"We wish to stand perfectly right with his lordship (the Earl of Loudoun), and it will be a great satisfaction to us if we may be able to remove his misapprehension of the spring and motives of our proceedings. His lordship is pleased to say that we seem willing to enter into a dispute upon the necessity of a provincial law to enforce a British Act of Parliament.

"We are utterly ignorant as to what part of our conduct could give occasion for this expression. The point in which we were obliged to differ from his lordship was the extent of the provision made by Act of Parliament for regulating quarters. We thought it did not reach the colonies. Had we thought it did reach us, and yet made an Act of our own to enforce it, there would have been good grounds for his lordships exception; but being fully persuaded that the provision was never intended for us, what better step could we take than, agreeable to the twentieth section of the Articles of War, to regulate quarters as the circumstances of the province require, but still as similar to the provisions made in England as possible? And how can it be inferred from thence that we suppose a provincial Act necessary to enforce an Act of Parliament?

"We are willing, by a due exercise of the powers of civil government (and we have the pleasure of seeing your Excellency concur with us), to remove, as much as may be, all pretence of necessity of military government. Such measures, we are sure, will never be disapproved by the Parliament of Great Britain, our dependence upon which, we never had a desire or thought of lessening. From the knowledge your Excellency has acquired of us, you will be able to do us justice in this regard.

"In our message to your Excellency, which you transmitted to his lordship, we declared that the Act of Parliament, the extent of which was then in dispute, as far as it related to the Plantations, had always been observed by us.

"The authority of all Acts of Parliament which concern the colonies, and extend to them, is ever acknowledged in all the Courts of law, and made the rule in all judicial proceedings in the province. There is not a member of the General Court, we know no inhabitant within the bounds of the Government, that ever questioned this authority.

"To prevent any ill consequences which may arise from an opinion of our holding such principles, we now utterly disavow them, as we should readily have done at any time past if there had been occasion for it; and we pray that his lordship may be acquainted therewith, that we may appear in a true light, and that no impressions may remain to our disadvantage."[284]

This is a full and indefinite recognition of the supreme authority of Parliament, even to the providing of accommodation for the soldiers; and such was the recognition of the authority of Parliament throughout the colonies. "It was generally allowed," says Dr. Ramsay, "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 authorized to name ports and nations to which alone their merchandise 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 alleged the general principles of liberty, but ancient usage. During the first hundred and fifty years of their existence they had been left to tax themselves and in their own way." "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 on the other were the very hinges on which the revolution turned they merit a particular discussion."[285]

The only exception to the authority of Parliament over the colonies was levying internal taxes. A marked distinction was made between external and internal taxes. It was admitted upon all hands that the Parliament had the constitutional right to impose the former, but not the latter. The Tory opposition in the British Parliament denied the distinction between external and internal taxes, and maintained that if Parliament had the right to impose the one they had equally the right to impose the other; but the advocates of American rights maintained the distinction between external and internal taxation; and also Dr. Franklin, in his evidence at the bar of the House of Commons, in February, 1766, which I have quoted at length above, as the best exposition of the colonial side of the questions at issue between England and America. I will here reproduce two questions and answers on the subject now under consideration:

Q.—"You say they do not object to the right of Parliament, in levying duties on goods, to be paid on their importation; now, is there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of goods and an excise on their consumption?"

A.—"Yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have just mentioned, they think you can have no right to levy within their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain by your fleets the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right to some toll or duty on merchandise carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage."

Q.—"Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the produce of their lands exported? And would they not then object to make a duty?"

A.—"If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad as to lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to such a duty; not to your right of levying it, but they would complain of it as a burden, and petition you to lighten it."

It will be observed that in these words of Dr. Franklin there is the fullest recognition of the right of Parliament to impose duties on all articles imported into, or exported from, the colonies; the only exception was the levying direct or internal taxes for the purposes of revenue, the right to impose which was held, and we think justly held, to belong to the representative Legislatures elected by the colonists themselves. Such also were the views of the two great statesmen, Pitt and Burke, who with such matchless eloquence advocated the rights of the colonies—whose speeches have become household words in America, and are found in all their school books. Mr. Pitt, in a speech which I have quoted at length in a previous chapter, said expressly:

"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."

Mr. Pitt therefore advocated the repeal of the Stamp Act with all his fiery eloquence and energy, saying that he rejoiced that the colonists had resisted that Act—not by riots or force of arms, but by every constitutional mode of resistance, in the expression of public opinion against an unjust and oppressive measure. Mr. Pitt's speech has been quoted by American writers, and inserted in American school books, to justify the resistance of America to England in the revolution which was declared in 1776; but his speech was delivered, and the Act against which it was delivered was repealed, ten years before. The United Empire Loyalists were as much opposed to the Stamp Act as any other colonists, and rejoiced as heartily at its repeal.

Edmund Burke was the appointed agent of the province of New York, and no member of the House of Commons equalled him in the eloquent and elaborate advocacy of the popular rights of the colonies. Extracts from his speeches have been circulated in every form, and in unnumbered repetition in American periodicals and school books; but what he said as to the authority of Parliament over the colonies has not found so wide a circulation in America. In advocating the repeal of the Stamp Act, in his celebrated speech on American taxation, Mr. Burke said:

"What is to become of the Declaratory Act, asserting the entireness of British legislative authority, if we abandon the practice of taxation? For my part, I look upon the rights stated in that Act exactly in the manner in which I viewed them on its very first proposition, and which I have often taken the liberty, with great humility, to lay before you. I look, I say, on the imperial rights of Great Britain, and the privileges which the colonists ought to enjoy under those rights, to be just the most reconcilable things in the world. The Parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities: one, as the local Legislature of this island, providing for all things at home, immediately, and by no other instrument than the executive power; the other, and I think her nobler capacity, is what I call her imperial character, in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends all the several inferior Legislatures, and guides and controls them all, without annihilating any. As all these Provincial Legislatures are only co-ordinate with each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her, else they can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual justice, nor effectually afford mutual assistance. It is necessary to coerce the negligent, to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak and deficient, by the overruling plenitude of its power. She is never to intrude into the place of the others while they are equal to the common ends of their institution. But in order to enable Parliament to answer all these ends of provident and beneficent superintendence, her powers must be boundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited, may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions are not obeyed? What! Shall there be no reserved power in the empire to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole? We are engaged in war; the Secretary of State calls upon the colonies to contribute; some would do it; I think most would cheerfully furnish whatever is demanded. One or two, suppose, hang back, and, easing themselves, let the stress of the draft be on the others—surely it is proper that some authority might legally say, 'Tax yourselves for the common supply, or Parliament will do it for you.' This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania, for some short time towards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internal dissensions in the colony. But whether the act were so, or otherwise, the case is equally to be provided for by a competent sovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power, nor ever used in the first instance. This is what I meant when I have said at various times that I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an instrument of empire, and not as a means of supply."[286]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 283: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap, xx., pp. 366, 367.]

[Footnote 284: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., Chap. i, pp. 65, 66.]

[Footnote 285: Colonial History, Vol. I., pp. 327, 328.]

[Footnote 286: Speech on American taxation.]



CHAPTER XII.

SUMMARY OF EVENTS FROM THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT, MARCH, 1766, TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

The universal joy caused in both Great Britain and America by the repeal of the Stamp Act foreshadowed a new era of unity and co-operation between the mother country and the colonies. But though trade and commerce resumed their activity, and mutual expressions of respect and affection characterized the correspondence, private and official, between England and America, the rejoicings of re-union were soon silenced, and mutual confidence, if restored at all, soon yielded to mutual suspicion. The King regretted the repeal of the Stamp Act as "a fatal compliance" which had "wounded the majesty" of England, and planted "thorns under his own pillow." He soon found a pretext for ridding himself of the Ministers who had influenced the Parliament, and compelled himself to adopt and sanction that measure, and to surround himself with Ministers, some of whom sympathized with the King in his regrets, and all of whom were prepared to compensate for the humiliation to America in the repeal of the Stamp Act, by imposing obligations and taxes on the colonies in other forms, under the absolute authority of Parliament affirmed in the Declaratory Act, and which the Americans had fondly regarded as a mere salve to English pride, and not intended for any practical purpose. Mr. Pitt had rested his opposition to the Stamp Act upon the distinction between external and internal taxes, as did Dr. Franklin in his evidence at the bar of the House of Commons; the opposition and the protesting Lords denied the distinction; and when Dr. Franklin was asked—

"Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the Charter?" he answered: "No, I believe not;" and being asked, "Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the Parliament's right of external taxation?" he answered: "They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to show them that there is no difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you have no right to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments."[287]

I now proceed to give a summary statement of the events between Great Britain and the colonies which followed the repeal of the Stamp Act, March 19th, 1766.

Within ten days of its passing, the Act repealing the Stamp Act was officially transmitted to America by General Conway,[288] then Secretary of State for America, who accompanied them with a circular to the several Governors, in which, while he firmly insisted upon a proper reverence for the King's Government, endeavoured affectionately to allay the discontents of the colonists. When the Governor of Virginia communicated this letter to the House of Burgesses, they unanimously voted a statue to the King, and the Assembly of Massachusetts voted a letter of thanks to Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Grafton.

But in addition to the circular letter to the several Governors, counselling forgetfulness and oblivion as to the disorders and contentions of the past, General Conway wrote a separate letter to Governor Barnard, of Massachusetts, in which he said: "Nothing will tend more effectually to every conciliating purpose, and there is nothing, therefore, I have in command more earnestly to require of you, than that you should exert yourself in recommending it strongly to the Assembly, that full and ample compensation be made to those who, from the madness of the people, have suffered for their acts in deference to the British Legislature." This letter was but a recommendation, not a command or requisition, to the Legislature, and seems to have been intended as an instruction to Governor Barnard alone; but he, now indulging his personal resentments as well as haughty spirit, represented the letter of General Conway as a command and requisition founded on "justice and humanity," and that the authority from which it came ought to preclude all doubts about complying with it, adding, "Both the business and the time are most critical—let me entreat you to recollect yourselves, and to consider well what you are about. Shall the private interests, passions, or resentments of a few men deprive the whole people of the great and manifold advantages which the favour and indulgence of their King and his Parliament are now preparing for them? Surely after his Majesty's commands are known, the very persons who have created the prejudices and prepossessions I now endeavour to combat will be the first to remove them."

The opposition to the Stamp Act, which the Governor interpreted as "prejudices and prepossessions which he now endeavoured to combat," had been justified by the King and Parliament themselves in rejecting it; and he thus continued to make enemies of those whom he might have easily conciliated and made friends. The Assembly answered him in an indignant and sarcastic tone, and charged him with having exceeded the authority given in Secretary Conway's letter; concluding in the following words:

"If this recommendation, which your Excellency terms a requisition, be founded on so much justice and humanity that it cannot be controverted—if the authority with which it is introduced should preclude all disputation about complying with it, we should be glad to know what freedom we have in the case?

"In answer to the questions which your Excellency has proposed with seeming emotion, we beg leave to declare, that we will not suffer ourselves to be in the least influenced by party animosities or domestic feuds, let them exist where they may; that if we can possibly prevent it, this fine country shall never be ruined by any person; that it shall be through no default of ours should this people be deprived of the great and manifest advantages which the favour and indulgence of our most gracious Sovereign and his Parliament are even now providing for them. On the contrary, that it shall ever be our highest ambition, as it is our duty, so to demean ourselves in public and in private life as shall most clearly demonstrate our loyalty and gratitude to the best of kings, and thereby recommend his people to further gracious marks of the royal clemency and favour.

"With regard to the rest of your Excellency's speech, we are constrained to observe, that the general air and style of it savours more of an act of grace and pardon than of a parliamentary address to the two Houses of Assembly; and we most sincerely wish your Excellency had been pleased to reserve it, if needful, for a proclamation."

It was thus that fresh seed of animosity and hostility was sown between Governor Barnard and the Massachusetts Assembly, and sown by the Governor himself, and the growth of which he further promoted by refusing to confirm the choice of Mr. Hancock, whom the Assembly had elected as their Speaker, and refused to sanction six of their twenty-eight nominations to the Council, because they had not nominated the four judges of the Supreme Court and the Crown officers. Hence the animosity of their reply to his speech above quoted. But as the Governor had, by the Charter, a veto on the election of Speaker and Councillors, the Legislature submitted without a murmur.

But in the course of the session (six months after the Governor's speech upon the subject), the Assembly passed an Act granting compensation to the sufferers by the late riots, the principal of whom were the Lieutenant-Governor, the Collector of Customs, and the appointed Distributor of Stamps. The Act was accompanied by a declaration that it was a free gift of the Province, and not an acknowledgment of the justice of their claim; it also contained a provision of amnesty to the rioters. The Act was agreed to by the Council and assented to by the Governor; but it was disallowed by the King on the advice of the English Attorney and Solicitor General, because, as alleged, it assumed an act of grace which it belonged to the King to bestow, through an act of oblivion of the evils of those who had acted unlawfully in endeavouring to enforce the Stamp Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament the same year. The Massachusetts Assembly ordered that their debates should henceforth be open to the public.

The Legislature of New York also passed an Act granting compensation to those who had suffered a loss of property for their adherence to the Stamp Act, but stated it to be a free gift.

Before the close of 1766, dissatisfaction and distrust were manifest in several colonies, and apprehensions of other encroachments by the British Parliament upon what they held to be their constitutional rights. Even the General Assembly of Virginia, which had in the spring session voted a statue to the King, and an obelisk to Mr. Pitt and several other members of Parliament, postponed, in the December following, the final consideration of the resolution until the next session. The Virginia press said: "The Americans are hasty in expressing their gratitude, if the repeal of the Stamp Act is not, at least, a tacit compact that Great Britain will never again tax us;" and advised the different Assemblies, without mentioning the proceedings of Parliament, to enter upon their journals as strong declarations of their own rights as words could express.[289]

The Assembly of New York met early in 1766, in the best spirit; voted to raise on Bowling Green an equestrian statue to the King, and a statue of William Pitt—"twice the preserver of his country."

"But the clause of the Mutiny or Billeting Act (passed in 1765, in the same session in which the Stamp Act was passed), directing Colonial Legislatures to make specific contributions towards the support of the army, placed New York, where the head-quarters were established, in the dilemma of submitting immediately and unconditionally to the authority of Parliament, or taking the lead in a new career of resistance. The rescript was in theory worse than the Stamp Act. For how could one legislative body command what another legislative body should enact? And viewed as a tax it was unjust, for it threw all the burden of the colony where the troops chanced to be collected. The requisition of the General, made through the Governor, 'agreeably to the Act of Parliament,' was therefore declared to be unprecedented in its character and unreasonable in its amount; yet in the exercise of the right of free deliberation, everything asked for was voted, except such articles as were not provided in Europe for British troops which were in barracks."[290]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 287: In the House of Lords, Lord Mansfield, replying to Lord Camden, said: "The noble lord who quoted so much law, and denied the right of the Parliament of Great Britain to levy internal taxes upon the colonies, allowed at the same time that restrictions upon trade and duties upon the ports were legal. But I cannot see any real difference in this distinction; for I hold it to be true, that a tax laid in any place is like a pebble falling into and making a circle in a lake, till one circle produces and gives motion to another, and the whole circumference is agitated from the centre. A tax on tobacco, either in the ports of Virginia or London, is a duty laid upon the inland Plantations of Virginia, a hundred miles from the sea, wherever the tobacco grows." (Quoted in Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., p. 411.)

Mr. Grenville argued in the same strain in the House of Commons; and the Americans, as apt pupils, soon learned by such arguments to resist external as they had successfully resisted internal taxes.]

[Footnote 288: General Conway, as leader of the House of Commons, moved the resolution for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and also moved the resolution for the Declaratory Bill. Colonel Barre moved an amendment to strike out from the resolution the words "in all cases whatsoever." He was seconded by Pitt, and sustained by Beckford. "Only three men, or rather Pitt alone, 'debated strenuously the rights of America' against more than as many hundred; and yet the House of Commons, half-conscious of the fatality of its decision, was so awed by the overhanging shadow of coming events that it seemed to shrink from pronouncing its opinion. Edmund Burke, eager to add glory as an orator to his just renown as an author, argued for England's right in such a manner that the strongest friends of power declared his speech to have been 'far superior to that of every other speaker;' while Grenville, Yorke, and all the lawyers; the temperate Richard Hussey, who yet was practically for humanity and justice; Blackstone, the commentator on the laws of England, who still disliked internal taxation of America by Parliament, filled many hours with solemn arguments for England's unlimited supremacy. They persuaded one another, and the House, that the Charters which kings had granted were, by the unbroken opinions of lawyers, from 1689, subordinate to the good-will of the Houses of Parliament; that Parliament, for a stronger reason, had power to tax—a power which it had been proposed to exert in 1713, while Harley was at the head of the Treasury, and again at the opening of the Seven Years' War." ...

"So the watches of the long winter's night wore away, and at about four o'clock in the morning, when the question was called, less than ten voices, some say five, or four, some said but three, spoke out in the minority; and the resolution passed for England's right to do what the Treasury pleased with three millions of freemen in America." (Bancroft's History of the United States., Vol. V., pp. 415-417.)]

[Footnote 289: Allen's History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap. v., p. 101. Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xxv., p. 6.]

[Footnote 290: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xxv., pp. 15, 16.

"The colonies were required, at their own expense, to furnish the troops quartered upon them by Parliament with fuel, bedding, utensils for cooking, and various articles of food and drink. To take off the edge from this bill, bounties were granted on the importation of lumber and timber from the plantations; coffee of domestic growth was exempted from additional duty; and iron was permitted to be carried to Ireland." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, Second Period, Chap. x., p. 295.)]



CHAPTER XIII.

EVENTS OF 1767—A NEW PARLIAMENT—FIRST ACT AGAINST THE PROVINCE OF NEW YORK—BILLETING SOLDIERS ON THE COLONIES.

A new House of Commons was elected in 1766, less favourable to the colonies than the preceding one; and one of the first acts of the new Parliament was founded on the intelligence received from New York, that the Assembly had refused to comply with all the requirements of the Billeting Act in providing for his Majesty's troops which had been quartered upon that province.[291]

A Bill was introduced by Mr. Grenville, the object of which was to restrain the Assembly and Council of New York from passing any Act until they had complied with the requisitions of the Billeting Act. Though the Bill was introduced by the leader of the opposition, it received the countenance and support of Ministers (Pitt being Premier, though absent through illness), "who regarded it as a measure at once dignified and forbearing." The Bill passed with little opposition; the Legislature of New York was at once frightened into immediate compliance, though the feeling with which it was done may be easily conceived. The effect, however, in other colonies, was not only to excite fears and dissatisfaction, but to call forth public expressions of hostile sentiment, regarding the Act as an infringement of their chartered privileges; and they argued that if the legislative powers of so loyal a colony as New York could be thus suspended, they had little security for their own privileges guaranteed to them by Charter.[292]

On the 26th of January, while the House of Commons, in Committee of Supply, was considering the estimate for the garrison and land forces in the colonies, Mr. Grenville took the opportunity of expressing his dissatisfaction with the repeal of the Stamp Act, and insisted upon the necessity of relieving England from the burden, which should be borne by the colonies, and which, with contingencies, exceeded L400,000. Mr. Charles Townshend, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, replied that "the Administration has given its attention to give relief to Great Britain from bearing the whole expense of securing, defending, and protecting America and the West India islands. I shall bring into the House some propositions that I hope may tend, in time, to ease the people of England upon this head, and yet not be heavy in any manner upon the people in the colonies. I know the mode by which a revenue may be drawn from America without offence." He was applauded from all sides of the House, and continued: "I am still a firm advocate for the Stamp Act, for its principle, and for the duty itself; only the heats which prevailed made it an improper time to press it. I laugh at the absurd distinction between internal and external taxes. I know of no such distinction. It is a distinction without a difference. It is perfect nonsense. If we have a right to impose the one, we have a right to impose the other. The distinction is ridiculous in the opinion of everybody except the Americans."[293] In conclusion, laying his hand on the table in front of him, he declared to the House, "England is undone if this taxation of America is given up."[294] Grenville demanded Townsend to pledge himself to his declaration of obtaining a revenue from the colonies; and did so promptly amid the applause of the House. In June, Townshend proceeded to redeem his pledge, and for that purpose brought successively three Bills into the House, all of which were passed by nearly unanimous votes.

"The first of these Bills, in the preamble, declared an American revenue expedient, and promised to raise it by granting duties on glass, red and white lead, painters' oil and paper, and threepence a pound on tea—all English productions except the last—all objects of taxation in the colonies. The exportation of tea to America was encouraged by another Act which allowed a drawback for five years of the whole duty payable on importation into England."[295] The preamble of the Bill stated that the duties are laid for the better support of the government and the administration of the colonies. One clause of the Act enabled the King, by sign manual, to establish a general civil list for each province of North America, with any salaries, pensions, or appointments his Majesty might think proper. The Act also provided, after all such ministerial warrants under the sign manual "as are thought proper and necessary" shall be satisfied, the residue of the revenue shall be at the disposal of the Parliament.[296]

2. The second Bill, intended to ensure the execution of the first, authorized his Majesty to appoint a Board of Commissioners of Customs to reside in the colonies, to give them such orders and instructions from time to time as his Majesty might think proper. This Board of Customs had its seat at Boston; its duty was to see to the strict enforcement of the revenue laws in America, and it was authorized to make as many appointments as the Commissioners might think fit, and to pay the appointees what sums they pleased, and were not accountable for their malconduct, though they were authorized to seize vessels suspected of having goods which had not been duly entered.[297]

3. A third Bill, in Mr. Charles Townshend's scheme for the taxation of the colonies, was for the establishment in America of Courts of Vice-Admiralty—at Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston—Courts in which the colonists were deprived of the right of trial by jury, which were invested with authority to seize and transport accused persons to England to be tried there—Courts of which the officers and informers were paid out of the proceeds of sales of confiscated goods, and in proportion to their amounts, and were therefore personally interested in confiscating as many goods as possible, and from their decisions there was no appeal except to England—a process not only tedious, but ruinously expensive, even if successful, of which there could be little hope.

In connection with these three Acts (the operations and effects of which Charles Townshend did not live to see),[298] the navy and military in America were commanded, not as a defence against foreign or even Indian invasions, but as Custom-house guards and officers, to enforce the payment of taxes on the colonists. The very next day after the King had given the royal sanction to the system of Courts of Admiralty in America, "orders were issued directly to the Commander-in-Chief in America, that the troops under his command should give their assistance to the officers of the revenue for the effectual suppression of the contraband trade. Nor was there delay in following up the new law, to employ the navy to enforce the Navigation Acts. To this end Admiral Colville, the naval Commander-in-Chief on the coasts of North America, from the River St. Lawrence to Cape Florida and the Bahama Islands, became the head of a new corps of revenue officers. Each captain of his squadron had Custom-house commissions, and a set of instructions from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for his guidance; and other instructions were given them by the Admiral, to enter into the harbours or lie off the coasts of America; to qualify themselves, by taking the usual Custom-house oaths, to do the office of Custom-house officers; to seize such persons as were suspected by them to be engaged in illicit trade."[299]

The effect of these acts and measures was to create universal dissatisfaction throughout the colonies, as they were not even in pretence for the regulation of trade, but for the purpose of raising a parliamentary revenue in America, and therefore differed not in principle from the tax imposed by the Stamp Act. "The colonists 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 evaded 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 Revenue Act of 1767 produced resolves, petitions, addresses, remonstrances, similar to those with which the colonists opposed the Stamp Act. It also gave rise to a second association for suspending further importations of British manufactures till those offensive duties should be taken off."[300]

The year 1767 closed with enlarging and multiplying associations to dispense with the use of goods of British manufacture, the appointment of Lord North to succeed Charles Townshend as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the Earl of Hillsborough to succeed the Earl of Shelburne as Secretary of State for the Colonies. Lord North had voted for the Stamp Act and against its repeal; and Lord Hillsborough was less indulgent to the colonies than Lord Shelburne.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 291: "This affair being brought before the House occasioned many debates, and some vigorous measures were proposed. June 15th, a Bill was passed by which the Governor, Council, and Assembly of New York were prohibited from passing or assenting to any Act of Assembly for any purpose whatsoever, till they had in every respect complied with all the terms of the Act of Parliament. This restriction, though limited to one colony, was a lesson to them all, and showed their comparative inferiority, when brought in question with the supreme legislative power." (Annual Register for 1767, Vol. X., p. 48.)]

[Footnote 292: The carrying into effect of the Billeting Act in Boston is thus stated by Mr. Holmes:

"An Act had been passed by Parliament, the same session in which the Stamp Act was passed, that obliged the Colonial Assemblies to provide quarters for the soldiers, and furnish them with fire, beds, candles, and other articles at the expense of the colonies. The jealousy of Massachusetts was awakened by the attempt of the Governor to execute this law. In June an addition was made to the British troops at the castle, in the harbour of Boston, and the Governor requested that provision be made by the Assembly for their support. After due deliberation, the House resolved that such provision be made for them while they remain here, as has been heretofore usually made for his Majesty's regular troops when occasionally in the province. The caution with which this resolution was drawn shows how reluctant the Assembly were to have a military force placed in the province; and how careful neither to yield any portion of their legislative rights, nor to furnish a precedent for the repetition of a measure equally obnoxious and dangerous to the colonists. The suspension of the power of legislation in New York justly excited alarm throughout all the colonies; for it was perceived that every Colonial Assembly would, by parity of reasoning, be put on their trial for good behaviour, of which the British Ministry would be the judge. Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, said, 'An Act for suspending the Legislature of that province hangs, like a flaming sword, over all our heads, and requires by all means to be removed.'" (Annals, etc., Vol. II., p. 149.)]

[Footnote 293: The Americans took the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his word, the plain and logical inference from which was, that if it was unlawful to impose internal taxes, it was equally unlawful to impose external taxes. The colonies had unanimously denied the lawfulness of internal taxes imposed by Parliament, and in that denial had been sustained by the opinions of Lord Camden, Pitt, and other English statesmen, and virtually by the repeal of the Stamp Act itself. Henceforth they resisted the imposition by Parliament of external as well as internal taxes.]

[Footnote 294: Referring to the applause of the Commons which greeted Townshend's utterances of his intention to draw a revenue from the colonies, Mr. Bancroft says: "The loud burst of rapture dismayed Conway, who sat in silent astonishment at the unauthorized but premeditated rashness of his presumptuous colleague. The next night the Cabinet questioned the insubordinate Minister 'how he had ventured to depart on so essential a point from the profession of the whole Ministry;' and he browbeat them all. 'I appeal to you,' said he, turning to Conway, 'whether the House is not bent on obtaining a revenue of some sort from the colonies?' Not one of the Ministry then in London (Pitt being absent and ill) had sufficient authority to advise his dismission, and nothing less could have stopped his measures." (History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xxvii., pp. 47-49.)]

[Footnote 295: "The colonists had been previously restrained from manufacturing certain articles for their own consumption. Other Acts confined them to the exclusive use of British merchandise. 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, restrained by her 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 in her own market her laws forbid, and the manufacturing of which for her own use she may, at any moment she pleases, restrain. Nothing is left for us to do but to complain and pay.'" (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 351, 352.)]

[Footnote 296: "Townshend opened the debate with professions of candour, and the air of a man of business. Exculpating alike Pennsylvania and Connecticut, he named as the delinquent colonies—Massachusetts, which had invaded the King's prerogative by a general amnesty, and in a message to its Governor had used expressions derogatory to the authority of Parliament; Rhode Island, which had postponed but not refused to indemnify the sufferers by the Stamp Act; and New Jersey, which had evaded the Billeting Act, but had yet furnished the King's troops with every essential thing to their perfect satisfaction. Against these colonies it was not necessary to institute severe proceedings. But New York, in the month of June last, besides appointing its own Commissary, had limited its supplies to two regiments, and to those articles only which were provided in the rest of the King's dominions, and in December had refused to do more.

"It became Parliament not to engage in controversy with its colonies, but to assert its sovereignty without uniting them in a common cause. For this end he proposed to proceed against New York, and against New York alone. To levy a local tax would be to accept a penalty in lieu of obedience. He should, therefore, move that New York, having disobeyed Parliament, should be restrained from any legislative act of its own till it should comply.

"He then proceeded to advocate the establishment of a Board of Commissioners of the Customs, to be stationed in America.

"'Our right of taxation,' he continued, 'is indubitable; yet, to prevent mischief, I was myself in favour of repealing the Stamp Act. But there can be no objection to port duties on wine, oil, and fruits, if allowed to be carried to America directly from Spain and Portugal; on glass, paper, lead, and colours; and especially on tea. Owing to the high charges in England, America has supplied itself with tea by smuggling it from the Dutch possessions; to remedy this, duties hitherto levied upon it in England are to be given up, and a specific duty collected in America itself.'"

"The American revenue, it was further explained, was to be placed at the disposal of the King for the payment of his civil officers.

"This speech, pronounced with gravity and an air of moderation by an orator who was the delight of the House, implied a revolution in favour of authority. The Minister was to have the irresponsible power of establishing, by sign manual, a general civil list in every American province, and at his pleasure to grant salaries and pensions, limited only by the amount of the American revenue. The proposition bore on its face the mark of owing its parentage to the holders and patrons of American offices; and yet it was received in the House with general favour. Richard Jackson was not regarded when he spoke against the duties themselves, and foretold the mischief that would ensue." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xxix., pp. 75-77.)]

[Footnote 297: The Commissioners, from the first moment of their institution, had been an eyesore 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 the Board of Customs and an American revenue. The Declaratory Act of 1766, the Revenue Act of 1767, together with the pomp and expense of this Board, so disproportionate to the small income of the present duties, conspired to convince not only the few who were benefitted by smuggling, but the great body of enlightened freemen, that further 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 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 Customs in the execution of their duty. (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 355, 356.)]

[Footnote 298: His Revenue Act, and the two subsequent Acts to give it effect, produced an excitement throughout the American colonies that will be noticed hereafter. Mr. Bancroft remarks: "They would nullify Townshend's Revenue Act by consuming nothing on which he had laid a duty, and avenge themselves on England by importing no more British goods. At the beginning of this excitement (September, 1767), Charles Townshend was seized with fever, and after a short illness, during which he met danger with the unconcerned levity that had marked his conduct of the most serious affairs, he died at the age of forty-one, famed alike for incomparable talents and extreme instability." (History of the United States, Vol. VI., p. 98.)]

[Footnote 299: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chapter ix., pp. 161, 162. Mr. Bancroft adds:

"The promise of large emoluments in case of forfeiture stimulated their natural and irregular vivacity to enforce laws which had become obsolete, and they pounced upon American property as they would have gone to war in quest of prize-money. Even at first their acts were equivocal, and they soon came to be as illegal as they were oppressive. There was no redress. An appeal to the Privy Council was costly and difficult; and besides, when it so happened, before the end of the year, that an officer had to defend himself on an appeal, the suffering colonists were exhausted by the delay and expense, while the Treasury took care to indemnify their agent."—Ib., p. 162.]

[Footnote 300: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol I., Chapter iii., pp. 352, 353.

"Towards the last of October, the inhabitants of Boston, 'ever sensitive to the sound of liberty,' assembled in a town meeting, and voted to dispense with a large number of articles of British manufacture, which, were particularly specified; to adhere to former agreements respecting funerals; and to purchase no new clothing for mourning. Committees were appointed to obtain subscribers to this agreement, and the resolves were sent in to all the towns of the province and abroad to other colonies. The 20th of the ensuing month (20th of November, the time when the Acts went into operation) passed without tumult. Placards were exhibited and effigies were set up, but the people in general were quiet. Otis (the most popular man in Boston), at a town meeting held to discountenance riot, delivered a speech in which he recommended caution, and advised that no opposition should be made to the new duties. 'The King has a right,' said he, 'to appoint officers of the Customs in what manner he pleases and by what denominations; and to resist his authority will but provoke his displeasure.' Such counsel was displeasing to the zealous, but it was followed." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, Vol. II., Chapter xi., pp. 340, 341.)]



CHAPTER XIV.

EVENTS OF 1768—PROTESTS AND LOYAL PETITIONS OF THE COLONISTS AGAINST THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY ACTS FOR RAISING REVENUE IN THE COLONIES.

The meetings and protests against the Revenue Acts and petitions for their repeal, which began in the autumn of 1767, increased throughout the colonies in 1768. In January, the General Assembly of Massachusetts voted a temperate and loyal petition to the King,[301] and letters urging the rights of the province, addressed to Lord Shelburne, General Conway, the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord Camden, and the Earl of Chatham. The petition and these letters were all to the same effect. The petition to the King was enclosed to Denis de Berdt, a London merchant (who was appointed agent for the colony), with a long letter of instructions. All these papers are pervaded with a spirit of loyalty, and ask for nothing more than the enjoyment of the rights and privileges which they had ever possessed and enjoyed down to the year after the peace of Paris in 1763.

In addition to these representations and letters sent to England, the Massachusetts General Assembly adopted, on the 11th of February, and sent a circular letter to the Speakers of the respective Houses of Burgesses of the other American provinces. In this ably-written letter there is no dictation or assumption of authority, but a statement of their representations to England, and a desire for mutual consultation and harmonious action. They say: "This House hope that this letter will be candidly considered in no other light than as expressing a disposition freely to communicate their mind to a sister colony, upon a common concern, in the same manner as they would be glad to receive the sentiments of your or any other House of Assembly on the continent."

As this letter was the first step to the union of the American colonies, and was followed by results that culminated in the War of Independence, it may be proper to give such extracts from it as will show its character and design; in neither of which do I find anything which I think is inconsistent with the principles and spirit of a loyal subject. The general principles on which they rested their claims to the rights and privileges of British subjects are stated as follows:

"The House have humbly represented to the Ministry their own sentiments: That his Majesty's High Court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire. That in all free States the constitution is fixed; and as the supreme legislative derives its power and authority from the constitution, it cannot overleap the bounds of it without destroying its foundation. That the constitution ascertains and limits both sovereignty and allegiance; and therefore his Majesty's American subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the British constitution. That it is an essential, unalterable right in nature, ingrafted into the British constitution as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm, that what a man hath honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent. That the American subjects may, therefore, exclusive of any consideration of Charter rights, with a decent firmness adapted to the character of freemen and subjects, assert this natural constitutional right.

"It is moreover their humble opinion, which they express with the greatest deference to the wisdom of the Parliament, that the Acts made there, imposing duties on the people of this Province, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, are infringements of their natural and constitutional rights; because, as they are not represented in the British Parliament, his Majesty's Commons in Great Britain by those Acts grant their property without their consent."

Then, after showing the impracticability, on various grounds, of the representation of the colonies in the British Parliament, on which account local subordinate Legislatures were established, that the colonists might enjoy the inalienable right of representation, the circular letter proceeds:

"Upon these principles, and also considering that were the right in the Parliament ever so clear, yet for obvious reasons it would be beyond the rule of equity, that their constituents should be taxed on the manufactures of Great Britain here, in addition to the duties they pay for them in England, and other advantages arising to Great Britain from the Acts of Trade, this House have preferred a humble, dutiful, and loyal petition to our most gracious Sovereign, and made such representation to his Majesty's Ministers as they apprehend would tend to obtain redress.

"They have also submitted to consideration, whether any people can be said to enjoy any degree of freedom if the Crown, in addition to its undoubted authority of constituting a Governor, should appoint him such a stipend as it shall judge proper, without the consent of the people, and at their expense; and whether, while the judges of the land and other civil officers hold not their commissions during good behaviour, their having salaries appointed for them by the Crown, independent of the people, hath not a tendency to subvert the principles of equity and endanger the happiness and security of the subjects.

"In addition to these measures, the House have wrote a letter to their agent, Mr. De Berdt, the sentiments of which he is directed to lay before the Ministry, wherein they take notice of the hardship of the Act for Preventing Mutiny and Desertion, which requires the Governor and Council to provide enumerated articles for the King's marching troops, and the people to pay the expense; and also the commission of the gentlemen appointed Commissioners of Customs to reside in America, which authorizes them to make as many appointments as they think fit, and to pay the appointees what sums they please, for whose malconduct they are not accountable." ...

"These are the sentiments and proceedings of this House; and as they have too much reason to believe that the enemies of the colonies have represented them to his Majesty's Ministers and the Parliament as factious, disloyal, and having a disposition to make themselves independent of the mother country, they have taken occasion, in the most humble terms, to assure his Majesty and his Ministers that, with regard to the people of this province, and, as they doubt not, of all the colonies, the charge is unjust.

"The House is fully satisfied that your Assembly is too generous and enlarged in sentiment to believe that this letter proceeds from an ambition of taking the lead, or dictating to other Assemblies; they freely submit their opinion to the judgment of others, and shall take it kind in your House to point out to them anything further that may be thought necessary.

"This House cannot conclude without expressing their firm confidence in the King, our common Head and Father, that the united and dutiful supplications of his distressed American subjects will meet with his Royal and favourable acceptance.

"SIGNED BY THE SPEAKER."

This circular letter of the Massachusetts Assembly was exceedingly displeasing to the British Ministry, and called forth two letters from the Earl of Hillsborough, who had succeeded the Earl of Shelburne as Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies.

One of these letters was a circular addressed through the Governor to the General Assemblies of each of the several colonies. This letter is dated "Whitehall, April 21, 1768." The first paragraph is as follows:

"GENTLEMEN,—I have his Majesty's commands to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, addressed by order of that House to the Speaker of the Assembly of each colony upon the continent of North America; as his Majesty considers this measure to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution, it is his Majesty's pleasure that you should, immediately upon the receipt hereof, exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace, by prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves."

This most ill-advised letter of Lord Hillsborough had the very opposite effect from that which he had hoped and intended. It increased the importance of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in the estimation of other colonies, and produced responses of approval from most of their General Assemblies.

The Speaker of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, dated Virginia, May 9, 1768, says:

"The House of Burgesses of this colony proceeded, very soon after they met, to the consideration of your important letter of the 11th of February, 1768, written in the name and by the order of the House of Representatives of your province; and I have received their particular direction to desire you to inform that honourable House that they applaud them for their attention to American liberty, and that the steps they have taken thereon will convince them of their opinion of the fatal tendency of the Acts of Parliament complained of, and of their fixed resolution to concur with the other colonies in their application for redress.

"After the most deliberate consultation, they thought it their duty to represent to the Parliament of Great Britain that they are truly sensible of the happiness and security they derive from their connection with and dependence upon Great Britain, and are under the greatest concern that any unlucky incident should interrupt that salutary harmony which they wish ever to subsist. They lament that the remoteness of their situation often exposes them to such misrepresentations as are apt to involve them in censures of disloyalty to their Sovereign, and the want of proper respect to the British Parliament; whereas they have indulged themselves in the agreeable persuasion, that they ought to be considered as inferior to none of their fellow-subjects in loyalty and affection.

"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 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 natural rights 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. This has ever been considered as the chief pillar of the constitution. Without this support no man can be said to have the least shadow of liberty, since they can have no property in that which another can by right take from them when he pleases, without their consent."

After referring to the antiquity and grounds of their rights as British subjects, and to the fact of their not being represented in Parliament, of the impracticability of being so, and "the oppressive Stamp Act, confessedly imposing internal taxes, and the late Acts of Parliament giving and granting certain duties in the British colonies, mainly tending to the same end," the Virginia House of Burgesses proceed as follows:

"The Act suspending the legislative power of New York, they consider as still more alarming to the colonists, though it has that single province in view. If the Parliament can compel them to furnish a single article to the troops sent over, they may by the same rule oblige them to furnish clothes, arms, and every other necessary, even the pay of the officers and soldiers—a doctrine replete with every mischief, and utterly subversive of all that is dear and valuable. For what advantage can the people of the colonies derive from their right of choosing their own representatives, if those representatives, when chosen, were not permitted to exercise their own judgments—were under a necessity (on pain of being deprived of their legislative authority) of enforcing the mandates of the British Parliament?

"They trust they have expressed themselves with a firmness that becomes freemen pleading for essential rights, and with a decency that will take off every imputation of faction or disloyalty. They repose entire confidence in his Majesty, who is ever attentive to the complaints of his subjects, and is ever ready to relieve their distress; and they are not without hopes that the colonies, united in a decent and regular opposition, may prevail on the new House of Commons to put a stop to measures so directly repugnant to the interests both of the mother country and her colonies."

The day after these proceedings by the House of Burgesses, the Governor of Virginia dissolved them.

The House of Representatives of New Jersey, after gratefully acknowledging the receipt of the Massachusetts circular, observe:

"The freedom with which the House of Representatives of the Massachusetts Bay have communicated their sentiments upon a matter of so great concern to all the colonies, hath been received by this House with that candour the spirit and design of your letter merits. And at the same time that they acknowledge themselves obliged to you for communicating your sentiments to them, they have directed me to assure you that they are desirous to keep up a correspondence with you, and to unite with the colonies, if necessary, in further supplications to his Majesty to relieve his distressed American subjects."

Answers to the Massachusetts circular from the Houses of Representatives of Connecticut, of Georgia, and of Maryland, were given to the same effect. The Maryland House of Representatives, in addition to the answer to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, presented an address to Governor Sharpe, of Maryland, in reply to the letter of Lord Hillsborough. Their address is dated June 23rd, 1768, and contains the following words:

"In answer to your Excellency's message of the 20th, we must observe, that if the letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, addressed to and communicated by our Speaker to this House, be the same with the letter, a copy of which you are pleased to intimate hath been communicated to the King's Ministers, it is very alarming to find, at a time when the people of America think themselves aggrieved by the late Acts of Parliament imposing taxes on them for the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, and in the most dutiful manner are seeking redress from the Throne, any endeavours to unite in laying before their Sovereign what is apprehended to be their just complaint, should be looked upon 'as a measure of most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his Majesty's good subjects in the colonies, and to promote an unwarrantable combination, to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution.'

"We cannot but view this as an attempt in some of his Majesty's Ministers to suppress all communication of sentiments between the colonies, and to prevent the united supplications of America from reaching the royal ear. We hope the conduct of this House will ever evince their reverence and respect for the laws, and faithful attachment to the constitution; but we cannot be brought to resent an exertion of the most undoubted constitutional right of petitioning the Throne, or any endeavours to procure and preserve a union of the colonies, as an unjustifiable attempt to revive those distractions which it is said have operated so fatally to the prejudice of both the colonies and the mother country. We have the warmest and most affectionate attachment to our most gracious Sovereign, and shall ever pay the readiest and most respectful regard to the just and constitutional power of the British Parliament; but we shall not be intimidated by a few sounding expressions from doing what we think is right."[302]

Thus the unconstitutional assumptions and despotic instructions of Lord Hillsborough to the Legislative Assemblies of the several colonies were manfully and in a moderate and loyal spirit repelled by them, in the clear knowledge of the constitutional rights of Englishmen, whether resident in America or England. But while Lord Hillsborough foolishly and vainly dictated to the several colonies to treat the colony of Massachusetts with contempt, he advanced a step further in his would-be domination over Massachusetts itself by directing Governor Barnard to order the House of Representatives, under a threat of dissolution, to rescind the resolution which they had adopted to send the circular to the representative Assemblies of other colonies. Lord Hillsborough, in a letter to the Governor of Massachusetts Bay, dated April 22nd, 1768, said:

"It is the King's pleasure, that so soon as the General Court is again assembled, at the time prescribed by the Charter, you should require of the House of Representatives, in his Majesty's name, to rescind the resolution which gave birth to the circular letter from the Speaker, and to declare their disapprobation thereof, and dissent to that rash and hasty proceeding." "But if, notwithstanding the apprehensions which may justly be entertained of the ill-consequences 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 should immediately dissolve them, and transmit to me, to be laid before his Majesty, an account of their proceedings thereupon, to the end that his Majesty may, if he thinks fit, lay the whole matter before his Parliament, that such provisions as shall be found necessary may be made to prevent for the future a conduct of so extraordinary and unconstitutional a nature."[303]

If it was unwise for Lord Hillsborough to write letters to the Governors of the several colonies to induce their Assemblies to treat with silent contempt the circular letter of the Massachusetts Assembly, it was absurd for him to order that Assembly to rescind its resolution to send a letter which had been sent, and acted upon, and answered—a resolution and letter, indeed, of a preceding House of Assembly. But the new House of Assembly, after long deliberation and discussion, refused, by a majority of 92 to 17, to rescind the obnoxious resolution of the late House of Assembly, and at the same time prepared and addressed to Lord Hillsborough an elaborate letter in vindication of their proceedings. The House was, of course, forthwith dissolved.

Lord Hillsborough's letter produced discontent not only in Massachusetts, but in all the American provinces. It, in effect, denied the right of consultation and petition to the colonists; for, as was said by Dr. Franklin, "a demand attended with a penalty of dissolution seemed a command, not a requisition, leaving no deliberative or discretionary power in the Assembly; and the ground of its being a petition to the King, guarded with a most explicit declaration of the supreme legislative power of Parliament, it wore the severe and dreadful appearance of a penal prohibition against petitioning. It was, in effect, saying you shall not even presume to complain, and reducing them below the common state of slavery, in which, if men complain with decency, they are heard unless their masters happen to be monsters. It warmed moderation into zeal, and inflamed zeal into rage. Yet still there appeared a disposition to express their grievances in humble petitions. All the Assemblies on the continent, in answer to a requisition of similar import to that already mentioned, asserted the right of the subject to petition for redress of grievances. They joined in petitions stating the imposition of taxes upon them without their consent, and the abolition of juries in revenue cases, as intolerable grievances, from which they prayed relief."[304]

It is singular and proper to observe that the Massachusetts Assembly were now complaining, and justly complaining, of the denial of their right of petition, and of being taxed without their own consent, when more than a century before their forefathers had not only denied the right of religious worship according to their conscience to Baptists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, but the right of petition for the redress of grievances to both the local Legislature and the King and Parliament, and seized their private papers and fined and imprisoned them for attempting thus to petition; denied to four-fifths of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay the right of franchise itself, because they were not certified members of the Congregational Church; taxed them for half a century without allowing them any representation in the Legislature that taxed them, and then fined and imprisoned those of them who complained by petition of thus being taxed without representation, as well as being denied the freedom of religious worship.

But though the General Assembly of Massachusetts Bay were now receiving a part of the measure which their preceding General Assemblies had meted out in full measure to four-fifths of their own fellow-citizens during more than half of the previous century, yet that does not make Lord Hillsborough's letter the less unconstitutional and tyrannical, nor the conduct and vindication of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay less manly and justifiable. The Governor of the colony and his abettors had represented constitutional opposition and remonstrances against single Acts of Parliament, and of the Ministers of the day, as disloyalty to the King and treasonable resistance to lawful authority, and had already pursued such a course of action as to create a pretext for bringing soldiers and ships of war to the city, and consequent hostility and collisions between citizens and the soldiery, so as apparently to justify the suspension of the constituted legislative authorities in Massachusetts Bay, and enable the governors, judges, and executive officers to obtain large salaries and perquisites out of the colonists for present gratification and future residence and expenditure in England.

Massachusetts was at that time the most populous and the most wealthy colony in America, and Boston was the port of the largest trade; and though the House of Representatives there had not used stronger language in its remonstrances to Parliament and petitions to the King than the House of Representatives of Virginia (the next most populous colony), or Pennsylvania, or New York, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Connecticut, or Rhode Island, yet the British Ministry determined to establish the newly-asserted parliamentary power in America by making an example of Massachusetts and of the port of Boston. There was the appointed seat of the English Board of Commissioners of Customs, attended by a posse of officers whose haughtiness and taunts and threats contributed not a little to irritate those with whom they had intercourse.

Three circumstances occurred which tended to increase the popular irritation, and hasten the approaching crisis—the seizure and detention of a sloop, the stationing of soldiers in the city, and pressing of seamen contrary to law.

As to the seizure of the vessel, accounts differ. Dr. Holmes, in his Annals, says:

"The laws of trade had been hitherto greatly eluded, but the Commissioners of the Customs were now determined that they should be executed. On the arrival of the sloop Liberty, laden with wines from Madeira, belonging to Mr. John Hancock, an eminent merchant of Boston, the tidesman, Thomas Kirk, went on board, and was followed by Captain Marshall, who was in Mr. Hancock's employ. On Kirk's refusing several proposals made to him, Marshall with five or six others confined him below three hours, during which time the wine was taken out. The master entered some pipes next morning; but the sloop was seized for a false entry, and removed from the wharf under the guns of the Romney man-of-war. The removal of the sloop was highly resented, as implying apprehension of a rescue, and every method was taken to interrupt the officers in the execution of their business; and many persons determined to be revenged. A mob was soon collected; and Mr. Harrison, the collector, Mr. Hallowell, the comptroller, Mr. Irving, the inspector of imports and exports, and a son of the collector, very narrowly escaped with their lives. The mob proceeded to the houses of the collector and comptroller, and having broken their windows, and those of the inspector-general, they next took and dragged the collector's (pleasure) boat through the town and burned it on the common. These outrages induced the Custom-house officers to take refuge, first on board the Romney man-of-war and afterwards in Castle William."[305]

On the other hand, Dr. Franklin states the affair as follows:

"On the 10th of June a seizure was made of a sloop fastened to the wharf, by an armed force, and the seizure carried by violence to the man-of-war. That this seizure was made with every circumstance of violence and insult which could irritate a mob, is proved by the oaths of thirteen eye-witnesses whose credibility has never been impeached. Unhappily, the irritation succeeded but too well. The collector and comptroller who made the seizure in that manner were treated with great indignity and personal injury by the mob."[306]

Another circumstance, productive of more intense and general excitement, if possible, and which transpired very shortly after the seizure and detention of the sloop Liberty, was the impressment of some seamen belonging to the town by the captain of the man-of-war Romney. This was done, as alleged, in violation of an Act of Parliament for the encouragement of trade to America—6 Anne, chap. xxvii., section 9—which says:

"No mariner or other person who shall serve on board, or be retained to serve on board, any privateer or trading ship or vessel that shall be employed in any port of America, nor any mariner or person being on shore in any port thereof, shall be liable to be impressed or taken away by any officer or officers belonging to her Majesty's ships of war." To prevent the tumults which were feared from such a flagrant and dangerous infraction of the law, a legal town-meeting was called, in which the inhabitants assembled petitioned the Governor to interpose and prevent such outrages upon the rights and liberties of the people; but the Governor declined to interfere—stated that he had no control over his Majesty's ships of war—that he would, however, use his utmost endeavours to get the impressing of men for the King's ships of war so regulated as to avoid all the inconveniences to the town which the petitioners apprehended.

In the midst of these excitements and discontents, so threatening and dangerous without some form of expression, many of the peace-loving and respectable inhabitants of Boston urged the Governor to convene the Legislature, but he refused without a command from the King. The select men of Boston then proposed to the several towns and townships of the colony the election of a Convention, to meet in Boston the 22nd of September, "to deliberate on constitutional measures to obtain redress of their grievances." Ninety-six towns and eight districts elected delegates to the Convention, which sat four days; "disclaimed any legislative authority, petitioned the Governor, made loyal professions, expressed their aversion to standing armies, to tumults and disorders, their readiness to assist in suppressing riots and preserving the peace; recommended patience and good order; and after a short session dissolved."[307]

The day before the close of this Convention, it was announced that three men-of-war and transports had arrived at Boston harbour with about 900 troops, and the fleet next day came to anchor near Castle William. The Commissioners of Customs and their friends had solicited the stationing of a regular force in the town.

"The ships having taken a station which commanded the town, the troops, under cover of the cannon of the ships, landed without molestation, and to the number of 700 men marched, with muskets charged and bayonets fixed, martial music, and the usual military parade, into the common. In the evening the Select Men of Boston were required to quarter the regiments in the town; but they absolutely refused. A temporary shelter, however, in Faneuil Hall was permitted to one regiment that was without camp equipage. The next day the State House, by the order of the Governor, was opened for the reception of the soldiers; and after the quarters were settled, two field pieces with the main guard were stationed just in its front. Everything was calculated to excite the indignation of the inhabitants. The lower floor of the State House, which had been used by gentlemen and merchants as an exchange; the representatives' chamber, the Court-house, Faneuil Hall—places with which were associated ideas of justice and freedom, as well as of convenience and utility—were now filled with regular soldiers. Guards were placed at the doors of the State House, through which the Council must pass in going to their own chamber. The common was covered with tents. The soldiers were constantly marching and countermarching to relieve the guards. The sentinels challenged the inhabitants as they passed. The Lord's day was profaned, and the devotion of the sanctuary was disturbed by the sound of drums and other military music. There was every appearance of a garrisoned town. The colonists felt disgusted and injured, but not overawed, by the obtruded soldiery. After the troops had obtained quarters, the Council were required to provide barracks for them, agreeably to Act of Parliament, but they resolutely declined any measure which might be construed into submission to that Act. Several large transports arrived at Boston from Cork, having on board part of the 64th and 65th British regiments, under Colonels MacKay and Pomeroy; the object of which was to protect the revenue officers in the collection of duties."[308]

Such was the state of things in Massachusetts and in other colonies at the close of the year 1768.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 301: The following are the concluding paragraphs of this petition to the King, dated 20th January, 1768:

"With great sincerity permit us to assure your Majesty, that your subjects of this province ever have and will continue to acknowledge your Majesty's High Court of Parliament as the supreme legislative power of the whole empire, the superintending authority of which is clearly admitted in all cases that can consist with the fundamental rights of nature and the constitution, to which your Majesty's happy subjects in all parts of your empire conceive they have a just and equitable claim.

"It is with the deepest concern that your humble suppliants would represent to your Majesty, that your Parliament, the rectitude of whose intentions is never to be questioned, has thought proper to pass divers Acts imposing taxes on your Majesty's subjects in America, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue. If your Majesty's subjects here shall be deprived of the honour and privilege of voluntarily contributing their aid to your Majesty in supporting your government and authority in the province, and defending and securing your rights and territories in America, which they have always hitherto done with the utmost cheerfulness: if these Acts of Parliament shall remain in force, and your Majesty's Commons in Great Britain shall continue to exercise the power of granting the property of their fellow-subjects in this province, your people must then regret their unhappy fate in having only the name left of free subjects.

"With all humility we conceive that a representation of your Majesty's subjects of this province in the Parliament, considering their local circumstances, is utterly impracticable. Your Majesty has heretofore been graciously pleased to order your requisitions to be laid before the representatives of your people in the General Assembly, who have never failed to afford the necessary aid to the extent of their ability, and sometimes beyond it; and it would be ever grievous to your Majesty's faithful subjects to be called upon in a way that should appear to them to imply a distrust of their most ready and willing compliance.

"Under the most sensible impressions of your Majesty's wise and paternal care for the remotest of your faithful subjects, and in full dependence on the royal declarations in the Charter of this province, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to take our present unhappy circumstances under your Royal consideration, and afford us relief in such manner as in your Majesty's great wisdom and clemency shall seem meet." (Prior Documents, etc., pp. 175-7.)]

[Footnote 302: Prior Documents, etc., p. 219.]

[Footnote 303: Prior Documents, etc.]

[Footnote 304: Prior Documents, etc., p. 262.]

[Footnote 305: American Annals, etc., Vol II., pp. 157, 158; the authority given is Gordon, Vol. I., pp. 168-172. Dr. Ramsay gives a similar account of the affair in his Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 355.]

[Footnote 306: Prior Documents, pp. 262, 263.

Dr. Franklin adds in a note: "That the seizure was unjust, is plain from this, that they were obliged to restore the vessel, after detaining her a long time, not being able to find any evidence to support a prosecution. The suits for enormous sums against a number of persons, brought in the Court of Admiralty, being found insupportable, were, after long continuance, to the great expense and trouble of these persons, dropt by a declaration of the King's advocate that his Majesty would prosecute no further; but the prosecuted could obtain no costs or damages, for so is the law."—Ib., p. 263.]

[Footnote 307: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., p. 158.]

[Footnote 308: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 158, 159.

The Boston American Gazette, under the head of "A Journal of Transactions in Boston," says, September 30th, 1768: "Early this morning a number of boats were observed round the town, making soundings, etc. At three o'clock in the afternoon, the Launceston, of 40 guns; the Mermaid, of 28; the Glasgow, 20; the Beaver, 14; Senegal, 14; Bonetta, 10, and several armed schooners, which, together with the Romney, of 60 guns, and the other ships of war before in the harbour, all commanded by Captain Smith, came up to town, bringing with them the 14th Regiment, Colonel Dalrymple, and the 29th Regiment, Colonel Carr, none having been disembarked at Castle Island; so that we now behold Boston surrounded, in a time of profound peace, with about fourteen ships of war, with springs on their cables, and their broadsides to the town. It the people of England could but look into the town, they would smile to see the utmost good order and observance of the laws, and that this mighty armament has no other rebellion to subdue than what has existed in the brain and letters of the inveterate G———r B——-d (Governor Barnard), and the detested Commiss (Commissioners) of the Board of Cust—s (Customs). What advantage the Court of Versailles may take of the present policy of the British Ministry can be better determined hereafter." (pp. 177, 178.)]



CHAPTER XV.

EVENTS OF 1769—UNJUST IMPUTATIONS OF PARLIAMENT ON THE LOYALTY OF THE COLONISTS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THEIR JUST AND LOYAL PETITIONS.

The earliest proceedings of this year in regard to the American colonies took place in the British Parliament. In all the resolutions, protests, addresses, and petitions which had been adopted by American Assemblies and at town meetings, asserting the exclusive right of the colonists to tax themselves, and against taxation without representation by the British Parliament, they professed heartfelt loyalty to the King, and disclaimed all views of independence; while in England the Parliament asserted unlimited supremacy in and over the colonies, and the Royal speeches, as well as the resolutions and addresses adopted by the Lords and Commons, represented the colonies as being in a state of disobedience to law and government, adopting measures subversive of the constitution, and manifesting a disposition to throw off all allegiance to the mother country. The House of Lords passed resolutions censuring the resolutions and proceedings of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, pronouncing the election of deputies to sit in Convention, and the meeting of that Convention at Boston, daring insults to his Majesty's authority, and audacious usurpations of the powers of Government; yet, as has been seen, that Convention expressly disclaimed any assumption of government, and simply expressed the grievances complained of, prayed for their redress, declared their loyalty to the King, and recognition of the supreme authority of Parliament according to the constitution, and quietly dissolved. But the House of Commons declared concurrence in the resolutions of the Lords; and both Houses, in their address to the King, endorsed the measures of his Ministers, declared their readiness to give effectual support to such further measures as might be found necessary to execute the laws in Massachusetts Bay, and prayed his Majesty "to direct the Governor (Barnard) to take the most effectual methods for procuring the fullest information touching all treason or misprision of treason 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 inquiring, hearing and determining the said offences, within the realm of Great Britain, pursuant to the provision of the statute of the 35th of Henry the Eighth."

The holding of town-meetings and their election of deputies, etc., were as much provided for in the provincial laws as the meeting and proceedings of the House of Representatives, or as are the meetings and proceedings of town, and township, and county municipal councils in Canada. The wholesale denunciations of disloyalty and treason against the people of a country was calculated to exasperate and produce the very feelings imputed; and the proposal of the two Houses of Parliament to make the Governor of Massachusetts Bay a detective and informer-general against persons opposed to his administration and the measures of the British Ministry, and the proposition to have them arrested and brought 3,000 miles over the ocean to England, for trial before a special commission, for treason or misprision of treason, show what unjust, unconstitutional, and foolish things Parliaments as well as individuals may sometimes perpetrate. Nothing has more impressed the writer, in going through this protracted war of words, preliminary to the unhappy war of swords, than the great superiority, even as literary compositions, much more as State documents, of the addresses and petitions of the Colonial Assemblies, and even public meetings, and the letters of their representatives, when compared with the dispatches of the British Ministry of that day and the writings of their partizans.