The only exception to the authority of Parliament over the colonies was levying _internal_ taxes. A marked distinction was made between _external_ and _internal_ taxes. It was admitted upon all hands that the Parliament had the const.i.tutional right to impose the former, but not the latter. The Tory opposition in the British Parliament denied the distinction between _external_ and _internal_ taxes, and maintained that if Parliament had the right to impose the one they had equally the right to impose the other; but the advocates of American rights maintained the distinction between _external_ and _internal_ taxation; and also Dr.

Franklin, in his evidence at the bar of the House of Commons, in February, 1766, which I have quoted at length above, as the best exposition of the colonial side of the questions at issue between England and America. I will here reproduce two questions and answers on the subject now under consideration:

Q.--"You say they do not object to the right of Parliament, in levying duties on goods, to be paid on their importation; now, is there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of goods and an excise on their consumption?"

A.--"Yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have just mentioned, they think you can have no right to levy within their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain by your fleets the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right to some toll or duty on merchandise carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage."

Q.--"Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the produce of their lands exported? And would they not then object to make a duty?"

A.--"If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad as to lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to such a duty; _not to your right of levying it_, but they would complain of it as a burden, and pet.i.tion you to lighten it."

It will be observed that in these words of Dr. Franklin there is the fullest recognition of the right of Parliament to impose duties on all articles imported into, or exported from, the colonies; the only exception was the levying direct or _internal_ taxes for the purposes of revenue, the right to impose which was held, and we think justly held, to belong to the representative Legislatures elected by the colonists themselves. Such also were the views of the two great statesmen, Pitt and Burke, who with such matchless eloquence advocated the rights of the colonies--whose speeches have become household words in America, and are found in all their school books. Mr. Pitt, in a speech which I have quoted at length in a previous chapter, said expressly:

"Let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be a.s.serted 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 except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent."

Mr. Pitt therefore advocated the repeal of the Stamp Act with all his fiery eloquence and energy, saying that he rejoiced that the colonists had resisted that Act--not by riots or force of arms, but by every const.i.tutional mode of resistance, in the expression of public opinion against an unjust and oppressive measure. Mr. Pitt's speech has been quoted by American writers, and inserted in American school books, to justify the resistance of America to England in the revolution which was declared in 1776; but his speech was delivered, and the Act against which it was delivered was repealed, ten years before. The United Empire Loyalists were as much opposed to the Stamp Act as any other colonists, and rejoiced as heartily at its repeal.

Edmund Burke was the appointed agent of the province of New York, and no member of the House of Commons equalled him in the eloquent and elaborate advocacy of the popular rights of the colonies. Extracts from his speeches have been circulated in every form, and in unnumbered repet.i.tion in American periodicals and school books; but what he said as to the authority of Parliament over the colonies has not found so wide a circulation in America. In advocating the repeal of the Stamp Act, in his celebrated speech on _American taxation_, Mr. Burke said:

"What is to become of the Declaratory Act, a.s.serting the entireness of British legislative authority, if we abandon the practice of taxation?

For my part, I look upon the rights stated in that Act exactly in the manner in which I viewed them on its very first proposition, and which I have often taken the liberty, with great humility, to lay before you. I look, I say, on the imperial rights of Great Britain, and the privileges which the colonists ought to enjoy under those rights, to be just the most reconcilable things in the world. The Parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities: one, as the local Legislature of this island, providing for all things at home, immediately, and by no other instrument than the executive power; the other, and I think her n.o.bler capacity, is what I call her _imperial character_, in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends all the several inferior Legislatures, and guides and controls them all, without annihilating any. As all these Provincial Legislatures are only co-ordinate with each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her, else they can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual justice, nor effectually afford mutual a.s.sistance. It is necessary to coerce the negligent, to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak and deficient, by the overruling plenitude of its power. She is never to intrude into the place of the others while they are equal to the common ends of their inst.i.tution. But in order to enable Parliament to answer all these ends of provident and beneficent superintendence, her powers must be boundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited, may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions are not obeyed? What! Shall there be no reserved power in the empire to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole? We are engaged in war; the Secretary of State calls upon the colonies to contribute; some would do it; I think most would cheerfully furnish whatever is demanded. One or two, suppose, hang back, and, easing themselves, let the stress of the draft be on the others--surely it is proper that some authority might legally say, 'Tax yourselves for the common supply, or Parliament will do it for you.'

This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania, for some short time towards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internal dissensions in the colony. But whether the act were so, or otherwise, the case is equally to be provided for by a competent sovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power, nor ever used in the first instance. This is what I meant when I have said at various times that I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an instrument of empire, and not as a means of supply."[286]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 283: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap, xx., pp.

366, 367.]

[Footnote 284: Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. III., Chap. i, pp. 65, 66.]

[Footnote 285: Colonial History, Vol. I., pp. 327, 328.]

[Footnote 286: Speech on American taxation.]

CHAPTER XII.

SUMMARY OF EVENTS FROM THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT, MARCH, 1766, TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

The universal joy caused in both Great Britain and America by the repeal of the Stamp Act foreshadowed a new era of unity and co-operation between the mother country and the colonies. But though trade and commerce resumed their activity, and mutual expressions of respect and affection characterized the correspondence, private and official, between England and America, the rejoicings of re-union were soon silenced, and mutual confidence, if restored at all, soon yielded to mutual suspicion. The King regretted the repeal of the Stamp Act as "a fatal compliance" which had "wounded the majesty" of England, and planted "thorns under his own pillow." He soon found a pretext for ridding himself of the Ministers who had influenced the Parliament, and compelled himself to adopt and sanction that measure, and to surround himself with Ministers, some of whom sympathized with the King in his regrets, and all of whom were prepared to compensate for the humiliation to America in the repeal of the Stamp Act, by imposing obligations and taxes on the colonies in other forms, under the absolute authority of Parliament affirmed in the Declaratory Act, and which the Americans had fondly regarded as a mere salve to English pride, and not intended for any practical purpose. Mr. Pitt had rested his opposition to the Stamp Act upon the distinction between _external_ and _internal_ taxes, as did Dr. Franklin in his evidence at the bar of the House of Commons; the opposition and the protesting Lords denied the distinction; and when Dr.

Franklin was asked--

"Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the Charter?" he answered: "No, I believe not;" and being asked, "Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the Parliament's right of external taxation?" he answered: "They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to show them that there is no difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you have no right 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."[287]

I now proceed to give a summary statement of the events between Great Britain and the colonies which followed the repeal of the Stamp Act, March 19th, 1766.

Within ten days of its pa.s.sing, the Act repealing the Stamp Act was officially transmitted to America by General Conway,[288] then Secretary of State for America, who accompanied them with a circular to the several Governors, in which, while he firmly insisted upon a proper reverence for the King's Government, endeavoured affectionately to allay the discontents of the colonists. When the Governor of Virginia communicated this letter to the House of Burgesses, they unanimously voted a statue to the King, and the a.s.sembly of Ma.s.sachusetts voted a letter of thanks to Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Grafton.

But in addition to the circular letter to the several Governors, counselling forgetfulness and oblivion as to the disorders and contentions of the past, General Conway wrote a separate letter to Governor Barnard, of Ma.s.sachusetts, in which he said: "Nothing will tend more effectually to every conciliating purpose, and there is nothing, therefore, I have in command more earnestly to require of you, than that you should exert yourself in _recommending_ it strongly to the a.s.sembly, that full and ample compensation be made to those who, from the madness of the people, have suffered for their acts in deference to the British Legislature." This letter was but a _recommendation_, not a _command_ or _requisition_, to the Legislature, and seems to have been intended as an instruction to Governor Barnard alone; but he, now indulging his personal resentments as well as haughty spirit, represented the letter of General Conway as a _command_ and _requisition_ founded on "justice and humanity," and that the authority from which it came ought to preclude all doubts about complying with it, adding, "Both the business and the time are most critical--let me entreat you to recollect yourselves, and to consider well what you are about. Shall the private interests, pa.s.sions, or resentments of a few men deprive the whole people of the great and manifold advantages which the favour and indulgence of their King and his Parliament are now preparing for them?

Surely after _his Majesty's commands_ are known, the very persons who have created the prejudices and prepossessions I now endeavour to combat will be the first to remove them."

The opposition to the Stamp Act, which the Governor interpreted as "prejudices and prepossessions which he now endeavoured to combat," had been justified by the King and Parliament themselves in rejecting it; and he thus continued to make enemies of those whom he might have easily conciliated and made friends. The a.s.sembly answered him in an indignant and sarcastic tone, and charged him with having exceeded the authority given in Secretary Conway's letter; concluding in the following words:

"If this _recommendation_, which your Excellency terms a _requisition_, be founded on so much justice and humanity that it cannot be controverted--if the _authority_ with which it is introduced should preclude all disputation about complying with it, we should be glad to know what freedom we have in the case?

"In answer to the questions which your Excellency has proposed with seeming emotion, we beg leave to declare, that we will not suffer ourselves to be in the least influenced by party animosities or domestic feuds, let them exist where they may; that if we can possibly prevent it, this fine country shall never be ruined by any person; that it shall be through no default of ours should this people be deprived of the great and manifest advantages which the favour and indulgence of our most gracious Sovereign and his Parliament are even now providing for them. On the contrary, that it shall ever be our highest ambition, as it is our duty, so to demean ourselves in public and in private life as shall most clearly demonstrate our loyalty and grat.i.tude to the best of kings, and thereby recommend his people to further gracious marks of the royal clemency and favour.

"With regard to the rest of your Excellency's speech, we are constrained to observe, that the general air and style of it savours more of an act of grace and pardon than of a parliamentary address to the two Houses of a.s.sembly; and we most sincerely wish your Excellency had been pleased to reserve it, _if needful_, for a proclamation."

It was thus that fresh seed of animosity and hostility was sown between Governor Barnard and the Ma.s.sachusetts a.s.sembly, and sown by the Governor himself, and the growth of which he further promoted by refusing to confirm the choice of Mr. Hanc.o.c.k, whom the a.s.sembly had elected as their Speaker, and refused to sanction six of their twenty-eight nominations to the Council, because they had not nominated the four judges of the Supreme Court and the Crown officers. Hence the animosity of their reply to his speech above quoted. But as the Governor had, by the Charter, a veto on the election of Speaker and Councillors, the Legislature submitted without a murmur.

But in the course of the session (six months after the Governor's speech upon the subject), the a.s.sembly pa.s.sed an Act granting compensation to the sufferers by the late riots, the princ.i.p.al of whom were the Lieutenant-Governor, the Collector of Customs, and the appointed Distributor of Stamps. The Act was accompanied by a declaration that it was a free gift of the Province, and not an acknowledgment of the justice of their claim; it also contained a provision of amnesty to the rioters. The Act was agreed to by the Council and a.s.sented to by the Governor; but it was disallowed by the King on the advice of the English Attorney and Solicitor General, because, as alleged, it a.s.sumed an act of grace which it belonged to the King to bestow, through an act of oblivion of the evils of those who had acted unlawfully in endeavouring to enforce the Stamp Act, which had been pa.s.sed by the British Parliament the same year. The Ma.s.sachusetts a.s.sembly ordered that their debates should henceforth be open to the public.

The Legislature of New York also pa.s.sed an Act granting compensation to those who had suffered a loss of property for their adherence to the Stamp Act, but stated it to be a free gift.

Before the close of 1766, dissatisfaction and distrust were manifest in several colonies, and apprehensions of other encroachments by the British Parliament upon what they held to be their const.i.tutional rights. Even the General a.s.sembly of Virginia, which had in the spring session voted a statue to the King, and an obelisk to Mr. Pitt and several other members of Parliament, postponed, in the December following, the final consideration of the resolution until the next session. The Virginia press said: "The Americans are hasty in expressing their grat.i.tude, if the repeal of the Stamp Act is not, at least, a tacit compact that Great Britain will never again tax us;" and advised the different a.s.semblies, without mentioning the proceedings of Parliament, to enter upon their journals as strong declarations of their own rights as words could express.[289]

The a.s.sembly of New York met early in 1766, in the best spirit; voted to raise on Bowling Green an equestrian statue to the King, and a statue of William Pitt--"twice the preserver of his country."

"But the clause of the Mutiny or Billeting Act (pa.s.sed in 1765, in the same session in which the Stamp Act was pa.s.sed), directing Colonial Legislatures to make specific contributions towards the support of the army, placed New York, where the head-quarters were established, in the dilemma of submitting immediately and unconditionally to the authority of Parliament, or taking the lead in a new career of resistance. The rescript was in theory worse than the Stamp Act. For how could one legislative body command what another legislative body should enact? And viewed as a tax it was unjust, for it threw all the burden of the colony where the troops chanced to be collected. The requisition of the General, made through the Governor, 'agreeably to the Act of Parliament,' was therefore declared to be unprecedented in its character and unreasonable in its amount; yet in the exercise of the right of free deliberation, everything asked for was voted, except such articles as were not provided in Europe for British troops which were in barracks."[290]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 287: In the House of Lords, Lord Mansfield, replying to Lord Camden, said: "The n.o.ble lord who quoted so much law, and denied the right of the Parliament of Great Britain to levy _internal_ taxes upon the colonies, allowed at the same time that _restrictions upon trade and duties upon the ports were legal_. But I cannot see any real difference in this distinction; for I hold it to be true, that a tax laid in any place is like a pebble falling into and making a circle in a lake, till one circle produces and gives motion to another, and the whole circ.u.mference is agitated from the centre. A tax on tobacco, either in the ports of Virginia or London, is a duty laid upon the inland Plantations of Virginia, a hundred miles from the sea, wherever the tobacco grows." (Quoted in Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol.

V., p. 411.)

Mr. Grenville argued in the same strain in the House of Commons; and the Americans, as apt pupils, soon learned by such arguments to resist _external_ as they had successfully resisted _internal_ taxes.]

[Footnote 288: General Conway, as leader of the House of Commons, moved the resolution for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and also moved the resolution for the Declaratory Bill. Colonel Barre moved an amendment to strike out from the resolution the words "in all cases whatsoever." He was seconded by Pitt, and sustained by Beckford. "Only three men, or rather Pitt alone, 'debated strenuously the rights of America' against more than as many hundred; and yet the House of Commons, half-conscious of the fatality of its decision, was so awed by the overhanging shadow of coming events that it seemed to shrink from p.r.o.nouncing its opinion.

Edmund Burke, eager to add glory as an orator to his just renown as an author, argued for England's right in such a manner that the strongest friends of power declared his speech to have been 'far superior to that of every other speaker;' while Grenville, Yorke, and all the lawyers; the temperate Richard Hussey, who yet was practically for humanity and justice; Blackstone, the commentator on the laws of England, who still disliked internal taxation of America by Parliament, filled many hours with solemn arguments for England's unlimited supremacy. They persuaded one another, and the House, that the Charters which kings had granted were, by the unbroken opinions of lawyers, from 1689, subordinate to the good-will of the Houses of Parliament; that Parliament, for a stronger reason, had power to tax--a power which it had been proposed to exert in 1713, while Harley was at the head of the Treasury, and again at the opening of the Seven Years' War." ...

"So the watches of the long winter's night wore away, and at about four o'clock in the morning, when the question was called, less than ten voices, some say five, or four, some said but three, spoke out in the minority; and the resolution pa.s.sed for England's right to do what the Treasury pleased with three millions of freemen in America." (Bancroft's History of the United States., Vol. V., pp. 415-417.)]

[Footnote 289: Allen's History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap. v., p. 101. Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xxv., p. 6.]

[Footnote 290: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap.

xxv., pp. 15, 16.

"The colonies were required, at their own expense, to furnish the troops quartered upon them by Parliament with fuel, bedding, utensils for cooking, and various articles of food and drink. To take off the edge from this bill, bounties were granted on the importation of lumber and timber from the plantations; coffee of domestic growth was exempted from additional duty; and iron was permitted to be carried to Ireland."

(Barry's History of Ma.s.sachusetts, Second Period, Chap. x., p. 295.)]