 | CHAPTER IV History of Virginia |  |
CHAPTER IV
THE STAMP ACT—ITS PASSAGE AND REPEAL
In America the intelligence of the passage of the Stamp
Act caused the deepest despondency. Despite the strength
and power of the resolutions adopted at the session of 1764,
the leaders of the Assembly had not reached a condition of
mind to commit the colony to a course that might be construed
as treason. These leaders consisted of a remarkable body of
men, that had no equal in America for talents, culture and
learning, of whom John Robinson, the Speaker, Richard Bland,
Landon Carter, Peyton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas,
George Wythe and Edmund Pendleton were the most important.
Richard Henry Lee was one of the leaders also, who,
though a young man and of a less conservative mind, was content
to go along with the older men. Indeed, he thought
so little of rebellion at this time that at the beginning of the
session of 1764 he applied for the post of stamp distributor,
which he appears to have considered not at all inconsistent
with his taking a prominent part not long after in preparing
the protests against the Stamp Act.
At this time Otis and the other Massachusetts leaders were
talking of the supremacy of Parliament and preaching the doctrine
of submission to the Stamp Act when passed.
After the passage of this fatal measure passive resistance
appears to have been the policy adopted in the colonies. Nonimportation
and the encouragement of domestic manufactures
were the prevailing measures. In Virginia the more radical
planters were contented to go clothed in Virginia cloth manufactured
on the plantations. In Massachusetts Otis continued
to preach the doctrine of submission and declared that Parliament
people," though he contested its justice. In all the colonies
unmistakable signs were given of acquiescence in the Stamp
Act but by a people greatly dissatisfied.
Not one of the American agents in England imagined the
colonies would think of disputing the Stamp Act with Parliament
at the point of the sword. Benjamin Franklin, the agent
for Pennsylvania, solicited the appointment of stamp distributor
for a nephew.
When the Massachusetts Provincial Assembly met in May,
1765, Thomas Oliver, although he had been appointed stamp
distributor, was elected councillor, and, continuing his protest
along loyal lines, James Otis on June 6 prevailed on that body
to propose to the colonies a Congress to meet in New York in
October to consult on a united representation of their condition
to the King. This, the only action taken by the Massachusetts
Legislature, was aided by the royal governor Bernard, who
thus gained control of the movement and managed to have
two government men, Oliver Partridge and Timothy Ruggles,
associated with Otis, in the delegation of that colony. The
time of the meeting was set so late that it could not have been
expected by Otis or others of its supporters that its action
could affect the operation of the Stamp Act which was to go
into effect in November.
Hutchinson, the chief justice of Massachusetts, wrote to
the ministry his impression of the situation: "The Stamp
Act is received among us with as much decency as could be expected;
it leaves no room for evasion and will execute itself."
It was at this critical hour that Patrick Henry entered
upon public life. His speech as a lawyer in the "Parsons'
Cause," as the suit in Mr. Maury's case against the Two Penny
Act was popularly styled, had given him a great reputation. It
showed that he was a man possessed of two attributes highly
necessary in a great leader of men—courage and eloquence.
He was a new member and at this time about 28 years of age.
Finding that the old leaders were disposed to temporize,
of their hands by offering a set of resolutions asserting the
rights of the Virginia people in language emphatic and void of
the effusive loyalty that had characterized previous papers.
Violent debates ensued and Mr. Henry was supported by most
of the young men in the House, especially those from the western
counties. He was opposed by all the old members who
were championed by John Robinson, the speaker, and George
Wythe, who had drawn the remonstrance to the House of
Commons at the preceding Assembly.
It was in this "most bloody debate," as Mr. Jefferson,
who heard it, describes it, that Henry, while descanting on the
tyranny of the obnoxious act, exclaimed in a voice and with
a gesture that startled the House: "Tarquin and Caesar had
each his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George
the Third. . ." "Treason," shouted the speaker (John Robinson).
"Treason! Treason!" echoed from every part of the
House. Without faltering for an instant, but rising to a loftier
altitude and fixing on the speaker an eye which seemed to flash
fire, Mr. Henry added with most thrilling emphasis, "may
profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of
it."
Five resolutions were adopted, but after Mr. Henry's departure
before adjournment, a motion was made and carried to
expunge the last and most daring of the five. Nevertheless,
there were published in the Virginia Gazette the four remaining
on the Journal and two additional ones, more drastic than
the fifth expunged, which were offered in the committee of the
whole and not reported, and which declared in substance that
the imposition of taxes without the consent of the General
Assembly created no obligation on the people here, and that
any person or persons who shall maintain the contrary should
"be deemed an enemy to his Majesty's colony." In this form
they appeared in other newspapers and were spread throughout
the colonies.
The point of difference between Henry's resolutions as
lay not so much in the wording as in conditions. The first
was a rebellion against action had and the latter a protest
against action proposed. They voiced the inarticulate feelings
of the whole country against submission. Governor Fauquier
styled them this "rash heat," and dissolved the Assembly.[48]
The effect was seen especially in Massachusetts, the most
powerful of the northern colonies. When the news of the
action of Virginia first arrived there, this action appeared so
antagonistic to the course of submission apparently accepted
that there was a marked silence. "On the first surprise"
many persons in Boston, including James Otis, pronounced it
"treasonable."[49]
But this state of mind lasted only a short
time and from having been censured, the spirit discovered in
it suddenly received the plaudits of the whole colony.
The effect also was seen on the call of James Otis for a general
congress to consider the Stamp Act. The circular had
at first received no countenance. The speaker of the New Jersey
Assembly promptly replied that the members of that body
were unanimously against meeting on the present occasion.
The spirit of resistance displayed in the Virginia resolutions
created an entire change in the fortunes of the proposed congress.
All the colonies that had the power to do so fell in line,
and accepted the invitation to meet. Virginia could not do so
because of Fauquier's adjournment of the Assembly on the
first of June.
This Congress met in New York October 7, but instead of
confining itself to the declared purpose of its call, "a dutiful,
loyal and humble petition" to his Majesty, they set out under
the stimulation of Henry's resolutions, "a declaration of rights
and grievances" and inserted it in their Journal. Their address
to the King, Lords and Commons had a similar patriotic
character. But with a Tory, Ruggles of Massachusetts, as
President, and such a submissionist as James Otis for a member,
Fauquier called an Assembly and sent Patrick Henry to New
York, there would probably have been no such clause in the
papers as "all due subordination to that august body, the
Parliament," and such fulsome expressions of loyalty to King
George as "the best of Kings." Nevertheless, as a step in the
march to union, the Stamp Act Congress deservedly holds a
high place in American history.
The newspapers of the country at large were laden with
the proceedings of towns and meetings in different locations,
which passed elaborate series of resolutions. An analysis of
them shows that sentences, and indeed entire resolves of the
Virginia series reappear in those of Connecticut, Maryland,
Rhode Island and other colonies, especially the words "exclusive
legislation in the articles of taxes and internal policies,"
which had entered not only into Henry's resolutions, but had
found a place substantially in Bland's constitutional argument
in the "Colonel Dismounted" (1763), and in the Virginia resolutions
of 1764. It was a continental adoption of Virginia's
ancient principle that there must be not only no taxation without
representation, but no legislation without representation.
The Virginia Gazette teemed with articles against the Stamp
Act, and among the more notable writers were John Mercer,
of Marlborough, and Meriwether Smith, of Essex County.
About the time of the adjournment of the Stamp Act Congress
in the latter part of October, George Mercer, (son of
John Mercer), who had been appointed distributor, arrived in
Williamsburg; when meeting with much opposition from a
multitude composed of leading merchants and representative
citizens, he agreed not to undertake the execution of his office,
"until he received further orders from England, nor then without
the assent of the Assembly of Virginia." All the stamped
papers brought by Mercer were taken aboard his Majesty's
ship, The Rainbow, and none was landed.[50]
Two other things showed how greatly the spirit of Virginia
associations pledged to prevent the enforcement of the Stamp
Act. The Westmoreland association was formed at Leedstown,
February 27, 1766, of gentlemen from the Potomac and
Rappahannock region, and there was another association in
Norfolk, who called themselves "Sons of Liberty," formed on
March 31. Both pledged themselves by strong resolutions
against permitting the employment of stamps by any body. The
resolutions of Westmoreland were written by Richard Henry
Lee, who had now become one of the radical champions of the
rights of the colony.
Perhaps, however, no single agency had greater effect upon
developing thought in America than the publication at Williamsburg,
in March, 1766, and republished later in London, of
a pamphlet by Richard Bland, entitled "An Enquiry into the
Rights of the British Colonies." Here was an opponent of
Henry's resolutions going beyond the doctrines set out a few
months before. In his "Colonel Dismounted," written in
1763, Bland had argued for the absolute legislative power of
Virginia in internal affairs, and Henry had stressed the doctrine
in his fourth resolution. Now Bland took a step decidedly
in advance, and argued that though a part of the British
Empire, "Virginia was no part of the Kingdom of England,"
and that having been settled by Englishmen at their own expense
under particular stipulations with the Crown, it was
under no obligations to receive laws from the Parliament. It
was to the Crown alone that the Colonies owed their existence.
It was to the Crown alone that the Colonies owed allegiance.
Bland admitted that certain statutes of Parliament of later
date than 1606 had passed in Virginia, such as the Navigation
Laws, but this fact was not deemed by him fatal to his contention.
Virginia "submitted as the weaker vessel," but "power
abstracted from right does not give a just title to dominion,"
and though submitted to because of necessity, may be resisted
whenever the sufferer obtains strength enough to do so.
Dr. Moses Coit Tyler in his "Literary History of the American
"a prodigious innovation." But it was afterwards accepted
by the American public and became the ground on which the
union with Great Britain was dissolved. In language still
bolder than Bland's, Jefferson expressed similar views in 1774
in his "Summary View of the Rights of the British Colonies,"
and he states that George Wythe shared with him, at that
time, in similar radical opinions.
And yet too much stress is not to be laid on Dr. Moses Tyler's
words. The doctrine was not one held in 1766 in Virginia
by Bland alone, for we are told by Rev. Andrew Burnaby, who
travelled in Virginia in 1759 that many of the Virginians were
of that opinion.
The defiant attitude assumed by Virginia was attested, not
alone by the Stamp Act resolutions of May 30, 1765, and "the
innovations" advanced by Bland in his pamphlets, but by the
remarkable stand which was taken by one of the county courts.
The policy adopted by the colonists in general was to embarrass
England by loud protests and non-importation associations
into repealing her obnoxious revenue laws, and such a
thing as official resistance was never contemplated. In the address
of the Massachusetts House to Governor Bernard, Samuel
Adams, who wrote it says[51]
that "he knew of no declaration
that the Stamp Act shall not be executed within this province.
Declarations had been made by individuals that they
would not use stamped paper."
Everywhere else except in Northampton County, Virginia,
the courts either declined to transact any business requiring
stamps, or proceeded to business on the plea that there were
no stamps obtainable, and it was absolutely necessary to do
so. In Northampton County alone the court met the issue face
to face and deliberately set aside the Act of Parliament as
contrary to the constitution. This proceeding of the court is
so remarkable that a copy of the record should be given.
"Virginia—sc.:
"At a court held for Northampton County, Feb. 8, 1766:
"On the motion of the clerk and other officers of this court
praying their opinion whether the act entitled `An Act for
granting and applying certain Stamp Duties and other Duties
in America,' etc., was binding on the inhabitants of this colony,
and whether they, the said officers, should incur any penalties
by not using stamped paper agreeable to the directions of the
said act, the court unanimously declared it to be their opinion
that the said act did not bind, affect, or concern the inhabitants
of this colony, inasmuch as they conceive the same to be unconstitutional,
and that the said several officers may proceed
to the execution of their respective offices, without incurring
any penalties by means thereof, which opinion this court doth
order to be recorded. Griffin Stith, C. N. C."
The significance of the action does not stop with its negation
of the Stamp Act. It reaches out and asserts the overruling
power of the judiciary, which was not generally accepted
in the United States till the era of written constitutions. But
Virginia in 1766 did have a constitution, though it was an unwritten
one, and there is no reason why the courts might not
have asserted their protectorship of it.
It is important to be noticed that while the Virginia Assembly
in 1765 acted under the leadership of a comparatively new
man, the division among its members was not a radical one.
The opposition to Mr. Henry proceeded not so much from the
matter of his resolutions as from a doubt as to their expediency
at the time. R. H. Lee, who had taken active part in the preparation
of the resolutions at the preceding session, did not attend
the session in May, 1765, and yet became, as we have
noticed, one of the most "flaming sons of liberty." Peyton
Randolph was afterwards first president of the Continental
Congress. Richard Bland was chairman of the committee of
the whole that reported the resolutions of April 7, 1768,
and George Wythe stood with John Adams in advocacy
Pendleton was chairman of the Committee of Safety and President
of the Convention that declared for independence in May,
1776.
Henry's resolutions brought America to the point of resistance,
but at the critical moment when blows seemed imminent,
there was a change in the administration in England.
Grenville resigned in July, 1765, and the Duke of Cumberland
became Prime Minister. On the night before the Stamp Act
was to go into effect the Duke died and Rockingham succeeded
him. Among the new members were the Duke of Grafton and
General Conway, who were friendly to America. The ministry
thus composed referred the matter of the enforcement of the
Stamp Act to Parliament.
Papers were laid before the House showing the conditions
of the colonies, and, among them the Virginia resolutions as
the original cause of the great disturbance held first place. The
merchants of London trading to North America, showed that
their interests had been greatly affected by the decrease of the
imports, which were not half what they were in previous years.
Witnesses were examined and among the number Benjamin
Franklin.
William Pitt in the House of Commons urged a repeal in
one of the most brilliant of his speeches, in which he denied the
right of Parliament to tax America, ridiculed the idea of their
representation in Parliament, and exclaimed: "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."
In the House of Lords, Lord Camden maintained the cause of
the colonies in a speech of great force, in which he said: "Taxation
and representation are coeval with and essential to the
constitution." Under such influences the repeal of the act was
carried, but the majority was obtained only by putting the repeal
on the ground of expediency and by the adoption of a declaratory
resolution stating explicitly that the King and Parliament
authority to make laws and statutes of supreme force and
validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of
the Crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatever."
King George very unwillingly affixed his name to the repeal
act on March 18, 1766, and on May 2, news of the repeal reached
Williamsburg by the ship Lord Baltimore. The joyful intelligence
was celebrated at Norfolk and Williamsburg and other
places by balls, illuminations and the ringing of bells. The
people of Westmoreland County had a portrait painted of
William Pitt, and the General Assembly at its session beginning
Nov. 6, 1766, considered a bill for erecting a statue of
King George and obelisk to the champions of the colonies who
had contributed to its repeal in England, but after a report
from Landon Carter of a suitable inscription for the obelisk
the whole matter was postponed till the next session, when
probably owing to the discovery then made of the emptiness
of the Treasury through John Robinson lending out funds, the
bill was not called up, but suffered to die on the calendar.
| CHAPTER IV History of Virginia | |