was introduced without that exception. In the House of Lords, Lord Camden, the only sound constitutional lawyer of his age, supported with remarkable power the views of Mr. Pitt: but the bill was passed in its original shape, and maintained the unqualified right of England to make laws for the colonies. In the same session some of the import duties imposed in 1764 were also repealed, and others modified. The colonists were appeased by these concessions; and little regarded the abstract terms of the declaratory act. They were, indeed, encouraged in a spirit of independence, by their triumph over the English Parliament: but their loyalty was as yet unshaken.3 Towns colonial 1767. The error of Mr. Grenville had scarcely been re- Mr. paired, when an act of political fatuity caused an irre. Charles parable breach between the mother country and her hend's colonies. Lord Chatham, by his timely intervention, taxes, had saved England her colonies; and now his ill-omened administration was destined to lose them. His witty and accomplished, but volatile and incapable Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Charles Townshend, having lost half a million of his ways and means, by an adverse vote of the Commons on the land tax 4, ventured, with incredible levity, to repeat the disastrous experiment of colonial taxation. The Americans, to strengthen their own case against the Stamp Act, had drawn a distinction between internal and external taxation,—a distinction plausible and ingenious, in the hands of so dexterous 16 Geo. III. c. 11, 12; Parl. Hist., xvi. 163, 177, &c.; Walpole's Mem., ii. 277-298, 304 307, &c.; Rockingham Mem., i. 282-293; Bancroft, ii. 459-473; Chatham Corr.; ii. 375. 2 6 Geo. III. c. 52. 3 Stedman's Hist., i. 48, et seq.; Bancroft's Hist. of the American Supra, Vol. I. 479. a master of political fence as Dr. Franklin1, but substantially without foundation. Both kinds of taxes were equally paid by the colonists themselves; and if it was their birthright to be taxed by none but representatives of their own, this doctrine clearly compre hended customs, no less than excise. But, misled by the supposed distinction which the Americans themselves had raised, Mr. Townshend proposed a variety of small colonial customs' duties,-on glass, on paper, on painters' colours, and lastly, on tea. The estimated produce of these paltry taxes amounted to no more than 40,000l. Lord Chatham would have scornfully put aside a scheme, at once so contemptible and imp litic, and so plainly in violation of the principles for which he had himself recently contended: but he lay stricken and helpless, while his rash lieutenant was rushing headlong into danger. Lord Camden would have i arrested the measure in the Cabinet; but standing alone, in a disorganised ministry, he accepted under protest a scheme, which none of his colleagues approved: However rash the financier, however weak the compliance of ministers, Parliament fully shared the fatal responsibility of this measure. It was passed with approbation, and nearly in silence. Mr. Townshend did not survive to see the mischief he had done: but his colleagues had soon to deplore their error. The colonists resisted the import duties, as they had resisted the Stamp Act; and, a second time, ministers were forced to recede from their false position. But their retreat All repeal was effected awkwardly, and with a bad tea duties. yielded to the colonists, so far as to give up ed but the 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 144. 2 See Lord Camden's Statement. -Parl. Hist., xviii. 1222. 3 7 Geo. III. c. 46; Rocking 3 grace. They the general ham Mem., ii. 75; Bancroft's Hist. of the American Revolution, 83, et seq. scheme of import duties: but persisted in continuing the duties upon tea.1 cance of duties. granted This miserable remnant of the import duties was Insignifinot calculated to afford a revenue exceeding 12,000l.; the tea and its actual proceeds were reduced to 300l. by smuggling, and the determination of the colonists not to consume an article to which the obnoxious impost was attached. The insignificance of the tax, while it left ministers without justification for continuing such a cause of irritation, went far to secure the acquiescence of the colonists. But their discontents,—met without temper or moderation, -were suddenly inflamed by a new measure, which only indirectly concerned them. To assist the half-bankrupt East India Drawbacks Company, in the sale of their teas, a drawback was on tea. given them, of the whole English duty, on shipments to the American plantations.2 By this concession to the East India Company, the colonists, exempted from the English duty, in fact received their teas at a lower rate than when there was no colonial tax. The Company were also empowered to ship their teas direct from their own warehouses. A sudden stimulus was thus given to the export of the very article, which alone caused irritation and dissension. The colonists saw, or affected to see, in this measure, an artful contrivance for encouraging the consumption of taxed tea, and facilitating the further extension of colonial taxation. It was met by a daring outrage. The first tea-ships Attack which reached Boston were boarded by men disguised tea-ships as Mohawk Indians, and their cargoes cast into the sea. This being the crowning act of a series of 1 10 Geo. III. c. 17; Parl. Hist., xvi. 853; Cavendish Deb., ii. 484. 212 Geo. III. c. 60; 13 Geo. III. c. 44. The former of these Acts granted a drawback of three-fifths only. upon the at Boston, 1773. Boston Port Act, 1774. Constitu tion of seded. provocations and insults, by which the colonists, an especially the people of Boston, had testified their resentment against the Stamp Act, the import duties. and other recent measures, the government at home regarded it with just indignation. Every one agreel that the rioters deserved punishment; and that reparation was due to the East India Company. But the punishment inflicted by Parliament, at the instance of Lord North, was such as to provoke revolt. Instead of demanding compensation, and attaching penalties to its refusal, the flourishing port of Boston was summarily closed: no ship could lade or unlade at its quays: the trade and industry of its inhabitants were placed under an interdict. The ruin of the city was decreed: no penitence could avert its doom: but when the punishment had been suffered, and the atonement made: when Boston, humbled and contrite had kissed the rod; and when reparation had beer made to the East India Company, the king in counci might, as an act of grace, remove the fatal ban.' I was a deed of vengeance, fitter for the rude arbitrament of an eastern prince, than for the temperate equity of a free state. Nor was this the only act of repression. The reMassachu- publican constitution of Massachusetts, cherished by setts super- the descendants of the pilgrim fathers, was superseded. The council, hitherto elective, was to be nominated by the crown; and the appointment of judges, magis trates, and sheriffs, was transferred from the council to the governor.2 And so much was the administration 1 Boston Port Act, 14 Geo. III. c. 19; Parl. Hist., xvii. 11591189; Chatham Corr., iv. 342; Rockingham Mem., ii. 238-243; Bancroft's Hist., iii. 565, et seq. of justice suspected, that by another act, accused persons might be sent for trial to any other colony, or even to England.1 Troops were also despatched to overawe the turbulent people of Massachusetts. ance of the The colonists, however, far from being intimidated Resistby the rigours of the mother country, associated to colonists. resist them. Nor was Massachusetts left alone in its troubles. A congress of delegates from twelve of the colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, by whom the recent measures were condemned, as a violation of the rights of Englishmen. It was further agreed to suspend all imports from, and exports to, Great Britain and her dependencies, unless the grievances of the colonies were redressed. Other threatening measures were adopted, which proved too plainly that the stubborn spirit of the colonists was not to be overcome. In the words of Lord Chatham, “the spirit which now resisted taxation in America, was the same spirit which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship money in England."2 Chatham's In vain Lord Chatham,-reappearing after his long Lord prostration, proffered a measure of conciliation, re- conciliapealing the obnoxious acts, and explicitly renouncing tory pro position, imperial taxation: but requiring from the colonies the Feb. 1st, grant of a revenue to the king. Such a measure might even yet have saved the colonies: but it was contemptuously rejected by the Lords, on the first reading. 1775. tions of Lord North himself soon afterwards framed a concili- Proposiatory proposition, promising that, if the colonists should Lord make provision for their own defence, and for the North and Mr. Burke, Feb. 20th, 1775. |