Page images
PDF
EPUB

together with the whole policy of closer control of the colonies. But the need for retaining the Acts of Trade, for remodelling and consolidating the Empire, and preventing the colonies from escaping from control was held as strongly by their Whig champions, Shelburne and Conway for instance, as by Tories. Francis Bernard, Governor of Massachusetts Bay, was now continually urging it, and, as a first step towards settling the whole colonial system on a new uniform type, the resumption of all the charters. He had begun by opposing the Stamp Act and advocating freer trade; but his experience of the agitation in Boston and the weakness of the executive changed his attitude. He was convinced that there was a powerful party which intended to break away from Great Britain if it could. It soon found occasion for blowing up the dying embers of discontent. The Mutiny Act, extended to the colonies in 1765, was annually renewed. It was strenuously resisted in Massachusetts, and positively rejected by New York. It was denounced as an attempt to establish a precedent for a Tax Act, and as a step towards dragooning the colonies into the acceptance of the "new sovereignty".2 For since it directed the Assemblies to enact, without debate, that certain articles should be provided, it implied the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies internally through the medium of their Assemblies, leaving to them only the choice of means. New York, especially, felt aggrieved, because as the military headquarters of the two provinces it was disproportionately burdened. General Gage reported some dangerous rioting in July 1766. New York merchants presently petitioned for a relaxation of the Acts of Trade, and especially of the Sugar Act.

The hostile attitude of New York, deplored by Pitt himself, caused great irritation in England. It played into the hands of the court party, who echoed the sentiments of the King in regarding the repeal of the Stamp Act as a humiliation,5 and strengthened those who had never abandoned its principle. Nor could the idea of a standing army in America be shelved. The threatening aspect of foreign affairs, the direct menace of France under Choiseul, and the burden of taxation kept alive the temptation to insist upon a direct contribution from the colonies to imperial expenditure. Even Shelburne held "that it was highly reasonable that an American fund should be formed to support the exigencies of government". He thought that such a fund might be obtained from the quit-rents and grants of land in America. If this scheme had come to fruition, the necessity for imperial taxation would have been avoided, and the American crisis would have ended, at least for the time.

1 Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, 1, 304-7, 318.

2 Dickinson, John, Address to Philadelphia Meeting, 1768.

3 Fitzmaurice, 1, 309, 316, 317.

Chatham to Shelburne, Corr. III, 189.

5 Burke, E., Speech on American Taxation, 1774.

• Fitzmaurice, 1, 306.

TOWNSHEND'S IMPORT DUTIES

663

On the fall of the Rockingham ministry, Pitt, taking the title of Earl of Chatham, joined the King in an attempt to govern without party. The "mosaic" Government, as Burke dubbed it, was formed, with Grafton as its nominal head and Camden as Lord Chancellor. Shelburne as Secretary of State for the Southern Department took charge of colonial affairs, whilst General Conway remained as Secretary of State for the Northern Department. All of these, with the exception of Conway, were Pittites, and Conway was a Rockinghamite, who had moved the rejection of the Stamp Act. A political prophet, scanning such a ministry, might well have scouted the idea that within a few months it would be imposing taxes on the colonies. If so, he would have forgotten Townshend. Townshend was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That brilliant but erratic genius had experience, industry, wit, ambition, and an unrivalled power of charming the House of Commons. He was soon to show that, like Grenville, he still clung to the policy matured under Halifax. The illness of Chatham gave him his opportunity.

In a debate on the army estimates, Grenville raised the question of making the colonists pay for the troops stationed in America (26 January 1767). Great Britain, he declared, must be relieved from the burden, which now amounted to £400,000 a year, almost the sum produced by a shilling in the pound land tax. Townshend in reply announced to a delighted House that he knew a mode by which a revenue could be drawn from America without offence, and he intended to do it. His colleagues listened in indignant silence as he pledged himself to a policy wholly at variance with their wishes. They did not resign, for the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility had not yet been matured; and no one, in Chatham's absence, had the authority to insist upon Townshend's dismissal. Shelburne wrote in alarm to Chatham, but Chatham, in the throes of suppressed gout, was incapable of attending to business. Townshend, therefore, had his way. On 19 February Grenville and Dowdeswell followed up the attack. Championing the cause of the heavily taxed "Country Party", and supported on this occasion by most of the Rockingham Whigs, they outvoted the Government proposal for a 4s. in the pound land tax, and secured its reduction by one shilling. Townshend was left to make good the resulting deficit of half a million in his estimates. On 15 April he opened his budget. He announced that the distinction drawn by the Americans between internal and external taxation was, in his opinion, "perfect nonsense". But since they admitted the right of Parliament to regulate their trade, so long as it raised no internal revenue, he would humour them. By laying an "external" or port duty upon glass, paper, painters' colours, and tea imported into the colonies, he proposed to raise a revenue of £40,000. Tea, coffee, and cocoa exported to the colonies were allowed a drawback of the duties paid on their importation into England. In the case of

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. 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.

« PreviousContinue »