Newcastle, &c., the enraged multitude gave themselves up to violent excesses. The stamp papers were destroyed, the houses of the stamp distributors plundered, and they themselves were burnt in effigy, and compelled to swear that they would resign their offices.* Although quiet and more thoughtful citizens disapproved of these proceedings, their views, nevertheless, were constantly becoming bolder and more comprehensive. England, it was said, cannot constitute both head and members at the same time. Where all local principles and regulations are destroyed, slavery exists; and as Parliament was not established, either by law or custom, for America (any more than for Ireland) as it was for England, its power in both countries cannot be one and the same; and its omnipotence in the colonies is a thing not to be spoken of. As the legislative assemblies of the colonies-even with the king's consent-cannot make laws for England, neither can the British Parliament for America. If the rights of the king are less extensive in several of the colonies than in England, be it remembered that with regard to Maryland he expressly renounced the right of taxation. Connecticut and Rhode Island are complete democracies; while other provinces possess, by their charters, the right of declaring war and concluding peace. is to be considered, moreover, that the French made war upon America chiefly on account of England; and that America, by commercial duties, and by the purchase of English productions and manufactures, does virtually bear a part of the English burdens. Supposing even-which may be doubted-that the moneys received would be well administered and employed in England, still the Americans can now no more consent to arbitrary taxation for useful purposes, than could the English patriots in the time of Charles I. It Among these complaints were heard others respecting injuries to commerce, the quartering on them of an insolent soldiery, the depreciation of the paper currency, &c.† The opposition acquired greater unity, and redoubled importance, by the meeting in New York (in October, 1765) of twenty-eight delegates, from nine provinces, to wit: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. They resolved, that America could be taxed only through its own representatives, and that all their present grievances should be laid before the king and Parliament. New Hampshire had promised to accede to the resolutions adopted; and the other provinces had been prevented by their governors from sending delegates to the meeting in New York. Simultaneously with the adoption of these political resolutions, *Ramsay, i. 111. Adolphus, i. 210. Grahame, iv. 203, 213. voluntary agreements were entered into to purchase no English manufactures until the repeal of the Stamp Act. The most zealous efforts were made to supply-although imperfectly,the wants thus occasioned; many things were cheerfully dispensed with; and secret promises were mutually given to ward off, with united exertions, any violence or penalties which this course might entail. out.* Such a general and well-regulated opposition produced a very great sensation in England; and each party explained the events in conformity with its own views and aims. Mr. Nugent (afterwards Lord Clare) remarked, that a pepper-corn in acknowledgment of the right, was of more value than millions withLord Grenville maintained, that the disobedience of the Americans was very great, that the right of taxation was a necessary part of the general legislative power of Parliament, and that protection and obedience were reciprocal. He declared, too, that the insolence and obstinacy of the Americans arose from the party spirit and erroneous views that were exhibited in Parliament. -Mr. Pitt answered with his usual boldness: "I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of our fellow-subjects so lost to every sense of virtue, as voluntari y to give up their liberties, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest. Assert the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies in as strong terms as can be devised; extend it to every point of legislation whatsoever; bind their trade; confine their manufactures;-but do not take their money out of their pockets without their own consent. That you have no right to do; and only in a good cause and on solid grounds can England crush America to atoms."-To this Nicholson Calvert replied: "It matters little to the question whether the Americans are in the right or not,-they think themselves so."+ These few sentences contain, in fact, the brief text of innumerable subsequent discussions and explanations; they defined for years the theoretical and practical position of parties, and have -with slight modifications-so important an influence, even in our own day, that an elucidation of them in this connection cannot well be out of place; especially as it must enable us to decide respecting the truth or falsehood of the reproach, that the American republic sprang from a damnable rebellion. Respecting the relation of a mother-country to its colonies, no general system had as yet been laid down with scientific exactness; nor were the examples in history so numerous, or of such a kind, that men could draw conclusions from them with certainty, and act accordingly. This insufficiency of the theory and * January, 1766. Parliament. History, xvi. 97-110. Adolphus, i. 225. † Raumer's Beiträge, iii. 289. practice that had hitherto prevailed, led to sharp, and for the most part arbitrary contradictions; and since none possessed that consummate statesmanship which sees with prophetic eye into the future, and knows how to direct and control it, they lived on from day to day, wondering without reason why temporary remedies and temporary expedients, instead of leading to the desired results, brought forth constantly something new and unexpected. If a child is begotten, it does not depend on the mother's will whether it shall be born or not, nor upon the parents whether after birth it shall grow up to maturity. Every colony, says Thucydides with his well known acuteness, honors the parent city when the latter acts well towards it; but it becomes estranged by unjust treatment. For those settlers were sent out not to slavery, but that they might remain on a level with them that stay at home.* The above cited declaration of Lord Clare, respecting the immeasurable importance of even a pepper corn by way of right, may in the first place be explained to mean (and so it was understood by Pitt), that it is an imperative point of honor and the first of duties, not to surrender the smallest portion of one's right, but to pursue it to the extremest iota. This view, which transfers some of the littlenesses, prejudices, and follies of private life into the sphere of politics, involves whole nations in strife without reason or prospect of advantage, instead of skilfully and mildly reconciling them with each other. This declaration acquires additional weight, when understood to mean that force without right is ever powerless; or rather that in the latter there resides a boundless power that nothing can resist. However, this theory also leads to harm, if not closely examined and essentially corrected. And first of all we find force opposed to right. If we here assume that force and wrong are wholly synonymous, the antithesis at least seems clear, and it may perhaps be proved, from the speculative point of view, that all wrong is in fact powerless or absolutely null and void. But for the practical point of view of historical action, this proof is without efficacy, and totally different means must be employed for overcoming wrong. There is also a second source of confusion and misapprehension in the fact that the words force and might are often used synonymously one for the other, and hence the saying has crept in, that might is always opposed to right. But in truth different degrees of power and might give rise to different rights; although it is hereby by no means intended to deny that wrong may be found connected with any quantity of might, be it great or small. Great might when separated from right, and good right destitute * De Bell. Pelop. i. 34. of all might, are always in a dangerous position; wherefore true political wisdom should apply itself to both these elements, and heal their defects as completely as possible. Lord Clare insisted that both right and might were on the side of Great Britain, and cast aside the question relative to the right and might of America; and yet the main question on which every thing depended, was: What might and what right does America already possess, and what is it both called upon by nature and in a condition to acquire? Grenville's words seemed to answer the question clearly but that appearance was deceptive; for the Americans maintained that their defence during the last war had been substantially effected by themselves, and that after all the war had been brought upon them solely on England's account. Grenville's maxim also, that "Protection and obedience are reciprocal," may easily be taken to mean that obedience should cease when protection is denied. The truth of Grenville's declaration, that "the right of taxation is a part of the sovereign power," can by no means be denied as a general abstract proposition; but in the particular concrete case in which it was applied to the British Parliament, it was only a premiss, a petitio principii. Pitt therefore very justly transferred the question to positive grounds, and showed that the form of the English law of taxation presented the most powerful arguments to induce the co-operation and participation of America. But still his views were too much confined to the concrete as those of Grenville were to the abstract. For how could the law of taxation be arbitrarily se lected from the whole body of legislation, and the Americans be made contented with such a fragment, while, according to Pitt's harsh declaration, they were to remain without right or participation in any other objects of legislation? Nay more, so unable was Pitt to disengage himself from the prevalent English notions on the subject, that he would allow the Americans a voice only in direct taxation, while he claimed the imposition of all indirect taxes (e. g. custom-house duties) as a monopoly on behalf of England. But in this state, unsatisfactory as it was both in theory and practice, things could by no means remain. Neither the doctrine of the point of honor, nor of the exist ence and omnipotence of a purely English right, nor yet Pitt's unsatisfactory proposal for an accommodation, could remove the difficulties that presented themselves. Mr. Calvert, therefore, very justly directed attention to existing facts. It was, he observed, of no kind of use to shut one's eyes to them, or to endeavor to solve the difficulty by laying down general propositions, or by referring to former circumstances which were essentially different. An unprejudiced examination of the facts would have shown that neither old dogmas nor old laws were suited to the present state of things. The majority of the British Parliament mistook, on account of the past, both the present and the future, and wished to play the judge according to defective and disputed custom, whereas there was needed a new legislation for a new world. Let us return, after these intermediate observations, to the historical facts. The Marquis of Rockingham, a very sensible and excellent man, who was placed at the head of affairs in the summer of 1765, by no means participated in Grenville's views. He rather listened to those who maintained that the complaints of the Americans, as well as of the English merchants who were very much hindered in their trade, must be attended to; and that unconditional blind obedience was not to be looked for from men whose forefathers had left their native country and suffered the greatest hardships in order to be free.† After many parliamentary struggles, the Stamp Act was at length (on the 18th of March, 1766) totally repealed in the House of Commons by 275 votes against 167, and in the House of Lords by 105 against 71, on the ground that this tax and the mode of levying it were preposterous. At the same time the unlimited legislative power of Parliament was confirmed by a special act, and in other places the mildness and moderation of the government were greatly extolled. This repeal of the Stamp Act gave rise in America to great and universal rejoicings; trade sprang up anew, numerous letters of thanks were despatched to England, and all seemed settled and composed. To the objection that Parliament had retained the principle of the right of taxation, and even strengthened it anew, the majority, full of gladness and hope, replied that Parliament, in order to save its honor externally, could not have acted otherwise, but that it would be too wise ever to put the principle into literal execution in America. The season of commercial restriction, however, had produced in America the proud belief that, with respect to trade, it was less dependent on England than England was on it. A small island like England, it was said, which was indebted to the Americans for the disposal of so many of its wares, should not have the presumption to seek to impose restrictions on an entire hemisphere. Such were the sentiments and views of America. In the meantime, in the course of July, 1766, a partial change of ministry had occurred. The Marquis of Rockingham's place *Belsham, v. 177. † Adolphus, i. 388. Belsham, v. 532. Burke's Life, p. 183. Burke on American Taxation, ii. 401. |