Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
decked vessels were exempted from giving bond, but, as stated in the text, the Act
of does not exempt them.
The practice in some colonies of exempting undecked and even small decked ves-
sels from giving bonds is indicated by Samuel Adams to Richard Jackson Nov. ,
, Wells Adams I – and by an order in of the Governor of S.C.,
Barrow Trade . Jonathan Sewall, Attorney-General of Mass., gave an opinion
Feb. , , that coasting vessels sailing from one port to another within the same
colony were not required to give bond, T:: (P.R.O.), but I have found no evi-
dence that this view was adopted by the customs officers.
The officers harassing small vessels in coastwise trade could justify themselves by
the printed instructions and accompanying appendix issued in by the Amer-
ican Customs Board to customs officers in America, Mass. Hist. Soc. These give
a digest of the Act of , without any indication of an exception to be made in
favor of small coasting vessels, decked or undecked, with respect to the bonds re-
quired by this act. (A copy of the instructions dated Feb. , , but not of the
important appendix, is in Morison Sources –.)
Daniel Dulany’s Considerations, published in Annapolis, Md. in Oct., , was re-
published there and in New York, Boston, and London in and , Adams
Bibliography –. As to Dulany, D.A.B. and Land The Dulanys , , – pas-
sim. The duties levied on importation of colonial tobacco into Great Britain were
refundable on reexportation, Geo. I ch. sec. ().
By , around % of the more than one hundred million pounds of British
colonial tobacco shipped to Great Britain each year was being reexported,
Knollenberg Origin , , largely by way of Scotland, Price “Glasgow in To-
bacco Trade” . Harper “Effect” – reasons that most of this would have
gone directly to continental Europe but for the restrictive Act of , and Knol-
lenberg Origin –, brings out that the British tariff differential granted
British colonial tobacco was by of little if any value to colonial tobacco
planters.
Dulany’s estimate of £, (presumably sterling) a year as the loss on tobacco
shipped from Va. and Md., which would include much of that grown in N.C., too,
and his method of arriving at this figure are in Considerations (reprinted in
Bailyn Pamphlets ). I question some of Dulany’s reasoning but, judging from
Harper’s finding (Harper “Effect” ) that the British restriction on the export of
colonial tobacco cost the colonies over $ million in , Dulany’s estimate is ap-
parently not excessively high.
The record of the Grenville administration with respect to colonial trade was, if
anything, better than that of the Rockingham because the former sponsored a
number of temporary acts favorable to colonial trade, somewhat offsetting the un-
favorable Act of , namely Geo. III ch. (sec. ), , , , , and .
The N.Y. and Mass. petitions in reciting colonial grievances, described in
Chapter , included no mention of the Declaratory Act, and George Mason of
Va., in his well-known bitter reply of June , , to the English merchants’ cir-
cular letter of February , calling for colonial gratitude for the impending repeal
of the Stamp Act, barely mentions the Declaratory Act, Mason (Rowland) I .
John Adams’ diary for April mentions his “Apprehensions” over the bill for the
Declaratory Act, Adams Papers I ; but there is no further mention of the act in
his diary until , same I , II .
Benjamin Franklin, joint London Agent for the Pa. Assembly, wrote its Speaker,
Joseph Fox, March , , “This [Declaratory Act] is merely to save Appear-
ances, and to guard against the Effects of the Clamour made by the late Ministry
as if the Rights of this Nation were sacrificed to America,” Franklin Papers XIII .
To similar effect, Richard Jackson, member of Parliament and joint London
Agent for the Pa. Assembly, the colony of Conn. and the Mass. House of Repre-
sentatives, to Gov. Francis Bernard of Mass., March , Bradford Mass. Papers .
The passage as to the Declaratory Act quoted in the text is from an article of
Samuel Adams (“Alfred”) in the Boston Gazette of Oct. , , reviewing the con-
troversy between the colonies and Great Britain since , Wells S. Adams I .
Chapter
The Duke of Grafton’s statement to the King Apr. , , that he must resign
and his reasons, the King to Lord Northington Apr. and to Lord Bute May ,
Geo. III I and Bute .
The understanding between the King and Lord Egmont as to what the latter should
say at a Cabinet meeting May , , the King to Egmont May , Geo. III I .
The King to Bute May , , and Egmont to the King May , as to proposal to
Lord Rockingham and Henry S. Conway that they consider a coalition with
friends of Bute, and their refusal, Bute and Geo. III I .
The King to Bute May , , quoting Northington as saying that “he was alone
attach’d to me, and would support whatever men I chose to entrust in Govern-
ment,” Bute .
Egmont to the King May , , as to the refusal of Rockingham, Conway, Lord
Winchilsea, and the Duke of Newcastle to form “a cordial union with the Friends
of Lord Bute,” and their reason, Geo. III I . To similar effect, the King to Bute
May , Bute – and Newcastle to John White May , Newcastle –.
The King wrote Bute May , , as to forming a new ministry, based “on those
who call themselves attached to you,” together with others, excluding only Gren-
ville and Lords Halifax and Sandwich, Bute .
The King wrote Bute July , , “your letter in the spring [presumably a miss-
ing letter in reply to the King’s of May , cited in note ] made me give over all
hopes of any formation without either Mr. Pitt or Mr. Greenville at the head of it,”
same .
The Duke of Richmond succeeded Grafton as Secretary of State May , ,
Beatson Pol. Index I . At this same time Henry S. Conway, who had been Sec-
retary for the Southern Department, switched to the Northern, and Richmond
replaced him as Secretary for the Southern.
My statement as to the Ministry’s carrying on without serious difficulty is based
on the proceedings from May to June , , reported in Journals H. of C. XXX
– and Lord George Sackville to John Irwin June , Stopford I –. On
the only issue to which there seems to have been serious controversy
—a tax on
windows
—the Ministry was victorious in the Commons, May , by a vote of
to , Journals H. of C. XXX , and in the Lords, May , to , Geo. III I .
Parliament rose on June , Journals H. of C. XXX .
Horace Walpole, Conway’s cousin and close friend, who was eagerly following
political developments at this time, wrote Horace Mann June , , “The
session of Parliament has at last ended and the ministry have a lease of five or
six months longer,” Lewis Walpole XXII . (Parliament did not sit again until
Nov. , , Journals H. of C. XXXI .)
The King wrote Egmont May , , that “Six Weeks ago” Rockingham had
authorized him to tell his brothers, and he had done so, that a bill would be
brought into the current session of Parliament to grant them £, a year and
had confirmed this on May , Geo. III I . The giving of this promise is corrob-
orated by Newcastle to White June , Newcastle and Walpole to Mann June ,
Lewis Walpole XXII –.
Walpole to Mann June , , concerning Conway’s objection to carrying out
Rockingham’s promise concerning the proposed settlement on the King’s broth-
ers, same.
Rockingham to the King May , , stating (without mentioning Conway) that
“because of the lateness of the Session & the Thinness of Parl at this Juncture,” the
Ministry had decided to defer proposing the grant to the King’s brothers until the
next session of Parliament, Geo. III I .
The Ministry soothes the King’s brothers by agreeing to introduce into Parlia-
ment at the next session a resolution for a grant to them, the King to Rockingham
and Richmond, and Richmond to the King June , , same –. (This
agreement was carried out June , Journals H. of C. XXX .)
The King to Bute July , , giving the account quoted in the text of his deci-
sion, after “the strange scene concerning the money for my brothers” to have a
new Ministry, Bute –. To similar effect, the King to Egmont May , stating,
“because a few Weak Boys are unwilling this Session to pass the provision for my
Brothers my word is to be set at naught; my prudence is now exhausted; I am enclin’d to
take any Step that will preserve my honour,” Geo. III I .
Pitt’s speech in the House of Commons against exclusion of Bute’s relations and
friends, which “convinced everybody that Mr. Pitt wished to be in office,” March
, , Sackville to Irwin March , , Stopford I . To same effect, William
Rouet to Baron Mure March , fixing the date of Pitt’s speech as March , Cald-
well –. The King wrote Bute, July , that Pitt’s speech in Parliament “has
bound him not to change the language” favorable to Bute, previously used pri-
vately to the King, Bute .
The King’s determination to secure his “independency,” his “freedom” from
domination by party groups (“factions” as he called them) is stated repeatedly in
letters to Bute, Nov., –August, , same –, , , , , , ,
, , , and in letters to Pitt July and Dec. , , Geo. III I and Pitt
III .
Pitt’s speech in the House of Commons denouncing faction, Apr. , , quoted
in the text, Richard Rigby to the Duke of Bedford Apr. , Bedford III .
In – John Wilkes had skillfully exploited English anti-Scottism to whip up
resentment against Bute as a Scot whose undue influence over the King was used
to favor Scots over Englishmen, and as a person whose alleged adultery with the
King’s mother brought disgrace on the nation, Knollenberg Origin –.
Northington’s dissatisfaction with his colleagues appears from his letters to the
King Jan. –June , , Geo. III I – passim and from the King to Bute
Jan. , May , and July , Bute –. The King wrote Bute that he had “en-
couraged” both Northington and Egmont in their opinions as to the “purility” of
their fellow Cabinet ministers, same, .
Northington’s letters give the impression of his trying to curry favor with the King
in the hope that when the King, as he evidently wished to do, displaced the Rock-
ingham Ministry he would insist on Northington’s being well taken care of by the
new Ministry. (Northington was, in the event, extremely well taken care of; he was
made President of the Council and given a fat pension to boot, Walpole to Mann
Aug. , Lewis Walpole XXII , n.)
The King to Bute July , , telling of Northington’s request, described in the
text, Bute . The date, July , is known from Richmond’s journal of that day,
Rockingham I . The King not only gave his permission, but “very much ap-
proved” of Northington’s proposal, since this “would bring things to an issue very
honourably to myself,” Bute . Northington’s picking a quarrel with his col-
leagues over the instructions to be given the Governor of Quebec is described in
Richmond’s journal of June , Rockingham I –.
The King to Bute July , , telling of his having Northington sound out Lord
Camden as to “the best channel of getting at Mr. Pitt,” and Camden’s reply, Bute
. Northington, at some earlier, unstated date, had informed the King that
Camden had told him, “Mr. Pitt was ready to come in if called upon...to try and
form an Administration of the best of all partys...,” same .
The King to Pitt July , , asking Pitt, who was at his home at Hayes (Kent), to
come to London to give the King his “thoughts how an able and dignified min-
istry may be formed,” Geo. III I . The King’s covering letter to Northington
July is in same , and a covering letter from Northington to Pitt, July , in Pitt
II –.
The “infirmity” was the gout, which had afflicted Pitt, on and off, for many years.
It was this infirmity, making it foreseeably difficult for him to sustain the heavy
load of debate he would have to carry in the House of Commons, that probably
explains his otherwise puzzling acceptance of a peerage, which would weaken his
popularity and power by removing him from the House of Commons to the
House of Lords.
Pitt’s reply to the King’s letter July , , Geo. III I . Pitt reached London at
noon July , Richmond’s journal of that date, Rockingham I , and had a long
talk with Northington that night, Northington to the King July , Geo. III I .
The King had told Rockingham, Conway, Richmond, and Newcastle the day be-
fore ( July ) that “he had sent for Mr. Pitt,” adding to Conway alone that he
hoped he would remain in “whatever administration he [the King] should have,”
Newcastle to White July , Newcastle –.
Offer of the place of First Lord of the Treasury to Lord Temple, Northington to
the King July and , , and the King to Pitt July , Geo. III I , , ,
and Temple’s refusal, saying he would be a mere “cypher,” King to Northington
July , same , and Temple to Grenville July , Grenville III . Temple’s rea-
son for thinking he would be but a cipher was Pitt’s refusal of his request that Lord
Lyttelton be given “a Cabinet office” and Lord Gower appointed one of the Sec-
retaries of State, Temple to an unidentified correspondent, July , same .
Lord Chesterfield’s comment in a letter of Aug. , , to his son Philip Stanhope
“To withdraw, in the fullness of his [Pitt’s] power...from the House of Com-
mons, (which procured him his power, and which alone can insure it to him) and
to go into that Hospital of Incurables, the House of Lords, is a measure so unac-
countable that nothing but proof positive could have made me believe it; but true
it is,” Mahon Chesterfield IV –, apparently expressed the general opinion.
For example, Edmund Burke to Charles O’Hara July , Burke and Gentleman’s
Mag. for Aug., , XXXVI .
George III to Pitt July , , as to his pleasure over conclusion of arrangements
for the new Ministry, Geo. III I .
Newcastle to White July , , and , , concerning the King’s informing
members of Rockingham Ministry of his decision to have Pitt form a new Min-
istry, and Pitt’s takeover on July , Newcastle , –, .
Pitt was created a peer with the title Earl of Chatham July , , Home Office Pa-
pers –, p. .
The dates of accession to office of the other members of the Ministry noted in the
text, Beatson Pol. Index I – passim and Gentleman’s Mag. for Aug., ,
XXXVI .
Conway’s continuance as Leader in the House of Commons is evident from his cor-
respondence with the King Nov. , , to May , , Geo. III I – passim.
Replacement of Egmont, who resigned in Sept., , first by Sir Charles Saunders
and in December by Sir Edward Hawke, Beatson Pol. Index I . (For Conway’s
explanation of Egmont’s resignation
—dislike of Pitt and some of his policies—Lady
Mary Coke’s journal for Aug. , quoting Conway, Lewis Walpole XXII n.)
Lord Granby’s inclusion in the Cabinet is evidenced by minutes of a Cabinet
meeting Aug. , , probably the first of the new Ministry, at which Chatham,
Grafton, Conway, Camden, Northington, Lord Shelburne, and Lord Granby
were present, Chatham Pap. G.D.: (P.R.O.). (Soon afterward [Aug. ],
Granby was given the highest command in the army, “Captain-General of the
Land Forces,” Lewis Walpole XXII n.)
Grafton later wrote that Townshend was included in the Cabinet as early as “the
very night preceding Lord Chatham’s first journey to Bath,” Grafton . A letter
of Lord Shelburne to Chatham Oct. , , indicates this date was about Oct. ,
, Pitt III . Chatham to Grafton, Oct. , indicates that Townshend was of
the Cabinet then, Grafton .
Charles Townshend took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer Aug. , ,
Gentleman’s Mag. for Aug., , XXXVI . The negotiations leading to his
switch from the office of Paymaster-General in the Rockingham Ministry to
Chancellor of the Exchequer in Chatham’s are described in Namier and Brooke
Townshend –.
Restoration of James Stuart Mackenzie to the office of Lord Privy Seal for Scot-
land, Gentleman’s Mag. for Sept., , XXXVI .
Pitt’s statement in his speech of Jan. , , “It is my opinion, that this kingdom
has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies,” is in Parl. Hist. XVI .
Pitt’s statement in his speech of Jan. , , “let prudence and temper come first
from this side. I will undertake for America, that she will follow the example,” is
in same .
As shown in the text of this chapter, Pitt yielded to no one in his expressions of hu-
mility when addressing the King. But in general his letters display such imperious
pride as to give point to Edmund Burke’s remark in a letter to his friend Henry
Flood at the time of the ministerial crisis in the spring of , described in Chap-
ter , Pitt’s “Gout is worse than ever; but his Pride may disable him [as a states-
man] more than his Gout,” Burke to Henry Flood May , , Burke I .
Pitt’s numerous abrupt shifts were described in the Aug., Gentleman’s Mag.
XXXVI – in “An Enquiry into the Conduct of a late Right Honourable
Commoner.” It is notable that “A short View...,” containing “a full Refutation
of...An Enquiry into the Conduct of a late Right Honourable Commoner” ex-
tolling Pitt, and justly so, for his great contributions to the nation, does not even
attempt to discredit the account in the “Enquiry” of Pitt’s abrupt shifts of policy,
same –.
Knollenberg Origin –, –, and Chapter of this volume discusses the
British doctrine of the absolute supremacy of Parliament.
Newcastle had served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, re-
sponsible for colonial affairs, from to , four years longer than the com-
bined periods of service of his successors, the Duke of Bedford, Lord Holderness,
Sir Thomas Robinson, Henry Fox, William Pitt, Lord Egremont, Lord Halifax,
Henry S. Conway, the Duke of Richmond, and Lord Shelburne. The sneers of
Horace Walpole, parroted by many subsequent writers, as to Newcastle’s igno-
rance of the colonies are discredited by his voluminous papers, mainly unpub-
lished, in the British Public Record Office and the British Museum.
Newcastle’s questioning of the proposed Declaratory Act is described in Chapter .
Granby’s speaking and voting against repeal of the Stamp Act are described in
Chapter .
Person after person, friends and political foes alike, spoke of Townshend in the
same vein as George III, who wrote Bute Feb. , , of Townshend’s being “so
fickle that no man can depend on him,” Bute . To same effect, Namier and
Brooke Townshend –; letters from to of David Hume, Rae Smith ;
also Tom Ramsden, Jenkinson ; Lord Chesterfield, Chesterfield IV , ;
Henry Fox, Ilchester Fox II ; Horace Walpole, Toynbee Walpole V , VI ,
, , VII ; Edmund Burke Burke I ; Lord Chatham, Grafton ; Lord
Charlemont Pitt III n.; and Lady Mary Hervey, Hervey .
Townshend, a “meer Weather Cock,” Dennys De Berdt to Stephen Sayre July ,
, Col. Soc. Publ. XIII . Townshend’s reputation for changeableness, Namier
and Brooke Commons III –.
Townshend to the Duke of Newcastle Sept. , , recommending an act of Par-
liament to tax the colonies, Gipson Brit. Empire V .
Townshend’s proposal in March, , for lowering the foreign molasses duty “in
order more effectually to secure the payment,” Jasper Mauduit to the Mass.
Council March , , Bancroft Papers, N.Y.P.L., with the King to Bute, un-
dated, Bute –.
Jared Ingersoll to Gov. Thomas Fitch of Conn. Feb. , , concerning Town-
shend’s support of the bill for a colonial stamp tax, Fitch II –.
Townshend’s speech in the House of Commons supporting repeal Feb. , ,
Lord Rockingham to the King Feb. , Geo. III I . (See also Nathaniel Ryder’s
notes of Townshend’s speech, Namier and Brooke Townshend .) But, on Feb. ,
he declared his supporting repeal was “not on account of [any doubt as to] the
right...but only if at all, on the impracticability, or inexpediency of it, or the in-
ability of the colonies to pay the tax,” James West to Newcastle, Feb. , reporting
the debate in the House of Commons that day, same (date of letter supplied from
Add. Mss. :).
The distribution of British troops, Table of “General Distribution of Troops in
North America” Feb. , , by Gen. Thomas Gage, Commander in Chief of
the British forces in North America, Alvord and Carter New Regime –. Most
of the troops were stationed outside the settlements of the old thirteen colonies,
but of those stationed in the old colonies, New York, which was Gage’s head-
quarters, had more than twice as many as any other colony.
The Quartering Act of , Geo. III ch. secs. and . An act of this kind was
proposed in a letter and enclosed memorandum from Gage to Halifax Jan. ,
, Gage I , II –. Shy Towards Lexington –, – and Labaree
Franklin XII –, – have a full account of the background of the act and
the successful efforts to eliminate quartering in private houses, initially proposed.
Message of Gov. Sir Henry Moore of N.Y. Dec. , , applying for supplies re-
quired by the Quartering Act of , and the Assembly’s noncompliance and
evasive reply of Dec. , N.Y. Assembly Journal (–) II –, –;
Gage to Conway Dec. , , and Feb. , , and to the Secretary at War,
Lord Barrington, Dec. , , and Feb. , , Gage I , , II –, .
The threatened change of judicial procedure in N.Y., which would have lessened
the weight of juries, vigorously supported by Acting Gov. Cadwallader Colden of
N.Y. in the case of Forsey v. Cunningham (–) is discussed in Smith Appeals
–; Klein “Prelude to Revolution in N.Y.” –; John Watts to Gen.
Robert Monckton, former Gov. of N.Y., Oct. , , Aspinwall II ; William
Smith to Monckton, Nov. , , Sabine William Smith I –.
The Stamp Act was repealed March , . The proposed change in judicial
procedure in N.Y. had been disapproved by an opinion of the chief law officers of
the Crown Nov. , , N.Y. Col. Doc. VII –, but this was not known in N.Y.
until Feb., , Moore to B. of T. Feb. , , same .
Moore to Conway June , , reporting the failure of the N.Y. Assembly to pro-
vide all the supplies required by the Quartering Act, same VII , which had re-
cently been extended for a year by Geo. III ch. (). The N.Y. act providing
only part of the required supplies is an act of July , , N.Y. Laws IV –.
Shelburne’s letter to Gov. Moore Aug. , , quoted in the text concerning the
Quartering Act, N.Y. Col. Doc. VII –. Shelburne wrote in similar vein to
Chatham Sept. , predicting that “the remains of the Storm” in the colonies
over the Stamp Act would soon subside, Chatham Papers ::: (P.R.O.).
Shelburne’s letter had been approved in substance at a Cabinet meeting on
Aug. , Ritcheson Brit. Politics .
N.Y. Assembly’s address to Moore, Dec. , , refusing to comply with the
Quartering Act, Prior Documents –. (British troops stationed in New York
City had recently
—Aug. —irritated the people by tearing down a Liberty Pole.
As to this incident, involving the local radical leader, John Lamb, Leake Lamb
–, and Gage to the Duke of Richmond Aug. , Gage I –.)
Moore to Shelburne Dec. , , concerning the N.Y. Assembly’s refusal to obey
the Quartering Act, Dec. , , N.Y. Col. Doc. VII –.
Shelburne to Chatham Feb. , , concerning the N.Y. Assembly’s recent refusal
to comply with the Quartering Act and also as to the New York merchants’ peti-
tion, Pitt III –. Shelburne wrote that letters from N.Y. said members of the
Assembly refused to comply with the act for fear of establishing a dangerous
precedent.
N.Y. merchants’ petition, Prior Documents – and Journals H. of C. XXXI –
, enclosed in Moore to B. of T. Dec. , , Shelburne Papers :–.
Shelburne wrote Chatham Feb. , , that the petition contained signa-
tures, Pitt III . (The Pa. Assembly voted Oct. , , to have its London
Agent, Richard Jackson, try to secure revision of the restrictive acts of and
, Pa. Assembly VII –, but I have seen no evidence of action on this.)
Chatham’s reply to Shelburne Feb. , , Pitt III –. Chatham’s long and
severe attack of gout is frequently mentioned in his correspondence from Aug. ,
, to Feb. , , same – passim.
I do not know why Chatham considered the timing of the N.Y. merchants’ peti-
tion absurd. Conceivably he had in mind the recent appearance of a pamphlet at-
tacking repeal of the Stamp Act, encouraging the colonists to shake off British re-
striction on colonial trade, in Conduct of the Late Administration written by one of
Grenville’s followers, Charles Lloyd, advertised in the London Chronicle for Dec. ,
, as published “This Day.” But the merchants could not have known of this
pamphlet when they sent off their petition. (As to Lloyd’s authorship, sketch of
Lloyd in D.N.B. and also H. & L. Dict. I .)
As pointed out in Parliament Feb. or , , by William Blackstone, author of
the famous “Commentaries,” Grey Cooper’s Notes, A.H.R. XVII () , and
in the protest of the N.J. Assembly quoted in Gov. William Franklin of N.J. to Shel-
burne Dec. , , Prior Documents , the Quartering Act obviously was a form
of colonial taxation by act of Parliament.
Geo. III ch. sec. () prohibited export of iron and lumber from the col-
onies directly to Ireland. Geo. III ch. sec. () repealed this restriction;
but Geo. III ch. sec. () prohibiting the export of all non-enumerated
colonial products directly to continental Europe or Ireland had restored it.
Geo. III ch. , passed Dec. , , Journals H. of C. XXXI – passim again
repealed the prohibition on exports of colonial iron and lumber directly to Ire-
land. (For the importance of the Irish–colonial trade to New York and Philadel-
phia, James “Colonial Irish Trade” –.)
The N.Y. merchants’ petition, Prior Documents , included a protest against a sup-
posed provision in the Free Ports Act of , Geo. III ch. , prohibiting the ex-
port of sugar and other West Indian products except molasses from Dominica to
New York; but there is no such prohibition in the act, and I have found no evi-
dence that customs officers tried to enforce such a restriction. The act (sec. ) pro-
hibited reexport of all West Indian products from Dominica to the other British
West Indies, but not to the British colonies in North America.
Shelburne to Chatham Feb. , , as to the unanimous opinion of those present
at a Cabinet meeting attended by Northington, Shelburne himself, and others
not named that no notice be taken of the N.Y. merchants’ petition unless
“Mr. Grenville moved for it,” Pitt III –.
Chatham’s reply Feb. , , advising against smothering the merchants’ peti-
tion, same –.
Lord Clare’s presentation of the N.Y. merchants’ petition to the House of Com-
mons Feb. , , and the House’s order concerning it, Journals H. of C. XXXI
; Charles Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. March , So. Car. Hist. Mag. XXIX
() . Clare had succeeded Lord Hillsborough as President of the Board of
Trade in Dec., , Beatson Pol. Index I .
Shelburne to Chatham Feb. , , as to coercing N.Y. to comply with the Quar-
tering Act, Chatham Papers P.R.O. ::–; published in part in Pitt III –
, but omitting the important statement of the Cabinet’s indecision and what
Shelburne himself thought should be done.
Grafton to Chatham March , , same , that at a Cabinet meeting the night
before, “the New York point was settled and that it should be by act of parlia-
ment.” He did not say what the proposed act was to provide, adding merely that
Conway “had his doubts, but would endeavour every thing he could to bring his
mind to it.”
Shelburne to Chatham Apr. , , reporting discussion and decisions of a Cab-
inet meeting Apr. , Chatham Papers :: Part I – (P.R.O.). Townshend
proposed asking Parliament to address the King to refuse his assent to any law
passed by the N.Y. Legislature until the Quartering Act was “fully obey’d.” At
Northington’s insistence the plan was changed to propose an act of Parliament,
instead of action by the King. Shelburne refers to reservation of a final decision
until a meeting on May , of which I have found no record.
Shelburne to Chatham Apr. , , describing the plan adopted at the Cabinet
meeting of Apr. , same. Shelburne’s letter is referred to in Tunstall Pitt as
“proposed” by him and in Ritcheson British Politics as his “own plan”; but Shel-
burne’s letter refers to it as one of several to be considered by Chatham, without
indication that Shelburne proposed, or even favored, it.
Chatham’s letters to Shelburne and Grafton of Feb. –Feb. , , are in Pitt III
–, and there is an important letter early in May from Chatham to Grafton
in Grafton , which the editor of the Grafton papers dates “probably March ,”
but probably should be dated March , Brooke Chatham n. None of these let-
ters indicates any opposition by Chatham toward the proposal to compel New
York to obey the Quartering Act.
Resolutions for the New York Restraining Act, May and , , Journals H. of
C. XXXI , , and letters cited in note below.
Conway seems to have temporarily relinquished his Leadership of the House of
Commons, perhaps because of his opposition to the proposed Restraining Act.
His last known report to the King as Leader of the House during this session was
on May , , Geo. III I –.
Debates on the resolutions for the restraining act May and , , and adop-
tion of the resolutions May , Thomas Bradshaw to Grafton May and ,
Grafton –; W. S. Johnson to Gov. William Pitkin May , Trumbull –;
Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. May , So. Car. Hist. Mag. XXIX () –
; Thomas Pownall’s speech of May , Parl. Hist. XVI –.
Grenville’s successful motion on May , , for an address to the King asking
him to bestow marks of favor on those in the colonies who had suffered through
obedience to acts of Parliament, Johnson to Pitkin May , Trumbull ; Brad-
shaw to Grafton May Grafton .
The bill to suspend the N.Y. Legislature was introduced May , and passed the
House of Commons on June , . Its progress through this House and the
House of Lords and the King’s assent can be followed in Journals H. of C. XXXI
– passim, , and in Journals H. of L. XXXI – passim. Also see Varga
“N.Y. Restraining Act” –.
The act, known as the New York Suspending, or Restraining, Act, Geo. III ch.
(). The background, passage, and effects of this act are described in Varga
“N.Y. Restraining Act” –.
Shortly before the New York Restraining Act was passed, the Quartering Act
(which was to expire in March, ) was again extended, apparently without any
opposition in Parliament, to March , , Geo. III ch. (). The bill for
the extension can be followed in Journals H. of C. XXXI –; Journals H. of L.
XXXI – passim.
The act of Geo. III ch. () amended earlier acts by exempting any colony
which passed a provincial act providing quarters and supplies for British troops in
the colony. But this amending act was of no substantial benefit to the colonies; it
simply substituted one form of demand for another. Also, as General Gage wrote
Barrington (Gage II ), it was objectionable to the colonists because of its re-
quirement of a so-called suspending clause, which had long been a sore point with
them, Knollenberg Origin , , , , .
The Quartering Act of , Geo. III ch. , extended by Geo. III ch. , was
annually renewed from to by the following acts: Geo. III ch. ; Geo.
III ch. ; Geo. III ch. ; Geo. III ch. ; Geo. III ch. ; Geo. III ch.
; Geo. III ch. ; and Geo. III ch. .
The furnishing of British troops in barracks near Boston with supplies by the Gov-
ernor and Council of Mass. and the House’s complaint concerning this can be fol-
lowed in Gov. Francis Bernard of Mass. to Shelburne Dec. , , Prior Docu-
ments –, and exchange of messages between Bernard and the Mass. House
Jan. –Feb. , , Bradford Mass. Papers –.
Bernard to the Mass. House Feb. , , pointing out that the supplies furnished
the British troops “consisted of fuel and candles only, which...always have been
allowed in these barracks...,” same .
The Boston merchants’ petition was enclosed in a letter from their Committee to
Dennys De Berdt, London Agent for the Mass. House of Representatives, Jan. ,