Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Newcastle was, he must be Minister to a certain Degree. . . .” On hear-
ing of Pitt’s statement, Newcastle immediately offered to resign, but ap-
parently neither the King nor Rockingham cared to pursue the matter
further on Pitt’s terms,³⁵ and Newcastle remained in office.
When Parliament reconvened on January , , the Ministry was
still in the dark concerning Pitt’s stand. Consequently, the Speech by
the King and the prepared replies of the two Houses³⁶ were again non-
committal as to the Stamp Act. But in the debate that day in the House
of Commons on the proposed reply to the King’s Speech, Pitt chose to
state his position.
Replying to Robert Nugent, former member of the Grenville Min-
istry, who insisted that “the honour and dignity of the Kingdom obliged
us to compel the execution of the Stamp Act, except the right was ac-
knowledged and the repeal solicited as a favour,” and that “a pepper-
corn, in acknowledgment of the right, was of more value than millions
without,”³⁷ Pitt declared:
“It is my opinion that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the
colonies....They are the subjects of this kingdom, equally entitled
with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar
privileges of Englishmen. Equally bound by its laws, and equally par-
ticipating of the constitution of this free country. The Americans are the
sons, not the bastards, of England.
“Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes
are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone...,and this
House represents those Commons, the proprietors of the lands, and
those proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants....
There is an idea in some that the colonies are [likewise] virtually repre-
sented in this House. I would fain know by whom....The idea of vir-
tual representation of America in this House, is the most contemptible
idea that ever entered into the head of a man; it does not deserve a se-
rious refutation. The Commons of America, represented in their sev-
eral assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this, their
constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They
would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it....”³⁸
Pitt was followed by Grenville, who defended the stamp tax, com-
plained of the ingratitude of the colonists, protected by Great Britain
and favored by the grant of bounties to many of their products, and de-
nounced those in England who had encouraged the colonists in their
obstinate resistance to the tax.
This response brought Pitt to his feet again. “The gentleman,” he
said, “tells us, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebel-
lion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people so
dead to all the feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves,
would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest....The
gentleman boasts of his bounties to America! Are not those bounties in-
tended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has
misapplied the national treasures....I will be bold to affirm, that the
profits to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies through all its
branches is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you tri-
umphantly through the last war. The estates that were rented at two
thousand pounds a year, three score years ago, are at three thousand
pounds at present....You owe this to America. This is the price that
America pays you for her protection.
“The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and
temper. They have been wronged. They have been driven to madness
by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occa-
sioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will
undertake for America, that she will follow the example....[Let] the
Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally and immediately....At the
same time, let the sovereign authority over the colonies, be asserted in
as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point
of legislation whatsoever
—that we may bind their trade, confine their
manufactures, and exercise, every power whatsoever, except that of tak-
ing their money out of their pockets without their consent.”³⁹
The following day Rockingham wrote the King, “The events of yes-
terday...have shown the amazing power and influence which Mr. Pitt
has, whenever he takes part in debate.”⁴⁰
Fortified by Pitt’s support of repeal of the Stamp Act, Rockingham
evidently decided to take the plunge in favor of introducing a bill for re-
peal, as evidenced by a letter of January , , from him to Yorke,
stating, “Charles Townshend and General Conway, Dowdeswell and
the Duke of Grafton were here this evening. The ideas we join in are
nearly what I talked of to you this morning, that is—a declaratory Act
in General Terms
—afterwards to proceed to Considerations of Trade etc.—
and finally Determination on the Stamp Act—i.e. a Repeal, & which its
own Demerits & Inconvenience felt here will justify.”⁴¹
Following this meeting, a set of resolutions was drafted to be pre-
sented to Parliament before introduction of the proposal for repeal.
The most important of these was “Resolved, That the Parliament of
Great Britain, had, hath, and of a right ought to have, full power and
authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to
bind the Colonies and people of America in all cases whatsoever.”⁴²
On receiving a copy of this statement, Yorke proposed that “in all
cases whatsoever” be expanded to read “as well in cases of Taxation, as
in all other cases whatsoever,”⁴³ thus making it clear beyond question
that the assertion of Parliament’s authority to legislate for the colonies
included authority to tax them. But Rockingham vetoed this proposed
change,⁴⁴ and, as we shall see in Chapter , the resolution as initially
drafted was adopted with only trifling changes.⁴⁵
The omission of a specific reference to taxation proved to be of no
consequence; the debates in Parliament on the resolution for the De-
claratory Act clearly recognized that the words asserting the authority
of Parliament to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” were
intended to include authority to tax them.
The King would have preferred amendment to repeal of the Stamp
Act;⁴⁶ but, when informed by Rockingham of the Ministry’s plan, in-
cluding repeal of that act, he indicated his intention to use his influence
to support adoption of the plan by Parliament.⁴⁷
REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT
AND PASSAGE OF THE
DECLARATORY ACT
B
summarized in Rockingham’s letter to
Yorke had been launched, the issue of colonial taxation was raised
briefly in Parliament on presentation to the House of Commons of the
petition to the House from the intercolonial Stamp Act Congress at
New York denying the right of Parliament to tax the colonies for rev-
enue.¹ Pitt spoke strongly in support of accepting the petition, but the
Ministry gave him no support, and the House voted, without a division,
not to receive it.²
The Ministry’s program for repeal of the Stamp Act was launched
on February , by proposing in each House a resolution for a bill de-
claring that “the Parliament of Great Britain had, hath and of right
ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of
sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America
Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain in all cases whatsoever.”³
In the House of Lords, Lord Camden, Chief Justice of the Court of
Common Pleas, attacked the proposed resolution on the ground that it
was based on a doctrine that Parliament was not bound by any consti-
tutional limitations, whereas it must be recognized that there were such
limitations, as, for example, that Parliament “cannot take away any
man’s private property without making him a compensation,” or “con-
demn any man by bill of attainder without hearing him.”⁴ But Lord
Chancellor Northington, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King’s
Bench, and others maintained the contrary,⁵ and the resolution was
carried by a vote of in favor, to opposed.⁶ (The four supporting
Camden were Lords Shelburne, Torrington, Paulet, and Cornwallis.)⁷
In the Commons, Secretary of State Henry S. Conway, Leader of the
House,⁸ William Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Attorney-
General Yorke, and at least ten other members (including several of
those usually in opposition to the Ministry) spoke in favor of the pro-
posed declaratory resolution. Only four members
—two followers of
Pitt (William Beckford, a leading representative of the City of London,
and James Hewitt), Isaac Barré, a follower of Shelburne, and Pitt him-
self spoke against it.⁹ Barré made and Pitt seconded a motion to strike
out the words “in all cases whatsoever,”¹⁰ but they mustered so few voice
votes in favor of their motion that they did not even call for a division.
Whereupon the resolution as proposed by the Ministry was adopted
without a division.¹¹
On February –, there were skirmishes in both Houses on various
resolutions collateral to the question of the proposed Declaratory Act.¹²
On February , the bill for the Declaratory Act was introduced by
the Ministry in the House of Commons, thereafter had the usual read-
ings and was passed by the Commons on March , all without any di-
vision.¹³
On the following day, the bill was introduced in the House of Lords
and thereafter had the usual readings.¹⁴ In the course of these readings,
Camden again insisted that British taxation of the unrepresented col-
onies was “illegal, absolutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of
nature, contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution.”¹⁵ But he
spoke in vain; the bill passed the Lords, without a division, on March .¹⁶
The next step in the Ministry’s program was to lay before the Com-
mons evidence of the damage from the Stamp Act to British trade with
the colonies which could be restored only by repeal of the act.¹⁷
Spurred by fear of loss of trade from a colonial boycott of British ex-
ports and of inability to collect debts owed them in the British North
American colonies,¹⁸ a large group of London and Bristol merchants
engaged in colonial trade adopted a petition to the House of Commons
in December, . Calling attention to the drastic curtailment of trade
with the colonies due to the Stamp Act and the prospective loss of debts
owed to them, they begged the House to take measures to conciliate the
colonists.¹⁹ They also, with Rockingham’s collaboration, sent a circular
letter, enclosing a copy of their petition, to the Lord Mayors of cities,
towns, and boroughs throughout Great Britain appealing for similar ac-
tion by merchants and manufacturers in their several communities.²⁰*
Furthermore, according to Henry Cruger, Jr., a leading Bristol mer-
chant engaged in colonial trade, the merchants took steps to ensure the
support of the manufacturers from whom they bought their supplies, by
refraining from giving “a single order for Goods on purpose to compel
all Manufacturers to engage with us in petitioning Parliament for a Re-
peal of the Stamp Act by which thousands were out of employ, and in a
starving condition.”²¹ These efforts were successful; petitions for repeal
poured into the House of Commons from manufacturers throughout
Great Britain.²²
But to leave no stone unturned, a number of leading British mer-
chants engaged in colonial trade and Benjamin Franklin appeared in
the House of Commons to testify in favor of repeal.²³†
As brought out in the Introduction, Franklin testified that the colo-
nists objected in principle only to Parliament’s levying direct taxes on
the colonies,²⁴ thus implying that Parliament might comfortably obtain
a revenue from the colonies merely by changing the method of taxing
them. He was supported in this by Richard Jackson, a member of the
House, who, as joint London Agent with Franklin for Pennsylvania and
sole London Agent for Connecticut and the Massachusetts House, pre-
sumably also spoke with knowledge.²⁵
Other methods to secure repeal are disclosed in the unpublished di-
ary of Thomas Hollis of London, which reveals that he was paying the
publisher of the London St. James Chronicle to print the strong pro-repeal
items appearing in it,²⁶ and by the statement of Major Thomas James,
who, though one of the chief sufferers in the anti–Stamp Tax riots in
New York, surprisingly testified in favor of repeal. He later stated pri-
vately that “he had Guineas given him [and] a paper of directions
...how to answer on his examination before the House of Commons.”²⁷
* P. Langford, The First Rockingham Administration, –. [B.W.S.]
† See Edmund S. Morgan, “Colonial Ideas of Parliamentary Power,” William and Mary Quarterly,
rd ser., (), –; Edmund S. Morgan, ed., Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the
Stamp Act Crisis, – (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ). [B.W.S.]
Grenville, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Bute, acting through the
King’s brother, the Duke of York, made a last-minute effort to enlist the
King’s support to block repeal,²⁸ but the King refused to intervene, stat-
ing in a letter of February to York, “I do not think it Constitutional
for the Crown personaly to interfere in Measures which it [the Min-
istry] has thought proper to refer to the advise of Parliament.”²⁹
Finally, on February , the Ministry, with Conway as its spokesman,
introduced in the House of Commons a resolution for a bill to repeal
the Stamp Act.³⁰ The resolution was vigorously supported by members
of the Ministry and their followers (among whom Rockingham’s secre-
tary, Edmund Burke, particularly distinguished himself )³¹ on grounds
of expediency and by Pitt and his followers chiefly on grounds of the un-
fairness and unconstitutionality of taxing persons not represented in
Parliament. Opponents of the resolution argued that the Stamp Act
was constitutional, and that giving way to colonial opposition would be
undignified and productive of future controversy.³²
The King, who had told Rockingham he could report him as favor-
ing repeal, caused considerable difficulty for the administration by later
telling Lord Strange he preferred modification of the Stamp Act, rather
than repeal.*
“His M,” wrote Conway to his brother Lord Hertford on February
, “had told L Rockm & the D of G [Duke of Gloucester] that he was
for the Repeal, but he on Tuesday [Feb. ] told Lord Strange that he was not
so now; that he wish’d his opinion to be known & his L [Lordship] might
declare it; his M has been pleas’d to explain himself to us, that he always
was for the Repeal, when contrasted with Inforcing the whole Act, but not as
compared with Modification; we told his M this distinction was unfortu-
nately not explain’d to us; and that in consequence we had (as he had
allow’d L R particularly to do) declar’d his M to be for the Repeal, &
that on all accounts we were engag’d & oblig’d to push that measure.”³³
No wonder (as William Rouet wrote his friend Baron Mure) that
“many who wish to know the King’s secret wishes, and act accordingly,
are quite puzzled what to believe.”³⁴
In the end, sixty-eight placemen (men holding Crown office) in the
* Ross J. S. Hoffman, The Marquis, –. [B.W.S.]
House of Commons voted against repeal;³⁵ but enough of them sup-
ported the Ministry³⁶ to carry the resolution for repeal by the handsome
majority of to .³⁷
On February , a motion to recommit the resolution and other
dilatory motions by opposition members were easily defeated.³⁸
The bill for repeal was introduced in the House of Commons on
February ,³⁹ and after the usual readings was passed March , by a
vote of to .⁴⁰
The following day the bill was presented to the House of Lords.⁴¹
Newcastle led off for the Ministry in favor of repeal⁴² on the ground
that it was inexpedient to retain an act which so greatly antagonized the
colonists as to jeopardize British trade with them.⁴³ Northington also
spoke in favor of repeal, but solely on the narrow ground that the Stamp
Act evidently could not be executed without armed force; that the
House of Commons presumably would decline to vote funds for the en-
forcement of an act which it had just voted overwhelmingly to repeal;
and that the King should not be left by the Lords in the position of be-
ing responsible for the execution of a law that he did not have power to
enforce.⁴⁴
The argument most strongly pressed by the Lords opposing repeal
was that if Parliament gave way on the Stamp Tax, this would serve to
encourage the colonists to oppose other acts of Parliament distasteful to
them, particularly the acts imposing restrictions on colonial trade.
“The Americans,” said Lord Sandwich, “want to get loose from the
Act of Navigation. All the complaints made against the ships stationed
on their Coasts to prevent illicit trade tend to this purpose. The Stamp
Act [is] not the Object of their Sedition but to try their ground whether
by Resistance they can get themselves loose from other Acts more dis-
agreeable and detrimental to them.”
Lord Lyttelton: “Your Lordships have upon the present Occasion
your own Constancy and Dignity to maintain....When this great
Concession is made We are, ’tis said, to be firm in maintaining all the
Laws there, particularly those for regulating their Commerce, which
very laws...are the [real] Ground of the present Opposition....The
repealing the Law is such an Encouragement to the Plan of Intimida-
tion taken up by the Americans as may make them much more unrea-
sonable in future Demands. Their Insolence will increase by Conces-
sions and where it will stop is not to be known.”
Lord Mansfield: “The Americans have adopted on the fatal Occa-
sion a New Principle that they are not subject to the Legislative Au-
thority of Great Britain....In this Situation what is the Effect [of] re-
pealing this Act? It is the giving up the total Legislature of this Kingdom
. . . and will put us in the Situation of being dictated to by the Ameri-
cans who may think they have a Right to an Open Trade and Estab-
lishment of Manufactures. What then will become of us?”⁴⁵
This same argument was also stressed in a protest signed by thirty-
three of the Lords, including the politically powerful Duke of Bedford
and all his outstanding followers in the House of Lords, against the bill
for repeal.⁴⁶
This aspect of the opposition to the repeal of the Stamp Act is of par-
ticular importance because of its bearing on the prospect of possible
redress of another colonial grievance carried over from the Grenville
administration, the American Act of restricting colonial trade (dis-
cussed in Chapter ).
In the Lords, opposition to the bill for repeal was so strong that if the
King had not come to the rescue of the Ministry, it is doubtful that the
bill would have passed. But he now let it be known that he definitely fa-
vored repeal,⁴⁷ and at the first reading of the bill on March , , the
Lords divided to in favor of it.⁴⁸ Six days later the bill was passed,
without a further division.
On March , both the Declaratory Act and the Repeal Act were
assented to by commission from the King.⁴⁹
Later in the session, the Repeal Act was supplemented by an act
canceling penalties incurred for violation of the Stamp Act and validat-
ing documents requiring stamps which were executed without stamps
while the Stamp Act was in force.⁵⁰
Although repeal of the Stamp Act restored order in the colonies,
adoption of the Declaratory Act paved the way for a future stamp tax
or any other kind of tax that Parliament might see fit to impose. Indeed,
as is brought out in Chapter , before the current session was over,
Parliament levied a duty for revenue on one of the principal imports of
the British North American colonies, West Indian molasses, which was
still in force at the time of the Declaration of Independence.
Theoretically the unlimited legislative authority of Parliament to
legislate for the colonies asserted in the Declaratory Act was limited by
the prerogative of the Crown to disapprove (veto) acts of Parliament.
Thus, the Declaratory Act states in form “the King’s majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and
commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of
right ought to have,” etc. But by , the royal prerogative of veto had
become obsolete, having last been exercised as far back as .⁵¹
Thus, under prevailing practice, the Declaratory Act was in effect
an assertion by members of Parliament of their right to legislate for the
colonies as they saw fit without the colonists having the protection of
any constitutional limitation or the veto of the Crown.