CHAPTER VII.

Repeal of Stamp Act, a joyful event in America-Ministry seem well disposed towards the Colonists-Compensation to those, who suffered by disturbances in consequence of the Stamp Act, required-Massachusetts delays granting the compensation-New York refuses to furnish all the articles required by the Mutiny Act-This offends the Ministry-New Administration-Duties imposed on glass and other articles in the Colonies-Board of Custom House Officers established in AmericaLegislature of New York prohibited from passing laws, until a compliance with the Mutiny Act-Massachusetts among the first to oppose the new duties-Circular letter of the House of Representatives of that Province-Disapproved by the Ministry-The House directed to rescind its vote-Other Colonies required to disregard the Circular of Massachusetts-The House refuses to rescind-Other Colonies unite with Massachusetts-Spirited conduct of New York and Maryland-Disturbances at Boston-Troops sent there-Convention of the people in Massachusetts-Troops quartered in Boston-Conduct of Massachusetts censured by Parliament-King authorized to bring offenders in the Colonies to Great Britain for trial-Proceedings of Virginia-Disputes in Massachusetts in relation to the troops-The new duties repealed, except the duty on Tea-This not satisfactory to the Colonists-Royal provision for Governor's salary in Massachusetts-Declared a dangerous innovationDestruction of the Gaspee in Rhode Island-Disputes between Governor Hutchinson and the Assembly of Massachusetts concerning the supremacy of ParliamentCommittees of correspondence between the Colonies appointed-Private Letters of Governor Hutchinson published-Occasion a petition for his removal—East India Company send tea to America-Destroyed at Boston-Boston port bill-Alteration of Massachusetts Charter-These acts resisted in the Colonies.

THE news of the repeal of the stamp act, was received with unbounded joy, in America. The house of representatives in Massachusetts, passed a vote expressing their gratitude to the king, for assenting to the repeal, and giving their thanks to Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Grafton, and many others, for their generous efforts in favor of the colonies. In Virginia, a bill passed the house of burgesses, for erecting a statue to the king, and an obelisk, to commemorate those in England, who had distinguished themselves, in favor of American rights.

The colonists seemed only to view their release from present evil; without much regard to the extensive, and inadmissible principles of the declaratory act. They considered this act as a VOL. I.

28

salvo for national honor, and believed it would remain, a dead letter, in the statute book. The ministry were disposed, to draw a veil over the late transactions in the colonies, provided compensation was made to those who had suffered by them.

Secretary Conway, in his circular of the 31st of March, informed the governors of the colonies, that the king and parliament, "seemed disposed, not only to forgive, but to forget those most unjustifiable marks, of an undutiful disposition, too frequent in the late transactions of the colonies ;" but at the same time required them, strongly to recommend to the assemblies, to make full and ample compensation to those, who had suffered "for their deference to the act of the British legislature."*

The transactions referred to in the secretary's letter, were those which took place, in Boston and New York, in the summer of 1765. In June 1766, this letter of the British secretary, was laid before the assembly of Massachusetts, by governor Bernard. In communicating it to the assembly of that province, the governor says," the justice and humanity of this requisition," as he called it," is so forcible, that it cannot be controverted; the authority with which it is introduced, should preclude all disputation about it."

This language on the part of the royal governor, was considered, by the house of representatives, as interfering with the freedom of deliberation in that body, and was one of the causes, which produced delay, in complying with the wishes of the king and parliament on this subject. In their answer to this communication, the house observed, "that it was conceived in much higher and stronger terms in the speech, than in the letter of the secretary. Whether in thus exceeding, your excellency speaks by your own authority, or a higher, is not with us to determine. However, if this recommendation, which your excellency terms a requisition, be founded on so much justice and humanity, that it cannot be controverted; if the authority, with which it is introduced, should preclude all disputation, about complying with it, we should be glad to know, what freedom we have in the case."

* Prior Documents, p. 90.

Compensation was not made to the sufferers in Massachusetts, until December 1766; and then, in a manner, and on conditions, highly displeasing to the British government.

The act, making the compensation, granted "free and general pardon, indemnity and oblivion to all offenders, in the late times." This act was accompanied by a declaratory resolution, in which the house of representatives say, " they were influenced by a loyal and grateful regard to his majesty's most mild and gracious recommendation; by a deference to the opinion of the illustrious patrons of the colonies, in Great Britain; and for the sake of internal peace and order, without any interpretation of his majesty's recommendation, into a requisition, precluding all debate and controversy; and under a full persuasion, that the sufferers had no just claim or demand on the province; and that the compliance ought not hereafter, to be drawn into a precedent."*

The act itself was afterwards, disallowed by the king and council, because the assembly had no power to pass a law of general pardon without the previous assent of the crown. The sufferers, however, received the compensation provided by the

act.

The assembly of New York, in the summer of 1766, complied with the royal recommendation, and made compensation to the sufferers, in that province.

The same assembly, however, refused to furnish all the articles required, by the act of parliament, passed as before stated, in 1765, for quartering soldiers, in the colonies. This act, in addition to the articles heretofore usually furnished, required those of salt, vinegar, cider or beer, to be included; and these last, the assembly refused to furnish; clearly intimating, that, as this was in reality, an exaction of money, they had a constitutional right, to comply with the requisition or not. In communicating this refusal to the British government, the governor of New York, tells the British secretary, that this would "show the deference here paid, to acts of parliament; and what may be our expec

* Massachusetts State papers, p. 101, and Prior documents.

tations on a future occasion. You will be pleased to observe," he adds, "that my message, is treated merely, as a requisition made here, and that they have carefully avoided the least mention of the act, on which it is founded; and it is my opinion, that every act of parliament, when not backed by a sufficient power to enforce it, will meet with the same fate here.*" This refusal gave great offense in Great Britain. Opposition, however, to the mutiny act, and particularly that part, which demanded the additional articles, was not confined to the province of New York.

The assembly of New Jersey, only empowered their commissioners, to purchase firewood, blankets, bedding, and "other necessaries as have been heretofore usually furnished," refusing to insert in their act, the new articles, although required by the gov ernor; and indeed, they informed the governor, "that they looked upon the act, for quartering soldiers in America, to be virtually, as much an act for laying taxes, on the inhabitants, as the stamp act; and that it was more partial, as the troops were kept, in a few of the colonies, whereby others were exempted from contributing any thing towards the expense."t

In the mean time a change took place in the British ministry. The administration of the marquis of Rockingham terminated in July 1766.

A new administration was formed, under the direction of Mr. Pitt, composed of men of different political principles and parties. The duke of Grafton, was placed at the head of the treasury, lord Shelburne was joined with general Conway, as one of the secretaries of state. Charles Townshend was made chancellor of the exchequer, Camden, lord chancellor, Pitt had the privy seal, and was made a peer, with the title of the earl of Chatham, and lord North and George Cooke, were joint paymasters. Under this chequered administration, afterwards so ludicrously described by Mr. Burke, the scheme of taxing America was revived. In May 1767, the new chancellor of the exchequer, submitted a plan of this kind to parliament. Charles Townshend, was a man of gen.

* Prior Documents, p. 95.

† Governor Franklin's Letter to Shelburne, Prior Documents, p. 121.

ius and talents, but of high passions, eccentric, and versatile. He had warmly supported lord Grenville, in the passage of the stamp act, and had voted with the marquis of Rockingham, in its repeal. The ex-minister, Grenville, may indeed be considered, the real author of the second plan for taxing the colonies. He lost no opportunity, in the house of commons, of passing severe censures on the Americans, for their obstinacy and ingratitude in refusing to pay their proportion of the public expenses; nor was he sparing of his complaints against the ministry and parliament, for their weakness and cowardice in yielding to the claims of the colonists.

Declaiming, as usual, one evening, on American affairs, he addressed himself particularly to the ministers-" You are cowards," he said, "you are afraid of the Americans, you dare not tax America." This he repeated in different language. Upon this Townshend took fire, immediately rose and said, "fear, fear, cowards, dare not tax America! I dare tax America."

Grenville stood silent for a moment, and then said-"Dare you tax America? I wish to God I could see it." Townshend replied, "I will, I will.”*

Soon after this, he submitted to the house a bill imposing duties on glass, paper, paste-board, white and red lead, painter's colors and tea, imported into the colonies. The preamble declared, "that it was expedient to raise a revenue in America, and to make a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice and the support of the civil government in the provinces, and for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing them."

Mr. Pitt was then confined by sickness in the country, and the bill passed both houses, without much opposition, and on the 29th of June, received the royal assent.

The conduct of the assemblies of Massachusetts and New York, had given great dissatisfaction in Great Britain.

The refusal of the assembly of the latter, to comply with the requisitions of the mutiny act, in particular, had excited the

* MSS papers of Dr. Wm. S. Johnson, then in England, as Agent for Connecticut.