Chapter VII: Front Matter (7)

"When the members assembled at the Court House in Albany on
the 19th of June, it was found that Pennsylvania, was not
alone in appointing a distinguished citizen to represent her.
On the roll of the congress were the names of
Lieutenant-governor De Lancey, of New York, who presided; and
from the same province William Smith, the historian, and the
future Sir William Johnson, not yet made a baronet. From the
proprietary provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland were the
well known officials, John Penn, grandson of the founder;
Richard Peters; and Benjamin Tasker. From the province of New
Hampshire were her future governor, Meshech Weare, and
Theodore Atkinson; and from the province of Massachusetts Bay,
the late Lieutenant-governor, Thomas Hutchinson, Colonel John
Chandler, of Worcester, and Oliver Partridge, a man of
commanding influence in western Massachusetts. Lastly, the two
colonies which had so tenaciously preserved their charter
governments through the vicissitudes of more than a
century,—Connecticut and Rhode Island,—had acceded to the
repeated solicitations of the home government, and with
unfeigned reluctance, we may be sure, had sent as
representatives men of such wide experience in their colonial
concerns as Roger Wolcott, Jr., and Stephen Hopkins,
'America,' says Mr. Bancroft, 'had never seen an assembly so
venerable for the states that were represented, or for the
great and able men who composed it.' They were detained in
this hospitable old Dutch town for more than three weeks. …
Franklin's plan … was not approved by a single one of the
colonial assemblies before which it was brought; and … no
action was ever taken on it in England. Yet there is no
contribution to constructive statesmanship preceding the year
1776, which had a profounder effect on the subsequent growth
and development of the idea of American nationality. Even in
the amended form in which it was 'approved' by the congress,
it was, says a recent writer, 'in advance of the Articles [of
Confederation] in its national spirit, and served as the
prototype of the constitution itself.'"

_W. E. Foster,
Stephen Hopkins: a Rhode Island Statesman,
chapter 6 (part 1)._

The Plan of Union, as adopted by the Congress at Albany, was
accompanied by a "Representation of the Present State of the
Colonies." The following is the full text of the
Representation, followed by that of the Plan of Union:

"That His Majesty's Title to the Northern Continent of
America, appears to be founded on the Discovery thereof first
made, and the Possession thereof first taken in 1497, under a
Commission from Henry the VIIth, of England, to Sebastian
Cabot. That the French have possessed themselves of several
Parts of this Continent, which by Treaties, have been ceded
and confirmed to them: That the Rights of the English to the
whole Sea Coast, from Georgia, on the South, to the River St.
Lawrence, on the North, excepting the Island of Cape-Breton,
in the Bay of St. Lawrence, remains plain and indisputable.
{3176}
That all the Lands or Countries Westward from the Atlantic
Ocean to the South Sea, between 48 and 34 Degrees of North
Latitude, were expressly included in the Grant of King James
the First, to divers of his Subjects, so long since, as the
Year 1606, and afterwards confirmed in 1620; and under this
Grant, the Colony of Virginia claims an Extent as far West as
to the South Sea; and the antient Colonies of the
Massachusetts-Bay and Connecticut, were by their respective
Charters, made to extend to the said South Sea; so that not
only the Right to the Sea Coast, but to all the Inland
Countries, from Sea to Sea, have at all Times been asserted by
the Crown of England. That the Province of Nova Scotia or
Accadia, hath known and determinate Bounds, by the original
Grant from King James the First; and that there is abundant
Evidence of the same, [and of the Knowledge] which the French
had of these Bounds, while they were in Possession of it; and
that these Bounds being thus known, the said Province by the
Treaty of Utrecht, according to its antient Limits, was ceded
to Great-Britain, and remained in Possession thereof, until
the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, by which it was confirmed; but
by said Treaty it is stipulated, That the Bounds of the said
Province shall be determined by Commissioners, &c. That by the
Treaty of Utrecht, the Country of the Five Cantons of the
Iroquoise, is expressly acknowledged to be under the Dominion
of the Crown of Great-Britain. That the Lake Champlain,
formerly called Lake Iroquoise, and the Country Southward of
it, as far as the Dutch or English Settlements, the Lake
Ontario, Erie, and all the Countries adjacent, have by all
antient Authors, French and English, been allowed to belong to
the Five Cantons or Nations; and the whole of those Countries,
long before the said Treaty of Utrecht, were by the said
Nations, put under the Protection of the Crown of
Great-Britain. That by the Treaty of Utrecht, there is a
Reserve to the French, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries
of the Five Nations, and other Indians in Friendship with
Great-Britain, for the Sake of Commerce; as there is also to
the English, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries of those
in Friendship with France, for the same Purpose. That after
the Treaty of Utrecht, the French built several Fortresses in
the Country of the Five Nations, and a very strong one at a
Place called Crown-Point, to the South of the Lake Champlain.
That the French Court have evidently, since the Treaty of Aix
la Chapelle, made this Northern Continent more than ever, the
Object of its Attention. That the French have most unjustly
taken Possession of a Part of the Province of Nova-Scotia; and
in the River St. John's, and other Parts of said Province,
they have built strong Fortresses; and from this River they
will have, during the Winter and Spring Season, a much easier
Communication between France and Canada, than they have
heretofore had, and will be furnished with a Harbour more
commodiously situated for the Annoying the British Colonies by
Privateers and Men of War, than Louisbourg itself. That they
have taken Possession of, and begun a Settlement at the Head
of the River Kennebeck, within the Bounds of the Province of
Main, the most convenient Situation for affording Support, and
a safe Retreat, to the Eastern Indians, in any of their
Attempts upon the Governments of New England. That it appears
by the Information of the Natives, the French have been making
Preparations for another Settlement, at a Place called Cohass,
on Connecticut River, near the Head thereof, where 'tis but
about ten Miles distant from a Branch of Merrimack River; and
from whence, there is a very near and easy Communication with
the Abnekais Indians, who are settled on the River St.
Francois, about forty Miles from the River St. Lawrence; and
it is certain, the Inhabitants of New-Hampshire, in which
Province this Cohass is supposed to lie, have been interrupted
and impeded by the French Indians, from making any Settlement
there. That since the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, the French
have increased the Number of their Forts in the Country of the
great Lakes, and on the Rivers which run into the Mississippi,
and are securing a Communication between the two Colonies of
Louisiana and Canada, and at the same Time, putting themselves
into a Capacity of annoying the Southern British Colonies, and
preventing any further Settlements of His Majesty's Dominions.
That they have been gradually increasing their Troops in
America, transporting them in their Ships of War, which return
to France with a bare Complement of Men, leaving the rest in
their Colonies; and by this Means, they are less observed by
the Powers of Europe, than they would be, if Transports as
usual heretofore, were provided for this Purpose. That they
have taken Prisoners diverse of His Majesty's Subjects,
trading in the Country of the Iroquoise, and other inland
Parts, and plundered such Prisoners of several Thousand Pounds
Sterling; and they are continually exciting the Indians to
destroy or make Prisoners the Inhabitants of the Frontiers of
the British Colonies; which Prisoners are carried to Canada,
and a Price equal to what Slaves are sold in the Plantations,
is demanded for their Redemption and Release. That they are
continually drawing off the Indians from the British Interest,
and have lately perswaded one Half of the Onondago Tribe, with
many from the other Nations along with them, to remove to a
Place called Oswegachie, on the River Cadaracqui, where they
have built them a Church and Fort; and many of the Senecas,
the most numerous Nation, appear to be wavering, and rather
inclined to the French. And it is a melancholy Consideration,
that not more than 150 Men of all the several Nations, have
attended this Treaty, altho' they had Notice, that all the
Governments would be here by their Commissioners, and that a
large Present would be given. That it is the evident Design of
the French to surround the British Colonies, to fortify
themselves on the Back thereof, to take and keep Possession of
the Heads of all the important Rivers, to draw over the
Indians to their Interest, and with the Help of such Indians,
added to such Forces as are already arrived, and may be
hereafter sent from Europe, to be in a Capacity of making a
general Attack upon the several Governments; and if at the
same Time, a strong Naval Force be sent from France, there is
the utmost Danger, that the whole Continent will be subjected
to that Crown: And that the Danger of such a Naval Force is
not merely imaginary, may be argued from past Experience. For
had it not been by the most extraordinary Interposition of
Heaven, every Sea Port Town on the Continent, in the Year
1746, might have been ravaged and destroyed, by the Squadron
under the Command of the Duke D'Anville, notwithstanding the
then declining State of the French, and the very flourishing
State of the British Navy, and the further Advantage accruing
to the English, from the Possession of Cape-Breton.
{3177}
That the French find by Experience, they are able to make
greater and more secure Advantages upon their Neighbours, in
Peace than in War. What they unjustly possessed themselves of,
after the Peace of Utrecht, they now pretend they have a Right
to hold, by Virtue of the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, until the
true Boundary between the English and French be settled by
Commissioners; but their Conquests made during War, they have
been obliged to restore. That the French Affairs relative to
this Continent, are under one Direction, and constantly
regarded by the Crown and Ministry, who are not insensible how
great a Stride they would make towards an Universal Monarchy,
if the British Colonies were added to their Dominions, and
consequently the whole Trade of North-America engrossed by
them. That the said Colonies being in a divided, disunited
State, there has never been any joint Exertion of their Force,
or Council, to repel or defeat the Measures of the French; and
particular Colonies are unable and unwilling to maintain the
Cause of the whole. That there has been a very great Neglect
of the Affairs of the Iroquoise, as they are commonly called,
the Indians of the Six Nations, and their Friendship and
Alliance has been improved to private Purposes, for the Sake
of the Trade with them, and the Purchase or Acquisition of
their Lands, more than the Public Services. That they are
supplied with Rum by the Traders, in vast and almost
incredible Quantities; the Laws of the Colonies now in Force,
being insufficient to restrain the Supply. And the Indians of
every Nation, are frequently drunk, and abused in their Trade,
and their Affections thereby alienated from the English; they
often wound and murder one another in their Liquor, and to
avoid Revenge, fly to the French; and perhaps more have been
lost by these Means than by the French Artifice. That
Purchases of Land from the Indians by private Persons, for
small trifling Considerations, have been the Cause of great
Uneasiness and Discontents; and if the Indians are not in fact
imposed on and injured, yet they are apt to think they have
been; and indeed, they appear not fit to be entrusted at
Large, with the Sale of their own Lands: And the Laws of some
of the Colonies, which make such Sales void, unless the
Allowance of the Government be first obtained, seem to be well
founded. That the Granting or Patenting vast Tracts of Land to
private Persons or Companies, without Conditions of speedy
Settlements, has tended to prevent the Strengthening the
Frontiers of the particular Colony where such Tracts lie, and
been Prejudicial to the rest. That it seems absolutely
necessary, that speedy and effectual Measures be taken, to
secure the Colonies from the Slavery they are threatened with:
that any farther Advances of the French should be prevented;
and the Encroachments already made, removed. That the Indians
in Alliance or Friendship with the English, be constantly
regarded under some wise Direction or Superintendency. That
Endeavours be used for the Recovery of those Indians who are
lately gone over to the French, and for securing those that
remain. That some discreet Person or Persons be appointed to
reside constantly among each Nation of Indians; such Person to
have no Concern in Trade, and duly to communicate all Advices
to the Superintendents. That the Trade with the said Indians
be well regulated, and made subservient to the Public
Interest, more than to private Gain. That there be Forts built
for the Security of each Nation, and the better carrying on
the Trade with them. That warlike Vessels be provided,
sufficient to maintain His Majesty's Right to a free
Navigation on the several Lakes. That all future Purchases of
Lands from the Indians be void, unless made by the Government
where such Lands lie, and from the Indians in a Body, in their
public Councils. That the Patentees or Possessors of large
unsettled Territories, be enjoined to cause them to be settled
in a reasonable Time, on Pain of Forfeiture. That the
Complaints of the Indians, relative to any Grants or
Possessions of their Lands, fraudulently obtained, be inquired
into, and all Injuries redressed. That the Bounds of those
Colonies which extend to the South Seas, be contracted and
limited by the Alleghenny or Apalachian Mountains; and that
Measures be taken, for settling from time to time, Colonies of
His Majesty's Protestant Subjects, Westward of said Mountains,
in convenient Cantons, to be assigned for that Purpose. And
finally, that there be an Union of His Majesty's several
Governments on the Continent, that so their Councils,
Treasure, and Strength, may be employed in due Proportion,
against their common Enemy."

The Plan of Union, adopted on the 10th of July, was as
follows:

"Plan of a proposed Union of the several Colonies of
Massachusetts-Bay, New-Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode-Island,
New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
North-Carolina, and South Carolina, for their mutual Defence
and Security, and for the Extending the British Settlements in
North-America. That humble Application be made for an Act of
the Parliament of Great-Britain, by Virtue of which One
General Government may be formed in America, including all the
said Colonies; within and under which Government, each Colony
may retain its present Constitution, except in the Particulars
wherein a Change may be directed by the said Act, as hereafter
follows. That the said General Government be administered by a
President General, to be appointed and supported by the Crown;
and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the Representatives of
the People of the several Colonies, met in their respective
Assemblies. That within Months after the Passing of such Act,
the House of Representatives in the several Assemblies, that
happen to be sitting within that Time, or that shall be
especially for that Purpose convened, may and shall chuse
Members for the Grand Council, in the following Proportions;
that is to say: Massachusetts-Bay, 7; New-Hampshire, 2;
Connecticut, 5; Rhode-Island, 2; New-York, 4; New-Jersey, 3;
Pennsylvania, 6; Maryland, 4; Virginia, 7, North-Carolina, 4;
South Carolina, 4: = 48. Who shall meet for the first Time at
the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, being called by the
President General, as soon as conveniently may be, after his
Appointment. That there shall be a new Election of Members for
the Grand Council every three Years; and on the Death or
Resignation of any Member, his Place shall be supplied by a
new Choice, at the next Sitting of the Assembly of the Colony
he represented.
{3178}
That after the first three Years, when the Proportion of Money
arising out of each Colony to the General Treasury, can be
known, the Number of Members to be chosen for each Colony,
shall from time to time, in all ensuing Elections, be
regulated by that Proportion (yet so as that the Number to be
chosen by any one Province, be not more than seven, nor less
than two). That the Grand Council shall meet once in every
Year, and oftener if Occasion require, at such Time and Place
as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding Meeting, or as
they shall be called to meet at by the President General on
any Emergency; he having first obtained in writing, the
Consent of seven of the Members to such Call, and sent due and
timely Notice to the whole. That the Grand Council have Power
to chuse their Speaker, and shall neither be dissolved,
prorogued, nor continue sitting longer than six Weeks at one
Time, without their own Consent, or the special Command of the
Crown. That the Members of the Grand Council shall be allowed
for their Service, Ten Shillings Sterling per Diem, during
their Session and Journey to and from the Place of Meeting,
twenty Miles to be reckoned a Day's Journey. That the Assent
of the President General be requisite to all Acts of the Grand
Council; and that it be his Office and Duty to cause them to
be carried into Execution. That the President General, with
the Advice of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian
Treaties, in which the general Interest or Welfare of the
Colonies may be concerned; and to make Peace or declare War
with Indian Nations. That they make such Laws as they judge
necessary for regulating all Indian Trade. That they make all
Purchases from Indians for the Crown, of the Lands now not
within the Bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be
within their Bounds, when some of them are reduced to more
convenient Dimensions. That they make new Settlements on such
Purchases, by granting Lands in the King's Name, reserving a
Quit-Rent to the Crown for the Use of the General Treasury.
That they make Laws for regulating and governing such new
Settlements, 'till the Crown shall think fit to form them into
particular Governments. That they may raise and pay Soldiers,
and build Forts for the Defence of any of the Colonies, and
equip Vessels of Force to guard the Coast, and protect the
Trade on the Ocean, Lakes, or great Rivers; but they shall not
impress Men in any Colony, without the Consent of its
Legislature. That for those Purposes, they have Power to make
Laws, and lay and levy such general Duties, Imposts, or Taxes,
as to themselves appear most equal and just, considering the
Ability and other Circumstances of the Inhabitants in the
several Colonies, and such as may be collected with the least
Inconvenience to the People; rather discouraging Luxury, than
loading industry with unnecessary Burthens. That they may
appoint a general Treasurer and a particular Treasurer in each
Government, when necessary; and from time to time, may order
the Sums in the Treasuries of each Government, into the
General Treasury, or draw on them for special Payments, as
they find most convenient; yet no Money to issue, but by joint
Orders of the President General and Grand Council, except
where Sums have been appropriated to particular Purposes, and
the President General is previously impowered by an Act, to
draw for such Sums. That the general Accounts shall be yearly
settled, and reported to the several Assemblies. That a Quorum
of the Grand Council, impowered to act with the President
General, do consist of Twenty-five Members; among whom there
shall be one or more from a Majority of the Colonies. That the
Laws made by them for the Purposes aforesaid, shall not be
repugnant, but as near as may be agreeable, to the Laws of
England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council, for
Approbation, as soon as may be, after their passing; and if
not disapproved within three Years after Presentation, to
remain in Force. That in Case of the Death of the President
General, the Speaker of the Grand Council for the Time being,
shall succeed, and be vested with the same Power and
Authorities, and continue 'till the King's Pleasure be known.
That all Military Commission Officers, whether for Land or Sea
Service, to act under this General Constitution, be nominated
by the President General, but the Approbation of the Grand
Council is to be obtained, before they receive their
Commissions. And all Civil Officers are to be nominated by the
Grand Council, and to receive the President General's
Approbation, before they officiate. But in Case of Vacancy, by
Death or Removal of any Officer, Civil or Military, under this
Constitution, the Governor of the Provinces in which such
Vacancy happens, may appoint, 'till the Pleasure of the
President General and Grand Council can be known. That the
particular Military as well as Civil Establishments in each
Colony, remain in their present State, this General
Constitution notwithstanding; and that on sudden Emergencies,
any Colony may defend itself, and lay the Accounts of Expense
thence arisen, before the President General and Grand Council,
who may allow and order Payment of the same, as far as they
judge such Accounts just and reasonable."

_Stephen Hopkins,
A True Representation of the Plan formed at Albany in 1754,
for uniting all the British Northern Colonies;
with introduction and notes by S. S. Rider
(Rhode Island Historical Tracts, Number 9)._

ALSO IN:
_Proceedings of Commissioners at Albany
(Doc. Hist. of New York, volume 2, pages 545-617)._

_T. C. Haliburton,
Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
pages 253-258._

_J. R. Brodhead, editor,
Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 6, pages 853-905._

_Journal of Congress at Albany in 1754
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
series 3, volume 5)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation
of the colonies by act of Parliament.

At the congress of American governors which General Braddock
convened at Alexandria, in April, 1755, on his first arrival
in America as commander-in-chief of the British forces,
"Braddock directed their attention, first of all, to the
subject of a colonial revenue, on which his instructions
commanded him to insist, and his anger kindled 'that no such
fund was already established.' The governors present,
recapitulating their strifes with their assemblies, made
answer: 'Such a fund can never be established in the colonies
without the aid of parliament. Having found it impracticable
to obtain in their respective governments the proportion
expected by his majesty toward defraying the expense of his
service in North America, they are unanimously of opinion that
it should be proposed to his majesty's ministers to find out
some method of compelling them to do it, and of assessing the
several governments in proportion to their respective
abilities.'
{3179}
This imposing document Braddock sent forthwith to the
ministry, himself urging the necessity of laying some tax
throughout his majesty's dominions in North America. … I have
had in my hands vast masses of correspondence, including
letters from servants of the crown in every royal colony in
America; from civilians, as well as from Braddock and Dunbar
and Gage; from Delancey and Sharpe, as well as from Dinwiddie
and Shirley; and all were of the same tenor. The British
ministry heard one general clamor from men in office for
taxation by act of parliament. … In England, the government
was more and more inclined to enforce the permanent authority
of Great Britain."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last Revision),
volume 2, pages. 416-417._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, known in Europe
as the Seven Years War:
The English conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1773, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, to 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;

also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The English theory and the American theory of their relations.

"The people of every colony were subject to two jurisdictions,
one local and one general, that must be adjusted to each
other. To effect such adjustment caused no little friction;
and the Colonies and the Mother Country got on peaceably as
long as they did, only because neither one pushed its theory
of colonial relations to an extreme, each yielding something
to the other and thus effecting a compromise. The Colonies
held that the dominion which the Cabots discovered in America
belonged to the King, rather than to the Kingdom, of England.
Englishmen adventuring into this dominion to plant colonies
were entitled to all the privileges of free-born Englishmen at
home; trial by jury, habeas corpus, and exemption from taxes
that their own representatives had not voted. The British
Empire was not one dominion, but several dominions. Everyone
of these dominions had, or should have, its own legislature to
enact laws for its government. The Colonies were not one
dominion, but 13 dominions; and in everyone the legislature
was as supreme as Parliament was in England. Parliament,
therefore, had nothing more to do with Massachusetts or
Virginia than the legislatures of those colonies had to do
with England. The King, who alone had a voice in the matter,
had, in their charters, guaranteed to the Colonies the common
law so far as this was applicable to their condition, and he
was now powerless to withdraw what he had thus conceded. Such,
in outline, was the American theory of colonial relations.
Still, no one pretended that this theory had ever been fully
carried out in practice. It must also be said that it did not
appear fully formed at once, but grew up gradually. The
British theory was that Englishmen continued Englishmen when
they emigrated to the American dominions of the King; that the
power of Parliament, to which they were subject in the old
home, followed them to the new one; and that Parliament could
yield them more or fewer powers of self-government for a time,
and then withdraw them. It was also claimed that the Colonies
were already represented in the House of Commons; since the
several members of that body did not represent particular
districts or constituencies, but the whole British Empire.
Besides, it was asserted that the Colonies themselves had
repeatedly acknowledged the authority of Parliament by
submitting to its legislation. Still no one pretended that
this theory had ever been fully carried out."

_B. A. Hinsdale,
The American Government,
sections 92-93._

ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
pages 30-32._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1761.
Enforcement of revenue laws in Massachusetts.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

"Immediately after the conquest of Canada was completed,
rumors were widely circulated … that the charters would be
taken away, and the colonies reduced to royal governments. The
officers of the customs began at once to enforce with
strictness all the acts of parliament regulating the trade of
the colonies, several of which had been suspended, or become
obsolete, and thus had never been executed at all. The good
will of the colonists or their legislatures, was no longer
wanted in the prosecution of the war; and the commissioners of
the customs were permitted and directed to enforce the
obnoxious acts. Governor Bernard [of Massachusetts], who was
always a supporter of the royal prerogative, entered fully
into these views, and shewed by his opinion, his appointments
and his confidential advisers, that his object would be, to
extend the power of the government to any limits, which the
ministry might authorize. The first demonstration of the new
course intended to be pursued, was the arrival of an order in
Council to carry into effect the Acts of trade, and to apply
to the supreme judicature of the Province [Massachusetts], for
Writs of Assistance, to be granted to the officers of the
customs. In a case of this importance there can be no doubt,
that Mr. Paxton, who was at the head of the customs in Boston,
consulted with the Government and all the crown officers, as
to the best course to be taken. The result was, that he
directed his deputy at Salem, Mr. Cockle, in November, 1760,
to petition the Superior Court, then sitting in that town, for
'writs of assistance.' Stephen Sewall who was the Chief
Justice, expressed great doubt of the legality of such a writ,
and of the authority of the Court to grant it. None of the
other judges said a word in favour of it; but as the
application was on the part of the Crown, it could not be
dismissed without a hearing, which after consultation was
fixed for the next term of the Court, to be held in February,
1761, at Boston, when the question was ordered to be argued.
In the interval, Chief Justice Sewall died, and Lieutenant
Governor Hutchinson was made his successor, thereby uniting in
his person, the office of Lieutenant Governor with the
emoluments of the commander of the castle, a member of the
Council, Judge of Probate and Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court! … The mercantile part of the community was in a state
of great anxiety as to the result of this question. The
officers of the Customs called upon Otis for his official
assistance, as Advocate General, to argue their cause.
{3180}
But, as he believed these writs to be illegal and tyrannical,
be refused. He would not prostitute his office to the support
of an oppressive act; and with true delicacy and dignity,
being unwilling to retain a station, in which he might be
expected or called upon to argue in support of such odious
measures, he resigned it though the situation was very
lucrative, and if filled by an incumbent with a compliant
spirit, led to the highest favours of government. The
merchants of Salem and Boston, applied to Mr. Pratt to
undertake their cause, who was also solicited to engage on the
other side; but he declined taking any part, being about to
leave Boston for New York, of which province he had been
appointed Chief Justice. They also applied to Otis and
Thacher, who engaged to make their defence, and probably both
of them without fees, though very great ones were offered. The
language of Otis was, 'in such a cause, I despise all fees.' …
The trial took place in the Council Chamber of the Old Town
House, in Boston. … The judges were five in number, including
Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, who presided as Chief Justice.
The room was filled with all the officers of government, and
the principal citizens, to hear the arguments in a cause that
inspired the deepest solicitude. The case was opened by Mr.
Gridley, who argued it with much learning, ingenuity, and
dignity, urging every point and authority; that could be found
after the most diligent search, in favour of the Custom house
petition; making all his reasoning depend on this
consideration—'if the parliament of Great Britain is the
sovereign legislator of the British Empire.' He was followed
by Mr. Thacher on the opposite side, whose reasoning was
ingenious and able, delivered in a tone of great mildness and
moderation. 'But,' in the language of President Adams, 'Otis
was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical
allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical
events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a
prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid
torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before
him. American Independence was then and there born. The seeds
of patriots and heroes, to defend the 'Non sine Diis animosus
infans'; to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there
sown. Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me
to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of
Assistance. Then and there, was the first scene of the first
act of opposition, to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain.
Then and there, the child Independence was born. In fifteen
years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared
himself free.' 'There were no stenographers in those days,' to
give a complete report of this momentous harangue. How gladly
would be exchanged for it, a few hundred verbose speeches on
some of the miserable, transient topics of the day, that are
circulated in worthless profusion. Yet on this occasion, 'the
seeds were sown,' and though some of them doubtless fell by
the wayside or on stony places, others fell on good ground,
and sprang up and increased and brought forth in due season,
thirty, sixty and an hundred fold. … After the close of his
argument, the Court adjourned for consideration, and at the
close of the term, Chief Justice Hutchinson pronounced the
opinion: 'The Court has considered the subject of writs of
assistance, find can see no foundation for such a writ; but as
the practice in England is not known, it has been thought best
to continue the question to the next term, that in the
meantime opportunity may be given to know the result.' No
cause in the annals of colonial jurisprudence had hitherto
excited more public interest; and none had given rise to such
powerful argument. … An epoch in public affairs may be dated
from this trial. Political parties became more distinctly
formed, and their several adherents were more marked and
decided. The nature of ultra-marine jurisdiction began to be
closely examined; the question respecting raising a revenue
fully discussed. The right of the British parliament to impose
taxes was openly denied. 'Taxation without representation is
tyranny,' was the maxim, that was the guide and watch word of
all the friends of liberty. The crown officers and their
followers adopted openly the pretensions of the British
ministry and parliament, and considering their power to be
irresistible, appealed to the selfishness of those who might
be expectants of patronage, and to the fears of all quiet and
timid minds, to adopt a blind submission, as the only safe or
reasonable alternative. Otis took the side of his country, and
as has been shewn, under circumstances that made his decision
irrevocable. He was transferred at once from the ranks of
private life, not merely to take the side, but to be the guide
and leader of his country, in opposition to the designs of the
British ministry. 'Although' says President Adams, 'Mr. Otis
had never before interfered in public affairs, his exertions
on this single occasion secured him a commanding popularity
with the friends of their country, and the terror and
vengeance of her enemies; neither of which ever deserted him.'
His popularity was instantaneous, and universal; and the
public were impatient for the approaching election, when they
could make him a representative of Boston."

_W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis,
chapters 5-7._

See also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The Treaty of Paris.
Acquisition of Florida and Eastern Louisiana
(as well as Canada) by Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers from the
Western territory lately acquired from France.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
General effects, economically and politically,
of the English trade regulations.

"Economically the general results of the trade regulations
were important. Robert Giffen has repeatedly pointed out how
difficult it is, even with modern comparatively accurate
methods, to obtain reliable results from the use of export and
import statistics. This difficulty is immeasurably enhanced
when we have to rely on the meagre figures of a century and a
half ago. For we neither know how these statistics were taken,
nor at all how accurate they are; while their inadequacy
becomes clearly evident when we consider the large amount of
smuggling carried on both in England and the colonies. One
general proposition, however, can be formulated from the
examination of these statistics, and that is the balance of
trade between England and the colonies was unfavorable to the
latter. And this was an inherent consequence of the mercantile
system, by which England regulated these commercial relations.
{3181}
The colonies were unable to pay England for her manufactures
entirely in raw materials, and the residue was paid in coin
obtained from the favorable trade with Spain, Portugal, and
the West Indies. All metal had to be sent to England; it was,
as De Foe says, 'snatched up for returns to England in
specie.' An important consequence followed from this
continuous drain of specie. The colonies could with difficulty
retain coin, and hence were forced either to fall back on
barter, or to issue paper money. … While, on the one hand, the
acts of trade and navigation are partially responsible for
many sad passages in the fiscal history of the colonies, on
the other hand they conduced to the development of a most
important colonial industry. This industry was ship-building,
for which the colonies were especially adapted on account of
the cheapness of lumber. In developing this natural fitness,
the protection afforded to English and colonial shipping by
the Navigation Acts was an important factor. As a rule England
did not discriminate against colonial and in favor of English
ships, although the colonies frequently attempted by
legislation to secure advantages for their own shipping. As a
result of this policy ship building and the carrying trade
increased rapidly, especially in the New England colonies. …
So important did this industry become that in 1724 the ship
carpenters of the Thames complained to the King, 'that their
trade was hurt and their workmen emigrated since so many
vessels were built in New England.' Massachusetts built ships
not only for England, but also for European countries, and for
the West Indies. … Politically the commercial regulations were
not so important. Up to 1763 only slight political importance
attaches to the system, for only in a negative way did it
affect the political ideas of the colonists. The colonies were
peopled by men of varied race and religion, who had little
common consciousness of rights and wrongs and few common
political ideals. The centrifugal forces among them were
strong. Among centripetal forces, such as a common sovereign
and a common system of private law, must be reckoned the fact
that their commerce was regulated by a system which, as a
rule, was uniform for all the colonies. When the acts of trade
worked to their advantage, the colonists reaped common
benefits; when they inflicted hardships, the colonists made
common complaint. Moreover, the fact that England was unable
to enforce certain of her acts, especially the Molasses Act,
caused contempt for parliamentary authority. The continued
and, by the very nature of things, the necessary violation of
this law lead to a questioning of its sanction, while the open
favoritism shown in it towards the West India colonies
naturally aroused disaffection in those of the continent. The
colonial system, as it was administered before 1763,
contributed but slightly in bringing about the revolution of
1776. As Mr. Ramsay has said, 'if no other grievances had been
superadded to what existed in 1763, they would have been soon
forgotten, for their pressure was neither great, nor
universal. It was only when the fundamental basis of the acts
was changed from one of commercial monopoly to one of revenue,
that the acts became of vital political importance."

_G. L. Beer,
The Commercial Policy of England toward
the American Colonies
(Columbia College Studies in History, etc.,
volume 3, number 2), chapter 7, section 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination in England to tax the colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.-"

It did not take four years after the peace of 1763 to show how
rapidly the new situation of affairs was bearing fruit in
America. … The overthrow of their ancient enemy [the French in
Canada], while further increasing the self-confidence of the
Americans, at the same time removed the principal check which
had hitherto kept their differences with the British
government from coming to an open rupture. Formerly the dread
of French attack had tended to make the Americans complaisant
toward the king's ministers, while at the same time it made
the king's ministers unwilling to lose the good will of the
Americans. Now that the check was removed, the continuance or
revival of the old disputes at once foreboded trouble; and the
old occasions for dispute were far from having ceased. On the
contrary the war itself had given them fresh vitality. If
money had been needed before, it was still more needed now.
The war had entailed a heavy burden of expense upon the
British government as well as upon the colonies. The national
debt of Great Britain was much increased, and there were many
who thought that, since the Americans shared in the benefits
of the war, they ought also to share in the burden which it
left behind it. People in England who used this argument did
not realize that the Americans had really contributed as much
as could reasonably be expected to the support of the war, and
that it had left behind it debts to be paid in America as well
as in England. But there was another argument which made it
seem reasonable to many Englishmen that the colonists should
be taxed. It seemed right that a small military force should
be kept up in America, for defence of the frontiers against
the Indians, even if there were no other enemies to be
dreaded. The events of Pontiac's war now showed that there was
clearly need of such a force; and the experience of the royal
governors for half a century had shown that it was very
difficult to get the colonial legislatures to vote money for
any such purpose. Hence there grew up in England a feeling
that taxes ought to be raised in America as a contribution to
the war debt and to the military defence of the colonies; and
in order that such taxes should be fairly distributed and
promptly collected, it was felt that the whole business ought
to be placed under the direct supervision and control of
parliament. … It was in 1763 that George Grenville became
prime minister, a man of whom Macaulay says that he knew of
'no national interests except those which are expressed by
pounds, shillings, and pence.' Grenville proceeded to
introduce into Parliament two measures which had consequences
of which he little dreamed. The first of these measures was
the Molasses Act [often called the Sugar Act], the second was
the Stamp Act. Properly speaking, the Molasses Act was an old
law which Grenville now made up his mind to revive and
enforce. The commercial wealth of the New England colonies
depended largely upon their trade with the fish which their
fishermen caught along the coast and as far out as the banks
of Newfoundland. The finest fish could be sold in Europe, but
the poorer sort found their chief market in the French West
Indies.
{3182}
The French government, in order to ensure a market for the
molasses raised in these islands, would not allow the planters
to give any thing else in exchange for fish. Great quantities
of molasses were therefore carried to New England, and what
was not needed there for domestic use was distilled into rum,
part of which was consumed at home, and the rest carried
chiefly to Africa wherewith to buy slaves to be sold to the
southern colonies. All this trade required many ships, and
thus kept up a lively demand for New England lumber, besides
finding employment for thousands of sailors and shipwrights.
Now in 1733 the British government took it into its head to
'protect' its sugar planters in the English West Indies by
compelling the New England merchants to buy all their molasses
from them; and with this end in view it forthwith laid upon
all sugar and molasses imported into North America from the
French islands a duty so heavy that, if it had been enforced,
it would have stopped all such importation. … It proved to be
impossible to enforce the act without causing more disturbance
than the government felt prepared to encounter. Now in 1764
Grenville announced that the act was to be enforced, and of
course the machinery of writs of assistance was to be employed
for that purpose. Henceforth all molasses from the French
islands must either pay the prohibitory duty or be seized
without ceremony. Loud and fierce was the indignation of New
England over this revival of the Molasses Act. Even without
the Stamp Act, it might very likely have led that part of the
country to make armed resistance, but in such case it is not
so sure that the southern and middle colonies would have come
to the aid of New England. But in the Stamp Act, Grenville
provided the colonies with an issue which concerned one as
much as another."

_J. Fiske,
The War of Independence,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 6, chapters 2-3 (volume 5)._

_W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy of England,
and its consequences.

"Historians, in treating of the American rebellion, have
confined their arguments too exclusively to the question of
internal taxation, and the right or policy of exercising this
prerogative. The true source of the rebellion lay deeper, in
our traditional colonial policy. Just as the Spaniards had
been excited to the discovery of America by the hope of
obtaining gold and silver, the English merchants utilized the
discovery by the same fallacious method, and with the same
fallacious aspirations. … A hundred years ago the commercial
classes believed that the prime object of their pursuits was
to get as much gold and silver into England as they could.
They sought, therefore, to make their country, as nearly as
they might, a solitary centre of the exportation of
non-metallic commodities, that so she might be also the great
reservoir into which the precious metals would flow in a
return stream. On this base their colonial policy was erected.
… So long as the colonies remained in their infancy the
mercantile policy was less prejudicial to their interests. The
monopoly of their commerce, the limitation of their markets,
the discouragement of their manufactures, in some cases
amounting to absolute prohibition, were all less fatal in a
country where labour was dear, than they would be in a state
where population was more fully developed and land had become
scarcer. … A contraband trade sprung up between them and the
colonies of Spain. Our settlers imported goods from England,
and re-exported them to the Spanish colonies, in return for
bullion and other commodities. The result of this was that the
Spanish colonists had access to useful commodities from which
they would otherwise have been debarred, that the American
colonists could without distress remit the specie which was
required by the nature of their dealings with England, and
that a large market was opened for English products. This
widely beneficial trade was incontinently suppressed in 1764,
by one of those efforts of short-sighted rigour which might be
expected from any government where George Grenville's
influence was prominent. All smuggling was to be put down, and
as this trade was contraband, it must be put down like the
rest. The Government probably acted as they did in answer to
the prayers of the mercantile classes, who could not see that
they were cutting off the streams that fed their own
prosperity. They only saw that a colonial trade had sprung up,
and their jealousy blinded them to the benefits that accrued
to themselves as a consequence of it. Their folly found them
out. The suppression of the colonial trade was entrusted to
the commanders of men-of-war. … We may be sure that the
original grievance of the colonists was not softened by the
manners of the officers who had to put the law into execution.
The result of the whole transaction was the birth of a very
strong sense in the minds of the colonists that the mother
country looked upon them as a sponge to be squeezed. This
conviction took more than a passing hold upon them. It was
speedily inflamed into inextinguishable heat, first by the
news that they were to be taxed without their own consent, and
next by the tyrannical and atrocious measures by which it was
proposed to crush their resistance. The rebellion may be
characterised as having first originated in the blind
greediness of the English merchants, and as having then been
precipitated by the arbitrary ideas of the patricians, in the
first instance, and afterwards of the King and the least
educated of the common people. If the severe pressure of the
mercantile policy, unflinchingly carried out, had not first
filled the colonists with resentment and robbed them of their
prosperity, the imperial claim to impose taxes would probably
have been submitted to without much ado. And if the
suppression of their trade in 1764 had not been instantly
followed by Grenville's plan for extorting revenue from them,
they would probably in time have been reconciled to the blow
which had been dealt to their commerce. It was the conjunction
of two highly oppressive pieces of policy which taught them
that they would certainly lose more by tame compliance than
they could possibly lose by an active resistance."

_J. Morley,
Edmund Burke,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_W. Massey,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
volume 1, chapter 5._

{3183}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
Patriotic self-denials.

"Upon the news of the intention to lay [the Stamp Tax] … on
the colonies, many people, the last year, had associated, and
engaged to forbear the importation, or consumption, of English
goods; and particularly to break off from the custom of
wearing black clothes, or other mourning [it being generally
of British manufacture—Foot-note], upon the death of
relations. This agreement was then signed by some of the
council, and representatives, and by great numbers of people
in the town of Boston, and the disuse of mourning soon became
general. This was intended to alarm the manufacturers in
England. And now [in 1765], an agreement was made, and signed
by a great proportion of the inhabitants of Boston, to eat no
lamb during the year. This was in order to increase the
growth, and, of course, the manufacture of wool in the
province. Neither of these measures much served the purpose
for which they were professedly intended, but they served to
unite the people in an unfavourable opinion of parliament."

_T. Hutchinson,
History of the province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
pages 116-117._

The movement thus started in Boston before the passage of the
Stamp Act spread rapidly through the other provinces after the
Act had been passed, and continued to be for several years a
very serious expression of colonial patriotism and opposition
to the oppressive policy of the mother country.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
The Stamp Act.