of people which are the statesman's best logic. In 1757 he had been urged to propose a stamp tax for America by Halifax and had unquestioningly rejected it. From the first he had lamented Grenville's policy and in his last negotiation with the King had stipulated that it should be reversed. Probably he could then have given no reason for his hostility to the policy, save that, knowing the Americans as few other men in England, he was convinced they would not stand it. He was never hasty in formulating his principles: he looked round a question long, pondering and reading, and consulting those in whom he felt confidence. On this occasion he again consulted Pratt, he read what the Americans had to say, notably a well-argued pamphlet by Daniel Dulany of Maryland, and in his retreat at Bath established to his own satisfaction the principles underlying his instinctive judgment.3 6 Pitt's first principle was that Parliament had no right to impose direct taxation on those not represented there. No man had a higher conception of the authority of Parliament, but in the principle 'no taxation without representation' he found yet higher authority. Equally fundamental in his eyes was the right of Parliament to frame commercial regulations and impose duties binding throughout the Empire. In all the laws relating to trade and navigation,' he said in 1770, 'this is the mother-country, they are the children; they must obey and we prescribe.' These commercial regulations seemed to him indispensable for the union of a great people scattered over the globe. In war he aimed at exclusive possession of territory as an outlet for British commerce and justified his aim of driving the French and Spaniards from their settlements in Africa, America and the East and West Indies, and sub 1 See vol. i, p. 299. * Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes on the British Colonies (Annapolis, 1765). In one of his speeches of the 1766 session Pitt mentioned this pamphlet with approval, and in his great speeches of January 14, 1766, paid it the still higher compliment of reproducing much of its argument and some even of its language (see below, pp. 191, 197). 3 It is possible that Pitt's irritability and his unwillingness to offer advice to ministers during the last months of 1765 may have been partly due to the process of reflection he was then undergoing, before he had fully formulated his reasons for the faith that was in him. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TAXES 183 stituting Englishmen by the exclusive character of other nations' trade. In peace he was a rigid mercantilist with the sole view of developing trade within the Empire. This appears in his constant support of Beckford in the policy of favouring the English sugar colonies; it is also illustrated by his intervention in a debate of 1766. The Rockingham Ministry, inspired by Burke's more liberal ideas of trade, determined to remove some of the trammels of the Navigation Acts, whereby the colonists were prohibited from importing the goods of foreign countries; with this object they proposed to open free ports in Dominica and Jamaica for the admission of goods from the French West Indies. Among other advantages promised by the scheme was the encouragement of the cotton industry in Dominica by the free importation of the raw material from the French colonies. Pitt was alarmed by Beckford at the prospect of a free trade in sugar, and, although he welcomed the idea of promoting the manufac- April 24, ture of cotton, for that very reason he declared we should ourselves supply the first material, 'not render the basis of such a lucrative manufacture dependent on France or the first rupture. Nothing is so demonstrated,' he added, 'as that our British possessions will, with proper regulations, supply all the cotton wanted in twice nine months. I hope to hear this unsolid idea of a free port is quite rejected and exploded.' ... The two contradictory principles of 'no taxation without representation' and Parliament's inalienable right to impose commercial restrictions and duties on colonists not represented in Parliament were reconciled in Pitt's mind by the distinction he drew between direct taxation, levied on a whole community, and duties, which brought in a purely accidental revenue and were imposed 'for the accommodation of the subject.' In one of his speeches of 1775 he spoke of ' the metaphysical refinements, whereby the Americans were shown to be equally free from obedience to commercial restraints as from taxation for revenue, as futile, frivolous and groundless. Property,' 1 See in Chatham MSS. 19 a letter of Beckford of April 18, 1766, urging Pitt to attend on this question in the interests of the sugar colonies. 1766. Siguse it auf he added, 'is in its nature single as an atom.' 1 Economically Pitt's reasoning was faulty, for such a distinction between direct and indirect taxation is unsound. But politically, in the circumstances of his day, he was justified on the higher consideration of government by consent. The colonists felt no grievance in the regulations, which seemed indispensable say to Pitt for the union of the Empire's component parts: on the other hand they resented direct taxation by Parliament as an unpardonable invasion of their liberties. By lumping both together the Whigs, no less than Grenville and Bedford, risked both. As Franklin told the House of Commons, if internal taxes were enforced, on the ground that Parliament had the right to impose any tax, whether internal or external, the Americans might end by concluding that the two were indistinguishable and reject the authority of Parliament altogether. The Americans' hostility to Grenville's measures was soon made manifest. The mere news that they had been passed aroused all that passion for liberty and intolerance of oppression which had sent the first New England settlers across the Atlantic. The hand of tyranny was seen in attempts to fetter the independence of the judges, in the abolition of juries in revenue cases, and in stringent Billeting Acts. It was an added grievance that the new taxation came at a time when the colonists were suffering from the expense and losses of Pontiac's bloody revolt, which their own volunteer forces had done more to suppress than the more deliberate forces of the Crown. Soon the whole continent was aflame. The stamp officers were met on landing, had their stamps seized and confiscated, and were made to forswear their functions. Barristers would not plead or judges act in South Carolina, to avoid having to deal with stamped documents. Merchants agreed to order no more goods from England as long as the new customs regulations remained in force, and the people gave up the slaughter of lambs to ensure a supply of wool which, owing to this self-denying ordinance, they could no longer 1 This is quoted in Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution; but the date is wrongly given as December 20, 1775. Probably the speech referred to is that of January 20. AMERICA AROUSED BY THE STAMP ACT, 1765 185 obtain from the mother-country.1 Summonses to delegates for a common congress were issued and obeyed by many of the colonies, hitherto rent asunder by mutual jealousies. This congress passed resolutions demanding trial by jury in all cases, freedom from taxation except by vote of the assemblies, and an acknowledgment of their inherent rights and liberties: these resolutions they embodied in the form of a petition of right, which they sent to Parliament. The colonists adopted the title, Sons of Liberty,' given to them by Barré, and the cry, 'Pitt and Liberty for ever,' re-echoed through the land. For in their new affliction they all turned to the man who had saved them from the French and had already shown an understanding of them, such as they were little accustomed to expect from England. From the Ministry scant guidance was to be obtained. Few cabinets so weak and disunited have flitted across the stage of politics. The Duke of Cumberland created it and, while he lived, attended all Cabinet councils and was virtually its chief. Under his guidance the new ministers started on lines agreeable to Pitt: Pratt's peerage, under the title of Lord Camden, was one instance; negotiations for a treaty of alliance with Prussia were also inaugurated. But after Cumberland's death on October 31, 1765, they were left utterly at sea. Rockingham was a worthy and public-spirited man with higher ideals in politics than Newcastle ever dreamed of; but, though jealous of his position, he was no leader and was shy of his own voice. Conscious of this defect, he once apologised to the House for his silence, owning it was a natural infirmity proceeding from his high respect for their lordships' a strange excuse from the Prime Minister of England. Northington and Egmont, legacies from the preceding administration, were a hindrance rather than a help, Northington testily objecting to everything his colleagues proposed, while Egmont spent most of his time carrying messages 3. 1 See, for some of these details, Champigny, Supplément au Ministère de M. Pitt (Cologne, 1766). 2 See Minutes of Cabinet of July 22, 1765 (Add. MSS. 32968, f. 166). 3 Caldwell Papers, iii, 85. between the King and Lord Bute.1 The very existence of the Ministry depended on the King's Friends,' satellites of the Court, who had superseded Newcastle's docile majorities. The Prussian negotiation was soon dropped, and on other points the Ministry could hardly be said to have a policy. Their indecision was most marked in respect to America. Gage, commanding the troops there, and several of the provincial governors, alarmed at the disturbances, wrote home for instructions how to deal with the men they already called rebels. Conway, the Secretary of State, sent no answer until October 16, and then left his correspondents as wise as they were before, telling them to combine lenity with vigour, mercy with resolution, prudence with firmness, &c. Conway had opposed the Stamp Act, but Dartmouth at the Board of Trade was for enforcing it without compunction. On December 12 Rockingham, Conway, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Dowdeswell, and Dartmouth declared to a deputation of English merchants, who were already alarmed at the loss of the American trade, that the right to tax America would never be given up; a suspension of the present laws was the most they were to expect. Even on this they were not decided, and at a Cabinet meeting held on the eve of the session of January 17663 no American policy could be agreed upon, but a message was sent to Mr. Pitt at Bath to ask his advice and offer him a place in the Ministry. The messenger came at a bad moment to Pitt. He had already had overtures to join the Ministry; Grafton had expressed his willingness to give place to him at any time, and even Newcastle had declared that, if his presence was an obstacle, he would not remain, although it does not appear 1 This appears from the correspondence between the King and Egmont in the Egmont Papers (bundle labelled 'Early George III letters' 1765-6). The King kept this intrigue as secret as possible and warned Egmont not to let his chariot be seen too often at the palace door (George III to Egmont, January 7, 1766). 2 In July Pitt had told General Whitmore that he feared the Ministry were not sound on the Prussian alliance, and in December Newcastle lamented that it had been totally dropped.' (Add. MSS. 32968, f. 212; 32972, f. 126.) 3 This indecision is the more remarkable since there had already been a session of a few days in the middle of December. |