« PreviousContinue »
repugnant to the laws of Great Britain or the laws of the American Parliament that an American Parliament be established for all the English colonies on the continent to consist of a Lord-Lieutenant, Barons (to be created for the purpose), not to exceed for the present more than twelve nor less than eight, from the principles of each colony a House of Commons not to exceed twelve nor less than eight from each colony to be elected by the house of representatives of each colony
that this American Parliament have supervision and government of the several colleges in North America, most of which have been the great nurseries of the late rebellion, instilling into the tender minds of youth principles unfavorable to monarchical government and favorable to republican and other doctrine incompatible with the British constitution."
But while the intelligent and conservative people were basing their opposition on an assertion of the constitution as a means of redress,-a constitution that the London Parliament was knawing and eating into by those rats of jurisprudence, the “fictions” of the English lawthe demagogues and liberals of the colonies were stirring up the lower classes with democratic intent, for separation from the empire, the plunder of the royalists and the institution of a republic. From the time of the earliest Puritan settlements there had been a strong democratic inclination among the lower orders of the population and the extreme Congregationalists. This feeling, reënforced by religious prejudice, was hostile to monarchical institutions--notwithstanding that the Bible favors monarchy and Heaven is represented as a Kingdom. In 1704 Chief-Justice Montperron of New York wrote to the Earl of Nottingham that: “The inhabitants of Rhode Island conduct their affairs as though they were not of the British dominions." About the same time Lord Cornbury wrote to the London Board of Trade that the people of Connecticut bore "a great hatred towards those who held allegiance to the sovereign."
It is true that there were many arguments used to promote this feeling of hostility. Not the least of these were the restrictions placed by the London Parliament since it had usurped royal functions in the colonies over
barter and sale, commercial contracts and colonial manufactures. But the London Parliament, representing the English trading classes alone, could not be expected to use the royal prerogative over the colonies but to restrict the actions of the American trading classes for the benefit of its own constituency. America was not the constituency of the London parliament, but was a fief of the Crown.
It is true that the Crown had a claim on all ship timber and on all mines of coal and ore, none of which might be taken without the sovereign's permission. But this permission was granted for the benefit of the people and withheld only from speculators and exploiters. The Crown in this matter acts but as trustee for the people's lands, and it would be better for Canada were this trusteeship not so much rat-eaten by legal fictions—for, by the delegation of authority to a parliamentary ministryresponsible not to the Crown-but to parliament-a corrupt party in power is continually robbing the real estate of the country-of the Crown-to enrich itself.
The slighting of colonial petitions by the London Parliament from 1763 to 1775, which petitions were for constitutional observance in the government of the empire, and the indifference manifested towards the people of the colonies by the partizans of the House of Hanover, raised a yet stronger feeling in the colonies against the home government.
The more southern colonies did not suffer directly as did those of the North by this action of the London Parliament, although their charters were threatened, but the Northern colonies, early attached to a Puritanical democracy, were studious to enflame resentment in the South, so the better to carry out the secret intent of revolution. These democrats in the North, anxious to "get rich quick" at some other person's expense, confused the position occupied by the honest and aristocratic who were attached to the constitution. Here was their method of procedure: "They proposed in the legislature (of Massachusetts) various schemes for bolstering up the depreciated currency
... One of these was a Land Bank, which was actually established. About 800 people, among whom was the father of Sam. Adams, were incor
porated with power to issue bills on security, chiefly of
“In 1749 the English Parliament voted that a large
estate, a man can by law mortgage it to others for twothirds its value, so that the mortgages have a legitimate security. But several people are allowed to join their estates into a company and sell stock "capitalized” to the extent of ten and sometimes a hundred, yea, and in the United States often to a thousand times their value; and in the course of time "put their company into the hands of a receiver," fail up, and retire (limited) worth several millions each, leaving their creditors with the “capitalized stock," not worth a dollar. That there should be a lawdecision that capitalized industries may be raised to but two-thirds of their actual value, like any other mortgaged estate, is evident-even if they are on a paying basis. And they are not on a paying basis until they monopolize the market by shutting out, through legislation, similar products. Then their per cent. payments are not due from their own industries but from the tribute of high prices wrung from the entire people by concurrence of a corrupt and purchased legislature. It was for the accomplishment of such things as these which the restraint of crown and aristocracy forbade in the colonies, that fostered the Revolutionary party.
"Hutchinson's hostility to a paper currency had fixed a deep gulf between him and the more democratic element among his neighbors. The chasm had been widened by his opposition in 1757 to the creation of Danvers as a separate township, principally because an increase of representatives would give the House (democratic) an undue influence in legislation."
"One of Hutchinson's first acts as chief-justice was destined to increase the alienation between him and the populace. He was called on to decide whether the Superior Court could issue lawfully writs of assistance to customs officers in their search for smuggled goods." "Hutchinson (himself) was opposed to any close scrutiny by the British government into the trade of the colonies, but he decided this question, moderately, wisely and loyally in the only way in which a judge sworn to interpret and obey the law could decide it.'
"Hutchinson wrote: "This trial (about writs of assistance) and my pernicious principles about the currency have taken away a great number of friends and the
House have not only reduced the allowance to the Superior Court, but have refused to make any allowance at all to me as chief-justice.
"Against the enforcement of the Sugar Acts (of the London Parliament), which would destroy the New England trade with the West Indies, he had protested publicly and privately. His letters to English correspondents pleaded against that policy and against the Stamp Act.”
“In spite of all this it was on Hutchinson that the worst violence of the Boston mob fell.”
"That mob was the most thoroughly organized rabble in the Colonies. It consisted largely of the seamen and artisans who lived along the water front. Their immediate leader was a shoemaker named Mackintosh, a coarse and reckless fellow. The men who directed him and his lieutenants were Sam. Adams, William Cooper and other leading spirits of the far-famed Caucus Club. This club was the local Tammany. John Adams yields us a few glimpses of its operations as its members sat smoking and drinking in Adjutant Thomas Dawes's garret, parcelling out the local offices as a sort of nominating convention, and inculcating a strict obedience to what we would now call 'the machine. To this compact body of workers, a background of respectability was furnished by the Merchants' Club, wherein men like Richard Dana, John Hancock (the smuggler), and James Otis, worked with Sam. Adams (the dishonest ex-tax collecter). These were the managers who were ultimately responsible for the destruction of Hutchinson's house. In that house were depositions against certain merchants of Boston who were accused of smuggling
and the records of the Admiralty Courts which had cognizance of such cases. Some of the usual leaders of the populace undoubtedly knew who had spread the false report that Hutchinson had favored the Stamp Act."
"On Monday evening (26 Aug., 1765) Mackintosh collected his gang about a bon-fire on State Street. They had liquor to drink, but desiring further inspirations, they broke into the cellars belonging to two royal officers and consumed all the liquors therein. Thus fortified, these 'Sons of Liberty' betook themselves to Hutchin