160
American Antiquarian
Society.
[Oct.
THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
BY EDWARD CHANNING.
this general title I propose to describe the commercial policy of England, so far as it affected the English
North American Colonies before 1760. I select the date
1760 simply because it marks, somewhat roughly to be
sure, the ending of England's liberal colonial policy and the
beginning of that illiberal policy which finally resulted in
the American Eevolution. The causes of the Eevolution
can he found in England's policy before 1760. But the
germs were latent and might never have sprung into life
had ithe liberal policy of the century before 1760 been
maintained. In theory there was little or no change. The
chang'e really eonsisted in making the Navigation Laws a
reality and in forcing the colonies to bear their share of the
burdens necessarily incurred in carrying out an imperial
policy.
England's commercial policy had been protective for
centuries. Long before she possessed a eolony, even before
Cabot's voyage gave her a claim to land over the sea,
England's statesmen had protected to the best of their
abilitly the home industries of their country. As early as
the reign of Henry VII. the importation of many commodities was restricted to English ships navigated by English sailors. Later in Queen Elizabeth's time foreign vessels
were excluded from the English coastwise trade and fisheries The Tonnage and Poundage act of James I. included
the colonies under the usual desisrnation of "dominion s
thereof" within its scope. But the first settlers of the early
colonies were ordinarily exempted, by their charters, for a
term of years at least, from the operation of these laws.
UNDER
1889.]
The Navigation Laws.
.
161
Whether bound by these laws or not the first colonists
paid little or no attention to them. During the early years
of the Great Rebellion, the restrictions were totally disregarded and the colonial trade fell into the hands of the most
enterprising commercial people of the time, the Dutch. At
length in 1645, the Long Parliament turned its attention
to the colonies. In May of that year, " T h e Lords and
Commons assembled in the High Court of England taking
into consideration that nothing more enricheth this Kingdom
than commerce, whereby the navigation thereof is much
increased "1 ordained that "whale oil, gils, commonly
called whalebone, and fins " shall be imported into England
only in ships fitted out from England by linglish subjects,
under penalty of confiscation. This ordinance' was the beginning of the new period of England's commercial policy,
and deserves on this account to be called the First Navigation Act.
The new policy found favor with the Puritan masters of
England. In January, 1646, it was extended to the colonies generally, by an ordinance prefaced by the following
preamble: "Whereas the several plantations in Virginia,
Bermudas, Barbadoes and other places of America have
been much beneficial to this Kingdom by the increase of
navigation, and the customs arising from the commodities
of the growth of those plantations imported into this Kingdom " etc.^ The ordinance itself is in many respects singularly liberal. The colonists were treated by the English
Parliament almost as equals. The right to export English
goods free of duty for three years—security being given
to land goods so exported in the colonies—was oflered the
colonists. In exchange, however, the colony taking advantage of this oner must not sufler or permit any goods to be
placed on board any foreign vessel whatever within the
limits of the colony, and in case, the ordinance continues,
1 Seo]jell, Ordinances, utnlcrdato of May Ctb, 1645.
2 Scobell, Ordinances, Pt. I., 113.
162
American Antiquarian Society.
[Oct.
"any of the said Plantations shall offend herein, then the
Plantation so offending, shall be excluded from the benefits
of this ordinance, and shall pay custom as other merchants
do of France, Spain, Holland and other Foreign parts."
Three years later the importation of French wool, silk
and wine into England, Ireland and the "Dominions
thereof" was prohibited.' The triumph of the Puritans
and the establishment of the Commonwealth was not at all
relis!ied by the colonists of Virginia, Bermuda, and Antego
or Antigua. The Long Parliament declared these colonies
to be in a state of "rebellion" and prohibited all trade with
them, and to better carry out this policy, excluded all foreign ships from the colonial trade unless a license were first
proc'ired from the Council of State.^ This last enactment
would seem to show that the Ordinance of 1646 had not
worked well in practice. At all events the Ordinance of
1646: was neither continued nor confirmed.
In place of the policy of bribing the colonists to trade
with the motherland. Parliament now adopted a policy of
coercion pure and simple. In 1651, under the lead of the
younger Vane—once governor of Massachusetts Bay—the
Lon¿ Parliament passed an ordinance destined to be the
fonnclation of England's commercial policy till the American
Revolution. This ordinance^ is so important that I give
an abstract of its more important provisions. It is entitled :
" Goods from Foreign Parts by whom to be imported."
The object of the ordinance is stated to be the " increase of
shipping and the Encouragement of the Navigation of this
Nati¿n." The first section provides that no goods or commodities whatsoever " ofthe growth, production, or manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America, or of any part thereof * *
as well of the English Plantations as others" shall be
brought into England, Ireland or any other territories to
this Commonwealth belonging in any vessels but such as do
1 Scobcll, Ordinances, II., 86, under date of August, 16á9.
2Scdbell, Ordinances, under date of October, 1650.
3 Scobell, Ordinances, 1651, cap. 22.
1889.]
. The navigation Laws.
163
truly belong to the people of this Commonwealth or the
Plantations thereof " and whereof the master and mariners
are also for the most part of them of tho people of this
Commonwealth." The penalty for the non-observance of
this provision was confiscation of vessel .and goods. European goods could be imported into England, Ireland and
the territories thereto belonging only in English vessels or
vessels belonging to the country where such goods were
produced or usually shipped. Such goods must be so
brought from the places of production or usual shipment.
No salted fish or whale oil, gills and fins could be imported
except such as were caught in English ships, nor could
they be exported except in such vessels. The only notable
exceptions to the provisions of this act were Spanish and
Portuguese goods of colonial growth, which might be imported from any port of Spain and Portugal. This exception was necessary, as otherwise Englishmen must have
gone without Spanish and Portuguese colonial products, so
stringent were the colonial systems of those countries.
Foreigners were also shut out from the English coastin»trade.
The Restoration came in due season. It brought with it
no reversal of the Puritan commercial policy. On the con-'
trary the financiers of the Cavalier reaction strengthened
and extended the policy of their predecessors. One of the
very first acts of the Convention Parliament was one o-nmting certain duties on goods imported into or exported from
the Realm and " the Dominions thereunto belono-iuo- " to the
King for life, under the name of Tonnage and Poundao-e.i
The duties levied depended in some cases on the place of
importation, and alien importers were obliged to pay higher
duties than the subjects of the English crown. This^'discriminating duty was usually twelve pence in the pound.
But alien merchants often paid fifty per cent, and, in some
instances, even one hundred per cent, more duty than
112 Charles II., Chap. i.
15
164
American Antiquarian Society.
[Oct.
nati\ es. The best examples of this excessive discrimination
were Spanish wines upon which the native importer paid
thirty shillings per pipe while the alien paid forty-five ; and
broalicloth exported on which the native exporter paid three
shillings and four pence export duty, per length of twentyeight; feet weighing sixty-four pounds, while the alien exporter paid six shillings and eight pence export duty, or just
douole. These principal duties were mentioned in the act
itselJF. In addition everything brought into or taken out of
the Empire was taxed according to a tariff which was annexed
to the act. This was the " Book of Rates, signed by Harbottle Grimstone, Bart, Speaker of the House of Commons."
This'tariff occupies twenty-two pages in the great folio edition
of the Statutes of the Realm, and equals any production of
modern tariff makers in minuteness of detail and peculiarity
of duties. For example : " Babies or puppets for children"
were taxed on importation, per gross, seventeen shillings
and ten pence, while "baby's heads of earth imported" were
liable to a duty of fourteen shillings four pence per dozen ;
apples, called pippins, paid an import duty of four shillings
per barrel ; sea-holly roots imported were taxed one pound
sterling per hundred weight; rugs, whether of Polish or
Irisn make, were taxed at importation by the piece, one
pound six shillings and eight pence ; and pins were liable
to an import duty of two pounds and ten shillings the dozen
thousand. The export duty that most attracted my attention was a tax of five shillings per hundred vveight of one
hundred and eleven pounds on all maps, " sea carts," books
and pictures exported. At first I thought this was an export tax on paper levied indirectly ; but there is no duty laid
on r)aper not,printed except the ad valorem duty of twelve
pence on every twenty shillings' worth, levied on all goods
not mentioned in the act or in the Book of Rates.
The next step was to re-enact and extend the legislation
of tlie Long Parliament as to shipping. The first act on
the subject passed after the Restoration is the 12 Charles
1889.]
The Navigation Laws.
165
II., chap. 18, and is commonly referred to as the First
Navigation Act, though in reality it was the successor of
many Navigation Acts. The preamble states its object to
be " t h e increase of shipping and encouragement of the
Navigation of this nation, wherein under the good Providence and Protection of God, the wealth, safety and
strength of this Kingdom is so rnuch concerned." The first
section provides that no goods shall be imported into England from the Plantations but in English ships or in ships
built and owned in such Plantations—the master and threequarters of the crew to be English. Section 18 should be
read in connection with this. By it certain goods enumerated in the act itself, and herice called "enumerated
goods," must be brought direct to England, Ireland, Wales,
or Berwick-upon-Tweed, from the colonial shipping port.
These "enumerated goods" Were "sugars, tobacco, cottonwool, indigo and fustica, of the growth, production or
manufacture of any British Plantation in America, Asia
or Africa." The effect of these two sections of the act was
to confine the trade in colonial staples to England. The
colonies, however, were still at liberty to import European
goods direct from Europe subject, of course, to the duties
levied by the act of 12 Charles II., chap. 4. The second
section provided that no aliens should be merchants or
factors in the Plantations, and the sixth section closed
the coasting trade of the empire to foreigners. The sections numbered three, four and five were virtual repetitions
of the Ordinance of 1651, and confined the trade from
known places in Asia, Africa and America to English
vessels navigated by Englishmen, and, as in the ordinance,
European goods could be brought only in English vessels
or vessels of the producing country, and then only from the
usual places of shipment. Both these acts were confirmed'
by. the first regularly summoned parliament after, the
Eestoration.^
1 The confirming act is 13 Charles IX., Chap. 14.
166
American Antiquarian Society.
[Oct.
In the 12 Charles II., chap. 18, the phrases "English
built ships" and " English mariners " frequently occur. It
soon became necessary to define both these terms. This
was ¿lone by an explanatory act,' as follows : " No foreignbuilt ships—that is to say—not built in any of his Majesty's
Dominions of Asia, Africa or America * * * shall enjoy
the privilege of ships belonging to England or Ireland." As
to the crew, the statute continues " i t is to be understood
any of his Majesty's subjects of England, Ireland and his
Plantations are to be accounted English." This act therefore plainly and in so man}'' words admitted colonial ships
and colonists to the privileges and benefits of the Navigation Laws at that time in force. So far as my knowledge
of the statutes extends this act was never repealed, nor was
any other interpretation given to the words "English
builti" and " English subjects" in any subsequent act.
It should be noted, however, that the vessel in order to
come under the act must be actually built in England, Ireland', Wales, Berwick-on-Tweed, or the Plantations. English or colonial ownership alone was not sufficient. At the
time this distinction does not seem to have been clearly
understood by ship owners or customs officials. In fact, as
there were then no adequate registry laws, it must have been
difficult to enforce any such regulation. The supply of
Eng ish-built ships must have been entirely unequal to the
demmd for many years. At all events, for years not only
coloiial but foreign built vessels of English ownership were
employed in the trade of the English Empire. In 1685-6
this practice was given a death-blow by the levying a discriminating duty of five pounds per ton for each voyage to
England made by such English owned, foreign built ships.^
Such vessels seem to have been still tolerated in the colonial
and Irish trade.
From this rapid survey, I am inclined to think that, as
113 and 14 Cliiii-lcs IT., Chap. 11, ^^ IV.
lames Í I., Chap. 28.
1889.]
•
The Navigation Laws.
167
ñir as the colonial shipping interests were concerned, the
Navigation Laws, were a positive advantage.
Colonial
shipbuilders, colonial shipowners, colonial shipmasters and
colonial seamen were given a share in the monopoly of the
carrying trade of the English Empire. The demand for
English built vessels must have been enormous in the years
between 1660 and the close of the century. Colonial shipbuilders were placed in a singularly fortunate position. At
all events the shipping and shipbuilding interests of the
New England and Middle Colonies flourished greatly during this period and later, even to 1760. From time to
time the course of colonial trade was further restricted.
But colonial vessels and mariners were allowed to participate in that trade on a footing of equality with the vessels
and mariners of England.
The act of 12 Charles II. permitted direct trade between
Europe and colonial ports in English vessels except in
" enumerated goods." The profit of handling these goods
was given by the act to English brokers and mercíúints..
In 1663, the government decided to place the handling of the
whole colonial import trade in the hands of the merchants
of England also. One reason for this new restriction may
have been the impossibility of carrying out the Act of 12
Charles II. so long as foreign ships were allowed in the
colonies. The reasons given in the act itself well set forth
the commercial policy of the time, and are as follows ^ :—
"And in regard his Majesty's Plantations beyond the
seas are inhabited and peopled by his subjects of this his
Kingdom of England ; for the maintaining a greater correspondence and kindness between them, and keeping them
in a greater dependence upon it, and rendering them yet
more beneficial and advantageous unto it * * * * * * and
it being the usage of other nations to keep their Plantation
trade to themselves." The act is so important in the
Annals of the Colonial System that I give the principal
115 Charles ir.. Chap. 7, Section V.
168
American Antiquarian
Society.
[Oct.
ciarse in full : " Section VL No comniodity of the growth,
production or manuñicture of Europe shall be imported
into any plantation belonging to his Majesty (Tangiers
only excepted) but what shall be bonafide and without
fraud, laden and shipped in England, Wales, or the town
of Berwick-upon-Tweed in English built shipping, whereof
the master and three-quarters of the crew are English, and'
whish shall be carried directly thence to said plantations."
There were, however, some .exceptions. For instance.
salt for the. fisheries of New England and Newfoundland
might be imported directly from European ports to those
colonies in English vessels. This privilege was extended to
Pennsylvania in 1727' and still later, in the next reign, to
New York ^ on the ground that New York had at one time
been a part of New England. Another exception was wine
produced in Madeira or the Western Islands, which might
be brought direct from those places in English built vessels.
The last exceptions mentioned in the act itself were serv.ants, horses and provisions " of the growth or production "
of Scotland or Ireland, which might be imported direct from
those countries in English built ships navigated according
to law. In addition, small quantities of lemons seem to
have been passed by the customs officials under the title of
ship's stores. But I have found no authorization of this
exception. Of course in all this the.term " English built"
and English subject must be interpreted according to the
act of 13 and 14 Charles II., so this act, sometimes spoken
of as the Second Navigation Act, hardly affected the ship• ping interests of the colonies.''
1 À GÓO. I., Chap. 5.
23 Geo. II., Chap. 12.
3 See, however, Lindsay, Merchant Shipping, II., 1S4, where ¡11 spealdng of the
15 dharles II., Chap. 7, the author makes the following statement: " The iinequivoeal object of this clause was to secure to England, without, however, considering the interests of lier colonists, the whole carrying trade of the world,
Europe alone excepted." It will be noticed Uiat the phrase used in the 15
Charles II., is " English built shipping" manned by an " English " crew. The
word "English"'iu each case tneluded the eolouist. In faet, English writers
of the modern economical school in endeavoring to throw odium on the commercial system of their fathers seem to have often overlooked important
statutes.
1889.]
•
The Navigation Laws.
169
According to this act European goods could not be imported by. way of Ireland. In' 1607, the direct importation
of " enumerated goods " to Ireland from the colonies was
stopped.' The trade in non-enumerated goods was still
permitted. But the customs officials do not seem to have
observed the distinction, as in 1731 it became necessary to
pass an act^ declaring in so many words that goods not
enumerated in any act of Parliament might be carried
direöt to Ireland from the colonies in English built vessels.
Ireland and Scotland were now on a footing of commercial
equality and so remained till the union of Scotland with
England in 1707. From that time Scottish merchants and
shipowners participated with English merchants in all the
benefits of the English imperial policy.
The Colonists seem to have paid little or no regard to
these various acts. Colonial vessels seem to have sailed to
whatever port seemed best to the owner or master, and there
was no way by which a vessel could be traced from port to
port. In 1682, an attempt was made to remedy this, and
colonial governors, who often acted as customs agents,
were required by law ^ to send lists of all vessels loading
enumerated goods in their colonies to the proper officials in
England. If such vessels did not appear at an English
port and there unload the " enumerated goods" specified in
the'list such vessel should be confiscated upon her first reappearance within the jurisdiction of the imperial authorities. There was, however, nothing to prevent the sale of a
vessel in a foreign port, or a change of name between ports,
and it seems to have been impossible even to procure the
names of vessels loading enumerated goods in the Colonies.
To secure this last object, duties were laid'' on all "enu122 iiiicl 23 Cluu-lcs II., Cliap. 20, Sections X. and XE.
2 4Gooi-geII., Chap. 15.
8 22 ami 23 Charlos II., Caap. 20, Section XII.
.
^
•* 25 Charles II., Chap. 7. Among these duties was one of five shillings per
hundred weight on white sugar, of one shilling and six pence per hundred
vveight on brown sugar, and of one penny per pound on tohacco.
170
American Antiquarian Society.
[Oct.
merited goods" laden in the colonies, to be collected at the
time of shipment by collectors appointed by and responsible
to the Commissioners of Customs acting under the authority
of tihe Lord Treasurer of England. Money arising under
this act should be paid into the Exchequer of England.
Vessels loading enumerated goods should give bonds to
land the same in England. Under this act custom houses
were established in some of the colonies, and collectors
appointed. But the Eevolution of 1688 prevented the immediate carrying out of this stricter policy.
This will be the most convenient place to consider the
regulation of the tobacco trade, as the system was practically
completed at the accession of AVilliam and Mary. From
the earliest time tobacco was a favorite subject of regulation, but the tobacco laws as they existed in 1760 date
back, like the shipping laws, only to the Commonwealth.
In 1652 Parliament by ordinance ^ prohibited the planting
tobacco in England under penalty of twenty shillings for
each pole planted contrary to the ordinance. The extraordinary power was given to "any person" of destroying
tobacco growing in private gardens. This seems to have
produced much hardship, and the next year it was provided
that " planters of tobacco may enjoy the tobacco planted
by them this year."^ The law appears to have been observed after this, and in 1656, duties were laid of one shilling per pound on all tobacco not of English Plantation
growth imported into England, while the duty on such
English-grown tobacco was only one penny per pound.
By Ithe act of 12 Charles II., Chap. 18, tobacco was enumerated ; or in other words, the profits of handling the eontinental trade in Virginia and Maryland tobacco were secured
to English brokers and merchants. In the same year the
planting tobacco in England was forbidden ^ and a duty
Scobell, Ordinances, April, 1652.
2 ècobell, Ordinances, 3d Sept., 1053.
3
:2Cliarles II., Chap. 3á.
1889.]
•
The Navigation Laios.
171
laid on all tobacco imported into England, Ireland and the
Dominions of ten shillings per pound, if of Spanish or
other foreign growth, and one shilling eight pence per
pound on all tobacco grown in the English Plantations.
These duties were to be paid at time of importation. But
over and above the latter duty a tax of one penny per pound
must be paid on all English plantation grown tobacco nine
months after importation with a drawback, if exported
within twelve months of the original importation. With
such high duties on tobacco imported it proved difficult to
carry out the prohibition of tobacco-growing in England
under the moderate penalty of forty shillings imposed in the
act of 12 Charles II., and in 1663, this penalty was increased to ten pounds.^ But even this did not secure the
desired end of making all tobacco pay a duty to the King,
and in 1670, a still more stringent act- was passed providing that tobacco planted in England should be "utterly
destroyed " once each year by the constable and other public officers in each parish or other local division. Exceptions were made in all these later prohibitory acts in
favor of the " physick gardens" of the universities and
other private gardens for physic and chirurgery so long as
the quantity planted in any one garden was small.
These high duties levied under the Tonnage and Poundage Act of Charles II., coupled with the commissions and
fees paid to brokers and warehousemen increased the cost
of Virginia tobacco to the Frenchman or German and made,
illegal exportation of tobacco from the colonies enormously
profitable. Of course it is impossible to speak exactly .on
such a subject ; but the amount of evasion of the navigation
and customs laws was sufficiently great to require the remedy of an Act of Parliament, and in 1672, as has already
been mentioned, a tax of one penny per pound on every
pound of tobacco placed on shipboard in the Plantations
115 Charles II., Chap. 7.
2 22 & 23 Charles II., Chap. 26,
16
172
American Antiquarian Society.
[Oct.
was levied by Act of Parliament,^—the duty to be paid and
collected in the colony at the time of shipment b}' agents of
the Lord Treasurer, the net proceeds, if any, to be paid
into the English Exchequer. Soon after, Charles II. died
and the Tonnage and Poundage Bill expired by limitation.
The subject of the duties to be levied on tobacco imported
into England thus came before Parliament afresh ; and Parliancent sought to prevent the evasions of the tobacco laws
by greatly reducing the rate of taxation. Instead of ten
shillings per pound, foreign-grown tobacco was now taxed
only six pence per pound, while the duty on English Plantation tobacco was reduced to three pence per pound and
a drawback of the whole duty should be allowed if the
tobacco were re-exported within eighteen months. This
duty was made perpetual by the 9th Antie, Chap. 21.
Attempts to evade these regulations were discovered
from time to time and counteracting laws were passed. In
1715, for example, the " mischief of manufacturing leaves
and other things to resemble tobacco " required a statute ^
to l emedy it. Later, more effectual means of watching the
tobicco trafiSc were found necessary, and .the requisite legislation^ was passed. But notwithstanding all these regulations small quantities of. tobacco found their way from
Virginia to Continental Europe without being landed in
England.
t h e years immediately following the Revolution of 1688
were years of confusion in the governmental service in
England and the colonies. The Navigation and Customs
laws seem to have been openly disregarded in many colonies. By 1695, William and Mary were firmly seated on
the throne, and the English government turned its attention
to the colonies. The. Acts of Charles II. were explicit
enough in their statements of what could, and could not be
125 Charles II., Chap. 7.
2 ^George i.. Chap. 46.
3 24 George II., Chap. 41.
1889.]
The'Navigation Laws.
173
done, and the penalties provided in these statutes were adequate. But the machinery provided for carrying the laws
into effect was singularly inadequate. English-built vessels
owned for the most part by aliens were admitted to the carrying trade of the Empire, and there were no means of identifying a vessel or of determining her carrying capacity.
Under these circumstances it was lio doubt impossible to enforce the Navigation and Customs laws. New legislation was
necessary and was provided in the " A c t for preventing
frauds and regulating abuses in the Plantation trade " which
stands in the Statutes of the Eealm as the 7th and 8th William III., Chap. 22. This act is so important in its bearing on
colonial trade that it might well be called the Colonial Navigation Act. Section two is as follows : " No goods shall be
imported into or exported out of any Colony or. Plantation,
but in ships built in England, Ireland or the Colonies
(except prize ships) and wholly owned by the people
thereof" under penalty of contiscation of vessel and goods.
The other sections provided for the registration of all English-built ships, and for the responsibility of all customs
officials in the Colonies to the Commissioners of Customs
in England. The registration proved to be a matter of
considerable difficulty and Parliament \vas obliged to extend
the time.^ Indeed, it seems probable that the system of
registration was never in colonial times carefully observed,
vessels habitually being registered far below their actual
size. Still, if they were registered at all, the enforcement
of the navigation laws was made more easy and sure. All
further shipping laws were in the nature of detailed regulations, and this act of 7 and 8 William III. may be said to
have added the finishing touch to the colonial system so far
as shipping' was concerned.
The " enumerated goods " by the Statute of 12 Charles
II. were tobacco, sugar, cotton-wool, indigo, and "fustich"
of English Plantation growth or production. From time to
1 9th aud 10th William UI., Chap. 42.
174
American Antiquarian Society.
[Oct.
time as other colonial exports attracted attention they were
added to the list. Early in the eighteenth century, mines
of copper were discovered, and before long copper ore was
exported from the colonies to foreign European markets
" to the prejudice of this Kingdom." Copper ore was
therefore added to the list of enumerated goods.^ In
the same year, furs of colonial production were added to
the list of enumerated goods,^ and the duties on beaver
skins were reduced from six shillings and eight pence per
skin to two shillings six pence per skin ; and a drawback of
a moiety of the duty paid was to be allowed on all skins
re-exported.
Even before this time rice and molasses had become
important articles of colonial export and had been "enumerated."^ Carolina rice soon became well known in
Eurijpean markets and supplanted Italian and Egyptian rice
in tlie countries of northern Europe. But the cost of transhipment so increased the cost to the continental consumer
that Carolina rice could not be sold at a profit in Mediterranean ports. This was plainly against the interest of the
Carolina planters, who were very good customers of the
merchants and manufacturers of England! Early in the
reign of George II. the prohibition was partly removed and
Carolina rice Was allowed to be exported direct from the
Carolinas to European ports south of Cape Finisterre,"* and
a few years later, this permission was extended to rice
shipped in Georgia.^ Under this system, the production of
Carolina and Georgia rice was enormously stimulated. But
the amount exported from year to year cannot now be
stated, and only the general effect of the favorable legislation can be given.
mother class of colonial products encouraged by the
1 8 George I., Chap. 18, ^^22, continued by various acts
2 ^ George I., Chap. 15.
8 ;i and 4 Anne, Chap. 5.
4 3¡George If., Chap. 2S, continued to 1700.
0 S George II., Chap. 19, continued to 1700.
tollH.
1889.]
The Navigation Laws.
175
English government was naval stores. These were placed
among the enumerated commodities, and by the 3 and 4
Anne, Chap. 10, premiums on their production were provided as follows : On tar, per ton, £4 ; on pitch, per 20
hundred weight, £ 4 ; on rosin and turpentine, per 20 hundred weight, £3 : on hemp, water-rotted, per 20 cwt., £6 ;
and on masts, yards and bowsprits, per ton, girt measure/
£ 1 . These premiums were to be paid by the Commissioners of the Navy, who, for seventy days, had the right of
pre-emption. These premiums were subsequently altered
by the 2 George II., Chap. 35, in the case of tar being reduced to £2 4d. ; of pitch, reduced to £ 1 , and turpentine
to £1 10s. In 1771, the premium on hemp was raised to
£8. Suitable regulations to prevent foreign naval stores
being shipped as colonial and to secure a good standard
were adopted. It was also provided that if naval stores
were re-exported the premiums should be repaid. English
writers seem to be at variance as to the utility of these
measures. It is certain that the amount exported varied
greatly from year to year, and no general deductions can
be drawn.
The most successful attempt to encourage colonial productions by means of bounties was in the case of indigo. Indigo was enumerated by 12 Charles II., Chapter 7. But
no direct encouragement was given for its production till
the middle of the century. In 1748 a premium of 6d. per
pound on indigo imported according to law from the colonies was provided. In ten years, from 1747 to 1757, the
amount of indigo exported from Charleston increased from
200,000 lbs. to 754,000 lbs. In 1763, the act giving this
bounty was extended to 1770, the bounty to be reduced to
4d. per pound after 1763.
In other ways the colonies were benefited oftentimes by
regulations intended primarily to extend some English or
Irish manufacture. Let us take the case of linens, for example. By the Navigation Laws nothing could be exported
176
American Antiquarian Society.
. [Oct.
direct from Ireland to the colonies. But in 1704,^ this
policy was modified in favor of Irish linens, which henceforth, might be exported by any "native of England or
Ireland" in an " English built" ship to the colonies direct.
This was continued by 3 George I., Chap. 21, so long as
British linen should be imported into Ireland duty-free.
This last-named act also provided that Irish linens could be
exported duty-free through England. To meet this competition of the Irish linen, English linens were also freed from
export duties in the sa^me year.^
Another act^ of Queen Anne freed seamen engaged in
colonial commerce from imprisonment—though it was subsequently claimed by crown lawyers that this law was temporary and designed merely for the present war (Spanish
Su¿cession.) And still another a c f placed prize goods
imported into England from the colonies on the footing of
colonial merchandise.
In defiance of the ' Navigation Laws, an enormous and
thriving trade was developed between the northern English
colonies and the French, Dutch and Spanish West Indies.
It was some time before the complaints of the British West
India planters reached Parliament. But in 173fi an act was
passed in which by laying a prohibitory duty on the importation of foreign sugar and molasses,. Parliament hoped to
stimulate and benefit the English West India planters. By
this act,^ duties were levied on all rum, spirits, molasses,
syrup and sugar of non-English growth, imported into the
English Plantations. These duties were as follows : on
rum and spirits, nine pence per gallon ; on molasses and
syrup, six pence per gallon ; on sugar, five shillings per
huidred weight. Regulations providing for bonds, licenses
and certificates were contained in the act, and as year suc1 3 and 4 Anne, Chap. 8.
2 3 George I., Chap. 7.
8 0 Anne, Chap. 37, s^!).
4 10 Anne, Chap. 22.
Í 6 George II., Chap. 13.
1889.]
.
• The Navigation Laws.
Ill
ceeded year and the act was not enforced, new regulations
were devised ^ to prevent evasions of the law. The most
curious of these, perhaps, was an act requiring shipowners
to pay at least one-half of the seamen's wages after the return home of the ship." But all these regulations were
futile, and in 1760, foreign sugar and molasses on which no
duty had been paid foi'med one of the most important articles of New England's commerce.
The settlers of the northern and middle colonies turned
their attention to manufacturing at a very early day. But
it was not till well into the first quarter of the eighteenth
century that the pernicious effects of these industries on the
manufacturing interests of England attracted the attention of
the English government. The hat-makers of England were
the first to get their complaints acted on by the imperial
legislature. In the fifth year of the reign of George II. was
passed the act to restrain the exportation of hats out of the
British Plantations, which proved to be the beginning of much
legislation of a similar kind. The preamble is substantially
as follows : " Whereas the art and mystery of making hats
in Great Britain hath arrived to great perfection, and considerable quantities of hats manufactured in this Kingdom
have heretofore been exported to his Majesty's American
Plantations who have been wholly supplied with hats from
Great Britain ; and whereas great quantities of hats have
of late years been made, and the said manufacture is daily
increasing in the British American Plantation and is from
thence exported to foreign markets heretofore supplied
from Great Britain."- For the reason thus fritnkly stilted it
was enacted that for the future " n o hats or felts whatsoever, dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished," should be
conveyed from out of any British North American colony
to any " place whatsoever by any person or persons whatsoever." "^ Suitable penalties were provided and an effort
UOGeorgell., Chap. 23; 20. George II., Chap. 32; 29. George II., Chap. 26.
2 5 George I I . , Chap..22.
178
American Antiquarian
Society.
[Oct.
was made to prevent a great increase in the number of
cok nial hat-makers by confining the number of apprentices
any one hat-maker might employ to two. And furthermore,
no negro should be employed in the making of hats in the
colonies under penalty of five pounds sterling per month
for each negro so employed.
The next colonial industry to be regulated was the iron
and steel manufticture. But in this case Parliament adopted
a more liberal policy than was adopted in the case of hats.
The reason for this change of policy is plain. Cheap iron
was desired by English iron-masters then as now. But in
1750, no commercially successful method of smelting iron
with coal had been devised, and the supply of wood in
England for smelting purposes was limited. The importation of cheap unmanufactured iron of colonial production
was, therefore, to be encouraged, while the manufacture of
iron and steel goods in the colonies must not be tolerated
on any terms. In 1750, Parliament by statute carried
out to the letter this two-fold policy. The title of the act '
is il s follows: " A n Act to encourage the importation of
pig and bar iron from his Majesty's colonies in America ;
and to prevent the erection of any mill or other engine for
slitting or rolling iron ; or any plating forge to work with
a tilt-hammer; or any furnace for making steel in said
colonies." By this act, colonial pig iron might be imported
free into any port of the United Kingdom, and bar iron
might be so. imported into the port of London. But no
such colonial bar iron could be carried coastwise nor inland
more than ten miles from London unless the duty were
paid. Sufficient regulations were provided to prevent foreign iron being imported as colonial iron and, as stated in
the' preamble, all iron fiictories or mills except for making
bail iron were prohibited in the colonies.
A few modifications of the Navigation Laws remain to be
23 George II., Chap.'29.
1889.]
The Navigation Laws.
179
noted. In 1750 ^ silk of English plantation growth and
manufacture could be imported into the port of London
duty free. The preamble of the statute states this remission of duties is in the nature of a bounty. The actual
payment of bounties by authority of the imperial Parliament began in 1769.^ In 1748,» the export of tea from
London to the colonies was permitted without the payment
of the duties levied on sales of tea in England. Three
years later pot and pearl ashes of colonial production were
admitted free of all duties.'' In 1757, during the stress of
war, English ports were opened to colonial grain and provisions,^ and the exportation of such food supplies to foréio-n
countries was prohibited except as to rice, which miglt
still be carried to ports of Europe south of Cape Finisterre.
123 George II., Chap. 20.
2 9 George m . . Chap. 38.
3 21GeorgeII., Chap. 2i.
•* 24 George II., Chap. 51.
6 30GeorgeII., Chap. 9.
17
Copyright of Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society is the property of American Antiquarian Society
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
"Tyrant and Oppressor!"':
Colonial Press Reaction to the Quebec Act
By
Paul Langston
In September 1774, Guy Carleton, lieutenant governor of the
Quebec province, arrived in Quebec to make official the news that
would escalate the rising tensions experienced throughout the British
North American Colonies. Carleton was "received by the Lieutenant
Governor, and all the French clergy, at his landing, when he had the
honor to be kissed by the Bishop, and afterwards very genteelly
introduced Popery."^ The Quebec Act, while an attempt to appease the
dominant Roman Catholic religion in the province, resulted in an
increased opposition to the arbitrary nature of British government
throughout the North America colonies. Opposition toward the Crown
on this matter was expressed through colonial newspapers. This
emerging platform spread dissent among its colonial readership.' The
increased distribution of the press in the years preceding the American
War of Independence provided editors with a method to express
concern regarding the Quebec Act, legislation that many feared would
establish a more despotic government over North America.
' Connecticut Gazette, November 4, 1774.
^ Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Chronicle, November 8, 1774.
' By 1775, the Boston Gazette and the Massachusetts Spy alone possessed
2000 and 3500 subscribers respectively.
2
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
Historians have examined the impact ofthe colonial press upon the
mounting resistance to Britain following the Seven Years War. Arthur
M. Schlesinger stated, "Not until the rise of troubles with Britain did
the editor come to think of himself as a maker of opinion as well as a
transmitter of news and literary offerings. Yet he unwittingly did
something, however little, in that direction by the very act of deciding
what to put in or leave out of his paper, and once in a great while he
offered a terse comment of his own.'"* This surge of antagonism being
presented by the colonial press resulted in editors becoming players in
shaping public opinion.
With the enduring opposition in the
newspapers pertaining to the Tea Act and the Coercive Acts, the
Quebec Act provided these individuals another such opportunity.^
However, historians have rarely examined press opinion solely
concerning the Quebec Act. The more common practice is to
incorporate this bill into press opinion regarding the Coercive Acts of
1774 or inclusion into a larger overarching presentation.^ Absent are
examinations of the colonial newspapers' response to the Quebec Act
and an assessment of the messages being expressed by these colonial
presses regarding this legislation. Such an approach is necessary given
that the Quebec Act was not a punitive measure, as the Coercive Acts
were upon Boston; therefore, the bill could be perceived as an
expression of Britain's constitutional intentions in North America.
" Arthur M. Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on
Britain, 1764-1776 {QosXow. Northeastern University Press, 1980), 61.
' Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution: 1763-1783
(Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1941), xiii-xvi;
Schlesinger, 3. Isaiah Thomas, ed. Marcus A. McCorison, The History of
Printing in America:
With a Biography of Printers & an Account of
Newspapers Q^ew York: Weathervane Books, 1970), 18-20.
'' Davidson, 123,126; Lawrence Henry Gipson, The Coming of the
Revolution. 1763-1775 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962), 226-227;
Dirk Hoerder, Crowd Action in Revolutionary Massachusetts:
1765-1780
(New York: Academic Press, 1977), 277;Edmund S. Morgan, The Birth of
the Republic: 1763-89 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 59;
Schlesinger, 11, 199; Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History
(New York: Modem Library Edition, 2002), 22-23.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
3
An examination of press opinion concerning the Quebec Act
provides significant insight into the motives of colonial editors,
illustrating that colonial newspapers used the Quebec Act as a
metaphor for the continuing loss of liberty within Britain's North
American colonies.' In printing anti-government writings, these editors
and their allies and sponsors sought to establish opposition to the
Crown and Parliament. The enactment of the Coercive Acts earlier in
1774 and the enforcement of perceived tyrannical laws in Quebec
confirmed, according to colonial papers, that colonists' liberties were
being systematically eliminated.* Such an interpretation alters the
notion that the colonies possessed resentment toward the once French
colony of Quebec, when in fact empathy was demonstrated for the
fellow British colony. Consequently, editors used the Quebec Act as a
catalyst against the use of arbitrary power that would deny the colonies
their existing liberties.
When discussing the term "liberty" during the colonial era, one
must recognize the evolution of its meaning over time and examine the
interpretation of this word as perceived by eighteenth century society.'
John Phillip Reid stated, "In the meaning of liberty during the age of
the American Revolution the equation was plural, not singular. Liberty
meant that individuals had rights, true enough, but so did society."'"
' While acknowledging that colonial newspapers fail to fully express the
thoughts and beliefs of colonial society, one must assume that few would
remain in business long if they constantly opposed public opinion.
Therefore, one can extrapolate that colonial newspapers not only expressed
the bias of the editor, but represented a segment of the colonial population.
^ The Coercive Acts were passed in May 1774 and included the Boston Port
Act, the Government Act, the Better Administration of Justice in
Massachusetts Bay, and the Quartering Act. The Quebec Act, passed a
month later, did not directly affect Boston.
' The contemporary definition of liberty is interpreted by some as the right of
representation or individual privacy of American citizens.
'" John Phillip Reid, The Concept of Liberty in the Age of the American
Revolution (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 2.
4
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
Colonial subjects feared that the use of arbitrary power by the British
government would deny colonists these rights:"
Americans as well as some sympathetic British
understood liberty primarily in terms of their desire to
secure freedom against arbitrary governmental
power....It was not the arbitrary power of privileged
individuals....Nor was it class legislation duly
enacted....Rather, what was feared in the eighteenth
century was the power of government acting without
restraint. To be subject to arbitrary governmental
power was to live without liberty.'^
Fearing virtual enslavement in light of recent British legislation in
Massachusetts, indignation against the Quebec Act arose.
The Quebec Act passed into law, with only minor protests and
revisions by the House of Lords, on June 22, 1774. The bill
restructured the military government that had been present in Quebec
since British acquisition in 1763.'^ The Crown asserted its authority to
appoint and remove the governor, the governing council, and judges
within the Quebec province. The Act assigned all civil cases to the
former French system of law in Quebec, including the removal of trialby-jury; criminal cases were retained under British law. Roman
Catholics within the province were emancipated and the oath of office,
that had denied the spiritual authority of the Pope, was removed.'"* The
territory of Quebec was expanded to include "the vast territory
extending from the western boundary of Pennsylvania west to the
Mississippi River and from the Ohio River north to the Hudson Bay
Territory."'^ These territorial gains, previously considered Indian
" Ibid.
''Ibid., 109.
" Bernard KnoUenberg, Growth of the American Revolution:
(Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1975), 141.
1766-1775
'" Individuals professing the Roman Catholic faith were required to take a
new Oath, swearing loyalty to the Crown.
'^KnoUenberg, 144.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
5
Territory by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, were also claimed by the
colonies of Pennsylvania and Virginia, to be used for future settlement.
"The 'diabolical' measure included provisions for a Crown-appointed
legislature, direct taxation by Parliament and restrictions on trial by
jury — all of which violated cherished American principles and
supplied effective grist for the opinionmongers."'*
Upon the arrival of the bill on North American soil, an outcry in
the colonial press erupted.'^ Editors of northern colonial newspapers
were keen to respond to this evident employment of arbitrary power
which threatened colonial liberty. Well-known Whig editor Isaiah
Thomas, editor and publisher of the Massachusetts Spy and perhaps
one of the best-known printers in the colonies, expressed passionate
opposition to the arbitrary nature ofthe bill.'* In a reprinted letter, the
newspaper reads, "Of the acts of parliament, which the most abandoned
minister ever procured to be passed in this kingdom, that for the
govemment of Quebec is the most daring, arbitrary, and
unconstitutional. It is an act contradictory to his Majesty's coronation
oath; it is an act, repugnant to the rights, liberties, and religion of this
nation; and it is an act,....to, and subjective of the fundamental
principles of our free constitution.""
Benjamin Edes, editor and proprietor of the Boston Gazette, and
his partner, John Gill, both committed Whigs, also lashed out at the
British govemment concerning such despotic legislation.^" The paper
stated.
"* Schlesinger, 199.
'^ The Quebec Act arrived in late August in the coastal cities.
'^ It was Isaiah Thomas that later wrote in his newspaper regarding Paul
Revere and his famous ride. Clarence Brigham, History and Bibliography of
American Newspapers, 1690-1820 (American Antiquarian Society, 1947),
319-320; Schlesinger, 185; Thomas, x; Davidson, 229.
" Massachusetts Spy, September 8, 1774; Duplications of writings within
colonial newspapers were common at this time. Therefore, reference is
given to the first reading of cited statement.
•^° With the escalation in tensions. The Boston Gazette and Country Journal
"assumed a serious aspect....from the part its able writers took in the cause
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
It is a fundamental principle of the English
Constitution that whenever any territories are added
to....the dominion of the Crown, the people of such
territories shall enjoy the Laws and Liberties of
Englishmen.
The free Constitution of England
abhors all ideas of Slavery, and does not admit that
people inhabiting any part of its dominions should be
under Arbitrary Power, and be Slaves, instead of
Subjects, ofthe Crown.^'
Such open hostility to British power had a persuasive effect within
colonial society. Thomas, Edes, and Gill, referred to as the "old
faithfuls" for their Whig views in the New England area, clearly
refused to permit such a tyrannical bill to come to pass without the
masses leaming the truth.^^
One method to demonstrate this abuse of power was to illustrate
the despair of English subjects within the Quebec province. An
increasing number of English merchants and traders had moved
north into Quebec following the Seven Years War and with the
passage of the bill "agitation among the English-speaking merchants
increased."^^ The newly blossoming colony of Nova Scotia, with a
substantial British military presence, also expressed opposition
regarding this abuse of governmental power.^" New Englanders
following 1755 had largely resettled Nova Scotia and the strong
familial connection to its neighbor and the more southern colonies
resulted in transference of similar ideology, as well as constant
of liberty and their country; and it gained a very extensive circulation." See
Thomas, 135, 137; Brigham, 297-298; Davidson, 227.
^' Boston Gazette and Gountry Journal, September 12, 1774.
^^Schlesinger, 185.
" S. D. Clark, Movements of Political Protest in Ganada:
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959), 75, 77.
1640-1840
^"Nova Scotia, after the expulsion ofthe French Acadians in 1755, had been
largely resettled from persons originating in the New England colonies.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
7
communication across the Bay of Fundy.^' The reprinting of articles
expressing condemnation toward British policy and mutual support
between the different colonies was a common practice, increasingly
so between New England and Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia
Gazette and Weekly Chronicle, edited and printed by Anthony
Henry, printed a letter discussing an English settler's view of
Carleton.^* While the French flocked to make his acquaintance, he
was visited "very little by the beggarly English (as we hear he has
been pleased to call them) and who we may naturally conclude, are
in general incensed against him, — not only from his abuse of them,
but also on account of the detestable Quebec act, which is solely
ascribed to him, and said to have been framed under his direction.""
The Boston Evening Post, edited by Thomas Fleet Jr. and John Fleet,
took this stance a step further by presenting the French as opposing
the bill as well, stating that "most of the French farmers wish the
continuance of our liberties."^^
The Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Chronicle further
presented colonial opposition with a reprinting of a letter to the
Committee of Montreal, from Canadian farmers, stating,
We the Canadian Farmers and others, being greatly
alarmed at a late Act of Parliament which reestablishes the ancient laws of this country, the bad
^' In the years following the expulsion, an attempt was made by the British
government to resettle the colony with British subjects.
^* Anthony Henry served as a fifer in a British regiment until his release
from service in North America and upon arriving in Halifax, a province
without a printer, founded the Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Ghronicle.
See Thomas, 592-594.
" Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Ghronicle, November 8, 1774.
^^ Boston Evening-Post, January 9, 1775. Isaiah Thomas stated, regarding
Thomas Fleet Jr. and his brother John Fleet, "The impartiality with which
the paper was conducted, in those most critical times, the authenticity of its
news, and the judicious selections of its publishers, gained them great and
deserved reputation." See Brigham, 290-291; Thomas, 142-143; Davidson,
228.
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
effects of which we too severely felt during the French
government, and being entirely satisfied under the
English laws administered in this Province, beg leave
to acquaint the gentlemen of the Committee of
Montreal, that any legal steps they shall take for the
repeal of said Act will be approved by us, and we
sincerely hope and pray that they will use all means in
their power for the same....which we attribute to that
freedom which every one has enjoyed under the
English
^'
A second letter, within the same publication, continued this stance
and asserted that individuals in Quebec were "drawing up a petition
to his Majesty, against the Act of Parliament for regulating the
government of this province, and hope they will meet with
success."^" Not only did this influx of opposition from Quebec
allow colonial papers to display the revulsion of Canadians toward
the Quebec Act, through "the strengthening of the movement of
agitation in the old colonies during the winter of 1774-5, the efforts
of the English-speaking residents in Quebec....received important
support."^'
The ability to associate the exercise of arbitrary power by Crown
and Parliament against Quebec to that of the recent restrictions upon
Boston was a key factor in buttressing colonial resistance. While a
restructured version of the Quartering Act and the Boston Port Bill
were seen as a threat to Boston, the Administration of Justice Act and
the Massachusetts Government Act were seen as the greatest loss of
governmental liberty.'^ These bills "struck at the very roots of local
^'^ Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Chronicle, December 13, 1774.
'"Ibid.
'' Clark, 30.
'^ Both had been recently passed on May 20, 1774. The Administration of
Justice Act stated that British Officials could not be tried in provincial courts
for capital crimes. The Massachusetts Government Act limited the powers
of town meetings and stated that the majority of elective offices within the
colony would be appointed by the Crown and not popular elections.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
9
self-government long enjoyed in Massachusetts.""
This prior
legislation was the context of the colonial response to the Quebec Act.
The colonists feared "if Britain could alter a charter, as she had done in
the Government Act, and if she preferred colonial governments without
representative assemblies, as the Quebec Act implied, then the end of
responsible government seemed in sight."^^ While aspects of the
Coercive Acts were initially seen as punitive, the introduction of the
Quebec Act altered the interpretation of certain acts. Precedent set by
the removal of the Bostonians' liberties resulted in the assertion that the
Quebec Act was not punitive, but a continuation Britain's new
tyrannical system.
Indeed, the legislation enforced in Boston
harmonized closely with sections 8, 12 and 13 of the Quebec bill:
And be it further enacted by the Authority foresaid.
That all His Majesty's Canadian Subjects, within the
Province of Quebec... that in all Matters of
Controversy, relative to Property or Civil Rights,
Resort shall be had to the Laws of Canada....and all
Causes that shall hereafter be instituted in any of the
Courts of Justice, to be appointed ....by His
Majesty....And whereas it is at present inexpedient to
call an Assembly....That it shall and may be lawful for
His Majesty....to constitute and appoint a Council for
the Affairs of the Province of Quebec...and appoint
such and so many other Person or Persons as shall be
necessary to supply the Vacancy or Vacancies; which
Council, so appointed and nominated....shall have
Power and Authority to make Ordinances for the
Peace, Welfare, and good Government, of the said
" Knollenberg, 136.
" David Anunerman, In the Common Cause: American Response to the
Coercive Acts of 1774 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1974),
11.
10
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
Province, with
Govemor.^^
the
Consefit
of
His
Majesty's
In addition, all ordinances passed by the Quebec govemment
regarding the province or religion were also subject to "His Majesty's
Approbation" and could be vetoed by the Crown appointed governor.^*
The apparent rise of a more despotic French style of govemment was
portrayed as the "breaking [of] his coronation oath."" The colonial
press presented the re-emergence of arbitrary power to their readership
as a demonstration that Boston was not a unique situation due to the
effects of the Tea Party, but the beginning a govemmental plot to
arbitrarily remove all liberties from its colonial subjects. The BostonEvening Post contended, "The Boston and Quebec Bills are universally
cried out against, and the consequences are dreaded by many loyal and
quiet people."^^ Yet another editorial surmised, "If you submit to the
last arbitrary and tyrannical Acts of Parliament, relative to
Massachusetts-Bay and Quebec, there will not be a Set of more abject
Slaves under Heaven than the North Americans."^'
The First Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia from
September 5 to October 26, 1774, with delegates representing the
majority of North American colonies, immediately drafted the
"Address to the Inhabitants of Quebec." In this statement. Congress
expressed opposition to the removal of representation and rights within
the bill, seemingly a continuation of the legislation used against
" Pennsylvania Gazette, August 31, 1774; See also Hilda Neatby, The
Quebec Act: Protest and Policy (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall of
Canada, Ltd., 1972), 53.
" Boston Gazette and Gountry Journal, August 23, 1774. In his coronation
oath. King George III pledged to uphold the statutes, customs, and religion
of the British Empire.
^^ Boston Evening-Post, September 19, 1774.
^'^ Boston Evening-Post, December 26, 1774.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
11
Bostonians.'"' The address, reprinted in the Boston Gazette and Country
Journal, expressed alarm at the manner to which the British
govemment "so audaciously and cruelly abuse the royal authority, as to
withhold from you the fruition of the irrevocable rights, to which you
were thus justly entitled."'" Congress further argued that these rights
"form a considerable part of our mild system of govemment" and
defended "the poor from the rich, the weak from the powerful, the
industrious from the rapacious, the peaceable from the violent, the
tenants from the lords, and all from their superiors."''^ This reprinting
also exhibited Congress's opposition to further infringements upon the
rights of Quebec, fearing this govemmental trend.
The press presented the attempt by Congress to associate these
aggressions of the Crown with that of Bostonian oppression: "The
injuries of Boston have roused and associated every colony, from
Nova-Scotia to Georgia....That we should consider the violation of your
rights, by the act for altering the govemment of your province, as a
violation of our own, and that you should be invited to accede to our
confederation, which has no other objects than the perfect security of
the natural and civil rights of all the constituent members.""^ At the
request of the Continental Congress, and to enforce public discontent
against this action, the "Address to the Inhabitants of Quebec" was
projected across the colonies. Presenting the continuing encroachment
upon liberties to the public was crucial to the agenda of the nascent
govemment and the colonial editors. The end result was not only a
reprint of this address throughout colonial newspapers, but well over
two thousand copies of the address were printed by colonial papers, in
both English and French.'*" With an estimated readership of ten
"" Francis Dominic Cogliano, "No King, No Popery: Anti-popery and
Revolution in New England, 1745-1791" (Boston University: Dissertation,
1993), 130.
"" Boston Gazette and Gountry Journal, November 14, 1774.
"' Ibid.
" Ibid.
"'' Various individuals entered Quebec under the guise of merchants to
secretly circulate the address. Cogliano, 130-131.
12
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
individuals per newspaper purchased, the impact of the colonial press
upon American colonists was immense.
The Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Chronicle continued this
course by reprinting a petition to the Crown. The severe condemnation
of the bill was in view of the fact that trial-by-jury was "not admitted
by this bill in any civil cases, and the French law of Canada [was]
imposed on all the inhabitants of this extensive province, by which both
the persons and properties of very many of your Majesty's subjects
[were] rendered insecure and precarious."'*' The address continues to
assert that enacting said laws was "repugnant to your royal
proclamation of the 7"' of October, 1763" and stated resistance to the
fact that "your Majesty can....constitute courts of judicature and public
justice for the hearing and determining all cases, as well civil as
criminal, within the said province."'** The subsequent week revealed
the proceedings in the House of Commons as conveying a dismissive
attitude when discussing colonial liberties and the use of arbitrary
power:
The Solicitor General desired to know, if the
Canadians did not at first object to the Court of King's
Bench being established in Canada, and for what
reasons? He answered, on account of the exorbitant
fees paid to Counsellors and Attornies [sic]. [The
answer being so well pointed towards the author of the
question, the house was laughing for a full ten
minutes.] After he withdrew, Mr. Samuel Moretin
was called in, who likewise spoke greatly in favour of
the English laws being exercised in Canada; they both
mention, that the Canadians, as well as English,
resident there, highly approved of trials by jury, and
seemed to think that an annihilation of that right
(which the bill is meant to take away) would greatly
hurt the colony.'*'
'^^ Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Ghronicle, September 20, 1 774.
"" Ibid.
"Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Ghronicle, September 27, 1774.
Tyrant and Oppressor"
13
The presentation of apathy by the government, when addressing
colonial rights, was a noteworthy method in creating animosity
between the colonists and their British government.
This practice of reprinting letters and governmental manuscripts
from London newspapers was another method applied in presenting the
loss of Quebec's rights as a greater threat to all American colonies.
During this time period, colonial society still viewed itself as a segment
of the British Empire and the reprinting of letters and articles from
London newspapers articles were common. In America, the practice of
reprinting opposition from London, the center of the British Empire,
increased the credibility of the local press concerning the infringement
of rights upon Quebec, and the American colonies as a whole.
Writings from government officials and influential members of
society within London were a time-honored technique for presenting
opposition against legislation, such as the Quebec Act. A letter from
London, reprinted in the Pennsylvania by William and David Hall and
William Sellers, addressed the King and commented that the Quebec bill
was "so far fi^om being founded on the clearest principles of justice and
humanity" and questioned whether "your Majesty's unconquered
subjects of this nation are to tremble for their liberties....[and] your
Majesty's subjects in American are more oppressed than deluded. Let
tyranny cease.""*'
Thomas and Samuel Green, printers of the
Connecticut Gazette in New London and members of a family
renowned for being "firm and honest" Whigs, reprinted an address fi-om
Lord Hyde. Hyde's statement affirrhed that the Quebec Act "put the
whole people under arbitrary power.'"*' He assessed that the bill "was a
most cruel, oppressive, and odious measure, tearing up justice and every
good principle by the roots." His conclusion declared, "That by
abolishing the trial by jury.... the whole of the Bill appeared to him to be
"* Postscript to the Pennsylvania Gazette, September 16, 1774. The
Pennsylvania Gazette had been suspended numerous times over the past
decade for printings against British policy.
See Brigham, 933-934;
Schlesinger, 53; Thomas, 435-436.
"' Connecticut Gazette, November 4, 1774. Thomas and Samuel Green were
the sixth generation of American printers within their family. Schlesinger,
185;Thomas, 298, 301.
14
HistoricalJournal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
destructive of that liberty which ought to be the ground work of every
constitution."^'' A later edition of the Connecticut Gazette sustained
this attitude:
In England we have the show of Liberty without the
reality; the shadow without the substance.
Our
Parliament....[is] by insensible degrees leading the
nation into a state of slavery which is not discerned by
the bulk of people, who seldom look further than the
present time: But the more judicious look farther, and
can see that chains are forging for them, to be made
use of at a proper period. When they have obliged
you, Americans, to submit to the yoke prepared for
you, a much heavier will soon gall the necks of the
people here. By the Quebec bill now passed, it is easy
to be seen what government is aiming at; nothing less
than despotism. Upon the whole, there is reason to
believe, that if any liberty for Englishmen is to
remain, it must be in the North American Colonies,
where, I hope, the inhabitants will have virtue enough
to exert their utmost strength to secure it to
themselves.''
Such admonition from a British official, relating to the path of British
colonial policy, gave credence to the reservations and opposition printed
by the colonial press.
In another instance the Boston Gazette reprinted an address made
by members of government in London to the King, stating, "We beg
leave to observe, that the English law, and that wonderful effort of
human wisdom, the trial by jury, are not admitted by this bill in any civil
cases, and the French law of Canada is imposed on all the inhabitants of
this extensive province."^^ A Gentleman of distinction from London
agreed that "the English laws are expressly excluded, except in criminal
^° Connecticut Gazette, November 4, 1774.
'' Connecticut Gazette, January 27, 1775.
^^ Boston Gazette and CountryJournal, August 23, 1774.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
15
cases, and the Canadian and French laws are substituted in their stead;
the legislature is to consist of the Governor and Council of 17 to 23
members, all appointed during pleasure, and paid by the king."^^ The
verification that a segment of the British government opposed arbitrary
use of governmental power gave credence to the colonial press and
provided a basis for concern within its readership.
The reprinting of opposition from high-ranking British officials was
not the only means of showing that those in London acknowledged a
colonial loss of freedom. Immediately following the arrival of the
Quebec Act, the Pennsylvania Gazette proceeded to publish letters sent
from British subjects in London stating opposition to the bill. One such
letter, addressed to a man in Philadelphia, clearly supported action
against this latest infringement upon colonial society: "As to America....
such oppression must rouse the Stoic; you are by this time in possession
of the infamous Popery bill, for the colony of Quebec; if this don't rouse
the most lethargic man among you, I shall be amazed....think on this and
prepare."^'' Another letter from a London merchant emphasizing the
"discontent which the Canada Bill will give both here and there"
warned Bostonians that "politeness to General Gage will not save them
from the awful plot. Little do they think what mighty evils are soon to
follow, if they submit."" The Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly
Chronicle provided a letter from London stating, "As the spirit of
liberty, in some of our colonies, has given so much trouble to
Government, it was resolved to cherish the spirit of slavery in others:
the French laws and Popery being conducive to this end."
The Boston Gazette and Country Journal reprinted a letter from a
London merchant to a Boston subject discussing the continuing
violation of the colonial subjects. "Alarming as your treatment is
[Coercive Act enforcement in Boston], which gives great displeasure to
all true friends of liberty, the late bill for the government of Quebec is
more so, as there is no room left to wonder if in the next sessions of
Parliament an attempt is made to introduce the same laws and religion
" Ibid.
^'^Pennsylvania Gazette, October 28, 1774.
^^Pennsylvania Gazette, October 14, 1774.
16
Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Winter 2006
throughout the British Empire."^* Such expression from London
supported claims being presented by the colonial press that the
infringement of liberties in Quebec was a continuation of legislation
enacted against Boston and that without resistance, would continue
unopposed. Londoners continued to caution the government that "the
Quebec bill will alarm the Americans more generally than shutting up
the Boston port....I am no politician but a lover of liberty....and warm in
the sentiment for the American to preserve their valuable rights and
privileges."" One letter asked the question, "Are the inhabitants [of
Quebec] entitled to the liberties and privileges secured to Englishmen
by Magna Charta [sic]? They are not."^'
"Never was there given to a man a political engine of greater
power [newspapers]; and never, assuredly, did this engine before
operate upon so large a scale as in the eighteenth century."^' With the
increase in colonial newspapers and readership in the years preceding
the war, this "poor man's library" proved to be the most efficient
method of projecting the editors' message to the greater part of the
people.*" The six colonial newspapers examined above printed eightythree condemnations of the Quebec Act between August 1774 and
February 1775, with seventy-two directly denouncing the use of
arbitrary power by the British government.*' Colonial newspaper
editors identified the Quebec Act not as a punitive measure, as the
recently implemented Coercive Acts, but a continuation of an imperial
policy to arbitrarily strip the North American colonies of the granted
liberties. By presenting their readership with their interpretations
^^ Boston Gazette and Country Journal, October 17, 1774.
"Ibid.
^^ Boston Evening-Post, December 26, 1774,
''Thomas, 19.
^ Carol Sue Humphrey, "This Popular Engine ": New England Newspapers
during the American Revolution, 1775-J 789 (Newark:
University of
Delaware Press, 1992), 63, 74.
*' No research was performed beyond the end of February, 1775 due to the
absence of any reference to the Quebec Act during this month.
"Tyrant and Oppressor"
17
concerning the Quebec Act, these editors were able to shape the
growing opposition against the ever more present British government.
Today, various historians conclude that the British enactment of the
Quebec bill resulted in that colony refusing to revolt during the
American War of Independence. However, the Quebec Act proved to
be a greater tool for organizing resistance in the thirteen southern
colonies against an apparent arbitrary and tyrannical government; a
rallying cry used a year later in the march north to liberate the Quebec
province from Britain.
BARBARA J. MESSAMORE
'The line over which he must not pass':
Defining the Office of
Governor General, 1878
Canada's constitutional evolution and evolving autonomy within the
British empire can best be understood, it has been suggested, through a
study of changes in the powers of the governors general.' The fact that
the office has been little studied has contributed to a pervasive misunderstanding of that evolution. Many Canadians imagine that 1867 heralded
the achievement of autonomous nationhood and the assertion of greater
independence from Britain. The single most significant constitutional
milestone, the achievement of colonial self-government in 1848, does not
resonate with many Canadians. Perhaps this is because the decision by
the secretary of state for the colonies - that the governor should select his
executive council based on the composition of the legislative assembly,
and act on the advice of that council - was not enshrined in any statute,
but only established by convention. Lord Elgin's decision to give assent to
the controversial Rebellion Losses Bill the following year solidified that
convention.
Getting an accurate picture of how this constitutional evolution
progressed is made all the more diffictilt by the tendency of the formal,
written elements of the constitution to lag well behind established
conventions. The documentation defining the governor general's role his commission, or letters patent, and his instructions - bear little
resemblance to the actual workings of the office at any given time.
'Doubtless this is all very indefinite,' acknowledged Arthur Berriedale
Keith early in the last century, 'but it is in accord with the British love for
leaving matters of this kind to be regulated by practice.'^
1 John C. Ricker and John T. Saywell, How Are We Governed? (Toronto: Clarke & Irwin,
1961), 46.
2 Arthur Berriedale Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions (Oxford: Clarendon,
1928), 1:84. An excellent account of the role of convention in the Canadian constitution may be found in Andrew Heard, Canadian Constitutional Conventions: The
Marriage of Law and Politics (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991).
The Canadian Historical Review 86, 3, September 2005
® University of Toronto Press Incorporated
454 Thfi Canadian Historical Review
Confederation itself did not mark any dramatic change in how the
viceregal ofiice functioned. The incumbent was thenceforward officially
titled 'governor general' - a title that had long been used in practice rather than 'captain general and governor in chief,' but the description of
the duties in the instructions and commission remained much the
same.3 The British North America Act did not herald any new departure,
or seek to clarify how the role of the governor general had evolved since
the advent of responsible government. Section twelve, dealing with
executive power, specified that the governor general should carry on the
government of Canada on behalf of the Queen, 'with the advice, or with
the advice and consent' of the Privy Council.t David E. Smith has aptly
remarked that the Act conceals more than it reveals. 'Concealment lies in
the misrepresentation of who does what and in the silence about how
and when they do it. Chief among the offices wrapped in mystery is the
Crown.'5 Confederation did transfer some of the powers previously held
by the individual lieutenant-governors to the exclusive control of the
governor general - the prerogative of mercy was an important case in
point^ - but none of these changes fundamentally affected the imperial
relationship.
It is widely understood that the letters patent constituting the office of
governor general were updated in 1947, officially permitting the transfer
of the powers of the sovereign to Canada's resident head of state. This
was in itself a step beyond the 1931 redrafting of the instruments, which
had refiected the important changes of the Statute of Westminster, and
severed the direct link between the governor general and the British
government, leaving a connection only to the British Crown. Less attention has been paid to the first effort to bring the governor general's
3 Gharles Stanley, first Viscount Monck, had held ofFice since i86i, and a comparison
of his commission and instructions from 1861 and 1867 confirms that the change to
these documents before and after Confederation were minor. The key differences are
the reference to the British North America Act, as comprising part of the documentation of the governor general's duties, the change in the actual title conferred, and a
difference in the reference to the appointment of lieutenant-governors. While the
reference to the BNA Act might seem to be especially significant, in reality that statute
sheds little light on the functions of the governor general. See Ganada, Sessional
Papers (hereafter cited as SF], 25 Victoria, 1862, no. 29, and SP. 31 Victoria, 1867-8,
no. 22.
4 British North America Act, 1867, in appendix to Alpheus Todd, Parliamentary
Government in the British Colonies (London; Longmans, Green, 1894), 859.
5 David E. Smith, The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government
(Toronto; University of Toronto Press, 1995), 15.
6 John T. Saywell, The Lawmakers: Judicial Power and the Shaping of Canadian Federalism
(Toronto; University of Toronto Press, 2002), 50.
Defining the Office of Governor General, 1878 455
commission and instructions more into line with prevailing constitutional usages, the creation in 1878 of permanent documents. Prior to
1878, new letters patent and instructions were issued for each new
appointee. Since this was a time-consuming process, nineteenth-century
constitutional authority Alpheus Todd explained, it had been the custom
for a minor commission to be issued under the royal sign manual and
signet empowering the new governor to act in the meanwhile under his
predecessor's commission and instructions. Todd noted that in 1875 it
was 'deemed expedient' for Her Majesty's government to issue permanent instruments for each colony of the empire. He explained that in
October 1875 a circiolar despatch was sent to all colonial governors
enclosing a copy of the proposed new forms and inviting submissions by
the governors, after consultation with their responsible ministers. Todd
further acknowledged the pivotal role played by Canada's Liberal minister of justice, Edward Blake, in advocating revisions to the instruments
that were more in keeping with Canada's constitutional freedom as a
dominion. Todd noted that the new permanent letters patent and
instructions, first issued to the Marquis of Lome when he became
governor general in 1878, 'clearly indicate, in their substantial omissions,
as well as in their positive directions, the larger measure of self-government thenceforth conceded to the new dominion. This increase of
power,' he continued,'... was not merely relatively greater than that now
enjoyed by other colonies of the empire, but absolutely more than had
been previously intrusted [sic] to Canada itself, during the administration
of any former governor-general.'^
While drawing attention to this often-overlooked constitutional
milestone, and recognizing the importance of Edward Blake's efforts in
producing such a change, Todd's account does not supply the important
context in which these changes were advocated. In subsequent decades,
other observers have acknowledged Blake's important achievement in
securing a more up-to-date definition of the governor general's role.^ In
7 Todd, Parliamentary Government, 109-16.
8 D.M.L. Farr, The Colonial Office and Canada, 1867-1887 (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1955), 123. For further positive assessments of Blake's constitutional
contribution see Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions, 1:112,117; 2:1110-13.
Additional judgements on the significance of Blake's initiatives may be found in
W.E.D. HaUiday, 'The Privy Council Office and Cabinet Secretariat in Relation to the
Development of Cabinet Government,' Canada Year Book (Ottawa: Bureau of Statistics, 1956), 64: W.P.M. Kennedy, The Constitution of Canada (London: Oxford University Press, 1922), 342-4; R. MacGregor Dawson, The Government of Canada. (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1963), 46-7. A Political Onlooker, 'The Functions of a
Governor-General,' Canadian Magazine 15 (June 1900): 169; Smith, Invisible Crown,
456 The Canadian Historical Review
their introduction to the published correspondence between the governor
general. Lord Dufferin, and secretary of state for the colonies. Lord
Carnarvon, during the years 1874 to 1878, C.W. de Kiewiet and F.H.
Underhill, while not systematically treating the subject of the redrafting
of the instruments, note that 'Blake stands ... in the direct line of the
Canadian Liberal tradition which runs from Baldwin and LaFontaine and
his own father [William Hume Blake] to Laurier and King.' The governor
general. Lord Dufferin, seemed to believe, they assert, that Blake's quest
to extend the scope of Canadian self-government 'required some almost
pathological explanation.'^ This throwaway comment perhaps comes
closest to addressing the critical issue of the context for the change, the
factor that has for the most part has been ignored.
The British Colonial Office had evidendy been content to use letters
patent and instructions that were three decades out of date, relying upon
convention and established practice, as was their wont. Todd misleadingly locates the initiative for the drafting of permanent instruments in
Lord Carnarvon's October 1875 circular despatch to the colonial governors. In point of fact, this was far from where the matter began, and
Carnarvon himself displayed marked reluctance to iron out any niggling
inconsistencies in the documents themselves, and between the written
description and actual practice. A House of Lords debate about the
governor's personal discretion in exercising the prerogative of mercy
speaks volumes about Carnarvon's approach to constitutional matters; it
would not do, Carnarvon urged, to be 'too logical.''" Eugene Forsey has
touched upon the redrafting of the letters patent and instructions, but
also implies that the impetus for the change came from Britain. He
remarked, 'In 1878, the British Government actually proposed that the
new instruments should retain these features [the requirement to reserve
for British approval bills dealing with divorce, paper currency, differential
duties, and other specified subjects] and add clauses authorizing the
Governor to preside at meetings of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
(in effect the Cabinet), freeing him from the necessity of consulting his
Ministers in certain contingencies, and even allowing him on occasion to
overrule his Cabinet.' Edward Blake, Forsey asserted, 'succeeded in
getting practically the whole lot, old and new, struck out.'" Forsey was
43-4; K.C. Wheare, The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1953), 56-64;
9 Dufferin-Camarvon Correspondence, 1874-1878 [hereafter cited as DCC\, ed. C.W. de
Kiewiet and F.H. Underhill (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1955), xxxviii-xxxix.
10 As quoted in Todd, Parliamentary Government, 350.
11 Eugene Forsey, 'The Role of the Crown in Canada since Confederation,' Parliamentarian 6 0 (Jan. 1979): 16.
Defining the Office of Governor General, 1878 457
evidently unaware that these powers were already present in the existing
instruments.'^ Other historians have briefly alluded to the change in
1878, presenting the redrafting of the instruments as an inevitable next
step in Canada's constitutional evolution. Jonathan Swainger argues that
the establishment of a Supreme Court, the creation of the North West
Mounted Police, the centralizing of a national system of penitentiaries,
and the redrafting of the governor general's instructions were all part of
the 'completion of Confederation.'"' Swainger's case is strong with
respect to the Supreme Court, an institution long envisaged by the
'fathers' of Confederation.''* But it was by no means inevitable that a
redrafting of the long-obsolete viceregal commission and instructions
would be undertaken in light of Confederation.
Various Canadian historians have recounted the tumultuous events of
the 1870S - the strain between Alexander Mackenzie's Liberal administration and the province of British Columbia arising out of unfulfilled
promises to that province for the completion of the transcontinental
railway. The province's appeals to Britain for redress brought Lord
Carnarvon into the fray, and Dufferin, too, Canada's governor general
12 For example, Dufferin's instructions, issued 22 May 1872, include the following
clauses:
IV. And We do hereby direct and enjoin, and it is Our Pleasure, that Our said Privy
Council shall not proceed to the dispatch of Business unless duly summoned by your
authority, nor unless four Members of the said Council be present, and assisting
throughout the whole of the meetings, at which any such business shall be dispatched.
V. And We do further direct, that if in any case you see sufficient cause to dissent
from the opinion of the major part or of the whole of Our said Privy Council so
present, it shall by [sic] competent for you to execute the powers and authorities
vested in you by Our said Commission, and by these Our instructions, in opposition
to such their opinion; it being, nevertheless. Our Pleasure, that in every case it shall be
competent to any Member of^Our Said Privy Council to record at length, on the
minutes of Our Said Council, the grounds and reasons of any advice or opinion he
may give upon any question brought under the consideration of such Council.
VI. And it is Our pleasure and you are hereby authorized to appoint by an instrument
under the Great Seal of Canada, one Member of Our said Privy Council to preside in
your absence, and to remove him and appoint another in his stead. And if during your
absence the Member so appointed shall also be absent, then the Senior Member of
the Privy Council actually present shall preside. {SP. 38 Victoria, 1875, ^°- ^9)
13 Jonathan Swainger, The Canadian Department of Justice and the Completion of Confederation, 1867-78 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000), 4.
14 Frank MacKinnon, "The Establishment of the Supreme Court of Canada,' Canadian
Historical Review 27 (Sept. 1946): 260, 262.
458 The Canadian Historical Review
between 1872 and 1878, believed that he could mediate between the
factions and cajole the Dominion cabinet into fair and honourable conduct. This controversy, with its episodes of high political drama, is
intrinsically interesting, and historians such as J.A. Maxwell, Margaret
Ormsby, Dale Thomson, and Joseph Schull have ably told this compelling story.'5 Yet the struggle between the governor general and his Liberal
cabinet is also an important antecedent to the redrafting of the instruments detailing the viceregal role. This constitutional innovation was
under discussion in the very days when acrimony between Dufferin and
his cabinet was at a peak, and this acrimony is crucial context to an
understanding of Blake's drive to see the documents revised.
Edward Blake is an intriguing character, insofar as his apparent ability
did not translate into the degree of political success that might have been
expected. Trained as a lawyer, he entered politics in 1867, serving as a
member of Ontario's provincial legislature and the Dominion Parliament
simultaneously. He was briefly Liberal premier of Ontario in 1871-2. He
left provincial politics and became minister without portfolio in Alexander Mackenzie's Liberal administration in 1873-4. He made his greatest
mark during his short tenure as minister of justice in 1875-7. Even while
Blake was engaged in politics, he continued his flourishing law practice,
and was conspicuous in numerous high-profile constitutional cases. Despite Blake's accomplishments, he was a 'signal failure as a politician.''^
Regarded by many as the logical choice for the Liberal leadership, Blake
cast a long shadow over Mackenzie's administration, yet repeatedly
declined to lead, or at times even to join, the cabinet. Mackenzie's personal papers contain no fewer than a dozen letters of resignation received
from Blake. Dufferin described Blake as 'honourable [and] high-minded,'
but also found him 'bitter, extremely sensitive, and apt to allow his
passions to warp his ... judgment.' In portraits, Blake appears to squint
through tiny rimless spectacles. It is not surprising to leam that he
blamed his frequent failure to acknowledge acquaintances on his poor
15 J.A. Maxwell, 'Lord DufTerin and the Difficulties with British Columbia, 1874-7,'
Canadian Historical Review 12 (Dec. 1931); Margaret Ormsby, 'Prime Minister Mackenzie, the Liberal Party, and the Bargain with British Columbia,' Canadian Historical
Review 26 (June 1945); Joseph Schull, Edward Blake: The Man of the Other Way
i8}}-i88i (Toronto: Macmillan, 1985); Dale Thomson, Alexander Mackenzie: Clear Grit
(Toronto: Macmillan, i960).
16 J.D. Livermore, 'The Personal Agonies of Edward Blake,' Canadian Historical Review
56 (Mar. 1975): 45. See also Ben Forster and Jonathan Swainger, 'Edward Blake,'
Dictionary of Canadian Biography [hereafter cited as DCS] (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1998), 14:74-85; Schull, Edward Blake.
Defining the Office of Governor General, 1878 459
eyesight. Even Lady Dufferin was 'cut' on one regrettable occasion.'^ A
colleague described Blake as an 'exhaustive debater' who dazed his
audiences by overloading his speeches with detail and references to
original documents. This tactic understandably failed to ingratiate him
wiiii voters. Unlike Conservative leader John A. Macdonald, who was a
consummate politician, the 'morose' Blake made no effort to cultivate
personal friendships. Macdonald was not a particiolarly skilled debater,
but - unlike Blake - had the gift of inspiring the loyalty and affection of
those close to him. Macdonald even took pains to congratulate young
opposition members on their maiden speeches, a Liberal contemporary
remembered; 'I have seen him turn his chair around and face a struggling fiedgling in his vain attempt to rise from earth, and interject an
encouraging "Hear! Hear!" to the merest platitude, when everybody else
was waiting impatiently for his last words.''^ Blake, by contrast, was
sarcastic and caustic, yet so thin-skinned that he was known to dissolve
into tears when criticised by colleagues. Physicians ultimately diagnosed
Blake's condition as 'neurasthenia,' a nineteenth-century term for an
ailment whose symptoms included headaches, insomnia, exhaustion,
and nervousness.'?
Blake's attitude toward the British connection was highly ambivalent.
Dufferin acknowledged that Blake was 'out of temper with British
Domination' after paying a call to the Colonial Office and finding that
the officials did not immediately know who he was. Worse yet, the
under-secretary had attempted to engage him in pleasant conversation by
inquiring after 'our friend' Macdonald; naturally, this only reinforced
suspicions of Conservative bias. Dufferin had earlier worried that Blake
might fall into the orbit of Goldwin Smith and others who advocated
Canadian independence.""" Blake's famous 'Aurora Speech' of 1874 was
a rallying cry for greater autonomy and the inctdcation of a national
spirit - 'our share of national rights.'^'
Perhaps unfortunately in such a climate. Lord Dufferin had an activist
conception of his role. While the Times maintained that 'the Canadians
17 M 197, Alexander Mackenzie Papers, Library and Archives Ganada [hereafter cited as
LAG]; DCC, DufFerin to Carnarvon, private, 10 Oct. 1874, 80-1; Edward Blake to
Dufferin, 18 Apr. 1876, A 413, Dufferin Papers, LAG; James Young, Public Men and
Public Life in Canada (Toronto; William Briggs, 1912), 2;385.
18 George W. Ross, Getting into Parliament el After (Toronto; William Briggs, 1913),
142-4,135.
19 Livermore, 'Edward Blake,' 46-53.
20 DCC, Dufferin to Carnarvon, private, 10 Oct. 1874, 80-1; 23 Apr. 1874, 28.
21 Edward Blake, 'Aurora Speech, 1874,' ed. W.S. Wallace, Canadian Historical Review 2
(Sept. 1921); 256.
460 The Canadian Historical Review
may think themselves fortunate in attracting so valued a member of
English society,' Dufferin's very presence could be provocative. His
speeches, while good-natured and amusing, at times betrayed an attitude
of breezy superiority. He assured his audiences that abuse he suffered in
the local press was as transitory 'as the discipline applied occasionally to
their idol by the unsophisticated worshippers of Mumbo Jumbo when
their harvests are short, or a murrain visits their flock.' His lofty position
in British society and intimate friendships with its leaders might well
have daunted even the most self-confident Canadian. D.M.L. Farr has
speculated that Dufferin made the mistake of playing the part of viceroy
of India - a position he sought and ultimately won - while ostensibly a
constitutional ruler in Canada.^^
Bom in Florence in 1826, Frederick Temple Hamilton-TempleBlackwood was the only child of Price Blackwood, fourth Baron Dufferin
and Clandeboye in the Irish peerage, and the eighteen-year-old Helen
Selina Sheridan, one of three beautiful granddaughters of the famous
dramatist Richard Brinsley Butler Sheridan. Harold Nicolson wrote that
'the Sheridan blood seethed and tingled like champagne' in Dufferin's
veins. Apparently of slight build, in portraits Dufferin generally adopted
a theatrical pose. Dufferin's father, absent during much of his son's
childhood, died of an overdose of morphia, and from the age of fifteen
Dufferin was raised by his young mother exclusively. He counted her and Sir Walter Scott - as the greatest influences on his character.^'
While Dufferin is usually described as handsome, his charming and
courtly manner may have influenced such assessments. He had wide-set
and heavily lidded eyes; his hair was dark and ample, though combed
close against his head, and the pointed chin beard and moustache he
wore did nothing to discourage persistent - but false - rumours that he
was actually the son of Disraeli. Certainly his flamboyant charm at court
22 Times, 4 Apr. 1872; Speeches of the Earl of Dufferin (Toronto: J. Ross Robertson, 1878),
25; D.M.L. Farr, 'Lord DufFerin: A Viceroy in Ottawa,' Culture 19 (1958): 153-64.
23 Harold Nicolson, Helen's Tower (London: Constable, 1937), 42. See also Charles E.
Drummond Black, The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava (London: Hutchinson, 1903);
John Cowan, Canada's Governors General: Lord Monck to General Vanier (Toronto:
York, 1965), 19-29; Dictionary of National Biography, [hereafter cited as DNB], second
supplement, 1:171-5; Ben Forster, 'Blackwood (Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood),
Frederick Temple, first Marquess of Dufferin and Ava,' in DCB, 12:72-5; Marian
Fowler, The Embroidered Tent: Five Gentlewomen in Early Canada (Toronto: Anansi,
1982), 185-6; Sandra Gwyn, The Private Capital: Ambition and Love in the Age of
Macdonald and Laurier (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1984), 162; William Leggo,
The History of the Administration of the Right Honorable Frederick Temple, Earl of
Dufferin (Montreal: Lovell, 1878); Alfred LyaU, The Life of the Marquis of Dufferin and
Ava (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1905), 456; George Stewart, Canada under
the Administration of the Earl of Dufferin (Toronto: Rose-Belford, 1878).
Defining the Office of Governor General, 1878 461
contained echoes of Disraeli's heavy-handed fiattery. Dufferin corresponded frequently with the elderly Duchess of Argyll, whom he referred
to as 'the archangel' and closed a letter to the Marquis of Lome with the
instructions 'pray lay me at the feet of your dear Princess [Louise].'
Dufferin was a romantic, who wrote poetry and painted watercolours.
To some, his lisp, monocle, and exaggerated courtesy smacked of
afTectation.^t
Even while very young, Dufferin enjoyed the unquestioning selfconfidence that came with his privileged birth. In 1850, with his elevation to the UK peerage as Baron Clandeboye, he took his seat in the
House of Lords and began to establish a reputation as a speaker. At
twenty-three, Dufferin was appointed lord-in-waiting to Queen Victoria,
although the Queen protested that he was 'much too good-looking and
captivating' for the job.^' Despite that liability, Dufferin held the position
for seven years and went on to enjoy a string of appointments of steadily
increasing consequence. In November 1871 Dufferin was advanced in the
peerage, and became the Earl of Dufferin. His initial bid for the viceroyalty of India failed, and Dufferin was offered the consolation of the
governor generalship of Canada.^^
Every assessment of Dufferin as governor general acknowledges his
role in raising the profile of the office. Sandra Gwyn aptly suggested that
Dufferin did not 'so much embroider ... upon the office ... as reinvent'
it.^7 The Dufferins spent their own money lavishly to raise the standard at
Government House, redecorating and outfitting the house for entertaining, and established the Citadel at Quebec as an additional ofBcial
residence.^* 'So you are going to set up a "permanent house" in every city
24 Dufferin to Lome, 3 Mar. 1873, D1071/H/B/C/104/6, DufFerin Papers, Public Record
Office of Northern Ireland [hereafter cited as PRON]; Alfred Lyall, Life of Dufferin.
560-3; R.H. Hubbard, 'Viceregal Influences on Canadian Society,' in The Shield of
Achilles: Aspects of Canada in the Victorian Age, ed. W.L. Morton (Toronto: McClelland
& Stewart, 1968), 261. Goldwin Smith sneered at Dufferin's practice of giving
advance copies of his speeches to the press with applause inserted at appropriate
places. Goldwin Smith, Reminiscences, ed. A. Haultain (New York: Macmillan, 1910),
458. Harold Nicolson puts ...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment