A Month before the bursting of the storm aroused by its policy, the Grenville ministry had fallen. It was driven from office under circumstances which revealed that a struggle for constitutional liberty must be waged on both sides of the sea. The king had never given full confidence to his cabinet, and he continued to take secret counsel with his favorite, the Earl of Bute, under whose direction the new administration was formed.
Determined to govern as well as reign, he strove to do so through the same desperate expedient of balancing the curia against the camera, which had brought ruin to Charles I and long before him to Edward II. For the maxim that the king can do no wrong is true only when he acts solely through his constitutional advisers.
At first, Grenville seems to have found himself little more than the mere instrument of the "king's friends." According to Lord Chesterfield, the "public looked still at Lord Bute through the curtain, which indeed was a very transparent one." Grenville could not patiently brook such an invasion of his province. He reproached the king for withholding confidence from his minister. "As fond of power as the king himself, — and with a will as strong and imperious, — tenacious of his rights as a minister, and confident in his own abilities and influence, — he looked to parliament rather than to the crown, as the source of his authority." The king, finding himself opposed and thwarted by a ministry which had been forced upon him, resolved to get rid of it as soon as practicable. This he first attempted in August 1763, when Bute was commissioned to invite Pitt to form a new administration; but the project was dropped when it was learned that Pitt proposed to recall Earl Temple and the very Whig leaders whom his majesty had said he should never suffer to "come into his service while he lived to hold the scepter."
In 1765, the crisis came in a contest over the regency bill. The king had just recovered from his fit of insanity, and the heir to the throne was a child two years of age. Clearly, there was a need to provide for the exercise of the royal functions in cases of emergency. Slighting his cabinet, the king called upon Lord Holland for advice. In turn, the offended ministers, when commanded to bring in a bill for a regency, attempted to disqualify the king's mother, the ambitious princess dowager, who was disliked as the friend and former patroness of Bute. Wearied by the complaints of Grenville and the blunt speeches of Bedford, the king now determined to get rid of the ministry at the cost even of a complete surrender to the detested Whigs. At his request his uncle, the duke of Cumberland, entered into negotiations with Pitt. "I am ready to go to St. James's," said the Great Commoner, "if I can carry the constitution with me." He was promised a free hand in making up a cabinet; general warrants were to be condemned, while Barre, Conway, and others, who had been deprived of their offices for their votes in Parliament, were to be restored. At a personal interview with the king in June, Pitt declared himself against the late acts for taxing the colonies and restraining their trade. On this point, too, the king seemed to yield. Pitt, therefore, invited his brother-in-law, Earl Temple, to join him in forming an administration; but Temple, at variance with Pitt regarding the Stamp Act, declined to serve, and drew nearer to Grenville, also his brother-in-law. Without his aid, Pitt thought it unwise to proceed.
The triumph of Grenville now seemed complete. Already, among the conditions of remaining in office, the ministry had forced the king to promise that Bute should not be suffered to interfere in the conduct of the government "in any manner or shape whatever."
At this juncture, Cumberland succeeded in forming an opposition ministry. July 10, while busy with plans for the execution of the Stamp Act, Grenville was summoned to St. James's to lay down his office. "He besought his majesty, as he valued his own safety, not to suffer anyone to advise him to separate or draw the line between his British and American dominions"; declared that the colonies were the "richest jewel of his crown"; and that "if any man ventured to defeat the regulations laid down for the colonies, by a slackness in the execution, he should look upon him as a criminal and the betrayer of his country."
The new ministry seemed likely to be more favorable to the American cause. As premier at the head of the treasury was placed the Marquis of Rockingham, leader of the Whig aristocracy, who had been deprived of the lord-lieutenancy of his county for his vote against the peace in 1763. Moreover, it seemed fitting that General Conway, who had opposed the Stamp Act and was likewise a victim of the royal proscriptions, should become secretary of state for the southern or colonial division. But the ministry was weak, containing not a single man of conspicuous ability.
Yet in no way was Grenville's fall due to the Stamp Act. During Cumberland's negotiations for a new ministry, colonial affairs were not even mentioned, and for six months after Rockingham came to power, Pitt's views regarding American taxation seem to have been unknown to the ministry. "It was probably a complete surprise to them to learn that it [the Stamp Act] had brought the colonies to the verge of rebellion, and in the first months of their power, they appear to have been quite uncertain what policy they would pursue."
The English people were divided on the issue. The landed aristocracy in general looked upon the colonists as rebels and would have compelled obedience by military force. On the other hand, the merchants of many cities and towns petitioned for repeal. They said that the "colonists were indebted to the merchants of this country to the amount of several millions sterling for English goods which had been exported to America; that the colonists had hitherto faithfully made good their engagements, but that they now declared their inability to do so; that they would neither give orders for new goods nor pay for those which they had actually received; and that unless parliament speedily retraced its steps, multitudes of English manufacturers would be reduced to bankruptcy. In Manchester, Nottingham, Leeds, and many other towns, thousands of artisans had been thrown out of employment. Glasgow complained that the Stamp Act was threatening it with absolute ruin, for its trade was principally with America, and not less than half a million of money was due by the colonists of Maryland and Virginia alone" to its merchants.
While the ministry was still undecided, the king saw clearly that the crisis was of vital meaning. He declared himself "provoked" and "humiliated" by the riots and the surrender of the stamps in New York. To Secretary Conway on December 5, 1765, he wrote: "I am more and more grieved at the accounts of America. Where this spirit will end is not to be said. It is undoubtedly the most serious matter that ever came before parliament; it re-quires more deliberation, candour, and temper than I fear it will meet with." Already, on October 3, the Privy Council had reported to him that the question was of too "high a nature" for its de-termination, and "proper only for the consideration of parliament."
When, after recess, Parliament came together, January 14, 1766, the king submitted to its "wisdom" the papers relating to the Stamp Act in America. Now began one of the most memorable debates in the constitutional history of England. The line of party division was speedily drawn. Repeal of the act was urged by Conway, Camden, and Pitt; while a powerful opposition was led by Mansfield, Bedford, and Grenville, around whom rallied the representatives of the Tory aristocracy, with the friends of the king, who resolutely opposed the repeal and carefully watched the proceedings of Parliament. The opposition rejected the distinction between internal and external taxation, and strenuously asserted the legislative supremacy of Parliament over the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Nugent insisted that the "honours and dignity of the kingdom obliged us to compel the execution of the Stamp Act, except the right was acknowledged, and the repeal solicited as a favour."
Grenville severely censured the ministry for failing to give earlier notice of the commotions in America. These, he said, "began in July, and now we are in the middle of January; lately they were only occurrences, they are now grown to disturbances, to tumults and riots. I doubt they border on open rebellion, and if the doctrine I have heard this day," from Mr. Pitt, "be confirmed, I fear they will lose that name to take that of revolution. The government over them being dissolved, a revolution will take place in America. I cannot understand the difference between external and internal taxes. They are the same in effect and only differ in name. That this kingdom has the sovereign, the supreme legislative power over America, is granted. It cannot be denied, and taxation is a part of that sovereign power. ... Ungrateful people of America! Bounties have been extended to them. ... You have relaxed in their favour, the act of navigation, that palladium of the British commerce."
The most notable argument on this side was made by Chief Justice Mansfield in the House of Lords. He spoke to the "question strictly as a matter of right." The colonies, he insisted, had always been subject to the supreme jurisdiction of Parliament. Duties have been laid upon them "affecting the very inmost parts of their commerce.... There can be no doubt, my lords, but that the inhabitants of the colonies are as much represented in parliament as the greatest part of the people of England are represented; among nine millions of whom there are eight which have no votes in electing members of parliament. Every objection, therefore, to the dependency of the colonies upon parliament, which arises to it upon the ground of representation, goes to the whole present constitution of Great Britain; and I suppose it is not meant to remodel that too." Like Grenville, he wholly rejected the distinction between external and internal taxation. "For nothing can be more clear than that a tax of ten or twenty per cent, laid upon tobacco, either in the ports of Virginia or London, is a duty laid upon the inland plantations of Virginia, a hundred miles from the sea, wheresoever the tobacco may be grown."
From the lawyer's standpoint, the argument of Mansfield in support of the theory of virtual representation seems conclusive. As a mere matter of strict legalism, the colonists may have been represented in Parliament and bound by its legislative acts, whether imposing external or internal taxation. Yet true statesmanship might render a very different decision. Abstract justice might demand a new precedent to establish a new law. How else has the constitution of England been built up unless by thus yielding to the advancing needs of the people under changing conditions? Possibly that which seemed to transcend the imagination of Mansfield had actually come to pass? If, indeed, the existing constitution was really such as he described, had not the hour come for reorganization?
Pitt took a more statesman-like position. In his view, the contention of the colonists was sustained by the spirit of the Constitution. "The subject of this debate is of greater importance than ever engaged the attention of this house, that subject only excepted, when, nearly a century ago, it was a question whether you yourselves were to be bond or free. The manner in which this affair will be terminated will decide the judgment of posterity on the glory of this kingdom, and the wisdom of its government during the present reign." "Taxation," he declared, "is no part of the governing power"; and he denounced "the idea of a virtual representation of America" in the House of Commons as the "most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. ... There is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purpose of raising revenue and duties imposed for the regulation of trade." Therefore, let the Stamp Act be repealed. "At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation, that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent."
Thus, Pitt enforced the argument already presented by the American Congress and the American pamphleteers. "To what purpose," Otis had retorted in reply to Soame Jenyns," to ring everlasting changes to the colonists on the cases of Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, who return no members? If these now so considerable places are not represented, they ought to be! Besides, the counties in which those respectable abodes of tinkers, tinmen, and pedlars lie return members; so do all the neighboring cities and boroughs. In the choice of the former, if they have no vote, they must naturally and necessarily have a great influence. I believe every gentleman of a landed estate, near a flourishing manufactory, will be careful enough of its interest."
While the Congress was in session, precisely three months before Pitt's speech was delivered, Daniel Dulany had likewise exposed the fallacy of the argument from virtual representation, as consisting of "facts not true, and of conclusions inadmissible." For in Great Britain, the interests "of the non-electors, the electors, and the representatives, are individually the same; to say nothing of the connection among neighbors, friends, and relatives. The security of the non-electors against oppression is that their oppression will also fall upon the electors and the representatives. The one can't be injured, and the other indemnified. Further, if the non-electors should not be taxed by the British parliament, they would not be taxed at all," a "solecism in the political system." On the other hand, "the inhabitants of the colonies are, as such, incapable of being electors, the privilege of election being exercisable only in person, and therefore if every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold not one could vote, but on the supposition of ceasing to be an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident in Great Britain, a supposition which would be impertinent, because it shifts the question." Moreover, the colonies may be taxed by their own legislatures, so that "there would not necessarily be an iniquitous and absurd exemption, from their not being represented by the house of commons." Dulany's able pamphlet, it is clear, had a direct influence on the form in which Pitt expressed his views.
The most dramatic incident of the struggle for repeal was the examination, on February 13, 1766, of Benjamin Franklin before the committee of the House of Commons. Doubtless, some of the more telling leading questions were artfully planned beforehand; yet never were Franklin's ready wit, his shrewdness, and common sense shown to better advantage. His position was a delicate one; for if possible, he had to defend the American cause without wounding the sensibilities of the British nation. When questioned, he said that the colonists already paid "many and very heavy taxes." In Pennsylvania, these taxes were levied "for the support of the civil and military establishments of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last war." "Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes ?" "No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having been frequently ravaged by the enemy and, greatly impoverished, are able to pay very little tax." Therefore, "our late tax laws do expressly favour those counties, excusing the sufferers." "Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay the stamp duty?" "In my opinion, there is not enough gold and silver in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year." Moreover, from the lack of post-roads, the stamps could not be distributed everywhere; and if there were roads, "sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage, amounting in many cases to much more than that of the stamps themselves."
"Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all to be laid out in America?" "I know it is appropriated by the act to the American service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers are, not in the colonies that pay it." "Do you think it right that America should be protected by this country and pay no part of the expense?" "That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during the last war, near twenty-five thousand men, and spent many millions." "Were not you reimbursed by parliament?" "We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about five hundred thousand pounds, and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed sixty thousand pounds."
"Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the words of the charter" of Pennsylvania? "No, I believe not." Then, said Charles Townshend, may they not on the same ground of Magna Charta and the petition of right "object to Parliament's right of external taxation?" Franklin's answer was prophetic. "They never have hitherto. Many arguments have lately been used here to show them that there is no difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments."
The king was stubbornly opposed to the repeal, and to influence legislative action, his opinion was made known by Lord Strange, Lord Bute, and others to members of Parliament. Even Mansfield stooped to give the dangerous advice "that, though it would be unconstitutional to endeavor by his majesty's name to carry questions in parliament, yet where the lawful rights of the king and parliament were to be asserted and maintained, he thought the making his majesty's opinion in support of those rights to be known, was very fit and becoming." To frustrate this influence, Rockingham acted with decision, obtaining the king's written consent to the passage of the bill.
Accordingly, on February 22, against Jenkinson's motion for a mere modification of the act, Conway, by a vote of 275 to 167, was given leave to bring in a bill for the total repeal of the Stamp Act. This was regarded as a decisive victory. Outside the Parliament house, Grenville was hissed, while Conway and Pitt received an ovation from the crowd. On March 4, the bill passed the Commons; on March 17, not without two formal protests, it was carried in the Lords; and on the next day, the king's assent brought to an end a contest longer and more bitter than that aroused by any measure since 1689. At the same time, unfortunately, without a division in either house, the declaratory bill became a law. This act, which Pitt called a resolution "for England's right to do what the treasury pleased with three millions of freemen," not only asserts that the king and Parliament have "full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever"; but also that all resolutions or proceedings in the colonies denying such power are "utterly null and void."