The renewal of the molasses act and the enforcement of the commercial code were peculiarly the work of Grenville. For the Stamp Act, too, he must be held responsible. Yet the policy of American taxation was not original with him. It was, in a sense, "devolved" upon him.
Its elements may be found in the administrative records of the preceding thirty-five years. Save for the form of the Molasses Act, Parliament had steadily observed the distinction between external and internal taxes. Duties were levied solely for the regulation of trade, although some revenue might actually accrue.
Taxation of the colonies had already been thought of: even a stamp duty was suggested in 1728 and again in 1739 by Sir William Keith, governor of Pennsylvania; and a "scheim" for a similar tax was submitted to Governor Clinton by Lieutenant-Governor Clarke of New York, in 1744. In 1754 and 1756, Shirley of Massachusetts advised the levy of a common war fund for America. Franklin ably resisted his project, and the ministry declined to accept it; as it did also the similar counsel of Governor Hardy of New York and Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia.
The actual initiative in the new revenue policy was taken by Charles Townshend, first lord of trade in the Bute cabinet. Like Grenville, he prided himself on having an accurate knowledge of the colonies, and with Halifax, in 1751-1753, he had urged a firmer exercise of the prerogative in securing provincial control. He now (1763) favored a policy to be enforced by acts of Parliament. The colonial governments were to be remodelled according to a uniform plan; the acts of trade enforced; a revenue raised in America, to be disbursed under the king's sign manual without appropriation by Parliament; and this revenue used for the salaries of the royal officers and the maintenance of a military establishment in the colonies.
The carrying out of Townshend's scheme was prevented by the dissolution of the Bute ministry in April 1763. In part, his policy was taken up and developed by Grenville, as already seen, but he positively rejected its harsher features. He declined to interfere with the colonial charters or to allow the salaries of the royal officers in the colonies to be paid from England. "Nor would he listen to the suggestion that the revenue to be raised in America should constitute a fund to be disposed of under the sign manual of the king; he insisted that it should be paid into the receipt of the exchequer to be regularly appropriated by parliament."
To a man of Grenville's narrow statesmanship, a revenue tax laid by Parliament on America seemed reasonable. That it would be strictly legal appeared clear, unless it was unlawful for Parliament in any case to legislate for the colonies while they were unrepresented; and even the colonies had not yet made that claim. Moreover, he urged, there was a pressing need for money in consequence of the war. Equally reasonable to him appeared the design to place a small military force in America and to tax the colonists for its support. There seems to be no ground to question the justice of Lecky's view that the "primary object" of the government was to defend the provinces and to guard the wider imperial interests; although he admits that "it is possible, and indeed very probable, that a desire to strengthen the feeble executive, and to prevent the systematic violation of the revenue laws, was a motive with those who recommended the establishment of an army in America."
With the new conquests in India and America, the increasing expense of maintaining the empire bore more heavily upon the eight million Englishmen at home, "weighed down with debt and with taxation, and with a strong traditional hostility to standing armies." Furthermore, in both India and Ireland, the precedent of dividing the military burden with the dependencies of the crown had already been set. At that moment, though impoverished and groaning under almost intolerable ecclesiastical and political oppression, Ireland was supporting a force of twelve thousand men. Yet it must be confessed that the example of these "conquered" countries could hardly afford a persuasive argument against the traditional dread of a standing army, which in the colonies was even more acute than in England.
Nevertheless, Grenville proposed the stamp tax with some reluctance. He was urged to it by men at home like Welbore Ellis and the Marquis of Halifax, as also by Pownall, Bernard, and other American officials. Even Franklin — who, it is much to be feared, more than once resorted to special pleading — at this time professed to view with complacency a tax for the support of an army in the colonies. Therefore, Grenville decided to give a year's notice of the proposed act, as if to invite a constitutional discussion; or, as his critics said, to "allow time for mooting the question of right and preparing in the colonies an opposition to the law." To the provincial agents at the close of the session, he said he had "proposed the resolution in the terms the parliament has adopted, from a real regard and tenderness for the subjects in the colonies." If "they thought any other mode of taxation more convenient to them, and made any proposition which should carry the appearance of equal efficiency with the stamp duty, he would give it all due consideration." But it seems clear that he meant the tax, whatever its form, should be levied by Parliament.
The reception in America of the notice of the Stamp Act should have been ample warning to the ministry of the dangerous course on which it was entering. The effect in Massachusetts has already been considered. Even the timid Hutchinson, in a letter to the secretary of the chancellor of the exchequer, forcibly presented the case of the people. In most of the colonies, the proposed stamp tax and the new revenue law were discussed. Memorials, petitions, and addresses were sent to England. The assembly of Connecticut desired the governor, Thomas Fitch, to "prepare a humble and earnest address" to Parliament against the "bill for a stamp duty, or any other bill for an internal tax on the colony," and this address, with the "Book of Reasons," was ordered sent to the agent in London. The book referred to was the Reasons Why the British Colonies in America Should not be Charged with Internal Taxes by Authority of Parliament, written by the governor himself as a member of a committee. It admits that Parliament has "a general authority, a supreme jurisdiction over all his majesty's subjects," and that this jurisdiction properly extends to duties for the regulation of trade. But since the people neither have nor can have representation in Parliament, the charging of stamp duties or other internal taxes "would be such an infringement of the rights, privileges, and authorities of the colonies, that it might be humbly and firmly trusted, and even relied upon, that the supreme guardians of the liberties of the subject would not suffer the same to be done."
The attitude of Pennsylvania was much bolder. At this moment, the selfish policy of the proprietors was arousing earnest opposition. Franklin and Galloway, with the great body of the Quakers, desired that the province should be made a royal government, while Dickinson and others dreaded the change lest their civil liberties should be still more imperilled. Both parties, however, were united against the schemes of Grenville. The assembly showed a willingness to grant requisitions customarily, but they would have nothing to do with the "financier." The king always accompanied his request with "good words," but Grenville, "instead of a decent demand, sent them a menace that they should certainly be taxed, and only left them the choice of the manner." Parliament "had really no right at all to tax them." Therefore, they resolved that as "they always had, so they always should think it their duty to grant aid to the crown, according to their abilities, whenever required of them in the usual constitutional manner."
This sentiment is repeated in the instructions to Richard Jackson, the colony's agent. "Taxes assessed in any other manner, where the people are not represented, and by persons not acquainted with the colonies, would be unequal, oppressive, and unjust, and what we trust a British parliament will never think to be right." The agent is required to remonstrate against the proposed stamp tax and to endeavor to secure a repeal or modification of the Sugar Act. Indeed, the two sets of instructions sent to him deal largely with the evil effects of the acts of trade, and in particular with those caused by the prohibition of the European trade in lumber and iron. At this time, Franklin was sent to England to act with Jackson as colonial agent, and letters from the committees of correspondence brought encouraging word of the resistance of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
North Carolina protested strongly against the Sugar Act. October 31, 1765, in addressing Governor Dobbs, the assembly said: "We observe our commerce circumscribed in its most beneficial branches, diverted from its natural channel, and burdened with new taxes and impositions laid on us without our privity or consent and against what we esteem our inherent right and exclusive privilege of imposing our own taxes." The governor himself regarded the acts of trade as harmful to the colony.
In some cases the governors took a course not at all likely to soothe the popular resentment. Thus, the assembly of South Carolina was prorogued before any statement of its wishes was agreed upon, but not before a committee with power to act had been appointed. In the instructions to Charles Garth, the colony's agent, the committee complains of the severity of the acts of trade, and declares that the stamp tax would be inconsistent "with that inherent right of every British subject, not to be taxed but by his own consent, or that of his representatives. For, though we shall submit most dutifully at all times to acts of parliament, yet, we think it incumbent on us humbly to remonstrate against such as appear oppressive, hoping that when that august body come to consider this matter they will view it in a more favorable light, and not deprive us of our birthright, and thereby reduce us to the condition of vassals and tributaries." In like spirit, through repeated prorogations, the governor of Maryland prevented the assembly from coming together before the Stamp Act was passed; yet the hostile public opinion made itself known through the press.
The course taken by Virginia was firm and dignified. A committee appointed by the council and burgesses on November 14 prepared an address to the king, a memorial to the Lords, and a remonstrance to the House of Commons. The colonists, it is claimed in the address, have "every right and privilege" which their ancestors had in the mother-country. Exemption from taxes without consent is a "fundamental principle of the British constitution"; for "property must become too precarious for the genius of a free people, which can be taken away from them at the will of others, who cannot know what taxes such people can bear, or the easiest mode of raising them; and who are not tinder that restraint, which is the greatest security against a burthensome taxation, when the representatives themselves must be affected by every tax imposed."
Not less courageous was the response of New York. That province, as already seen, had recently suffered from the interference of the prerogative with the independence of the courts; and now Governor Colden was urging a project to allow final appeal to the king in all cases tried before a jury in the common law courts, even without a writ of error. Early in March 1764, a memorial of the merchants against the renewal of the molasses act came before the council, and in June, when the news arrived that this was actually done, the people were stirred to strong resentment. Men spoke in the temper of the later non-importation resolves. "It appears plainly," said Robert Livingston, "that these duties are only the beginning of evils. The stamp duty, they tell us, is deferred till they see whether the colonies will take the yoke upon themselves, and offer something else as certain. They talk, too, of a land-tax, and to us the ministry appears to have run mad." Even Colden admitted the folly of the Molasses Act.
In October, the New York assembly appointed a committee of correspondence and presented a strong statement of grievances to the king and another to the Lords. In the petition to the Commons — which Colden describes as "indecent" — they declare that "the thought of independency upon the supreme power of the parliament we reject with the utmost abhorrence. The authority of the parliament of Great Britain to model the trade of the whole empire, so as to subserve the interest of her own, we are ready to recognize in the most extensive and positive terms; but the freedom to drive all kinds of traffic, in subordination to and not inconsistent with the British trade, and an exemption from all duties in such a course of commerce, is humbly claimed by the colonies as the most essential of all the rights to which they are entitled as colonists, and connected in the common bond of liberty with the free sons of Great Britain. For, since all impositions, whether they be internal taxes, or duties paid for what we consume, equally diminish the estates upon which they are charged, what avails it to any people by which of them they are impoverished?" The loss of their rights, they suggest, is likely to "shake the power of Great Britain."
The opposition in Rhode Island was led by Stephen Hopkins, who, like Fitch of Connecticut, was governor by popular choice. In October, the committee of correspondence, of which he was chairman, sent out a circular letter saying, "the impositions already laid on the trade of these colonies must have very fatal consequences. The act in embryo for establishing stamp duties, if effected, will further drain the people, and strongly point out their servitude"; it "will leave us nothing to call our own." Therefore, it is hoped that some method may "be hit upon for collecting the sentiments of each colony, and for uniting and forming the substance of them all into one common defence of the whole." The assembly's petition to the king, in November, professes alarm at the resolution to impose a stamp tax; declares that "the restraints and burdens" laid on their trade by the late act are such, if continued, as "must ruin" them; and claims the "essential privilege" of Englishmen of being governed by laws made by their own consent, and of parting with their property only "as it is called for by the authority of such laws." November 22, by authority of the assembly, appeared at Providence a pamphlet by Stephen Hopkins, in which the American case was admirably stated. 3 It was reprinted in nearly every colony, and both in America and England, its strong argument and conciliatory tone must have made a powerful impression on public opinion.
In reply to Hopkins, the case of the loyalists was most skilfully presented by Martin Howard, a reputable lawyer of Newport. He boldly attacked the new doctrine of nullification at its vital point, denying "that the colonists have rights independent of, and not controlled by, the authority of parliament." First, under their charters, they have not all the political rights of Englishmen at home. "I fancy," he says, "when we speak or think of the rights of freeborn Englishmen, we confound those rights which are personal with those which are political... Our personal rights, comprehending those of life, liberty, and estate, are secured to us by the common law, which is every subject's birthright, whether born in Great Britain, on the ocean, or in the colonies; and it is in this sense we are said to enjoy all the rights and privileges of Englishmen. The political rights of the colonies, or the powers of government communicated to them, are more limited; and their nature, quality, and extent depend altogether upon the patent or charter which first created and instituted them. As individuals, the colonists participate of every blessing the English constitution can give them; as corporations created by the crown, they are confined within the primitive views of their institution." Secondly, the colonists are not exempt from taxation because they do not send delegates to Parliament. They are virtually represented. The members of the House of Commons are "representatives of every British subject wherever he be, and therefore, to every useful and beneficial purpose, the interests of the colonists are as well secured and managed by such a house, as though they had a share in electing them." Therefore, he concludes, the colonists may justly challenge the justice or wisdom of the particular measures of Parliament, but not its jurisdiction.
While these and other writings in America were called out by the notice of the Stamp Act, two notable tracts were issued from the London press. One, by the famous wit, member of Parliament, and man of letters, Soame Jenyns, assails in a jaunty though effective manner the objections of the colonists to being taxed by Parliament; the other, by Grenville himself, is perhaps the ablest defence of the ministerial policy produced during this stage of the controversy. Like Jenyns, he bases the right of taxation on the alleged fact of "virtual representation," and he refers with satisfaction to the palliative measures by which the late revenue act was accompanied. For the bounties on hemp and flax had been renewed; the American whale-fishery encouraged by the repeal of the high discriminating duties; and the rice of South Carolina and Georgia admitted directly to the foreign plantations of America, as by earlier laws it might be carried to European ports south of Cape Finisterre.
The remonstrances of the colonies were of no avail. Under the rule against receiving petitions against a money bill, their appeals were rejected without a hearing. The lords of trade reported to the king the action of the assemblies of Massachusetts and New York as "indecent" and fitted to disturb the "dependence" of the colonies. For a moment, it is said, Grenville, like Adam Smith, did, indeed, look with favor on the recommendation of Franklin and the repeated suggestions of Otis, that colonial representation should be admitted to Parliament; but in both America and England the idea was generally regarded as impracticable.
The passage of the Stamp Act attracted scarcely any notice in England. On February 2, 1765, a final remonstrance of the colonial agents proved fruitless.
As a substitute, Franklin could only urge the usual method by royal requisition, but Grenville silenced him by asking how the apportionment was to be made. Four days later, the fifty-five resolutions comprising the details of the proposed law were submitted by Grenville to the House of Commons in the committee of ways and means. On the 13th, the bill was introduced without debate; on the 27th, it was sent to the Lords; and on March 22, it received the royal sanction by commission, the king then being insane. The debate was languid, being enlivened only by Colonel Isaac Barre's eloquent reply to Charles Townshend, in which he referred to the colonists as "sons of liberty," and by Conway's defence of the right of petition.
During the progress of the bill, there was but one division, and then the minority did not amount to "more than forty." It was passed in the Commons by a vote of 205 to 49, and by the Lords without "debate, division, or protest." The arrogance and blind indifference with which the sentiments and petitions of the colonists were treated during the enactment of this fatal measure place the responsibility for the American Revolution squarely on the shoulders of the British government.
The Stamp Act required that every broadside, newspaper, or pamphlet; every bill, note, or bond; every lease, license, insurance policy, ship's clearance paper, or college diploma; every instrument used in the conveyance of real or personal property; and all legal documents of every kind should be written or printed on stamped vellum or paper, to be sold by public officials appointed for the purpose. In some cases, the cost of business transactions would thus be increased manyfold. The penalties imposed are cognizable, "at the election of the informer or prosecutor," in any court of record or admiralty having jurisdiction in the colony where the offence is committed. The revenue derived is to be paid into his majesty's Exchequer and expended under the direction of Parliament solely for the purpose of "defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies."
To lessen the opposition, Grenville informed the agents that he did not think of sending stamp officers from England, "but wished to have discreet and respectable persons appointed from among the inhabitants; and that he would be obliged to them to point out to him such persons." They all complied with his request. Even Franklin named his friend, John Hughes, as stamp distributor for Pennsylvania, and through his influence, Jared Ingersoll, the agent of Connecticut, accepted the same office for his colony. The duty "will fall particularly hard on us lawyers and printers," said Franklin. The next day after the act was passed, he wrote home to Charles Thompson, "we might as well have hindered the sun's setting.... Since it is down,... let us make as good a night of it as we can. We may still light candles. Frugality and industry will go a great way towards indemnifying us." Neither Franklin nor any of his colleagues seems to have doubted that the act would be quietly enforced. In fact, Knox, agent of Georgia, wrote a pamphlet in its defence.
At the same time, Grenville extended his palliative measures. New bounties were offered on the importation of timber from the plantations; the restrictions on the export of iron and lumber were relaxed; and the rice of North Carolina was given the same advantage as that of the two neighboring provinces. In the effect on colonial sentiment, these favors were far more than offset by the provisions of another unwise law of this session. By the so-called "billeting act" British troops in America might be quartered in barracks provided by the colonies; or when these did not suffice, in ale-houses, inns, barns, and uninhabited houses; the owners might be compelled to furnish them with food and drink at a fixed rate; and the money needed for the purpose was required to be levied "in such manner as the public charges for the province are raised."