66

but their whole opposition was founded on the attempt to assess them by a parliament, in which they had no representatives. It was this dangerous pretension that roused all their opposition; a pretension which had no equitable foundation whatever. As a matter of justice, the sovereign might as well have laid a tax on the people of England by the instrumentality of one of his colonial assemblies, as by the 'giving and granting" of the English parliament, have imposed a tax on the colonists: there was no representation in either case. The king was popular in America; if he had brought himself more closely into connexion with the various colonial assemblies; and considered them as part of his dominions, over which the English parliament had no financial controul, the reception of his requests would have been very different; the blandishments of royalty in this more flattering and intimate, personal intercourse might at least for a time, have allured his colonial subjects into liberal contributions.* Had George the third taken Dr. Franklin for his adviser and minister in American affairs, the separation of

The reader will find in many passages of the very remarkable examination of Dr. Franklin before the House of Commons, some striking hints on this topic; which might be further elucidated by many opinions in his works. It would extend this note to an inconvenient length to take all the questions and answers that bear upon this subject; the following must suffice to give an idea of the whole.

"Q. Suppose the King should require the Colonies to grant a revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it, do they think they can grant a revenue to the King, without the consent of the parliament of Great Britain."

“A. That is a deep question.--As to my own opinion, I should think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked the occasion."

the empire would have been postponed for some years: It was the benevolent dispensation of Providence for the welfare of mankind, that he did not pursue this course, for which no man would subsequently have been more devoutly thankful, than Dr. Franklin himself. There was a sort of fatality in the prejudice that the king had imbibed against Franklin, he had, it is true, the highest opinion of his abilities, but the greatest fear of them; and he never would listen to any thing that came from him. At the same time, there was no individual in his empire more desirous of maintaining it entire, more capable of suggesting the measures to effect this object, and more opposed to taking up arms, except against absolute, irremediable oppression. But taxation was resolved upon; the king placed his honour, his interest, and his pleasure in the prosecution of the system; and the nation at large, in all the intoxication of power, sought the gratification of a mercenary arrogance, in the taxation of "our colonies." Chatham and Burke in vain opposed the king and his parliament in their unjust career; but not in vain for their own glory, since to this opposition their country and the world are indebted for the most illustrious models of eloquence and wisdom, that legislative annals have produced.

The share which the Crown officers in the colonies had in producing this system of revenue, was altogether secondary; though the public at the time. attributed a good deal of it to their agency. They

even made some representations against it at first, but in a very feeble manner; and soon took care to shew by their alacrity to carry every measure into effect, that they were merely subaltern and servile agents, who thought only of their own fortune, and were ready to enforce any measures rather than resign their places. The blame to be imputed to them, was their want of manly and honest conduct, in lending themselves to the execution of an odious system, and placing their duty altogether in forwarding the views of the ministry, without regard to the interests of the people. Though they had no part in devising the plan, yet they had a very essential one in promoting it, and preventing its abandonment. They constantly misrepresented the state of the country and the feelings of the inhabitants; and in their eagerness to make their own fortunes, first deceived themselves, and then the ministry. They represented the opposition to be altogether instigated by a few factious demagogues. When the resistance, which was universal, became more open, and they saw beyond the possibility of delusion that the colonists never would submit to oppression; they then resorted for shelter to the power of Britain; they persuaded themselves, and sought to persuade others, that this power was irresistible. To maintain themselves and their cause, they induced the ministry at last to send a military force to their port; vainly supposing that a free people would be subdued by the appearance of a standing army; the

sup

only effect of which was, to hasten the crisis, and bring the question to a trial by arms.*

Chapter XIT.

The Stamp Act-Congress proposed-Riots in Boston-Liberty Tree.

THE remonstrances against the acts of trade, presented in 1764, were unavailing. Though they had been prepared after a concert between parties in the legislature, in a style, which the influence of the administration had made quite as submissive as the humblest petition could have used, yet they were not listened to. That no circumstance of conciliation might be wanting, and that they might reach the ministry in the manner least offensive to them, they were transmitted by the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, who supported them with their favourable opinion. Notwithstanding these precautions,

* The following extract from Dr. Franklin's examination before the House of Commons will prove how plainly the result of their measures was predicted. "Q. Can any thing less than a military force carry the stamp Act into execution?

"A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose. "Q. Why may it not?

"A. Suppose a military force sent into America; they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chuses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one."

they were disregarded by the ministers, who proceeded with alacrity, as if they had been encouraged by the moderation and subdued tone of these representations, to take more decisive measures for realizing their plan of an American revenue. Early in February 1765,* the stamp act was passed with an infatuated unanimity; an act, destined to obtain very great celebrity. No legislative decree ever occasioned a more remarkable and universal excitement. Its name was so strongly associated in men's minds with oppression, injustice and danger, that the very words became hateful, and a lasting odium in this country was attached to a tax, which on some occasions might be a useful measure of finance.†

When the information of the passage of this act, which was not to go into operation till the following November, reached the colonies, the assembly of Virginia was the only one in session. They acted with the energy and promptness suited to the occa

* At the beginning o this year Mr. Otis received from Mr. Hollis a copy of the beautiful 4to edition of Locke's Letters on Toleration, which he had pub. lished. On a blank page, the donor wrote the following inscription:

"To an Asserter of Liberty, civil and religious,

James Otis, Esq.

of Boston, in New England,

An Englishman,

Citizen of the world:

In prato quod vocant Runing Med, inter Windlesor et Stanes; 1 Jan. 1765.”

+ An instance of this prejudice was shewn in the case of a moderate stamp duty, that was laid during the first administration o the federal government. The factious scribblers of that day, to excite oppositior, appealed to the ancient hatred against the "stamp act" with some success, though the name was the only circumstance of resemblance,