Chapter X: Front Matter (10)

Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its
right to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to
their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
A. The proceedings of the people in America have been
considered too much together. The proceedings of the
assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs,
and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each
other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they
take to be their rights; they have not built a fort, raised a
man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such
opposition. The ringleaders of riot they think ought to be
punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could.
Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished,
as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or
estate. But as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by
the legislature here on the people there, while they have no
representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be
submitted to.—They will oppose it to the last.—They do not
consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them
by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready
to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large
sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the
crown.—They have not only granted equal to their abilities,
but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their
abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you
yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred
thousand pounds, and this they did freely and readily, only on
a sort of promise from the secretary of state, that it should
be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It was
accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable
manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and
abused here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as
ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust, in having put this
nation to immense expense for their defence, and refusing to
bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and
clothed, near 25,000 men during the last war, a number equal
to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion;
they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes
and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for
discharging that debt. Government here was at that time very
sensible of this; The colonies were recommended to parliament.
Every year the King sent down to the House a written message
to this purpose, That his Majesty, being highly sensible of
the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North
America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty's
just rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to
take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them
a proper compensation. You will find those messages on your
own journals every year of the war to the very last, and you
did accordingly give 200,000_l_. annually to the crown,
to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This
is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from
being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed
their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only
equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or
reason for compensation. Indeed the sums reimbursed them, were
by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their
proportion; but they never murmured at that; they esteemed
their sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and
the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of
compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to
force money from a willing people; they had not refused giving
money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been
made: they were al ways willing and ready to do what could
reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish
to be considered.

Q. But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in
Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it?
A. I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would
permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British
empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be
looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider
themselves as such. They are zealous for the honour and
prosperity of this nation, and while they are well used, will
always be ready to support it, as far as their little power
goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the
expedition against Carthagena, and they sent 3,000 men to join
your army. It is true Carthagena is in America, but as remote
from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They
make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in
them.
{3199}
I know the last war is commonly spoke of here as entered into
for the defence, or for the sake of the people of America. I
think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits
between Canada and Nova Scotia, about territories to which the
crown indeed laid claim, but were not claimed by any British
colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we
had therefore no particular concern or interest in that
dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your
right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the
treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the
traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they
took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their
factors and correspondents, had erected there to secure that
trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort
(which was looked on here as another incroachment on the
King's territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till
after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. They were
before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the
troops were not therefore sent for their defence. The trade
with the Indians, though carried on in America, is not an
American interest. The people of America are chiefly farmers
and planters; scarce any thing that they raise or produce is
an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a
British interest; it is carried on with British manufactures,
for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers;
therefore the war, as it commenced for the defence of
territories of the crown, the property of no American, and for
the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British
war—and yet the people of America made no scruple of
contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing
it to a happy conclusion.

Q. Do you think then that the taking possession of the King's
territorial rights, and strengthening the frontiers, is not an
American interest?
A. Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American
interest.

Q. You will not deny that the preceding war, the war with
Spain, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not
occasioned by captures made in the American seas?
A. Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there,
with British manufactures.

Q. Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with
France, a war for America only?
A. Yes: it was more particularly for America than the former,
but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war,
the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified, and the
Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expense. It
was put an end to by the army under general Bouquet; there
were not above 300 regulars in that army, and above 1,000
Pennsylvanians.

Q. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend
the Americans against the Indians?
A. No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended
themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much
more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven
the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to
their assistance from this country. And can it be thought
necessary now to send troops for their defence from those
diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so
populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for
it; they are very able to defend themselves.

Q. Do you say there were no more than 300 regular troops
employed in the late Indian war?
A, Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pennsylvania, which
was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies.
There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those
remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon
them, but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans,
or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than
that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so.

Q. Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on
the subject there, to grant to the crown?
A. I certainly think so; they have always done it.

Q. Are they acquainted with the Declaration of Rights; and do
they know that by that statute, money is not to be raised on
the subject but by consent of parliament?
A. They are very well acquainted with it.

Q. How then can they think they have a right to levy money for
the crown, or for any other than local purposes?
A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects only
within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the
crown, but by consent of parliament. The colonies are not
supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their
own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that
respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to
be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the
colonies, the consent is given in the parliament of Ireland,
or in the assemblies of the colonies. They think the
parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent
till it has representatives from America; for the Petition of
Right expressly says, it is to be by common consent in
parliament, and the people of America have no representatives
in parliament, to make a part of that common consent.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and an act should
pass, ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the
sufferers by the riots, would they obey it?
A. That is a question I cannot answer.

Q. Suppose the King should require the colonies to grant a
revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it,
do they think they can grant a revenue to the King, without
the consent of the parliament of Great Britain?
A. That is a deep question. As to my own opinion I should
think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked
the occasion.

Q, When money has been raised in the colonies, upon
requisitions, has it not been granted to the King?
A. Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for
some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops,
and not for money only.

Q. If the act should pass, requiring the American Assemblies
to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey
it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an
internal tax, would they obey it?
A. The people will pay no internal tax: and I think an act to
oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for
I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated,
they will take the matter into consideration, and if it is
right to be done, they will do it of themselves.

{3200}

Q. Do not letters often come into the post offices in America,
directed into some inland town where no post goes?
A. Yes.

Q. Can any private person take up those letters, and carry
them as directed?
A. Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage
that has accrued.

Q. But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance
to such an inland town?
A. No.

Q. Can the post-master answer delivering the letter, without
being paid such additional postage?
A. Certainly he can demand nothing, where he does no service.

Q. Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a
post office directed to him, and he lives in a place to which
the post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that
place, will the post-master deliver him the letter, without
his paying the postage received at the place to which the
letter is directed?
A. Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it
does not carry, or farther than it does carry it.

Q. Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of parliament,
to carry over the posts without pay?
A. Yes.

Q. Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?
A. They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage
from persons travelling with the post.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and the crown should
make a requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would
they grant it?
A. I believe they would.

Q. Why do you think so?
A. I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in
instruction from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as
they always had done, so they should always think it their
duty to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their
circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for the
purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the
honour of communicating this instruction to that honorable
gentleman then minister.

Q. Would they do this for a British concern; as suppose a war
in some part of Europe, that did not affect them?
A. Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest.
They consider themselves as a part of the whole.

Q. What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
colonies for aids?
A. A letter from the secretary of state.

Q. Is this all you mean, a letter from the secretary of state?
A. I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter
from the secretary of state, by his Majesty's command,
reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to
grant such aids as became their loyalty, and were suitable to
their abilities.

Q. Did the secretary of state ever write for money for the
crown?
A. The requisitions have been to raise clothe, and pay men,
which cannot be done without money.

Q. Would they grant money alone, if called on?
A. In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they
have money, or can procure it.

Q. If the parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the
assembly of Pennsylvania rescind their resolutions?
A. I think not.

Q. Before there was any thought of the Stamp Act, did they
wish for a representation in parliament?
A. No.

Q. Don't you know that there is, in the Pennsylvania charter,
an express reservation of the right of parliament to lay taxes
there?
A. I know there is a clause in the charter, by which the King
grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless
it be with the consent of the assembly, or by an act of
parliament.

Q. How then could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert, that
laying a tax on them by the Stamp Act was an infringement of
their rights?
A. They understand it thus: by the same charter, and
otherwise, they are entitled to all the privileges and
liberties of Englishmen; they find in the Great Charters, and
the Petition and Declaration of Rights, that one of the
privileges of English subjects is, that they are not to be
taxed but by their common consent; they have therefore relied
upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the
parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in
the charter, assume a right of taxing them, till it had
qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting
representatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make
a part of that common consent.

Q. Are there any words in the charter that justify that
construction?
A. The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna
Charta, and the Petition of Right, all justify it.

Q. Does the distinction between internal and external taxes
exist in the words of the charter?
A. No, I believe not.

Q. Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to
the parliament's right of external taxation?
A. They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately
used here to shew them that there is no difference, and that
if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to
tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At
present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly
be convinced by these arguments.

Q. Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania assemblies say,
all taxes?
A. If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words
have not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By
taxes they mean internal taxes; by duties they mean customs;
these are the ideas of the language.

Q. Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusetts Bay
assembly?
A. I have.

Q. Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes
can be laid on them by parliament?
A. I don't know that they do; I believe not.

Q. If the same tax should say neither tax nor imposition could
be laid, does not that province hold the power of parliament
can lay neither?
A. I suppose that by the word imposition, they do not intend
to express duties to be laid on goods imported, as regulations
of commerce.

Q. What can the colonies mean then by imposition as distinct
from taxes?
A. They may mean many things, as impressing of men, or of
carriages, quartering troops on private houses, and the like;
there may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.

Q. Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of
parliament?
A. I have answered that.

Q. Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?
A. No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged
by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means, and
therefore, in such cases, are usually favoured in our tax
laws.

{3201}

Q. Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what
favours are necessary?
A. The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to
make tax laws for America; I think it impossible.

Q. Would the repeal of the Stamp Act be any discouragement of
your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to
manufacture decline it?
A. Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time,
the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily
made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In
the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little
remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family
manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price,
they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling
mills were very much disused in the last war in Pennsylvania,
because bills were then plenty, and remittances could easily
be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the
assemblies of America to acknowledge the right of parliament
to tax them, and, would they erase their resolutions?
A. No, never.

Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those
resolutions?
A. None, that I know of; they will never do it, unless
compelled by force of arms.

Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase
them?
A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their
opinions.

Q. Do they consider the post office as a tax, or as a
regulation?
A. Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; every
assembly encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by
grants of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and
the people have always paid the postage.

Q. When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?
A. I brought them with me, when I came to England, about 15
months since.

Q. When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?
A. Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was
under consideration, and before the Bill was brought in.

Q. Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to
employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?
A. In tobacco, to be sure.

Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans?
A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great
Britain.

Q. What is now their pride?
A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make
new ones.

Withdrew.

_Parliamentary History of England,
volume 16, pages 138-160._

"Mr. Sparks very justly says that there was no event in
Franklin's life more creditable to his talents and character,
or which gave him so much celebrity, as this examination
before the House of Commons. His further statement, however,
that Franklin's answers were given without premeditation and
without knowing beforehand the nature or form of the question
that was to be put, is a little too sweeping. In a memorandum
which Franklin gave to a friend who wished to know by whom the
several questions were put, he admitted that many were put by
friends to draw out in answer the substance of what he had
before said upon the subject."

_J. Bigelow,
Life of Benjamin Franklin,
volume 1, page 507, foot-note._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
The repeal of the Stamp Act and passage of the
Declaratory Act.
Speech of Pitt.

"The Grenville Ministry had fallen in July [1765], and had
been succeeded by that of Rockingham; and Conway, who had been
one of the few opponents of the Stamp Act, was now Secretary
of State for the Colonies. … The Stamp Act had contributed
nothing to the downfall of Grenville; it attracted so little
attention that it was only in the last days of 1765 or the
first days, of 1766 that the new ministers learnt the views of
Pitt upon the subject; it was probably a complete surprise to
them to learn that it had brought the colonies to the verge of
rebellion, and in the first months of their power they appear
to have been quite uncertain what policy they would pursue. …
Parliament met on December 17, 1765, and the attitude of the
different parties was speedily disclosed. A powerful
Opposition, led by Grenville and Bedford, strenuously urged
that no relaxation or indulgence should be granted to the
colonists. … Pitt, on the other hand, rose from his sick-bed,
and in speeches of extraordinary eloquence, and which produced
an amazing effect on both sides of the Atlantic, he justified
the resistance of the colonists."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3)._

The following is the main part of the speech delivered by Pitt
(not yet made Lord Chatham) on the 14th of January, 1766, as
imperfectly reported: "It is my opinion, that this kingdom has
no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I
assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be
sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and
legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this kingdom;
equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of
mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally
bound by its laws, and equally participating in the
constitution of this free country, The Americans are the sons,
not the bastards of England! Taxation is no part of the
governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift
and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three
estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence
of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to
clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the
Commons alone. … When … in this House, we give and grant, we
give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what
do we do? 'We, your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give
and grant to your Majesty'—what? Our own property! No! 'We
give and grant to your Majesty' the property of your Majesty's
Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. … There is an
idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in
the House. I would fain know by whom an American is
represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the
shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that
respectable representation was augmented to a greater number!
Or will you tell him that he is represented by any
representative of a borough? a borough which, perhaps, its own
representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten
part of the Constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it
does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual
representation of America in this House is the most
contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. It
does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America
represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in the
possession of this, their constitutional right, of giving and
granting their own money.
{3202}
They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it! At the
same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and
legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws,
by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation,
in manufactures, in every thing, except that of taking their
money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would
draw the line. … Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving
birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their
sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that
freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty
of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation
shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise.
No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a
liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have
profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The
gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America almost in
open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three
millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as
voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit
instruments to make slaves of the rest. … Since the accession
of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more
moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. … None
of these thought or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of
their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era
of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some,
when I had the honor to serve his Majesty, to propose to me to
burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at
their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of
their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to
the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous,
an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to
America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the
benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied
the national treasures! I am no courtier of America. I stand
up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a
right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over
the colonies is sovereign and supreme. I would advise every
gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that
country. When two countries are connected together like
England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one
must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But
she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental
principles that are common to both. … The gentleman asks, When
were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were
they made slaves? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the
honor of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of
information which I derived from my office. I speak,
therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at
pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be
bold to affirm, that the profits to Great Britain from the
trade of the colonies through all its branches, is two
millions a year. This is the fund that carried you
triumphantly through the last war. The estates that were
rented at two thousand pounds a year, three-score years ago,
are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from
fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold
for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America
pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier
come with a boast, that he can bring 'a pepper-corn' into the
exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation? I dare not
say how much higher these profits may be augmented. … I am
convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of
America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where
you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you
ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid
on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two
nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let
acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let
not an English minister become a custom-house officer for
Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong! Much may be
amended for the general good of the whole! … A great deal has
been said without doors of the power, of the strength of
America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled
with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this
country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your
troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a
company of foot that has served in America, out of which you
may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to
make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the
Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I
am one who will lift up my hands against it. In such a cause
your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would
fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the
State, and pull down the Constitution along with her. Is this
your boasted peace—not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard,
but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? … The
Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and
temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to
madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you
have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first
from this side. I will undertake for America that she will
follow the example. … Upon the whole I will beg leave to tell
the House what is my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be
repealed absolutely, totally and immediately. That the reason
for the repeal be assigned, viz., because it was founded on an
erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as
strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every
point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade,
confine their manufactures, and exercise every power
whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their
pockets without their consent."

_Representative British Orations,
pages 98-119._

The views of Pitt "were defended in the strongest terms by
Lord Camden, who pledged his great legal reputation to the
doctrine that taxation is not included under the general right
of legislation, and that taxation and representation are
morally inseparable. … The task of the ministers in dealing
with this question was extremely difficult. The great majority
of them desired ardently the repeal of the Stamp Act; but the
wishes of the King, the abstention of Pitt, and the divided
condition of parties had compelled Rockingham to include in
his Government Charles Townshend, Barrington, and Northington,
who were all strong advocates of the taxation of America. …
{3203}
In addition to all these difficulties the ministers had to
deal with the exasperation which was produced in Parliament by
the continual outrages and insults to which all who
represented the English Government in America were exposed.
Their policy consisted of two parts. They asserted in the
strongest and most unrestricted form the sovereignty of the
British Legislature, first of all by resolutions and then by a
Declaratory Act affirming the right of Parliament to make laws
binding the British colonies 'in all cases whatsoever,' and
condemning as unlawful the votes of the colonial Assemblies
which had denied to Parliament the right of taxing them. Side
by side with this measure they brought in a bill repealing the
Stamp Act. … The great and manifest desire of the commercial
classes throughout England had much weight; the repeal was
carried [March, 1766] through the House of Commons, brought up
by no less than 200 members to the Lords, and finally carried
amid the strongest expressions of public joy. Burke described
it as 'an event that caused more universal joy throughout the
British dominions than perhaps any other that can be
remembered.'"

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_Parliamentary History,
volume 16, pages 112-205._

_B. Franklin,
Works (Sparks' editor),
volume 4._

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England 1713-1783,
chapter 45._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.
The Townshend measures.

"The liberal Rockingham administration, after a few months of
power, disappeared [July, 1766], having signalized itself as
regarded America by the repeal of the Stamp Act, and by the
Declaratory Act. Of the new ministry the leading spirit was
Charles Townshend, a brilliant statesman, but unscrupulous and
unwise. His inclinations were arbitrary; he regretted the
repeal of the Stamp Act, as did also the king and Parliament
in general, who felt themselves to have been humiliated. Pitt,
indeed, now Earl of Chatham, was a member of the government;
but, oppressed by illness, he could exercise no restraint upon
his colleague, and the other members were either in sympathy
with Townshend's views, or unable to oppose him. Townshend's
three measures affecting America, introduced on the 13th of
May, 1767, were: a suspension of the functions of the
legislature of New York for contumacy in the treatment of the
royal troops; the establishment of commissioners of the
customs, appointed with large powers to superintend laws
relating to trade; and lastly an impost duty upon glass, red
and white lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea [see ENGLAND:
A. D. 1765-1768]. This was an 'external' duty to which the
colonists had heretofore expressed a willingness to submit;
but the grounds of the dispute were shifting. Townshend had
declared that he held in contempt the distinction sought to be
drawn between external and internal taxes, but that he would
so far humor the colonists in their quibble as to make his tax
of that kind of which the right was admitted. A revenue of
£40,000 a year was expected from the tax, which was to be
applied to the support of a 'civil list,' namely, the paying
the salaries of the new commissioners of customs, and of the
judges and governors, who were to be relieved wholly or in
part from their dependence upon the annual grants of the
Assemblies; then, if a surplus remained, it was to go to the
payment of troops for protecting the colonies. To make more
efficient, moreover, the enforcement of the revenue laws, the
writs of assistance, the denunciation of which by James Otis
had formed so memorable a crisis, were formally legalized. The
popular discontent, appeased by the repeal of the Stamp Act,
was at once awake again, and henceforth in the denial of the
right of Parliament to tax, we hear no more of acquiescence in
commercial restrictions and in the general legislative
authority of Parliament. … The plan for resistance adopted by
the cooler heads was that of Samuel Adams, namely, the
non-importation and the non-consumption of British products.
From Boston out, through an impulse proceeding from him,
town-meetings were everywhere held to encourage the
manufactures of the Province and reduce the use of
superfluities, long lists of which were enumerated. Committees
were appointed everywhere to procure subscriptions to
agreements looking to the furtherance of home industries and
the disuse of foreign products. … Before the full effects of
the new legislation could be seen, Townshend suddenly died;
but in the new ministry that was presently formed Lord North
came to the front, and adopted the policy of his predecessor,
receiving in this course the firm support of the king, whose
activity and interest were so great in public affairs that he
'became his own minister.'"

_J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
chapter 3._

_W. Belsham,
Memoirs of the Reign of George III.,
volume 1, page 139-142._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
The Farmer's Letters of John Dickinson.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts,
and the "Unrescinding Ninety-two."

"The English ministry was probably misled by the strong
emphasis which had been laid here during the controversies
concerning the Stamp Act upon the alleged distinction between
external and internal taxation. We had refused to submit to
the latter, but admitted that the former might be binding upon
the whole empire as a commercial regulation. In form the
duties levied on paints, glass, tea, etc., were undoubtedly
such a regulation, but it was at once contended here that, in
point of fact and of principle, this was as much an exercise
of the alleged right of Parliamentary taxation for the purpose
of raising a revenue for imperial purposes as the Stamp Act
itself. Although it was passed by the opponents of the Stamp
Act, and by the Rockingham ministry, who professed to be our
friends, the act met at once with opposition here. Late in
October, 1767, it was denounced by a public meeting in Boston,
which suggested a non-importation agreement as the best means
of rendering its operations ineffective. These agreements were
favorite expedients for manifesting political discontent in
those days, but, as they were voluntary, their obligation sat
somewhat loosely upon those who signed them. The truth is,
that those who were most decided in opposition to the course
of the ministry were somewhat puzzled as to the plan they
should adopt to exhibit the earnestness of their discontent. …
While the leaders of the opposition throughout the country
were doubtful and hesitating, there appeared in the
Pennsylvania Chronicle for the 2d of December, 1767, the first
of a series of letters on the political situation, afterwards
known as the 'Farmer's Letters.'
{3204}
… The letters, fourteen in number, followed one another in
quick succession, and they were read by men of all classes and
opinions throughout the continent as no other work of a
political kind had been hitherto read in America. It was, of
course, soon known that John Dickinson was their author, and
people remembered that he was the person who had formulated
what was a genuine Bill of Rights in the Stamp Act Congress.
The more these letters were read, the more convinced people
became that in the comprehensive survey they took of our
political relations with the mother-country, especially as
these were affected by the last obnoxious act of Parliament,
and in the plans which were proposed to remedy the evil, Mr.
Dickinson had struck the true key-note of the opposition to
the ministerial measures. He appeared at this crisis, as he
did in the Stamp Act Congress, as the leader and guide in the
controversy. From this time until the Declaration of
Independence the Pennsylvania idea, which was embodied by Mr.
Dickinson in these Farmer's Letters, 'controlled the destinies
of the country;' and Mr. Bancroft only does justice to Mr.
Dickinson's position when he recognizes fully his commanding
influence during that period. We may say with pardonable pride
(and it is one of those truths which many of our historians
have managed in various ways to relegate to obscurity), that,
as the leading spirit in the Stamp Act Congress, Dickinson
gave form and color to the agitation in this country which
brought about the repeal of that act, and that the arguments
by which the claim of the ministry to tax us for revenue by
such an act of Parliament as that levying duties on glass,
paints, etc. was answered in the 'Farmer's Letters' first
convinced the whole body of our countrymen, groping blindly
for a cure for their grievances, that there was a legal
remedy, and then forced the ministry to consent in a measure
to the demand for a repeal of some of its most obnoxious
provisions. It is worth remarking that when the ministry
yielded at all it yielded to argument, and not to the boastful
threats which were so common. The 'Farmer's Letters' gave
courage and force to those who in February denounced the law
in Pennsylvania; they formed the mainspring of the movement
which resulted in the circular letter sent by the legislature
of Massachusetts on the 17th of that month to the Assemblies
of the other Colonies; in short, they had the rare good
fortune not only of convincing those who suffered that the
remedy was in their own hands, but also of pursuading those
who had the power to abandon, or at least to modify their
arbitrary measures. … Mr. Dickinson begins these grave essays
with an air of simplicity as charming as it is calculated to
attract the attention of the reader. 'I am a farmer,' he says,
'settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the
river Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a
liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of
life, but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without
bustle as with it. Being generally master of my time, I spend
a good deal of it in my library, which I think the most
valuable part of my small estate. I have acquired, I believe,
a greater knowledge of history and of the laws and
constitution of my country than is generally attained by men
of my class,' etc. He then explains the nature of the
controversy with the mother-country, making it so clear that
the points in dispute are comprehensible by a child. … As to
our method of asserting our rights, he says, with an elevation
of sentiment which reminds one of Edmund Burke more than of
any other political writer, 'The cause of liberty is a cause
of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It
ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature.
Those who engage in it should breathe a sedate yet fervent
spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice,
modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.' He shrinks,
evidently with terror, from speaking of what may be the
consequences of the persistent refusal of England to change
her oppressive measures. … After showing in the most striking
manner the nature of our wrongs, the letters turn gladly to
the remedy that lies open to us. That remedy is based upon a
cultivation of the spirit of conciliation on both sides, and
Mr. Dickinson urges again and again upon his English readers
the folly of their policy, by showing them the value of the
American Colonies to them, and especially how the trade and
wealth of the English merchants are bound up in the adoption
of a liberal policy towards us. This is one of the most
interesting and important topics discussed in these letters,
and the subject is treated with elaborate skill, leading to
convincing conclusions drawn from our history. It must not be
forgotten that prior to the Revolution an impression widely
prevailed among the most thoughtful of our own people, as well
as among our friends in England, that if the English people
could be made to understand the frightful losses they would
suffer in case of a war in which we should be fighting for our
independence, or even during a short interruption of the trade
between the two countries, they would force the government to
yield rather than run the risk of the consequences. … Even Dr.
Franklin in London, who had had so many proofs of the
indifference and contempt with which the representations of
the Colonies in England were regarded … thought the appeal of
the Farmer to Englishmen so irresistible that, although no
friend of Dickinson's, he arranged that these letters should
be reprinted in London."

_C. J. Stillé,
The Life and Times of John Dickinson,
chapter 4._

In February, 1768, "the Legislature of Massachusetts sent a
Circular Letter [ascribed to Samuel Adams] to the Assemblies
of the other colonies, in which was set forth the necessity of
all acting together harmoniously, and of freely communicating
the mind of each to the others. The course Massachusetts had
pursued was described, with the contents of the petition and
letters which had been written, and with the hope expressed
that she would have their cordial co-operation in resistance
to the ministerial measures. The notion that political
independence was aimed at was strenuously denied, and the
trust was entertained that what had been done would meet the
approval of their 'common head and father,' and that the
liberties of the colonies would be confirmed. This letter
elicited response from some, others returned none officially,
but all who answered replied favorably. It gave, however, the
greatest offence to the ministry, and particularly to Lord
Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
{3205}
It seems that he read it entirely by the light which a letter
from Governor Bernard to Lord Barrington had shed upon it.
This epistle declared the real motive of the colonies to be a
determination to be independent. Hillsborough, filled with
this idea, communicated it to the other members of the
cabinet, and thus the Circular Letter was laid before them,
prejudged. It was determined that it merited consideration,
but that the only notice to be given it should be one of
censure, and, on the spur of the moment, they resolved upon
two things: to require the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind
the Letter, and to require the other legislatures before whom
it had been laid to reject it. This was done, and the
consequences were, that the General Court, or Legislature, of
Massachusetts voted, by ninety-two to seventeen, that they
would do nothing of the kind, and that the other legislatures
gave the outcast a hearty welcome. As for the people, they
showed their approval of their representatives by toasting,
from one end of the country to the other, 'The unrescinding
Ninety-two,' with whom was coupled the number Forty-five, or
that of the famous' North Briton'; while the Bostonians added
fuel to the flame by a riot on the score of the sloop Liberty,
in which they attacked the houses of the Commissioners of the
Customs, and made a bonfire of the Collector's boat. Shortly
afterward, (but not by reason of the riot), four ships of war
anchored in Boston harbor, and two regiments of soldiers were
quartered on the town."

_E. G. Scott,
The Development of Constitutional Liberty,
chapter 10 (with corrections by the author)._

ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 6._

_W. Thornton,
The Pulpit of the Revolution,
page 150._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The Massacre, and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
Massachusetts threatened, and Virginia roused to her support.

"The proceedings in Massachusetts attracted in England the
greatest attention, elicited the severest comment, and,
because a military force had been ordered to Boston to support
the stand of the administration, created the greatest
solicitude. … The king, on opening parliament, characterized
the action of Boston as a subversion of the Constitution and
evincing a disposition to throw off dependence on Great
Britain. The indictment against the colonies was presented in
sixty papers laid before parliament. Both Houses declared that
the proceedings of the Massachusetts assembly in opposition to
the revenue acts were unconstitutional, and derogatory to the
rights of the crown and the parliament; that the Circular
Letter tended to create unlawful combinations; that the call
of a convention by the selectmen of Boston was proof of a
design of setting up an independent authority; and both Houses
proposed to transport the originators of the obnoxious
proceedings to England for trial and condign punishment, under
the cover of an obsolete act of Henry VIII. … The
administration determined to make an example of Massachusetts,
as the ring-leading province in political mischief, by
transporting its popular leaders to England to be tried for
their lives in the king's bench. Such was the purport of an
elaborate despatch which Lord Hillsborough sent to Governor
Bernard, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the
conduct of any persons who had committed any overt act of
resistance to the laws. … Thus a great issue was created that
affected all the colonies. … There was no adequate step taken
to meet the threatened aggression until the House of Burgesses
of Virginia convened in May."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 6._

"On the day of the prorogation of parliament [May 9, 1769] the
legislature of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg. Great men
were there; some who were among the greatest—Washington,
Patrick Henry, and, for the first time, Jefferson. Botetourt
[the governor], who opened the session in state, was in
perfect harmony with the council, received from the house of
burgesses a most dutiful address, and entertained fifty-two
guests at his table on the first day, and as many more on the
second. … But the assembly did not forget its duty, and
devised a measure which became the example for the continent.
It claimed the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants
of Virginia. With equal unanimity, it asserted the lawfulness
and expediency of a concert of the colonies in defence of the
violated rights of America. It laid bare the flagrant tyranny
of applying to America the obsolete statute of Henry VIII.;
and it warned the king of 'the dangers that would ensue' if
any person in any part of America should be seized and carried
beyond sea for trial. It consummated its work by communicating
its resolutions to every legislature in America, and asking
their concurrence. The resolves were concise, simple, and
effective; so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that
time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest.
The menace of arresting patriots lost its terrors; and
Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union. … The
next morning, the assembly had just time to adopt an address
to the king, when the governor summoned them, and said: 'I
have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects;
you have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are
dissolved accordingly.' Upon this, the burgesses met together
as patriots and friends, with their speaker as moderator. They
adopted the resolves which "Washington had brought with him
from Mount Vernon, and which formed a well-digested,
stringent, and practicable scheme of non-importation, until
all the 'unconstitutional' revenue acts should be repealed. …
The voice of the Old Dominion roused the merchants of
Pennsylvania to approve what had been done. The assembly of
Delaware adopted the Virginia resolves word for word; and
every colony south of Virginia followed the example."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
pages 347-348._

ALSO IN:
_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapter 29._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.