Defects in had been created, and the need for a more comprehensive and efficient system of imperial control had come to be felt. The war in America naturally suggested certain the colonial reforms. In the first place it showed that the old system system of making requisitions on the several colonies for troops could not provide a sufficient force for their defense. Some of the colonies refused to provide for the levies at all, others promised to comply with the requisitions, but failed to send the full number, while none of them could be counted upon to send their full quotas into the field at the time appointed. Illicit trade with the Indies In the second place the French and Indian War showed that more stringent measures were necessary for the enforcement of the acts of trade. The Molasses Act of 1733 had never been rigidly enforced; in fact French West the prosperity of the northern colonies was, to a great extent, based on its violation. The British West Indies could not furnish an adequate supply of molasses for the manufacture of New England rum, which was extensively used in the fisheries and was absolutely indispensable in the Indian trade and in the slave trade. The New Englanders had therefore continued to buy molasses in the French West Indies. This illicit trade had been winked at by the British officials in time of peace, but its continuance in time of war neutralized to a large extent the work of the British navy. This trade was continued partly by the connivance of colonial governors who issued commissions to vessels authorizing them to visit French colonies ostensibly for the purpose of exchanging prisoners, such vessels being popularly called "flags of truce." The greatest sinners in this matter were Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. The governor of the latter colony openly sold such passes for large sums of money. This trade not only helped the enemy directly, but it seriously interfered with military operations by rendering provisions scarce and expensive. Such large quantities of foodstuffs were taken to the French West Indies, where they brought high prices, that provisions had to be brought from Europe to supply the needs of the British army in America. Amherst and other British commanders protested vigorously against this trade with the enemy and openly denounced it as disloyal. The attempt of the custom house officials in Boston to break it up led to the celebrated controversy over "writs of assistance." Writs of assistance were general search warrants issued to customs officials to aid them in finding smuggled goods. These writs were first issued by the superior writs of court of Massachusetts during the French and assistance Indian War for the purpose of enabling the customs officers to break up the illicit trade with the French West Indies. James Otis resigned the office of advocate general because he believed the writs to be illegal and tyrannical, and he was employed by the merchants of Boston to contest their legality. In his famous speech before the court he denounced the writs as the worst instrument of arbitrary power and as contrary to the principles of civil liberty and of right. He boldly declared that the exercise of this kind of power had "cost one king of England his head, and another his throne." The case was decided against him and the writs continued to be issued, but his argument made a great impression on the people, and he was the popular idol of New England in the opening scenes of the Revolution. The The drift of public sentiment in Virginia was revealed by Patrick Henry's argument in the famous "Parson's Cause." In 1758, as a result of the failure of the crop and the high price of tobacco, the Assembly enacted "Parson's that for one year all debts might be paid either in tobacco or in money at the rate of twopence a pound; hence the measure was known as the Twopenny Act. As the salaries of the clergy were paid in tobacco and as that com Cause modity was then selling at three times the rate fixed by the Assembly, the act seems to have hit the clergy harder than any other class of creditors, and they sent an agent to London to lay their case before the Board of Trade. On August 10, 1759, the act was disallowed by the king in 'council. Several of the clergy later brought suit to recover the full PATRICK HENRY. amount of their salaries in tobacco. The suit which attracted most attention was that of Reverend James Maury of Louisa County, in which Patrick Henry, then twenty-seven years of age, appeared for the vestry, which was the defendant in the case. In his argument before the jury he declared that the disallowance by the king of the act of 1758 was an instance of misrule and that "by this conduct the king, from being the father of his people, had degenerated into a tyrant and for feited all right to his subjects' obedience." At this point there was a subdued murmur of "Treason, treason," to which Henry paid no attention. He concluded with a severe arraignment of the clergy whose cause was by no means popular. The result was that the jury brought in a verdict of one penny damages for the plaintiff. Patrick Henry and the "Parson's Cause" were both ever afterwards famous. His speech made a profound impression and his attack on the royal prerogative tended to bring to a focus the growing dissatisfaction over outside interference with the acts of the Assembly. A new nounced In April, 1763, George Grenville, who had just been appointed prime minister, announced the intention of keeping an army of 10,000 men in America and of taxing the colonies for its partial support. These colonial troops were to be used to garrison the forts that policy anhad been taken from the French, to protect the frontier against the Indians, and to guard against foreign attack. There was also no doubt the more remote idea that these troops might be used in securing a more rigid enforcement of the acts of trade. In pursuance of the new policy Parliament passed the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765. The Sugar Act was a very comprehensive measure designed The Sugar to raise colonial revenue and to introduce ad- Act of 1764 ministrative reforms into the old colonial system. The Molasses Act of 1733 had placed a duty of sixpence a gallon on molasses. This duty was prohibitory and, as has already been shown, the act had never been enforced. By the new act the duty on molasses was reduced to threepence. The old prohibitive duty had failed to produce a revenue, while the new duty did. High import duties were also imposed on wines brought to the colonies from the Madeiras and southern Europe. There were many other details of the act which need not be described, as the duty on molasses was the feature that aroused the principal opposition. The earlier acts of trade had not been primarily fiscal measures, that is, their main purpose had not been to raise a revenue, but to regulate the commerce of the British empire. The act of 1764 was the first act whose main purpose was to tax the colonies and as such it marked a new departure in colonial policy and aroused opposition, but this opposition was confined to New England and the middle colonies. The southern colonies were not materially affected by it. It was difficult to find a ground on which to assail the new measure, for, in outward form at least, it resembled other acts of Parliament the validity of which had never been seriously questioned. The Stamp The case was quite different, however, with the Stamp Act of 1765 which, by the imposition of internal as distinguished from external taxes, was new in form. Act of 1765. It required that every newspaper, pamphlet, bill, note, bond, lease, license, insurance policy, ship's clearance paper, college diploma, every instrument used in the conveyance of real and personal property, and all other legal documents should be written or printed on stamped vellum or paper to be sold by public officials. While this measure was unfavorably received by the people it looked for some time as if there would be no organized opposition to it. James Otis, the leading spirit in New England, said: "It is the duty of all humbly and silently to acquiesce in all the decisions of the supreme legislature. Nine hundred and ninety-nine in a thousand of the colonists will never once entertain a thought but of submission to our sovereign and to the authority of Parliament in all possible contingencies. They undoubtedly have the right to levy internal taxes on the colonies." Hutchinson, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, wrote to the ministry: "The Stamp Act is received among us with as much decency as could be expected; it leaves no room for evasion, and will execute itself." A majority of the governors wrote to the British ministry that the act would be enforced. The first serious opposition came from Virginia. The Assembly met in May, 1765, and on the 29th the House of Burgesses took up a consideration of the new stamp duties. Patrick Henry, who had recently been elected to fill a vacancy and who had taken his seat only nine days before, offered a set of five resolu Patrick resolutions |