1761] Writs of Assistance 135 need not be mentioned here.. Otis based his argument on Otis's the abstract grounds of the rights of the colonists as English- speech. men. The use of writs of assistance, he argued, was an act History of tyranny similar to the abuse of power which had "cost Leaflets, one king of England his head, another his throne." It was not to the point that these writs were authorized by an act of Parliament, because Parliament could not legalize tyranny; such an act would be against the constitution, and consequently void. This argument was in line with the teaching of Coke and of the earlier law writers, but since their time Parliament had become the supreme power James Otis American No. 33 ment. in the state. Otis's argument, however weak in point of law, was in harmony with the ideas then prevalent in America. Some months later, the writs were granted by the court, but were seldom, if ever, used. In 1767 their issue was declared to be legal by a special act of Parliament. The only remedy in the hands of the colonists was resistance by armed force, and for that few colonists as yet were prepared. 117. Otis's Rights of the Colonies, 1764. A few years Otis's essays later Otis embodied his ideas of the rights of the colonists on governin two essays, entitled: A Vindication of the House of Rep- *Frothingresentatives and The Rights of the Colonies Asserted and ham's Proved. His arguments in these papers are mainly a mere Republic, restatement of the ground assumed by Locke in his Essay on Government. Otis asserted that "God made all men naturally equal," and that government was instituted for the benefit of the governed: it followed that if a government were harmful to the people, it should be opposed and destroyed; the colonists were on a footing of com 168-170. plete equality with the subjects of the king living in Great Britain. In conclusion, however, Otis admitted the supremacy of the British Parliament, and thus denied the logical conclusion of his argument. Patrick Henry, of Virginia, had no such scruples, and in his speech on the Parson's Cause he stated the theory of colonial rights in its complete form. The Parson's Patrick Henry 118. The Parson's Cause, 1763. - This celebrated case arose out of the exercise by the king of the power to veto acts of the Virginia Assembly. The salaries of the clergymen of that province were estimated and paid in tobacco, which was the ordinary currency of the Old Dominion. The price of tobacco varied greatly from year to year, with the result that payments which were agreed upon in years of plenty, when tobacco was cheap, were made with 1763] The Parson's Cause 137 difficulty in years of scarcity, when it was high in price. To avoid the hardships wrought by this varying medium of exchange, the Virginia legislature from time to time had passed laws providing that all debts-including sums owing to clergymen - might be satisfied by the payment of money representing the average price of tobacco. There had been several acts permitting this arrangement, which, it must be understood, equally affected all classes. The clergy felt aggrieved, however, and appealed to the English government. On their representations the king annulled a law passed in 1758, when tobacco was very high, to the effect that debts estimated in tobacco might be satisfied by a money payment at so many pence per pound, the rate representing the average price of that commodity for the preceding years. The dispute was further complicated by the demand of the British government that no law repealing or modifying a law then in force should be passed without a clause suspending its operation until the king's pleasure were known. This requirement undoubtedly worked great hardship, as the British government acted very slowly in colonial matters: oftentimes the evil which a law was designed to remedy would produce its ill effects before the consent of the home authorities could be obtained. Many church authorities did not heed the king's veto of Action of the act of 1758, and paid their ministers in money accord- Virginians. ing to the provisions of the annulled law. The clergymen brought the matter before the courts, and the case of one of their number, Maury by name, was selected as a test case. The court decided that the action of the parish authorities was illegal, and that Maury could recover; the only question about which there was any further dispute, was in regard to the amount to be recovered. The case had reached this point, and everything indicated the triumph of the clergymen, when the parish authorities employed Patrick Henry to address the jury. Henry was a most industrious young lawyer; he had received a good educa Henry's tion, was well read, and had been allowed to practice law because of his knowledge of English legal history. Putting aside the legalities of the case, Henry at once speech. entered into a discussion of theories of government and Tyler's Patrick Henry their application to the matter in hand. Government, (S. S.), ch. iv. he declared, was a conditional compact between the king, stipulating protection on the one hand, and the people, stipulating obedience and support on the other. The act in question was passed for the good of the people of Virginia, and its veto by the king was a violation of the conditional compact and an instance of misrule and neglect, which made it necessary for the people of Virginia to provide for their own safety. The king had "degenerated into a tyrant and forfeited all right to his subjects' obedience." Nevertheless, under the ruling of the court, the jury must award damages to the parson, but they would satisfy the law by the smallest possible award. They assessed the damages at one penny. In this case, and in that of writs of assistance, Henry and Otis merely uttered what many men thought; they had said nothing new, but they had Pontiac's America, Indian War ended with the capture of Montreal in 1760, VI, 688-701. although the Treaty of Paris was not signed until 1763. But the Indians living south of the Great Lakes found it difficult to believe that their friends, the French, had really been beaten. They rose, and under the leadership of Pontiac, one of the ablest of their race, besieged the English in their fort at Detroit. 1765] Grenville's Policy 139 The English colonists, now that the French were no Apathy of longer an object of fear, showed little enthusiasm in this the colonists. conflict with natives far removed from their borders. They practically refused to aid the government with soldiers or with money. This Indian rebellion, and the maintenance of English authority in Canada, demanded the presence of a large force of regular soldiers in the northern colonies and in Canada. The British government determined to assess a portion of the expenditure incurred in their maintenance on the colonists. William Pitt was no longer in office. Undoubtedly he would have taken a statesmanlike view of the situation and have recognized the inexpediency of forcing contributions from the colonists. policy. *Winsor's America, VI, 15-20, 23-28. George Grenville, Pitt's brother-in-law, was now at the Grenville's head of the government. To him the law was the law, and should be enforced whenever and wherever it was broken. He saw that the colonists refused to obey the Navigation Acts and the trade laws, and that they also declined to bear their part in carrying out measures which his military advisers declared to be necessary for the safety of the empire. He lowered the duties on sugar and molasses, and then proceeded to enforce the modified laws with all the resources at his command, even using the naval vessels as revenue cutters. These measures seriously affected the commercial interests of New England and account for much of the hatred of the colonists of that section toward the British government. Grenville also decided to raise a revenue from the colonies and aroused the resentment of all the colonists from the Penobscot to the Altamaha. 1764. Franklin in 120. Passage of the Stamp Act, 1765. — In March, 1764, Stamp Act Grenville stated in the House of Commons that it might proposed, be thought necessary for the colonists to contribute toward the support of the troops stationed amongst them for their protection. He moved a resolution to this effect, which was passed without debate or opposition. He deferred bringing in a bill based on this resolution, in the expectation that the colonial assemblies might propose some other Stedman and III, 46. |