and France would involve the British and French Colonies in North America, the four New England Colonies, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, sent Commissioners to a Congress at Albany, N. Y., for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of peace with the Indians who, it was feared, might become allies of the French. This was done; and then the Congress formulated a scheme of a general government of all the British Colonies. But the scheme was rejected by the King of England and by every one of the Colonies.

After the close of the war (1764) England revived, amended, and instituted measures to enforce her old law of 1733 (levying duties on sugar and molasses) which New England shippers and traders had evaded, and which had never been strictly enforced, her avowed excuse being that these Colonies ought to contribute to the payment of her large war debt contracted in part for the defense of the Colonies against the French and their Indian allies.'

This created considerable excitement in Boston,2 which was the largest town in all the Colonies, and imported

"The following extract from Smith's Wealth of Nations (Vol. II, p. 66), the first edition of which was published in the winter of 1775-'76, will give us light on this as well as some other matters: "The expense of the civil establishment of Massachusetts Bay used to be about eighteen thousand pounds per year; that of New Hampshire and Rhode Island 3,500 pounds each; that of New Jersey 1,200 pounds; that of Virginia and South Carolina 8,000 pounds each. The civil establishments of Nova Scotia and Georgia are partly supported by an annual grant of Parliament. But Novia Scotia pays. besides, about seven thousand pounds a year towards the public expenses of the Colony; and Georgia about two thousand five hundred pounds. * * * The most important part of the expense of government, indeed, that of defense and protection, has constantly fallen upon the mother country."

"Of James Otis, the most active of Massachusetts patriots in de nouncing and agitating against this law, Alden's Cyclopedia says: "His opposition to the Royal Government developed 1761, and was

more molasses than all the other seaport towns on the continent; but outside of Massachusetts there was uo manifestation of serious discontent.

But when the Stamp Act was passed in 1765, imposing taxes which everybody could see and feel, there was a storm of opposition in all the Colonies, particularly in the towns on the seacoast.

Thereupon, at the urgent request of Massachusetts, delegates from all the Colonies except Canada, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia met in a Congress in New York in October, 1765. This Congress of nine Colonies adopted a declaration of rights, and sent an address to the King and a petition to the Parliament, asserting the right of all the Colonies to be "exempted from all taxes not imposed by their consent”—a very remarkable doctrine in the light of subsequent events.'

Societies were formed here and there to arouse the people of the several Colonies against the claims of the British Government, and the merchants of Boston, New York and Philadelphia agreed with each other not to buy any more goods from Great Britain until the Stamp Act should be repealed.2

claimed by some to have been greatly intensified, if not wholly caused, by the refusal of Governor Bernard to give his father (James Otis, Sr.), the position of Chief-Justice, for which he had applied on the death of Sewall."

'At least five of the States were taxed from 1824 to 1833 (as will be shown in another chapter), not only without their consent, but in spite of their protests; and eleven of them were taxed for seven years (from and including 1865) far more heavily than Great Britain ever proposed to tax them, not only without their consent, but without their being permitted to send Representatives to either House of the Congress; and among the burdens imposed on them was a Stamp Act."

2See Note A.

The Stamp Act was repealed the next year; but an act was passed imposing taxes on glass, paper, painters' colors, and tea, on their importation into the Colonies. It was approved by George III in June, 1767.

In February, 1768, the Colonial Legislature of Massachusetts sent a circular to the legislative bodies in the other Colonies, asking their cooperation in efforts to obtain a redress of grievances.' This circular was very offensive to the British Government, and a demand for its rescission was sent over; but Massachusetts refused to rescind, and even reaffirmed its doctrines in stronger language. Then ensued a contest between that Colony and the mother country, the latter sending over a body of troops to suppress the "rebels." The excitement increased; the presence of the British troops in Boston added to the causes of irritation, and both sides seemed willing to invite an open rupture. On the 5th of March, 1770, a quarrel arose between a military guard and a number of the townsfolk who, under the lead of Crispus Attucks, a negro, surrounded the guard and attacked it "with clubs, sticks and snow-balls covering stones. Being dared to fire by the mob, six of the soldiers discharged their muskets, which killed three of the crowd and wounded five others. The Captain and eight men were brought to trial for murder, John Adams and Josiah Quincy defending them. All were acquitted exThese

cept two, who were convicted of manslaughter.

1John Hancock, one of the wealthiest merchants and ship-owners in Boston, was one of those who evaded these taxes. His vessel, Liberty, was seized by the Royal Commissioners of Customs in 1768 for violations of the law; and the seizure was followed by a riot. The officers were beaten with clubs, the boat of the Collector was burnt in triumph, and the houses of some of the most conspicuous adherents of the Government were razed to the ground. From these events Hancock gained great popularity, and easily came to the front of Massachusetts patriots.

praying the benefit of clergy were branded with hot irons, and dismissed.'

66

But this Boston massacre" served the purpose of still further inflaming the passions of the people against the mother country.2

About the same time a conciliatory measure was passed by the Parliament repealing all the taxes imposed by the Act of 1767 except that on tea. But this was not conciliatory enough, and an act was passed in 1773 permitting the East India Company to carry their tea into the Colonies and undersell the smugglers of Dutch tea. All export taxes and other restrictions were removed except a duty of three pence per pound to be paid in the port of entry, which was considerably

3

'When Massachusetts invaders fired on and killed some of the people of Baltimore, April 19, 1861, they were not branded or even tried.

'It would be grossly unjust to the Irishmen and the children of Irishmen who dwelt in the Colonies, particularly those of the South, if we failed to recognize the part they played in uniting the Southern Colonies with New England, and in waging the war. It would be a pleasant task to search the records and gather up a list of the advocates of independence, at the head of which would stand the names of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Patrick Henry, Hugh Williamson, James Moore, Thomas Lynch, Edward Rutledge, and others; but we must forego that pleasure, and be satisfied with what may be considered competent evidence of Irish devotion to the cause of independence. Joseph Galloway, Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Assembly, at the beginning of the troubles, refused to join in measures of resistance, and in October, 1778, he left the States and went to England. There he was examined by a Com mittee of the House of Commons, and, when asked who composed the armies of the Continental establishment, he answered: "The names and places of their nativity being taken down, I can answer the question with precision. There were scarcely one-fourth natives of America—about one half Irish; the other fourth were English and Scotch."-Dillon's Historical Evidence on the Origin and Nature of the Government of the U. S. (New York, 1871), p. 56. (See also North Carolina Colonial Records, IX, 1,246.)

Nine-tenths of all the tea they imported was smuggled from Hol. land. See Montgomery's Amer. Hist. (Boston, 1894), p. 154.

below the taxes paid in the mother country. It was hoped that this measure would pacify the Colonies; but it was objected to not only in the Colonies, but by the tea merchants of England, who united with the smugglers in appealing to the patriotism of the Colonists to refuse to buy the cheap teas. The importation of this tea was resisted in the principal importing cities, notably in Boston, where the smugglers organized a band of "Mohawk Indians" and dumped into the sea about $100,000 worth of tea.'

In consequence of these and other violent proceedings the Parliament passed, in succession, during the next seven weeks, beginning with March 23, four acts, which were commented on as follows by Alexander Elmsly, one of North Carolina's agents in London, in a letter dated May 17, 1774: "By the first (Boston Port Bill the harbor of Boston is shut up till a compensation is made to their Indian Company for their tea, and till the inhabitants discover an inclination to submit to the revenue laws, after which the King, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, is empowered to suspend the effect of the act.

* * *

"The next act is for taking away the charter of the Massachusetts Bay; hereafter the Council are to be appointed by the King, as in the Southern Provinces,

'In a letter to the Earl of Dartmouth, dated New York, November 4, 1774, Josiah Martin, the Royal Governor of North Carolina, advises the repeal of the tea tax, and gives this among other reasons: "It will disappoint the views of the smugglers of Dutch tea who have made monstrous advantages of the opposition they have industriously excited and fomented on this subject, professing to aim by these means at the repeal of the Tax Act, which they certainly intended to produce a contrary effect, deprecating in their hearts that course above all things that must inevitably destroy their monopoly of that commodity and all its concomitant benefits."-North Carolina Colonial Records, IX, 1,085-86.

2See Note B.