Contested Relationship The New Imperial Policy to the Repeal of the Stamp Act, George Grenville

George III— Constitutional Perspective Only seen as “royal brute” beginning in 1770s Desire to restore royal prerogative Unstable Parliamentary leadership—Pitt, Bute, Grenville, Rockingham, Pitt, Grafton (Townshend), Grafton, North. Internal Matters—John Wilkes

New Imperial Policy Desire to create single economic system according to principles of Mercantilism Elimination of habit of “salutary neglect”; lower rates, better enforcement. (e. g.: Revenue Act of 1764 [Sugar Act]) Colonies to pay a PORTION of their cost of governance and defense. (£78,000 of £200,000 annual estimate.)

Major Pieces of Legislation Writs of Assistance, 1760 Proclamation of 1763 Act for the Encouragement of Officers Making Seizures (1763) Sugar Act (1764) (£45,000 per annum est.) Currency Act (1764) Quartering Act (1765)

Stamp Act Proposed on Feb. 13, 1765, to take effect on November 1, Only 3 opposition speeches—most famous by Isaac Barré Revenue stamps on newspapers, pamphlets, broadsides, almanacs, bonds, leases, deeds, licenses, insurance policies, ship clearances, college diplomas, dice and playing cards

The inhabitants of the colonies are, as such, incapable ot being electors, the privilege of election being exercisable only in person, and, therefore, if every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold, not one could vote but upon the supposition of his ceasing to be an inhabitant of America and becoming a resident in Great Britain, a supposition which would be impertinent because it shifts the question….. It appears to me that there is a clear and necessary distinction between an act imposing a tax for the single purpose of revenue and those acts which have been made for the regulation of trade and have produced some revenue in consequence of their effect and operation as regulations of trade. ….. The colonies claim the privileges of British subjects. It has been proved to be inconsistent with those privileges to tax them with out their own consent, and it has been demonstrated that a tax imposed by Par1iament is a tax without their consent. … Daniel Dulany, Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies (1765). A right to impose an internal tax on the colonies without their consent for the single purpose of revenue is denied; a right to regulate their trade without their consent is admitted.

1. Resolved, that the first adventurers and settlers of His Majesty's colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other His Majesty's subjects since inhabiting in this His Majesty's said colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain. 2. Resolved, that by two royal charters, granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England. 3. Resolved, that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist. 4. Resolved, that His Majesty's liege people of this his most ancient and loyal colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable right of being governed by such laws, respecting their internal policy and taxation, as are derived from their own consent, with the approbation of their sovereign, or his substitute; and that the same has never been forfeited or yielded up, but has been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain. 5. Resolved, therefore that the General Assembly of this Colony have the only and exclusive Right and Power to lay Taxes and Impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony and that every Attempt to vest such Power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the General Assembly aforesaid has a manifest Tendency to destroy British as well as American Freedom. Virginia Resolves, 1765

Responses Stamp Act Congress (Declaration of Rights and Grievances)Declaration of Rights and Grievances Violent Protests—Andrew Oliver Burned in effigy and Thomas Hutchinson’s house destroyed; Sons of Liberty Propaganda and Ideology—Whig Theory/Virtual versus Actual Representation Repeal of Stamp Act, 1766 Declaratory Act, 1766 – “in all cases whatsoever.”