The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume I Part 25

II. The position of the American Colonies in regard to England and other nations clearly signalized a system of government which the English statesmen of the times failed to appreciate. The maxim of the King was not merely to reign, but to rule; and the policy of his Ministers, of successive Administrations, was to enfeeble what was colonial and to strengthen what was imperial; whereas the extension of colonial territory had brought a large accession of colonial experience and intelligence, which required to be entwined around the throne by the silken cords of kindness and interest, instead of being bandaged to England by 29 Acts of Parliament, every one of which indicated the loss of some sacred birthright or privilege of Englishmen and their posterity as soon as they emigrated from the eastern to the western sh.o.r.es of the Atlantic. Those who emigrated to or were born in America were no less Englishmen than those who remained or were born in England, and were ent.i.tled to all the rights and privileges of Englishmen; among which is the election of representatives who make laws and provide means for their government. The original design of colonization by the British Government was doubtless the extension of its power; the design of English merchants and manufacturers in promoting colonization was obviously the extension of their trade, and therefore their own enrichment; while the design of the colonists themselves, in leaving their native land and becoming adventurers and settlers in new countries, was as manifestly the improvement of their own condition and that of their posterity. As long as the threefold design of these three parties to colonization harmonized, there could be no cause or occasion of collision between them, and they would cordially co-operate in advancing the one great object of growing national greatness by enlarging the commerce and dominions of Great Britain. This was the case in the earlier stages of American colonization. The colonists needed the naval and diplomatic protection of England against foreign invasion, and the manufactures of England for their own wants and conveniences, while England needed the productions of the colonial forests and waters. The colonial trade became a monopoly of England, and its transportation to and from the colonies was confined to English ships and sailors. Even manufactures in the colonies were forbidden, or restricted, as well as their trade with foreign countries, except by way of England; so that the colonies became so many trading ports for English merchandise, and the American traders were little other than factors of English merchants.

However this system of monopoly and restriction might answer the purposes of English merchants and manufacturers, might contribute to build up the mercantile navy of England, and even be politic on the part of Government in colonial infancy, it could not fail ere long to cause friction with the colonies, and was utterly unsuitable to their circ.u.mstances as they advanced to manhood.[258] As the colonies increased in wealth and population, their commerce increased with each other and with the mother country, and overflowed to the French and Spanish colonies in the West Indies. Even before the termination of the war of 1755, a considerable commerce had been carried on between the British and Spanish colonies; the latter needed many of the productions and importations of the former, and the former needed the gold and silver, mola.s.ses and sugar, of the latter. The British colonies sent lumber, fish, and large quant.i.ties of goods imported from England, to the Spanish colonies, and received chiefly in payment gold and silver, with which they made remittances to England for the goods purchased there.[259] Such was the position of the colonies in respect to Great Britain and other European Powers at the peace of Paris in 1763; and such the friendly and affectionate feelings of the colonies towards the mother country down to that period.

III. The treaty of Paris was ratified in February, 1763; and on the 17th of March following, the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted among the estimates the following item, which was adopted by the Commons:

"Upon account, to enable his Majesty to give a proper compensation to the respective provinces in North America, for the expenses incurred by them in the levying, clothing, and paying of the troops raised by the same, according to the active vigour and strenuous efforts of the respective provinces shall be thought by his Majesty to merit, 133,333 6s. 8d."

The several provinces gratefully acknowledged the compensation granted them; of which Ma.s.sachusetts received the largest share.

This was the last practical recognition on the part of the British Government of the loyal co-operation of the colonies in the war which established the supremacy of Great Britain in North America. From that time forward the instructions, regulations, and measures of the British Government seem to have been dictated by a jealousy of the growing wealth and power of the colonies, and to have been designed to weaken the colonies in order to strengthen the parent state. The policy of the British Administration was undoubtedly to extinguish all military spirit in the colonies, by creating a standing army which the colonies were to support, but wholly independent of them; to discountenance and forbid colonial manufactures, so as to render the colonies entirely dependent upon Great Britain for manufactured goods, hardware, and tools of every description; to destroy their trade with foreign countries by virtually prohibitory duties, so as to compel the colonies to go to the English market for every article of grocery or luxury, in whatever climate or country produced; to restrict the colonial shipping, as well as productions, to British ports alone, and even to tax the trade of the colonies with each other. All the monies arising from the various duties thus imposed were to be paid, not into the provincial treasuries, as heretofore, but into the English exchequer, and to be at the disposal of the British Parliament.

Had the British Government regarded the colonists as Englishmen in their rights and privileges as well as in their duties and obligations; had the British policy been to develop the manufactures and resources of the American colonies equally with those of England, and to leave to their local Legislatures (the only Parliaments in which the colonists had representation by their own election) to legislate on all purely domestic matters, to dispose of all colonial revenues, and to provide for their own protection, as before the war with France, and as is done in the provinces and Dominion of Canada, I doubt not but the American colonies would have remained in heart and policy an integral portion of the British empire, and become the strong right arm of Great Britain in regard to both national resources and national strength. I cannot, therefore, but regard the mistaken policy of the King and his Ministers as the primary cause of the alienation and severance of the American colonies from the mother country.

IV. The proceedings after the peace of Paris, 1763, which caused the alienation of the colonies from Great Britain, commenced on the part of the mother country, towards which, at that time, the language of the colonies was most affectionate and grateful. The first act of the British Government which caused disquiet in the colonies was the rigorous enforcement of the Navigation Act--an Act first pa.s.sed by the Commonwealth Parliament more than a century before, which had been amended and extended by successive Acts under Charles the Second, which had been beneficial both to the mother country and the colonies, which had given to the naval and mercantile marine of Great Britain their superiority, but which had, in the application of its provisions to the trade between the English, Spanish, and French colonies of America, become almost obsolete by the common consent and practice of colonial governors, custom-house officers, and merchants. But shortly after the treaty of Paris instructions were sent to the colonies, directing the strict enforcement of the Navigation Act. "On the 10th of March, 1764, the House of Commons agreed to a number of resolutions respecting the American trade; upon which a Bill was brought in, and pa.s.sed into a law, laying heavy duties on the articles imported into the colonies from the French and other islands of the West Indies, and ordered these duties to be paid in specie into the exchequer of Great Britain. The Americans complained much of this new law, and of the unexampled hardship of being first deprived of obtaining specie, and next being ordered to pay the new duties in specie into the treasury at London, which they said must speedily drain them of all the specie they had. But what seemed particularly hard upon them was a Bill brought in the same session, and pa.s.sed into a law, 'to _restrain_ the currency of paper money in the colonies.'

"At the end of the session the King thanked the House of Commons for the 'wise regulations which had been established to augment the public revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of his Crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great Britain.'"[262]

Though the Bill and regulations referred to legalized in a manner the heretofore illicit trade between the colonies and the French and Spanish West India islands, they practically ruined the trade by the burden of duties imposed, and thus distressed and ruined many who were engaged in it.[263] It is not surprising that such a policy of restricting both the import and export trade of the colonies to England, apart from the methods of enforcing it, should produce general dissatisfaction in the colonies, and prompt to combinations against such extortion, and for the supply of their own wants, as far as possible independent of English manufactures. Popular meetings were held, and a.s.sociations were formed in several provinces, pledging their members against purchasing or wearing clothing of English manufacture, and to set about manufacturing woollens, cottons, etc., for themselves, the materials for which they had in great abundance of their own production. Ladies and gentlemen of the wealthiest and most fashionable cla.s.ses of society appeared in homespun; and merchants pledged themselves to order no more goods from England, and to countermand the orders they had previously given.[264]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 256: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap. v., p. 78.

"The Spaniards having taken part in the war, were, at the termination of it, induced to relinquish to the same Power both East and West Florida (in exchange for Cuba). This peace gave Great Britain possession of an extent of country equal in dimensions to several of the kingdoms of Europe." (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 391.)]

[Footnote 257: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap.

v., pp. 321, 322.]

[Footnote 258: "From the first settlement of English America till the close of the war of 1755, the general conduct of Great Britain towards her colonies affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to colonization. From that era, it is equally worthy of the attention of those who wish for the reduction of great empires to small ones. In the first period, Great Britain regarded the provinces as instruments of commerce. Without the care of their internal police, or seeking a revenue from them, she contented herself with the monopoly of their trade. She treated them as a judicious mother does her dutiful children.

They shared in every privilege belonging to her native sons, and but slightly felt the inconveniences of subordination. Small was the catalogue of grievances with which even democratic jealousy charged the parent state, antecedent to the period before mentioned. Till the year 1764, the colonial regulations seemed to have no other object but the common good of the whole empire. Exceptions to the contrary were few, and had no appearance of system. When the approach of the colonies to manhood made them more capable of resisting impositions, Great Britain changed her ancient system, under which her colonies had long flourished. When policy would rather have dictated a relaxation of authority, she rose in her demands and multiplied her restraints."

(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., page 323).]

[Footnote 259: "This trade, though it did not clash with the spirit of the British navigation laws, was forbidden by their letter. On account of the advantages which all parties, and particularly Great Britain, reaped from this intercourse, it had long been winked at by persons in power[260]; but at the period before mentioned (1764), some new regulations were adopted by which it was almost destroyed.[261] This was effected by cutters whose commanders were enjoined to take the usual custom-house oaths, and to act in the capacity of revenue officers. So sudden a stoppage of an accustomed and beneficial commerce, by an unusually rigid execution of old laws, was a serious blow to the northern colonies. It was their misfortune that, though they stood in need of vast quant.i.ties of British manufactures, their country produced very little that afforded a direct remittance to pay for them. They were therefore under the necessity of seeking elsewhere a market for their produce, and, by a circuitous route, acquiring the means of supporting their credit with the mother country. This they had found by trading with the Spanish and French colonies in their neighbourhood. From them they acquired gold, silver, and valuable commodities, the ultimate profits of which centred in Great Britain. This intercourse gave life to business of every denomination, and established a reciprocal circulation of money and merchandise, to the benefit of all parties concerned. Why a trade essential to the colonies, and which, so far from being detrimental, was indirectly advantageous to Great Britain, should be so narrowly watched, so severely restrained, was not obvious to the Americans. Instead of viewing the parent state, as formerly, in the light of an affectionate mother, they conceived her as beginning to be influenced by the narrow views of an illiberal stepdame."--_Ib._, pp.

324, 325.]

[Footnote 260: Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, in a letter to Richard Jackson, Grenville's Secretary in the Exchequer, September, 1763, says, "The real cause of the illicit trade in this Province (Ma.s.sachusetts) has been _the indulgence of the officers of the Customs_; and we are told that the cause of this indulgence has been that they are quartered upon for more than their legal fees, and that without bribery and corruption they must starve."

As a specimen of this "bribery and corruption," the deposition on oath of the Deputy Collector of his Majesty's Customs at the port of Salem is given, to the effect that every time he had been in the office it had been customary for the Collector to receive of the masters of the vessels entering from Lisbon casks of wine, boxes of fruit, etc., which was a gratuity for suffering their vessels to be entered with salt or ballast only, and pa.s.sing over unnoticed such cargoes of wine, fruit, etc., which were prohibited to be imported into his Majesty's plantations; part of which wine, fruit, etc., the Collector used to share with Governor Barnard. (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap, ix., p. 158, in a note.)]

[Footnote 261: "The sad story of colonial oppression commenced in 1764.

Great Britain then adopted regulations respecting her colonies which, after disturbing the ancient harmony of the two countries for about twelve years, terminated in the dismemberment of the empire. These consisted in restricting their former commerce, but more especially in subjecting them to taxation by the British Parliament. By adhering to the spirit of her Navigation Act, in the course of a century the trade of Great Britain had increased far beyond the expectation of her most sanguine sons; but by rigidly enforcing the strict letter of the same in a different situation of public affairs, effects directly the reverse were produced."--_Ib._, p. 324.]

[Footnote 262: Prior Doc.u.ments; or a Collection of Interesting Authentic Papers relating to the Dispute between Great Britain and America, showing the causes and progress of that misunderstanding from 1764 to 1775, pp. 1, 2; London, 1777.

"Four great wars within seventy years had overwhelmed Great Britain with heavy debts and excessive taxation. Her recent conquests, so far from relieving her embarra.s.sments, had greatly increased that debt, which amounted now to 140,000,000, near $700,000,000. Even in the midst of the struggle, in the success of which they had so direct an interest, the military contributions of the colonial a.s.semblies had been sometimes reluctant and capricious, and always irregular and unequal. They might, perhaps, refuse to contribute at all towards a standing army in time of peace, of which they would naturally soon become jealous. It seemed necessary, therefore, by some exertion of metropolitan authority, to extract from the colonies for this purpose a regular and certain revenue." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II. Chap.

xxviii., p. 516.)

This was avowed by the great commoner, Pitt himself, the special friend of America. "In the course of the war between France and England, some of the colonies made exertions so far beyond their equitable quota as to merit a reimburs.e.m.e.nt from the national treasury; but this was not universally the case. In consequence of internal discord, together with their greater domestic security, the necessary supplies had not been raised in due time by others of the provincial a.s.semblies. That a British Minister should depend on the colonial a.s.semblies for the execution of his plans, did not well accord with the decisive genius of Pitt; but it was not prudent, by any innovation, to irritate the colonies during a war in which, from local circ.u.mstances, their exertions were peculiarly beneficial. The advantages that would result from an ability to draw forth the resources of the colonies, by the same authority which commanded the wealth of the mother country, might, in these circ.u.mstances, have suggested the idea of taxing the colonies by authority of the British Parliament. Mr. Pitt is said to have told Dr.

Franklin that 'when the war closed, if he should be in the Ministry, he would take measures to prevent the colonies from having a power to refuse or delay the supplies that might be wanted for national purposes,' but he did not mention what those measures should be."

(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 320, 321.)]

[Footnote 263: In the work mentioned in last note, "Prior Doc.u.ments,"

etc., extracts of letters are given, showing the effects of the acts and regulations of commerce, even in the West Indies. I give one of these extracts as a specimen:

_Extract of a letter from Kingston, in Jamaica, to a merchant in London, dated January 27th, 1765._

"Kingston, which used to be a place of great trade and hurry, is become as still as a desert since we were so wise as to banish our best friends, the Spaniards; and now the current of that valuable commerce is turned in favour of the French and the Dutch, who have made their ports free, and, taking the advantage of our misconduct, have promised them safety, and so deal with them for all the European goods, upon the same terms as the English did. Were I to depend upon the sale of goods I had from you, I should not be able to remit the money these two or three years."

_Extract of a letter from Jamaica, to a friend in London, dated May 12th, 1763:_

"We are in the most deplorable state ever known in the island; the channel through which all the money we had came among us, is entirely stopped up."--_Ib._, p. 4.]

[Footnote 264: Prior Doc.u.ments, etc., pp. 4, 5. Annual Register, Vol VII., Chap. vi.

"The Act which gave rise to these movements and combinations against importing goods from England, pa.s.sed in the spring of 1764, was known as the 'Sugar Act,' reducing by one-half the duties imposed by the old 'Mola.s.ses Act' on foreign sugar and mola.s.ses imported into the colonies; levying duties on coffee, pimento, French and East India goods, and wines from Madeira and the Azores, which hitherto had been free; and adding iron and lumber to the 'enumerated articles' which could not be exported except to England. This Act was the first Act ever pa.s.sed by Parliament which avowed the purpose, as it did in its preamble, of 'raising a _revenue_ for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing his Majesty's dominions in America.' This Act gave increased jurisdiction to the Admiralty Courts, and provided new and more efficient means for enforcing the collection of the revenue."

(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxviii., pp.

520, 521.)

"In order to remedy the deficiency of British goods, the colonists betook themselves to a variety of domestic manufactures. In a little time large quant.i.ties of common cloths were brought to market; and these, though dearer and of worse quality, were cheerfully preferred to similar articles imported from Britain. That wool might not be wanting, they entered into resolutions to abstain from eating lambs. Foreign elegancies were laid aside. The women were as exemplary as the men in various instances of self-denial. With great readiness they refused every article of decoration for their persons, and of luxury for their tables. These restrictions, which the colonists had voluntarily imposed on themselves, were so well observed, that mult.i.tudes of artificers in England were reduced to great distress, and some of their most flourishing manufactories were in a great measure at a standstill."

(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 346.)

"This economy became so general at Boston, that the consumption of British merchandise was diminished this year (1764) upwards of 10,000 sterling." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 128.)]

CHAPTER X.

STAMP ACT--ITS EFFECTS IN AMERICA--VIRGINIA LEADS THE OPPOSITION TO IT--RIOTS AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN BOSTON--PEt.i.tIONS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT IN ENGLAND--REJOICINGS AT ITS REPEAL IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA--THE DECLARATORY ACT.

The intensity of the flame of colonial dissatisfaction, and which caused it to burst forth into a conflagration of complaint and resistance in all the colonies, was the announcement of a measure to raise a _revenue_ in the colonies, by Act of Parliament, on the very day, March 10th, 1764, that the Bills which bore so hard on the trade currency of the colonies were pa.s.sed. Mr. Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced sundry resolutions relative to the imposition of _stamp duty_ in America. These resolutions affirmed the right, the equity, the policy, and even the necessity of taxing the colonies.[265]

"The resolutions were not followed this year by any Bill, being only to be held out as an _intention_ for next year. They were proposed and agreed to, in a thin House, late at night, and just at the rising, without any debate."[266] A year from that date, March 10th, 1765, Mr.

Grenville introduced his long-expected measure for raising a revenue in the colonies by a duty on stamps--a measure prepared by fifty-five resolutions (in Committee of Ways and Means), on which were based the provisions of the _Stamp Act_, which provided among other things that a tax should be paid on all newspapers, all law papers, all ships' papers, property transfers, college diplomas, and marriage licenses. A fine of 10 was imposed for each non-compliance with the Act, the enforcement of which was not left to the ordinary courts and juries, but to Courts of Admiralty without juries, the officers of which were appointed by the Crown, and paid fees out of the fines which they imposed--the informer receiving one-half. The year's notice[267] of this Bill had given the opportunity of discussing the merits of it on both sides of the Atlantic. The King, at the opening of the session, had presented the colonial question as one of "obedience to the laws and respect for the legislative authority of the kingdom;" and the Lords and Commons, in reply, declared their intention to pursue every plan calculated for the public advantage, and to proceed therein "with that temper and firmness which will best conciliate and ensure due submission to the laws and reverence for the legislative authority of Great Britain." As it was a money Bill, no pet.i.tions were allowed to be presented to the Commons against it. Several members spoke against it, of whom General Conway and Colonel Barre were the princ.i.p.al, both of whom had served in America;[268] but the Bill was pa.s.sed by a majority of five to one. In America, the old, loyal Church of England colony of Virginia led the way in opposition to the Bill, the General a.s.sembly of Burgesses being in session when the news of its having been pa.s.sed by the British Parliament reached America; and the resolutions which that a.s.sembly pa.s.sed covered the whole ground of colonial opposition to the Stamp Act.[269] The a.s.sembly of Virginia sent copies of its resolutions to the other colonies, and several of their Legislatures adopted the same or similar resolutions. Two days after adopting the resolutions, the Governor dismissed the Legislature and ordered new elections; but at the new elections all who voted for the resolutions were re-elected, and all who opposed them were rejected; so that the newly-elected a.s.sembly was even more unanimous against the Stamp Act than the a.s.sembly which had been dismissed. It was said "the fire began in Virginia;" "Virginia rang the alarm bell;" "Virginia gave the signal for the continent." The pet.i.tion from the a.s.sembly of New York was stronger than that from Virginia--"so bold that when it reached London no one would present it to Parliament." The remonstrance of Ma.s.sachusetts was feebler, it having been modified by the Lieutenant-Governor, Hutchinson, and the Governor, Barnard. Rhode Island followed New York and Virginia. The Legislature of Connecticut protested at once against the stamp tax, and sent decided instructions to their agent in London to insist firmly upon their rights of taxation and trial by jury. When the news of these things reached England, and the colonial agents made their remonstrances, it was asked, "Will the colonies resist?" That was not believed to be possible even by Franklin; but though no physical resistance was thought of in any part of America, yet the opposition to the Stamp Act became increasingly intense among all cla.s.ses, from the first announcement of it in May to the prescribed time of its going into operation, the 1st of November; and armed resistance seems to have been viewed as a possible alternative in the future. It was as yet looked upon as a contest between the colonists and the Parliament and advisers of the King, and not with the King himself, to whom ardent loyalty was professed and no doubt felt. It was at length proposed that a general Congress of representatives of all the colonies should be held to confer on the measures necessary to be taken.

The Ma.s.sachusetts Legislature met the latter part of May, and recommended, on the 6th of June, the calling of a Congress, to be composed of "Committees from the Houses of Representatives or Burgesses in the several colonies," to meet at New York on the first Tuesday of October following, there to consult "on the difficulties in which the colonies were and must be placed by the late Acts of Parliament levying duties and taxes upon them, and to consider of a general and humble address to his Majesty and the Parliament to implore relief." A circular letter was prepared and sent to the Speakers of the Legislative a.s.semblies of other colonies; and a Committee was chosen for Ma.s.sachusetts. On the 7th of October a Congress met at New York, consisting of 28 delegates from the a.s.semblies of Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Delaware counties, Maryland, and South Carolina. The session of this convention or congress lasted three weeks; the members were found to be of one opinion on the princ.i.p.al subjects discussed. A declaration of the rights and grievances of the colonies was agreed to, in which all the privileges of Englishmen were claimed as the birthright of the colonists, including the right of being taxed only by their own consent. A pet.i.tion to the King and memorials to each House of Parliament were prepared and adopted. The a.s.semblies of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia were prevented by their Governors from sending representatives to the Congress; but they forwarded pet.i.tions to England similar to those adopted by the Congress.[270] It is worthy of remark, that, with the exception of Boston, the proceedings of the populace, as well as of the Conventions and Legislative a.s.semblies, against the Stamp Act, were conducted in a legal and orderly manner, such as to command respect in England as well as in America. But in Boston there had always been a mob, which, under the direction and auspices of men behind the scenes, and opposed to British rule in any form, was ready to come forth as opportunity offered in lawless violence against the authority of the Crown and its officers. In England, eighty years before, mobs were employed to intimidate the Court, Lords, and Commons in pa.s.sing the Bill of Attainder against Strafford, and against Bishops and Episcopacy. The Rev. Dr. Burgess, the most popular Puritan minister in London at that time, called them his "band-dogs," to be let loose or restrained as occasion required.[271] Such men as the "band-dogs" of Boston, who found a good opportunity for the exercise of their vocation during the discussions of the local Legislature and public meetings against the Stamp Act, not content with the harmless acts of patriotism of hanging Lord Bute and Mr. Andrew Oliver (the proposed distributors of the stamps) in effigy and then making bonfires of them, they levelled Mr.

Oliver's office buildings to the ground, and broke the windows and destroyed most of the furniture of his house. Some days afterwards they proceeded to the house of William Story, Deputy Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, and destroyed his private papers, as well as the records and files of the Court. They next entered and purloined the house of Benjamin Hallowell, jr., Comptroller of the Customs, and regaled themselves to intoxication with the liquors which they found in his cellar. They then, as Mr. Hildreth says, "proceeded to the mansion of Governor Hutchinson, in North Square. The Lieutenant-Governor and his family fled for their lives.[272] The house was completely gutted, and the contents burned in bonfires kindled in the square. Along with Hutchinson's public and private papers perished many invaluable ma.n.u.scripts relating to the history of the province, which Hutchinson had been thirty years in collecting, and which it was impossible to replace."[273] The universal and intense opposition of all ranks in all the colonies (except a few of the office-holders) was re-echoed and strengthened by opposition and remonstrances from the merchants and manufacturers in England and Scotland connected with the American trade.[274] Parliament met the 17th December, 1765, when one reason a.s.signed in the Royal speech for calling Parliament together earlier than usual was the importance of matters which had occurred in America, all papers connected with which would be laid before them. After the Christmas recess, the Parliament met the 17th of January, 1766, when American affairs were again commended in a speech from the Throne as a princ.i.p.al object of parliamentary deliberations. Both Houses, in their replies to the King, showed that they regarded American affairs in the same important light as his Majesty; and for more than two months those affairs const.i.tuted the princ.i.p.al subject of parliamentary debate, and the leading topics of conversation among all cla.s.ses. The application of the Commons was unwearied; their sittings continued until after midnight, and sometimes even until morning; the number of pet.i.tions they received, the mult.i.tude of papers and the witnesses they had to examine, occupied much time, accompanied by continual debates. The authors of the Stamp Act were now in opposition, and made most strenuous efforts in its justification. The debates turned chiefly on two questions: 1. Whether the Legislature of Great Britain had, or had not, a right of taxation over the colonies; 2. Whether the late laws, especially the Stamp Act, were just and expedient. In the ultimate decision of the first question both parties agreed, and the House affirmed, without a division, "That the Parliament of Great Britain had a right to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever," without any distinction in regard to taxation. As to the second question, Parliament decided, after very warm and protracted debates, in favour of the total repeal of the Stamp Act. Accordingly two Bills were brought in, pursuant to these resolutions: the one, a declaratory Bill, ent.i.tled "An Act for securing the defence of the American colonies of Great Britain," and a.s.serting the right of Parliament to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever; the other, for the total repeal of the Stamp Act.

[Colonel Barre's celebrated reply to Charles Townsend, and review of it, on the pa.s.sing of the Stamp Act, will be found in Appendix A. to this chapter; and Lord Chancellor Camden's opinion, and the great commoner Pitt's memorable sayings in the discussion on the _repeal_ of the Stamp Act, will be found in Appendix B.]

The Declaratory Act, though avowing the absolute power of Parliament to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and rescinding, as far as an Act of Parliament could, all the declarations and resolutions which had been adopted by the Colonial a.s.semblies and public meetings against the authority of Parliament, attracted very little attention amid the absorbing interest centred in the Stamp Act, and the universal rejoicings on both sides of the Atlantic at its repeal. The Declaratory Act, as it was called, pa.s.sed the Commons the beginning of February; and on the 18th of the month, after a vehement discussion, closed by the speeches of Messrs. Grenville and Pitt, the House of Commons, at three o'clock in the morning, repealed the Stamp Act by a majority of 275 to 167. The House of Lords, after warm and protracted discussions, voted for its repeal by a majority of 100 to 71; and three days afterwards, the 18th of March, the royal a.s.sent was given to the Act--"An event,"

says the Annual Register for 1766, "that caused more universal joy throughout the British dominions than perhaps any other that can be remembered."

"Ships in the River Thames displayed their colours, and houses were illuminated all over the city. It was no sooner known in America, than the colonists rescinded their resolutions, and recommenced their mercantile intercourse with the mother country. They presented their homespun clothes to the poor, and imported more largely than ever. The churches resounded with thanksgivings; and their public and private rejoicings knew no bounds. By letters, addresses, and other means, almost all the colonies showed unequivocal marks of acknowledgment and grat.i.tude. So sudden a calm after so violent a storm is without a parallel in history. By the judicious sacrifice of one law, Great Britain procured an acquiescence in all that remained."[275]

APPENDIX A. TO CHAPTER X.