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, they suffer and endure with alarming silence. for their liberty they are under no apprehensions. it was first planted under the auspicious genius of the constitution, and it has grown up into a verdant and flourishing tree; and should any severe strokes be aimed at the branches, and fate reduce it to the bare stock, it would only take deeper root, and spring out more hardy and durable than before. they trust to providence, and wait with firmness and fortitude the issue."

the statements of governor pownall were the result of long observation and experience in america, and practical knowledge of the colonists, and were shown by results to be true to the letter, though treated with scorn by lord north, and with aversion by the house of commons, which rejected his amendment by a majority of 242 to 204.

the results of the combinations against the use of british manufactures were illustrated this year by the candidates for the degree of bachelor of arts at harvard college appearing dressed in black cloth manufactured wholly in new england. the general plan of non-importation of english manufactured goods was now relinquished on the repeal of the duties imposed upon them; but the sentiment of the principal commercial towns was against the importation of any tea from england. an association was formed not to drink tea until the act imposing the duty should be repealed. this was generally agreed to and observed throughout the colonies.

but the retaining of threepence in the pound on tea did not excite so much hostility in the colonies against the parliament as might have been expected. the act of parliament was virtually defeated, and the expected revenue from tea failed because of the resolution of the colonial associations of the people to use no tea, and of the merchants[pg 371] to import none on which the duty was charged. the merchants found means to smuggle, from countries to which the authority of great britain did not extend, a sufficient supply of tea for the tea-drinking colonists. thus the tea-dealers and tea-drinkers of america exercised their patriotism and indulged their taste—the one class making an additional threepence a pound on tea by evading the act, and the other class enjoying the luxury of tea as cheap as if no tea-duty act of parliament existed, and with the additional relish of rendering such act abortive. the facilities for smuggling tea, arising from the great extent of the american coasts, and the great number of harbours, and the universality of the british anti-tea associations, and the unity of popular sentiment on the subject, rendered the act of parliament imposing the duty a matter of sport rather than a measure of oppression even to the most scrupulous, as they regarded the act unconstitutional, and every means lawful and right by which the obnoxious act could be evaded and defeated. it is probable that, in the ordinary course of things, the act would have become practically obsolete, and the relations of the colonies to the mother country have settled down into quietness and friendliness, but for another event, which not only revived with increased intensity the original question of dispute, but gave rise to other occurrences that kindled the flame of the american revolution. that event was the agreement between the ministry and the east india company, which interfered with the natural and ordinary channels of trade, and gave to that company a monopoly of the tea trade of america. from the diminished exportation of tea from england to the colonies, there were, in warehouses of the british east india company, seventeen millions of pounds of tea for which there was no demand. lord north and his colleagues were not willing to lose the expected revenue, as small as it must be at last from their american tea act, and the east india company were unwilling to lose the profits of their american tea trade.

an agreement was therefore entered into between the ministry and the company, by which the company, which was authorized by law to export their tea free of duty to all places whatsoever, could send their tea cheaper to the colonies than others who had to pay the exceptionable duty, and even cheaper[pg 372] than before it had been made a source of revenue; "for the duty taken off it when exported from great britain was greater than that to be paid for it on its importation into the colonies. confident of success in finding a market for their tea, thus reduced in its price, and also of collecting a duty on its importation and sale in the colonies, the east india company freighted several ships with teas for the different colonies, and appointed agents (or consignees) for its disposal." this measure united both the english and american merchants in opposition to it upon selfish grounds of interest, and the colonists generally upon patriotic grounds. "the merchants in england were alarmed at the losses that must come to themselves from the exportations of the east india company, and from the sales going through the hands of consignees. letters were written to colonial patriots, urging their opposition to the project. the (american merchants) smugglers, who were both numerous and powerful, could not relish a scheme which, by underselling them and taking a profitable branch of business out of their hands, threatened a diminution of their gains. the colonists were too suspicious of the designs of great britain to be imposed upon.

"the cry of endangered liberty once more excited an alarm from new hampshire to georgia. the first opposition to the execution of the scheme adopted by the east india company began with the american merchants. they saw a profitable branch of their trade likely to be lost, and the benefits of it transferred to a company in great britain. they felt for the wound that would be inflicted on their country's claim of exemption from parliamentary taxation; but they felt, with equal sensibility, for the losses they would sustain by the diversion of the streams of commerce into unusual channels. though the opposition originated in the selfishness of the merchants, it did not end there. the great body of the people, from principles of the purest patriotism, were brought over to second their wishes. they considered the whole scheme as calculated to seduce them into an acquiescence with the views of parliament for raising an american revenue. much pains were taken to enlighten the colonists on this subject, and to convince them of the eminent hazard to which their liberties were exposed.

[pg 373]

"the provincial patriots insisted largely on the persevering determination of the parent state to establish her claim of taxation by compelling the sale of tea in the colonies against the solemn resolutions and declared sense of the inhabitants, and that at a time when the commercial intercourse of the two countries was renewed, and their ancient harmony fast returning. the proposed vendors of the tea were represented as revenue officers, employed in the collection of an unconstitutional tax imposed by great britain. the colonists contended that, as the duty and the price of the commodity were inseparably blended, if the tea were sold every purchaser would pay a tax imposed by the british parliament as part of the purchase money."[317]

footnotes:

[316] colonial history, vol. i. chap. iii., pp. 364, 365.

several american historians have sought to represent the soldiers as the first aggressors and offenders in this affair. the verdict of the jury refutes such representations. the accuracy of dr. ramsay's statements given above cannot be fairly questioned; he was a member of south carolina legislature, an officer in the revolutionary army during the whole war, and a personal friend of washington. mr. hildreth says: "a weekly paper, the 'journal of the times,' was filled with all sorts of stories, some true, but the greater part false or exaggerated, on purpose to keep up prejudice against the soldiers. a mob of men and boys, encouraged by the sympathy of the inhabitants, made a constant practice to insult and provoke them. the result to be expected soon followed. after numerous fights with straggling soldiers, a serious collision at length took place: a picket guard of eight men, provoked beyond endurance by words and blows, fired into a crowd, killed three persons and dangerously wounded five others." "the story of the 'boston massacre,' for so it was called, exaggerated into a ferocious and unprovoked assault by brutal soldiers on a defenceless people, produced everywhere intense excitement. the officer and soldiers of the picket guard were indicted and tried for murder. they were defended, however, by john adams and josiah quincy, two young lawyers, the most zealous among the popular leaders: and so clear a case was made in their behalf, that they were all acquitted except two, who were found guilty of manslaughter and slightly punished." (history of the united states, chap. xxix., pp. 554, 555, 556.)

dr. holmes states that "the soldiers were pressed upon, insulted by the populace, and dared to fire; one of them, who had received a blow, fired at the aggressors, and a single discharge from six others succeeded. three of the inhabitants were killed and five dangerously wounded. the town was instantly thrown into the greatest commotion. the drums beat to arms, and thousands of the inhabitants assembled in the adjacent streets. the next morning lieutenant-governor hutchinson summoned a council; and while the subject was in discussion, a message was received from the town, which had convened in full assembly, declaring it to be their unanimous opinion 'that nothing can rationally be expected to restore the peace of the town, and prevent blood and carnage, but the immediate removal of the troops.' on an agreement to this measure, the commotion subsided. captain preston, who commanded the party of soldiers, was committed with them to jail, and all were afterwards tried. the captain and six of the men were acquitted. two were brought in guilty of manslaughter. the result of the trial reflected great honour on john adams and josiah quincy, the counsel for the prisoners, and on the integrity of the jury." (annals, etc., vol. ii., pp. 166, 167.)

how much more honourable and reliable are these straightforward statements of those american historians of the times, and the verdict of even a boston jury, than the sophistical, elaborate, and reiterated efforts of mr. bancroft, in the 43rd and 44th chapters of his history, to implicate the soldiers as the provoking and guilty causes of the collision, and impugning the integrity of the counsel for the prosecution, the court, and the jury.

in the diary of j. adams, vol. ii., p. 229, are the following words:

"endeavours had been systematically pursued for many months by certain busy characters to excite quarrels, rencounters, and combats, single or compound, in the night, between the inhabitants of the lower class and the soldiers, and at all risks to enkindle an immortal hatred between them."—(quoted by mr. hildreth, vol. ii., p. 409, in a note.)

[317] ramsay's colonial history, vol. i., chap. iii., pp. 370-372.