Page images
PDF
EPUB

First Step toward Absolutism. Democratic Colonies. Board of Trade. Courts of Vice-admiralty. Commercial Restrictions.

We have already observed, that after the expulsion of Andross a new charter was 1688. obtained by Massachusetts, but the governor thereafter was appointed by the crown. This was the first link forged for the chain of absolutism with which England for nearly a century endeavored to enslave her American colonies. Such was the condition of all the colonies, except Connecticut and Rhode Island, whose original charters had never been surrendered. The other chartered communities were governed by men appointed by the king, but Connecticut and Rhode Island always enjoyed the democratic privilege of electing their own chief magistrates. These royal governors, by their exactions and their haughty disregard of public opinion in America, were greatly instrumental, it will be seen, in arousing the people to rebellion. Discontents, however, arising from an interference of the imperial government with the commerce of the colonies, had already begun to excite suspicions unfavorable to the integrity of the home government.

1696.

Among the first acts of Parliament, after the restoration of Charles II. in 1660, was the establishment of a board of commissioners, to have the general supervision of the commerce of the American colonies. This commission was afterward remodeled, and the Board of Trade and Plantations, consisting of a president and seven members, known as LORDS OF TRADE, was established. This board had the general oversight of the commerce of the realm; and, although its powers were subsequently somewhat curtailed, it exercised great influence, particularly in America, down to the time of the Revolution, and was the strong right arm of royalty here. It was the legalized spy upon all the movements of the people; it watched the operations of the colonial assemblies; and in every conceivable way it upheld the royal governors and the royal prerogatives. Under its auspices courts of viceadmiralty were established throughout the colonies, having powers similar to those of our United States District Courts, in which admiralty and revenue cases were tried without jury. These often exercised intolerable tyranny.

1660.

Previous to the establishment of the first commission, the acts of trade had so little affected the colonists that they were hardly a subject of controversy; but after the Restoration, the commercial restrictions, from which the New England colonies were exempt during the time of the commonwealth, were imposed with increased rigor. The harbors of the colonies were closed against all but English vessels; such articles of American produce as were in demand in England were forbidden to be shipped to foreign markets; the liberty of free trade among the colonies themselves was taken away, and they were forbidden to manufacture for their own use or for foreign markets those articles which would come in competition with English manufacturers. In addition to these oppressive commercial acts, a royal fleet arrived at Boston, bringing commissioners, who were instructed to hear 1664. and determine all complaints that might exist in New England; and they also had full power to take "such measures as they might deem expedient for settling the peace and security of the country on a solid foundation." The people justly regarded this commission as a prolific seed of tyranny planted among them. The colonists were alarmed, yet none but Massachusetts dared openly to complain. She alone, although professing the warmest loyalty to the king, openly asserted her chartered rights, and not only refused to acknowledge the authority of the commissioners, but protested against the exercise of their delegated powers within her domain. So noxious was the commission to the whole people, that it was soon abolished. In this boldness Massachusetts exhibited the germ of that opposition to royal authority for which she was afterward so conspicuous.

In 1672 the British Parliament enacted that if any vessel which, by law, may trade in the plantations shall take on board any enumerated articles [mentioned in the act of 1660], and a bond shall not have been given with sufficient security to unlade them in England, there shall be rendered to his majesty, for sugars, tobacco, ginger, cocoa-nut, indigo, logwood, fustic, cotton, wool, the several duties mentioned in the law, to be paid in such places in the plantation, and to such officers as shall be appointed to collect the same; and, for their better collection, it is enacted that the whole business shall be managed and the imposts shall be levied by officers appointed by the commissioners of imposts in England." This was the

First Act of Oppression.

Colonial Claims to the Right of Representation.

The Right acknowledged.

Governor Burnet.

first act that imposed customs on the colonies alone; this was the initial act of a series of like tenor, which drove them to rebellion. The people justly complained, and as justly disregarded the law. They saw in it a withering blight upon their infant commerce: they either openly disobeyed its injunctions, or eluded its provisions; Barbadoes, Virginia, and Maryland, in particular, trafficked without restraint.

The colonies in general now began to regard the home government as an oppressor, and acted with a corresponding degree of independence. Edward Randolph, afterward the surveyor general during the reign of William and Mary, writing to the commissioners of custom in 1676, iterated the declarations of the people that the law "made by Parliament obligeth them in nothing but what consists with the interests of the colonies; that the legislative power is and abides in them sOLELY." Governor Nicholson, of Maryland, writing August 16. in 1698, said, “I have observed that a great many people in all these colonies and provinces, especially those under proprietaries, and the two others under Connecticut and Rhode Island, think that no law of England ought to be in force and binding to them without their own consent; for they foolishly say they have no representative sent for themselves to the Parliaments of England; and they look upon all laws made in England, that put any restraint upon them, to be great hardships." Earlier than this the doctrine that the colonies should not be taxed without their consent was recognized by Lord Berkley and Sir George Cartwright, and not questioned by the king. These distinguished men purchased New Jersey of the Duke of York (afterward James II.), which he had taken from the Dutch by the authority of his brother Charles.

1664.

These lords proprietors," for the better settlement of the pioneers, stipulated in their agreement with those who should commence plantations there that they (the proprietors) were not to impose, or suffer to be imposed, any tax, custom, subsidy, tallage, assessment, or any other duty whatsoever, upon any color or pretense, upon the said province or inhabitants thereof, other than what shall be imposed by the authority and consent of the General Assembly." In 1691 the New York General Assembly passed an act declaring "that no aid, tax, tallage, &c., whatsoever shall be laid, assessed, levied, or required of or on any of their majesties' [William and Mary] subjects within the provinces, &c., or their estates, in any manner of color or pretense whatsoever, but by the act and consent of the governor and council, and representatives of the people in General Assembly met and convened." In 1692 the Massachusetts Legislature made a declaration in almost the same language, and almost all the colonies asserted, in some form, the same doctrine. Thus we see that, nearly one hundred years before the Revolution, the fundamental principle upon which the righteousness of that rebellion relied for vindication-TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION ARE INSEPARABLE— was boldly asserted by the governed, and tacitly admitted by the supreme power as correct. As early as 1729 the conduct of Massachusetts caused a suggestion in the House of Commons that it was the design of that colony to shake off its dependency." Governor Burnet, of New York, was appointed chief magistrate of the province in 1728. The display that attended his reception at Boston, and the appearance of general prosperity on every hand, determined him to demand a fixed and liberal salary from the Assembly, a demand which had involved Shute, his predecessor, in continual bickerings with that body. Burnet made the demand in his inaugural address, and the Assembly treated it in such a manner that immediately afterward the Council expressed their reprehension of the undutiful conduct of the members. So bold was the Assembly in denying royal prerogatives and refusing obedience to laws, that when Massachusetts petitioned the House of Commons, praying that they might be heard by counsel on the subject of grievances, that body resolved "That the petition was frivolous and groundless, a high insult upon his majesty's [George I.] government, and tending to shake off the dependency of the said colony upon this kingdom, to which, in law and right, they ought to be subject.”

1731.

[ocr errors]

In 1739 a proposition was made to Sir Robert Walpole to tax the American colonies, but

1 Smith's History of New Jersey, p. 517.

Smith's History of New York, p. 75.

Wisdom of Robert Walpole.

Restraining Acts. Loyalty and Patriotism of the Colonies.

Heavy voluntary Taxation.

that statesman took an enlightened and liberal view, and said, smiling, "I will leave that to some of my successors who have more courage than I have, and are less friends to commerce than I am. It has been a maxim with me, during my administration, to encourage the trade of the American colonies in the utmost latitude; nay, it has been necessary to pass over some irregularities in their trade with Europe; for, by encouraging them to an extensive growing commerce, if they gain five hundred thousand pounds, I am convinced that in two years afterward full two hundred and fifty thousand pounds of their gains will be in his majesty's exchequer, by the labor and produce of this kingdom, as immense quantities of every kind of our manufactories go thither; and as they increase in their foreign American trade, more of our produce will be wanted. This is taxing them more agreeably to their own Constitution and ours." Had these views continued to prevail in the British cabinet, George III. might not have "lost the brightest jewel in his crown;" had Walpole yielded, the republic of the United States might have existed almost half a century earlier.

Walpole's successors were "more courageous" than he, and "less friends to commerce," for in 1750 an act was passed, declaring "That from and after the 24th of June, 1750, no mill or other engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any platting forge to work with a tilthammer, or any furnace for making steel, shall be erected, or, after such erection, continued, in any of his majesty's colonies in America." The Navigation Act of 1660 was retained in full force. Hatters were forbidden to have, at one time, more than two apprentices; the importation of sugar, rum, and molasses was not allowed without the payment of considerable duties; and the felling of pitch-pine-trees not within inclosures was prohibited. True, these revenue laws were administered with much laxity, as Walpole acknowledged, and the colonies were not much oppressed by them, yet they practically asserted the right to tax the Americans—a right that was strenuously denied. These things were, therefore, real grievances, for they foreshadowed those intentions to enslave America which were afterward more boldly avowed.

I have noticed the Colonial Congress (page 303) held at Albany in 1754, when Dr. Franklin submitted a plan for the union of the colonies for the general good, and when Massachusetts, ever jealous of her rights, instructed her representatives to oppose any scheme for taxing them. The war that had then just commenced (the Seven Years' War) soon diverted the attention of the colonists from the commercial grievances of which they complained, and as the common dangers multiplied, loyalty increased. Cheerfully did they tax themselves, and contribute men, money, and provisions, for that contest. They lost by the war twentyfive thousand of their robust young men, exclusive of sailors. Upon application of Admiral Saunders, the squadron employed against Louisburg and Quebec was supplied with five hundred seamen from Massachusetts, besides many who were impressed out of vessels on the fishing banks. During the whole war Massachusetts contributed its full quota of troops annually, and also, at times, furnished garrisons for Louisburg and Nova Scotia in addition. That colony alone contributed more than five millions of dollars, in which sum is not included the expense of forts and garrisons on the frontiers. Besides these public expenditures, there must have been almost an equal amount drawn from the people by extra private expenses and personal services. The taxes imposed to meet the pressing demands upon all sides were enormous,' and men of wealth gave freely toward encouraging the raising of new levies. This, it must be remembered, was the heavy burden laid upon one colony. Other provinces contributed largely, yet not so munificently as Massachusetts. Probably the Seven Years' War cost the aggregate colonies twenty millions of dollars, besides the flower of their youth; and in return Parliament granted them, during the contest, at different periods, about five mill

Such was the assessment in Boston one year during the war, that, if a man's income was three hundred dollars, he had to pay two thirds, or two hundred dollars, and in that proportion. If his house was valued at one thousand dollars, he was obliged to pay three hundred and sixty dollars. He had also to pay a poll tax for himself, and for every male member of his family over sixteen years of age, at the rate of nearly four dollars each. In addition to all this, he paid his proportion of excise on tea, coffee, rum, and wine, if he used them.-Gordon.

Designs of the British Ministry.

Expenditures of the British Government on Account of America. Accession of George III

ions four hundred and nine thousand dollars.' Yet the British ministry, in 1760, while the colonies were so generously supporting the power and dignity of the realm, regarded their services as the mere exercise of a duty, and declared that, notwithstanding grants of money had been made to them, they expected to get it all back, by imposing a tax upon them after the war, in order to raise a revenue. Such was the language of Mr. Pitt in a letter to Lieu tenant-governor Fauquier, of Virginia. The war ended favorably to Great Britain, and Massachusetts and other colonies looked forward with the full hope of uninterrupted prosperity. New men were at the helm of State. The old king was dead, and his grandson, the eldest son of the deceased Frederic, prince of Wales, had ascended the throne with the 1760. title of George III. This was the prince who ruled Great Britain sixty years, in which time was included our war for independence.

October 26,

1 Parliament subsequently voted one million of dollars to the colonies, but, on account of the troubles arising from the Stamp Act and kindred measures, ministers withheld the sum.-Pictorial History of the Reign of George III., i., 36.

The following is a list of "The grants in Parliament for Rewards, Encouragement, and Indemnification to the Provinces in North America, for their Services and Expenses during the last [seven years] War: "On the 3d of February, 1756, as a free gift and reward to the colonies of New England, New York, and Jersey, for their past services, and as an encouragement to continue to exert themselves with vigor, voted $575,000.

"May 19th, 1757. For the use and relief of the provinces of North and South Carolina, and Virginia, in recompense for services performed and to be performed, $250,000.

"June 1st, 1758. To reimburse the province of Massachusetts Bay their expenses in furnishing provisions and stores to the troops raised by them in 1756, $136,900. To reimburse the province of Connecticut their expenses for ditto, $68,680.

"April 30th, 1759. As a compensation to the respective colonies for the expenses of clothing, pay of troops, &c., $1,000,000.

"March 31st, 1760. For the same, $1,000,000. For the colony of New York, to reimburse their expenses in furnishing provisions and stores to the troops in 1756, $14,885.

"January 20th, 1761.

$1,000,000.

As a compensation to the respective colonies for clothing, pay of troops, &c.,

[blocks in formation]

'April 22d, 1770. To reimburse the province of New Hampshire their expenses in furnishing provisions and stores to the troops in the campaign of 1756, $30,045. Total, $5,408,842."

In a pamphlet entitled The Rights of BRITAIN and Claims of AMERICA, an answer to the Declaration of the Continental Congress, setting forth the causes and the necessity of their taking up arms, printed in 1776, I find a table showing the annual expenditures of the British government in support of the civil and military powers of the American colonies, from the accession of the family of Hanover, in 1714, until 1775. The expression of the writer is, "Employed in the defense of America." This is incorrect, for the wars with the French on this continent, which cost the greatest amount of money, were wars for conquest and territory, though ostensibly for the defense of the Anglo-American colonies against the encroachments of their Gallic neighbors. During the period alluded to (sixty years) the sums granted for the army amounted to $43,899,625; for the navy, $50,000,000; money laid out in Indian presents, in holding Congresses, and purchasing cessions of land, $30,500,000; making a total of $123,899,625. Within that period the following bounties on American commodities were paid: On indigo, $725,110; on hemp and flax, $27,800; on naval stores imported in Great Britain from America, $7,293,810; making the total sum paid on account of bounties $8,047,320. The total amount of money expended in sixty years on account of America, $131,946,945.

[graphic]

GREAT SEAL OF GEORGE III., THE PURSE, AND CHANCELLOR'S MACE.

Death of George II. announced to his Heir.

Influence of the Earl of Bute.

Cool Treatment of Mr. Pitt.

CHAPTER XX.

"In a chariot of light from the regions of day
The goddess of Liberty came,

Ten thousand celestials directed the way,
And hither conducted the dame.

A fair budding branch from the garden above,
Where millions with millions agree,

She brought in her hand as a pledge of her love,
And the plant she named Liberty Tree.

"The celestial exotic struck deep in the ground,
Like a native it flourish'd and bore;

The fame of its fruit drew the nations around,
To seek out this peaceable shore.

Unmindful of names or distinction they came,
For freemen, like brothers, agree;

With one spirit indued, they one friendship pursued,
And their temple was Liberty Tree.

"But hear, O ye swains ('tis a tale most profane),
How all the tyrannical powers,

Kings, Commons, and Lords, are uniting amain
To cut down this guardian of ours.

From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms,

Through the land let the sound of it flee;

Let the far and the near all unite with a cheer

In defense of our Liberty Tree."

THOMAS PAINE.

HE intelligence of the death of his grandfather was communicated to George, the heir apparent, on the morning of the 25th of October, while he was riding on horseback, near Kew Palace, with his inseparable companion, the Earl of Bute. William Pitt, afterward Earl of Chat

ham, was the prime minister of the deceased

[graphic]

1760.

king. He immediately repaired to Kew, where the young sovereign (then in his twentythird year) remained during the day and night. On the 26th George' went to St. James's, where Pitt waited upon him, and presented a sketch of an address to be pronounced by the monarch at a meeting of the Privy Council. The minister was politely informed that a speech was already prepared, and that every preliminary was arranged. He at once perceived that the courtier, Bute, the favorite of the king's mother, and his majesty's tutor and abiding personal friend, had made these arrangements, and that he would doubtless occupy a conspicuous station in the new administration.

Bute was originally a poor Scottish nobleman, possessed of very little general talent, narrow in his political views, but favored with a fine person and natural grace of manners. He was a favorite of George's father, and continued to be an inti

GEORGE III.

AT THE TIME OF HIS ACCESSION. From an anonymous print.

1 George III. was the son of Frederic, prince of Wales, by the Princess Augusta, of Saxe Gotha. He was born May 24th, 1738, about three months after the birth of George Washington.

He was married in

« PreviousContinue »