Читать книгу The Life & Legacy of George Washington - John Marshall - Страница 23

Congress at New York.

At the time appointed, the commissioners from the assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties on the Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina assembled at New York; and, having chosen Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, their chairman, proceeded on the important objects for which they had convened. The first measure of congress was a declaration[187] of the rights and grievances of the colonists. This paper asserts their title to all the rights and liberties of natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain; among the most essential of which are, the exclusive power to tax themselves, and the trial by jury.

The act granting certain stamp and other duties in the British colonies was placed first on the list of grievances. Its direct tendency they said, was, by taxing the colonists without their consent, and by extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, to subvert their rights and liberties. They also addressed a petition to the King, and a memorial to each house of parliament.

These papers were drawn with temperate firmness. They express, unequivocally, the attachment of the colonists to the mother country; and assert the rights they claim in the earnest language of conviction.

Having, in addition to these measures, recommended to the several colonies to appoint special agents, with instructions to unite their utmost endeavours in soliciting a redress of grievances; and directed their clerk to make out a copy of their proceedings for each colony, congress adjourned.[188]

To interest the people of England against the measures of administration, associations were formed for the encouragement of domestic manufactures, and against the use of those imported from Great Britain. To increase their quantity of wool, the colonists determined to kill no lambs, and to use all the means in their power to multiply their flocks of sheep. To avoid the use of stamps, proceedings in the courts of justice were suspended; and a settlement of all controversies by arbitration was strongly recommended.

Violence in the large towns.

While this determined and systematic opposition was made by the thinking part of the community, some riotous and disorderly meetings took place, especially in the large towns, which threatened serious consequences. Many houses were destroyed, much property injured, and several persons, highly respectable in character and station, were grossly abused.

While these transactions were passing in America, causes entirely unconnected with the affairs of the colonies, produced a total revolution in the British cabinet. The Grenville party was succeeded by an administration unfriendly to the plan for taxing the colonies without their consent. General Conway, one of the principal secretaries of state, addressed a circular letter to the several governors, in which he censured, in mild terms, the violent measures that had been adopted, and recommended to them, while they maintained the dignity of the crown and of parliament, to observe a temperate and conciliatory conduct towards the colonists, and to endeavour, by persuasive means, to restore the public peace.

1766

Parliament was opened by a speech from the throne, in which his majesty declared his firm confidence in their wisdom and zeal, which would, he doubted not, guide them to such sound and prudent resolutions, as might tend at once to preserve the constitutional rights of the British legislature over the colonies, and to restore to them that harmony and tranquillity which had lately been interrupted by disorders of the most dangerous nature.

In the course of the debate in the house of commons, on the motion for the address, Mr. Pitt, in explicit terms, condemned the act for collecting stamp duties in America; and avowed the opinion that parliament had no right to tax the colonies. He asserted, at the same time, "the authority of that kingdom to be sovereign and supreme in every circumstance of government and legislation whatever." He maintained the difficult proposition "that taxation is no part of the governing, or legislative power; but that taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the commons alone;" and concluded an eloquent speech, by recommending to the house, "that the stamp act be repealed, absolutely, totally, and immediately."

The opinions expressed by Mr. Pitt were warmly opposed by the late ministers. Mr. Grenville said, "that the disturbances in America were grown to tumults and riots; he doubted, they bordered on open rebellion; and, if the doctrine he had heard that day should be confirmed, he feared they would lose that name to take that of revolution. The government ever them being dissolved, a revolution would take place in America." He contended that taxation was a part of the sovereign power;—one branch of legislation; and had been exercised over those who were not represented. He could not comprehend the distinction between external and internal taxation; and insisted that the colonies ought to bear a part of the burdens occasioned by a war for their defence.

Stamp act repealed.

The existing administration, however, concurred in sentiment with Mr. Pitt, and the act was repealed; but its repeal was accompanied with a declaratory act, asserting the right of Great Britain to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.

The intelligence of this event was received in America with general manifestations of joy. The assertion of the abstract principle of right gave many but little concern, because they considered it merely as a salve for the wounded pride of the nation, and believed confidently that no future attempt would be made to reduce it to practice. The highest honours were conferred on those parliamentary leaders who had exerted themselves to obtain a repeal of the act; and, in Virginia, the house of Burgesses voted a statue to his majesty, as an acknowledgment of their high sense of his attention to the rights and petitions of his people.

Though all the colonies rejoiced at the repeal of the stamp act, the same temper did not prevail in all of them. In the commercial cities of the north, the regulations of trade were nearly as odious as the stamp act itself. Political parties too had been formed, and had assumed a bitterness in some of the colonies, entirely unknown in others. These dispositions were not long concealed. The first measures of Massachusetts and of New York demonstrated that, in them, the reconciliation with the mother country was not cordial.

The letter of secretary Conway, transmitting the repeal of the act imposing a duty on stamps, enclosed also a resolution of parliament declaring that those persons who had suffered injuries in consequence of their assisting to execute that act, ought to be compensated by the colony in which such injuries were sustained. This was chiefly in Massachusetts. The resolution of parliament was laid before the general court of that province, by governor Bernard, in a speech rather in the spirit of the late, than the present administration;—rather calculated to irritate than assuage the angry passions that had been excited. The house of representatives resented his manner of addressing them; and appeared more disposed to inquire into the riots, and to compel those concerned in them to make indemnities, than to compensate the sufferers out of the public purse. But, after a second session, and some intimation that parliament would enforce its requisition, an act of pardon to the offenders, and of indemnity to the sufferers, was passed; but was rejected by the King, because the colonial assembly had no power, by their charter, to pass an act of general pardon, but at the instance of the crown.[189]

In New York, where general Gage was expected with a considerable body of troops, a message was transmitted by the governor to the legislature, desiring their compliance with an act of parliament called "the mutiny act," which required that the colony in which any of his majesty's forces might be stationed, should provide barracks for them, and necessaries in their quarters. The legislature postponed the consideration of this message until the troops were actually arrived; and then, after a second message from the governor, reluctantly and partially complied with the requisitions of the act.

At a subsequent session, the governor brought the subject again before the assembly, who determined that the act of parliament could be construed only to require that provision should be made for troops on a march, and not while permanently stationed in the country.[190] The reason assigned for not furnishing the accommodations required by the governor, implies the opinion that the act of parliament was rightfully obligatory; and yet the requisitions of the mutiny act were unquestionably a tax; and no essential distinction is perceived between the power of parliament to levy a tax by its own authority, and to levy it through the medium of the colonial legislatures; they having no right to refuse obedience to the act. It is remarkable that such inaccurate ideas should still have prevailed, concerning the controlling power of parliament over the colonies.

In England it was thought to manifest a very forbearing spirit, that this instance of disobedience was punished with no positive penalties; and that the ministers contented themselves with a law prohibiting the legislature of the province from passing any act, until it should comply, in every respect, with the requisitions of parliament. The persevering temper of Massachusetts not having found its way to New York, this measure produced the desired effect.

Two companies of artillery, driven into the port of Boston by stress of weather, applied to the governor for supplies. He laid the application before his council, who advised that, "in pursuance of the act of parliament" the supplies required should be furnished. They were furnished, and the money to procure them was drawn from the treasury by the authority of the executive.

1767

On the meeting of the legislature, the house of representatives expressed in pointed terms their disapprobation of the conduct of the governor. Particular umbrage was given by the expression "in pursuance of an act of parliament." "After the repeal of the stamp act, they were surprised to find that this act, equally odious and unconstitutional, should remain in force. They lamented the entry of this reason for the advice of council the more, as it was an unwarrantable and unconstitutional step which totally disabled them from testifying the same cheerfulness they had always shown in granting to his majesty, of their free accord, such aids as his service has from time to time required."[191] Copies of these messages were transmitted by governor Bernard to the minister, accompanied by letters not calculated to diminish the unpleasantness of the communication.

The idea of raising revenue in America, was so highly favoured in England, especially by the landed interest, that not even the influence of administration could have obtained a repeal of the stamp act, on the naked principle of right. Few were hardy enough to question the supremacy of parliament; and the act receding from the practical assertion of the power to tax the colonists, deeply wounded the pride of the King, and of the nation.

The temper discovered in some of the colonies was ill calculated to assuage the wound, which this measure had inflicted, on the haughty spirit of the country; and is supposed to have contributed to the revival of a system, which had been reluctantly abandoned.

Charles Townshend, chancellor of the exchequer, said boastingly in the house of commons, "that he knew how to draw a revenue from the colonies without giving them offence."[192] Mr. Grenville eagerly caught at the declaration, and urged this minister to pledge himself to bring forward the measure, at which he had hinted. During the sickness and absence of lord Chatham, the cabinet had decided on introducing a bill for imposing certain duties on tea, glass, paper, and painter's colours, imported into the colonies from Great Britain; and appropriating the money in the first instance, to the salaries of the officers of government. This bill was brought into parliament, and passed almost without opposition.

The friends of America, in England, had distinguished between internal and external taxation; and the same distinction had been made in the colonies. But the discussions originating in the stamp act, while they diffused among the colonists a knowledge of their political rights, had inspired also more accurate ideas respecting them.

These duties were plainly intended, not to regulate commerce, but to raise revenue, which would be as certainly collected from the colonists, as the duties on stamps could have been. The principle of the two measures was the same. Many of the Americans were too intelligent to be misguided by the distinction between internal and external taxation, or by the precedents quoted in support of the right, for which parliament contended. This measure was considered as establishing a precedent of taxation for the mere purpose of revenue, which might afterwards be extended at the discretion of parliament; and was spoken of as the entering wedge, designed to make way for impositions too heavy to be borne. The appropriation of the money did not lessen the odium of the tax. The colonists considered the dependence of the officers of government, on the colonial legislature, for their salaries, as the best security for their attending to the interests, and cultivating the affections of the provinces.[193] Yet the opinion that this act was unconstitutional, was not adopted so immediately, or so generally, as in the case of the stamp act. Many able political essays appeared in the papers, demonstrating that it violated the principles of the English constitution and of English liberty, before the conviction became general, that the same principle which had before been successfully opposed, was again approaching in a different form.

1768

The general court of Massachusetts, perceiving plainly that the claim to tax America was revived, and being determined to oppose it, addressed an elaborate letter to Dennis de Berdt, agent for the house of representatives, detailing at great length, and with much weight of argument, all the objections to the late acts of parliament. Letters were also addressed to the earl of Shelburne and general Conway, secretaries of state, to the marquis of Rockingham, lord Camden, the earl of Chatham, and the lords commissioners of the treasury. These letters, while they breathe a spirit of ardent attachment to the British constitution, and to the British nation, manifest a perfect conviction that their complaints were just.

Conclusive as the arguments they contained might have appeared to Englishmen, if urged by themselves in support of their own rights, they had not much weight, when used to disprove the existence of their authority over others. The deep and solemn tone of conviction, however, conveyed in all these letters, ought to have produced a certainty that the principles assumed in them had made a strong impression, and would not be lightly abandoned. It ought to have been foreseen that with such a people, so determined, the conflict must be stern and hazardous; and, it was well worth the estimate, whether the object would compensate the means used to obtain it.

Petition to the King.

The assembly also voted a petition to the King, replete with professions of loyalty and attachment; but stating, in explicit terms, their sense of the acts against which they petitioned.

A proposition was next made for an address to the other colonies on the power claimed by parliament, which, after considerable debate, was carried in the affirmative; and a circular letter to the assemblies of the several provinces, setting forth the proceedings of the house of representatives, was prepared and adopted.[194]

To rescue their measures from the imputation of systematic opposition to the British government, the house, without acknowledging the obligation of the mutiny act, complied with a requisition of the governor to make a farther provision for one of the King's garrisons within the province. The governor, soon afterwards, prorogued the general court with an angry speech, not calculated to diminish the resentments of the house directed against himself; resentments occasioned as much by the haughtiness of his manners, and a persuasion that he had misrepresented their conduct and opinions to ministers, as by the unpopular course his station required him to pursue.[195]

The circular letter of the house of representatives of Massachusetts was well received in the other colonies. They approved the measures which had been taken, and readily united in them. They, too, petitioned the King against the obnoxious acts of parliament, and instructed their several agents to use all proper means to obtain their repeal. Virginia transmitted a statement of her proceedings[196] to her sister colonies; and her house of Burgesses, in a letter to Massachusetts, communicating the representation made to parliament, say, "that they do not affect an independency of their parent kingdom, the prosperity of which they are bound, to the utmost of their abilities, to promote; but cheerfully acquiesce in the authority of parliament to make laws for the preserving a necessary dependence, and for regulating the trade of the colonies; yet they cannot conceive, and humbly insist, it is not essential to support a proper relation between the mother country, and colonies transplanted from her, that she should have a right to raise money from them without their consent, and presume they do not aspire to more than the right of British subjects, when they assert that no power on earth has a right to impose taxes on the people, or take the smallest portion of their property without their consent given by their representatives in parliament."[197]

On the first intimation of the measures taken by Massachusetts, the earl of Hillsborough, who had been appointed to the newly created office of secretary of state for the department of the colonies, addressed a circular to the several governors, to be laid before the respective assemblies, in which he treated the circular letter of Massachusetts, as being of the most dangerous tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his majesty's good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, to excite an open opposition to the authority of parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution.[198]

His first object was to prevail on the several assemblies openly to censure the conduct of Massachusetts; his next, to prevent their approving the proceedings of that colony. The letter, far from producing the desired effect, rather served to strengthen the determination of the colonies to unite in their endeavours to obtain a repeal of laws universally detested. On manifesting this disposition, the assemblies were generally dissolved;—probably in pursuance of instructions from the crown.

When the general court of Massachusetts was again convened, governor Bernard laid before the house of representatives, an extract of a letter from the earl of Hillsborough, in which, after animadverting in harsh terms on the circular letter to the colonies, he declared it to be "the King's pleasure" that the governor "should require the house of representatives, in his majesty's name, to rescind the resolution on which the circular letter was founded, and to declare their disapprobation of, and dissent from, that rash and hasty proceeding."

This message excited considerable agitation; but the house, without coming to any resolution on it, requested the governor to lay before them the whole letter of the earl of Hillsborough, and also copies of such letters as had been written by his excellency to that nobleman, on the subject to which the message referred.

The copies were haughtily refused; but the residue of the letter from the earl of Hillsborough was laid before them. That minister said, "if, notwithstanding the apprehensions which may justly be entertained of the ill consequence of a continuance of this factious spirit, which seems to have influenced the resolutions of the assembly at the conclusion of the last session, the new assembly should refuse to comply with his majesty's reasonable expectation, it is the King's pleasure that you immediately dissolve them."

This subject being taken into consideration, a letter to the earl was reported, and agreed to by a majority of ninety-three to thirteen, in which they defended their circular letter in strong and manly, but respectful terms; and concluded with saying, "the house humbly rely on the royal clemency, that to petition his majesty will not be deemed by him to be inconsistent with a respect to the British constitution as settled at the revolution by William III., and that to acquaint their fellow subjects involved in the same distress, of their having so done, in full hopes of success, even if they had invited the union of all America in one joint supplication, would not be discountenanced by their gracious sovereign, as a measure of an inflammatory nature. That when your lordship shall in justice lay a true state of these matters before his majesty, he will no longer consider them as tending to create unwarrantable combinations, or excite an unjustifiable opposition to the constitutional authority of parliament; that he will then truly discern who are of that desperate faction which is continually disturbing the public tranquillity; and that, while his arm is extended for the protection of his distressed and injured subjects, he will frown upon all those who, to gratify their own passions, have dared to attempt to deceive him."[199]

Legislature of Massachusetts dissolved.

A motion to rescind the resolution on which their circular letter was founded, passed in the negative, by a majority of ninety-two to seventeen; and a letter to the governor was prepared, stating their motives for refusing to comply with the requisition of the earl of Hillsborough. Immediately after receiving it, he prorogued the assembly, with an angry speech; and, the next day, dissolved it by proclamation.[200]

While the opposition was thus conducted by the legislature with temperate firmness, and legitimate means, the general irritation occasionally displayed itself at Boston, in acts of violence denoting evidently that the people of that place, were prepared for much stronger measures than their representatives had adopted.

Seizure of the sloop Liberty.

The seizure of the sloop Liberty belonging to Mr. Hancock, by the collector of the customs, occasioned the assemblage of a tumultuous mob, who beat the officers and their assistants, took possession of a boat belonging to the collector, burnt it in triumph, and patrolled the streets for a considerable time. The revenue officers fled for refuge, first to the Romney man of war, and afterwards to Castle William. After the lapse of some time, the governor moved the council to take into consideration some measure for restoring vigour and firmness to government. The council replied "that the disorders which happened were occasioned by the violent and unprecedented manner in which the sloop Liberty had been seized by the officers of the customs." And the inhabitants of Boston, in a justificatory memorial, supported by affidavits, insisted that the late tumults were occasioned, principally, by the haughty conduct of the commissioners and their subordinate officers, and by the illegal and offensive conduct of the Romney man of war.[201]

The legislature however did not think proper to countenance this act of violence. A committee of both houses, appointed to inquire into the state of the province, made a report which, after reprobating the circumstances attending the seizure, to which the mob was ascribed, declared their abhorrence of a procedure which they pronounced criminal; desired the governor to direct a prosecution against all persons concerned in the riot; and to issue a proclamation offering a reward to any person who should make discoveries by which the rioters or their abettors should be brought to condign punishment.

This report, however, seems to have been intended, rather to save appearances, than to produce any real effect. It was perfectly understood that no person would dare to inform; or even to appear, as a witness, in any prosecution which might be instituted. Suits were afterwards brought against Mr. Hancock and others, owners of the vessel and cargo; but they were never prosecuted to a final decision.[202]

This riot accelerated a measure, which tended, in no inconsiderable degree, to irritate still farther the angry dispositions already prevalent in Boston.

The governor had pressed on administration the necessity of stationing a military force in the province, for the protection of the officers employed in collecting the revenue, and of the magistrates, in preserving the public peace. In consequence of these representations, orders had already been given to general Gage to detach, at least, one regiment on this service, and to select for the command of it, an officer on whose prudence, resolution, and integrity, he could rely. The transactions respecting the sloop Liberty rendered any attempt to produce a countermand of these orders entirely abortive; and, probably occasioned two regiments, instead of one, to be detached by general Gage.[203]

It seems to have been supposed that a dissolution of the assembly of Massachusetts would dissolve also the opposition to the measures of administration; and that the people, having no longer constitutional leaders, being no longer excited and conducted by their representatives, would gradually become quiet, and return to, what was termed, their duty to government. But the opinions expressed by the house of representatives were the opinions of the great body of the people, and had been adopted with too much ardour to be readily suppressed. The most active and energetic part of society had embraced them with enthusiasm; and the dissolution of the assembly, by creating a necessity for devising other expedients, hastened the mode of conducting opposition at least as efficacious, and afterwards universally adopted.

At a town meeting of the inhabitants of Boston, a committee was deputed for the purpose of praying the governor to convene another general assembly. He replied that no other could be convened until his majesty's commands to that effect should be received. This answer being reported, the meeting resolved "that to levy money within that province by any other authority than that of the general court, was a violation of the royal charter, and of the undoubted natural rights of British subjects.

"That the freeholders, and other inhabitants of the town of Boston would, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, take all legal and constitutional measures to defend all and singular the rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities, granted in their royal charter.

"That as there was an apprehension in the minds of many of an approaching war with France, those inhabitants who were not provided with arms should be requested duly to observe the laws of the province, which required that every freeholder should furnish himself with a complete stand."

But the important resolution was "that, as the governor did not think proper to call a general court for the redress of their grievances, the town would then make choice of a suitable number of persons to act for them as a committee in a convention, to be held at Faneuil Hall in Boston, with such as might be sent to join them from the several towns in the province."

These votes were communicated by the select men, in a circular letter to the other towns in the province, which were requested to concur, and to elect committee men, to meet those of Boston in convention.

Convention assembles in Boston.

The measure was generally adopted; and a convention met, which was regarded with all the respect that could have been paid to a legitimate assembly.[204]

Its moderation.

The country in general, though united on the great constitutional question of taxation, was probably not so highly exasperated as the people of Boston; and the convention acted with unexpected moderation. They disclaimed all pretensions to any other character than that of mere individuals, assembled by deputation from the towns, to consult and advise on such measures as might tend to promote the peace of his majesty's subjects in the province, but without power to pass any acts possessing a coercive quality.

They petitioned the governor to assemble a general court, and addressed a letter to the agent of the province in England, stating the character in which they met, and the motives which brought them together. After expressing their opinions with temper and firmness on the subjects of general complaint, and recommending patience and order to the people, they dissolved themselves, and returned to their respective homes.[205]

Two regiments arrive.

The day before the convention rose, the two regiments which had been detached by general Gage arrived, under convoy, in Nantasket road. The council had rejected an application of the governor to provide quarters for them, because the barracks in the castle were sufficient for their accommodation; and, by act of parliament, the British troops were not to be quartered elsewhere until those barracks were full. General Gage had directed one regiment to be stationed in Boston; but, on hearing a report that the people were in a state of open revolt, he gave additional orders, which left the whole subject to the discretion of the commanding officer; who was induced, by some rash threats of opposing the disembarkation of the troops to land both regiments in that place. The ships took a station which commanded the whole town, and lay with their broad sides towards it, ready to fire, should any resistance be attempted. The troops landed under cover of their cannon, and marched into the common with loaded muskets and fixed bayonets;[206] a display of military pomp, which was believed by the inhabitants to have been intended for the purpose either of intimidation, or of irritation.

The select men, as well as the council, having refused to provide quarters for the troops, the governor ordered the state house to be opened for their reception; and they took possession of all the apartments in it, except that which was reserved for the council. The people were filled with indignation at seeing the chamber of their representatives crowded with regular soldiers, their counsellors surrounded with foreign troops, and their whole city exhibiting the appearance of a garrisoned town. With the difference of manners between the soldiers and the inhabitants, and the strong prejudices reciprocally felt against each other, it is not wonderful that personal broils should frequently occur, and that mutual antipathies should be still farther increased.[207]

While these measures were pursuing in America, every session of parliament was opened with a speech from the King, stating that a disposition to refuse obedience to the laws, and to resist the authority of the supreme legislature of the nation, still prevailed among his misguided subjects in some of the colonies. In the addresses to the throne, both houses uniformly expressed their abhorrence of the rebellious spirit manifested in the colonies, and their approbation of the measures taken by his majesty for the restoration of order and good government.

To give a more solemn expression to the sense of parliament on this subject, the two houses entered into joint resolutions, condemning the measures pursued by the Americans; and agreed to an address, approving the conduct of the crown, giving assurances of effectual support to such farther measures as might be found necessary to maintain the civil magistrates in a due execution of the laws within the province of Massachusetts Bay, and beseeching his majesty to direct the governor of that colony to obtain and transmit information of all treasons committed in Massachusetts since the year 1767, with the names of the persons who had been most active in promoting such offences, that prosecutions might be instituted against them within the realm, in pursuance of the statute of the 35th of Henry VIII.[208]

1769

The impression made by these threatening declarations, which seem to have been directed particularly against Massachusetts, in the hope of deterring the other provinces from involving themselves in her dangers, was far from being favourable to the views of the mother country. The determination to resist the exercise of the authority claimed by Great Britain not only remained unshaken, but was manifested in a still more decided form.

Not long after these votes of parliament, the assembly of Virginia was convened by lord Botetourt, a nobleman of conciliating manners, who had lately been appointed governor of that province. The house took the state of the colony into their immediate consideration, Resolutions of the house of Burgesses of Virginia.and passed unanimously several resolutions asserting the exclusive right of that assembly to impose taxes on the inhabitants within his majesty's dominion of Virginia, and their undoubted right to petition for a redress of grievances, and to obtain a concurrence of the other colonies in such petitions. "That all persons charged with the commission of any offence within that colony, were entitled to a trial before the tribunals of the country, according to the fixed and known course of proceeding therein, and that to seize such persons, and transport them beyond sea for trial, derogated in a high degree from the rights of British subjects, as thereby the inestimable privilege of being tried by a jury from the vicinage, as well as the liberty of summoning and producing witnesses on such trial, will be taken from the party accused."

An address to his majesty was also agreed on, which states in the style of loyalty and real attachment to the crown, the deep conviction of the house of Burgesses of Virginia, that the complaints of the colonists were well founded.[209]

Assembly dissolved.

Intelligence of these proceedings having reached the governor, he suddenly dissolved the assembly. This measure did not produce the desired effect. The members convened at a private house, and, having chosen their speaker, moderator, proceeded to form a non-importing association, which was signed by every person present, and afterwards, almost universally throughout the province.[210]

From the commencement of the controversy, the opinion seems to have prevailed in all the colonies, that the most effectual means of succeeding in the struggle in which they were engaged, were those which would interest the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain in their favour. Under the influence of this opinion, associations had been proposed in Massachusetts, as early as May 1765, for the non-importation of goods from that country. The merchants of some of the trading towns in the other colonies, especially those of Philadelphia, refused, at that time, to concur in a measure which they thought too strong for the existing state of things; and it was laid aside. But, in the beginning of August, it was resumed in Boston; and the merchants of that place entered into an agreement not to import from Great Britain any articles whatever, except a few of the first necessity, between the first of January 1769, and the first of January 1770; and not to import tea, glass, paper, or painter's colours, until the duties imposed on those articles should be taken off. This agreement was soon afterwards adopted in the town of Salem, the city of New York, and the province of Connecticut; but was not generally entered into through the colonies, until the resolutions and address of the two houses of parliament which have already been mentioned, seemed to cut off the hope that petitions and memorials alone, would effect the object for which they contended.[211]

The proceedings of the house of Burgesses of Virginia had been transmitted to the speakers of the several assemblies throughout the continent. Measures against the importation of British goods.In the opinion of the neighbouring colonies, the occasion required efficacious measures; and an association, similar to that which had been formed by their elder sister, was entered into by Maryland, and the Carolinas. The inhabitants of Charleston went so far as to break off all connexion with Rhode Island and Georgia, which had refused to adopt the non-importation agreement. This vigorous measure was not without its influence; and those provinces, soon afterwards, entered into the association.[212]

In Portsmouth in New Hampshire, where governor Wentworth possessed great influence, some repugnance to this measure was also discovered; but, being threatened with a suspension of their intercourse with the other colonies, the merchants of that place concurred in the general system.

All united in giving effect to this agreement. The utmost exertions were used to improve the manufactures of the country; and the fair sex, laying aside the late fashionable ornaments of England, exulted, with patriotic pride, in appearing dressed in the produce of their own looms. Committees chosen by the people superintended importations; and the force of public opinion went far to secure the agreement from violation.

General court in Massachusetts.

The necessities of government requiring a supply of money, the general court of Massachusetts was again convened. The members of the former house of representatives were generally re-elected, and brought with them the temper which had occasioned their dissolution. Instead of entering on the business for which they were called together, they engaged in a controversy with the governor concerning the removal of the ships of war from the harbour, and of the troops from the town of Boston, to which they contended, his power, as the representative of the crown was adequate.

The governor, ascribing this temper to the influence of the metropolis, adjourned the general court to Cambridge; but this measure served to increase the existing irritation. The business recommended to them remained unnoticed; their altercations with the governor continued; and they entered into several warm resolutions enlarging the catalogue of their grievances, in terms of greater exasperation than had appeared in the official acts of any legislature on the continent.[213]

It is prorogued.

Not long after the passage of these resolutions, the house explicitly refused to make the provision required by the mutiny act for the troops stationed in Massachusetts; upon which, the legislature was prorogued until the first of January.[214]

The committees, appointed to examine the cargoes of vessels arriving from Great Britain, continued to execute the trust reposed in them. Votes of censure were passed on such as refused to concur in the association, or violated its principles; and the names of the offenders were published, as enemies to their country. In some cases, the goods imported in contravention of it, were locked up in warehouses; and, in some few instances, they were re-shipped to Great Britain.

Not long after the strong resolutions already noticed had been agreed to by parliament, while their effect was unfolding itself in every part of the American continent, an important revolution took place in the British cabinet. The duke of Grafton was placed at the head of a new administration. He supported, with great earnestness, a proposition to repeal the duties imposed for the purpose of raising revenue in the colonies; but his whole influence was insufficient to carry this measure completely. Administration resolved on a partial repeal of duties.It was deemed indispensable to the maintenance of the legislative supremacy of Great Britain, to retain the duty on some one article; and that on tea was reserved while the others were relinquished.

Seldom has a wise nation adopted a more ill judged measure than this. The contest with America was plainly a contest of principle, and had been conducted entirely on principle by both parties. The amount of taxes proposed to be raised was too inconsiderable to interest the people of either country. But the principle was, in the opinion of both, of the utmost magnitude. The measure now proposed, while it encouraged the colonists to hope that their cause was gaining strength in Britain, had no tendency to conciliate them.