Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/698

HISTORY 1763-1776] the shortcomings of the surviving chartered colonies were again emphasized. This all required additional revenue, as well as administrative vigour, and that at a time when Great Britain was specially burdened with debt and when several of the colonies had recently incurred heavy expenditures. The large acquisitions of territory also necessitated some changes in the acts of trade. The necessity for their more vigorous enforcement was revealed by the existence of a large contraband trade between the colonists and the enemy during the later years of the war and also of a considerable illegal trade with Europe. These conditions, together with the conviction that, as the continental colonies had reaped the chief advantages of the war, some favour should be extended to the islands, led to the passage of the Sugar Act by the Grenville ministry in 1764. It also caused a resort to writs of assistance in two of the colonies, and finally the legalization of them in all the colonies by act of parliament (1767). The aid of the navy was directly invoked in the enforcement of the trade laws, and the activity of the customs officials and of the admiralty courts in the colonies was increased. Garrisons of regular troops—numbering several thousand—with a commander-in-chief were now present in the colonies in time of peace, and their aid might possibly be invoked by the civil power to suppress disorder. The Sugar Act itself was a trade and revenue act combined, and the fact was expressed in the preamble of the measure. It was intended directly to affect the traffic between the northern colonies and the foreign West Indies in lumber and food-stuffs, molasses and rum. The duty on foreign molasses, for which provision had been made in the Molasses Act of 1733, was halved; but now it was proposed really to collect this duty. A cry was immediately raised in New England that, if the duty was collected, the manufacture of rum—of which molasses was the staple material—would be lessened or wholly prevented and a most important industry sacrificed. The fisheries would incidentally suffer. The supply of coin, with which colonial balances were paid in England, they also said, would be lessened. Another act of parliament, passed about this time, prohibited the bestowment of the legal tender quality on colonial bills of credit. Though parliament regarded this act as a necessary remedy for the excesses of which many of the colonies had been guilty in the issue of paper money, it was generally regarded in America as a blow at a necessary system of credit. In spite, however, of the opposition and criticism which it provoked in the northern colonies, it is probable that the Sugar Act could have been permanently enforced. The Act of Trade of 1673 and the Molasses Act—though the latter was not fully executed—were two early instances of the exercise by parliament of the right to tax the colonies. Had the Sugar Act been enforced, a clear and decisive precedent in favour of this right would have been established. In view of the general situation, that was probably as far as the British government should have gone at that time. But it immediately committed itself to another and still more significant measure, and the two acts combined caused an outburst of protest and resistance from the colonists.

47. Repeatedly in earlier years the imposition of a stamp duty upon the colonies had been suggested. Archibald Cummings, William Keith, ex-governor of Pennsylvania, and Governor George Clinton cf New York had prominently urged this policy. With the outbreak of the fourth intercolonial war comprehensive plans of parliamentary taxation were repeatedly proposed. The cost of the regular troops which must be stationed in America was estimated at about £300,000 annually. The Sugar Act was expected to yield about £45,000 a year. It was thought that the colonies should raise about £100,000 more as their reasonable share of the cost. George Grenville resolved to secure this by means of a stamp duty. This would fall upon the island colonies equally with those of the continent, though it would be expended chiefly for the enlarged military force on the mainland. Though its simplicity and ease of collection recommended it, the Stamp Act was a purely fiscal measure, and its character was not concealed by any features which allied it to the earlier acts for the regulation of

trade. It involved an extension of the British system of stamp duties to the colonies, and was intended to draw revenue directly from many lines of their activity. It was passed by parliament in 1765, almost without debate and with scarcely a thought that it would be resisted. It provided for the appointment of officials to distribute the stamped papers in the colonies and further extended the power of the admiralty courts by giving them jurisdiction over violations of this act. The legal theory upon which the act was based was that of the unqualified sovereignty of parliament as the representative body for the whole empire, and that its authority, if it chose to use it, was as effective for purposes of taxation as for the regulation of trade or other objects of legislation. But

never before, during the century and a half of colonial history, had the taxing power been so unqualifiedly exercised or in such trenchant force as by this statute. It followed close on the heels of the Sugar Act, which itself had aroused much hostile criticism. The two measures also came at a time when the consciousness of strength among the colonists had been increased by the defeat and expulsion of the French. Moreover, at the time when the policy was initiated, George III. had undertaken to crush the Whig party and to revive the latent prerogatives of his office. This resulted in the formation of a series of coalition ministries. Vacillation and uncertainty were thus introduced into the colonial policy of the government. The royal policy also brought into the public service in England and kept there an unusually large group of inferior men who persistently blundered in the treatment of colonial questions. It was only with the accession of the North ministry, in 1770, that permanence and a certain consistency were secured. But, in the view of the colonists, the prestige of the government had by that time been seriously lowered, and the stubborn self-will of the king became the only available substitute for broad and intelligent statesmanship.

48. Determined opposition to the Stamp Act was shown in all the colonies, by or before the time (Nov. 1) when it was to go into effect. The forms assumed by this opposition were such as characterized the entire controversy with Great Britain until the opening of hostilities in 1775. It consisted in the passage of resolutions of protest by the lower houses of some of the colonial legislatures; in the calling of a congress at New York, which was attended by delegates from nine of the colonies; in the activity of mobs organized under the name of the “Sons of Liberty” in all the large seaports and in some smaller inland towns; and, finally, in a somewhat widely extended movement against the importation of British, or even foreign, goods and in favour of frugality and the encouragement of home manufactures. The newspaper press also sprang into much greater activity than ever before, and many notable pamphlets were published in defence of the colonial cause. The most important resolutions at the outset were those adopted by the Virginia House of Burgesses and by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. Through the first-named body the dramatic eloquence of (q.v.) forced five resolutions. Two others, which threatened resistance and the coercion of any who should venture to uphold the home government, failed to pass, but the whole seven were published broadcast through the colonies. The calling of a general congress was proposed by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. Prominent among its members was James Otis, who had already distinguished himself by radical opposition to measures of the government, especially in the case against writs of assistance which was argued before the superior court in 1761. (q.v.), already a prominent man, was now elected a member of the house from Boston. He almost immediately became its leader, drafting its most important resolutions and papers, and to a large extent directing its policy. With the aid of others he was able greatly to increase the activity of the town-meeting in Boston, and in the course of a few years to develop it on occasion into a great popular convention, which could be utilized to overawe the government. Throughout New England the town and its institutions served well the purposes of opposition and Rh