Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/700

HISTORY 1763-1776] raised therefrom salaries should be paid to the governors and judges in America, opened anew the controversy over taxation.

52. John Dickinson, in his Letters of a Farmer (1767-1768), denied in toto the authority of parliament to tax the colonies, and his argument was widely accepted. Massachusetts petitioned the home government, and in a circular letter conveyed its views to the other colonies and asked an expression of theirs in return. This provoked Hillsborough, the incumbent of the new colonial secretaryship, to order the Massachusetts house to rescind its action and the other colonies to treat the letter with contempt. The Massachusetts assembly refused to rescind and was dissolved by the governor. The activity of the customs officials at Boston in seizing John Hancock's sloop, “Liberty,” occasioned rioting, which in turn was followed by the transfer of two regiments to Boston. Several vessels of war were also stationed in its harbour (autumn of 1768). Deprived of their assembly, the towns of Massachusetts chose deputies, who met in convention, but without important result. Favourable replies to its circular letter were, however, received from a majority of the colonies. Resolutions against the new act were passed by many colonial assemblies, and in several cases petitions were sent to England. But, either because these addresses were not sent through the regular constitutional channels, or because they expressed views inconsistent with the Declaratory Act, they were laid on the table or rejected outright. The king and ministers expressed the view that the Americans were opposed to all restrictions, and that in Massachusetts treason or misprision of treason had already been committed. In this they had the support of large majorities in parliament. The statute of 35 Henry VIII., for the punishment in England of such offences when committed outside the realm, was now revived, and the royal officials in Massachusetts were instructed to collect evidence against suspected popular leaders with a view to their deportation across sea for trial. Though sufficient evidence was not found, nothing could have been better calculated to increase the exasperation of the colonists than a threat of this kind. It drew from the Virginia burgesses strong addresses and resolutions of protest. Fear lest the English Church would induce the government to establish a colonial episcopate caused much discussion at this time, especially in New England, and led to plans for joint action on the part of Dissenters, in self-defence. Though the government never sanctioned the plan, the fears which were aroused by its discussion contributed appreciably to the general agitation. In the course of 1769 the policy of commercial nonintercourse was again revived, and resolutions in favour of its enforcement were passed by many local bodies. But it was found difficult to enforce these, and, as the colonies were prosperous, trade, open and illicit, with Europe continued to be large. The British merchants did not clamour for relief, as they had done at the time of the Stamp Act, but gave loyal support to the policy of the government. The king was also steadily gaining an ascendancy, which in 1770 was permanently established by the accession of Lord North to the premiership. Thus, on both sides of the ocean, parties were bracing themselves for a struggle, the one for and the other against the principle of the Declaratory Act. The question of revenue was now largely obscured by that of right and power.

53. It cannot be said that the Townshend Revenue Act was nullified, for to a certain limited extent it was executed. But

in 1770, on the specious plea that the duties were uncommercial because they were levied on British manufactures, all except the duty on tea—3d. per ℔—were repealed, and a drawback of one-fourth and later of three-fifths of this duty was granted on the re-exportation of tea to the colonies. But the preamble of the act was retained, and with it the principle of taxation. For this reason opposition continued and non-importation agreements, especially against tea, were maintained. But after the collision which occurred between the troops and the people in Boston, in March 1770, the soldiers were removed from that town and affairs became more quiet. For more than a year it seemed as if the controversy was wearing itself out and that the old relations would be restored.

But the conduct of certain naval officers and small vessels of war which had been trying to suppress illegal trade in Narragansett Bay led, in June 1772, to the destruction of the schooner “Gaspee.” The inquiry which necessarily followed this, together with legislation for the protection of the royal dockyards, ships and supplies, again revealed the possibility that colonists might be removed to England for trial. About the same time provision was made for the payment by the home government of the salaries of the governors and of the judges of the superior court of Massachusetts while those officials continued to hold at the pleasure of the Crown. These events occasioned a movement in Massachusetts and Virginia which led at once to the organization of committees of correspondence, and these ultimately extended far and wide throughout the colonies. At the same time in England the East India Company appealed to parliament for relief from the losses caused by the transfer of the American trade so largely to the Dutch, and in response the Tea Act was passed authorizing the company to import its teas into the colonies and providing that the English duties should be wholly drawn back on exportation, and that no compensation need be made to the government for consequent loss of revenue. This, it was expected, would enable the company to out-compete the Dutch. But popular uprisings prevented the reception or sale of the tea at any of the ports and culminated in the destruction (Dec. 16, 1773) of 340 chests at Boston. As the king and the North ministry were now fully intrenched in power, coercion was at-once resorted to and affairs were thus brought to a crisis.

54. Those among the colonists who were intelligent enough to watch the course of events had long felt that they were being

enveloped in a network of relations over which they had no control. This was a result of the development of the empire, with its world-wide interests and its policies the motives for which had their origin in conditions which by the colonists were dimly perceived, if perceived at all. They were particularists whose views and resources were alike narrow, but whose perception of their interests was clear. The Quebec Act, which was passed by parliament near the close of the session of 1774, furnished a case in point. Owing to the failure of the imperial government to secure the revenue which it had hoped to collect under the Stamp Act and the later statutes, it had been forced to abandon its plans for the vigorous administration of Indian affairs and of the West. In view of these facts it was thought wisest and cheapest to commit the immediate charge of the West to the province of Quebec, and therefore to extend its bounds southward to the Ohio. The Roman Catholic religion was recognized as legal within Quebec, and no provision was made for an assembly. Its extension also indicated a purpose to prevent the westward movement of population across the mountains, which was already beginning from the Middle and Southern colonies. It is true that this act involved the possibility of danger to the colonies, but exaggerated inferences were drawn respecting it and the motives which probably impelled its passage. So it had been with the distinctively imperialist measures from the first and so it was to continue.

55. But the acts of the session of 1774 which were of most immediate importance were those which directly affected Massachusetts, where lay the centre of disturbance. One of these closed the port of Boston, another substituted an appointed for an elected council in Massachusetts and took the selection of jurors out of the hands of the people, and a third made possible the removal from Massachusetts of the trials of persons indicted for capital offences committed in support of the government into neighbouring colonies or to Great Britain, where a fair hearing was considered possible. General Thomas Gage, who had been commander-in-chief in America, was now appointed governor of Massachusetts, with authority to uphold the new acts with military force. As soon as knowledge of the fate impending over Boston reached the other colonies, conventions, local and provincial, were held, and the plan of a general congress, as proposed by Massachusetts and Virginia, was adopted. Delegates were chosen from all the colonies except Georgia, though that province fell into line when the