214

In

the provisions of this act were made to cover the colonies. In 1751 an act was passed forbidding the colonists to issue any more colonial paper currency save to pay the cost of repelling an invasion or to provide for the annual current expenses of the government, and even these issues were to be supervised by the crown. 1763 all paper currency outstanding was declared void, although in 1773 provincial bills of credit were ordered to be received as legal tender. This controversy therefore provoked much bitterness in the colonists, who considered that a cheap circulating medium was essential to continued prosperity, and the stubbornness of the home government in refusing to grant this concession was one of the many causes of the Revolution.

One of the earliest manifestations that the colonies would not conform to the acts passed by Parliament restraining their trade, was the dispute over" writs of assistance" in Massachusetts. In August, 1760, Thomas Pownall had been succeeded by Francis Bernard as governor of Massachusetts. The latter had high notions regarding the authority of the mother country over the colonies. He defended the prerogatives of the crown, but was quite without the pliancy and adroitness that had distinguished his predecessor. His efforts to promote the plans laid by the ministry were warmly seconded by Thomas Hutchinson, who had lately been appointed

also lately been appointed chief-justice, to the disappointment of the elder Otis, to whom Pownall had promised a seat on the bench.* Before Hutchinson was appointed the younger Otis had said: "If Governor Bernard does not appoint my father judge of the superior court, I will kindle such a fire in the province as shall singe the governor, though I myself perish in the flames." At this time the colonists had opened up a brisk trade with the French islands, and the English ministry had ordered that the acts of trade be more strictly enforced. To prevent evasions of the law (otherwise known as smuggling) "writs of assistance" were issued by the judicature, which permitted the breaking into and searching the places which might be suspected of harboring smuggled goods. As smuggling was at this time quite prevalent, it was not long before the customs officers applied for some of these writs, to which the merchants determined to offer the most strenuous opposition. These merchants retained Oxenbridge Thacher (or Thatcher) and James Otis, son of the speaker of the Assembly, and himself at that time advocate of the Admiralty. While holding this position as advocate, Otis could not with honor

*Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., pp. 55-56.

† Gordon, American Revolution, vol. i., p. 141 (ed. of 1788). Tudor, however, in his Life of Otis, p. 54, says that this speech has never been authenticated. See also J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, p. 42-43, 150-151.

accept an appointment of the merchants nor take part in the fight. But he resigned his office and agreed to argue the case for the merchants.* In February, 1761, on the day appointed for the trial, the council chamber of the town house was crowded to suffocation by the officers of the government and the principal inhabitants of the city. The advocate for the crown opened the case with a long and elaborate argument based on the principle that the British parliament had the right to legislate for the entire British empire, including the colonies. Thacher answered him in an ingenious and able speech, basing his arguments upon purely technical and legal points. Otis, however, was not to be confined to these narrow limits. He assailed the acts of trade as being both oppressive and unconstitutional, and by his fire and vehemence swept everything before him. John Adams says: "Otis was a flame of fire. With a promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away everything before him. American Independence was then and there born; the seeds of patriots and heroes were then and there sown.

Every man of the crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take up arms against 'writs of assistance.' Then and there was

Tudor, Life of Otis, pp. 56-57.

215

the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain."'*

This speech by Otis was felt to be of great importance, and the influence of his fervid eloquence was widely felt throughout the whole province. Otis himself was elected a member of the House from Boston, where he assumed a leading position in guiding its affairs.† The "writs of assistance " were granted, but they were too unpopular to be used, except in rare cases. To say, however, that American independence was born in Otis's magnificent outburst is a stretch of imagination on the part of Adams, for the speech was not epoch-making to such an extent. Both Otis and his audience at that time were thoroughly loyal, having no thought of an armed conflict. The argument was simply an incident in the friction between the mother country and her colonies, and the speech was of interest only because of the prominence, the daring, and the ability of the pleader.‡

* Adams Works, vol. x., pp. 247-248. The language of Adams is given a little differently in Tudor's Life of Otis, pp. 60-61; Otis's speech is given on p. 63 et seq. See also Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, chap. iv., and authorities cited; Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 546 et seq.; Moses Coit Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolu tion, vol. i., pp. 31-36 and the authorities there cited; W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. i.; and Judge Horace Gray's appendix on "Writs of Assistance," pp. 391-540 in Quincy's Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Superior Court of Judicature of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, between 1761 and 1772.

Tudor, Life of Otis, pp. 88-96.

Hosmer, Samuel Adams, p. 45. See also Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, vol. i., p. 102.

216

When the treaty of peace between England and France was signed in 1763, the British ministry found the country under an enormous debt, and in order to pay the interest - and if possible the principal - it was determined, in accordance with a proposition of the Board of Trade made several years prior to this time, that the colonies in America should be taxed by Parliament. There were few who denied that Parliament had au

thority over the colonies.* But the exact nature of this authority and how far it extended, were not quite clear in the minds of many. Up to this time the colonies had unwillingly yielded to Parliament in regard to commercial transactions, yet they had suffered

legislation to be enacted without protest on a number of matters other than trade. The colonial trade had for a long time been regulated by Parliament for the exclusive benefit of the merchants in the mother country, and Parliament had appointed the custom house officers and courts of admiralty in the colonies. in the colonies. While the colonies had not made any serious protest, they, at the same time, systematically evaded the acts of trade wherever possible. Nevertheless, they had submitted throughout the entire controversy to Parliament, considering that that body had a sort of legal vested right in all points of this kind. But Parliament had not as yet exercised the power of levying taxes for the purpose of revenue only. Such minor matters as the regulation of postage on letters and certain duties on "enumerated articles " were trifles, and no matter what might be the