CH. X.]

but just what it was, or how far it extended, was not quite so clear. Although the colonists had unwillingly yielded to the exercise of power by Parliament in matters of trade, still they had yielded submission, and had suffered legislation to extend to a number of other matters beside trade. Parliament had regulated colonial trade for the exclusive benefit of the mother country for a long time, and had appointed custom-house officers, and instituted admiralty courts in the colonies: it is true, these were systematically evaded and resisted; nevertheless, what had been done and submitted to, had given Parliament a sort of legal vested right in all points of the kind. But, let it be noted, Parliament had never exercised the power of levying taxes for revenue. The minor matters of regulating the postage on letters, and certain duties on "enumerated articles," were mere trifles; and however the question might stand as to the power of Parliament to levy taxes upon the colonists, it was certain that it had never yet been attempted to be exercised. When the English ministry ventured to make the trial, the contest, almost at once, involved in itself the very essentials of life and liberty.

257

opinion is, that, if by favoring the trade of the colonies with foreign nations, they gain £500,000, at the end of two years, fully one half of it will have come into the royal exchequer, by the increased demand for English manufactures. This is a mode of taxing them more agreeably to their own constitution and laws, as well as our own." But there was not the same political sagacity in some of Walpole's successors; and they ventured to try what he had declined; they determined to tax the colonies.*

George Grenville enjoys the reputation of having given origin to the scheme which resulted in the wellknown Stamp Act. He was in some

*"The disposition to tax the Americans, unless they would tax themselves equal to the wishes of the ministry, was undoubtedly strengthened by the reports of their gaiety and luxury which reached the mother country; it was also said, that the planters lived like princes, while the inhabitants of Britain labored hard for a tolerable subsistence. The officers lately returned, represented them as rich,

wealthy, and even overgrown in fortune. Their opinion might arise from observations made in the

American cities and towns during the war, while

large sums were spent in the country, for the support of fleets and armies. American productions were then in great demand, and trade flourished. The people, naturally generous and hospitable, having a number of strangers among them, indulged themselves in many uncommon expenses. When the war was terminated, and they had no further apprehension of danger, the power of the late enemy in the country being totally broken,-Canada, and the back lands to the very banks of the Mississippi, with the

thought they could not well make too much of those who had so contributed to their security. Partly to

VOL. I.-35

do honor to them, and partly, it is to be feared, to gratify their own pride, they added to their show of plate, by borrowing of neighbors, and made a great parade of riches in their several entertainments. The

plenty and variety of provision and liquors enabled

them to furnish out an elegant table, at a comparaAmerican Revolution," vol. i., p. 157. tively trifling expense."-Gordon's "History of the

considerable doubt as to the propriety of taxing the colonies without allowing them representatives; yet, as Mr. Bancroft says, he loved power and the favor of Parliament, and contemplating the immense debt of England with a sort of terror, he was ready to insist upon the colonies helping to bear the burden; and so, forgetting the wise caution of Walpole, he brought forward in Parliament, a proposition to impose upon the colonists the payment of a stamp tax on all bills, bonds, notes, leases, policies of insurance, legal papers, of various kinds, etc. It was at first laid before Parliament more for information and notice, than with any purpose of pressing its passage.

1

The next year, Grenville, now prime minister, proposed several resolutions tending to develop his plan for 1764. taxing America, such as additional duties on imports into the colonies from foreign countries, on sugar, indigo, coffee, etc., it being openly avowed that the object had in view was, to "raise a revenue for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing his majesty's dominions in America." These resolutions passed the House without much debate or notice, it being resolved, without a division, "that Parliament had a right to tax the colonies." Among the resolutions proposed by Grenville, was one imposing "certain stamp duties on the colonies:" but he declared to the House, his desire that it should not be acted upon until the next session of Par

* See Mr. Bancroft's " History of the United States," vol. v., p. 156.

† Ibid. p. 186

liament. It was foreseen that the law would be disregarded, if extraordinary measures were not adopted to enforce it, and provision made that penalties for violating it, and all other revenue laws, might be recovered in the admiralty courts. The judges of these courts were dependent solely on the king, and decided the causes brought before them without the intervention of a jury.

*

The colonial agents in London sent copies of the resolutions to their respective colonies. As soon as the intelligence of these proceedings reached America, they were considered as the commencement of a system of oppression, which, if not vigorously resisted, would eventually deprive them of the liberty of British subjects. The 1764. General Court of Massachusetts, at their session in June, took this law into consideration. The House of Representatives resolved, "That the sole right of giving and granting the money of the people of that province was vested in themselves, and that the imposition of taxes and duties by the Parliament of Great Britain, upon a people who are not represented in Parliament, is absolutely irreconcilable with their rights." "If our trade may be taxed," was their argument, in the words of that eminent patriot, Samuel Adams, "why not our lands, why not the produce of our lands, and every thing we possess or use? This, we conceive, annihilates our charter-rights to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as we

ter.

* See Apppendix I., at the end of the present chap

CH. X.]

have never forfeited, we hold in common with our fellow subjects who are natives of Britain. If taxes are laid upon us without our having a legal representation where they are laid, we are reduced from the character of free subjects to the state of tributary slaves." The House also dispatched an energetic letter to Mr. Mauduit, the agent in England, declaring, "if we are not represented, we are slaves!” and, together with the letter, sent a copy of the recently issued pamphlet of Otis, "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted." The ground taken by Otis was bold, and clearly set forth that this whole matter was one of principle with the colonists; yet there was no hint of forcible resistance to the claims of Parliament. Indeed, lawyerlike, Otis maintained the supremacy of Parliament and its acts, denouncing resistance as high treason. The colonists were not yet ready to array themselves in arms against the doings of Parliament; but there was no disposition, on the other hand, to any thing like servile submission to injustice. Tracts similar to that of Otis were put forth in Rhode Island, " by authority;" in Maryland, by Dulany, the secretary of the province; and in Virginia, by Bland, a leading member of the House of Burgesses.

Toward the close of the year, petitions to Parliament were drawn up in Massachusetts and Connecticut, which

259

Rhode Island. In the Virginia House of Burgesses, a petition to the king, a memorial to the House of Lords, and a remonstrance to the Commons, were drawn up by a Committee consisting of Richard Henry Lee and other eminent leaders of the aristocracy. The tone adopted was moderate, and the hardship of pressing a measure like the one proposed, was dwelt upon.

Grenville had a reason for delay, in not urging the stamp tax forward. His notion was, that the colonies, finding that the revenue must be paid in some way by them, and particularly disliking the form in which it was proposed by stamp duties, would suggest some other mode, and then he would take them at their word, and the revenue would be raised without further trouble. "If they think any other mode of taxation more convenient to them,” were his plausible words, "and make any proposition of equal efficacy with the stamp duty, I will give it all due consideration." But to do this thing, he was resolved: "if you object to the Americans being taxed by Parliament, save yourself the trouble of the discussion, for I am determined on the measure." Many in England, says M. Botta, and possibly the agents of the colonies themselves, attributed this conduct of the minister to moderation; but beyond the Atlantic it found a quite different reception, all with one voice exclaiming that this was an interested charity. For they thought, that however civil his offers, the minister would nevertheless exact, to a penny, the entire sum he desired, which in substance was saying, that willingly or otherwise,

they must submit to his good pleasure; and, consequently, his complaisance was but that of an accomplished robber. It was known that he would not be satisfied with less than £300,000 sterling a year, the sum considered necessary for the support of the army it was resolved to maintain in the colonies for their defence. No one of the agents was authorized to comply. Two only alleged they were commissioned to declare that their provinces were ready to bear their proportion of the duty upon stamps, when it should be established according to ancient usages. The minister, therefore, having heard no proposal that appeared to him acceptable, resolved to pursue the design of a stamp tax. Meanwhile, the fermentation in America was violent, not only among private citizens, but also among the members of public and corporate bodies; and all were of one mind, in asserting that the Parliament had no right to tax the colonies. In all places, political circles and clubs were formed; the subject of all conversations was the fatal tax. Every day, every hour, diminished the respect and affection of the Americans towards the British nation, and increased their disposition to resist. Supported, too, as they knew, by some of the purest patriots of the mother country, they earnestly declaimed against the injustice of any such proceeding, as laying a tax upon them for the purpose of supporting a standing army in America. The murmurs which had arisen from every quarter against this proposal were alarming, and ought to have proved a note of warning to the ministry. But none of

these complaints were of any avail. The course to be pursued was decided upon, and the ministry went forward with their plan. The memorials, the remonstrances, the petitions, the resolutions of the Americans, were rejected, and the bill for imposing a stamp duty was submitted to Parliament, at its session, in 1765.

1765.

It is not difficult to imagine the kind of discussion which then took place. Few of the members of the House knew or cared aught for America, save as it seemed to open a new source whence revenue could be drawn; and were it not a well-established fact, it would seem incredible, that there could have been so remarkable a state of ignorance and blindness as to the actual position and importance of the colonies, and their power of asserting and defending their rights. On the one side, it was contended that taxation and representation are inseparable, and that the imposition of this tax would be as impolitic as it was unjust, for the Americans would not submit to it. On the part of the ministry, it was claimed that the colonies were in fact virtually as much represented by the actual members, as were the great proportion of the English, who themselves enjoyed no vote; that the right of taxing the colonists was derived from the responsibility and expense of defending them; that the colonists must either be entirely dependent upon England, or entirely separated from her. The inconsistency of allowing a duty to be placed upon their exports, while they refused to submit to one upon stamps, was artfully