HY1110 Columbia Southern University Sugar Act in The American Colonies PPT

User Generated

Wraavsreurvq

Writing

HY1110

Columbia Southern University

Description

The assignment is two parts. PowerPoint and a one page reflection paper. I have to turn them in Tuesday 10/24/2017. I am attaching Three Sources from the CSU library which you can choice from because it has to be in the PowerPoint. I have also attached Unit 3 study guide as well. Thank you for helping me out means the world!!!!!!


Unit III PowerPoint Presentation

Choose one major economic act enforced against the colonies by the British Crown prior to war, and cover the following:

 Describe the role, reason, and impact of the act on the colonies.

 Identify the arguments for/against the act by persons in the colonies.

 Identify major actions by the colonies in reaction to your selected act.

 How did this act increase or decrease fears of an overbearing central government?

 What was the nature of the colonial government under crown authority?

 Answer and defend your perspective on the following: “Was this particular act an inevitable catalyst for the eventual war?”

Your presentation should meet the following requirements:

 must have a minimum of 12 slides, not including title or reference slides;

 may have a maximum six pictures total—focus needs to be on content;

 must include a title page identifying your chosen act;

must include at least one selection from a CSU Online Library database, such as the American History and Life database, that is used as research of the event and views of the time; and

 must include citations throughout, and a reference slide at the end identifying any sources used per 6th edition APA format.

If you require any assistance in creating your PowerPoint presentation, feel free to access this YouTube video created by the CSU Success Center, http://columbiasouthern.adobeconnect.com/powerpointbestpractices/, or contact the Success Center at 1.877.875.0533 or teamSUCCEED@columbiasouthern.edu to request assistance.

Information about accessing the Blackboard Grading Rubric for this assignment is provided below.

Unit III Reflection Paper

Within this unit, you were placed within the time frame of 1750s to 1780s. Imagine that you were living during this time and you, or a family member if you wish, have enlisted in the Colonial Army. What is the general reaction of your family to this decision? Are you (or the enlisted) a part of any special population, region, minority, or other distinction? How does HY 1110, American History I 4

your population, region, minority, or other distinction impact your experience and morale? Will the family stay at home or follow the camp?

Your reflection paper will need to be a minimum one page in length. All sources used must be cited and referenced. Paraphrased or quoted material must have accompanying citations per 6th edition APA format.

Information about accessing the Blackboard Grading Rubric for this assignment is provided below.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi! Please find attached

Name
Institution
Date

Introduction
 The act was passed in the parliament of Great Britain







in 1764
Was enacted on 13 American colonies under British
Empire
This law was a modification of the Navigation act
enacted in 1733 on sugar and molasses
Involved taxes on sugar, molasses, and other imports
in American colonies
Sugar and molasses were used in production of rum
Rum was considered to be a very lucrative product

Great Britain Parliament in 1974

The role of the Sugar Act
 Increase the revenue collected through tax on

molasses and other products
 Increase military control on all tax avenues
 Imports from other colonies were closed off in
American colonies
 Increase British control in the colonies

The impact of Sugar Act
 The American colonies

could only trade with
England
 The law included seizing
of merchandise that
were in violation of the
new law
 The law allowed
establishment of courts
to align the tax violators
before a judge

Argument against the Sugar Act
 The colonists believed it worsened the economic







depression of the time
The ports in the New England were hit by econ...


Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags