The True Life Stories of the Declaration of Independence Signers. Charles Augustus Goodrich

towards those settlements a course of direct oppression. Without the enterprise to establish colonies herself, she was ready, in the very dawn of their existence, to claim them as her legitimate possessions, and to prescribe, in almost every minute particular, the policy they should pursue. Her jealousies, coeval with the foundation of the colonies, increased with every succeeding year; and led to a course of arbitrary exactions, and lordly oppressions, which resulted in the rupture of those ties that bound the colonies to the parent country.

      No sooner did the colonies, emerging from the feebleness and poverty of their incipient state, begin to direct their attention to commerce and manufactures, than they were subjected by the parent country to many vexatious regulations, which seemed to indicate, that with regard to those subjects, they were expected to follow that line of policy, which she in her wisdom should mark out for them. At every indication of colonial prosperity, the complaints of the commercial and the manufacturing interests in Great Britain were loud and clamourous, and repeated demands were made upon the British government, to correct the growing evil, and to keep the colonies in due subjection. "The colonists," said the complainants, "are beginning to carry on trade; — they will soon be our formidable rivals: they are already setting up manufactures; — they will soon set up for independence.' To the increase of this feverisn excitement in the parent country, the English writers of those days contributed not a little. As early as 1670, in a work, entitled, "Discourse on Trade," published by Sir Josiah Child, is the following language, which expresses the prevailing opinion of the day: "New England is the most prejudicial plantation to this kingdom" — "of all the American plantations, his majesty has none so apt for the building of shipping, as New-England, nor any comparably so qualified for the breeding of seamen, not only by reason of the natural industry of that people, but principally by reason of their cod and mackerel fisheries; and, in my poor opinion, there is nothing more prejudicial, and in prospect, more dangerous to any mother kingdom, than the increase of shipping in her colonies, plantations, and provinces."

      By another writer of still more influence and celebrity, Dr. Davenant, the idea of colonial dependence, at which Sir Josiah Child had hinted, was broadly asserted. "Colonies," he writes, "are a strength to their mother country, while they are under good discipline; while they are strictly made to observe the fundamental laws of the original country; and while they are kept dependant on it. But, otherwise, they are worse than members lopped from the body politic; being, indeed, like offensive arms wrested from a nation, to be turned against it, as occasion shall serve."

      To the colonists, however, the subject presented itself in a very different light. They had spontaneously planted themselves on these shores, which were then desolate. They had asked no assistance from the government of Great Britain; nor had they drawn from her exchequer a single pound, during all the feebleness and imbecility of their infancy. And now, when they were beginning to emerge from a state of poverty and depression, which for years they had sustained without complaint, they very naturally supposed that they had a right to provide for their own interests.

      It was not easy for them to see by what principle their removal to America should deprive them of the rights of Englishmen. It was difficult for them to comprehend the justice of restrictions so materially different from those at "home;" or why they might not equally with their elder brethren in England, seek the best markets for their products, and, like them, manufacture such articles as were within their power, and essential to their comfort.

      But the selfish politicians of England, and her still more selfish merchants and manufacturers, thought not so. A different doctrine was accordingly advanced, and a different policy pursued. Acts were, therefore, early passed, restricting the trade with the plantations, as well as with other parts of the world, to English-built ships, belonging to the subjects of England, or to her plantations. Not contented with thus confining the colonial export trade to the parent country, parliament, in 1663, limited the import trade in the same manner.

      These acts, indeed, left free the trade and intercourse between the colonies. But even this privilege remained to them only a short period. In 1672, certain colonial products, transported from one colony to another, were subjected to duties. White sugars were to pay five shillings, and brown sugars one shilling and sixpence, per hundred ; tobacco and indigo one penny, and cotton wool a half-penny, per pound.

      The colonists deemed these acts highly injurious to their interest. They were deprived of the privilege of seeking the best market for their products, and of receiving, in exchange, the articles they wanted, without being charged the additional expense of a circuitous route through England. The acts themselves were considered by some as a violation of their charter rights; and in Massachusetts, they were, for a long time, totally disregarded.

      The other colonies viewed them in the same light. Virginia presented a petition for their repeal; Rhode Island declared them unconstitutional, and contrary to their charter. The Carolinas, also, declared them not less grievous and illegal.

      The disregard of these enactments on the part of the colonies — a disregard which sprung from a firm conviction of their illegal and oppressive character — occasioned loud an.l clamorous complaints in England. The revenue, it was urged would be injured; and the dependance of the colonies on the parent country would, in time, be totally destroyed. A stronger language was, therefore, held towards the colonies, and stronger measures adopted, to enforce the existing acts of navigation. The captains of his majesty's frigates were instructed to seize, and bring in, offenders who avoided making entries in England. The naval officers were required to give bonds for the faithful performance of their duties; the custom house officers in America were clothed with extraordinary powers; and the governors, for neglect of watchfulness on these points, were not only to be removed from office, and rendered incapable of the government of any colony, but also to forfeit one thousand pounds.

      A similar sensibility prevailed, on the subject of manufactures. For many years after their settlement, the colonists were too much occupied in subduing their lands to engage in manufactures. When, at length, they turned their attention to them, the varieties were few, and of a coarse and imperfect texture. But even these were viewed with a jealous eye. In 1699, commenced a systematic course of restrictions on colonial manufactures, by an enactment of parliament, "that no wool, yarn, or woollen manufactures of their American plantations, should be shipped there, or even laden, in order to be transported thence to any place whatever."

      Other acts followed, in subsequent years, having for their object the suppression of manufactures in America, and the continued dependance of the colonies on the parent country. In 1719, the house of commons declared, "that the erecting of manufactories in the colonies, tended to lessen their dependance upon Great Britain." In 1731, the board of trade reported to the house of commons, "that there are more trades carried on, and manufactures set up, in the provinces on the continent of America, to the northward of Virginia, prejudicial to the trade and manufactures of Great Britain, particularly in New-England, than in any other of the British colonies;" and hence they suggested, "whether it might not be expedient," in order to keep the colonies properly dependant upon the parent country, and to render her manufactures of service to Great Britain, "to give those colonies some encouragement."

      From the London company of hatters loud complaints were made to parliament, and suitable restrictions demanded, upon the exportation of hats, which being manufactured in New-England, were exported to Spain, Portugal, and the British West India islands, to the serious injury of their trade. In consequence of these representations, the exportation of hats from the colonies to foreign countries, and from one plantation to another, was prohibited; and even restraints, to a certain extent, were imposed on their manufacture. In 1732 it was enacted, that hats should neither be shipped, nor even laden upon a horse, cart, or other carriage, with a view to transportation to any other colony, or to any place whatever. Nay, no hatter should employ more than two apprentices at once, nor make hats, unless he had served as an apprentice to the trade seven years; and, finally, that no black or negro should be allowed to work at the business at all.

      The complaints and the claims of the manufacturers of iron were of an equally selfish character. The colonists might reduce the iron ore into pigs — they might convert it into bars — it might be furnished them duty free; but they must have the profit of manufacturing it, beyond this incipient stage. Similar success awaited the