which were sold to the sugar-planters of the islands. The colonies depended upon the profits arising from this trade to pay for goods purchased from England. This law was not in keeping with the principle of the other Navigation Acts, and would have caused much hardship and consequent resentment in the colonies had any serious effort been made for its enforcement. It was, however, so generally ignored that from 1734 to 1755 it yielded an average annual revenue of only £259. Clearly the law did not seriously cripple the trade of the colonies. Besides the revenue from the Molasses Act, some small income was derived by England from other acts, but, as these taxes were imposed for the regulation of trade and not for the sake of revenue, the Americans raised no objection to the collection of them. Grenville stated that a total of only £2000 a year was secured from the American custom houses which cost £7000 a year to maintain. Restrictions on colonial There was no place in England's colonial system for American manufactures which competed with those of the mother country. The development of such industries was altogether inconsistent with the manufactures idea that colonies should provide markets for English goods. The growth of colonial manufactures was discouraged and restricted by Parliament. In 1699, the exportation of woolen cloth from one colony to another was forbidden, and prohibitive duties were imposed upon the importation of American cloth into England. In 1732, an act was passed to restrict the manufacture of hats, which was followed in 1750 by the famous Iron Act. This law is an excellent illustration of the economic policy of England's colonial system. In order to increase the supply of pig and bar iron for the English manufacturers, the production of those commodities in America was encouraged by the removal of the English import duties, while those on Swedish iron were retained. At the same time the colonial market for English steel was protected by the prohibition of the further extension of its manufacture in America. On the whole, the Americans made little protest against the various Navigation Acts except in the case of the Molasses Act of 1733. While the enforcement of them frequently led to irritation, the general principle of England's commercial system was not seriously challenged by the Americans prior to the year 1763. Moreover, several of the colonies secured positive advantages from certain parts of the system, which in some degree compensated them for the disadvantages of other parts. Virginia profited by her monopoly of the English tobacco market, South Carolina by the bounty on indigo, North Carolina by that on tar and pitch, Pennsylvania by the removal of duties on colonial pig and bar iron in England, New England by the encouragement to her shipping. It is a mistake to represent England's commercial system as it existed in 1763 as a cause of the American Revolution. Had no changes been made in that system, the colonies would have continued to acquiesce in the restraints upon their trade until in the course of years such restrictions would have been abolished in accordance with the more liberal views of later generations. The source of the unfortunate family quarrel between England and the colonies is not to be found in the Navigation Acts, but in the modification of those acts Grenville which began in the ministry of Grenville. ministry This ministry was supported by the Tories, the "King's Friends," and by the Whig followers of Bedford, who joined the ministry in September as President of the Council, and was opposed by Pitt, Temple, and the other Whig leaders. Many difficulties confronted the new ministry, but the most serious was that caused by the financial situation. During the war with France, the national debt had nearly doubled, and the expenses of the Government had vastly increased. The English people were in no mood to bear additional burdens, and Grenville turned his eyes to America. He found that the Navigation Acts were so commonly evaded that the revenue arising therefrom did not equal the cost of collecting it. The war had drawn attention to the whole subject of colonial administration. The enlargement of the empire made a readjustment of the trade laws necessary. Grenville determined to enforce the laws already passed and to pass new laws which would yield some revenue for colonial defense. He did not ask the colonies to aid in paying the national debt or to contribute to the general support of the empire. He believed, however, that as England alone maintained the fleet, the colonies ought at least to share in maintaining the army stationed in America. Sugar Act, or Revenue With this end in view, he secured the passage of the Sugar Act, or the Revenue Act of 1764. The preamble states that the revenue arising from the act was to be applied to the defense of the colonies. Import duties were laid in American ports on foreign sugar, indigo, coffee, wines, silks and other stuffs from Asia, and on foreign calicoes and linen brought from England. The list of enumerated commodities was enlarged. The Molasses Act of 1733 was continued, with the duty on molasses reduced from sixpence to threepence and with a prohibition of the importation of foreign rum. Bounties were given on colonial hemp and flax. In the adoption of this law Parliament embarked upon a new colonial policy. This was the first time that an act was passed with the avowed purpose of securing a revenue from the colonies. The Sugar Act, says Howard, "lies at the bottom of the Revolutionary contest." While the Sugar Act was still under consideration, Grenville announced that one year from that time he would introduce a bill for the collection of a stamp tax in America. He invited the colonies to suggest as a substitute any other tax which would be equally remunerative. As no other tax was suggested, Grenville introduced the faStamp Act mous Stamp Act in February, 1765, which was designed to create a revenue "towards further defraying the expenses of defending" the British colonies in America by requiring the use of stamps on certain documents. The admiralty courts were given jurisdiction over violations of the law. The bill excited little interest in the House of Commons, where it passed by a vote of 205 to 49. In the House of Lords there was no division. It is quite evident that no one in England was conscious of the importance of the act, which was perhaps the most fatal measure ever passed by the English Parliament. Even Franklin had no doubt that it would be enforced. In order to give time for the engraving of the stamps and the appointment of the necessary agents, it was not to go into effect until the first of the following November. American protests against the Stamp Act In America the news of the passage of the Stamp Act, and of a Quartering Act which required the colonies to furnish barracks and supplies for English troops, was received by the colonists with alarm and indignation as infringements on their rights and liberties. The Revenue Act of the previous year, although equally dangerous in principle, had not aroused much resistance, as the difference between that act and the previous Navigation Acts for the regulation of trade was not at first sight apparent. It created less alarm, perhaps, because the colonists were conscious of their ability to nullify it by the simple expedient of smuggling, an expedient with which they were quite familiar. The Stamp Act, however, was clearly another matter. It violated what they regarded as their inalienable right, that of giving and granting their own money. The first formal protest came from Virginia in the form of a set of resolutions drawn up by Patrick Henry and supported by him in an impassioned speech. He denied the right of Parliament to lay taxes in Virginia, and asserted that the people of that colony owed no obedience to any money bill not passed by their House of Burgesses. During the summer the more radical and disorderly elements of the population united in a secret society called the "Sons of Liberty," with the avowed object of compelling the stamp agents to resign. So successful were their measures of intimidation that, when the day came for the act to go into effect, there were no agents to receive the stamps, and the law was universally ignored. A more creditable and honorable protest was made by the Stamp Act Congress, consisting of delegates from nine colonies, which assembled in New York on the 7th of Octo ber. This congress adopted a petition to the king, one to Stamp Act the House of Lords, one to the Commons, and Congress a Declaration of Rights. In the Declaration, the members declared their loyalty to the king and their subordination to Parliament; but asserted that, as the colonies were not represented in the House of Commons, that body could not constitutionally impose taxes upon them. They protested against that provision of the Stamp Act and of several other acts which, by extending the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts, denied to them the right of trial by jury, “the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject." Meanwhile, the American merchants had agreed to buy no more English goods until the Stamp Act should be repealed. ministry When Grenville resigned, George turned with reluctance to the Whigs, and, in July, 1765, Rockingham came into Rockingham office, with Newcastle and Grafton, at the head of a ministry which was supported by the old Whig families. Pitt refused all offers to join the ministry, in the mistaken belief that it was secretly under the influence of Bute, the favorite of George III. This unwillingness of Pitt to unite actively with the reform element of the Whig Party was a great misfortune, for such a union at that time might have been strong enough to resist the baneful and corrupting influence of the king and to carry out a wise colonial policy. Lacking the support of Pitt, and actively opposed by Grenville and Bedford, the Rockingham ministry was a feeble one. Rockingham was a man of high character and good judgment, public-spirited and patriotic, but he had little ability as a leader and none as a speaker. His influence was due chiefly to his vast wealth and to the genius of his private secretary, Edmund Burke. When Parliament met in December, its attention was at once given to the subject of the disturbances in America. On the question of receiving the petition from the Stamp Act Congress, Edmund Burke made his maiden speech and thus began his long and brilliant career in Parliament. The agreements of |