contest respecting that continent, with any potentate of Europe, were supposed to be removed.
CHAPTER XIII.
Opinions on the supremacy of parliament, and its right to tax the colonies. … The stamp act. … Congress at New York. … Violence in the towns. … Change of administration. … Stamp act repealed. … Opposition to the mutiny act. … Act imposing duties on tea, &c. resisted in America. … Letters from the assembly of Massachusetts to members of the administration. … Petition to the King. … Circular letter to the colonial assemblies. … Letter from the earl of Hillsborough. … Assembly of Massachusetts dissolved. … Seizure of the Sloop Liberty. … Convention at Fanueil Hall. … Moderation of its proceedings. … Two British regiments arrive at Boston. … Resolutions of the house of Burgesses of Virginia. … Assembly dissolved. … The members form an association. … General measures against importation. … General court convened in Massachusetts. … Its proceedings. … Is prorogued. … Duties, except that on tea, repealed. … Circular letter of the earl of Hillsborough. … New York recedes from the non-importation agreement in part. … Her example followed. … Riot in Boston. … Trial and acquittal of Captain Preston.
1763
The attachment of the colonies to the mother country was never stronger than at the signature of the treaty of Paris.[178] The union of that tract of country which extends from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, and from the gulf of Mexico to the north pole, was deemed a certain guarantee of future peace, and an effectual security against the return of those bloody scenes from which no condition in life could afford an exemption.
This state of things, long and anxiously wished for by British America, had, at length, been effected by the union of British and American arms. The soldiers of the parent state and her colonies had co-operated in the same service, their blood had mingled in the same plains, and the object pursued was common to both people.
While the British nation was endeared to the Americans by this community of danger, and identity of interest, the brilliant achievements of the war had exalted to enthusiasm their admiration of British valour. They were proud of the land of their ancestors, and gloried in their descent from Englishmen. But this sentiment was not confined to the military character of the nation. While the excellence of the English constitution was a rich theme of declamation, every colonist believed himself entitled to its advantages; nor could he admit that, by crossing the Atlantic, his ancestors had relinquished the essential rights of British subjects.
The degree of authority which might rightfully be exercised by the mother country over her colonies, had never been accurately defined. In Britain, it had always been asserted that Parliament possessed the power of binding them in all cases whatever. In America, at different times, and in different provinces, different opinions had been entertained on this subject.
In New England, originally settled by republicans, habits of independence had nourished the theory that the colonial assemblies possessed every legislative power not surrendered by compact; that the Americans were subjects of the British crown, but not of the nation; and were bound by no laws to which their representatives had not assented. From this high ground they had been compelled reluctantly to recede. The Judges, being generally appointed by the governors with the advice of council, had determined that the colonies were bound by acts of parliament which concerned them, and which were expressly extended to them; and the general court of Massachusetts had, on a late occasion, explicitly recognised the same principle. This had probably become the opinion of many of the best informed men of the province; but the doctrine seems still to have been extensively maintained, that acts of parliament possessed only an external obligation; that they might regulate commerce, but not the internal affairs of the colonies.
In the year 1692, the general court of Massachusetts passed an act, denying the right of any other legislature to impose any tax whatever on the colony; and also asserting those principles of national liberty, which are found in Magna Charta. Not long afterwards, the legislature of New York, probably with a view only to the authority claimed by the governor, passed an act in which its own supremacy, not only in matters of taxation, but of general legislation, is expressly affirmed. Both these acts however were disapproved in England; and the parliament asserted its authority, in 1696, by declaring "that all laws, bye laws, usages, and customs, which shall be in practice in any of the plantations, repugnant to any law made or to be made in this kingdom relative to the said plantations, shall be void and of none effect." And three years afterwards, an act was passed for the trial of pirates in America, in which is to be found the following extraordinary clause: "Be it farther declared that, if any of the governors, or any person or persons in authority there, shall refuse to yield obedience to this act, such refusal is hereby declared to be a forfeiture of all and every [sic] the charters granted for the government and propriety of such plantations."
The English statute book furnishes many instances in which the legislative power of parliament over the colonies was extended to regulations completely internal; and it is not recollected that their authority was in any case openly controverted.
In the middle and southern provinces, no question respecting the supremacy of parliament, in matters of general legislation, ever existed. The authority of such acts of internal regulation as were made for America, as well as of those for the regulation of commerce, even by the imposition of duties, provided those duties were imposed for the purpose of regulation, had been at all times admitted. But these colonies, however they might acknowledge the supremacy of parliament in other respects, denied the right of that body to tax them internally.
Their submission to the act for establishing a general post office, which raised a revenue on the carriage of letters, was not thought a dereliction of this principle; because that regulation was not considered as a tax, but as a compensation for a service rendered, which every person might accept or decline. And all the duties on trade were understood to be imposed, rather with a view to prevent foreign commerce, than to raise a revenue. Perhaps the legality of such acts was the less questioned, because they were not rigorously executed, and their violation was sometimes designedly overlooked. A scheme for taxing the colonies by authority of parliament had been formed so early as the year 1739, and recommended to government by a club of American merchants, at whose head was sir William Keith, governor of Pennsylvania. In this scheme, it was proposed to raise a body of regulars, to be stationed along the western frontier of the British settlements, for the protection of the Indian traders; the expense of which establishment was to be paid with monies arising from a duty on stamped paper and parchment in all the colonies. This plan, however, was not countenanced by those in power; and seems never to have been seriously taken up by the government until the year 1754. The attention of the minister was then turned to a plan of taxation by authority of parliament; and it will be recollected that a system was devised and recommended by him, as a substitute for the articles of union proposed by the convention at Albany. The temper and opinion of the colonists, and the impolicy of irritating them at a crisis which required all the exertions they were capable of making, suspended this delicate and dangerous measure; but it seems not to have been totally abandoned. Of the right of parliament, as the supreme legislature, of the nation, to tax as well as govern the colonies, those who guided the councils of Britain seem not to have entertained a doubt; and the language of men in power, on more than one occasion through the war, indicated a disposition to put this right in practice when the termination of hostilities should render the experiment less dangerous. The failure of some of the colonies, especially those in which a proprietary government was established, to furnish, in time, the aids required of them, contributed to foster this disposition. This opposition of opinion on a subject the most interesting to the human heart, was about to produce a system of measures which tore asunder all the bonds of relationship and affection that had subsisted for ages, and planted almost inextinguishable hatred in bosoms where the warmest friendship had long been cultivated.
1764
The unexampled expenses of the war required