Events of 1770—An Eventful Epoch—Expectations of Reconciliation and union Disappointed.

This was the year of bloody collision and parliamentary decision, which determined the future relations between Great Britain and the American colonies. Dr. Ramsay observes:

"From the Royal and Ministerial assurances given in favour of America in 1769, and the subsequent repeal in 1770 of five-sixths of the duties which had been imposed in 1767, together with the consequent renewal of the mercantile intercourse between Great Britain and her colonies, many hoped that the contention between the two countries was finally closed. In all the provinces, excepting Massachusetts, appearances seemed to favour that opinion. Many incidents operated there to the prejudice of that harmony which had begun elsewhere to return. Stationing a military force among them was a fruitful source of uneasiness. The royal army had been brought thither with the avowed design of enforcing submission to the mother country. Speeches from the Throne and addresses from both Houses of Parliament had taught them to look upon the inhabitants of Massachusetts as a factious, turbulent people, who aimed at throwing off all subordination to Great Britain. They, on the other hand, were accustomed to look upon the soldiery as instruments of tyranny, sent on purpose to dragoon them out of their liberties.

"Reciprocal insults soured the tempers, and mutual injuries embittered the passions of the opposite parties. Some fiery spirits, who thought it an indignity to have troops quartered among them, were constantly exciting the townspeople to quarrel with the soldiers.

[Pg 365]

"On the 2nd of March, 1770, a fray took place near Mr. Gray\'s ropewalk, between a private soldier of the 20th Regiment and an inhabitant. The former was supported by his comrades, the latter by the ropemakers, till several on both sides were involved in the consequences. On the 5th a more dreadful scene was presented. The soldiers when under arms were pressed upon, insulted and pelted by the mob, armed with clubs, sticks, and snowballs covering stones. They were also dared to fire. In this situation, one of the soldiers, who had received a blow, in resentment fired at the supposed aggressors. This was followed by a single discharge from six others. Three of the inhabitants were killed and five were dangerously wounded. The town was immediately in commotion. Such were the temper, force, and number of the inhabitants, that nothing but an engagement to remove the troops out of the town, together with the advice of moderate men, prevented the townsmen from falling on the soldiers. Capt. Preston, who commanded, and the party who fired on the inhabitants, were committed to jail, and afterwards tried. The captain and six of the men were acquitted. Two were brought in guilty of manslaughter (and were lightly punished). It appeared on the trial that the soldiers were abused, insulted, threatened, and pelted before they fired. It was also proved that only seven guns were fired by the eight prisoners. These circumstances induced the jury to give a favourable verdict. The result of the trial reflected great honour on John Adams and Josiah Quincy, the counsel for the prisoners (promising young lawyers and popular leaders), and also on the integrity of the jury, who ventured to give an upright verdict in defiance of popular opinion."[316]

[Pg 366]

A further hindrance to returning harmony in Massachusetts, as in the other colonies, was another ill-judged act of the British Ministers in making the Governor and judges wholly independent[Pg 367] of the province in regard to their salaries, which had always been paid by the local Legislature in annual grants, but which were now, for the first time, paid by the Crown. The House of Assembly remonstrated against this innovation, which struck at the very heart of public liberty, by making the administrator of the government, and the courts of law, wholly independent of the people, and wholly dependent on the Crown, all holding their offices during pleasure of the Crown, and depending upon it alone for both the amount and payment of their salaries, and that payment out of a revenue raised by taxing the people without their consent.

The House addressed the Governor and judges to know whether they would receive their salaries as heretofore, by grants of the Legislature, or as stipends from the Crown. Three out of the four judges announced that they would receive their salaries as heretofore, by grants from the local Legislature; but Governor Hutchinson and Chief Justice Oliver announced that they would receive their salaries from the Crown. They therefore became more and more odious to the inhabitants, while the discussion of the new question of the relations of the Executive and Judiciary to the people, upon the grounds of public freedom and the impartial administration of justice, greatly increased the strength of the opposition and the importance of the local House of Representatives as the counterpart of the House of Commons, and as guardians of the rights of the people.

At an early period of Canadian history, the salaries of governors and judges were determined and paid by the Crown, out of what was called a casual and territorial revenue, independent of the representatives of the people, and the judges held their places during pleasure; but after much agitation, and a determined popular struggle of several years, a civil list for both the governors and judges was agreed upon and voted by the Legislature. The tenure of the offices of judges was made that of good behaviour, instead of pleasure; and executive councillors and heads of departments were made dependent upon the confidence of the Legislature, with the control of revenues of every kind raised in the country; since which time there have been peace, loyalty, and progress throughout the provinces of the Canadian Dominion.

[Pg 368]

To turn now to the affairs of the colonies as discussed and decided upon in the British Parliament, which met the 9th of January, 1770. The King, in opening Parliament, expressed his regret that his endeavours to tranquillize America had not been attended with the desired success, and that combinations had been formed to destroy the commercial connection between the colonies and the mother country. The opposition in both Houses of Parliament dwelt strongly on the prevailing discontents, both in England and in the colonies. Ministers, admitting these discontents, imputed them to the spirit of faction, the speeches and writings of agitators, and to petitions got up and circulated by their influence. Lords Camden and Shelburne resigned, disapproving of the policy of the Administration, as did soon after, on the 28th of January, 1770, the Duke of Grafton, First Lord of the Treasury, and was succeeded by Lord North as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Chatham, after an absence of two years, recovered sufficiently to make his clarion voice once more heard in the councils of the nation against official corruption, and in defence of liberty and the rights of the colonies, the affairs of which now occupied the attention of Parliament. The British manufacturers and merchants who traded to America had sustained immense losses by the rejection of their goods, through the non-importing associations in America, and apprehended ruin from their continuance, and therefore petitioned Parliament, stating their sufferings and imploring relief. On the 5th of March Lord North introduced a Bill into the Commons for the repeal of the whole of the Act of 1767, which imposed duties on glass, red lead, paper, and painters\' colours, but retaining the preamble, which asserted the absolute authority of Parliament to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and retaining, as an illustration of that authority, the clause of the Act which imposed a duty on tea. He said:—"The articles taxed being chiefly British manufactures, ought to have been encouraged instead of being burdened with assessments. The duty on tea was continued, for maintaining the parliamentary right of taxation. An impost of threepence in the pound could never be opposed by the colonists, unless they were determined to rebel against Great Britain. Besides, a duty on that article, payable in England, and amounting to nearly one shilling in the pound, was taken off on[Pg 369] its exportation to America; so that the inhabitants of the colonies saved ninepence in the pound. The members of the opposition, in both Houses, advocated the repeal of the clause on tea, and predicted the inefficiency of the Bill should that clause be retained, and repeated the arguments on the injustice and inexpediency of taxing America by Act of Parliament; but the Bill was carried by a large majority, and assented to by the King on the 12th of April."

The repeal of the obnoxious port duties of 1767 left no pretence for retaining the duty on tea for raising a revenue, as the tea duty, at the highest computation, would not exceed ￡16,000 a year; and when Lord North was pressed to relinquish that remaining cause of contention, he replied:

"Has the repeal of the Stamp Act taught the Americans obedience? Has our lenity inspired them with moderation? Can it be proper, while they deny our legal right to tax them, to acquiesce in the argument of illegality, and by the repeal of the whole law to give up that honour? No; the most proper time to exert our right of taxation is when the right is refused. To temporize is to yield; and the authority of the mother country, if it is now unsupported, will in reality be relinquished for ever. A total repeal cannot be thought of till America is prostrate at our feet."

Governor Pownall, who had spent many years in America, and had preceded Barnard as Governor of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, to include the repeal of the duty on tea as well as on the articles included in the original motion of Lord North. In the course of his speech in support of the amendment he said:

"If it be asked whether it will remove the apprehensions excited by your resolutions and address of the last year, for bringing to trial in England persons accused of treason in America? I answer, no. If it be asked, if this commercial concession would quiet the minds of the Americans as to the political doubts and fears which have struck them to the heart throughout the continent? I answer, no; so long as they are left in doubt whether the Habeas Corpus Act, whether the Bill of Rights, whether the Common Law as now existing in England, have any operation and effect in America, they cannot be satisfied. At this hour they know not whether the civil constitution[Pg 370] be not suspended and superseded by the establishment of a military force. The Americans think that they have, in return to all their applications, experienced a temper and disposition that is unfriendly—that the enjoyment and exercise of the common rights of freemen have been refused to them. Never with these views will they solicit the favour of this House; never more will they wish to bring before Parliament the grievances under which they conceive themselves to labour. Deeply as they feel,............