have so lately humbled France and Spain, be dictated to by our own colonists? Shall our subjects, educated by our care, and defended by our arms, presume to question the rights of Parliament, to which we are obliged to submit.” [53] Reflections of this kind, congenial to the natural vanity of the human heart, operated so extensively, that the people of Great-Britain spoke of their colonies and of their colonists, as of a kind of possession, annexed to their persons. The love of power, and of property, on the one side of the Atlantic, were opposed by the same powerful passions on the other.

The disposition to tax the colonies, was also strengthened by exaggerated accounts of their wealth. It was said, “that the American planters lived in affluence, and with inconsiderable taxes, while the inhabitants of Great-Britain were born down, by such oppressive burdens, as to make a bare subsistence, a matter of extreme difficulty.” The officers who have served in America, during the late war, contributed to this delusion. Their observations were founded on what they had seen in cities, and at a time, when large sums were spent by government, in support of fleets and armies, and when American commodities were in great demand. To treat with attention those, who came to fight for them, and also to gratify their own pride, the colonists had made a parade of their riches, by frequently and sumptuously entertaining the gentlemen of the British army. These, judging from what they saw, without considering the general state of the country, concurred in representing the colonists, as very able to contribute, largely, towards defraying the common expences of the empire.

The charters, which were supposed to contain the principles on which the colonies were founded, became the subject of serious investigation on both sides. One clause was found to run through the whole of them, except that which had been granted to Mr. Penn. This was a declaration, “that the emigrants to America should enjoy the same privileges, as if they had remained, or had been born within the realm;” but such was the subtilty of disputants, that both parties construed this general principle, so as to favour their respective opinions. The American patriots contended, that as English freeholders could not be taxed, but by representatives, in chusing whom they had a vote, neither could the colonists: But [54] it was replied, that if the colonists had remained in England, they must have been bound to pay the taxes, imposed by parliament. It was therefore inferred, that, though taxed by that authority, they lost none of the rights of native Englishmen, residing at home. The partizans of the Mother Country could see nothing in charters, but security against taxes, by royal authority. The Americans, adhering to the spirit more than to the letter, viewed their charters, as a shield, against all taxes, not imposed by representatives of their own choice. This construction they contended to be expressly recognized by the charter of Maryland. In that, King Charles bound, both himself and his successors, not to assent to any bill, subjecting the inhabitants to internal taxation, by external legislation.

The nature and extent of the connection between Great-Britain and America, was a great constitutional question, involving many interests, and the general principles of civil liberty. To decide this, recourse was in vain had to parchment authorities, made at a distant time, when neither the grantor, nor grantees, of American territory, had in contemplation, any thing like the present state of the two countries.

Great and flourishing colonies, daily increasing in numbers, and already grown to the magnitude of a nation, planted at an immense distance, and governed by constitutions, resembling that of the country, from which they sprung, were novelties in the history of the world. To combine colonies, so circumstanced, in one uniform system of government, with the parent state, required a great knowledge of mankind, and an extensive comprehension of things. It was an arduous business, far beyond the grasp of ordinary statesmen, whose minds were narrowed by the formalities of law, or the trammels of office. An original genius, unfettered with precedents, and exalted with just ideas of the rights of human nature, and the obligations of universal benevolence, might have struck out a middle line, which would have secured as much liberty to the colonies, and as great a degree of supremacy to the parent state, as their common good required: But [55] the helm of Great-Britain was not in such hands. The spirit of the British constitution on the one hand, revolted at the idea, that the British parliament should exercise the same unlimited authority over the unrepresented colonies, which it exercised over the inhabitants of Great-Britain. The colonists on the other hand did not claim a total exemption from its authority. They in general allowed the Mother Country a certain undefined prerogative over them, and acquiesced in the right of Parliament, to make many acts, binding them in many subjects of internal policy, and regulating their trade. Where parliamentary supremacy ended, and at what point colonial independency began, was not ascertained. Happy would it have been, had the question never been agitated, but much more so, had it been compromised by an amicable compact, without the horrors of a civil war.

The English colonies were originally established, not for the sake of revenue, but on the principles of a commercial monopoly. While England pursued trade and forgot revenue, her commerce increased at least fourfold. The colonies took off the manufactures of Great-Britain, and paid for them with provisions, or raw materials. They united their arms in war, their commerce and their councils in peace, without nicely investigating the terms on which the connection of the two countries depended.

A perfect calm in the political world is not long to be expected. The reciprocal happiness, both of Great-Britain and of the colonies, was too great to be of long duration. The calamities of the war of 1755, had scarcely ended, when the germ of another war was planted, which soon grew up and produced deadly fruit.

1764

At that time sundry resolutions passed the British parliament, relative to the imposition of a stamp duty in America, which gave a general alarm. By them the right, the equity, the policy, and even the necessity of taxing the colonies was formally avowed. These resolutions being considered as the preface of a system of American revenue, were deemed an introduction of evils of much greater magnitude. They opened a prospect of oppression, [56] boundless in extent, and endless in duration. They were nevertheless not immediately followed by any legislative act. Time, and an invitation, were given to the Americans, to suggest any other mode of taxation, that might be equivalent in its produce to the stamp act: But they objected, not only to the mode, but the principle, and several of their assemblies, though in vain, petitioned against it. An American revenue was in England, a very popular measure. The cry in favour of it was so strong, as to confound and silence the voice of petitions to the contrary. The equity of compelling the Americans to contribute to the common expences of the empire, satisfied many, who, without enquiring into the policy or justice of taxing their unrepresented fellow subjects, readily assented to the measures adopted by the parliament, for this purpose. The prospect of easing their own burdens, at the expence of the colonists, dazzled the eyes of gentlemen of landed interest, so as to keep out of their view, the probable consequences of the innovation.

The omnipotence of parliament was so familiar a phrase on both sides of the Atlantic, that few in America, and still fewer in Great-Britain, were impressed in the first instance, with any idea of the illegality of taxing the colonists.

MARCH, 1765

The illumination on that subject was gradual. The resolutions in favour of an American stamp act, which passed in March, 1764, met with no opposition. In the course of the year, which intervened between these resolutions, and the passing of a law grounded upon them, the subject was better understood and constitutional objections against the measure, were urged by several, both in Great-Britain and America. This astonished and chagrined the British ministry: But as the principle of taxing America, had been for some time determined upon, they were unwilling to give it up. Impelled by partiality for a long cherished idea, Mr. Grenville brought into the house of commons his long expected bill, for laying a stamp duty in America. By this after passing through the usual forms, it was enacted, that the instruments [57] of writing which are in daily use among a commercial people, should be null and void, unless they were executed on stamped paper or parchment, charged with a duty imposed by the British parliament.

When the bill was brought in, Mr. Charles Townsend concluded a speech in its favour, with words to the following effect, “And now will these Americans, children planted by our care, nourished up by our indulgence, till they are grown to a degree of strength and opulence, and protected by our arms, will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy weight of that burden which we lie under.” To which Colonel Barré replied,

They planted by your care? No, your oppressions planted them in America. They fled from tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and among others to the cruelty of a savage foe the most subtle, and I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people upon the face of God’s earth; and yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all hardships with pleasure compared with those they suffered in their own country, from the hands of those that should have been their friends. They nourished up by your indulgence? They grew by your neglect of them. As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule them in one department and another, who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some members of this house, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon them. Men, whose behaviour on many occasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them. Men promoted to the highest seats of justice, some who to my knowledge were glad by going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own. They protected by your arms? They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your emolument. And believe [58] me, remember I this day told you so, that same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany them still: but prudence forbids me to explain myself farther. God knows, I do not at this time speak from any motives of party heat, what I deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However superior to me in general knowledge and experience, the respectable body of this house may be, yet I claim to know more of America than most of you, having seen and been conversant in that country. The people I believe are as truly loyal as any subjects the King has, but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated: but the subject is too delicate—I will say no more.

During the debate on the bill, the supporters of it insisted much on the colonies being virtually represented in the same manner as Leeds, Halifax, and some other towns were. A recurrence to this plea was a virtual acknowledgment, that there ought not to be taxation without representation. It was replied, that the connexion between the electors and non-electors of parliament in Great-Britain, was so interwoven, from both being equally liable to pay the same common tax, as to give some security of property to the latter: but with respect to taxes laid by the British parliament, and paid by the Americans, the situation of the parties was reversed. Instead of both parties bearing a proportionable share of the same common burden, what was laid on the one, was exactly so much taken off from the other.

1765

1765

MAY 28, 1765

The bill met with no opposition in the house of Lords, and on the 22d of March, it received the royal assent. The night after it passed, Dr. Franklin wrote to Mr. Charles Thomson. “The sun of liberty is set, you must light up the candles of industry and economy.” Mr. Thomson answered, “he was apprehensive that other lights would be the consequence,” and foretold the opposition that shortly took place. On its being suggested from authority, that the stamp officers would not be sent from Great-Britain: but selected from among the Americans, the colony agents were desired to point out proper persons [59] for the purpose. They generally nominated their friends which affords a presumptive proof, that they supposed the act would have gone down. In this opinion they were far from being singular. That the colonists would be ultimately obliged to submit to the stamp act, was at first commonly believed, both in England and America. The framers of it, in particular, flattered themselves that the confusion which would arise upon the disuse of writings, and the insecurity of property, which would result from using any other than that required by law, would compel the colonies, however reluctant, to use the stamp paper, and consequently to pay the taxes imposed thereon. They therefore boasted that it was a law which would execute itself. By the terms of the stamp act, it was not to take effect till the first day of November, a period of more than seven months after its passing. This give the colonists an opportunity for leisurely canvassing the new subject, and examining it fully on every side. In the first part of this interval, struck with astonishment, they lay in silent consternation, and could not determine what course to pursue. By degrees they recovered their recollection. Virginia led the way in opposition to the stamp act. Mr. Patrick Henry brought into the house of burgesses of that colony, the following resolutions which were substantially adopted.

Resolved, That the first adventurers, settlers of this his Majesty’s colony and dominion of Virginia, brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other, his Majesty’s subjects, since inhabiting in this, his Majesty’s said colony, all the liberties, privileges and immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed and possessed by the people of Great-Britain.

Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted by King James the first, the colonies aforesaid are declared, and entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens, and natural subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding, and born within the realm of England,

1765

Resolved, That his Majesty’s liege people, of this, his ancient colony, have enjoyed the rights of being thus governed [60] by their own assembly, in the article of taxes, and internal police, and that the same have never been forfeited, or yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the King and people of Britain.

Resolved, therefore, That the general assembly of this colony, together with his Majesty, or his substitutes, have, in their representative capacity, the only exclusive right and power, to lay taxes and imposts, upon the inhabitants of this colony, and that every attempt to vest such power in any other person or persons, whatsoever, than the general assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, and hath a manifest tendency to destroy British, as well as American Liberty.

Resolved, That his Majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law, or ordinance whatever, designed to impose any taxation whatever upon them, other, than the laws or ordinances of the general assembly aforesaid.

Resolved, That any person, who shall, by speaking, or writing, assert, or maintain, that any person, or persons, other than the general assembly of this colony, have any right or power, to impose, or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to this, his Majesty’s colony.

1765

Upon reading these resolutions, the boldness and novelty of them affected one of the members to such a degree, that he cried out, “Treason! Treason!” They were, nevertheless, well received by the people, and immediately forwarded to the other provinces. They circulated extensively, and gave a spring to all the discontented. Till they appeared, most were of opinion, that the act would be quietly adopted. Murmurs, indeed, were common, but they seemed to be such, as would soon die away. The countenance of so respectable a colony, as Virginia, confirmed the wavering, and emboldened the timid. Opposition to the stamp act, from that period, assumed a bolder face. The fire of liberty blazed forth from the press; some well judged publications set the rights of the colonists, in a plain, but strong point of view. The tongues and the pens of the well informed [61] citizens laboured in kindling the latent sparks of patriotism. The flame spread from breast to breast, till the conflagration, became general. In this business, New-England had a principal share. The inhabitants of that part of America, in particular, considered their obligations to the Mother Country for past favours, to be very inconsiderable. They were fully informed, that their forefathers were driven, by persecution, to the woods of America, and had there, without any expence to the parent state, effected a settlement on bare creation. Their resentment, for the invasion of their accustomed right of taxation, was not so much mitigated, by the recollection of late favours, as it was heightened by the tradition of grievous sufferings, to which their ancestors, by the rulers of England, had been subjected. The descendants of the exiled, persecuted, Puritans, of the last century, opposed the stamp act with the same spirit, with which their forefathers were actuated, when they set themselves against the arbitrary impositions of the House of Stuart.

The heavy burdens, which the operation of the stamp-act would have imposed on the colonists, together with the precedent it would establish of future exactions, furnished the American patriots with arguments, calculated as well to move the passions, as to convince the judgments of their fellow colonists. In great warmth they exclaimed, “If the parliament has a right to levy the stamp duties, they may, by the same authority, lay on us imposts, excises, and other taxes, without end, till their rapacity is satisfied, or our abilities are exhausted. We cannot, at future elections, displace these men, who so lavishly grant away our property. Their seats and their power are independent of us, and it will rest with their generosity, where to stop, in transferring the expences of government, from their own, to our shoulders.”

1765

It was fortunate for the liberties of America, that News-papers were the subject of a heavy stamp duty. Printers, when uninfluenced by government, have generally arranged themselves on the side of liberty, nor are they less remarkable for attention to the profits of their profession. A stamp duty, which openly invaded the first, [62] and threatened a great diminution of the last, provoked their united zealous opposition. They daily presented to the public, original dissertations, tending to prove, that if the stamp-act was suffered to operate, the liberties of America, were at end, and their property virtually transferred, to their Trans-Atlantic fellow-subjects. The writers among the Americans, seriously alarmed for the fate of their country, came forward, with essays, to prove, that agreeably to the British constitution, taxation and representation were inseparable, that the only constitutional mode of raising money from the colonists, was by acts of their own legislatures, that the Crown possessed no farther power, than that of requisition, and that the parliamentary right of taxation was confined to the Mother Country, and there originated, from the natural right of man, to do what he pleased with his own, transferred by consent from the electors of Great-Britain, to those whom they chose to represent them in Parliament. They also insisted much on the mis-application of public money by the British ministry. Great pains were taken, to inform the colonists, of the large sums, annually bestowed on pensioned favorites, and for the various purposes of bribery. Their passions were inflamed, by high coloured representations of the hardship of being obliged to pay the earnings of their industry, into a British treasury, well known to be a fund for corruption.

1765

The writers on the American side were opposed by arguments, drawn from the unity of the empire. The necessity of one supreme head, the unlimited power of Parliament, and the great numbers in the Mother Country, who, though legally disqualified, from voting at elections, were nevertheless bound to pay the taxes, imposed by the representatives of the nation. To these objections it was replied, that the very idea of subordination of parts, excluded the notion of simple undivided unity. That as England was the head, she could not be the head and the members too—that in all extensive empires, where the dead uniformity of servitude did not prevent, the subordinate parts had many local privileges and immunities—that between these privileges and the supreme [63] common authority, the line was extremely nice; but nevertheless, the supremacy of the head had an ample field of exercise, without arrogating to itself the disposal of the property of the unrepresented subordinate parts. To the assertion, that the power of Parliament was unlimited, the colonists replied, that before it could constitutionally exercise that power, it must be constitutionally formed, and that, therefore, it must at least, in one of its branches, be constituted by the people, over whom it exercised unlimited power. That with respect to Great-Britain, it was so constituted—with respect to America, it was not. They therefore inferred, that its power ought not to be the same over both countries. They argued also, that the delegation of the people was the source of power, in regard to taxation, and as that delegation was wanting in America, they concluded the right of Parliament, to grant away their property, could not exist. That the defective representation in Great-Britain, should be urged as an argument for taxing the Americans, without any representation at all, proved the encroaching nature of power. Instead of convincing the colonists of the propriety of their submission, it demonstrated the wisdom of their resistance; for, said they, “one invasion of natural right is made the justification of another, much more injurious and oppressive.”

1765

The advocates for parliamentary taxation laid great stress on the rights, supposed to accrue to Great-Britain, on the score of her having reared up and protected the English settlements, in America, at great expence. It was, on the other hand, contended by the colonists, that in all the wars which were common to both countries, they had taken their full share, but in all their own dangers, in all the difficulties belonging separately to their situation, which did not immediately concern Great-Britain, they were left to themselves, and had to struggle through a hard infancy; and in particular, to defend themselves without any aid from the Parent State, against the numerous savages in their vicinity. That when France had made war upon them, it was not on their own account, but as appendages to Great-Britain. That confining their trade [64] for the exclusive benefit of the Parent State, was an ample compensation for her protection, and a sufficient equivalent for their exemption from parliamentary taxation. That the taxes imposed on the inhabitants of Great-Britain, were incorporated with their manufactures, and ultimately fell on the colonists, who were the consumers.

1765 AUG. 14

The advocates for the stamp act, also contended that as the parliament was charged with the defence of the colonies, it ought to possess the means of defraying the expences incurred thereby. The same argument had been used by King Charles the 1st, in support of ship money; and it was now answered in the same manner, as it was by the patriots of that day. “That the people who were defended or protected, were the first to judge of and to provide the means of defraying the expences incurred on that account.” In the mean time, the minds of the Americans underwent a total transformation. Instead of their late peaceable and steady attachment to the British nation, they were dayly advancing to the opposite extreme. A new mode of displaying resentment against the friends of the stamp act, began in Massachusetts, and was followed by the other colonies. A few gentlemen hung out, early in the morning, on the limb of a large tree, towards the enterance of Boston, two effigies, one designed for the stamp master, the other for a jack boot, with a head and horns peeping out at the top. Great numbers both from town and country came to see them. A spirit of enthusiasm was diffused among the spectators. In the evening the whole was cut down and carried in procession by the populace shouting “liberty and property forever, no stamps.” They next pulled down a new building, lately erected by Mr. Oliver, the stamp master. They then went to his house, before which they beheaded his effigy, and at the same time broke his windows. Eleven days after similar violences were repeated. The mob attacked the house of Mr. William Story, deputy register of the court of admiralty—broke his windows—forced into his dwelling house, and destroyed the books and files belonging to the said court, and ruined a great part of his furniture. They [65] next proceeded to the house of Benjamin Hallowell, comptroller of the customs, and repeated similar excesses, and drank and destroyed his liquors. They afterwards proceeded to the house of Mr. Hutchinson, and soon demolished it. They carried off his plate, furniture and apparel, and scattered or destroyed manuscripts and other curious and useful papers, which for thirty years he had been collecting. About half a dozen of the meanest of the mob were soon after taken up and committed, but they either broke jail, or otherwise escaped all punishment. The town of Boston condemned the whole proceeding, and for some time, private gentlemen kept watch at night, to prevent further violences.

1765

Similar disturbances broke out in the adjacent colonies, nearly about the same time. On the 27th August, the people of New-Port in Rhode-Island, exhibited three effigies intended for Messieurs Howard, Moffatt, and Johnson, in a cart with halters about their necks, and after hanging them on a gallows for some time, cut them down and burnt them, amidst the acclamations of thousands. On the day following, the people collected at the house of Mr. Martin Howard, a lawyer, who had written in defence of the right of Parliament to tax the Americans, and demolished every thing, that belonged to it. They proceeded to Dr. Moffatt’s, who, in conversation, had supported the same right, and made a similar devastation of his property.

In Connecticut they exhibited effigies in sundry places, and afterwards committed them to the flames.

NOV. 1, 1765

In New-York, the stamp master having resigned, the stamp papers were taken into Fort George, by Lieutenant Governor Colden. The people, disliking his political sentiments, broke open his stable, took out his coach, and carried it in triumph, through the principal streets, to the gallows. On one end of this they suspended the effigy of the Lieut. Governor, having in his right hand a stamped bill of lading, and in the other a figure of the devil. After some time, they carried the apparatus to the gate of the fort, and from thence to the bowling green, under the muzzles of the guns, and burned the [66] whole amid the acclamations of many thousands. They went thence to Major James’ house, stripped it of every article, and consumed the whole, because he was a friend to the stamp act.

The next evening the mob re-assembled, and insisted upon the Lieutenant Governor delivering the stamped papers into their hands, and threatened, in case of a refusal, to take them by force. After some negotiation, it was agreed that they should be delivered to the corporation, and they were deposited in the city hall. Ten boxes of the same, which came by another conveyance, were burned.

The stamp-act was not less odious to many of the inhabitants of the British West-India islands, than to those on the continent of North America. The people of St. Kitts obliged the stamp officer, and his deputy, to resign. Barbadoes, Canada, and Halifax, submitted to the act.

When the ship, which brought the stamp papers to Philadelphia, first appeared round Gloucester point, all the vessels in the harbour hoisted their colours half mast high. The bells were rung muffled till evening, and every countenance added to the appearance of sincere mourning. A large number of people assembled, and endeavoured to procure the resignation of Mr. Hughes, the stamp distributor. He heId out long, but at length found it necessary to comply.

OCTOBER, 1765

As opportunities offered, the assemblies generally passed resolutions, asserting their exclusive right, to lay taxes on their constituents. The people, in their town meetings, instructed their representatives to oppose the stamp act. As a specimen of these, the instructions given to Thomas Forster, their representative, by the freeholders and other inhabitants of the town of Plymouth, are subjoined. In these the yeomanry of the country spoke the determined language of freemen. After expressing the highest esteem for the British constitution, and setting forth their grievances, they proceeded as follows:

You, Sir, represent a people, who are not only descended from the first settlers of this country, but inhabit the very spot they first possessed. Here was first laid [67] the foundation of the British empire, in this part of America, which, from a very small beginning, has increased and spread, in a manner very surprising, and almost incredible, especially, when we consider, that all this has been effected, without the aid or assistance of any power on earth; that we have defended, protected and secured ourselves against the invasions and cruelty of savages, and the subtlety and inhumanity of our inveterate and natural enemies, the French; and all this without the appropriation of any tax by stamps, or stamp acts, laid upon our fellow subjects, in any part of the King’s dominions, for defraying the expence thereof. This place, Sir, was at first the asylum of liberty, and we hope, will ever be preserved sacred to it, though it was then no more than a barren wilderness, inhabited only by savage men and beasts. To this place our Fathers (whose memories be revered) possessed of the principles of liberty in their purity, disdaining slavery, fled to enjoy those privileges, which they had an undoubted right to, but were deprived of, by the hands of violence and oppression, in their native country. We, Sir, their posterity, the freeholders, and other inhabitants of this town, legally assembled for that purpose, possessed of the same sentiments, and retaining the same ardour for liberty, think it our indispensable duty, on this occasion, to express to you these our sentiments of the stamp-act, and its fatal consequences to this country, and to enjoin upon you, as you regard not only the welfare, but the very being of this people, that you (consistent with our allegiance to the King, and relation to the government of Great Britain) disregarding all proposals for that purpose, exert all your power and influence in opposition to the stamp act, at least till we hear the success of our petitions for relief. We likewise, to avoid disgracing the memories of our ancestors, as well as the reproaches of our own consciences, and the curses of posterity, recommend it to you, to obtain, if possible, in the honorable house of representatives of this province, a full and explicit assertion of our rights, and to have the same entered on their public records, that all generations yet to come, may be convinced, that we have [68] not only a just sense of our rights and liberties, but that we never, with submission to Divine Providence, will be slaves to any power on earth.

1765 JUNE 6

The expediency of calling a continental Congress to be composed of deputies from each of the provinces, had early occurred to the people of Massachusetts. The assembly of that province passed a resolution in favour of that measure, and fixed on New-York as the place, and the second Tuesday of October, as the time, for holding the same. Soon after, they sent circular letters to the speakers of the several assemblies, requesting their concurrence. This first advance towards continental union was seconded in South-Carolina, before it had been agreed to by any colony to the southward of New England. The example of this province had a considerable influence in recommending the measure to others, who were divided in their opinions, on the propriety of it.

The assemblies of Virginia, North-Carolina, and Georgia, were prevented, by their governors, from sending a deputation to this Congress. Twenty eight deputies from Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South-Carolina met at New-York; and after mature deliberation agreed on a declaration of their rights, and on a statement of their grievances. They asserted in strong terms, their exemption from all taxes, not imposed by their own representatives. They also concurred in a petition to the King, and memorial to the House of Lords, and a petition to the House of Commons. The colonies that were prevented from sending their representatives to this Congress, forwarded petitions, similar to those which were adopted by the deputies which attended.

While a variety of legal and illegal methods were adopted to oppose the stamp act, the first of November, on which it was to commence its operation, approached. This in Boston was ushered in by a funeral tolling of bells. Many shops and stores were shut. The effigies of the planners and friends of the stamp act, were carried [69] about the streets in public derision, and then torn in pieces, by the enraged populace. It was remarkable that though a large crowd was assembled, there was not the least violence, or disorder.

NOV. 1

At Portsmouth in New-Hampshire, the morning was ushered in, with tolling all the bells in town. In the course of the day, notice was given to the friends of liberty, to attend her funeral. A coffin, neatly ornamented inscribed with the word Liberty in large letters, was carried to the grave. The funeral procession began from the state house, attended with two unbraced drums. While the inhabitants who followed the coffin were in motion, minute guns were fired, and continued till the corpse arrived at the place of interment. Then an oration in favour of the deceased was pronounced. It was scarcely ended before the corpse was taken up, it having been perceived that some remains of life were left, at which the inscription was immediately altered to “Liberty revived.” The bells immediately exchanged their melancholy, for a more joyful sound, and satisfaction appeared in every countenance. The whole was conducted with decency, and without injury or insult, to any man’s person or property.

In Maryland, the effigy of the stamp master, on one side of which was written, “Tyranny” on the other “Oppression,” and across the breast, “Damn my country I’ll get money,” was carried through the streets, from the place of confinement, to the whipping post, and from thence to the pillory. After suffering many indignities, it was first hanged and than burnt.

The general aversion to the stamp act, was, by similar methods, in a variety of places, demonstrated. It is remarkable that the proceedings of the populace, on these occasions, were earned on with decorum, and regularity. They were not ebullitions of a thoughtless mob, but for the most part, planned by leading men of character and influence, who were friends to peace and order. These, knowing well that the bulk of mankind, are more led by their senses, than by their reason, conducted the public [70] exhibitions on that principle, with a view of making the stamp act, and its friends, both ridiculous, and odious.

1765

Though the stamp act was to have operated from the first of November; yet legal proceedings in the courts, were carried on as before. Vessels entered and departed without stamped papers. The printers boldly printed and circulated their news-papers, and found a sufficient number of readers, though they used common paper, in defiance of the act of parliament. In most departments, by common consent, business was carried on, as though no stamp act had existed. This was accompanied by spirited resolutions to risque all consequences, rather than submit to use the paper required by law. While these matters were in agitation, the colonists entered into associations against importing British manufactures, till the stamp act should be repealed. In this manner British liberty was made to operate against British tyranny. Agreeably to the free constitution of Great Britain, the subject was at liberty to buy, or not to buy, as he pleased. By suspending their future purchases on the repeal of the stamp act, the colonists made it the interest of merchants, and manufacturers, to solicit for that repeal. They had usually taken off so great a proportion of British manufactures, that the sudden stoppage of all their orders, amounting, annually, to several millions sterling, threw some thousands in the Mother Country out of employment, and induced them, from a regard to their own interest, to advocate the measures wished for by America. The petitions from the colonies were seconded by petitions from the merchants and manufacturers of Great-Britain. What the former prayed for as a matter of right, and connected with their liberties, the latter also solicited from motives of immediate advantage. In order to remedy the deficiency of British goods, the colonists betook themselves to a variety of necessary domestic manufactures. In a little time, large quantities of course and common clothes were brought to market, and these though dearer, and of a worse quality, were cheerfully preferred to similar articles, imported from Britain. That wool might not be wanting, they entered into resolutions [71] to abstain from eating lambs. Foreign elegancies were generally laid aside. The women were as exemplary as the men, in various instances of self denial. With great readiness, they refused every article of decoration for their persons, and of luxury for their tables. These restrictions, which the colonists had voluntarily imposed on themselves, were so well observed, that multitudes of artificers in England, were reduced to great distress, and some of their most flourishing manufactories, were, in a great measure, at a stand. An association was entered into by many of the sons of liberty, the name given to those who were opposed to the stamp act, by which they agreed “to march with the utmost expedition at their own proper costs and expence, with their whole force to the relief of those that should be in danger from the stamp act, or its promoters and abettors, or any thing relative to it, on account of any thing that may have been done, in opposition to its obtaining.” This was subscribed by so many in New-York and New-England, that nothing but a repeal could have prevented the immediate commencement of a civil war.

From the decided opposition to the stamp act, which had been by the colonies adopted, it became necessary for Great Britain to enforce, or to repeal it. Both methods of proceeding had supporters. The opposers of a repeal urged arguments, drawn from the dignity of the nation, the danger of giving way to the clamours of the Americans, and the consequences of weakening parliamentary authority over the colonies. On the other hand it was evident, from the determined opposition of the colonies, that it could not be enforced without a civil war, by which, in every event, the nation must be a loser. In the course of these discussions, Dr. Franklin was examined at the bar of the House of Commons, and gave extensive information on the state of American affairs, and the impolicy of the stamp act, which contributed much to remove prejudices, and to produce a disposition that was friendly to a repeal.

MARCH 18

Some speakers of great weight, in both houses of parliament, denied their right of taxing the colonies. The [72] most distinguished supporters of this opinion were Lord Camden, in the House of Peers, and Mr. Pitt, in the House of Commons. The former, in strong language, said, “My position is this, I repeat it, I will maintain it to my last hour. Taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the laws of nature. It is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature. For whatever is a man’s own, is absolutely his own. No man has a right to take it from him without his consent. Whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury, whoever does it, commits a robbery.” Mr. Pitt, with an original boldness of expression, justified the colonists, in opposing the stamp-act. “You have no right,” said he, “to tax America. I rejoice, that America has resisted. Three millions of our fellow subjects so lost to every sense of virtue, as tamely to give up their liberties, would be fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.” He concluded with giving his advice, that the stamp-act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately, that the reason for the repeal be assigned, that it was founded on an erroneous principle. “At the same time,” said he, “let the sovereign authority of this country, over the colonies, be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power, except that of taking their money out of their pockets, without their consent.” The approbation of this illustrious statesman, whose distinguished abilities had raised Great Britain to the highest pitch of renown, inspired the Americans with additional confidence, in the rectitude of their claims of exemption from parliamentary taxation, and emboldened them to farther opposition, when at a future day, as shall be hereafter related, the project of an American revenue was resumed. After much debating, and two protests in the House of Lords, and passing an act “for securing the dependence of America on Great Britain” the repeal of the stamp act was finally carried. This event gave great joy in London. Ships in the river Thames displayed their colours, and houses were illuminated all [73] over the city. It was no sooner known in America, than the colonists rescinded their resolutions, and recommenced their mercantile intercourse with the Mother Country. They presented their homespun clothes to the poor, and imported more largely than ever. The churches resounded with thanksgivings, and their public and private rejoicings knew no bounds. By letters, addresses, and other means, almost all the colonies shewed unequivocal marks of acknowledgment, and gratitude. So sudden a calm recovered after so violent a storm, is without a parallel in history. By the judicious sacrifice of one law, the parliament of Great Britain procured an acquiescence, in all that remained.

There were enlightened patriots, fully impressed with an idea, that the immoderate joy of the colonists was disproportioned to the advantage they had gained.

The stamp act, though repealed, was not repealed on American principles. The preamble assigned as the reason thereof, “That the collecting the several duties and revenues, as by the said act was directed, would be attended with many inconveniencies, and productive of consequences, dangerous to the commercial interests of these kingdoms.” Though this reason was a good one in England, it was by no means satisfactory in America. At the same time that the stamp act was repealed, the absolute, unlimited supremacy of parliament was, in words, asserted. The opposers of the repeal contended for this as essential, the friends of that measure acquiesced in it to strengthen their party, and make sure of their object. Many of both sides thought, that the dignity of Great Britain required something of the kind to counterbalance the loss of authority, that might result from her yielding to the clamours of the colonists. The act for this purpose was called the declaratory act, and was in principle more hostile to American rights, than the stamp act; for it annulled those resolutions and acts of the provincial assemblies, in which they had asserted their right to exemption from all taxes, not imposed by their own representatives; and also enacted, “That the parliament [74] had, and of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies, in all cases whatsoever. ”

The bulk of the Americans, intoxicated with the advantage they had gained, overlooked this statute, which in one comprehensive sentence, not only deprived them of liberty and property, but of every right, incident to humanity. They considered it as a salvo for the honor of parliament, in repealing an act, which had so lately received their sanction, and flattered themselves it would remain a dead letter, and that although the right of taxation was in words retained, it would never be exercised. Unwilling to contend about paper claims of ideal supremacy, they returned to their habits of good humour, with the parent state.

The repeal of the stamp act, in a relative connexion with all its circumstances and consequences, was the first direct step to American independency. The claims of the two countries were not only left undecided, but a foundation was laid for their extending at a future period, to the impossibility of a compromise. Though for the present Great-Britain receded from enforcing her claim of American revenue, a numerous party, adhering to that system, reserved themselves for more favourable circumstances to enforce it; and at the same time the colonists, more enlightened on the subject, and more fully convinced of the rectitude of their claims, were encouraged to oppose it, under whatsoever form it should appear, or under whatsoever disguise it should cover itself.

Elevated with the advantage they had gained, from that day forward, instead of feeling themselves dependent on Great-Britain, they conceived that, in respect to commerce, she was dependent on them. It inspired them with such high ideas of the importance of their trade, that they considered the Mother Country to be brought under greater obligations to them, for purchasing her manufactures, than they were to her for protection and the administration of civil government. The freemen of British America, impressed with the exalting sentiments of patriotism and of liberty, conceived it to be within their power, by future combinations, at any time to [75] convulse, if not to bankrupt the nation, from which they sprung.

Opinions of this kind were strengthened by their local situation, favouring ideas, as extensive as the unexplored continent of which they were inhabitants. While the pride of Britons revolted at the thought of their colonies refusing subjection to that parliament which they obeyed, the Americans with equal haughtiness exclaimed, “shall the petty island of Great-Britain, scarce a speck on the map of the world, controul the free citizens of the great continent of America?”

1767

These high sounding pretensions would have been harmless, or at most, spent themselves in words, had not a ruinous policy, untaught by recent experience, called them into serious action. Though the stamp act was repealed, an American revenue was still a favourite object with many in Great-Britain. The equity and the advantage of taxing the colonists by parliamentary authority were very apparent to their understandings, but the mode of effecting it, without hazarding the public tranquility, was not so obvious. Mr. Charles Townsend, afterwards chancellor of the exchequer, pawned his credit to accomplish what many so earnestly desired. He accordingly brought into parliament a bill for granting duties in the British colonies on glass, paper, painters colours, and tea, which was afterwards enacted into a law. If the small duties imposed on these articles, had preceded the stamp act, they might have passed unobserved: but the late discussions occasioned by that act, had produced among the colonists, not only an animated conviction of their exemption from parliamentary taxation, but a jealousy of the designs of Great-Britain. The sentiments of the Americans on this subject, bore a great resemblance to those of their British countrymen of the preceding century, in the case of ship money. The amount of that tax was very moderate, little exceeding twenty thousand pounds. It was distributed upon the people with equality, and expended for the honour and advantage of the kingdom, yet all these circumstances could not reconcile the people of England to the imposition. [76] It was entirely arbitrary. “By the same right,” said they, “any other tax may be imposed.” In like manner the Americans considered these small duties, in the nature of an entering wedge, designed to make way for others, which would be greater and heavier. In a relative connection with late acts of parliament, respecting domestic manufactures and foreign commerce, laws for imposing taxes on British commodities exported to the colonies, formed a complete circle of oppression, from which there was no possibility of escaping. The colonists had been, previously, restrained from manufacturing certain articles, for their own consumption. Other acts confined them to the exclusive use of British merchandize. The addition of duties, put them wholly in the power and discretion of Great-Britain “We are not” said they,

permitted to import from any nation, other than our own parent state, and have been in some cases by her restrained from manufacturing for ourselves, and she claims a right to do so in every instance which is incompatible with her interest. To these restrictions we have hitherto submitted, but she now rises in her demands, and imposes duties on those commodities, the purchasing of which, elsewhere than at her market, her laws forbid, and the manufacturing of which for our own use, she may any moment she pleases restrain. If her right is valid to lay a small tax, it is equally so to lay a large one, for from the nature of the case, she must be guided exclusively by her own opinions of our ability, and of the propriety of the duties she may impose. Nothing is left for us but to complain, and, pay.

They contended that there was no real difference between the principle of these new duties and the stamp act, they were both designed to raise a revenue in America, and in the same manner. The payment of the duties, imposed by the stamp act, might have been eluded by the total disuse of stamped paper, and so might the payment of these duties, by the total disuse of those articles on which they were laid, but in neither case, without great difficulty. The colonists were therefore reduced to the hard alternative of being obliged totally to disuse articles of the greatest necessity in human [77] life, or to pay a tax without their consent. The fire of opposition, which had been smothered by the repeal of the stamp act, burned afresh against the same principle of taxation, exhibited in its new form. Mr. Dickenson, of Pennsylvania, on this occasion presented to the public a series of letters signed a Farmer, proving the extreme danger which threatened the liberties of America, from their acquiescence in a precedent which might establish the claim of parliamentary taxation. They were written with great animation, and were read with uncommon avidity. Their reasoning was so convincing, that many of the candid and disinterested citizens of Great-Britain, acknowledged that the American opposition to parliamentary taxation was justifiable. The enormous sums which the stamp act would have collected, had thoroughly alarmed the colonists for their property. It was now demonstrated by several writers, especially by the Pennsylvania Farmer, that a small tax, though more specious, was equally dangerous, as it established a precedent which eventually annihilated American property. The declaratory act which at first was the subject of but a few comments, was now dilated upon, as a foundation for every species of oppression; and the small duties, lately imposed, were considered as the beginning of a train of much greater evils.

Had the colonists admitted the propriety of raising a parliamentary revenue among them, the erection of an American board of commissioners for managing it, which was about this time instituted at Boston, would have been a convenience, rather than an injury; but united as they were in sentiments, of the contrariety of that measure to their natural and constitutional rights, they illy brooked the innovation. As it was coeval with the new duties, they considered it as a certain evidence that the project of an extensive American revenue, notwithstanding the repeal of the stamp act, was still in contemplation. A dislike to British taxation naturally produced a dislike to a board which was to be instrumental in that business, and occasioned many insults to its commissioners.

1768

[78] The revenue act of 1767 produced resolves, petitions, addresses, and remonstrances, similar to those, with which the colonists opposed the stamp act. It also gave rise to a second association for suspending farther importations of British manufactures, till these offensive duties should be taken off. Uniformity, in these measures, was promoted by a circular letter from the assembly of Massachusetts to the speakers of the other assemblies. This stated the petitions, and representations, which they had forwarded against the late duties, and strongly pointed out the great difficulties, that must arise to themselves and their constituents, from the operation of acts of parliament, imposing duties on the unrepresented American colonies, and requesting a reciprocal free communication, on public affairs. Most of the provincial assemblies, as they had opportunities of deliberating on the subject, approved of the proceedings of the Massachusetts assembly, and harmonised with them in the measures, which they had adopted. In resolves, they stated their rights, in firm but decent language, and, in petitions, they prayed for a repeal of the late acts, which they considered as infringements on their liberties.

It is not unreasonable to suppose, that the minister, who planned these duties, hoped, that they would be regarded as regulations of trade. He might also presume, that as they amounted only to an inconsiderable sum, they would not give any alarm. The circular letter of the Massachusetts assembly, which laid the foundation for united petitions against them, gave therefore great offence. Lord Hillsborough, who had lately been appointed Secretary of State, for the American department, wrote letters to the governors of the respective provinces, urging them to exert their influence, to prevent the assemblies from taking any notice of it, and he called on the Massachusetts assembly, to rescind their proceedings on that subject. This measure was both injudicious and irritating. To require a public body to rescind a resolution, for sending a letter, which was already sent, answered, and acted upon, was a bad specimen of the wisdom of the new minister. To call a vote, for sending a circular [79] letter to invite the assemblies of the neighbouring colonies to communicate together in the pursuit of legal measures to obtain a redress of grievances, “a flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace,” appeared to the colonists a very injudicious application of harsh epithets to their constitutional right of petitioning. To threaten a new house of Assembly with dissolution, in case of their not agreeing to rescind an act of a former assembly, which was not executory, but executed, clashed no less with the dictates of common sense, than the constitutional rights of British colonists. The proposition for rescinding was negatived, by a majority of 97 to 17. The assembly was immediately dissolved, as had been threatened. This procedure of the new secretary was considered, by the colonists, as an attempt to suppress all communication of sentiments between them, and to prevent their united supplications, from reaching the royal ear. It answered no one valuable purpose, but naturally tended to mischief.

1768 JUNE 10

The bad humour, which from successive irritation already too much prevailed, was about this time wrought up to a high pitch of resentment and violence, on occasion of the seizure of Mr. Hancock’s sloop Liberty, for not having entered all the wines she had brought from Madeira. The popularity of her owner, the name of the sloop, and the general aversion to the board of commissioners, and parliamentary taxation, concurred to inflame the minds of the people. They resented the removal of the sloop from the wharf, as implying an apprehension of a rescue. They used every means in their power to interrupt the officers, in the execution of their business; and numbers swore that they would be revenged. Mr. Harrison the collector, Mr. Hallowell the comptroller, and Mr. Irwine the inspector of imports and exports, were so roughly handled, as to bring their lives in danger. The windows of some of their houses were broken, and the boat of the collector was dragged through the town, and burned on the common. Such was the temper and disposition of many of the inhabitants, that the commissioners of the customs thought [80] proper to retire on board the Romney man of war; and afterwards to Castle William. The commissioners, from the first moment of their institution, had been an eye sore to the people of Boston. This, though partly owing to their active zeal in detecting smugglers, principally arose from the association which existed in the minds of the inhabitants, between that board and an American revenue. The declaratory act of 1766, the revenue act of 1767; together with the pomp and expence of this board, so disproportionate to the small income of the present duties, conspired to convince not only the few who were benefited by smuggling, but the great body of enlightened freemen, that farther and greater impositions of parliamentary taxes were intended. In proportion as this opinion gained ground, the inhabitants became more disrespectful to the executive officers of the revenue, and more disposed, in the frenzy of patriotism, to commit outrages on their persons and property. The constant bickering that existed between them and the inhabitants, together with the steady opposition given by the latter, to the discharge of the official duties of the former, induced the commissioners and friends of an American revenue, to solicit the protection of a regular force, to be stationed at Boston. In compliance with their wishes, his Majesty ordered two regiments and some armed vessels to repair thither, for supporting and assisting the officers of the customs in the execution of their duty. This restrained the active exertion of that turbulent spirit, which since the passing of the late revenue laws had revived, but it added to the pre-existing causes thereof.

SEPT. 13

SEPT. 22

When it was reported in Boston, that one or more regiments were ordered there, a meeting of the inhabitants was called, and a committee appointed, to request the governor, to issue precepts, for convening a general assembly. He replied, “that he could not comply with their request, till he had received his Majesty’s commands for that purpose.” This answer being reported, some spirited resolutions were adopted. In particular it was voted, that the select men of Boston should write [81] to the select men of other towns, to propose, that a convention be held, of deputies from each, to meet at Faneuil hall, in Boston, on the 22d instant. It was afterwards voted, “That as there is apprehension in the minds of many, of an approaching war with France, those inhabitants, who are not provided, be requested to furnish themselves forthwith with arms.”

Ninety six towns, and eight districts, agreed to the proposal made by the inhabitants of Boston, and appointed deputies, to attend a convention, but the town of Hatfield refused its concurrence. When the deputies met, they conducted with moderation, disclaimed all legislative authority, advised the people to pay the greatest deference to government, and to wait patiently for a redress of their grievances, from his Majesty’s wisdom and moderation. After stating to the world the causes of their meeting, and an account of their proceedings, they dissolved themselves, after a short session, and went home.

Within a day after the convention broke up, the expected regiments arrived, and were peaceably received. Hints had been thrown out by some idle people, that they should not be permitted to come on shore. Preparations were made by the captains of the men of war in the harbour, to fire on the town, in case opposition had been made to their landing, but the crisis for an appeal to arms was not yet arrived. It was hoped by some, that the folly and rage of the Bostonians would have led them to this rash measure, and thereby have afforded an opportunity for giving them some naval and military correction, but both prudence and policy induced them to adopt a more temperate line of conduct.

While the contention was kept alive, by the successive irritations, which have been mentioned, there was, particularly in Massachusetts, a species of warfare carried on between the royal governors, and the provincial assemblies. Each watched the other with all the jealousy, which strong distrust could inspire. The latter regarded the former as instruments of power, wishing to pay their court to the Mother Country, by curbing the spirit of [82] American freedom, and the former kept a strict eye on the latter, lest they might smooth the way to independence, at which they were charged with aiming. Lieut. Governor Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, virtually challenged the assembly to a dispute, on the ground of the controversy between the two countries. This was accepted by the latter, and the subject, discussed with all the subtilty of argument, which the ingenuity of either party could suggest.

The war of words was not confined to the colonies. While the American assemblies passed resolutions, asserting their exclusive right to tax their constituents, the parliament by resolves, asserted their unlimited supremacy in and over the colonies. While the former, in their public acts, disclaimed all views of independence, they were successively represented in parliamentary resolves, royal speeches, and addresses from Lords and commons, as being in a state of disobedience to law and government, and as having proceeded to measures subversive of the constitution, and manifesting a disposition to throw off all subordination to Great Britain.

1769

In February 1769, both houses of parliament went one step beyond all that had preceded. They then concurred in a joint address to his majesty, in which they expressed their satisfaction in the measures his majesty had pursued—gave the strongest assurances, that they would effectually support him in such farther measures as might be found necessary, to maintain the civil magistrates in a due execution of the laws, in Massachusett’s Bay, and beseeched him

to direct the governor to take the most effectual methods of procuring the fullest information, touching all treasons or misprisions of treason, committed within the government, since the 30th day of December, 1767; and to transmit the same together with the names of the persons who were most active in the commission of such offences, to one of the secretaries of state, in order that his majesty might issue a special commission for enquiring of, hearing, and determining, the said offences, within the realm of Great-Britain, pursuant to the provision of the statute of the 35th [83] of King Henry the 8th.

The latter part of this address, which proposed the bringing of delinquents from Massachusetts, to be tried at a tribunal in Great-Britain, for crimes committed in America, underwent many severe animadversions.

It was asserted to be totally inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, for in England a man charged with a crime, had a right to be tried in the county in which his offence was supposed to have been committed. “Justice is regularly and impartially administered in our courts,” said the colonists “and yet by direction of parliament, offenders are to be taken by force, together with all such persons as may be pointed out as witnesses and carried to England, there to be tried in a distant land, by a jury of strangers, and subject to all the disadvantages which result from want of friends, want of witnesses and want of money.”

The house of burgesses of Virginia met, soon after official accounts of the joint address of lords and commons on this subject reached America; and in a few days after their meeting, passed resolutions expressing

their exclusive right to tax their constituents, and their right to petition their sovereign for redress of grievances, and the lawfulness of procuring the concurrence of the other colonies in praying for the royal interposition, in favour of the violated rights of America: and that all trials for treason, or for any crime whatsoever, committed in that colony, ought to be before his majesty’s courts, within the said colony; and that the seizing any person residing in the said colony, suspected of any crime whatsoever, committed therein, and sending such person to places beyond the sea to be tried, was highly derogatory of the rights of British subjects.

The next day lord Botetourt the governour of Virginia, sent for the house of burgesses and addressed them as follows. “Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the house of burgesses. I have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects. You have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly.”

[84] The assembly of North-Carolina adopted resolutions, similar to those of Virginia, for which Tryon their governour dissolved them. The members of the house of burgesses in Virginia, and of the assembly of North-Carolina, after their dissolution, met as private gentlemen, chose their late speakers moderators, and adopted resolutions against importing British goods. The non-importation agreement, was in this manner forwarded by the very measures which were intended to curb the spirit of American freedom, from which it sprung. Meetings of the associators were regularly held in the various provinces. Committees were appointed to examine all vessels arriving from Britain. Censures were freely passed on such as refused to concur in these associations, and their names published in the news-papers as enemies to their country. The regular acts of the provincial assemblies were not so much respected and obeyed as the decrees of these committees, the associations were in general, as well observed as could be expected; but nevertheless there were some collusions. The fear of mobs, of public resentment and contempt, co-operating with patriotism, preponderated over private interest and convenience. One of the importing merchants of Boston, who hesitated in his compliance with the determination of the inhabitants, was waited upon by a committee of tradesmen, with an axeman and a carpenter at their head, who informed him, “that 1000 men were waiting for his answer, and that if he refused to comply, they could not tell what might be the consequence. ” He complied, and the newspapers soon after published, that he did it voluntarily.

In Boston, Lieut. Governor Hutchinson endeavoured to promote a counter association, but without effect. The friends of importation objected, that till parliament made provision for the punishment of the confederacies against importation, a counter association would answer no other purpose, than to expose the associators to popular rage.

The Bostonians, about this time, went one step farther. They reshipped goods to Great Britain, instead of [85] storing them as formerly. This was resolved upon in a town meeting, on the information of an inhabitant, who communicated a letter he had lately received from a member of parliament, in which it was said, “that shipping back ten thousand pounds worth of goods would do more, than storing a hundred thousand.” This turned the scale, and procured a majority of votes for reshipping. Not only in this, but in many other instances, the violences of the colonists were fostered by individuals in Great Britain. A number of these were in principle with the Americans, in denying the right of parliament, to tax them, but others were more influenced by a spirit of opposition to the ministerial majority, than by a regard to the constitutional liberties of either country.

The non-importation agreement had now lasted some time, and by degrees had become general. Several of the colonial assemblies had been dissolved, or prorogued, for asserting the rights of their constituents. The royal governours, and other friends to an American revenue, were chagrined. The colonists were irritated. Good men, both in England and America, deplored these untoward events, and beheld with concern an increasing ill humour between those, who were bound by interest and affection, to be friends to each other.

1769

In consequence of the American non-importation agreement, founded in opposition to the duties of 1767, the manufacturers of Great Britain experienced a renewal of the distresses, which followed the adoption of similar resolutions, in the year 1765, the repeal of these duties was therefore solicited by the same influence, which had procured the repeal of the stamp act. The rulers of Great Britain acted without decision. Instead of persevering in their own system of coercion or indeed in any one uniform system of colonial government, they struck out a middle line, embarrassed with the consequences, both of severity and of lenity, and which was without the complete benefits of either. Soon after the spirited address to his Majesty, last mentioned, had passed both houses of parliament, assurances were given for [86] repealing all the duties, imposed in 1767, excepting that of three-pence per pound on tea.

Anxious on the one hand to establish parliamentary supremacy, and on the other, afraid to stem the torrent of opposition, they conceded enough to weaken the former, and yet not enough to satisfy the latter. Had Great Britain generously repealed the whole, and for ever relinquished all claim to the right, or even the exercise of the right of taxation, the union of the two countries, might have lasted for ages. Had she seriously determined to compel the submission of the colonies, nothing could have been more unfriendly to this design, than her repeated concessions to their reiterated associations. The declaratory act, and the reservation of the duty on tea, left the cause of contention between the two countries, in full force, but the former was only a claim on paper, and the latter might be evaded, by refusing to purchase any tea, on which the parliamentary tax was imposed. The colonists, therefore, conceiving that their commerce might be renewed, without establishing any precedent, injurious to their liberties, relaxed in their associations, in every particular, except tea, and immediately recommenced the importation of all other articles of merchandise. A political calm once more took place. The parent state might now have closed the dispute for ever, and honorably receded, without a formal relinquishment of her claims. Neither the reservation of the duty on tea, by the British parliament, nor the exceptions made by the colonists, of importing no tea, on which a duty was imposed, would, if they had been left to their own operation, have disturbed the returning harmony of the two countries. Without fresh irritation, their wounds might have healed, and not a scar been left behind.

Unfortunately for the friends of union, so paltry a sum as 3 [pence for] so insignificant an article as tea, in consequence of a combination between the British ministry and East-India company, revived the dispute to the rending of the empire.

[87] These two abortive attempts to raise a parliamentary revenue in America, caused a fermentation in the minds of the colonists, and gave birth to many enquiries respecting their natural rights. Reflections and reasonings on this subject produced a high sense of liberty, and a general conviction that there could be no security for their property, if they were to be taxed at the discretion of a British parliament, in which they were unrepresented, and over which they had no controul. A determination not only to oppose this new claim of taxation, but to keep a strict watch, least it might be established in some disguised form, took possession of their minds.

It commonly happens in the discussion of doubtful claims between States, that the ground of the original dispute insensibly changes. When the mind is employed in investigating one subject, others associated with it, naturally present themselves. In the course of enquiries on the subject of parliamentary taxation, the restriction on the trade of the colonists—the necessity that was imposed on them to purchase British and other manufactures, loaded with their full proportion of all taxes paid by those who made or sold them, became more generally known. While American writers were vindicating their country from the charge of contributing nothing to the common expences of the empire, they were led to set off to their credit, the disadvantage of their being confined exclusively to purchase such manufactures in Britain. They instituted calculations by which they demonstrated that the monopoly of their trade, drew from them greater sums for the support of government, than were usually paid by an equal number of their fellow citizens of Great-Britain; and that taxation, superadded to such a monopoly, would leave them in a state of perfect uncompensated slavery. The investigation of these subjects brought matters into view which the friends of union ought to have kept out of sight. These circumstances, together with the extensive population of the Eastern States, and their adventurous spirit of commerce, suggested to some bold spirits that not only British taxation, but British navigation laws were unfriendly to the interests of [88] America. Speculations of this magnitude suited well with the extensive views of some capital merchants, but never would have roused the bulk of the people, had not new matter brought the dispute between the two countries to a point, in which every individual was interested.

On reviewing the conduct of the British ministry, respecting the colonies, much weakness as well as folly appears. For a succession of years there was a steady pursuit of American revenue, but great inconsistence in the projects for obtaining it. In one moment the parliament was for enforcing their laws, the next for repealing them. Doing and undoing, menacing and submitting, straining and relaxing, followed each other, in alternate succession. The object of administration, though twice relinquished as to any present efficiency, was invariably pursued, but without any unity of system.

On the 9th of May, 1769, the King in his speech to parliament, highly applauded their hearty concurrence, in maintaining the execution of the laws, in every part of his dominions. Five days after this speech, lord Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies, wrote to lord Botetourt, governor of Virginia:

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 farther 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.

The governor was also informed, that “his Majesty relied upon his prudence and fidelity, to make such an 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 the exact spirit of his instructions, lord Botetourt addressed the Virginia assembly as follows:

It may possibly be objected, that as his [89] 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 forever 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 authorised to promise this day, by the confidential servants of our gracious sovereign, who, to my certain knowledge, rates his honor so high, that he would rather part with his crown, than preserve it by deceit.

These assurances were received with transports of joy by the Virginians. They viewed them as pledging his Majesty for security, that the late design for raising a revenue in America was abandoned, and never more to be resumed. The Assembly of Virginia, in answer to lord Botetourt, expressed themselves thus:

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.

How far these solemn engagements with the Americans were observed, subsequent events will demonstrate. In a perfect reliance on them, most of the colonists returned to their ancient habits of good humour, and flattered themselves that no future parliament would undertake to give, or grant away their property.

1770

From the royal and ministerial assurances given in favour of America, in the year 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 [90] and the 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. The 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 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: besides, some fiery spirits who thought it an indignity to have troops quartered among them, were constantly exciting the towns-people to quarrel with the soldiers.

On the second of March, a fray took place near Mr. Gray’s ropewalk, between a private soldier of the 29th regiment, and an inhabitant. The former was supported by his comrades, the latter by the rope makers, 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 a 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 aggressor. 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 was 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. The killed were buried in one vault, and in a most respectful, [91] manner to express the indignation of the inhabitants at the slaughter of their brethren, by soldiers quartered among them, in violation of their civil liberties. Preston the captain who commanded the party, which fired on the inhabitants [was] committed to jail, and afterwards tried. The captain, and six of the men, were acquitted. Two were brought in guilty of man-slaughter. 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 make a favourable verdict. The result of the trial reflected great honour on John Adams, and Josiah Quincy, the council for the prisoners, and also on the integrity of the jury, who ventured to give an upright verdict, in defiance of popular opinions.

The events of this tragical night, sunk deep in the minds of the people, and were made subservient to important purposes. The anniversary of it was observed with great solemnity. Eloquent orators, were successively employed to deliver an annual oration, to preserve the rememberance of it fresh in their minds. On these occasions the blessings of liberty—the horrors of slavery—the dangers of a standing army—the rights of the colonies, and a variety of such topics were presented to the public view, under their most pleasing and alarming forms. These annual orations administered fuel to the fire of liberty, and kept it burning, with an incessant flame.

The obstacles to returning harmony, which have already been mentioned, were increased, by making the governor and judges in Massachusetts, independent of the province. Formerly, they had been paid by yearly grants from the assembly, but about this time provision was made for paying their salaries by the crown. This was resented as a dangerous innovation, as an infraction of their charter, and as destroying that balance of power, which is essential to free governments. That the crown should pay the salary of the chief justice, was represented by the assembly, as a species of bribery, tending to bias his judicial determinations. They made it the foundation for [92] impeaching Mr. Justice Oliver, before the governor, but he excepted to their proceedings, as unconstitutional. The assembly, nevertheless, gained two points. They tendered the governor more odious to the inhabitants, and increased the public respect for themselves, as the counterpart of the British house of commons, and as guardians of the rights of the people.

JAN. 29, 1774

A personal animosity, between Lieut. Governor Hutchinson, and some distinguished patriots, in Massachusetts, contributed to perpetuate a flame of discontent in that province, after it had elsewhere visibly abated. This was worked up, in the year 1773, to a high pitch, by a singular combination of circumstances. Some letters had been written, in the course of the dispute, by governor Hutchinson, lieut. governor Oliver, and others, in Boston, to persons in power and office, in England, which contained a very unfavourable representation of the state of public affairs, and tended to shew the necessity of coercive measures, and of changing the chartered system of government, to secure the obedience of the province. These letters fell into the hands of Dr. Franklin, agent of the province, who transmitted them to Boston. The indignation and animosity, which was excited on the receipt of them, knew no bounds. The house of assembly agreed on a petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, in which they charged their governor and lieut. governor with being betrayers of their trusts, and of the people they governed, and of giving private, partial, and false information. They also declared them enemies to the colonies, and prayed for justice against them, and for their speedy removal from their places. These charges were carried through by a majority of 82 to 12.

This petition and remonstrance being transmitted to England, the merits of it were discussed before his Majesty’s privy council. After a hearing before that board, in which Dr. Franklin represented the province of Massachusetts, the governor and lieut. governor were acquitted. Mr. Wedderburne, who defended the accused royal servants, in the course of his pleadings, inveighed against Dr. Franklin, in the severest language, as the fomenter of the disputes between the two countries. It [93] was no protection to this venerable sage, that being the agent of Massachusetts, he conceived it his duty to inform his constituents, of letters, written on public affairs, calculated to overturn their chartered constitution. The age, respectability, and high literary character of the subject of Mr. Wedderburne’s philippic, turned the attention of the public, on the transaction. The insult offered to one of their public agents, and especially to one, who was both the idol and ornament of his native country, sunk deep in the minds of the Americans. That a faithful servant, whom they loved, and almost adored, should be insulted, for discharging his official duty, rankled in their hearts. Dr. Franklin was also immediately dismissed from the office of deputy postmaster general, which he held under the crown. It was not only by his transmission of these letters, that he had given offence to the British ministry, but by his popular writings, in favor of America. Two pieces of his, in particular, had lately attracted a large share of public attention, and had an extensive influence on both sides of the Atlantic. The one purported to be an edict from the King of Prussia, for taxing the inhabitants of Great-Britain, as descendants of emigrants from his dominions. The other was entitled, “Rules for reducing a great empire to a small one.” In both of which he had exposed the claims of the Mother Country, and the proceedings of the British ministry, with the severity of poignant satire.

For ten years, there had now been but little intermission to the disputes between Great-Britain and her colonies. Their respective claims had never been compromised on middle ground. The calm which followed the repeal of the stamp act, was in a few months disturbed, by the revenue act of the year 1767. The tranquility which followed the repeal of five sixths of that act in the year 1770, was nothing more than a truce. The reservation of the duty on tea, made as an avowed evidence of the claims of Great-Britain to tax her colonies, kept alive the jealousy of the colonists, while at the same time the stationing of a standing army in Massachusetts—the continuance of a board of commissioners in Boston—the constituting the governors and judges of that province [94] independent of the people, were constant sources of irritation. The altercations which, at this period, were common between the royal governors and the provincial assemblies, together with numerous vindications of the claims of America, made the subject familiar to the colonists. The ground of the controversy was canvassed in every company. The more the Americans read, reasoned, and conversed on the subject, the more were they convinced of their right to the exclusive disposal of their property. This was followed by a determination to resist all encroachments on that palladium of British liberty. They were as strongly convinced of their right to refuse and resist parliamentary taxation, as the ruling powers of Great-Britain, of their right to demand and enforce their submission to it.

The claims of the two countries, being thus irreconcilably opposed to each other, the partial calm which followed the concession of parliament in 1770, was liable to disturbance, from every incident. Under such circumstances, nothing less than the most guarded conduct on both sides could prevent a renewal of the controversy. Instead of following those prudential measures which would have kept the ground of the dispute out of sight, an impolitic scheme was concerted, between the British ministry and the East-India company, which placed the claims of Great-Britain and of her colonies in hostile array against each other.