USA > New Jersey > A civil and political history of New Jersey: embracing a compendious history of the state, from its early discover and settlement by Europeans, brought down to the present time > Part 34
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
1 So early as 1636, the Assembly of Plymouth declared that "no act, imposi- tion, law, or ordinance be made or imposed upon us at present or to come, but such as has, or shall be enacted by the consent of the body of freemen or their Representatives legally assembled; which is according to the free liberties of the free born people of England." In 1650, when the constitution of Maryland was settled, the Legislature enacted, that no taxes should be assessed or levied on the freemen of the province without their own consent, or that of their depu- . ties. In 1661, the General Court of Massachusetts made a similar declaration, and very soon afterwards Rhode Island adopted, on her own behalf, the words of Magna Charta, that "no tallage, or custom, loan, or benevolence, gift, excise, duty, or imposition whatsoever, be laid, assessed, imposed, levied, or required of any of his Majesty's subjects within this colony, or upon their estates, upon any pretence, but by the assent of the General Assembly of this colony." (Pitkin, vol. 1, p. 80.) At an early period, the same principle was asserted in New Jersey. The attempt of Andross to impose customs upon the people of West Jersey drew forth the admirable defence which was made by the proprietors against such a demand. They asserted that it was in direct opposition to their English right of common assent to taxes. Similar declarations were made at different times in nearly all of the colonies.
-
363
OPINIONS RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONIES.
act of Parliament in England."2 But this single instance could hardly be regarded as ground for a general exercise of power. Whatever views then, might be held, as to the right of Parliament to bind the colonists in other respects, almost universal opinion was against such a right in the case in question.3 But different views were entertained in England, and attempts were made at various times to impose taxes upon the colonists. This was even done at first by royal authority; the King, or officers acting under his direction, ordering such levies as they should deem proper. But this was too evidently opposed to the whole spirit of the British constitution, to be long tolerated. Afterwards, it was con- tinued by Parliament, and enactments were passed which were made to operate throughout the colonies, and by which large sums were drawn from them. In most instances, however, the opera- tion of these enactments was indirect; they had been passed and were executed, under the general plea of regulating trade and com- merce; a mode of procedure which gave to such enactments the least objectionable appearance or form. Yet even these enact- ments were strongly opposed by the colonists, not merely on ac- count of their effect upon provincial interests in a commercial sense, but also as a violation of constitutional rights. The "navi- gation laws," were expressly resisted. Massachusetts declared that she apprehended them to be an invasion of the rights, liberties, and properties of his Majesty's subjects in the colony, they not being represented in Parliament, and as a saving of the rights of the province, a law was passed by the Assembly requir- ing the acts in question to be observed. It is still probable that had the authority of Parliament been confined to a general regu- lation of trade and commerce, the colonies would have finally acquiesced, and submitted. But this was not done; more direct methods were now to be attempted. In addition to a monopoly of the proceeds of American industry in the course of trade, the British government resolved upon drawing a revenue from the provinces by internal taxation. It has been seen, that just previ-
2 Story, vol. 1, p. 111.
' It was by no means an uncommon opinion in some of the colonies, that no act of Parliament could bind them without their own consent.
364
OPINIONS RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONIES.
ous to the commencement of the war, a plan had been formed by the Ministry for laying a tax on the colonies by act of Parlia- ment. But the opposition then made, prevented the projectors from pressing the scheme, at a time when full co-operation and union were of so much importance. And the spirit that was mani- fested by the colonists, even during the continuance of the contest, gave but little encouragement for the renewal of such a design. The provincial governments indeed, in most instances, met, and sometimes exceeded, the requisitions that were made, yet the amount to be given, as well as the particular appropriations, were carefully directed by the Assemblies, and sometimes their own discretion was followed, in opposition to special demands. The Assembly of New Jersey refused to accede to the demands of Lord Loudoun, and declared that they could not think themselves "divested of a right of judging of the expediency and possibility of complying with any demands made upon the colony."4 But at the conclusion of the war with France and Spain, there was supposed to be both an opportunity and a necessity, for an exten- sion of Parliamentary power. The war, it was said, had been of American origin ; that in its prosecution the mother country had become deeply involved in debt; and hence that demands upon the colonists might justly be made. It was apparently forgotten that the colonists had constantly contributed according to their ability, and that their exertions had tended to preserve an union, which, if important to themselves, was not less important to the parent State. The caution necessary in applying a scheme which even in a less naked and questionable shape had met with much
"Lord Loudoun demanded "in the King's name, that one thousand men should be furnished. But the Assembly resolved upon raising but five hundred at the time, and said that an additional number could not be supplied "in the present posture of affairs." A communication was afterwards received in which it was said that the Minister (Pitt, expected as large a body of men as they ware able to raise. An act was soon afterwards passed for completing the regi- ment to one thousand effective men; but the House declared that "the exacting obedience to any determinate proposal, from a people willing and desirous to do their utmost in a cause that so intimately concerns them, would in our opinion not answer the design, and would essentially vary from that constitutional method which has heretofore, for so many generations, honorably distinguished the English name.
Votes, vol. 3.
-
365
PASSAGE OF THE STAMP ACT. .
opposition, was also apparently forgotten, or wholly overlooked. But interest, if it sharpens the vision of men to their particular advantages, seems sometimes to obscure perception in regard to the rights of others; such was the case at this time with the States- men of England. Even Pitt, at first, seemed lacking in discern- ment. In 1760, before the conclusion of the war, he wrote to Fauquier, the Governor of Virginia, that though they had made grants to the colonies, yet when the war was over they should tax them in order to raise a revenue from them. Fauquier pru- dently replied, that such an attempt might give rise to much dis- satisfaction.5 Upon further reflection, Pitt became sensible of the impolicy, as well as the injustice of the measure proposed. But others had less acuteness, or were less scrupulous than Pitt.
In 1764, Grenville, the Prime Minister, communicated to the seve- ral colonial agents, his intentions of drawing a revenue from the colonies, and that with this view he should, at the ensuing session of Parliament, propose a duty on stamps. But he was willing that they should consider the subject, and inform him whether any other duty equally productive could be substituted.6 But as no proposals which the Minister deemed satisfactory, were made, the contemplated measure was brought forward. The act passed both Houses of Parliament, and on the 22d of March, 1765, it
' Griffith's Historical Notes, p. 15.
" Some of the agents made immediate objection to the scheme, and when communicated to the colonies, it there met with strenuous opposition. In May, 1764, the people of Boston declared that such a tax "would annihilate our charter rights to govern and tax ourselves; it strikes at our British privileges which as we have never forfeited, we hold in conimon with our fellow subjects, who are natives of England. If taxes are laid upon us in any shape, without our having a legal representation where they are laid, we are reduced from the character of free subjects to the state of slaves." Similar language was used in several of the other colonies. In February, 1765, several of the colonial agents in England waited on the Minister to remonstrate against the stamp bill, and to propose that in case any tax must be laid upon America, the several colonies might be permitted to lay it themselves. The Minister was assured that the colonists would readily grunt such uid to the Crown as they were able to give, whenever called for in a constitutional manner. But Grenville persisted in his plans, and said that he had pledged himself to offer the stamp bill to the House. Pitkin's United States, Griffith's Historical Notes.
,
366
OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP ACT.
received the Royal assent.7 In the debate on this bill, the Ministry publicly declared that it was intended to establish the power of Great Britain to tax the colonies.
Upon the passage of the act, the colonial agents were informed that it was not the intention of the Ministers to send stamp officers from England, but to appoint respectable persons from among the inhabitants, and the agents were requested to nominate such. William Coxe, Esq., was appointed for New Jersey.$ The operation of the act was to commence on the 1st of November. Probably from an apprehension that some opposition might be made, a supplement to the annual mutiny bill was passed almost at the same time, authorizing the quartering of troops in the colo- nies, and directing the Assemblies to make provision for them, in a manner entirely unusual.
The character and tendency of these measures were clearly perceived, and they were met by the colonists with a boldness and unanimity which would seem to have proceeded from a deep and general conviction in relation to their rights, and a strong determination to maintain them. The Assembly of Virginia was the first that met, after the news of the passage of the stamp act was received, and was the first to give a public declaration of opinion. A number of resolutions offered by Patrick Henry were passed by that body, in which the rights of the colonists were - stated in the strongest manner. They asserted, that the General Assembly of that colony had the sole right and power to lay taxes upon the inhabitants, and that every attempt to vest such power elsewhere than in the Assembly aforesaid, tended to the destruc- tion of British as well as American freedom.9 Very soon after- wards, before the action that had been taken in Virginia was known, the subject was taken up in the House of Representatives in Massachusetts, and a resolution was passed by that body de- claring it to be expedient that a Congress composed of Commis-
" The bill passed the House by a vote of 250 to 50, and the House of Lords with great unanimity.
. Dr. Franklin nominated the agents for Pennsylvania and for New Jersey. Yet though in this particular he forwarded the measures of the Minister, he still perceived and represented the true nature and tendency of the act.
" See these resolutions in Wirts' Life of Henry, p. 56.
.
367
OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP ACT.
sioners from all the colonies should be held at New York on the first Tuesday of October, 1765. This measure was recommended in order that they might consult "upon the present circumstances of the colonies, and the difficulties to which they are, and must be reduced in consequence of the late acts of Parliament." Three persons were immediately appointed to attend such Congress, and a circular was addressed to the other colonies urging a similar appointment.
This circular was laid before the Assembly of New Jersey on the 20th of June, 1765. But Governor Franklin, who (as his father remarked at a subsequent period,) was "a thorough govern- ment man,"10 was willing to favor and forward the schemes of the Ministry, and his influence was therefore exerted against the present proposal. It must also be acknowledged, that it did not receive from the House the attention that its importance required. The Assembly was then on the point of adjournment, and a hasty and somewhat ambiguous expression of opinion was made, and the Speaker was directed to transmit the answer to the Massa- chusetts Assembly. This answer implied, that the Assembly declined a concurrence in the contemplated movement. But sub- sequent reflection, or intercourse with their constituents, brought the members to a different conclusion, and it was then thought ex- pedient to attempt a correction of their former proceedings. 11 A
. 4ยบ Franklin's Letters.
" These proceedings, with the subsequent measures connected with them, gave rise to a correspondence of some asperity between the Governor and the House. The Governor said, that according to their own expressions, they had taken the proposal from Massachusetts into "deliberate consideration," and had " unanimously resolved against connecting on that occasion." The House declared (July 27th, 1766,) that they acknowledged the letter from Massachu- setts, but that it was on the last day of the session, some members gone, and others uneasy to be gone; that the Speaker agreed to send, nay, urged that members should be sent to the intended Congress, but that he changed his mind upon some advice that was given him; that this sudden change of opinion displeased many of the House, who seeing the matter dropped, were indifferent about it. But they said that the letter of the House was not such as the Go- vernor represented it, and that if the strong expressions mentioned, were used, an alteration must have been made, and they intimated that his Excellency had been instrumental in making it. Fortes, vol. 3. Gordon's History, p. 138.
-
368
OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP ACT.
.
circular was therefore addressed to the members, by the Speaker, and a Convention was held at Amboy, when it was resolved that delegates should be appointed to the Congress of New York; accordingly, Joseph Ogden, the Speaker of the Assembly, Hen- drick Fisher, and Joseph Borden, were appointed. This meeting and the proceedings thereat, were denounced by Governor Franklin as being " unprecedented, irregular and unconstitutional.12 The meeting of Commissioners at New York was held at the ap- pointed time, (Tuesday, October, 1765.) There were represen- tatives from most of the colonies.13 This was the first Convention of the colonies for the purpose of considering their rights and privileges, and obtaining redress for a violation of them. They put forth a full and free declaration, and agreed upon petitions and representations to the King and to Parliament.14 Some difference of opinion occurred in relation to the question, whether the peti- tions agreed upon should be transmitted by the Convention, or by the several provincial Assemblies. Messrs. Ruggles, of Massa- chusetts, the Chairman of the Convention, and Ogden, of New Jersey, advocated the latter mode, and refused to sign with the other members of the Convention.
" This meeting is worthy of notice. It was not strictly a meeting of the Assembly, but a Convention of the members, and was the first of a series of movements made without the sanction of the Governor. The measure was ap- proved and defended by the Assembly at their subsequent meeting; it was said that the members present at the time, came together, persuaded that his Excel- lency had declined calling the House, (the Governor, however, asserted that he had not been applied to.) that though a majority of the Assembly were present they did not meet in any legislative capacity, but to prevent disorder, and pre- serve the peace of the government, and that few would think with his Excel- lency, that it was a violation of the principles of the constitution.
13 There were delegates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. New Hampshire, Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina, were not represented, but the two foriner gave assurances of their willingness to unite in petitions to the King and Parliament. The Assemblies of the two latter had not been in session since a proposition for a Convention had been made, and the Governors refused to call special sessions for the purpose, and the independent course pur- sued in New Jersey, was not attempted.
" The proceedings of this meeting were of high importance; they are given at length in Pitkins' History, pp. 130, 136. Story's Commentaries, vol. 1, p. 175.
------
369
OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP ACT.
The Assembly of New Jersey was convened on the 27th of November, by the Governor, at the request of the Speaker, Ogden, and some of the members of the House. The course that had been pursued by Ogden in refusing to join in the final proceedings of the Convention at New York, was much disapproved in the province, and in consequence he resigned his seat in the Assembly, and a new Speaker, Cortland Skinner, was chosen. A report of the proceedings of the meeting at New York was laid before the Assembly by the other delegates, and was unanimously approved. A series of resolutions were also adopted reiterating the views of the Convention, and the House declared that as the late act of Parliament (the stamp act,) was found to be utterly subversive of privileges inherent in, and originally secured by grants and con- cessions from the Crown of Great Britain to the people of the colony, they considered it a duty to themselves, their constituents, and posterity, to leave a record of their resolves upon their journal. 15
15 Resolved, 1. That his Majesty's subjects, inhabitants of this province, are inviolably attached to his Royal person and government; and have ever shown, and we doubt not ever will, their utmost readiness and alacrity for acceding to the constitutional requisitions of the Crown; as they have been from time to time made to this colony. 2. That his Majesty's liege subjects in this colony are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 3. That it is inseperably essential to the freedom of the people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their Re- presentatives. 4. That the people of this colony are not, and from their remote situation, cannot be represented in the Parliament of Great Britain; and if the principle of taxing the colonies without their consent, should be adopted, the people here would be subjected to the taxation of two legislatures; a grievance unprecedented, and not to be thought of without the greatest anxiety. 3. That the only representatives of the people of this colony are persons chosen by theus- selves; and that no taxes ever have been, er can be imposed on them, agreeable to the constitution of this province, granted and confirmed by his Majesty's most gracious predecessors, but by their own legislature. 6. That all supplies being free gifts, for the people of Great Britain to grant to his Majesty the pro- perty of the people of this colony, without their consent, and being represented, would be unreasonable, and render legislation in this colony . useless, in the most essential point. 7. That the profits of trade arising from this colony, con- tering in Great Britain, eventually contributes to the supplies granted there to the Crown. 8. That the giving unlimited power to any subject or subjects, to 47
1
370
OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP ACT.
Immediately afterwards the House was prorogued by the Gover- nor, and his Excellency took this opportunity to express his dis- satisfaction with the late. transactions, and his surprise! at the present proceedings of the House, especially their approval of the meeting at Amboy.
The opposition to the stamp act was so general and decided . thoughout the colonies, that before the time for its operation arrived (November 17th,) neither stamps or stamp officers were to be found. In New Jersey, beside the acts that have been noticed, the sense of the people was otherwise expressed. In September, Coxe, the stanip officer for the province, voluntarily resigned, and subse- quently published a copy of his resignation and declared that he had appointed no deputy, and would never act under the law. In different places throughout the province the people in public declarations, or by other means, manifested their opposition to an observance of the act. 16 After the time had arrived for the opera-
impose what taxes they please in the colonies, under the mode of regulating the prices of stampt vellum, parchment and paper,. appears to be unconstitutional, contrary to the rights of the subjects, and apparently dangerous in its character. 9. That any incumbrance, which in effect restrains the liberty of the press in America, is an infringement upon the subject's liberty. 10. That the extension of the powers of the Court of Admiralty, within this province, beyond its ancient limits, is a violent innovation of the right of trial by jury, a right which this House, upon the principles of their British ancestors, hold most dear and in- valuable. 11. That as the tranquility of this colony hath been interrupted through fear of the dreadful consequences of the stamp act, that therefore the officers of the government, who go on in their offices for the peace and good of the province in the accustomed manner, while things are in their present un- settled condition, will, in the opinion of this House, be entitled to the counte- nance of the legislature ; and it is recommended to our constituents, to use what endeavours lie in their power, to preserve the peace, quiet, order, harmony, and good order of the government, that no heats, disorders, or animosities, may in the least obstruct the united endeavours that are now strongly engaged for the repealing of the act above mentioned, and other acts affecting the trade of the colonies.
Votes, vol. 3. Gordon's New Jersey, p. 140.
16 The freemen of the county of Essex made strong declarations, asserting that the act was unconstitutional, and that they would in no wise give it countenance or support. The inhabitants of Salem learning that John Hatton, a resident there, was desirous to be employed in the distribution of stamps, obliged him to relinquish the design. These measures of resistance were urged and supported
1
.
371
REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT.
tion of the law, as the use of all but stamp paper was forbidden in formal transactions, a period of much confusion occurred; the courts were closed, and business was almost suspended. But this period was of short duration; the colonists resolved to brave the consequences. In February, 1766, a meeting of the members of the bar, in New Jersey, was held at New Brunswick, to consider the propriety of continuing their practice, and they determined to resume . it on the ensuing April, without any regard to the act. The public offices were soon afterward re-opened. 17
It was fortunate that whilst these transactions were taking place in America, a train of circumstances unconnected with colonial affairs, led to a change of the Ministry in England. The Gren- ville party were displaced, and were succeeded by an administra- tion with different views. The Parliament was opened by a speech from the Throne, in which his Majesty declared that he had "firm confidence in their wisdom and zeal, which he trusted would guide them to such sound and prudent resolutions as might tend to preserve the constitutional rights of the British Legislature in the colonies, and restore them to that harmony and tranquility which had been interrupted by disorders of the most dangerous nature." The new Ministers were disposed to measures of relief, but their action was accelerated (though perhaps its direction was somewhat changed,) by the subsequent debate. Pitt came forward upon the motion for the address, and condemned in the most posi- tive terms, the act for collecting stamp duties, and declared that Parliament had no right to tax the colonies. He yet asserted, that " the authority of the British government is supreme in every circumstance of government and legislation whatever," maintain-
by an association of persons who styled themselves "Sons of Liberty," and whose special object was, to prevent any attempt to carry the stamp act into exe- cution. This association had originated in Connecticut and New York, and bound themselves, among other things, to march to any part of the continent, at their own expense, to support the British constitution in America, by which, it was understood, and stated, that an opposition to the stamp act was meant. The association finally extended into other colonies; they were in active operation in New Jersey.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.