During the year 1763, the British ministry resolved to adopt a more vigorous policy for colonial control. By the scheme then elaborated under the leadership of Charles Townshend, it was proposed (1) rigorously to enforce the acts of navigation and trade; (2) to raise a revenue on the colonies by direct and indirect taxation; and (3) to use this revenue for the support of a standing military force in America.
The first step in carrying out the new policy was taken by George Grenville while at the head of the admiralty in Bute's cabinet. Grenville was an honest man, too independent to be counted among the "king's friends," but of small talent. He was devoted heart and soul to the old colonial system, and referred to the navigation act as "that palladium of the British commerce." At his instance, new powers were now given to the vice-admiralty courts in the colonies; and, by an ingenious device for putting an end to illicit trade, all the commanders of British ships-of-war serving in American waters were authorized to act as custom-house officers, with the usual share in the contraband and confiscated cargoes.
This unwise measure — put in force by royal order a few months later (October, 1763) — bore its natural fruit. It became a standing cause of strife. Naval officers, often wholly ignorant of the laws which they were suddenly called upon to administer, would scarcely fail to be guilty of hasty and arbitrary acts. In particular, the reckless seizure and confiscation of ships engaged in the West India trade caused bitter resentment and appeals for redress.
This ominous opening of the new policy was followed by other measures that speedily united the colonies in common opposition. In April 1763, Grenville superseded Bute as head of the cabinet. On September 23, in pursuance of a minute made the day before at a meeting of the treasury board, the commissioners of the stamp duties were directed to transmit a draft of an act for imposing proper stamp duties in America. Soon thereafter, a scheme for a new and efficient system of admiralty courts was formed, while stringent orders were issued for a more rigid enforcement of the acts of trade.
Grenville next took up the scheme for raising a revenue in the colonies. The burden of the national debt had been vastly increased by the war.
Since 1754, the volume of taxes had grown by more than £3,000,000. The minister was assured that the colonies could well afford to give a part of the money needed to maintain garrisons for their own protection. To support a force of about ten thousand men, a revenue of £300,000 would be required, and it was intended that the colonies should bear one-third of this expense. At no time during the struggle was it proposed that the colonies should be taxed for the support of the home government, or even for the full support of the army in America.
Accordingly, on March 9, 1764, Grenville, in the House of Commons, suggested that a revenue from indirect taxes should at once be raised, and gave notice of his purpose at the next session to bring in a bill for the levying of stamp duties in the colonies. Declaratory resolves to this effect were agreed upon in committee, and the next day formally accepted by the House. On April 5, the "Sugar Act" received the royal approval, and with it, the Revolutionary struggle may be regarded as actually beginning.
King George III was much pleased with the new policy. On proroguing Parliament, April 19, he referred with approval to "the wise regulations which had been established to augment the public revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of the crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great Britain." What a "commentary on this sentence," exclaims Frothingham, "were the events that occurred eleven years later, on the anniversary of the delivery of this speech."
The preamble of the statute of 1764 declares that the duties authorized are given and granted to the king because "it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised in his American dominions "for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same." The Act of 1733 is confirmed and extended. The duty laid by it on sugar is raised, while that on molasses is lowered. Heavy duties are also levied on various foreign products, England now being made the staple for Asiatic as well as European goods. The drawbacks of re-exportation are diminished, to the advantage of the English exchequer. The colonies are absolutely forbidden to import rum or spirits from foreign plantations, or to trade with the French islands of St. Pierre or Miquelon. New and stringent regulations for the enforcement of the acts of trade are prescribed. The penalties for breach of the trade laws, at the option of the informer or prosecutor, may be recovered either in any court of record in the colony where the offence is committed or in any court of admiralty in America. The defendant is thus denied the right of trial by jury and may be compelled to go five hundred leagues to defend himself before a strange tribunal. Though he himself is required to give ample security for costs, in case the suit goes against him, yet, should he chance to win, he is not entitled to any costs if the judge certifies that there was probable ground of action; nor is the person making the seizure liable to prosecution therefor.
The orders for the enforcement of the molasses act, with the report that it was to be renewed, were received in America with the "strongest apprehensions." They "caused a greater alarm in this country," wrote Governor Bernard in January 1764, "than the capture of Fort William Henry did in 1757." The law of 1733 was enacted, not for the benefit of the English merchant, but in the interest of the British sugar islands, at the expense of the colonies. It laid a prohibitory duty on the importation into the colonies of all foreign sugar and molasses; and so, if enforced, would have destroyed the best trade of the northern provinces. In the foreign West Indies and the Spanish Main, the staple products of the northern colonies found a ready market. Fish, lumber, grain, and provisions were exchanged for sugar, molasses, and money. The molasses was used for the manufacture of rum, of which in 1731 New England made one million two hundred and sixty thousand gallons.
Only through the island trade could the money be obtained for the purchase of English goods, since, as in part a result of the restrictive system, the balance of trade was always against the colonies. On average, about £1,000,000 sterling was needed each year to make good the unfavorable balance with Great Britain. According to Franklin, Pennsylvania imported from England goods to the value of £500,000 and in return exported 40,000, the balance being largely made up with the West Indies. Indeed, this trade was essential to the progress and prosperity of New England. It was so admitted by Bernard in 1763 and by Pownall the next year. Without it, said Defoe, in 1741, "these colonies would perish." Ten years earlier, Gee was of the same opinion, referring particularly to the export of provisions. In 1763, fifteen thousand hogsheads of French and Spanish molasses were brought into Massachusetts alone. After the wa,r the trade with the foreign islands had rapidly revived. This traffic would now suddenly be cut off.
Very instructive are the arguments which Mauduit, the agent of Massachusetts in England, was directed by the general court to present against the Sugar Act. "The business of the fishery, which, it was alleged, would be broken up by the act, was at this time estimated in Massachusetts at £164,000 sterling per annum; the vessels employed in it, which would be nearly useless, at £100,000; the provisions used in it, the casks for packing fish, and other articles, at £22,700 and upwards: to all wmich there was to be added the loss of the advantage of sending lumber, horses, provisions, and other commodities to the foreign plantations as cargoes, the vessels employed to carry fish to Spain and Portugal, the dismissing of 5,000 seamen from their employment, the effects of the annihilation of the fishery upon the trade of the Province and of the mother - country in general, and its accumulative evils by increasing the rival fisheries of France."
A forcible argument turned upon the means of "remittances to England for goods imported into the Province, which had been made in specie to the amount of £150,000 sterling, besides £90,000 in treasurer's bills for the reimbursement money, within the last eighteen months. The sources for obtaining this money were through foreign countries by the means of the fishery; and would be cut off with the trade to their plantations." The agent was also instructed to protest against the navigation act of 1663, requiring European goods to be shipped through England. The "expense of carrying some articles received for fish in Spain and Portugal to London, to enter them in the custom-house there, would be so great as to exceed the amount of the cost, and many times the value of the duty also; and fruit so necessary for the health and comfort of the inhabitants would be lost from the length of voyage."
The first result of the new policy was to organize public opinion throughout the colonies. A sentiment of union was fostered, and forms and modes of concerted action were developed. For a year, memorials, petitions, state papers, protests, pamphlets, and public meetings were the order of the day. The Sugar Act and the menace of a future stamp tax were before the country at the same time, but it is very significant that the first movement in America was against the Sugar Act. Even before its passage, the measures of 1763 for the execution of the commercial code had aroused hostile discussion. Rhode Island prepared a remonstrance to the lords of trade, to be presented by her agent "if any three of the agents of the other colonies would unite with him in the same." "To promote a union or a coalition of all their councils" against the renewal of the molasses act, committees of merchants were formed in various towns, and these corresponded with each other.
The earliest action against the new sugar law by a political body was taken at the Boston town-meeting on May 24, 1764. It was supposed that the law was already enacted, although as yet only its passage by the Commons had been reported. A committee of five was then appointed to prepare instructions for the town's newly chosen representatives in the assembly of the province. The instructions were drafted and presented by Samuel Adams, a graduate of Harvard, who, even thus early, comes forward in the great role he was to take in the Revolution as the organizer of public opinion. The representatives are enjoined to use their "influence in maintaining the invaluable rights and privileges of the province"; and to "preserve that independence in the house of representatives, which characterizes a free people." "Our trade," they add, "has for a long time laboured under great discouragements; and it is with the deepest concern that we see such further difficulties coming upon it, as will reduce it to the lowest ebb, if not totally obstruct and ruin it." The assembly is rebuked for not taking earlier notice of the "intentions of the ministry, to burden us with new taxes," referring to the agent's report that the molasses act was to be renewed.
The Bostonians enlarged on the nature of imperial trade. If "our trade is to be curtailed in its most profitable branches, and burdens beyond all possible bearing laid upon that which is suffered to remain, we shall be so far from being able to take off the manufactures of Great Britain, that it will be scarce possible for us to earn our bread." Furthermore, "if our trade may be taxed, why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands, and everything we possess or make use of? This, we apprehend, annihilates our charter right to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our fellow-subjects who are natives of Britain: If taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves? ... As his majesty's other northern American colonies are embarked with us in this most important bottom, we farther desire you to use your endeavours, that their weight may be added to that of this province: that by the united application of all who are aggrieved, all may happily obtain redress."
Though this initial document of the Revolution deals with the restrictions on trade, it deftly includes three principles of immense moment in the approaching struggle. (1) It asserts the doctrine of "no taxation without representation" and, at the same time, scorns the attempted distinction between internal and external taxation. (2) The full rights of Britons are claimed. (3) The united protest of all the colonies is suggested.
The general court of Massachusetts met on May 30. A committee was appointed by the House of Representatives to consider the instructions of the Boston meeting, and the letter from Mauduit received early in the session announcing the final enactment of the revenue law. This committee submitted a "memorial" drafted by Otis, stating the rights of the colonies. This famous argument contains a fourth revolutionary principle, in the hope expressed that "it will not be considered a new doctrine that even the authority of the parliament of Great Britain is circumscribed by certain bounds, which if exceeded, their acts become those of mere power without right, and consequently void"; for "it is contrary to reason that the supreme power should have right to alter the constitution. This would imply that those who are entrusted with sovereignty by the people have a right to do as they please."
The memorial, like the instructions, deals almost wholly with the trade problem. "The fishery is the centre of motion, upon which the wheel of all the British commerce in America turns." It is certain that without the fishery seven-eighths of this commerce would cease." If "it can be demonstrated that the sugar and molasses trade from the northern colonies to the foreign plantations is upon the whole a loss to the community, by which term is here meant the three kingdoms and the British dominions taken collectively, then, and not till then, should the trade be prohibited." Such is "the extent of this continent, and the increase of its inhabitants, that if every inch of the British sugar islands was as well cultivated as any part of Jamaica or Barbadoes, they would not now be able to supply Great Britain" and her American colonies.
An elaborate letter to the agent, also written by Otis, was reported. Mauduit is sharply rebuked for his concessions to the ministerial policy, and he is instructed to urge the repeal of the sugar act and to protest against the proposed stamp duties. "The silence of the province," he is told, "should have been imputed to any cause, even to despair, rather than be construed into a tacit cession of their rights, or an acknowledgment of a right in the Parliament of Great Britain to impose duties and taxes upon a people, who are not represented in the house of commons." They protest against the "burdensome scheme" of "obliging the colonies to maintain an army " as unconstitutional. To prove that it was unjust, they refer to their services, particularly in the recent war, and to the debt which the province is still bearing. This letter and the memorial were sent to the agent in London. On June 13, a committee of correspondence, with Otis at the head, was authorized to acquaint the other governments with the action of the house and to " desire the several assemblies on this continent to join with them in the same measure." Accordingly, twelve days later, a circular letter was sent to all the colonies asking their "united assistance."
In these proceedings, the Massachusetts House of Representatives acted separately from the council, apparently the first instance of their so doing in any general question relating to the whole province. Such an irregular course seemed unwise to the more cautious party. On their petition, therefore, the governor called the general court to meet in special session on October 18. In reply to the governor's speech, the council and house joined in a forcible argument against the act of 1764, with a mere incidental reference to the proposed stamp tax. A petition to the House of Commons (November 3), drafted by Hutchinson, was also agreed upon. It contained a weak protest against laying stamp duties, but did not claim exemption from parliamentary taxation as a right. Its real weight bears on the injustice of the Sugar Act. Furthermore, in their letter to Mauduit, transmitting the petition, they distinctly say "that the late act of parliament, imposing additional duties, "affects this colony more than any other."
From the facts already presented, it seems very clear that for at least seven months after the declaratory resolve, the people of Massachusetts were far more alarmed by the enforcement of the Sugar Act than they were by the menace of a stamp tax. The other colonies, too, as the next chapter will disclose, were quite alive to the supreme importance of this first internal revenue law. An examination of the pamphlet literature for the same period leads to the same result. In July appeared James Otis's Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved appeared. This is the calmest and most carefully prepared of Otis's political writings. It is a clear and temperate exposition of natural rights and constitutional principles as equally concerning all members of the British nation. He argues that colonists have lost none of their privileges as men and Englishmen by leaving their old home. "If I were to define the modern colonists, I should say, they are the noble discoverers and settlers of a new world; from whence, as from an endless source, wealth, and plenty, the means of power, grandeur, and glory, in a degree unknown to the hungry chiefs of former ages, have been pouring into Europe for three hundred years." A colony "is a settlement of subjects in a territory disjointed or remote from the mother country, and may be made by private adventurers or the public; but in both cases the colonists are entitled to as ample rights, liberties, and privileges as the subjects of the mother country are, and in some respects to more."
Otis, however, freely admits the legislative supremacy of Parliament. All of the colonies "are subject to, and dependent upon Great Britain"; and "therefore, as over subordinate government," Parliament "has an undoubted power and lawful authority, to make acts for the general good, that, by naming them, shall and ought to be equally binding as upon the subjects of Great Britain within the realm." The colonists "should not only be continued in the enjoyment of subordinate legislation, but be also represented in some proportion to their number and estates in the grand legislation of the nation." Without such representation, taxation is unconstitutional. "Is there the least difference, as to the consent of the colonists, whether taxes and impositions are laid on their trade, and other property, by the crown alone, or by the parliament?" If Parliament "have an equitable right to tax our trade, it is indisputable that they have as goodan one to tax the lands"; for "there is no foundation for the distinction some make in England between an internal and an external tax on the colonies." To have the whole tax for a standing army in America "levied and collected without our consent is extraordinary." That privilege "is allowed even to tributaries, and those laid under military contribution."
Yet there is no thought of independence in Otis's argument. Were the colonists "inclined to it, they know the blood and the treasure it would cost." Could they have the choice between independence and subjection to Great Britain, "upon any terms above absolute slavery, I am convinced that they would accept the latter." They "will never prove undutiful, till driven to it, as the last fatal resort against ministerial oppression, which will make the wisest mad, and the weakest strong."
About two months after the appearance of Otis's tract, Oxenbridge Thacher published his Sentiments of a British American. This is a loyal, conciliatory, but firm protest against the new ministerial policy. It is devoted almost wholly to analyzing the act of 1764, showing that its provisions are unjust to the colonists and dangerous to British subjects everywhere. The effect of the act will be to deprive England of her best customer, for the colonists will be compelled either to manufacture their goods or do without. About the same time that the pamphlets of Otis and Thacher were issuing from the Boston press, two essays were anonymously published in the middle colonies. They are written from the standpoint of the American merchant, and each deals with the trade problem in a broad, tolerant, and enlightening spirit, showing that the welfare of the entire British people would be served better by increasing rather than restricting the liberty of commerce.
According to Moses Coit Tyler, it is very curious that these writings, though published long after the announcement of the proposed Stamp Act, do not refer to that measure. In his view, the American "people, bewildered in the thicket of passing events, did not at first perceive their true relations and proportions. But, at about the time of the appearance of Thacher's pamphlet, that is, in the early autumn of 1764, the appalling significance of the notice of the stamp act began to dawn upon them; and then, almost at once, the centre of gravity shifted from the immediate past to the immediate future, — from the measure that had become a law in the preceding March 2 to the measure that might become a law in the following March."
In several ways, this statement is misleading. The American people were by no means "bewildered" by the swift development of the ministerial policy. On the contrary, they very clearly saw the vast relative importance of the Act of 1764. Its significance was no less "appalling" than that of the proposed stamp tax. It was even more alarming, so far at least as the northern provinces were concerned. The tax levied by it was the same in principle as the stamp duties, while the swift destruction of trade which it threatened meant an immediate sacrifice more harmful than the stamp tax could cause for years to come. Nor was there such a sudden change in sentiment as here represented. Feeling simply became more intense because the grievance was growing. The effect of the stamp tax was cumulative. In the struggle against it, presently to be considered, the Sugar Act was not forgotten. It lies at the bottom of the revolutionary contest.
This is so not merely because it taxed the American people without their consent, but chiefly because it confirmed the Molasses Act, which was already being executed by new and unconstitutional devices. In the words of a writer who rejected the popular idea that the "Revolution began in the Stamp Act," "neither the duties laid in 1764 nor the collection of the taxes anticipated from the Stamp Act of 1765 would have produced a tithe of the evil that would have followed" from the enforcement of the molasses act.- "They went to war against a preamble. They fought seven years against a declaration." This epigram of Webster, like most epigrams, is only true in part. The revolutionary debate did, indeed, turn mainly on constitutional principles, but below the question of constitutional right lay the economic grievance as a stern reality.