Violence in the large towns.
While this determined and systematic opposition was made by the thinking part of the community, some riotous and disorderly meetings took place, especially in the large towns, which threatened serious consequences. Many houses were destroyed, much property injured, and several persons, highly respectable in character and station, were grossly abused.
While these transactions were passing in America, causes entirely unconnected with the affairs of the colonies, produced a total revolution in the British cabinet. The Grenville party was succeeded by an administration unfriendly to the plan for taxing the colonies without their consent. General Conway, one of the principal secretaries of state, addressed a circular letter to the several governors, in which he censured, in mild terms, the violent measures that had been adopted, and recommended to them, while they maintained the dignity of the crown and of parliament, to observe a temperate and conciliatory conduct towards the colonists, and to endeavour, by persuasive means, to restore the public peace.
1766
Parliament was opened by a speech from the throne, in which his majesty declared his firm confidence in their wisdom and zeal, which would, he doubted not, guide them to such sound and prudent resolutions, as might tend at once to preserve the constitutional rights of the British legislature over the colonies, and to restore to them that harmony and tranquillity which had lately been interrupted by disorders of the most dangerous nature.
In the course of the debate in the house of commons, on the motion for the address, Mr. Pitt, in explicit terms, condemned the act for collecting stamp duties in America; and avowed the opinion that parliament had no right to tax the colonies. He asserted, at the same time, "the authority of that kingdom to be sovereign and supreme in every circumstance of government and legislation whatever." He maintained the difficult proposition "that taxation is no part of the governing, or legislative power; but that taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the commons alone;" and concluded an eloquent speech, by recommending to the house, "that the stamp act be repealed, absolutely, totally, and immediately."
The opinions expressed by Mr. Pitt were warmly opposed by the late ministers. Mr. Grenville said, "that the disturbances in America were grown to tumults and riots; he doubted, they bordered on open rebellion; and, if the doctrine he had heard that day should be confirmed, he feared they would lose that name to take that of revolution. The government ever them being dissolved, a revolution would take place in America." He contended that taxation was a part of the sovereign power;—one branch of legislation; and had been exercised over those who were not represented. He could not comprehend the distinction between external and internal taxation; and insisted that the colonies ought to bear a part of the burdens occasioned by a war for their defence.
Stamp act repealed.
The existing administration, however, concurred in sentiment with Mr. Pitt, and the act was repealed; but its repeal was accompanied with a declaratory act, asserting the right of Great Britain to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.
The intelligence of this event was received in America with general manifestations of joy. The assertion of the abstract principle of right gave many but little concern, because they considered it merely as a salve for the wounded pride of the nation, and believed confidently that no future attempt would be made to reduce it to practice. The highest honours were conferred on those parliamentary leaders who had exerted themselves to obtain a repeal of the act; and, in Virginia, the house of Burgesses voted a statue to his majesty, as an acknowledgment of their high sense of his attention to the rights and petitions of his people.
Though all the colonies rejoiced at the repeal of the stamp act, the same temper did not prevail in all of them. In the commercial cities of the north, the regulations of trade were nearly as odious as the stamp act itself. Political parties too had been formed, and had assumed a bitterness in some of the colonies, entirely unknown in others. These dispositions were not long concealed. The first measures of Massachusetts and of New York demonstrated that, in them, the reconciliation with the mother country was not cordial.
The letter of secretary Conway, transmitting the repeal of the act imposing a duty on stamps, enclosed also a resolution of parliament declaring that those persons who had suffered injuries in consequence of their assisting to execute that act, ought to be compensated by the colony in which such injuries were sustained. This was chiefly in Massachusetts. The resolution of parliament was laid before the general court of that province, by governor Bernard, in a speech rather in the spirit of the late, than the present administration;—rather calculated to irritate than assuage the angry passions that had been excited. The house of representatives resented his manner of addressing them; and appeared more disposed to inquire into the riots, and to compel those concerned in them to make indemnities, than to compensate the sufferers out of the public purse. But, after a second session, and some intimation that parliament would enforce its requisition, an act of pardon to the offenders, and of indemnity to the sufferers, was passed; but was rejected by the King, because the colonial assembly had no power, by their charter, to pass an act of general pardon, but at the instance of the crown.[189]
In New York, where general Gage was expected with a considerable body of troops, a message was transmitted by the governor to the legislature, desiring their compliance with an act of parliament called "the mutiny act," which required that the colony in which any of his majesty's forces might be stationed, should provide barracks for them, and necessaries in their quarters. The legislature postponed the consideration of this message until the troops were actually arrived; and then, after a second message from the governor, reluctantly and partially complied with the requisitions of the act.
At a subsequent session, the governor brought the subject again before the assembly, who determined that the act of parliament could be construed only to require that provision should be made for troops on a march, and not while permanently stationed in the country.[190] The reason assigned for not furnishing the accommodations required by the governor, implies the opinion that the act of parliament was rightfully obligatory; and yet the requisitions of the mutiny act were unquestionably a tax; and no essential distinction is perceived between the power of parliament to levy a tax by its own authority, and to levy it through the medium of the colonial legislatures; they having no right to refuse obedience to the act. It is remarkable that such inaccurate ideas should still have prevailed, concerning the controlling power of parliament over the colonies.
In England it was thought to manifest a very forbearing spirit, that this instance of disobedience was punished with no positive penalties; and that the ministers contented themselves with a law prohibiting the legislature of the province from passing any act, until it should comply, in every respect, with the requisitions of parliament. The persevering temper of Massachusetts not having found its way to New York, this measure produced the desired effect.
Two companies of artillery, driven into the port of Boston by stress of weather, applied to the governor for supplies. He laid the application before his council, who advised that, "in pursuance of the act of parliament" the supplies required should be furnished. They were furnished, and the money to procure them was drawn from the treasury by the authority of the executive.
1767
On the meeting of the legislature, the house of representatives expressed in pointed terms their disapprobation of the conduct of the governor. Particular umbrage was given by the expression "in pursuance of an act of parliament." "After the repeal of the stamp act, they were surprised to find that this act, equally odious and unconstitutional, should remain in force. They lamented the entry of this reason for the advice of council the more, as it was an unwarrantable and unconstitutional step which totally disabled them from testifying the same cheerfulness they had always shown in granting to his majesty, of their free accord, such aids as