Page images
PDF
EPUB

tea this indulgence was granted for five years only. It amounted to 12d. a pound, and the colonists were to pay 3d. a pound on the tea they imported. This was a considerable concession. For it meant that tea which cost English people 6s. a pound could be bought in the colonies for 35.1 It was a Grecian gift, perhaps, but it is absurd to represent it as an extortion. The proceeds of these taxes were to be devoted to maintaining an American civil list, and the surplus, if any, was to be applied to the support of the army. Herein it challenged a vital principle, for which, rightly or wrongly, the colonial Assemblies had been fighting for generations. Colonial officials, governors, judges and the rest, would at length be withdrawn from their influence, and the executive strengthened accordingly.

Two other important Acts were passed at the same time. The New York Assembly was suspended from its legislative functions until it should fulfil the requirements of the Mutiny Act (15 June). After a long period of tension it submitted (1769), only to be denounced as traitor to the common cause for which Massachusetts and South Carolina stood firm in this particular. The third measure provided the irritant which led once more to rioting and violence. A Board of Commissioners of Customs was appointed for America, with headquarters at Boston; revenue cutters were stationed at Philadelphia and other ports; and the whole system of the Customs service was reorganised and rendered thoroughly efficient. Writs of assistance were formally legalised.

For forms of government let fools contest,
Whate'er is best administered, is best.

The Acts of Trade and Navigation had been best administered by allowing them to become partly obsolete. Where the shoe pinched worst, smuggling had been permitted to ease it. Now Townshend, like Grenville, after presenting the agitators in press and pulpit with a political grievance, presented business men with a practical one, by the efficient enforcement of the trade laws.

If mere cleverness were the criterion of statesmanship, Townshend is entitled to admiration. The colonists were fairly caught in their own argument. The new taxes were external, and therefore admittedly constitutional. The prevention of smuggling could hardly be advanced as an infringement of the rights of man. Whilst the leaders considered their position, the new taxation was received without any of the riotous demonstrations which had been prepared for the stamp tax. The central and southern provinces, indeed, seemed inclined to accept the situation, and de Kalb, one of the French agents busily engaged in fomenting rebellion, came to the sad conclusion that, if the taxes were kept within these moderate limits, England would succeed in maintaining her authority. For it was becoming plain whither resistance, if continued, must lead. Opposition to the new taxes could 1 Hutchinson, Hist. Mass. III, 351. 2 Bancroft, G., Hist. U.S. m, 116, 140.

DICKINSON'S LETTERS FROM A FARMER

665

only be maintained if parliamentary authority were denied in all matters whatsoever. The distinction between internal and external taxation must be dropped. Perceiving that a new argument was needed, the leaders shifted their ground to the rights of man. Laws of Nature, it was found, precluded all legislation in the colonies by Parliament. Though a shadowy allegiance to the Crown might be proclaimed, so long as protection from foreign enemies was required, and though the idea of separation was far from being entertained as yet by the great majority of Americans, clear-sighted men could not fail to see that this claim would necessarily involve, sooner or later, a declaration of independence.

The fiery zeal of Massachusetts led the way in resistance to the new Acts. The Assembly petitioned the King for relief from the new taxes (January 1768). Whilst expressing perfect loyalty and declaring that it had no desire for independency, it acknowledged the superintending authority of Parliament only in cases "that can consist with the fundamental rights of nature and the constitution". Too much attention is sometimes paid to addresses of this kind, which were skilfully drawn up in order to influence English opinion. They ought to be read in connection with the violent language and arguments of the agitators in the American press. What the New Englanders now meant was that they were willing to remain within the Empire, but would not tolerate any imperial interference with their affairs. In a circular letter addressed to the other Assemblies (11 February), calling upon them to join in petitioning against the Paint, paper, and glass Act, they explained that these duties infringed those 'rights of nature and the constitution" because they took away their property without their consent.

The new position was clearly stated by John Dickinson, a Quaker lawyer of Philadelphia, in his popular Letters from a Farmer.1 He denied that Parliament had any authority in the colonies at all, but admitted its right to regulate external trade by duties. Such duties, however, must not be intended to raise a revenue. For in that case they would constitute a tax, and Parliament had no power to tax them. The framers of the Tea Act had expressly declared that its purpose was to raise a revenue. It will be seen that this position went just far enough to exclude Townshend's duties, and to appeal to moderate "patriots" who did not wish to go any further. The argument was illogical in admitting the right of Parliament to impose duties on trade at all, if it had no power to tax. Dickinson's Letters also indicated a growing movement towards union. He declared that the American colonies formed one political body, of which each colony was a member. He concluded an address at Philadelphia (25 April 1768) with the phrase "Our strength depends on our union. United we conquer, divided we die". In the presence of a common

1 Pennsylvania Chronicle, Dec. 1767, Feb. 1768.

danger, and of what they regarded as an attack upon their common rights and common interests, the colonies were indeed being driven towards union among themselves and separation from what was beginning to be regarded as a foreign and oppressive Power.

Associations were again formed for boycotting British goods, especially those upon which the new duties had been laid. Attempts to run cargoes of madeira led to conflicts between smugglers and customs officers. The Boston mob rescued from their hands the sloop Liberty, belonging to John Hancock, a wealthy merchant and smuggler, and one of the most ardent of the advanced "patriots". The pressing of a seaman by H.M.S. Romney caused another riot. The rioters were left unpunished. Customs officials were tarred and feathered, and a revenue cutter burned at Rhode Island. At the urgent request of Governor Bernard two regiments and seven men-of-war were sent to Boston to enable the Government to enforce the law. They were received with demonstrations of almost open rebellion. In those days there was no police. The only resource of authority in the presence of a turbulent mob, whether of weavers in London, or "Sons of Liberty" in Boston, was to call upon troops to disperse the rioters and protect the unpopular. Before the arrival of the regiments (1 October), a mass meeting, led by Otis and Samuel Adams, resolved that a "standing army" could not be kept in the province without its consent. A day of fasting was appointed; muskets were brought out. The inhabitants were invited to arm, on the transparent plea of an approaching war with France, and, if Adams could have had his way, they would have attacked the troops on landing.

Townshend died prematurely in September 1767. His brief ascendancy, and the American question which had been reopened in it, had a large share in determining the character of the succeeding ministry. Those members of the Rockingham administration who had remained with Chatham in 1766 earned a reputation for weakness by their failure to resist Townshend's impetuous ambition. After his death, Northington and Conway resigned, and Shelburne wished to do so, but as Chatham's representative in the Cabinet, he felt obliged to remain.1 Their resignations came too late for their reputations. During the summer, when it was evident that, with Chatham still incapacitated, the mosaic Government must fall to pieces, the King had invited almost everybody but Grenville to form a ministry. The alternative of taking back that statesman, whom he loathed, almost compelled him to accept a return of the Rockingham party to power. For it seemed at one moment as if they might form a combination with the Bedford and Newcastle sections. But Bedford stood for coercing the colonies, Rockingham for reconciliation. On that rock negotiations split. The stars in their courses seemed to be fighting for a Townshend administration. His sudden death removed that 1 Shelburne to Lady Chatham, 9 Oct. 1767.

HILLSBOROUGH AND THE COLONISTS

667

danger. The coercive policy of the Bedfords, who now joined the Government and in a great measure controlled the party, led presently to the resignation of Shelburne, which was followed by that of Chatham.1 Before this, Grafton (9 October 1767), as a concession to the Bedfords, had removed Shelburne from the control of colonial affairs which he had hitherto exercised as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and instituted a third Secretaryship of State for the Colonies, to which Lord Hillsborough was appointed (January 1768). Shelburne still believed that it was unnecessary to send a single soldier to America, and that the colonies would "return to the Mother-country of themselves from affection and from interest, when once the form of their contribution should be agreed upon". His retirement involved the laying aside of the scheme which he had elaborated for settling the several problems arising out of the newly acquired lands beyond the Alleghanies.

Hillsborough at once instructed Governor Bernard to call upon the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind its resolutions for the Circular Letter, and to dissolve it if it refused. The governors of the other provinces were directed to dissolve their Assemblies if they favoured the Massachusetts appeal. The several Assemblies were dissolved accordingly, but only to return with increased majorities against the governments. After the dissolution of the Massachusetts Assembly, the Selectmen of Boston summoned a convention of delegates from the province to meet at Faneuil Hall. Thus once more a movement was begun for revolutionary organisation. When the new Assembly met, it refused, with strict legal justification, to provide quarters for the troops in the town, arguing that there were barracks available on Castle Island. These were almost useless for the purpose in hand, since they were two or three miles outside the city. The Assembly then refused to do business whilst surrounded by an armed force, and when the governor adjourned it to Cambridge, passed resolutions protesting against his right to do so, and against the establishment of "a standing army" in a colony in time of peace. A violent agitation was begun against the soldiers whose presence was denounced by the Assembly as a foreign invasion. The melancholy example of Ireland was quoted as a warning against British tyranny, and found no doubt an echo in the heart of many an Irish emigrant.

When Parliament met in the autumn of 1768, both Houses passed resolutions condemning the disloyal spirit of Massachusetts, the nonimportation agreements, and the Boston Convention. Led by the Duke of Bedford, they addressed the King, praying that the promoters of rebellion should be brought to London and tried under an Act of Henry VIII "for the trial of treasons committed outside the realm". Under this Act the murderers of Governor Parke had been brought 1 Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, 1, 387, 393. 2 Ibid. 1, 384.

home for trial in 1711.1 This measure was never put into execution, but it provided an additional source of irritation to the Americans, who saw in it yet one more instance of British determination to restrict their liberties. It helped to inspire the "Resolves of 1769", by which Virginia once more led the way in constitutional opposition. A series of resolutions drawn up by George Mason was introduced into the House of Burgesses by Washington. The military distinction and high character of that wealthy planter had already secured him a position of great authority in the Old Dominion. The Virginia Resolves, which were presently circulated amongst the other Assemblies and adopted by them, claimed that the sole right of imposing taxes lay in the General Assembly with the assent of the King or his governor; that the colonists had the right to petition the Crown for redress of grievances, and that taking any person from the colony for trial beyond the seas was highly derogatory to the rights of British subjects.

The Cabinet was divided over its American policy. The tea tax had produced less than £300, and the effect of the non-importation agreements was beginning to be felt. Relations with France were very strained, and already Americans had talked of appealing to her." The repeal of Townshend's Act as foolish and imprudent was increasingly urged. Grafton and Camden were in favour of repealing all the new taxes. But Lord North, the Bedford section, and the representatives of the King were in favour of retaining the tax upon tea for the purpose of "keeping up the right". By a majority of one, the Cabinet decided to retain it (1 May). The governors were informed of the Cabinet's intention, and Hillsborough added an official assurance that it entertained no design to propose any further taxes on America for the purpose of raising a revenue. The idea of making the colonies pay for their own defence was thus at length

abandoned.

Grafton, although in a minority in his own Cabinet, did not resign till January 1770. The suppression of Wilkes and the Middlesex election were agitating the country. The King's Speech had denounced the action of the Americans as unwarrantable. Chatham, who had returned to public life, vigorously attacked the measures which had driven the colonists into excesses, and pleaded for the removal of the cause which had occasioned the discontent of two millions of people. He was followed by Camden, Barré and Burke. But the King sent, not for Chatham as the nation expected, but for North. At last he had discovered and secured the minister for whom he had been seeking ever since the retirement of Bute, a minister who, with the aid of the court party, a divided Opposition, and his own skilful address, was both able and content to manage Parliament in

1 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1710-11, p. xlv, nos. 764-806; 1711–12, p. xl.

2 E.g. Boston Gazette, 20 Sept. 1768; Holmes, A., Annals, II, 177.

3 George III to Lord North, May 1769, and 11 Sept. 1774.

« PreviousContinue »