considerable doubt as to the propriety of taxing the colonies without allowing them representatives; yet, as Mr. Bancroft says,[1] he loved power and the favor of Parliament, and contemplating the immense debt of England with a sort of terror, he was ready to insist upon the colonies helping to bear the burden; and so, forgetting the wise caution of Walpole, he brought forward in Parliament, a proposition to impose upon the colonists the payment of a stamp tax on all bills, bonds, notes, leases, policies of insurance, legal papers, of various kinds, etc. It was at first laid before Parliament more for information and notice, than with any purpose of pressing its passage.
The next year, Grenville, now prime minister, proposed several resolutions tending to develop his plan for taxing America,[2] such as additional duties on imports into the colonies from foreign countries, on sugar, indigo, coffee, etc., it being openly avowed that the object had in view was, to "raise a revenue for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing his majesty's dominions in America." These resolutions passed the House without much debate or notice, it being resolved, without a division, that Parliament had a right to tax the colonies." Among the resolutions proposed by Grenville, was one imposing "certain stamp duties on the colonies:" but he declared to the House, his desire that it should not be acted upon until the next session of Parliament. It was foreseen that the law would be disregarded, if extraordinary measures were not adopted to enforce it, and provision made that penalties for violating it, and all other revenue laws, might be recovered in the admiralty courts. The judges of these courts were dependent solely on the king, and decided the causes brought before them without the intervention of a jury.
The colonial agents in London sent copies of the resolutions to their respective colonies.[3] As soon as the intelligence of these proceedings reached America, they were considered as the commencement of a system of oppression, which, if not vigorously resisted, would eventually deprive them of the liberty of British subjects. The General Court of Massachusetts, at their session in June, took this law into consideration. The House of Representatives resolved, "That the sole right of giving and granting the money of the people of that province was vested in themselves, and that the imposition of taxes and duties by the Parliament of Great Britain, upon a people who are not represented in Parliament, is absolutely irreconcilable with their rights." "If our trade may be taxed," was their argument, in the words of that eminent patriot, Samuel Adams, "why not our lands, why not the produce of our lands, and every thing we possess or use? This, we conceive, annihilates our charter-rights to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as was
