Page images
PDF
EPUB

DISPOSITION TO TAX COLONIES.

power of Parliament under the statutes to levy duties on the colonial trade, it is certain that Parliament had never attempted to exercise such power for revenue only. Consequently, when the attempt was made, the colonists strenuously resisted, finally going to war to maintain their rights. When it was suggested to Sir Robert Walpole that a tax be levied upon the colonies, he had declined to make the experiment, saying, "I shall leave this operation to some one of my successors, who may possess more courage than I, and have less regard for the commercial interests of England. My opinion is, that, if by favoring the trade with 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 Walpole's successors did not have the same political sagacity and ventured to try what he had frankly declined to attempt.†

*See, however, the statement of "The Loyalist Argument" with the various excerpts from the Tory writings in Tyler's Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i., chaps. xiii.—xvii. See also Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., pp. 197-205 and other authorities cited.

"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 in

217

The credit for the origin of the scheme which finally resulted in the Stamp Act is due to George Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, though very dubious about the propriety of taxing the colonists without representation, yet, according to Bancroft,* 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 their mother's burden. Walpole says he was great in daring and little in views and 66 was charmed to have an untrodden field before him of calculation and experiment." On March 9, 1764, therefore, forgetting the wise

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

habitants 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 Floridas, being ceded to Great Britain, it was thought they could not well make too much of those who had so contributed to their security. Partly to 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 comparatively trifling expense." - Gordon, History of the American Revolution, vol. i., p. 157.

*

History of the United States, vol. iii., pp. 3537, 58.

218

GRENVILLE INTRODUCES STAMP ACT

caution displayed by Walpole, Grenville introduced into Parliament a proposition to levy a tax on all bills, bonds, notes, leases, policies of insurance, legal papers of various kinds, etc. At first Grenville laid the matter before Parliament to ascertain the sentiments of the various members regarding it, more than with any purpose of securing its passage, it being announced at the time that the colonists should be given an opportunity to suggest other methods of taxation.*

Soon afterward Grenville became Prime Minister, and immediately introduced a number of resolutions tending still further to develop his plans for taxing the colonies.† "The other part of the ministerial scheme was at once carried out by a law known as theSugar Act,' reducing by one-half the duties proposed by the old 'Molasses Act' on foreign sugar and molasses imported into the colonies; levying duties on coffee, pimento, French and East India goods, and wines from Madeira and the Azores, which hitherto had been free; and adding iron and lumber to the list of enumerated articles' which could not be exported except to England." It was openly

[blocks in formation]

avowed that the object of this measure
was to raise a revenue for defray-
ing the expenses of defending, pro-
tecting, and securing his majesty's
dominions in America." The House
passed the resolution without much
debate or notice, it being resolved
"that Parliament had a right to tax
the colonies."
the colonies." Among the resolutions
proposed by Grenville was one impos-
ing" certain stamp duties on the colo-
nies," but he expressed to the House
his desire that it be not acted upon
until the next session. Furthermore,
Grenville had the foresight to see that
the mere enactment of the Stamp Act
was not sufficient and that to prevent
evasions of the Act it would be neces-
sary to pass resolutions providing
penalties for its violations. Such
violations were to be tried before the
judges of the admiralty courts, who
depended solely upon the king, and
they decided the cases brought before
them without the intervention of a
jury.

The London agents of the colonies sent copies of the resolutions to their respective colonies in America.* When the colonists realized the importance of these resolutions, it was regarded as certain that the mother country was beginning a system of oppression which, if followed out to

Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., p. 61.

For their interview with Grenville see Parton, Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, vol. i., pp. 459-460. See also Franklin's letter regarding this interview in Appendix i., at the end of the present chapter.

MASSACHUSETTS DENIES RIGHT TO LEVY TAXES.

its logical conclusion, would deprive them of their rights as British subjects. In June, 1764, the General Court of Massachusetts took this law into consideration,* and 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." Said Sam"Said Samuel Adams: "What still increases our apprehensions is that these unexpected Proceedings may be preparatory to more extensive Taxations upon us, for if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands, the Produce of our lands, and in short every thing we possess or make use of? This, we apprehend, annihilates our CharterRights to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as we have never forfeited, we hold in common with our fellow subjects who are natives of Britain. If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable state of

See Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, p. 167 et seq.; Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, vol. iii., p. 108 et seq.; Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, p. 112 et seq.

It was Adams who drafted the instructions of the town of Boston to its representatives in the Assembly. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. i., p. 46.

219

Slaves?" A letter was also sent by the House to Jasper Mauduit, the agent of the colony in England, declaring, "if we are not represented, we are slaves."* Together with the letter, they sent a copy of the pamphlet recently issued by Otis, entitled, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved.† In this pamphlet Otis took the ground that the whole matter was one of principle with the colonists; yet he denounced resistance as high treason. Shortly after Otis issued his pamphlet there appeared a calm, well-reasoned, lawyer-like argument from the pen of Oxenbridge Thacher, entitled The Sentiments of a British American. Thacher argued that the prosperity of England was in part due to its colonies and that therefore the colonies should be taken into consideration in the development of imperial plans. Furthermore, he said that the colonists were a part of the British people, and not a mere property." He claimed that the chief objections to the recent act of trade were the facts that America was to be taxed without representation, and the taxes were a double burden as the colonists were already taxed to support their

[ocr errors]

* Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 77-79. Extracts of the letter are given in Tudor, Life of Otis, pp. 166170; Hosmer, Samuel Adams, p. 48.

This was advertised in the Boston Gazette for July 23, 1764.

For a review of it, with excerpts, see Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 47–52. See also Tudor, Life of Otis, pp. 171, 500, 501; Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, pp. 169-170; Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, pp. 115-117; Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 80-82.

220

PAMPHLETS ISSUED IN COLONIES.

own governments; that the extension of the authority of the admiralty courts in America subverted the common law rights of Englishmen; that the powers given to commanders of the king's ships in American waters were dangerous; that government officers in America were without check by law against the unjust exercise of the extraordinary powers given them; and that the enforcement of the act would not only imperil the interests of the colonists, but also of all British subjects, for the colonists would stop buying goods from England, manufacturing their own goods or going without them, and would, besides, refuse to ship produce to England.* As yet the colonists were not prepared to array themselves in armed opposition against the acts of Parliament, but, on the other hand, there was no disposition to submit to what they considered injustice at the hands of that body. Tracts similar to that of Otis were issued in Rhode Island "by authority," the author being at once known as Stephen Hopkins, the governor of Rhode Island;† in Connecticut by a Congregational minister, Stephen Johnson; in Maryland by

*

Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 52–56.

Tyler, vol. i., pp. 63-69; Bates, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, pp. 45-46. The title was The Rights of the Colonies Examined. For his other pamphlets, papers, etc., see William E. Foster, Stephen Hopkins, A Rhode Island Statesman: A Study in the Political History of the Eighteenth Century (Providence, 1884. In two parts, constituting No. 19 of the Rhode Island Historical Tracts).

Daniel Dulany, the secretary of the province; and in 1766 in Virginia, by Richard Bland, a leading member of the House of Burgesses. Others were issued anonymously.*

It must not be imagined that these pamphlets were allowed to go unanswered. In reply to the pamphlet by Hopkins was published at Newport in February, 1765, a pamphlet entitled A Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax, to His Friend in Rhode Island, later known to be the work of Martin Howard of Rhode Island. The effect of this pamphlet was shown in the angry rebound against it, articles appearing in the Providence Gazette, with Otis again joining the ranks in a reply entitled Vindication of the British Colonies Against the Aspersions of the Halifax Gentleman. The "Halifax Gentleman "retorted in a pamphlet entitled A Defence of the Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax to His Friend in Rhode Island, but Otis, not being satisfied without a last word, bitterly attacked his opponent in his Brief Remarks on the Defence of the Halifax Libel on the British American Colonies, probably the least worthy of Otis' writings. Soame Jenyns, a member of Parliament and

* Hildreth, vol. ii., pp. 522–523; Tyler, vol. i., pp. 56-59, 101-113, 229-231. On Dulany's work see also McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of Maryland, vol. i., p. 356; Scharf, History of Maryland, vol. i., pp. 544-546; John H. B. Latrobe, Biographical Sketch of Daniel Dulany, in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. iii., pp. 1-10.

Tyler, vol. i., pp. 70-80. See also Tudor, Life of Otis, pp. 185–188.

[ocr errors]

OTIS' PAMPHLET; PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT.

one of the commissioners of the Board
of Trade, early in 1765, in a pamphlet
entitled The Objections to the Taxa-
tion of Our American Colonies by the
Legislature of Great Britain Briefly
Considered, attacked the doctrine
no taxation without representa-
tion "
by declaring that "every
Englishman is taxed and not one in
twenty is represented." * One of the
most notable of the replies to this was
the pamphlet by Otis,-Considera-
tions on Behalf of the Colonies, in a
Letter to a Noble Lord, originally
printed in the Boston Gazette, over
the signature of "F. A." and dated
September 4, 1765. Otis asks whence
came the

absolute unlimited right to one twentieth of a community to govern the other nineteen by their sovereign will and pleasure."†

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

221

Toward the end of the year, numerous petitions to Parliament were drawn up in the colonies, those of Massachusetts and Connecticut being somewhat moderate in tone, in the case of Massachusetts because of the great influence of Hutchinson.* The petitions of New York and Rhode Island were much more strongly worded, while that of the Virginia House of Burgesses, addressed to the king, was accompanied also by remonstrances to the Commons, drawn up by a committee consisting of George Wythe, Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, and Edmund Pendleton. The Virginia petition was moderate in tone and dwelt upon the hardship that would result from the Stamp Tax. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania also sent petitions against the proposed act, instructing their agents to coöperate with those of the other colonies in England.+

Grenville had a number of reasons for delaying the passage of the Stamp Act. He thought that when the colonists found that the government in

*Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, p.

114.

For the acts of the various colonial legislatures see Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, p. 171 et seq.; Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 89 et seq.; Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, pp. 125-135, and authorities cited, especially, Connecticut Colonial Records, vol. xii.; North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. vi., pp. 1020–1035; Gibbes, Documentary History of the American Revolution, vol. i.; Meerness, Maryland, vol. ii.; Scharf, Maryland, vol. i.; Journal of the [Va.] House of Burgesses, .1764; New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii.; Rhode Island Colonial Records, vol. vi.; Roberts, New York, vol. i., p. 351 et seq.

« PreviousContinue »