nard's duplicity. The town of Boston repelled the allegation that they were held to their allegiance only by "terror and force of arms." In their representation to the king, which Barré presented, they entreated the removal of the troops, a communication of the charges against them, and an opportunity to make their defence. The council, too, calmly and unanimously proved their own undeviating respect for law, and set in a strong light Bernard's perpetual conspiracy for "the destruction of their constitution." All the colonies, one after another, matured agreements for passive resistance to parliamentary taxation. On the tenth of April, the general assembly of New York, at the motion of Philip Livingston, thanked the merchants of the city and colony for suspending trade with Great Britain. He would next have renewed the resolves, which had occasioned the dissolution of the last assembly; but he was himself ousted from the present one, for want of a residence within the manor for which he had been returned. Yet the system of non-importation was rigorously carried out. The merchants of Philadelphia unanimously adopted the agreement, which a few months before they had declined.

1769.

April.

At Mount Vernon, Washington tempered yet cheered and animated those around him. "Our lordly masters in Great Britain," said he, "will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom. Something should be done to maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors. No man should hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing. Yet arms should be the last resource. We have proved the inefficacy of addresses to the throne and remonstrances to parliament; how far their attention to our rights and privileges is to be awakened by starving their trade and manufactures, remains to be tried." And, counselling with his friend George Mason, he prepared a scheme to be offered at the coming session of the Virginia house of burgesses.

While the British ministry was palsied by indecision, Thomas Pownall urged "parliament at once, in advance of new difficulties, to repeal the act, end the controversy, and

give peace to the two countries." Trecothick seconded the motion, dwelling on commercial reasons. "We will not consent," replied Lord North, "to go into the question, on account of the combinations in America. To do so would be to furnish a fresh instance of haste, impatience, levity, and fickleness. I see nothing uncommercial in making the Americans pay a duty upon tea."

The Rockingham party were willing that the act should remain to embarrass the ministers. Conway proposed to defer its consideration to the next session. "I approve the middle course," said Beckford. "The duty upon tea, with a great army to collect it, has produced in the southern part of America only two hundred and ninety-four pounds, fourteen shillings; in the northern part, it has produced nothing." "For the sake of a paltry revenue," cried Lord Beauchamp, "we lose the affection of two millions of people." "We have trusted to terror too long," observed Jackson. "Washing my hands of the charge of severity," answered Lord North, "I will not vote for holding out hopes that may not be realized." "If you are ready to repeal this act," retorted Grenville, "why keep it in force for a single hour? You ought not to do so from anger or ill-humor. Why dally and delay in a business of such infinite importance? Why pretend that this is not the time, when the difficulty is every day increasing? If the act is wrong, or you cannot maintain it, give it up like men. If you do not mean to bind the colonies by your laws in cases of taxation, tell the Americans so fairly, and conciliate

1769. April.

their affections." Lord North put an end to the conversation, by moving the previous question for the order of the day. "The British administration will come to no decision," such was Du Châtelet's report to Choiseul," till the Americans consolidate their union, and form a general plan of resistance."

America was not alone in asserting the right of representation; the principle was at the same time violated in England. The freeholders of Middlesex elected Wilkes to represent their shire in parliament. The king wished him expelled; and the house of commons expelled him. The

people rallied to his support; the city of London made him one of its magistrates; by the unanimous vote of Middlesex, he was again returned. The house of commons voted the return to be null and void. "Supporters of the bill of rights" united to pay his debts and his election expenses. The third time his intended competitor proved too much of a craven to appear, and he was returned unanimously. Once more his election was annulled. At a fourth trial, he was opposed by Luttrell, but polled nearly three fourths of all the votes. The house of commons, this time, treated him as a person incapacitated to be a candidate, and admitted Luttrell. In disfranchising Wilkes by their own resolution, without authority of law, they violated the vital principle of representative government; by admitting Luttrell, they sequestered and usurped the elective franchise of Middlesex; and Wilkes, who, if he had been left to himself, would have fallen into insignificance, became the most conspicuous man in England. Yet the administration heard with alarm how widely passive resistance was extending. Besides, Chatham might reappear; and Grafton and Camden, in constant dread of his rebuke, insisted that some attempt should be made to conciliate the colonies.

May.

Accordingly, on the first day of May, just on the 1769. eve of the prorogation of parliament, the cabinet discussed the policy which it should definitively adopt. All agreed that the duties on the British manufactures of glass, paper, and painters' colors, were contrary to the true principles of commerce, and should be repealed: there remained of Charles Townshend's revenue act nothing but the duty on tea; and this, evaded by smuggling or by abstinence from its use, yielded in all America not fifteen hundred dollars, not three hundred pounds a year. Why should it be retained, at the cost of the affections of thirteen provinces and two millions of people? Grafton, the head of the treasury board, spoke first and earnestly for its repeal; Camden seconded him with equal vigor; Granby and Conway gave their voice and their vote on the same side; and Sir Edward Hawke, whom illness detained from the meeting, was of their opinion. Had not Grafton and Camden con

sented to remove Shelburne, the measure would have been carried, and American independence indefinitely postponed. But Rochford, with Gower and Weymouth, adhered to Hillsborough. The responsibility of deciding fell to Lord North. Of a merciful disposition and of rare intelligence, he was known to be at heart for the repeal of the tax on tea. The most questionable acts of his public career proceeded from "an amiable weakness, which followed him through life, the want of power to resist the influence of those he loved." It was the king who swayed him, contrary to his most earnest wish, and his intention at that very time, to give his deciding vote in the cabinet against the repeal.

Neither the Bedford party nor the king meant to give up the right to tax; and they clung to the duty on tea, as an evidence of lordly superiority. "We can grant nothing to the Americans," said Hillsborough, "except what they may ask with a halter round their necks." 66 They are a race of convicts," said the famous Samuel Johnson, "and ought to be thankful for any thing we allow them short of hanging." A circular was sent forthwith to all the colonies, promising, on the part of the ministry, to lay no more taxes on America for revenue, and to repeal those on paper, glass, and colors. It was pitiful in Camden to blame the paper as not couched in terms so conciliatory as those in the minute of the

1769. May.

cabinet, for the substance of the decision had been truly given. More honeyed words would have been useless hypocrisy. When Camden acquiesced in the removal of Shelburne, he gave his assent to his own humiliation.

On the day of the prorogation of parliament the legislature of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg. Great men were there; some who were among the greatest, Washington, Patrick Henry, and, for the first time, Jefferson. Botetourt, who opened the session in state, was in perfect harmony with the council; received from the house of burgesses a most dutiful address; and entertained fifty-two guests at his table on the first day, and as many more on the second. He took care to make "a judicious use the permission which he had received to negotiate an extended boundary with the Cherokees. Presiding in the

" of

highest court in Virginia, he concurred with the council in deciding that the grant of a writ of assistance to custom-house officers was not warranted by act of parliament. But the assembly did not forget its duty, and devised a measure which became the example for the continent.

Meeting the declaration of parliament by a direct negative of its own, it claimed the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants of Virginia. With equal unanimity, it asserted the lawfulness and expediency of a concert of the colonies in care for the violated rights of America. It laid bare the flagrant tyranny of applying to America the obsolete statute of Henry VIII., and it warned the king of "the dangers that would ensue," if any person in any part of America should be seized and carried beyond sea for trial. It consummated its work by communicating its resolutions to every legislature in America, and asking their concurrence. The resolves were concise, simple, and effective; so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest. The menace of arresting patriots lost its terrors; and Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union.

Is it asked who was the adviser of the measure? None can tell. Great things were done, and were done tranquilly and modestly, without a thought of the glory that was their due. Had the Ancient Dominion been silent, I will not say that Massachusetts might have faltered; but mutual trust would have been wanting. American freedom was more prepared by courageous counsel than by successful war. The assembly had but one mind, and their resolves were the act of Virginia. Had they been framed by the leaders in Massachusetts Bay themselves, "they could not have been better adapted to vindicate their past proceedings, and to encourage them to perseverance."

May.

The next morning, the assembly had just time to 1769. adopt an address to the king, when the governor summoned thern, and said: "I have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects; you have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly."

Upon this, the burgesses met together as patriots and