Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
more than ten dissenting voices,” So. Car. Hist. Mag. XXVI () . To same
effect, Garth to the Md. Comm. Corresp. March , Md. Hist. Mag. VI –.
The collateral resolutions and the proceedings in the two Houses from February
to , , referred to in the text, can be followed in the documents cited in the
three immediately preceding notes, together with Rockingham I ; Geo. III I –
, –; Grenville III –; Stopford I –; Newcastle ; Gipson Brit. Em-
pire X –; and, most fully, in Gipson “The Great Debate” –.
Introduction and proceedings in the House of Commons on the bill for a De-
claratory Act, Feb. –March , , Journals H. of C. XXX , , , ,
–.
Introduction in the House of Lords March , , of bill for the Declaratory Act
and proceedings on it March , , and , Journals H. of L. XXXI , , .
Camden’s speech was made at some point in the proceedings on the bill March
–, . Rockingham to the King March , mentions a debate on the pre-
amble to the bill in the Lords but does not mention Camden, Geo. III I .
Charlemont to Flood March , Rodd Charlemont ; Hamersley to Sharpe March
, Sharpe III ; and Parl. Hist. XVI – at give Camden’s speech. Fur-
ther details, letters of William Gerard Hamilton to John Calcraft March –, all
misdated by the editor three weeks too early, Pitt II –.
The Lord’s passage of the bill for the Declaratory Act March , , Journals H.
of L. XXXI .
Led by the merchants of New York City, two hundred of whom signed an agree-
ment Oct. , , not to buy any goods shipped from Great Britain after Jan. ,
, until the Stamp Act was repealed, the merchants of Philadelphia and
Boston, some weeks later, entered into similar agreements, Schlesinger Col.
Merchants –. The London Chronicle of Dec. reported a threatened loss
of £, sterling from the countermanding of orders of goods from Great
Britain.
As to debts of British North American colonies of “upwards of four millions,” An-
nual Register for , ; “five Millions Sterling,” Henry Cruger, Jr., to Henry
Cruger, Sr., Feb. , R.I. Commerce I ; “upwards of Four Millions Sterling,”
St. James Chronicle Feb. , ; over £,,, undated memorandum, Bayse
Board of Trade n; and Jensen Hist. Doc. ; “Six Millions sterling,” Dennys De
Berdt to Lord Dartmouth, undated, Col. Soc. Public. XIII . Evidence as to the
loss of trade and that only repeal would restore colonial good will is given in later
footnotes.
London merchants’ petition, undated, Parl. Hist. XVI –, probably adopted
at a meeting headed by Alderman Barlow Trecothick of London Dec. , ,
Gentleman’s Mag. for Dec. (Vol. ) . As to Trecothick, who spent some
years in Boston and married a Boston girl (Grizzel Apthorp), Jervey “Trecothick”
and passages indexed under “Trecothick, Barlow” in Foote King’s Chapel II and
Beavan Aldermen II cvii.
“General Letter from Comm. of North American Merchants to the outports & to
the manufacturing Towns, December , ,” Wentworth–Fitzwilliam Manu-
scripts. An undated note is appended stating: “N.B. This Letter concerted be-
tween the Marquess of R. & Mr. Trecothick [was] the principal Instrument in the
happy repeal of the stamp act which without giving up the British authority qui-
eted the Empire.” The letter is published with unimportant differences in Morgan
Prologue .
Henry Cruger, Jr., of Bristol, England to Aaron Lopez, March , , concern-
ing unauthorized delay in filling his order, so as to put pressure on British manu-
facturers, R.I. Commerce I . Cruger, American born, wrote his father Henry
Cruger, Sr., of New York City, Feb. , “I was three Weeks in London, and every
Day with some one Member of Parliament, talking [for repeal] as it were for my
own Life,” same . The great importance of the colonial trade to Bristol, Minch-
inton Bristol passim and Minchinton “Stamp Act Crisis” –, the latter of
which (–) brings out the activities of Bristol merchants for repeal.
Many petitions from merchants and manufacturers throughout Great Britain,
particularly one printed Jan. , , from London merchants, as to loss of colo-
nial trade, Parl. Hist. XVI –. As to Edmund Burke’s importance in this con-
nection, Sutherland “Burke” –.
The names of many, but not all, of the witnesses in the House of Commons, in-
cluding Trecothick, Capel Hanbury, and George Hayley of London, William
Reeve of Bristol, and John Glasford of Glasgow, are listed in Journals H. of C. XXX
. The testimony of Trecothick, Reeve, and Glasford is in Jensen Eng. Col. Doc.
–. See also Gipson “The Great Debate” –.
Benjamin Franklin’s testimony before the House of Commons Feb. , , that
the colonists did not object in principle to external taxes, Franklin XIII – at
, , . See also Gipson “The Great Debate” –; Morgan “Colonial
Ideas of Parl. Power”; and Van Doren Franklin –. As to Franklin’s testimony
greatly contributing to the repeal of the Stamp Act, Pa. Mag. Hist. X () –;
Sparks Franklin VII n; Crane Franklin’s Letters to Press –.
Richard Jackson wrote Gov. Francis Bernard March , , “I endeavored to
shew in the House of Commons, that in all ages and nations a difference has been
made and felt...between external and internal taxes...,” Bradford Mass. Papers
. As to Jackson’s career in the House of Commons from to , Namier
and Brooke Commons II –, and as to his colonial agencies, the dozens of ref-
erences to him listed under “Jackson, Richard” in the indexes of Knollenberg Ori-
gin; Kammen Agents; and Sosin Agents.
Diary of Thomas Hollis Oct. , , to Feb. , , recording payments to
Noah Thomas, manager of the St. James Chronicle. Hollis “gave him his Clue” and
paid him “four Guineas more to keep him steady,” Hollis’ Diary, Institute,
Williamsburg, Va. For pro-colonial articles in the St. James Chronicle from Oct. ,
, to Feb. , , Hinkhouse Preliminaries , , . As to Hollis, Robbins
“Hollis” –; Robbins Commonwealthman – passim; Knollenberg “Hol-
lis and Mayhew” –.
Cadwallader Colden to Grenville Oct. , , reporting what Major Thomas
James had told him, Colden , . I believe Colden’s statement was substan-
tially true because it explains the otherwise puzzling conduct of James in having
testified against himself in the House of Commons as reported in James to Colden,
undated but evidently February or March, , same , .
The effort of Grenville, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Bute, acting through the
Duke of York, to enlist the King’s support to block repeal, Bedford’s undated
memorandum covering proceedings from Jan. to Feb. , (erroneously en-
titled “Minutes Made By H.R.H. The Duke of York”), Bedford III –, with a
Memorandum of York Feb. , and York’s reply of Feb. , Geo. III I –.
The King to York Feb. , , declining to intervene as quoted in the text, same
. The King’s statement to York supports the following statement of Lord Hills-
borough, a former member of the Cabinet, to Thomas Hutchinson, as recorded
in Hutchinson’s diary for Feb. , : “The King...always will leave his own
sentiments, and conform to his Ministers, tho’ he will argue with them, and very
sensibly; but if they adhere to their own opinion, he will say
—‘Well...then let it
be’,” Hutchinson Diary I .
Resolution for a bill to repeal the Stamp Act, Feb. , , Conway to the King,
Feb. , same –. Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp., Feb. , , So. Car.
Hist. Mag. XXVI . Garth says Conway introduced the resolution, same; Hamers-
ley to Sharpe Feb. , Sharpe III says it was Burke. Since Garth was a member
of the House of Commons and active in the proceedings for repeal and Hamers-
ley was not a member, I follow Garth’s version.
Burke’s impressive speech in favor of repeal, Rouet to Mure Feb. , Caldwell Part
II –; Lord Charlemont to Henry Flood, date not given, Pitt II – n;
Richard Burke, Sr., to James Barry, Feb. , and John Rindge to Edmund and
William Burke about March , Burke , –. As to Burke and Rockingham,
same xxi.
Debate on resolution for repeal in the House of Commons sitting in Committee
of the Whole, Feb. , Conway to the King Feb. , Geo. III I –; Hamersley
to Sharpe Feb. , Sharpe III ; Ryder’s notes, Feb. and , Gipson “The
Great Debate” –.
Conway to Lord Hertford Feb. , , concerning the King’s statements,
quoted in the text, W. S. Lewis Collection, Farmington, Conn. Other documents
relating to this matter: the King to Rockingham Jan. , Geo. III I ; Lord Har-
court’s statement of Jan. , quoted in George Grenville’s diary Jan. , Grenville
III ; John Offley to Rockingham Feb. and undated memoranda by the King,
Rockingham I –; John Cruger, Jr., to John Cruger, Sr., Feb. , R.I. Commerce
I ; Duke of Newcastle to John White April , Newcastle –.
Rouet to Mure Feb. , , as to puzzlement of those desiring to know the King’s
“secret wishes” as to repeal, Caldwell Part , II . Rouet wrote Mure Feb. that
most of those who had just voted for repeal did so “because they clearly saw that no
amendments at all would make the colonys accept the Act, and thereby we should
only be exposed to new insults upon Government; but might expect to be better
prepared to repell such audacious conduct upon any future occasion,” same .
List of sixty-eight placemen in the House of Commons voting against repeal, Win-
stanley Government –.
Of , , or about %, of the members of the House of Commons voted on
the resolution of Feb. , , for repeal, Namier Structure () . Two hundred
seven members of the House of Commons elected in held Crown places,
Namier Eng. , and probably the number was substantially the same in . If
the proportion of placemen voting was the same as that of the House as a whole,
placemen voted. Deducting the placemen known to have voted against re-
peal, leaves voting for repeal.
The resolution for repeal adopted in Committee of the Whole by to , “af-
ter Two this morning” on Feb. , , Conway to the King Feb. , Geo. III I –
. The vote was on a motion by Charles Jenkinson, a follower of Grenville, to
substitute “explain and Amend” for “repeal,” William Baker to William Talbot
Feb. , Watson “Baker” –; Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. Feb. , So.
Car. Hist. Mag. XXVI . Namier Structure I has an interesting analysis of the
vote on the basis of English, Scottish, and Welsh constituencies.
A motion to recommit the resolution when introduced into the House in regular
session was defeated Feb. , , by to , Journals H. of C. XXX . This
motion, made by James Oswald, and two other dilatory motions by Lord Strange
and Justice William Blackstone, are mentioned in Conway to the King Feb. ,
Geo. III I and discussed in Baker to Talbot Feb. , Watson “Baker” –.
The repeal bill was introduced Feb. , Journals H. of C. XXX . Rockingham
tried again at this time to persuade Pitt to join him, but when Pitt demanded full
power to form whatever Cabinet he pleased (Shelburne to Pitt and Pitt’s reply,
both on Feb. , , Shelburne I –; Thomas Nuthall to Pitt Feb. , re-
porting a conversation he had just had with Rockingham, Pitt’s reply of Feb.
and Nuthall’s letter of Feb. , repeating a further talk with Rockingham, Chatham
II –), efforts to form an alliance with Pitt apparently ceased.
Passage of the repeal bill by the House of Commons March , , to ,
Conway to the King March , Geo. III I . Of the fifty-two members who were
merchants, only six voted against repeal, Namier Eng. .
Motion March , , that the bill for repeal of the Stamp Act be committed,
Journals H. of L. XXXI .
The only report I have seen of the debate March , , on the bill for repeal is
Lord Hardwicke’s undated report in A.H.R. XVII () –, beginning
“Duke of Newcastle moves.” This report covers the debate on the proposed De-
claratory Act (–), as well as the debate on the bill for repeal.
Hardwicke’s undated report on Grafton’s motion for commitment of the bill for
repeal, including objection by Lord Coventry to the bill and Newcastle’s reply in
favor of it, same XVII () –. Rockingham to the King March , gives a
list of the speakers, Geo. III I –. Hardwicke voted for repeal only “from the
necessity of the times,” Hardwicke’s undated narrative, Rockingham I –, and
Lord Chesterfield wrote his son, Philip Stanhope, March , that he voted for re-
peal because he “saw more inconveniences from enforcing, than from repealing
it,” Chesterfield I .
Northington’s argument is given in Hardwicke’s report, same –, and in Ed-
mund Burke to Charles O’Hara March , Burke I . Sackville wrote Irwin
March , that “many will be influenced with the danger that would attend con-
tinuing this tax after the Commons had repealed it by so great a majority,” Stop-
ford .
Arguments of Lords Sandwich, Halifax, Suffolk, Lyttelton, and Mansfield March
, , against repeal of the Stamp Act, Hardwicke’s report, A.H.R. XVII –
. For other references to this day’s debate on repeal, William Gerard Hamil-
ton to John Calcraft March [misdated Feb. ] Pitt II and Newcastle to
White, April , Newcastle . A more elaborate statement of Lyttelton’s speech is in
Phillimore Lyttelton I –.
Statement signed by thirty-three Lords, giving their reasons for voting against re-
peal, Parl. Hist. XVI –.
Newcastle wrote White April , , that the King had informed the Archbishop
of Canterbury (Thomas Secker) that he favored repeal, “of which the Archbishop
had made very good use of with the bench [of bishops],” Newcastle . For other
pertinent developments between March and , Hamilton to Calcraft March –
(all misdated by the editor three weeks too early) Pitt II –.
The Lords vote on March , , in favor of committing the bill for repeal,
to , counting proxies, Rockingham to the King March , Geo. III I . Passage
without a division, March , Journals H. of L. XXXI .
The Repeal Act, Geo. III ch. , and the Declaratory Act, Geo. III ch. , were
assented to by the King March , , same XXXI . The Declaratory Act of
followed the wording of a similar act relating to Ireland, Geo. I ch. (),
with the addition in the Act of of the words “in all cases whatsoever.” The
difference in intent between the Declaratory Act and a superficially similar provi-
sion of the Statute of Frauds of ( and William III ch. sec. ) is discussed
in the appendix to this chapter.
The indemnity act canceling penalties for violations of the Stamp Act was Geo.
III ch. (). On Feb. , , Grenville proposed a resolution for such an act,
but with the added words “under proper restrictions,” Ryder’s notes for Feb. ,
Gipson “Great Debate” . Grenville had apparently intended this limitation to
relieve only those who now paid the stamp taxes previously payable, and the bill
for the act as introduced into the House sitting in the Committee of the Whole
contained such a provision, but it was struck out, Thomas Whately to Grenville
May , Grenville III .
The obsolescence of the Crown’s prerogative of veto and its last exercise over leg-
islation, Everett “Last Royal Veto” –. The King’s control over a large num-
ber of lucrative places for which members of Parliament or their adherents were
eligible and over the conferring of highly prized honors, notably the creation of
peers, gave him immense influence in Parliament, especially the House of Lords.
But he exercised this kind of control over legislation as a political boss, not as a de-
tached reviewer of legislation submitted to him for approval.
Chapter
The quotations from the English merchants’ circular letter of Feb. , ,
M.H.S. Proc. () –. This was followed by a letter from fifty-five British
merchants to John Hancock, dated March , reporting the repeal of the Stamp
Act, same –.
Benjamin Franklin wrote Joseph Galloway June , , of complaints from En-
glish merchants that the circular letters sent by them “to the Merchants of the sev-
eral Colonies, containing their best and most friendly Advice were either an-
swered with unkind Reflections, or contemptuously left without answer,” and that
the captain of a vessel sent to the colonies to spread the good news of repeal of the
Stamp Act was “every where treated with Neglect and Contempt instead of Ci-
vility and Hospitality...,” Labaree Franklin XIV () .
Mason’s forecast that Englishmen would later maintain that repeal of the stamp tax
had encouraged the colonists’ “impudence” in opposing subsequent British mea-
sures proved to be correct. This thesis was maintained repeatedly in later years.
George Mason’s letter of June , , signed “A Virginia Planter,” quoted in the
text, Rowland Mason I –. The letter, published in the London Public
Ledger of Sept. , , probably is the one referred to in Thomas Whately to
George Grenville Sept. , as a “very saucy paper from America,” Grenville III .
Another able reply, undated, signed “A British American,” is in Gentleman’s Mag.
XXXVI () –.
Reports of colonial rejoicing over repeal of the Stamp Act are in all the colonial
newspapers for May and June, . See also Charles Thomson of Pa. to Ben-
jamin Franklin May , Thomson Papers –; Gov. William Bull of S.C. to Henry
S. Conway June , Prior Documents ; Diary of John Rowe of Mass. May and
, Rowe , ; Joseph Galloway of Pa. to Franklin, May , Sparks Franklin VII
; Gen. Thomas Gage at New York May , and Gov. Samuel Ward of R.I. July
, to Conway, Gage I , and Prior Documents –; William Nelson of Va. to
John Norton, July , Norton ; sermons in , Love Fast and Thanksgiving Days
–; Gipson Brit. Empire XI –.
Sec. of Geo. III ch. () levied colonial import duty of a penny a gallon on
molasses, including molasses imported from the British West Indian colonies into
the British North American colonies, which, from to yielded a gross rev-
enue averaging over £, a year, Channing History n.
The Quartering Acts of and , Geo. III ch. and Geo. III ch. , are
described in Chapter .
The colonial currency act of was Geo. III ch. . The history of this act and
efforts to secure its amendment are described in Ferguson “Currency Finance”
–; Greene and Jellison “Currency Act” –; Quest for Power –;
Sosin “Paper Money” –; Ernst “Currency Act Repeal” –. The act
was amended in by Geo. III ch. permitting N.Y. to issue paper money
tenderable in payment of taxes and other obligations owed to the colony itself and
in by a similar act, Geo. III ch. , applying to all but the New England
colonies.
The act of Geo. II ch. () prohibited the New England colonies from is-
suing paper currency tenderable in payment of private debts, but permitted the is-
sue of paper currency redeemable in two years, tenderable in payment of taxes or
other debts owed the issuing colony.
Sec. of the Act of levied duties on colonial imports of sugar, indigo, coffee,
wine, silk, calico, cambric, and French lawn. The rates of duty indicate that some
of the duties were primarily for revenue, others primarily to restrict colonial trade.
(The duties on silk, calico, cambric, and French lawn were repealed in by
Geo. III sec. ; the others were retained.) Sec. of the Act of also in effect
levied a duty on many products of continental Europe or the East Indies, reex-
ported from Great Britain to the colonies, by repealing a refund of British import
duty previously allowed on most of such products.
British restriction of colonial trade before the American Act of has been dealt
with in many books and articles including, among the more recent, Egnal and
Ernst “Economic Interpretation of the Am. Revolution” W.&M.Q. XXIX ()
–; Barrow Trade –, “Background to the Grenville Program” –, and
“English Point of View” –; Knollenberg Origin –, –, –,
–. Older works on the subject are cited in these books and articles.
The restrictions on colonial exports imposed by the Navigation Act of and
subsequent acts before are described in Knollenberg Origin –, –.
Secs. and of the act of Geo. III ch. (), hereinafter called the Amer-
ican Act of , imposed the additional restrictions on exports described in the
text. (The act was amended by sec. of the act of Geo. III ch. () to per-
mit the exportation of iron and lumber to Ireland and lumber to Madeira, the
Azores, and continental Europe south of Cape Finisterre.) The genesis of the
American Act of , Barrow “Background to the Grenville Program” –;
Barrow Trade –, –; Knollenberg Origin .
The restrictions on colonial imports imposed by the Navigation Act of , with
subsequent amendments, are described in same –, .
Importance of colonial trade direct with Madeira, the Azores, and the Canaries,
same –, –; Bezanson Prices –; index to White Beekman Papers III
under “Wines-Madeira” and “Wines-Fayal, Teneriffe and Vidonia”; and Huntley
“Seaboard Trade of Va.” –.
Sec. of the Act of levied a duty of £ sterling a ton on direct importation
into the colonies of “wine of the growth of the Madeira, or of any other island or
place from whence such may be lawfully imported,” whereas, if imported through
Great Britain, the duty was £
—ten shillings payable in the colonies under sec. ,
plus three pounds ten shillings payable in Great Britain under sec. .
The extremely complicated “old subsidy” (import duties) and drawback (refund)
of duties allowed on reexportation of the dutied imports are described in Saxby
The British Customs –.
Sec. of the Act of provided that “no part of the rate or duty, commonly
called The old subsidy, shall be repaid or drawn back for any...goods of the growth,
production or manufacture of...the East Indies which shall be exported from
this kingdom to any British colony or plantation in America....”
Sec. of the Hovering Act of , Geo. III ch. , authorized the seizure of ves-
sels of fifty tons or less hovering off the coasts of the colonies. I have found little
evidence of enforcement of this section of the act. The intimation in Syrett and
Johnson’s “The New York Affair” that the cargo condemned in that case was con-
demned under the “hovering statute” (p. ) is, I think, erroneous if, as therein
stated, the carrying vessel was “over fifty tons burden.”
Sec. of the Hovering Act of provided for use of the navy in colonial waters
“for the more effectual prevention of the infamous practice of smuggling” and for
the distribution of part of the proceeds from the sale of condemned seizures
among “the officers and seamen employed in such service” for their “better
encouragement . . . to do their duty therein.” This section was amended by
Geo. III ch. () and Geo. III ch. () to clear up ambiguities.
The names of the twenty British naval vessels assigned to North America, together
with their stations, are listed in the Providence Gazette of Sept. , . The ships’
arrivals at their respective stations are noted from time to time in colonial news-
papers and correspondence from Oct., , to Jan., , e.g., Newport Mercury
from Nov. , , to Jan. , , Providence Gazette from Oct. to Jan. , ,
Gov. Cadwallader Colden of N.Y. to Admiral Lord Colville Nov. , , Colden
() p. . Seventeen other vessels were assigned to the West Indies and seven
to Newfoundland, Providence Gazette Sept. , .
From to the British customs service was administered by a single British
board subordinate to the British Treasury, but in , the service was divided, one
board for England and a smaller board for Scotland, with the colonial branch of
the service under the English board, Andrews Guide to P.R.O. II –.
I have not found copies of the commissions as customs officers issued at this time
() to the naval commanders, but a circular letter from Secretary of State Lord
Egremont July , , indicates that they were to be issued promptly, Fitch II .
Sec. of the Navigation Act of , Chas. II ch. , prohibiting foreign and
certain other ships to trade with the colonies, provided that “commanders at sea
of any ships of war or other ships having commission from his Majesty or from his
heirs or successors are hereby authorized and strictly required to seize and bring
in as prize all such ships or vessels as shall have offended contrary hereunto....”
The use of the navy to curb colonial trade with the enemy in time of war is de-
scribed in Beer Brit. Col. Policy –; Pares War and Trade –; Pitman West
Indies –; Hedges The Browns –; Barrow Trade –; and other stan-
dard works.
Order in Council June , , providing for payment to the seizing officer of a
varying but, in all cases, large share of the proceeds from the sale of condemned
ships and cargo seized by naval officers “duly authorized to make seizures,” pub-
lished in Providence Gazette Oct. , , and, in part, in Acts P.C. IV –. Sec.
of Geo. III ch. () amended sec. of Geo. III ch. () requiring a
new Order in Council, and a new order, similar to the order of June , , was
issued Oct. , , London Chronicle Oct. , .
Officers of the navy in colonial waters began promptly to exercise their new office,
as is shown by seizures by the middle of by the commanders of the Fortune, the
Hawk, the Sardoine [misspelled Sardine in the report], and the St. John, Quincy Re-
ports –; Hough Reports –, –; R.I. Col. Rec. VI .
Orders in July and Oct., , to customs officers, colonial Governors, and Gen-
eral Jeffery Amherst, Commander in Chief of the British army in North America,
as summarized in the text, Knollenberg Origin , .
As to the application of sec. concerning the burden of proof, Dawson v. The Jenny
(), Adams Legal Papers II , , .
Geo. II ch. secs. , , and () provided, as a war measure, that persons
shipping any foodstuff in the colonies must take out a cocket from a customs officer
belonging to the port from which the foodstuff was shipped specifying the nature
and amount of it and giving bond not to ship it outside the colony except by river
or “across harbours were clearances have not usually been taken”; but the re-
quirements were to be in force only “during the continuance of the present war
with France.”
The Navigation Act of , Chas. II ch. , sec. , required the giving of bond
to customs officers covering all shipments of sugar, tobacco, and other so-called
“enumerated products,” whether overseas or coastwise, but vessels carrying other
colonial products were not required to clear with customs unless loaded with
cargo to be “carried to the open sea,” and Chas. II ch. sec. () ex-
tended to the colonies by and Wm. III ch. sec. (). For details, Knol-
lenberg Origin –, .
Sec. of the Act of requiring cockets covering shipments from one colony
to another made no exception in favor of small vessels, but sec. of the act of
Geo. III ch. () exempted “any boat, flat, shallop, or other vessel without a
deck, not exceeding twenty tons burthen...not carried out to sea more than one
league from the shore.” It will be noted that even this exemption applied only in
case the small vessel did not put out more than a league (three miles) from shore.
As to the vast importance to the colonies of coastwise and river traffic, Knollen-
berg Origin , .
Of previous British acts giving colonial admiralty courts jurisdiction over non-
maritime cases, the Sugar Act of , with later extensions, had expired in ,
same –, –; the Stamp Act of was repealed in , same –,
–; and the White Pine Acts not only had a maritime connection but their
object, preservation of trees needed for masting the British navy, was beneficial to
the colonies, same –, –, with writings cited therein, and Adams Legal
Papers II () –.
Colonial pamphlets protesting against the American Act of include Oxen-
bridge Thacher Sentiments (Boston, ); Stephen Hopkins Rights of Colonies (Prov-
idence, ); and John Dickinson Late Regulations (Philadelphia, ), reprinted
in Bailyn Pamphlets –, –, –.
Letters of protest include several from Mass. (Thomas Cushing to Jasper Mauduit
Nov. , , Mauduit –, Andrew Oliver to Richard Jackson June, , and
Mass. Committee to Jackson Nov. , , Wells Adams I ); several from N.Y. in
Harrington N.Y. Merchant –; William Bull of S.C. to B. of T. Sept. , ,
C.O.:::fols. –; James Parker of N.J. to Cortland Skinner Nov., ,
Kemmerer N.J. n.
Protests and instructions against the American Act were adopted by the Legisla-
tures of Mass., N.Y., Pa., S.C., and R.I., Knollenberg Origin , , , .
Henry S. Conway’s letter of March , , to colonial Governors promising fa-
vorable revision of British restrictions on colonial trade, Fitch – and N.Y.
Col. Doc. VII –. A month earlier (Feb. ) Henry Cruger, Jr., in Bristol, En-
gland, had written Henry Cruger, Sr., in N.Y. predicting that Parliament would
“rescind all the restrictive clauses” of the Act of because “they seem con-
vinc’d what vast Benefit will accrue to this Kingdom, by giving you almost an un-
limited trade, so farr as doth not interfere with British Manufactures,” R.I. Com-
merce I .
Sections and of the Act of , Geo. III ch. , reduced the rate of duty on
foreign colonial molasses from three pence to a penny a gallon. As to the impor-
tance of foreign colonial molasses, Knollenberg Origin –, –. Sec. of
this act also repealed a small duty on British colonial sugar shipped from one
British colony to another, levied by Chas. II ch. sec. (). Background and
passage of the Act of , Jensen Founding –.
Favorable readjustment of the colonial duties levied in on domestic colonial
coffee and pimento and foreign sugar, coffee, and indigo are in sections , , , ,
and of the Act of . The duties on colonial imports of cambric, East Indian
silk, and colored calico and French lawn levied in were repealed by section
of the Act of , but were replaced by substantially equivalent duties payable in
Great Britain imposed by sections –.
Secs. and of the Act of levied the reduced molasses duty of a penny a gal-
lon on “all” molasses imported into the colonies except molasses re-exported from
Dominica, on which a duty had already been paid.
Sec. of the Act of provided that “all sugars which shall be imported into
Great Britain from any part of the British colonies or plantations on the continent
of America shall be deemed and taken to be French sugars,” subject as such to a
higher rate of British import duty than British colonial sugar. To prevent northern
colonial merchants from sending to Great Britain foreign colonial sugar misla-
beled British was, of course, reasonable; the grievance was adoption of so drastic
a curb without at least trying out some less radical corrective.
My supposition that the Act of passed without a division
—in either House of
Parliament
—is based on the absence of any record of a division on it in the Jour-
nals of either House or any mention of a division on it in the correspondence of the
period.
The restrictions imposed before on the export of colonial “enumerated”
products, Knollenberg Origin –, –. (As brought out in same –,
–, –, –, –, these earlier restrictions were sometimes ac-
companied by British tariff preferences, bounties, or other benefits in favor of the
restricted products, which in a few cases compensated and, in the case of sugar,
more than compensated for the restrictions.)
Sec. of the Act of prohibited the export of any non-enumerated products,
including those mentioned in the text, to any part of Europe north of Cape Finis-
terre (Spain). Sec. excepted Spanish ports on the Bay of Biscay.
The importance of the legal direct trade between Ireland and the northern colo-
nies, particularly with New York and Philadelphia, which would be affected by
the restriction imposed in on exports from the colonies to Ireland, is brought
out in James “Irish Colonial Trade” –.
Sec. of the Act of required the bonds described in the text; sec. provided
for the exception as to Spanish ports on the Bay of Biscay. The Navigation Act of
, Chas. II ch. sec. , had long required similar bonds from vessels load-
ing tobacco and other so-called “enumerated” products.
Charles Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. June , , enclosed a clause to
amend the bill for the Act of , which he had asked to have incorporated in the
bill, S.C. Hist. Mag. XXVIII () , –. Garth asked for the exemption
only of “small decked Vessels or Schooners,” apparently assuming that all un-