Page:History of the United States of America, Spencer, v1.djvu/283

] have never forfeited, we hold in common with our fellow subjects who are natives of Britain. If taxes are laid upon us without our having a legal representation where they are laid, we are reduced from the character of free subjects to the state of tributary slaves." The House also dispatched an energetic letter to Mr. Mauduit, the agent in England, declaring, "if we are not represented, we are slaves!" and, together with the letter, sent a copy of the recently issued pamphlet of Otis, "The Eights of the British Colonies Asserted." The ground taken by Otis was bold, and clearly set forth that this whole matter was one of principle with the colonists; yet there was no hint of forcible resistance to the claims of Parliament. Indeed, lawyer-like, Otis maintained the supremacy of Parliament and its acts, denouncing resistance as high treason. The colonists were not yet ready to array themselves in arms against the doings of Parliament; but there was no disposition, on the other hand, to any thing like servile submission to injustice. Tracts similar to that of Otis were put forth in Rhode Island, "by authority;" in Maryland, by Dulany, the secretary of the province; and in Virginia, by Bland, a leading member of the House of Burgesses.

Toward the close of the year, petitions to Parliament were drawn up in Massachusetts and Connecticut, which were somewhat moderated in tone, owing, in the case of Massachusetts, to the influence of Hutchinson. New York agreed to a petition much more strongly worded, as did also Rhode Island. In the Virginia House of Burgesses, a petition to the king, a memorial to the House of Lords, and a remonstrance to the Commons, were drawn up by a Committee consisting of Richard Henry Lee and other eminent leaders of the aristocracy. The tone adopted was moderate, and the hardship of pressing a measure like the one proposed, was dwelt upon.

Grenville had a reason for delay, in not urging the stamp tax forward. His notion was, that the colonies, finding that the revenue must be paid in some way by them, and particularly disliking the form in which it was proposed by stamp duties, would suggest some other mode, and then he would take them at their word, and the revenue would be raised without further trouble. "If they think any other mode of taxation more convenient to them," were his plausible words, "and make any proposition of equal efficacy with the stamp duty, I will give it all due consideration." But to do this thing, he was resolved: "if you object to the Americans being taxed by Parliament, save yourself the trouble of the discussion, for I am determined on the measure." Many in England, says M. Botta, and possibly the agents of the colonies themselves, attributed this conduct of the minister to moderation; but beyond the Atlantic it found a quite different reception, all with one voice exclaiming that this was an interested charity. For they thought, that however civil his offers, the minister would nevertheless exact, to a penny, the entire sum he desired, which in substance was saying, that willingly or otherwise,