censures of this extreme clique; but in a short time he rose entirely above it, and the courage and justice of his conduct gained for him great consideration with his contemporaries, and have obtained for his name respect in history.

These violent proceedings at Boston received but moderate support and countenance in the other provinces. The associations which had been formed against importation had lost much of their influence, and intercourse with the mother country had, to a great extent, returned to its old channels. At home, proceedings were taken to encourage this feeling. Had the public men of that day followed their own impulses, matters might have been accommodated; but the blight of the court was on public life. There was no means of political advancement but by the king's personal favour, and opposition to his views was certain to prove a barrier to further political distinction. In place of the adoption of comprehensive measures, which would have been the death blow to further successful agitation, a temporising policy only was followed. The bill introduced, although paraded as a panacea for the troubles which suggested it, nevertheless contained a principle, powerful for mischief in the future; as a lever to reassert the exercise of a right, which the concessions, in an indirect way, professed to remove. This intention is traceable in the proceedings of parliament. Early in 1770, on the day when the brawlers of Boston were shot at the riot begun by themselves, lord North introduced the measure for the repeal of the duties of the several articles enumerated in the circular letter of Hillsborough of the preceding year, with the promise that they would be removed. North described Townshend's act as the cause of the dangerous, violent, and illegal combinations in America formed against the continued use of British manufactures. The act had been petitioned against; to tax articles of British produce was a violation of all sound policy. The duty upon tea alone remained. The tax was accompanied by the customs regulation, that a drawback of twenty-five per cent on the duty paid on teas imported into England, which amounted to one shilling in the pound, would

1770]

REPEAL OF TAXES.

317 be remitted upon teas exported to America, consequently the only tax to be collected was three pence per pound port duty, payable on the arrival of tea in America. Thus teas would be delivered in Boston nine-pence per pound cheaper than had hitherto been the case. North stated that he himself had been desirous of repealing the entire act, but this course could not have been taken without an abandonment of the parliamentary right of taxing the colonies; a claim he would maintain as long as life lasted. The repeal of the taxes enumerated in no way relaxed the authority of the mother country, and he trusted that the measure would act persuasively upon the colonists to lead them to return to their duty. He thought the combination against the use of British manufactures would pass away. Pownall, who had been governor of Massachusetts, moved that tea should be included in the list of articles freed from duty. He did not in any way enter into the question as to the imperial right of taxation, but advocated the concessions as wise and expedient. Conway and Barré

supported him.

The opportunity was one not to be lost by George Grenville. He reverted to the stamp act which he had imposed, on the theory that every portion of the British dominions should aid in sustaining the state. In pursuing this policy he had acted upon system. The ministry which had imposed the taxes in question had likewise acted on system, and by imposing them had restored matters to the condition in which they were, previous to the repeal of that act. He approved neither of the measure nor of the amendment, for neither extended the remedy which was desirable, and he should not vote on the question. Lord North's majority was sixty-two [204 to 142.]

The years 1770 and 1771 passed in America not without discontent and tumult, but in comparative quiet. It is not impossible that the resistance by the guard had its effect in establishing some sobriety of conduct. The memory of the "massacre," as the agitators continued to describe it, was kept vividly active and the anniversary of it observed with extrava

gant disregard of truth. Commerce somewhat revived, but the continuance of the duty upon tea was still urged by the republican party as a national wrong. The great and true cause of discontent was the repression of smuggling.

The restrictions with regard to commerce were undoubtedly severely felt. The colonists could only trade through England, and their manufactures were discouraged to the extent of prohibition. No wool could be profitably manufactured, for exportation was forbidden. Furnaces and iron mills were placed within limits, to make them of small account. Hats could not be sent from one to another colony. Sugar, molasses and rum could be obtained only from the British West India islands. The trade in these products with the French islands was of importance to the provinces of New England, for they sent lumber in exchange for them. There was much exacted, according to the commercial ethics of those times, which would now never be tolerated. The much talked of tyranny of Great Britain towards the colonies was the enforcement of the principle, as it was then understood, that trade should be kept within the limit, by which the mother country, and the provinces were to be mutually benefited, at the expense of foreign nations. That the theory is much modified, is not to say that at that time it did not exist. No accusation is more unfounded than that Great Britain desired to tyrannize over the provinces for the purpose of obtaining revenue; indeed the specification of the grievances endured itself establishes the injustice of the charge. Nevertheless, the two discreditable acts to which I have referred chargeable against parliament, the threatened resuscitation of the obsolete act of Henry VIII. and the Boston port act cannot be explained away. They were as weak as they were vindictive, and bear the impress of revenge, not of statesmanship.

During this period the laws against smuggling were vigorously carried into execution; the duty was entrusted to naval officers who, with the power they possessed, thought little of conciliating those they controlled. Rhode Island was a great sufferer by the observance of this policy, and there was general

1772]

ATTACK OF THE "GASPÉ."

319

dissatisfaction at the enforcement of the law. The "Gaspé," a revenue cutter with a small crew and eight guns, was on the station. United States writers complain of the conduct of the officer in command as unjust and arbitrary; but in the complaints made against him, he was sustained by the admiral as acting as the law prescribed. The probability is, that he was arrogant in his manners while actively carrying out his duty. There had been many altercations; and the chief-justice had pretended, that a naval officer could not act upon his commission without the authority of the governor.

It can easily be understood, that in a population with whom smuggling was a recognised calling, an officer of watchfulness and energy was looked upon as the embodiment of wrong. On the 9th of June, 1772, the "Gaspé," chasing a vessel supposed to be laden with a contraband cargo, ran aground in ascending the narrows of Narragansett bay, about five miles below Providence.* The news of the casualty was brought to the town by the vessel which escaped. The situation of the "Gaspé" was considered a favourable opportunity for revenge on the detested commander. Volunteers were called for by beat of drum for the destruction of the ship. About ten at night eight boats started, containing about two hundred men; the vessel was reached in the struggling light of morning. The party was challenged by the one sentry on duty. Duddington, the commander, hearing the clamour, went upon the deck, half-dressed. On asking who was approaching, he was answered that it was the sheriff come to arrest him, and at the same instant he was deliberately shot by one of the party. Duddington fell to the deck seriously wounded. The party now boarded the vessel. The men who were in, the berths were seized and bound. The wounded lieutenant and the seamen were carried ashore to a neighbouring house. The

I have been furnished with the following information by General Horatio Rogers, of the Supreme Court at Providence. "Gaspé Point is down Narragansett Bay, three miles south of the bounds of the city of Providence, six miles from the great bridge or centre of the city. We usually speak of Gaspé Point as being five miles from town. These distances are in an air line."

"Gaspé" was then burned. The party returned to Providence in broad daylight. Large rewards were offered for the detection of the perpetrators. They were all well known, but remained unmolested. It would have been death to any one to have appeared as a witness against them. Legally, they were unapproachable, and the drama terminated with the flames of the burned vessel. A board was appointed to examine into the matter, but no result was obtained.

Every act emanating from the home government was described by the republican party, as being fraught with mischief. Thus the attempt to make the judges independent of the vote of the assembly was strongly assailed. Fixed salaries were assigned to the judges, and to the attorney and solicitorgeneral out of the American revenue, by a grant from the crown. Of all measures it was one to command respect, for it was based on the principle of establishing the fair administration of justice; one of the most desirable features in civilized society. It was described as an attempt to pervert law and outrage justice: a new source of tyranny and corruption, now that the home government had failed to coerce the population by military force. The people were earnestly called upon to resist the innovation, which made the judges and the law officers, independent of the popular vote of the legislature.

On the 25th of October, a public meeting was held, when the governor was asked to summon the assembly: a request which he refused. Consequently, a new declaration of rights was issued, in which the authority of the imperial parliament, in any form to legislate for the colonies, was denied. The declaratory act of 1766 was affirmed to be a violation of all colonial rights; the new regulation concerning the payment of the judges was described, as the design to establish a complete system of slavery. The people were exhorted to rise up in their own defence, and with New England eloquence it was declared that the "iron hand of oppression was daily tearing the choicest fruit of the fair tree of liberty."

The assembly met in January, 1773, when Hutchinson, now