pressly to except from the declaratory act the right of taxation without the consent of the colonists; but the Crown lawyers and Lord Mansfield denied the distinction between legislation and the imposition of taxes which that great constitutional statesman had forcibly pointed out; and the bill was introduced without that exception. In the House of Lords, Lord Camden, the only great constitutional lawyer of his age, supported with remarkable power the views of Mr. Pitt; but the bill was passed in its original shape, and maintained the unqualified right of England to make laws for the colonies.1 In the same session some of the import duties imposed in 1764 were also repealed, and others modified.2 The colonists were appeased by these concessions; and little regarded the abstract terms of the declaratory act. They were, indeed, encouraged in a spirit of independence by their triumph over the English Parliament ; but their loyalty was as yet unshaken.3

Townshend's

The error of Mr. Grenville had scarcely been repaired, when an act of political fatuity caused an irrepa- Mr. Charles rable breach between the mother country and her colonial colonies. Lord Chatham, by his timely inter- taxes, 1767. vention, had saved England her colonies; and now his ill-omened administration was destined to lose them. His witty and accomplished, but volatile and incapable Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Charles Townshend, having lost half a million of his ways and means by an adverse vote of the Commons on the land tax, ventured, with incredible levity, to repeat the disastrous experiment of colonial taxation. The Americans, to strengthen their own case against the stamp act, had drawn a distinction between internal and

1 6 Geo. III. c. 11, 12; Parl. Hist., xvi. 163, 177, &c.; Walpole's Mem., ii. 277-298, 304-307, &c.; Rockingham Mem., i. 282-293; Bancroft, ii. 459-473; Chatham Corr., ii. 375.

2 6 Geo. III. c. 52.

8 Stedman's Hist., i. 48, et seq.; Bancroft's Hist. of the American Revolution, ii. 523; Burke's Speech on American Taxation; see also Lord Macaulay's Life of Lord Chatham, Essays; Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices (Lord Camder.).

* Supra, Vol. I. 442.

external taxation,- a distinction plausible and ingenious, in the hands of so dexterous a master of political fence as Dr. Franklin,1 but substantially without foundation. Both kinds

of taxes were equally paid by the colonists themselves; and if it was their birthright to be taxed by none but representatives of their own, this doctrine clearly comprehended customs, no less than excise. But, misled by the supposed distinction which the Americans themselves had raised, Mr. Townshend proposed a variety of small colonial customs' duties, on glass, on paper, on painters' colors, and lastly, on tea. The estimated produce of these paltry taxes amounted to no more than 40,000l. Lord Chatham would have scornfully put aside a scheme, at once so contemptible and impolitic, and so plainly in violation of the principles for which he had himself recently contended; but he lay stricken and helpless, while his rash lieutenant was rushing headlong into danger. Lord Camden would have arrested the measure in the Cabinet; but standing alone, in a disorganized ministry, he accepted under protest a scheme, which none of his colleagues approved. However rash the financier, however weak the compliance of ministers, Parliament fully shared the fatal responsibility of this measure. It was passed with approbation, and nearly in silence. Mr. Townshend did not survive to see the mischief he had done; but his colleagues had soon to deplore their error. The colonists resisted the import duties, as they had resisted the stamp act; and, a second time, ministers were forced to recede from their false position. But their retreat was effected awkwardly, and with a bad grace. They but the tea yielded to the colonists, so far as to give up the general scheme of import duties; but persisted

All repealed

duties.

in continuing the duties upon tea.*

1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 144.

2 See Lord Camden's Statement. - Parl. Hist., xviii. 1222.

8 7 Geo. III. c. 46; Rockingham Mem, ii. 75; Bancroft's Hist. of the

American Revolution, iii. 83, et seq.

10 George III. 17; Parl. Hist., xvi. 853; Cavendish Deb., ii. 484.

This miserable remnant of the import duties was not calculated to afford a revenue exceeding 12,0007; Insignificance and its actual proceeds were reduced to 300l. by of the tea smuggling and the determination of the colonists

duties.

not to consume an article to which the obnoxious impost was attached. The insignificance of the tax, while it left ministers without justification for continuing such a cause of irritation, went far to secure the acquiescence of the colonists. But their discontents, met without temper or moderation, were suddenly inflamed by a new measure, which only indirectly concerned them. To assist the half bank- Drawbacks rupt East India Company in the sale of their teas, granted on a drawback was given them, of the whole English duty on shipments to the American plantations. By this concession to the East India Company, the colonists, exempted from the English duty, in fact received their teas at a lower rate than when there was no colonial tax. The

tea.

Company were also empowered to ship their teas direct from their own warehouses. A sudden stimulus was thus given to the export of the very article, which alone caused irritation and dissension. The colonists saw, or affected to see, in this measure, an artful contrivance for encouraging the consumption of taxed tea, and facilitating the further extension of colonial taxation, It was met by a Attack upon daring outrage. The first tea-ships which reached the tea-ships Boston were boarded by men disguised as Mohawk 1773. Indians, and their cargoes cast into the sea.2 This being the crowning act of a series of provocations and insults, by which the colonists, and especially the people of Boston, had testified their resentment against the stamp act, the import duties, and other recent measures, the government at home regarded it with just indignation. Every one agreed that

at Boston,

1 12 Geo. III. c. 60; 13 Geo. III. c. 44. The former of these Acts granted a drawback of three fifths only.

2 Adams's Works, ii. 322; Bancroft's Hist. of the American Rev., iii. 514-541, &c.

Act, 1774.

the rioters deserved punishment; and that reparation was due to the East India Company. But the punishment inflicted by Parliament, at the instance of Lord North, was such as to provoke revolt. Instead of demanding compenBoston Port Sation, and attaching penalties to its refusal, the flourishing port of Boston was summarily closed: no ship could lade or unlade at its quays; the trade and industry of its inhabitants was placed under an interdict. The ruin of the city was decreed; no penitence could avert its doom; but when the punishment had been suffered, and the atonement made; when Boston, humbled and contrite, had kissed the rod; and when reparation had been made to the East India Company, the king in council might, as an act of grace, remove the fatal ban.1 It was a deed of vengeance, fitter for the rude arbitrament of an eastern prince, than for the temperate equity of a free state.

setts super

seded.

Nor was this the only act of repression. The republican Constitution constitution of Massachusetts, cherished by the deof Massachu- scendants of the pilgrim fathers, was superseded. The council, hitherto elective, was to be nominated by the Crown; and the appointment of judges, magistrates, and sheriffs, was transferred from the council to the gov ernor. And so much was the administration of justice suspected, that, by another act, accused persons might be sent for trial to any other colony, or even to England. Troops were also despatched to overawe the turbulent people of Massachusetts.

Resistance

of the col-
onists.

8

The colonists, however, far from being intimidated by the rigors of the mother country, associated to resist them. Nor was Massachusetts left alone in its troubles. A congress of delegates from twelve of the colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, by whom the 1 Boston Port Act, 14 Geo. III. c. 19; Parl. Hist., xvii. 1159-1189; Chatham Corr., iv. 342; Rockingham Mem., ii. 238-243; Bancroft's Hist., iii., 565, et seq.

14740

2 14 Geo. III. c. 45; Parl. Hist., xvii. 1192, 1277, &c.

8 14 Geo. III. c. 39; Parl. Hist., xvii. 1199, &c.

recent measures were condemned, as a violation of the rights of Englishmen. It was further agreed to suspend all imports from, and exports to, Great Britain and her dependencies, unless the grievances of the colonies were redressed. Other threatening measures were adopted, which proved too plainly that the stubborn spirit of the colonists was not to be overcome. In the words of Lord Chatham, "the spirit which now resisted taxation in America, was the same spirit which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and shipmoney in England."1

Lord Chat

iatory prop

In vain Lord Chatham, reappearing after his long prostration, proffered a measure of conciliation, repealing the obnoxious acts, and explicitly renoun- ham's concil cing imperial taxation, but requiring from the osition, Feb. 1st, 1775. colonies the grant of a revenue to the king. Such a measure might even yet have saved the colonies; 2 but it was contemptuously rejected by the Lords, on the first reading."

and Mr.

20th, 1775.

Lord North himself soon afterwards framed a conciliatory proposition, promising that, if the colonists should Propositions make provision for their own defence and for the of Lord North civil government, no imperial tax should be levied. Burke, Feb. His resolution was agreed to; but, in the present temper of the colonists, its conditions were impracticable. Mr. Burke also proposed other resolutions, similar March 224, to the scheme of Lord Chatham, which were 1755. rejected by a large majority.

Outbreak of

The Americans were already ripe for rebellion, when an unhappy collision occurred at Lexington between the royal troops and the colonial militia. Blood the civil war, April 19th, was shed; and the people flew to arms. The war 1775.

Parl. Hist., xviii. 154, n.

2 See Lord Mahon's Hist., vi. 43.

8 Feb. 1st, 1775.- Parl. Hist., xviii. 198.

4 Parl. Hist., xviii. 319; Chatham Corr., iv. 403; Gibbon's Posthumous Works, i. 490.

Parl. Hist., xviii. 478; Burke's Works, iii. 23.