STATISTICS OF AMERICAN CITY COUNCILS. (Continued.) 1 The multiplication sign (X) indicates election by wards or districts, the first figure showing the number of members from each district (n indicating a variable number), and the second figure showing the number of districts. The plus sign (+) indicates election partly by districts and partly at large. The figure given first shows the number of members elected by wards; the second figure shows the number elected at large. A. L. indicates election at large, on a general ticket for the whole city without ward or district members. 1 Annual salary is given except where otherwise noted. No city council. A small property qualification is required of electors for the city council. 5 Members of two administrative boards act jointly as the city council. • Per meeting. ΤΗ THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT. HE passage of the Stamp Act by the British Parliament, on March 4, 1765, was but a part of the policy inaugurated by the Grenville ministry of raising a revenue from the colonies. This the prime minister, George Grenville, proposed to accomplish in three ways: first, by the renewal of old and the imposition. of new duties; secondly, by the prevention of smuggling, and the enforcement of the Acts of Trade, thus greatly increasing the customs dues; thirdly, by an internal tax on all legal and commercial papers. The revenue thus raised was to be used for the maintenance of a standing army in America, to protect the territory acquired in the war with France. This expense was felt to be more than the taxpayers of England, already heavily burdened, could bear. The first two of these measures were, in spite of a certain amount of grumbling by the colonists, successfully enforced, but the failure of the attempt to levy an internal colonial tax is well known. Indeed the Stamp Act had barely been put in force when it was repealed, for although the bill was passed in March, 1765, it did not take effect until November 1, and was repealed on March 20 of the following year. For this sudden change of policy four reasons may be given: first, the change of ministry; secondly, the influence in Parliament of several important men, as, for example, Pitt, Lord Camden, Burke, and Benjamin Franklin; thirdly, the resistance of the colonists to the act; and fourthly, the protests of the merchants and traders of England. I. The change of ministry. The fall of the Grenville ministry, which occurred in May, 1764, was by no means an unexpected event. Grenville had always been personally obnoxious to George III, who was continually intriguing with Pitt to form a new ministry. The king was also influenced against his minister by his Scotch favourite, Lord Bute, who had been disappointed in his expectation of finding in Grenville a convenient tool. But the immediate cause of Grenville's fall was his bungling of the Regency Bill in his attempt to prevent the princess dowager's becoming regent. This change of ministry had an important influence upon the repeal of the Stamp Act. With Grenville in power, the repeal might never have taken place, for later in Parliament he advocated the enforcement of the act even by arms. 1 The new ministry was composed largely of the "New Whigs," with the Marquis of Rockingham at its head, and General Conway as one of the secretaries of state. Although by no means brilliant or homogeneous, it certainly stood for broader ideas of personal liberty and for a more liberal trade policy. Grenville's administration had undoubtedly been characterized, as Walpole says, by "arbitrary measures," as for instance the famous General Warrants Bill. After his fall, the raising of a revenue was no longer the chief aim, nor did the Navigation Acts continue to be the "idol" of the ministers. A new spirit of conciliation is seen in the colonial despatches of Secretary Conway, in which the governors are advised to endeavour "by lenient and persuasive methods. . . to restore peace and tranquillity." But unfortunately, as Mr. Whatley wrote to Grenville, the ministers "are undetermined about the measures to be taken . . . if the tumult continues." They were, in fact, in a most difficult position. They hesitated to repeal the act, as the abandonment of a tax because of opposition to it would be a dangerous precedent, and the abandonment of this tax would seem a denial of a prerogative of Parliament the right to legislate for the colonies. On the other hand, they feared that its enforcement would mean the continuation of anarchy in America and great commercial and financial loss to England. Even when the disorders in America had convinced the ministry of the impossibility of an enforcement of the act, they were not unanimous. The question then arose: Shall the act be totally repealed or merely modified in its most objectionable points? The result of these conflicting considerations was an unfortunate hesitation. The Parliament did not assemble until December 17, and it separated for the Christmas recess without transacting any business, except issuing writs to fill up 2 1 Colonial Pamphlets, 1762-1765. 'Grenville Papers, iii, Ico |