THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
By Sydney George Fisher
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
III
PARLIAMENT PASSES A STAMP TAX AND REPEALS IT
AT the same time that the British government
started to
put down smuggling
in 1764 it also prepared a new system
of taxation for the colonies as part of the remodeling
which seemed to be necessary. In fact, the
"sugar act" passed on March 10 of that year, was a taxing act, and
declared in its preamble
that it was intended to raise a
revenue from the colonies to defray
the expenses of protecting
and governing
them.
This taxation of the colonies was not a new idea. They
had always been taxed, especially during
the wars with France. There was a regular system by which the British
Secretary of State made a requisition on the colonies
through the colonial governors, stating the quota of money
or supplies required from each. Each colonial assembly
thereupon began a long wrangle
with its governor, and
usually ended by voting
the supply
or part of it, which
was collected from the people by
taxation.
It was a voluntary system,
for sometimes a colony
would grant no supply
at all. It was, in short, the old
feudal aid system,
the system
in which all taxation in
England had originated. Taxation was originally not
a self-acting system of compulsion. Taxes were gifts,
grants, or aids, which the people, or their feudal lords, or
Parliament as representing the people, granted
to the king
at irregular intervals to assist the government
in wars or
other undertakings ; or, as Mr. Stubbs puts it,
"
the taxpayers made a voluntary offering
to relieve the wants of
the ruler."
*
*" Constitutional History of England," edition of 1875, vol. i. p. 577.
This voluntary system had long
since ceased in England,
and the modern, annual, self-acting system prevailed both
there and also in the local taxation of the colonies. The
taxation proposed in 1764 was taxation by the modern
system. It was not a new or sudden thought.
It had
been suggested in 1713 when Harley was at the head of
the treasury, and again
at the opening
of the Seven
Years' War. It had also been advocated in the early
part of the century by Governor Keith, of Pennsylvania,
who was also one of those who foresaw the leaning of
some of the colonists towards independence, and thought
that such a spirit should be nipped
in the bud. Colonial
taxation had for a long
time been an obvious measure, and
might have been tried much sooner if France had not been
in Canada.
Looked at in the light of all the circumstances it was not
necessarily an evil or tyrannical measure. If we once
admit that the colonial status is not an improper one, and
that it is no infringement of natural or political rights
for
a nation to have dependencies
or subject peoples, taxing
them in a moderate and fair way seems to follow as a
matter of course. England still levies indirect taxes on
India and the crown colonies, and occasionally a charge
similar to a direct tax, as in the case of colonial lighthouses.#
# Jenkyns, " British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas," pp. 10, 11.
England was generally
believed to be bankrupt, groaning
under the vast debt of over 148,000,000, which had
been heaped up by the war she had just waged to save the
colonies from the clutches of France. It was a heavy debt
for a country of barely eight million people. The colonies had no taxes, except the very light ones which they levied
on themselves by their own legislative assemblies. But the
people in England suffered under very heavy and burdensome
taxes on all sorts of articles, including
the wheels on
their wagons, the panes
of glass in their houses, and other
things which involved prying and irritating investigations.
All this was to help pay for that great war, and why
should not the colonies be called upon
for their share ?
While the war was being
carried on they had been taxed
in the old way, and, on requisition from the home government,
had voted in their legislative assemblies supplies of
money, men, and provisions. Now that peace was
declared, why should they
not help
to pay
the war debt,
by the modern, more orderly, and regular system
?
The colonists were very much attached to the old voluntary
system. They took the greatest delight
in it; for
whenever a governor announced that he had been instructed
to obtain a certain quota, the legislature had a
chance to worry him and strike a bargain
for his consent
to some of their favorite measures. But the delays caused
by this wrangling were very exasperating
to generals in
the field during the French War, and also to the home
government.
Besides this uncertainty and delay,
it seemed to Englishmen
that the voluntary system was very unequal and
unfair. Some colonies, like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts,
gave large supplies; and others, like New Jersey,
Maryland, or Georgia, gave little or none at all, and this
raised jealousies, bickering, and quarrels.
But the colonists, knowing that in the long run they
always got the better of the governors, would not admit the
validity of any such objections. When modern taxation
was suggested, they would blandly inquire what could be
better than the old voluntary system
? They would dilate on their loyalty and affection for the crown
;
and the ideal
beauty of those gifts to
"
dear mother England/' which
they voluntarily and without even the suggestion of force
had always out of the abundance of their overflowing
devotion supplied. Did you
not yourselves, they would
say, think that in the last war we had been too complying
and too generous in our devotion to the king, and did you
not hand us back 133,333
6s. 8d., which you
said we
had paid over and above our share of the expense
? Let
the king frankly tell us his necessities, and we will in the
future, as in the past, of our own volition,
assist him.
That refunding of the 133,000 proved
to be somewhat
like the repealing of the stamp tax, a generosity of which
the government afterwards repented. But it is easy
to see
how public men of both parties in England,
accustomed to
methodical methods and regular, orderly taxation, would
naturally conclude that there should be a surer and more
orderly way of raising money or supplies from the colonies.The refunding of the 133,000 was in their eyes an argument
against the old method, because the greater part of
that sum had been returned only
to Massachusetts and one
or two other provinces which had given supplies
in an absurd
excess over all the others. It was ridiculous for a
great nation to have to conduct its finances by this sort of
refunding. It would be better to have a simple self-acting
method like the stamp tax that would bear equally on all.
Accordingly, on the 10th day of March, 1764, that famous year of colonial reorganization and reform, and the same day on which the "sugar act" and the law for the further restraint of paper money in the colonies were passed, Mr. Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in
Parliament the plan, of a stamp
tax for the colonies. He
introduced and secured the passage of some resolutions
on the right, equity, and policy of colonial taxation which were intended to raise the whole question and have it discussed
for a year
before any particular measure was
offered.
The ministry went about this measure with that display
of considerate care and tenderness which England has so
often shown to dependencies, a tenderness very much admired
by some, but very exasperating
to a people who are
fond of freedom. Mr. Grenville not only wanted the subject
discussed for a year
in England
before final action was
taken, but he wanted the colonists to discuss it and offer
suggestions, or propose some better plan
of taxation, or one
that would be more agreeable
to them. He was lavishly
candid in saying that the
"
sugar
act" just passed
levied
an external tax, the validity of which the colonists admitted
;
but the stamp
tax might be an internal tax, the
validity of which might
be denied in America
;
and he
wished that question fully
discussed. He was also excessively
liberal in hinting
to the colonial agents
in London
that now was the opportunity
for the colonies, by voluntarily
agreeing to the stamp tax, or an equivalent,
to establish
a precedent for being
consulted before any tax was
imposed upon them by Parliament. He afterwards made a
great point of selecting as stamp
officials in America only
such persons as were natives of the country.
The patriotic party
in America was far too shrewd to
accept the Stamp Act or offer an equivalent. They sent
back some petitions and remonstrances against it, but for
the most part were quite
sullen. A year went by. The
proposed tax was drafted into the form of a law, passed with
scarcely any debate, and approved by the king, March
22, 1765.
It provided a stamp
tax on newspapers and all legal
and business documents, and was full of tiresome, wordy
details. It was the sort of tax which we levied on ourselves during the Civil War and again
at the time of
the war with Spain.
It is unquestionably
the fairest, most
equally distributed, and easiest to collect of all forms of
taxes. Scarcely any
one in England
seems to have had
any doubt as to the right of Parliament to levy such a tax,
an internal one, so-called, on the colonies.
But the colonists who had defied navigation laws and
ruled themselves almost independently
for over a hundred
years, could not accept such a tax. News of the passage
of the act seems to have reached this country
in May.
Virginia immediately
led the way in passing
resolutions
of protest, and it was in speaking on these resolutions that
Patrick Henry made his famous treasonable speech, " Csesar had his Brutus, Charles I. his Cromwell, and
George III. may profit by their example."
The assemblies of the other colonies quickly
followed
with similar resolutions. These resolutions, taken as a
whole, protest against the extension of the power
of the
admiralty courts as well as against the Stamp Act. They
all argue the question somewhat
;
and base themselves on
the position that Parliament had never before taxed the
colonies in internal matters, and that internal taxation was
therefore the exclusive province of the colonial legislatures.
They admit that Parliament can tax them externally, or,
as they put it, regulate
their commerce by levying
duties
on it, and regulate them, as in fact it always had done, in
all internal matters, except
this one of internal taxes.[We shall see how the book proceeds but to me,I am seeing a bias on behalf of the author toward England in his narrative.Using the presence of France in Canada as a reason for England's actions towards the people in America comes off as totally self serving to me D.C.]
This position was very weak, because it admitted the
right to regulate all their internal affairs except one
;
and
the distinction it raised between external and internal taxes
was altogether absurd. There was no real or substantial
difference between external and internal taxes; between
taxes levied at a seaport and taxes levied throughout
the
country. The colonists afterwards saw this weakness and changed their ground. But this supposed distinction between
external and internal taxes was good enough to begin
with, and the Revolution, during
the seventeen years of
its active progress, was largely a question of the evolution
of opinion.
During that summer of 1765, while the assemblies of
the different colonies were passing
resolutions of protest,
the mobs of the patriot party were protesting in another
way. It certainly amazed Englishmen
to read that the
mob in Boston, not content with hanging
in effigy the
proposed stamp distributors, leveled the office of one of
them to the ground and smashed the windows and furniture
of his private house; that they destroyed
the
papers and records of the court of admiralty, sacked the
house of the comptroller of customs, and drank themselves
drunk with his wines; and, finally, actually proceeded
to the house of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, who
was compelled to flee to save his life. They completely
gutted his house, stamped upon
the chairs and mahogany
tables until they were wrecked, smashed the large, gilt framed
pictures, and tore up
all the fruit-trees in his
garden. Governor Hutchinson was a native of the province,
was its historian, and with his library perished many
invaluable historical manuscripts which he had been thirty
years collecting. The mob cut open
the beds and let the
feathers out, which they
scattered with his clothes, linen,
smashed furniture, and pictures in the street.*
* New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. xxxii. p. 268; Hutchinson, "Massachusetts," vol. iii. pp. 122-127; Massachusetts Archives, vol. xxvi. p. 143 ; Boston Q-azette, August 19, September 2, 1765; Hutchinson's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 143; "Letters of James Murray, Loyalist,' 7 p. 258.
That this outrage had been incited the day before by the
preaching of the Rev. Dr. Mayhew,
a Puritan divine, did not lessen its atrocity in the eyes of Englishmen. He had
held forth on the text,
"
I would they were even cut off
which trouble you ;" and the mob came very
near obeying
his instructions literally. A great many respectable
citizens
were shocked,
or appeared
to be shocked,
at this violence
and excess. They held town meetings of abhorrence,
a guard was organized
to prevent such outrages
in the
future, and rewards were offered for rioters. But it is
quite significant that, although
the rioters were well
known, as the historians assure us, no one was punished.
Two or three were arrested, but were rescued by their
friends, and it was found impossible
to proceed against
them.*
* Elliott, "New England," yol. ii. pp. 264, 255; Hildreth, vol. ii. chap, zxviii. p. 528.
It is not necessary
to describe in detail the action of
mobs in the other colonies. They were somewhat less
violent than in Massachusetts, and their proceedings were
usually directed to compelling
the stamp distributors to
resign their office. Such successful, widespread, and thorough
rioting we have scarcely ever seen in our time.
It strengthened the very
natural feeling in England
that
British sovereignty and order must at all hazards be established
in America. On the side of the colonists it
may be observed that this widespread rioting and its violence
disclose a strong party already
far separated from
England.
In the autumn a respectable body of colonists met in
New York to deal with the Stamp Act question. This
meeting, which has ever since been known as the Stamp
Act Congress, had been suggested by the Massachusetts
Assembly. Neither Virginia, South Carolina, nor Georgia
were represented in it, which may be incidentally noticed
as tending to show that the rebel or patriot movement was not very strong in those communities, or their governors
would not have been able to prevent delegates going
to
New York.
The Stamp Act Congress passed resolutions of protest
and sent a petition to the king and another to Parliament.
The arguments
in these documents are very
much the same as those used in the previous
remonstrances.
They, of course, took the precaution of expressing great
loyalty to Great Britain and admiration for the mighty
British empire, to which, they said,
it was a great happiness
to belong. They protested against the extension of the
power, of admiralty courts, and declared that they had the
same rights as Englishmen
born within the realm. But
the groundwork of their position was that Parliament
could not tax them internally unless they were represented
in that body ;
from the nature of things, they could never
be represented, and therefore Parliament could never tax
them.
It is to be observed that they
did not ask for representation
in Parliament. They declared it to be impossible ;
and Englishmen were quick
to notice and comment on
this. Grenville, in his speech against the repeal of the
Stamp Act, called forcible attention to it, and reminded
his hearers of its significance.
It was the beginning of the rejection of all authority
of Parliament. The colonists never changed
their ground
on this point. They always
insisted that the distance
across the ocean rendered representation impossible.
It
is quite obvious that the distance did not render representation
impossible ;
it merely made it somewhat inconvenient.
Each colony maintained one or more agents
in London to
look after its affairs and represent
it at the executive departments
of the government ;
and these agents sometimes
appeared before Parliament as witnesses. Each colony could in a similar way have maintained representatives in
Parliament.
Governor Bernard, of Massachusetts;
tells us, in his
"Select Letters" that at first the colonists were willing
to
be represented in Parliament, and made their argument
in
the alternative that if they were to be taxed internally
they must be represented ;
but fearing that representation
might be allowed them, and that they would be irretrievably
bound by any measure passed by Parliament, they quickly
shifted to the position that representation was impossible,
and therefore internal taxation constitutionally impossible.
The documents of the colonists do not express a willingness
to be represented, although
there are expressions
used from which such a willingness might possibly be
inferred. They may, however, have expressed such
willingness in conversation; but after the time of the
Stamp Act Congress
all their published
statements cling
tightly to the impossibility of representation.
This was regarded by many as a sure sign of the determination
of the rebel party
to break from England in the
end, and an evidence of the insincerity of their professions
of loyalty. Raynal, the French writer, in his
"
Philosophical
and Political History
of the European Settlements
in America," advised them never to yield on this impossibility
of representation,
for if once they were represented,
the rest of Parliament could easily outvote them, their
liberties would be gone, and their fetters permanently
forged upon them.*
* Extracts from Baynal's book were widely circulated in a pamphlet called " The Sentiments of a Foreigner on the Disputes of Great Britain with America." See, also, Cartwright's "American Independence, the Interest and Glory of Great Britain," p. 50.
The Stamp Act Congress admitted that the colonists
owed allegiance to the British crown
;
and they also said that they owed all due subordination to that august body,
the Parliament of Great Britain." Parliament, therefore,
had full authority over them, could tax their commerce
by duties at the seaports, and levy
this duty on exports
as
well as on imports, do everything,
in short, except tax
them internally.
But if the principle
"no taxation without representation"
were sound English
constitutional law, why did the colonists
admit that they could be taxed at their seaports without
representation ? A tax levied by Parliament on sugar,
molasses, or other articles coming
into the colonial seaports
was paid by all the people of the province
in the
enhanced price of the goods. The duties on French and
Spanish products, which had to be paid
in specie, and
drained specie out of the country, were a so-called external
tax, but they drained specie out of the interior of the
country as well as from the seaports. It was,
as Lord
Mansfield said, like a pebble thrown into a pond,
the
circles from the splash would extend over the whole pond.
In fact, in the very
nature of things
there could be no
tax that could properly be called an external one. Every
tax was an internal tax, because any
tax that could be
conceived of had to be levied on people
or property within
the boundaries of the country. When once the tax-gatherer
had entered the boundary,
or taken private property
for
taxes just inside the boundary,
at a seaport,
it was as much
internal taxation as though
he were in the central town of the community.
"What a pother,"
said an Irish member of Parliament,
"
whether money is to be taken out of their coat pocket
or
out of their waistcoat pocket."
The colonists tried to keep up
the distinction by saying
that the duties on imports and exports were merely to
regulate the commerce of the empire;
the regulation of the commerce was the main object, and the duties were
merely incidental.
"
The seals yours,"
said Franklin,
in his examination before Parliament
; " 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.";
Franklin, however, had not much faith in the distinction,
for when closely questioned he foretold that the colonists
would change
their ground, and deny
all authority of
Parliament, external as well as internal. When his cross examiners
pressed him with the absurdity of the distinction,
and asked why the colonists should not also deny
the right of external taxes, he replied,
"
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."
The principle of
"
no taxation without representation,"
which the Stamp
Act Congress
declined to use against
taxes levied at seaports, but cited against other taxes, had
always been familiar to the colonists. It had been appealed
to on several occasions in the past hundred and
fifty years, notably
in Virginia and Massachusetts, against
acts of the British government.
Its fairness was obvious
to all who believed in representative government and republicanism,
but not at all obvious to those who rejected
those methods. It was the outgrowth
of the Reformation
doctrines of the natural rights of man, of which we shall
have much to say
hereafter. It was an application of the principle set forth in so many modern American documents,
that no government
can be just which does not rest
on the consent of the governed. The "consent of the
governed" doctrine was often expressed by the phrase, "
No laws can be made or abrogated without the consent
of the people or their representatives" Therefore taxing
laws, like all other laws, must be by consent.
The colonists said that
"no taxation without representation"
was part of the British Constitution, one of the
inalienable rights of Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons,
as we
would now put it. But so many things
that particular
persons want, or admire, are described in this way that we
must be careful how we accept such statements.
The British Constitution is a very fluid, fluctuating
body, made up of customs, decisions of courts, acts of
Parliament, tacit understandings,
or whatever the omnipotent
Parliament shall decide. There have always been
two parties in England,
at times diametrically opposed
to
each other
;
so far apart
in opinions
that they might
be
separate nationalities or races, and yet each one insisting
that its particular views are the true constitution. The
English who came out to America were largely of one of
these parties, which has been successively
called roundhead,
whig, or liberal. They have at times claimed as
part of the British Constitution doctrines which were
advocated by liberals in England, and which Americans
also thought ought
to be part of the British Constitution,
but which were never fully accepted or adopted.
The Quakers, Baptists, and others at one time declared
that religious liberty was part of the British Constitution,
meaning that it ought
to be a part, and that they would
make it a part of the Constitution if they
could. But it
was not a part, because the very reverse had been practiced
for several hundred years, and had driven thousands of these people to America, and it never became a part of
the Constitution until made so by act of Parliament when
William of Orange ascended the throne after the revolution
of 1688.
"No taxation without representation" was never a part
of the British Constitution, and is not a part of it even
now. It could not be adopted
without at the same time
accepting the doctrine of government by consent, and that
doctrine no nation with colonies could adopt, because it is
a flat denial of the lawfulness of the colonial relation.*
*"The Conduct of the Late Administration considered, " p. 61, London, 1767. English writers pointed out that such a doctrine would destroy the British Constitution of that time and throw the country into anarchy and confusion. <{ The Constitutional Bight of the Legislature of Great Britain to tax the British Colonies, " p. 51, London, 1768
"No taxation without representation" had often been
advocated in England by liberals of different sorts, Puritans, Round heads, and Whigs, who felt that they
stood in
need of it. The colonists thought
that they had found
two or three instances in which Parliament had partially
recognized this doctrine. There were several old divisions
of England, like the County Palatine of Chester, or the
Principality of Wales, which in feudal times had been
semi-independent. They were for a long time not taxed
by Parliament, and when at last Parliament determined
to tax them they were, the colonists said, given representation.
The colonists clung
to these instances and kept
repeating them in all their pamphlets ;
but the instances
were denied by some writers, and were certainly without
avail in convincing Parliament and the vast majority of
Englishmen.#
#"The Bights of Great Britain asserted," p. 6, London, 1776;
"Bemarks on the Beyiew of the Controversy between Great Britain
and her Colonies,'
7
p. 85.
Englishmen easily replied that these one or two instances,
even supposing them to be as the colonists stated, were
accidental and amounted to nothing
in the face of the long continued
practice and custom to the contrary. In the
year 1765 scarcely any of the great towns in England had
representatives in Parliament and yet they were taxed.
London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and
Halifax paid their taxes every year, and sent not a single
member to Parliament. In fact, out of the eight million
people in England there were not above three hundred
thousand represented.*
*" The Eight of the British Legislature to tax the American Colonies/ 7 London, 1774 ; " An Englishman's Answer to the Address from the Delegates to the People of Great Britain," etc., p. 8, New York, 1775.
Parliament was made up largely of rotten boroughs
or
pocket boroughs in the control of individuals or noblemen.
Old Sarum had not a single inhabitant, and yet
sent two
members to Parliament. Representative government
as
the colonists understood and practiced
it in their local
assemblies, or as we now understand it, had at that time
no existence in England.
All this was wrong and a bad system,
as we would say
in America
;
but that is not the question. Parliament had
slowly grown into that state from the old feudal customs ;
and that growth or that condition was the British Constitution
of that day. There were a few, a very few, men in
England who wanted it changed and the principle of no
taxation without representation adopted. Lord Camden
argued to this effect during
the Stamp Act debates in a
most interesting speech
in the House of Lords. Lord
Mansfield, a still greater legal luminary, argued on the
opposite side. These two speeches
are well worth reading
by any one who is interested in the details of the subject.
Mansfield's side was, of course,
successful. When the
British Parliament announced, by the Declaratory Act of
1766, that they had the constitutional right
to tax the
colonies as they pleased, externally or internally, up or
down, or in any other way, they were undoubtedly acting
in accordance with the long
settled constitutional custom,
and that decision has never been reversed.*
*Younge, " Constitutional History of England," p. 72. The British Parliament has to-day the right to tax any of its colonies without representation. Parliament is omnipotent in this as in other respects, and has been so declared as late as 1865. "American Historical Review," vol. i.p. 37; Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, vol. vii. p. 181 ; Jenkyns, u British Bule and Jurisdiction beyond the Sea," p. 10.
The sum of the matter in regard
to no taxation without
representation is, that America, having been settled by the
liberal, radical, and in most instances minority element of
English politics, accepted, and England, being usually
under the influence of the Tory element, rejected
this much discussed
doctrine. We went our separate ways. Although
we were of the same race as the people of England,
the
differences between us were as far-reaching and radical as
though we were a totally different people, and the gulf was
being steadily widened.
In arguing with the colonists, an Englishman would
sometimes leave the firm ground
of pure constitutional
right, and say, you
are already represented
in Parliament
more amply and fully represented than you could be in one
of your own, and better protected than if you sent your
own people to the Parliament that sits in London. There
are always members there who take a special
interest in
you and protect all the rights
to which you are entitled.
William Pitt and Lord Camden, as well as Fox, Barr,
Conway, Pownall, Dowdeswill, and Edmund Burke, fight
your battles for you with an eloquence
far beyond any your ablest men possess, and it was by their defense of you
that the Stamp Act and the paint, paper, and glass
act
were repealed.
There was a certain amount of force in this argument,
especially to a mind that was inclined to loyalism. But
the patriotic party replied that they wanted the protection
of ascertained and fixed rights, so that they would not
need the condescending protection of these so-called great
men in Parliament who would not live forever or who
might change their opinions.
The Englishman would then argue
that the colonists
were virtually represented
in Parliament just
as the vast
majority of people in England
were virtually represented.
All the members of Parliament, although
elected by an
insignificant fraction of the people, were charged with the
duty of legislating for those unrepresented, and caring
for
their interests, and had always done so. The seven million
people who had no direct representation were nevertheless
virtually represented by
all the members of Parliament,
and in the same way
the colonists were virtually
represented.
This was the only
sort of representation which the
majority of Englishmen recognized
or understood, and
they maintained it down into our own time. The American
systematic representation by small districts, giving an
approximately equal and thorough representation, was not
only unrecognized but regarded
as a mere radical and
dangerous dream of philosophers and visionaries. The
House of Lords represented
all the nobility, the House of
Commons represented
all the commoners, and the colonists
as commoners were therefore fully represented.
To this virtual representation the colonists had a very
strong reply, because,
as they pointed out, the unrepresented
people in England were more or less intimately associated with the represented people, and the laws had
to be the same for all. Those members of Parliament
who laid taxes on unrepresented Leeds and Manchester
taxed themselves and their constituents at the same time.
But when they taxed America they
could and did lay a
tax entirely different from those they put on themselves
and their constituents.*
* " Considerations on the Propriety of imposing Taxes in the British Colonies," London, 1766. See, also, "Considerations on the Mature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament/' Philadelphia.
Yes, the Englishman
would reply, and the difference
has been that they put
far lighter taxes on you than they
place on themselves. England
is overwhelmed with taxes
on wagons, furniture, and every
article a man can have,
even to the panes of glass
in his house. They propose
nothing of that sort for you. They want from you only
the lightest and most trifling taxes. The people of England
pay twenty-five shillings per head in taxes. They
ask from you only sixpence per head, although they have
spent in support of your government and protection since
1690, without counting
the cost of the war with France,
43,697,142, of which over 1,500,000 was paid
in
bounties on your products.#
# "The Bights of Great Britain asserted against the Claims of America," p. 80, London, 1776. Cobbett, " Parliamentary History, " vol. xviii. p. 222.
Richard Bland, of Virginia, published an interesting
argument. It is true, he said, that nearly nine-tenths of
the people in England
are not represented. But how has
that happened ? By despotism and the alternation of the
original laws of England. Among the old Anglo-Saxons,
before the Normans came in, everything was equal and all
the people were represented. If nine-tenths are now deprived
of their rights,
it is by a departure from the original Saxon purity, and that purity should be restored. Let us
restore it in America, or rather keep
it restored, for we
have already restored it here, instead of imitating
the
oppression which has destroyed
it in England.
The loyalists wanted the colonies to be directly represented in Parliament, and some of them argued that the only fair and proper way by which they could be represented would be by giving them representatives in proportion to their population, revenue, and growing power. As these were increasing every year, the representation would continually have to be enlarged ; and, as America was greater in its size and resources than England, the colonies would before long have more representatives in Parliament than the British Isles ; and the seat of power of the British empire would of necessity be removed to America.*
* The forecasts of the increase of population which those who used this argument made have been very nearly fulfilled. They estimated one hundred and twenty millions for the year 1924. "We shall probably not reach that number at the present rate of increase, but we shall not be very far behind it. Other estimates which they gave were twenty-four millions in sixty years from 1774 and ninety-six millions in one hundred years. They based their estimates on the rate of increase in their own time, when the population doubled within thirty years ; but this rate was not kept up.
The object of this argument was to try to settle all disputes by a closer union with the mother-country instead of drawing away from her. They tried to show the patriots that in the end America would reap the principal advantage of a closer union. This was one of the points where they differed decidedly from the Tory party in England. While believing in the empire, and rejecting all attempts to break it by independence, they professed to believe enough in America to wish it equal rights with England, and a final merger that would bring the king and London society to live in Philadelphia, leaving England to become a dependency.
"When the numbers, power, and revenues of America exceed those of Britain a revolution of the seat of empire will surely take place. . . . Should the Georges in regular succession wear the British diadem to a number ranking with the Louises of France, many a goodly prince of that royal line will have mingled his ashes with American dust, and not many generations may pass away before one of the first monarchs of the world on ascending his throne shall declare, with exulting joy, 'Born and educated among you, I glory in the name of American.' " "A Few Political Reflections submitted to the Consideration of the British Colonies," p. 49, Philadelphia, 1774.
But it was all academic and aside from the practical question. The old Anglo-Saxon institutions had been extinguished in England for seven hundred years, and the loyalists saw visions. The vital question was as to the British Constitution as it stood in the year 1765. Could the patriot colonists persuade the British majority to change it and go the radical colonial way?
When Englishmen and loyalists reflected that Parliament could enact the death penalty in the colonies, and take away a colonist's life by a law to which he had not consented, it seemed strange that it could not take from a colonist without his consent a shilling a year in taxes. They began collecting and publishing the numerous instances in which Parliament had long regulated colonial internal affairs, so as to show that it was hardly possible that there could be an exception in the one item of taxation inside of the seaports.
A notable instance of internal regulation was the colonial post-office system, which was begun by an act of Parliament in 1692, and enlarged and extended by another act in 1710 ; and this same act fixed and regulated the rates of postage in all the colonies and exempted letter carriers from paying ferriage over rivers. It was unquestionably an internal regulation, and seemed very much like a tax on the colonists for carrying their letters. It was an internal tax and a very heavy one, because the postage rates were high. In 1765, the same year as the Stamp Act, the postage rates in the colonies were again regulated by Parliament. But although the colonists complained of the Stamp Act they never complained of the postage regulations.
Loyalists could be very annoying on this point, for it was difficult to deny that there was a strong resemblance between demanding postage on letters and exacting a stamp duty on the legal or business document inside the wrapper. The real difference was that by paying the postage the colonists received in return an immediate and undeniable benefit in having their letters carried at the mother-country's expense by a general system which was uniform throughout the colonies, while in the case of the stamp tax England seemed to be getting all the benefit. The general benefit of the post-office had been so great and obvious that in 1692, 1710, and 1765, when Parliamentary post-office acts were passed, it never occurred to any one to think of them as dangerous precedents of internal regulation.*
* See u Considerations on the Propriety of imposing Taxes in the British Colonies," etc, pp. 55, 56, London, 1766. The author of this pamphlet argues against the post-office as a precedent for internal taxation, and then admits that, "being so convenient, it slipped in as a precedent without the colonists being aware of its danger.
If the Stamp Act is unconstitutional, Englishmen would
say, so also is the post-office act; but your
arch rebel
Franklin still remains postmaster of the colonies, and
enjoys the salary, although the act under which he holds office should, according
to his own argument,
be declared
void.
If you want other instances, said the loyalists, of Parliament regulating the internal affairs of the colonies for the last century and more, they are innumerable. As far back as 1650, under the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, that huge son of liberty, Parliament passed an act blocking up the ports of Barbados, Virginia, Bermuda, and Antigua, and in that old act of Cromwell's time it is expressly declared that the colonies are subject to Parliament.
Going farther back than 1650, they found another instance in 1643, when Parliament passed an ordinance putting the whole government of the colonies in the hands of a governor-general and seventeen commissioners, with unlimited powers to "provide for, order, and dispose of all things which they shall think most fit and advantageous for the well-governing, securing, strengthening, and preserving of the said plantations." Was not Parliament then exercising power, and omnipotent power, in the colonies ? And Oliver Cromwell himself was one of the commissioners.
Then, also, there was the act in the second year of George II., levying duties out of the wages of all American seamen for the purpose of building up Greenwich Hospital. By the Parliament also were passed from time to time those acts restraining the colonies from manufacturing certain articles, notably hats, articles of iron and of steel, slitting mills were prohibited, and also the cutting of pine trees, lands were made liable to the payment of debts, the statute of wills extended to the colonies, paper currency was restrained, indentured servants empowered to enlist, troops raised in the colonies made subject to the articles of war, and so on. In fact, Parliament had over and over again walked about in the colonial internal organs, with out arousing much, if any complaint, and without doing any harm.*
* "The Eights of Great Britain asserted, " pp. 27-39, London, 1776. "The Supremacy of the British Legislature over the Colonies candidly discussed," London, 1775; "An Englishman's Answer to the Address from the Delegates to the People of G-reat Britain, ;; p. 10, New York, 1775.
Sometimes, it is true, said the loyalists, you have protested
against some particular part of this regulation by Parliament
when you happened
not to like it. When Cromwell
was handling Virginia
rather roughly
her people announced
the doctrine that there must be no taxation without representation.
Doubtless also you could find some other protests.
But you never protested on principle against the
post-office, or the statute of wills, or the countless other
regulations. You never protested on principle against any
internal regulation
that was a convenience or a benefit to
you. And what do the few isolated protests you may have
made amount to against the fact of long
continued action
by Parliament for over a hundred years.
As Parliament had done so much in colonial internal affairs without consent and without representation, and could impose a tax at the seaports, it certainly seemed extraordinary that it could not tax generally or internally, when we consider that the power of general taxation is the most important part, and, indeed, the foundation, of legislative power, if legislative power is to exist at all.
It was at first claimed by the colonists that Parliament, in spite of all its internal regulating, had never actually assumed control of private property in America, and therefore could not take away private property by a tax law to which the colonists had not consented ; or, as the Stamp Act Congress put it, "Parliament could not grant to his Majesty the property of the colonists." But Parliament had taken away private property by so-called external taxes at the seaports, which the colonists admitted to be constitutional, and an act of Parliament was very soon found by which private property had been controlled by Parliament all over the colonies.
This was the famous act of 1732, which made all lands, slaves, and personal property in the colonies liable for the debts of British merchants. The English merchants had petitioned to have this act passed as a protection. They were obliged to give the colonists in America long credit for the goods they sold them. As this debtor class increased the English merchants feared that the colonial legislatures would be persuaded to pass stay laws to prevent the seizure of colonial property in payment of such debts. Jamaica had already passed an act of this sort. Accordingly, the act of Parliament of 1732 provided that all lands, goods, and negro slaves in America should at all times be liable to seizure and sale for debt just as if they were in England.*
* "The Interest of the Merchants and Manufacturers of Great Britain in the Present Contest with the Colonies, " p. 38, London, 1774.
An enormous trade and commerce sprang up, it was said, under the protection of this act. Without the act the English merchants would have refused to give the colonists long credit ; and the colonists, having no specie and little money of any kind in circulation except depreciated paper, would have been unable to pay cash or pay on short time ; would, in short, have been unable to trade. But under the protection of the act they reaped a greater harvest than the English merchants. Their wonderful prosperity in recent years, said the English, flowed from that act of Parliament ; and accordingly they never protested or objected to it as exercising jurisdiction over private property. They never asked that they should first be represented in Parliament; and never complained of want of representation.
If, therefore, said the Englishman, Parliament can, without your consent, enact a law taking away your life by capital punishment, and in the same way without your consent take away your private property by means of taxes levied on goods coming into your seaports, and in the same way enact a law taking away your private property for debt, what do you mean by saying that Parliament cannot take away your private property by means of taxes levied in all your towns ? Where is there any authority for such a distinction as that ?
There was no authority. The colonists were compelled to change their ground and deny all the authority of Parliament. The truth of the matter was that Parliament had the right to rule, and had always ruled, the colonies without their consent. If a community is a colony in the English sense, it necessarily is ruled without its consent. The American patriot argument meant in reality the extinguishing of the colonial relation.
But let us leave the arguments and see what the colonists actually did in November, 1765, when the Stamp Act was to go into effect. It never went into effect. It never was executed. The colonists by a most remarkable unanimity of action killed it more effectually than they had killed the clauses of the navigation and trade acts which did not suit them. They simply did not use the stamps. Legal proceedings went on as usual without them, vessels entered and departed without stamped papers; business men by common consent paid no attention to the stamp law, newspapers were published without a stamp, or with a death's head where the stamp should have been. In fact, there were no stamps or stamped papers to use, for the distributors had all been compelled to resign, and the supplies of stamps or stamped paper which had arrived from England had been sent back, stored away in warehouses, or destroyed by mobs.
It would be difficult to find in all history another instance of such complete and thorough disobedience of a well-considered law which one of the most powerful nations of the world had made elaborate preparations to enforce. But the colonists went farther and prepared to punish England by what we would now call boycotting. They had already largely abstained from buying English goods, because of the " sugar act " and the attempt to prevent smuggling. They now carried the plan still farther. Associations were formed for the purpose, and so thorough was the understanding that between November and January trade with England almost ceased.
Thousands of working people, manufacturers, laborers, and seamen in England were said to be thrown out of employment, and believed themselves threatened with starvation. Petitions began to pour into Parliament from London, Bristol, Lancaster, Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, and, indeed, as the " Annual Register" of that date informs us, from most of the trading and manufacturing towns and boroughs of the kingdom. The trade with the colonies was between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 per year. It was no light matter to cut down such an enormous sum. Worse still, the colonists were indebted to British merchants in some 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 on past sales, and when pressed for payment expressed great willingness, but declared that the recent acts of Parliament had so interrupted and disturbed their commerce, and thrown, them into such confusion that " the means of remittances and payments were utterly lost and taken from them" *
* Annual Register, 1766, vol. ix, chap. vii. pp. 35, 3C.
John Bull was apparently struck in his pocket, the most tender spot on his person. Meantime, during the previous summer the Grenville ministry, which had secured the passage of the Stamp Act, quarreled with the king and went out of power. A new ministry was formed by Lord Buckingham out of a faction of the "Whig party. This ministry was very short-lived ; and has usually been described as weak, although it secured some legislation which has been admired. It had to settle first of all the great question raised by the supposed starving workmen, and the merchants and manufacturers with their petitions crowding the lobbies of Parliament. They asked to have the Stamp Act repealed. But general public opinion, both in Parliament and throughout the country, was exasperated at the resistance in America and was in favor of further repressive measures.*
* Lecky, "England in the Eighteenth Century," vol. iii. p* 100.
The whole question of the taxation of the colonies was raised again ; witnesses, experts on trade, all sorts of persons familiar with the colonies, including Franklin, were called to the bar of the House, examined, and cross-examined. The agents of the different colonies were constantly in attendance in the lobbies. No source of information was left unexplored. The ablest men of the country were pitted against each other in continual debates, and colonial taxation was the leading topic of conversation among all classes. There were two main questions : Was the Stamp Act constitutional ? and, If constitutional, was it expedient ?
It was the innings of a radical section of the "Whigs, and, being favorable to liberalism and the colonies, they decided that the Stamp Act was not expedient. They accordingly repealed it within a year after its passage. But they felt quite sure, as did also the vast majority of Englishmen, that Parliament had a constitutional right to tax the colonies as it pleased, and so they passed what became known as the Declaratory Act, asserting the constitutional right of Parliament to bind the colonies " in all cases whatsoever ;" and this is still the law of England.
The rejoicing over the repeal of the Stamp Act was displayed, we are told, in a most extraordinary manner, even in England. The ships in the Thames hoisted their colors and houses were illuminated. The colonists had apparently been able to hit a hard blow by the stoppage of trade. The rejoicing, however, as subsequent events showed, was not universal. It was the rejoicing of Whigs or of the particular ship-owners, merchants, and workingmen who expected relief from the restoration of the American trade. It was noisy and conspicuous. There must have been some exaggeration in the account of the sufferings from loss of trade. It is not improbable that Parliament had been stampeded by a worked-up excitement in its lobbies ; for very soon it appeared that the great mass of Englishmen were unchanged in their opinion of proper colonial policy ; and, as was discovered in later years, the stoppage of the American trade did not seriously injure the business or commercial interests of England.*
* "Letters of James Murray, Loyalist/' p. 258.
But in America the rejoicing was, of course, universal. There were letters and addresses, thanksgivings in churches,the boycotting associations were instantly dissolved, trade resumed, homespun given to the poor, and the people felt proud of themselves and more independent than ever because they could compel England to repeal laws.
The colonists were certainly lucky in having chanced upon a Whig administration for their great appeal against taxation. It has often been said that both the Declaratory Act and the repeal of the Stamp Act were a combination of sound constitutional law and sound policy, and that if this same Whig line of conduct had been afterwards consistently followed, England would not have lost her American colonies. No doubt if such a Whig policy had been continued the colonies would have been retained in nominal dependence a few years longer. But such a policy would have left the colonies in their semi-independent condition without further remodeling or reform, with British sovereignty not established in them, and with a powerful party of the colonists elated by their victory over England. They would have gone on demanding more independence until they snapped the last string.
In fact, the Whig repeal of the Stamp Act advanced the colonies far on their road to independence. They had learned their power, learned what they could do by united action, and had beaten the British government in its chosen game. It was an impressive lesson. Consciously or unconsciously the rebel party among them was moved a step forward in that feeling for a distinct nationality which a naturally separated people can scarcely avoid.
Such a repeal, such a going backward and yielding to the rioting, threats, and compulsion of the colonists, was certainly not that " firm and consistent policy" which both then and now has been recommended as the true course in dealing with dependencies. The Tories condemned the repeal on this account, and in the course of the next ten or fifteen years ascribed to it the increasing coil of colonial entanglement.*
* The arguments against repealing the Stamp Act are well and briefly summarized in "Correct Copies of the Two Protests against the Bill to repeal the American Stamp Act," London, 1766. See, also, " The Constitutional Bight of the Legislature of Great Britain to tax the British Colonies," p. 25, London, 1768.
In one sense it made little difference whether the policy was easy or severe. Whig conciliation encouraged and Tory half-way severity irritated the patriot party into independence. Independence could have been prevented only by making the severity so crushing and terrible as to reduce the country to the condition of Ireland.
to be continued....next
PARLIAMENT TAXES PAINT, PAPER, AND GLASS AND THEN ABANDONS TAXATION
The loyalists wanted the colonies to be directly represented in Parliament, and some of them argued that the only fair and proper way by which they could be represented would be by giving them representatives in proportion to their population, revenue, and growing power. As these were increasing every year, the representation would continually have to be enlarged ; and, as America was greater in its size and resources than England, the colonies would before long have more representatives in Parliament than the British Isles ; and the seat of power of the British empire would of necessity be removed to America.*
* The forecasts of the increase of population which those who used this argument made have been very nearly fulfilled. They estimated one hundred and twenty millions for the year 1924. "We shall probably not reach that number at the present rate of increase, but we shall not be very far behind it. Other estimates which they gave were twenty-four millions in sixty years from 1774 and ninety-six millions in one hundred years. They based their estimates on the rate of increase in their own time, when the population doubled within thirty years ; but this rate was not kept up.
The object of this argument was to try to settle all disputes by a closer union with the mother-country instead of drawing away from her. They tried to show the patriots that in the end America would reap the principal advantage of a closer union. This was one of the points where they differed decidedly from the Tory party in England. While believing in the empire, and rejecting all attempts to break it by independence, they professed to believe enough in America to wish it equal rights with England, and a final merger that would bring the king and London society to live in Philadelphia, leaving England to become a dependency.
"When the numbers, power, and revenues of America exceed those of Britain a revolution of the seat of empire will surely take place. . . . Should the Georges in regular succession wear the British diadem to a number ranking with the Louises of France, many a goodly prince of that royal line will have mingled his ashes with American dust, and not many generations may pass away before one of the first monarchs of the world on ascending his throne shall declare, with exulting joy, 'Born and educated among you, I glory in the name of American.' " "A Few Political Reflections submitted to the Consideration of the British Colonies," p. 49, Philadelphia, 1774.
But it was all academic and aside from the practical question. The old Anglo-Saxon institutions had been extinguished in England for seven hundred years, and the loyalists saw visions. The vital question was as to the British Constitution as it stood in the year 1765. Could the patriot colonists persuade the British majority to change it and go the radical colonial way?
When Englishmen and loyalists reflected that Parliament could enact the death penalty in the colonies, and take away a colonist's life by a law to which he had not consented, it seemed strange that it could not take from a colonist without his consent a shilling a year in taxes. They began collecting and publishing the numerous instances in which Parliament had long regulated colonial internal affairs, so as to show that it was hardly possible that there could be an exception in the one item of taxation inside of the seaports.
A notable instance of internal regulation was the colonial post-office system, which was begun by an act of Parliament in 1692, and enlarged and extended by another act in 1710 ; and this same act fixed and regulated the rates of postage in all the colonies and exempted letter carriers from paying ferriage over rivers. It was unquestionably an internal regulation, and seemed very much like a tax on the colonists for carrying their letters. It was an internal tax and a very heavy one, because the postage rates were high. In 1765, the same year as the Stamp Act, the postage rates in the colonies were again regulated by Parliament. But although the colonists complained of the Stamp Act they never complained of the postage regulations.
Loyalists could be very annoying on this point, for it was difficult to deny that there was a strong resemblance between demanding postage on letters and exacting a stamp duty on the legal or business document inside the wrapper. The real difference was that by paying the postage the colonists received in return an immediate and undeniable benefit in having their letters carried at the mother-country's expense by a general system which was uniform throughout the colonies, while in the case of the stamp tax England seemed to be getting all the benefit. The general benefit of the post-office had been so great and obvious that in 1692, 1710, and 1765, when Parliamentary post-office acts were passed, it never occurred to any one to think of them as dangerous precedents of internal regulation.*
* See u Considerations on the Propriety of imposing Taxes in the British Colonies," etc, pp. 55, 56, London, 1766. The author of this pamphlet argues against the post-office as a precedent for internal taxation, and then admits that, "being so convenient, it slipped in as a precedent without the colonists being aware of its danger.
If you want other instances, said the loyalists, of Parliament regulating the internal affairs of the colonies for the last century and more, they are innumerable. As far back as 1650, under the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, that huge son of liberty, Parliament passed an act blocking up the ports of Barbados, Virginia, Bermuda, and Antigua, and in that old act of Cromwell's time it is expressly declared that the colonies are subject to Parliament.
Going farther back than 1650, they found another instance in 1643, when Parliament passed an ordinance putting the whole government of the colonies in the hands of a governor-general and seventeen commissioners, with unlimited powers to "provide for, order, and dispose of all things which they shall think most fit and advantageous for the well-governing, securing, strengthening, and preserving of the said plantations." Was not Parliament then exercising power, and omnipotent power, in the colonies ? And Oliver Cromwell himself was one of the commissioners.
Then, also, there was the act in the second year of George II., levying duties out of the wages of all American seamen for the purpose of building up Greenwich Hospital. By the Parliament also were passed from time to time those acts restraining the colonies from manufacturing certain articles, notably hats, articles of iron and of steel, slitting mills were prohibited, and also the cutting of pine trees, lands were made liable to the payment of debts, the statute of wills extended to the colonies, paper currency was restrained, indentured servants empowered to enlist, troops raised in the colonies made subject to the articles of war, and so on. In fact, Parliament had over and over again walked about in the colonial internal organs, with out arousing much, if any complaint, and without doing any harm.*
* "The Eights of Great Britain asserted, " pp. 27-39, London, 1776. "The Supremacy of the British Legislature over the Colonies candidly discussed," London, 1775; "An Englishman's Answer to the Address from the Delegates to the People of G-reat Britain, ;; p. 10, New York, 1775.
As Parliament had done so much in colonial internal affairs without consent and without representation, and could impose a tax at the seaports, it certainly seemed extraordinary that it could not tax generally or internally, when we consider that the power of general taxation is the most important part, and, indeed, the foundation, of legislative power, if legislative power is to exist at all.
It was at first claimed by the colonists that Parliament, in spite of all its internal regulating, had never actually assumed control of private property in America, and therefore could not take away private property by a tax law to which the colonists had not consented ; or, as the Stamp Act Congress put it, "Parliament could not grant to his Majesty the property of the colonists." But Parliament had taken away private property by so-called external taxes at the seaports, which the colonists admitted to be constitutional, and an act of Parliament was very soon found by which private property had been controlled by Parliament all over the colonies.
This was the famous act of 1732, which made all lands, slaves, and personal property in the colonies liable for the debts of British merchants. The English merchants had petitioned to have this act passed as a protection. They were obliged to give the colonists in America long credit for the goods they sold them. As this debtor class increased the English merchants feared that the colonial legislatures would be persuaded to pass stay laws to prevent the seizure of colonial property in payment of such debts. Jamaica had already passed an act of this sort. Accordingly, the act of Parliament of 1732 provided that all lands, goods, and negro slaves in America should at all times be liable to seizure and sale for debt just as if they were in England.*
* "The Interest of the Merchants and Manufacturers of Great Britain in the Present Contest with the Colonies, " p. 38, London, 1774.
An enormous trade and commerce sprang up, it was said, under the protection of this act. Without the act the English merchants would have refused to give the colonists long credit ; and the colonists, having no specie and little money of any kind in circulation except depreciated paper, would have been unable to pay cash or pay on short time ; would, in short, have been unable to trade. But under the protection of the act they reaped a greater harvest than the English merchants. Their wonderful prosperity in recent years, said the English, flowed from that act of Parliament ; and accordingly they never protested or objected to it as exercising jurisdiction over private property. They never asked that they should first be represented in Parliament; and never complained of want of representation.
If, therefore, said the Englishman, Parliament can, without your consent, enact a law taking away your life by capital punishment, and in the same way without your consent take away your private property by means of taxes levied on goods coming into your seaports, and in the same way enact a law taking away your private property for debt, what do you mean by saying that Parliament cannot take away your private property by means of taxes levied in all your towns ? Where is there any authority for such a distinction as that ?
There was no authority. The colonists were compelled to change their ground and deny all the authority of Parliament. The truth of the matter was that Parliament had the right to rule, and had always ruled, the colonies without their consent. If a community is a colony in the English sense, it necessarily is ruled without its consent. The American patriot argument meant in reality the extinguishing of the colonial relation.
But let us leave the arguments and see what the colonists actually did in November, 1765, when the Stamp Act was to go into effect. It never went into effect. It never was executed. The colonists by a most remarkable unanimity of action killed it more effectually than they had killed the clauses of the navigation and trade acts which did not suit them. They simply did not use the stamps. Legal proceedings went on as usual without them, vessels entered and departed without stamped papers; business men by common consent paid no attention to the stamp law, newspapers were published without a stamp, or with a death's head where the stamp should have been. In fact, there were no stamps or stamped papers to use, for the distributors had all been compelled to resign, and the supplies of stamps or stamped paper which had arrived from England had been sent back, stored away in warehouses, or destroyed by mobs.
It would be difficult to find in all history another instance of such complete and thorough disobedience of a well-considered law which one of the most powerful nations of the world had made elaborate preparations to enforce. But the colonists went farther and prepared to punish England by what we would now call boycotting. They had already largely abstained from buying English goods, because of the " sugar act " and the attempt to prevent smuggling. They now carried the plan still farther. Associations were formed for the purpose, and so thorough was the understanding that between November and January trade with England almost ceased.
Thousands of working people, manufacturers, laborers, and seamen in England were said to be thrown out of employment, and believed themselves threatened with starvation. Petitions began to pour into Parliament from London, Bristol, Lancaster, Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, and, indeed, as the " Annual Register" of that date informs us, from most of the trading and manufacturing towns and boroughs of the kingdom. The trade with the colonies was between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 per year. It was no light matter to cut down such an enormous sum. Worse still, the colonists were indebted to British merchants in some 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 on past sales, and when pressed for payment expressed great willingness, but declared that the recent acts of Parliament had so interrupted and disturbed their commerce, and thrown, them into such confusion that " the means of remittances and payments were utterly lost and taken from them" *
* Annual Register, 1766, vol. ix, chap. vii. pp. 35, 3C.
John Bull was apparently struck in his pocket, the most tender spot on his person. Meantime, during the previous summer the Grenville ministry, which had secured the passage of the Stamp Act, quarreled with the king and went out of power. A new ministry was formed by Lord Buckingham out of a faction of the "Whig party. This ministry was very short-lived ; and has usually been described as weak, although it secured some legislation which has been admired. It had to settle first of all the great question raised by the supposed starving workmen, and the merchants and manufacturers with their petitions crowding the lobbies of Parliament. They asked to have the Stamp Act repealed. But general public opinion, both in Parliament and throughout the country, was exasperated at the resistance in America and was in favor of further repressive measures.*
* Lecky, "England in the Eighteenth Century," vol. iii. p* 100.
The whole question of the taxation of the colonies was raised again ; witnesses, experts on trade, all sorts of persons familiar with the colonies, including Franklin, were called to the bar of the House, examined, and cross-examined. The agents of the different colonies were constantly in attendance in the lobbies. No source of information was left unexplored. The ablest men of the country were pitted against each other in continual debates, and colonial taxation was the leading topic of conversation among all classes. There were two main questions : Was the Stamp Act constitutional ? and, If constitutional, was it expedient ?
It was the innings of a radical section of the "Whigs, and, being favorable to liberalism and the colonies, they decided that the Stamp Act was not expedient. They accordingly repealed it within a year after its passage. But they felt quite sure, as did also the vast majority of Englishmen, that Parliament had a constitutional right to tax the colonies as it pleased, and so they passed what became known as the Declaratory Act, asserting the constitutional right of Parliament to bind the colonies " in all cases whatsoever ;" and this is still the law of England.
The rejoicing over the repeal of the Stamp Act was displayed, we are told, in a most extraordinary manner, even in England. The ships in the Thames hoisted their colors and houses were illuminated. The colonists had apparently been able to hit a hard blow by the stoppage of trade. The rejoicing, however, as subsequent events showed, was not universal. It was the rejoicing of Whigs or of the particular ship-owners, merchants, and workingmen who expected relief from the restoration of the American trade. It was noisy and conspicuous. There must have been some exaggeration in the account of the sufferings from loss of trade. It is not improbable that Parliament had been stampeded by a worked-up excitement in its lobbies ; for very soon it appeared that the great mass of Englishmen were unchanged in their opinion of proper colonial policy ; and, as was discovered in later years, the stoppage of the American trade did not seriously injure the business or commercial interests of England.*
* "Letters of James Murray, Loyalist/' p. 258.
But in America the rejoicing was, of course, universal. There were letters and addresses, thanksgivings in churches,the boycotting associations were instantly dissolved, trade resumed, homespun given to the poor, and the people felt proud of themselves and more independent than ever because they could compel England to repeal laws.
The colonists were certainly lucky in having chanced upon a Whig administration for their great appeal against taxation. It has often been said that both the Declaratory Act and the repeal of the Stamp Act were a combination of sound constitutional law and sound policy, and that if this same Whig line of conduct had been afterwards consistently followed, England would not have lost her American colonies. No doubt if such a Whig policy had been continued the colonies would have been retained in nominal dependence a few years longer. But such a policy would have left the colonies in their semi-independent condition without further remodeling or reform, with British sovereignty not established in them, and with a powerful party of the colonists elated by their victory over England. They would have gone on demanding more independence until they snapped the last string.
In fact, the Whig repeal of the Stamp Act advanced the colonies far on their road to independence. They had learned their power, learned what they could do by united action, and had beaten the British government in its chosen game. It was an impressive lesson. Consciously or unconsciously the rebel party among them was moved a step forward in that feeling for a distinct nationality which a naturally separated people can scarcely avoid.
Such a repeal, such a going backward and yielding to the rioting, threats, and compulsion of the colonists, was certainly not that " firm and consistent policy" which both then and now has been recommended as the true course in dealing with dependencies. The Tories condemned the repeal on this account, and in the course of the next ten or fifteen years ascribed to it the increasing coil of colonial entanglement.*
* The arguments against repealing the Stamp Act are well and briefly summarized in "Correct Copies of the Two Protests against the Bill to repeal the American Stamp Act," London, 1766. See, also, " The Constitutional Bight of the Legislature of Great Britain to tax the British Colonies," p. 25, London, 1768.
In one sense it made little difference whether the policy was easy or severe. Whig conciliation encouraged and Tory half-way severity irritated the patriot party into independence. Independence could have been prevented only by making the severity so crushing and terrible as to reduce the country to the condition of Ireland.
to be continued....next
PARLIAMENT TAXES PAINT, PAPER, AND GLASS AND THEN ABANDONS TAXATION
No comments:
Post a Comment