52 



DISCOVERY 



The Stamp Act of 1765 



I. The Conditions and Circum- 

 stances Preceding the Act 



By G. H. K. Marten, M.A. 



Assistant Master, Eton Collegr 



The year 1765 is one of the most memorable in the 

 history of the world. It saw the invention of Watt's 

 steam-engine ; and it witnessed the passing of the 

 Stamp Act devised by England's cliief minister, George 

 Grenvillc. Watt's invention revolutionised the con- 

 ditions of industry', and, in consequence of Stephenson's 

 development, the means of communication ; Gren- 

 ^^lle's unfortunate Act was the beginning of the dis- 

 putes and misunderstandings which led to the foimda- 

 tion of the United States of America. And the Stamp 

 Act still lives. It still helps to poison the relations 

 between Great Britain and America. An English 

 writer, fresh from his impressions of a recent visit in 

 America, says " that the alleged selfishness and in- 

 justice of the Mother-Country constitute the history 

 and traditions of America " ; and an American, who 

 has recently published a pamphlet on the school text- 

 books used in America, shows that some of them, old 

 themselves and based on obsolete histories, still help 

 to prejudice the rising generation against Great Britain. 

 JIany of us remember from our own school-days that 

 we regarded England as the \vicked dragon in the story, 

 and America as the innocent fairy. And we comforted 

 ourselves with the reflection that, after all, Grenville 

 was but a pedantic lawyer, and the representative of 

 what we considered to be a corrupt aristocracy, whilst 

 George III was the son of a German mother who had 

 dinned into him German ideas on the omnipotence of 

 kings, ideas which were far removed from those held 

 by most Englishmen at that time. 



Of late years, however, the whole story of England's 

 relations with her Colonies has been reinvestigated. 

 And it is a happy example of the impartiaUty of 

 historians that the inquirers, both in England and 

 America, seem to be unaffected by their nationality. 

 Indeed, it is not a little curious that the most con- 

 vinced believer in England's wrong-headedness, amongst 

 recent writers on the American Revolution, should be 

 an Englishman, Sir George Trevelyan ; whilst for more 

 tolerant views of the policy pursued by the Mother- \ 

 Country we must go to American historians such as 

 Mr. G. L. Beer or Mr. O. M. Dickerson.' The present 



• British Colonial Policy, 1754-65, by G. L. Beer (1907) ; 

 American Colonial Government, 1696-1765, by O. M. Dickerson 

 (1912). Of earlier writers Lecky's chapters, written soon after 

 1880 in his History of England in Dk Eighteenth Century, are a 

 triumph of impartiality. 



article agrees with the more tolerant writers. England 

 may have been injudicious and bungling in her policy ; 

 she certainly had no intention to be unjust. And the 

 circumstances at the time of the Stamp Act were so 

 diflicult that it is fairer, perhaps, to put the blame for 

 the disputes upon them rather than upon the pedantry 

 of George Grenville, or the obstinacy of George III, 

 or the " umbragcousness " — to use Pitt's word — of 

 American extremists. 



What were the conditions and circumstances which 

 made Grenville's position so difficult ? The first was 

 the want of unity, due to historical conditions, of the 

 thirteen American Colonies which stretched along the 

 American seaboard. They were of different origin, 

 different occupations, even different cUmates. Their 

 patriotism was local and confined to one Colony ; and 

 there were continually disputes between the Colonies 

 as to their respective boundaries. " Fire and water," 

 said a traveller in 1760, " are not more heterogeneous 

 than the different Colonies in North America." As a 

 consequence all attempts — and attempts had been 

 made, as, for instance, in 1754 — to get the Colonies to 

 combine for defence had failed; and the Mother- 

 Country had had continually to interfere to settle 

 boundary- questions and disputes with the Indians. 



The second condition which involved difficulty was 

 the old colonial system. Great Britain had not 

 worked out satisfactorily in detail the principles wliich 

 should control the relations of the Mother-Country 

 and the Colonies ; and these relations had developed 

 in somewhat haphazard fashion. Perhaps Great 

 Britain was to blame for this, but, after all, that is her 

 British method, and there is a great deal to be said for 

 it|; and even now in 1920 we have not got a rigid S}'stem. 

 Let us take, as an example, in the eighteenth century 

 the three most important departments of Defence, 

 Trade and Government — in all of which danger of 

 friction lurked. 



In Defence, Great Britain did far more than her 

 share. She was wholly responsible for naval defence ; 

 she provided convoys, protected the Colonies from the 

 French, Spaniards, and not least the pirates.' She 

 kept garrisons, chiefly at her own expense, in the 

 danger spots ; she gave arms and ammunitions to the 

 Colonies for local Indian wars. Finally, in time of war 

 she assumed the chief burden. 



Then in Trade. The old idea of historians was, in 

 the words of Sir John Seeley, " that Mother-Countries 

 regarded Colonies as merely estates out of which the 



• We had an arrangement, for instance, with the Barbary 

 pirates in the Mediterranean by which they left immune the 

 ships of Great Britain and her Colonies. When the American 

 Colonies became free, the Barbary pirates, by their captures, 

 quickly reminded the Colonies of the more unpleasant aspects 

 of independence 1 



