33. Repeal of the Stamp Act

Considering the tough ultraimperialist policy Britain had been pursuing toward the American colonies, we may well ask: How did it finally come to choose the alternative of appeasement and repeal? And when every imperialist instinct certainly called for a tough crackdown on the presumptuous, impertinent, and presumably traitorous colonists?

The chief clue to the answer was the fall of the arch-imperialist Grenville ministry in July 1765. King George had never liked Grenville personally, and Grenville’s attempt to exclude the king’s mother from being selected regent in case of the monarch’s incapacity from illness was just about the last straw. Grenville’s open insult to the king’s mother was caused by her long-time liaison with the generally hated Earl of Bute. Accordingly, King George removed Grenville and replaced him with an ultra-Whig ministry headed by the Whig leader, the Marquis of Rockingham, and including the venerable Duke of Newcastle as Lord Privy Seal. The bulk of the rest of the cabinet was new and young blood, headed by the fighting liberal General Conway as secretary of state for the Southern Department.

But the liberal millennium had scarcely arrived in Britain. The new ministry was held in general contempt. Clearly, Rockingham commanded nothing close to a majority in Parliament, and only the king’s whim kept him in office. Everyone expected Rockingham’s imminent fall. In this context, repeal of the Stamp Act was scarcely assured, but at least there was now a fighting chance.

Charles Watson-Wentworth, Marquis of Rockingham, was at this point a young man in his thirties and the political leader of the wool-raising district of Yorkshire, as well as of the Whig movement. From his early years, his mentor in Lockean ideas of liberty had been Sir George Savile. Under Savile’s guidance, Rockingham had studied at a center of liberal thought, St. John’s College, Cambridge, under John Newcome and Bishop Samuel Squire, at one time secretary to the Duke of Newcastle. The young, shy, and gentle Marquis was not, however, cast in a heroic mold.

The Rockingham ministry, friendly to the Wilkite cause, quickly quashed general warrants and the persecution of the Wilkite press, and removed the persecutors from office, while the “massacred innocents” were restored to their public posts.

The chief test of the Rockingham ministry, however, would come in December when Parliament would meet. Newcastle, as usual, tried desperately and fawningly to get William Pitt to join the cabinet so as to ensure a parliamentary majority, while Pitt as usual scornfully refused to enter any cabinet where he did not enjoy absolute power. Grumbling about the lack of a warlike spirit among the Whigs, Pitt remained aloof—in effect aligned with Grenville and Temple in maintaining opposition to the Whig ministry.

Several factors joined to enlist the Rockingham ministry in a drive to repeal the Stamp Act. There was, in the first place, the liberal ideology of the Whigs, and, in particular, the long and honorable record of the Duke of Newcastle’s salutary neglect of the colonies. Second, the Whigs were close to many of the merchants of England, and the merchants who traded with America were especially eager to repeal the Stamp Act.

The English merchants trading with America had been hurt by the American Revenue Act and by the whole program to enforce mercantilism upon the colonies. They suffered directly as traders and indirectly in the loss of American markets caused by the British restrictions. Their devotion to repeal of the Stamp Act was further strengthened by the decision of the leading American merchants to boycott importation of English goods. The boycott was shrewdly designed to pressure the English merchants. It began shortly before November 1, when two hundred New York merchants and retailers signed an agreement to cease importing from Britain until the Stamp Act was repealed. They were followed by four hundred Philadelphia merchants and traders a week later, supported by Philadelphia retailers and then by two hundred and fifty merchants and traders of Boston. These agreements were joined by merchants in Albany, in rural Pennsylvania, and in Salem, Marblehead, Plymouth, and Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Compliance with the boycott was remarkably widespread. Only a few violations occurred. But in these cases, the radical merchants turned to violence to enforce their policy. The first breach occurred in late April in Philadelphia. There, the Committee of Merchants ordered imports from Liverpool seized and locked up until news of repeal should arrive. Shortly afterward, goods from Bristol arrived at New York and were seized by the Sons of Liberty, to be returned promptly to England.

The principle of the secondary boycott was also applied against any exports to American ports where the stamp tax was being observed. Thus, for the short while that Georgia was using stamped paper, the Charleston Fire Company, consisting of small businessmen-artisans, organized a boycott of all exports to Georgia. In late February, the Charleston Sons of Liberty, growing out of the fire company, threatened destruction of a ship about to export rice to Georgia, as well as murder of the exporters. The offending merchants thought it wiser to submit. The people of Newburyport, Massachusetts, after threats had failed, informed customs officials of violations in order to stop a schooner from sailing to Halifax, a port using stamped paper.

Joined to the slackening of imports due to the restrictions and taxes, the boycott helped to cement and intensify the clamor of British merchants to repeal the Stamp Act. Another aid, as we have seen, was the stoppage of some of the civil courts that enforced debt payments to English creditors. The clamor was joined by the newly burgeoning English manufacturers, who were in danger of losing their American markets, and the merchant-planters in the West Indies, who, in contrast to their vested interests in restricting the molasses trade, wanted the incubus of the stamp tax on their markets removed. This was the first time in English history that manufacturers were mobilized for a political cause.

The Duke of Newcastle had long been one of the best-informed Englishmen on American affairs, and he was always in close touch with merchants in the American trade, especially their leader, the radical alderman Sir William Baker. As early as May 1765, the London merchants in the American trade had chosen a Select Committee to battle oppressive legislation and taxation of the colonies. During August and September, the merchants of Liverpool petitioned the government to repeal Grenville’s oppressive acts in order to relieve the depressed state of trade, and they were followed by the manufacturers of Manchester and of the Yorkshire cities.

All this pressure had particular meaning for Rockingham. The Marquis was the political leader of Yorkshire and close to the wool manufacturers there. He was also a relative of the powerful Wentworth family of New Hampshire, and was therefore very likely to favor their presentation of the American point of view. One of the joint agents for New Hampshire in arguing against the stamp tax was John Wentworth, nephew and future successor of Governor Benning Wentworth, and John exerted considerable influence upon Rockingham. Also close to Rockingham was former Boston merchant and now MP John Huske, who had been born in New Hampshire. Other influential New Hampshire agents were the John Thomlinsons, senior and junior, who were close associates of Newcastle.

The Rockingham ministry was inclined not only for reasons ideological, social, and economic to work for the repeal of the Stamp Act and other repressive restrictions on the colonies, but for compelling political reasons as well. For one thing, the merchants and manufacturers, joined to the London radicals, could provide the Whigs with a mass base for influence upon Parliament. For another, the focus could then be on discrediting Grenville by highlighting the evil consequences of the actions of his administration.

The British press kept the public well informed of the developing opposition to stamps in America. Patrick Henry’s resolves received full publicity in England. When news of the numerous American riots and actions of the Sons of Liberty began to be published in mid-October, Newcastle made a swift decision: to drive for outright repeal of the Stamp Act, a decision backed by Sir George Savile.

In early December, the London merchants, led by Barlow Trecothick, an eminent merchant born in Boston, organized a committee to mobilize mercantile and manufacturing sentiment and to pressure Parliament, then in the process of opening, for repeal of the Stamp Act. Trecothick was selected for this task by Rockingham, Newcastle, and the Whig ministry. Trecothick was another joint agent of New Hampshire, as well as a partner of the Thomlinsons in the American trade. He was also a radical alderman from London and an important adviser of Rockingham. Trecothick sent a crucially important circular letter, inspired by Rockingham and William Burke, to thirty of the leading trading and manufacturing towns in Great Britain. Letters were also sent to individual Whig leaders in the various towns, urging them to take the lead in organizing the various petitions to the government. This letter, which has been called “The Principal Instrument in the Happy Repeal of the Stamp Act,” soon bore fruit in a deluge of petitions to Parliament for repeal of the Stamp Act, from over twenty towns and cities including Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester. The petitions, of course, stressed not the moral or political rights of colonies, but the grievous economic effects of the measure for trade in the colonies and at home.

While Parliament would have to decide on repeal, there were many good deeds that the Rockingham administration could perform strictly on its own. Above all, it could return to the policy of salutary neglect, including a seemingly bungling failure to enforce the Stamp Act. This was precisely what it did. Instructions to the royal governors on the stamp tax were deliberately tardy and vague, and confined to cloudy advice to do their duty within the limits of “prudence.” No British army was sent or mobilized, and the navy did not bother about the lack of stamps on the clearance papers of American ships. Furthermore, under the influence of Newcastle, the Rockingham ministry applied salutary neglect to the rest of Grenville’s restrictive program. Laxity was again encouraged. In particular, the useful Spanish bullion trade from South America to the British West Indies in exchange for English manufactured goods, which helped repay debts to American and English merchants, was again looked at benignly even though it was illegal. Laxity was particularly welcome after Grenville’s repressive enforcement had disrupted transatlantic trade habits of over a century.

Moves were also undertaken to legalize informally or formally the vital American molasses trade with the foreign West Indies. Influence to this end was exerted by William Burke, the young undersecretary to Conway. Burke, who had been the leading publicist, at the end of the Seven Years’ War, for the Whig peace terms of keeping the West Indian islands and letting France keep the American colonies, was himself involved in the molasses trade from Guadeloupe to America. Burke was a partner in this vital trade, repressed by Grenville’s program of rigor, as were his cousin Richard Burke and Richard’s brother Edmund, the brilliant young private secretary to Rockingham.

In originally formulating its plans for the opening of Parliament, the Whig ministry had been misled into underestimating the colonial reaction to the Stamp Act, and therefore had planned to repeal or revise the Grenville trade acts gradually before taking up the stamp tax. They were misled largely by the special situation in Pennsylvania—including the overoptimistic reports received from Benjamin Franklin, the support for the Stamp Act by Franklin’s Pennsylvania ally Galloway, the actions of the counterrevolutionary White Oaks mob in Philadelphia, and the September elections in Philadelphia won by the royalist party—with the aid of some twenty-six hundred Germans naturalized and enrolled by Galloway just before the election. The Rockingham ministry was at last becoming disillusioned about the quality of Franklin’s reports and about the position of Mr. Franklin himself. The radical and rebellious temper of the colonies was becoming clear, and Franklin’s cool treatment of the Bristol merchants opposed to the Stamp Act called his whole attitude into question. The administration now realized that Stamp Act repeal must be the first order of colonial business in Parliament.

By the December opening of Parliament, then, it was clear that the most pressing problem before the government was the stamp tax. The Whigs, merchants, manufacturers, and London radicals formed the liberal party facing the opposition of Grenville, Bedford, Halifax, Bute, the King’s Friends—in short, all of the various Tory factions. The ideological battle raged in the press; typical of the liberal view were articles by “Rationalis.” Rationalis warned that Britain’s harsh measures might well drive the American colonies out of desperation into independence. He argued, as had Robert Walpole decades before, that refraining from taxing the colonies would leave them free to use the money to buy British goods, an advantage to both peoples. Rationalis cited Walpole’s famous aphorism: deliberately neglecting to enforce taxes and regulations in the colonies “is taxing them more agreeably both to their own constitution and to ours.”

Parliament opened on December 17 with the administration urging another month’s postponement to allow time for public opinion, spurred by Trecothick’s campaign, to mobilize behind repeal. Grenville and Bedford, suspecting an eventual plan for repeal (which had been kept secret by the ministry), issued a violent attack on the colonies and called for suppression of the Stamp Act rebellion. But the large block of Tory King’s Friends were willing to go along with the king’s ministers, so Grenville did not put his views to a test in Parliament. Significantly, Charles Townshend and Lord George Sackville, conservative members of the ministry, both called for enforcement of the Stamp Act, although doing so while speaking against Grenville’s motion. Leaders for the government in the debates were London aldermen Beckford and Baker, Rose Fuller, and Sir George Savile in the Commons, and Grafton and Dartmouth in the Lords. Leading the Tory attacks were Bedford, Halifax, Sandwich, and North in the Lords, and Grenville in the Commons. Finally, the administration was successful; the House agreed to adjourn until January 14.

The parliamentary task of the ministry was made all the harder by the untimely death at the end of October of the influential Duke of Cumberland, the king’s uncle and the Whig’s one friend at court. It was Cumberland who had persuaded the king to choose the Rockingham ministry. The ministry was now clearly shakier than ever, and Newcastle began to press upon Rockingham without success his old disastrous tactic of fawning upon William Pitt. Pitt, now pressured by both sides, continued to refuse to support any government dominated by Newcastle. Indeed, Pitt gave strong indications of favoring the exercise of British sovereignty over the colonies. However, the fawning upon Pitt was intensified by Newcastle as a result of the growing defection of the King’s Friends, who were rapidly learning with alarm of the great extent and depth of the colonial rebellion. Thus, as the crucial January session of Parliament approached, the Whigs saw their two potential sets of allies, the Pittites and the King’s Friends, drifting strongly toward opposition to repeal.

Amidst the growing political crisis at home and in the colonies, the cabinet met on December 27 to decide finally upon government policy. Rockingham, Lord Dartmouth, Henry Seymour Conway, and William Dowdeswell, chancellor of the Exchequer and representative of the instinctively liberal wing of the country gentry, came out foursquare for outright and total repeal of the Stamp Act (there was no need to invite Newcastle, perhaps the most “pro-American” of them all). The big surprise, however, was a determined drive by Attorney General Charles Yorke, a conservative renegade Whig, against any “undignified” concessions to the colonies. Whether or not the repeal was pushed, Yorke insisted particularly on a declaratory act, which would affirm conclusively the unbounded sovereign power of Parliament over the colonies. Yorke also called for a penalty of high treason against anyone who might dare to attack the proclaimed sovereignty of Parliament in speech or in writing. Yorke’s stand was attacked by Conway and later by an angry Newcastle. Instead, Newcastle proposed the usual Whig game, which had worked so well in the days of Walpole—namely, a meaningless declaration as sop to the King’s Friends, the Pittites, and the conservative Whigs. The declaration could then serve as a formal camouflage for the reality of conciliation, salutary neglect, and virtual de facto colonial independence from British rule. Rockingham himself was thinking along similar lines. But once again Pitt threw a monkey wrench into the proceedings, calling for a firmer stand against the colonies and insisting on his personal control of the cabinet. Earl Temple trumpeted that Pitt agreed that the Americans must be crushed and, to make matters worse, Conway and Grafton, personally loyal to Pitt although liberal, repeatedly threatened to resign unless Pitt were brought into the cabinet. In the meanwhile, Bute and the King’s Friends, violently disturbed at the colonists’ disobedience, were secretly given the green light by the king himself to vote against his own ministry, which he was already preparing to dump. What the king desired as the Tory ideal of his maneuvers, was a coalition ministry with Bute and the King’s Friends dictating domestic affairs, while leaving foreign affairs to the arch imperialist Pitt. In Parliament, the King’s Friends, without joining Grenville’s organized opposition, would vote against repeal, thereby toppling the ministry and permitting the king to ignore the Grenvillites (whose leader he personally hated) in forming his desired ministry.

As the decisive January session of Parliament drew near, success of the repeal program seemed distant indeed. Borne down by defections within and without, harassed by intrigue, alarmed at the mounting rebellion, the Rockingham Whigs yet coolly and rationally stayed firm on principle, insisting on removing the oppression instead of sending force to crush the colonies. With only the merchants and manufacturers to support the Whigs, the power of the latter in Parliament was minimal. Yet the Whigs refused to temporize, and continued to press for repeal.

Parliament opened on January 14 and the expected immediate assault on the ministry was launched by the Grenvillites and some King’s Friends demanding enforcement of the Stamp Act, as well as the sending of troops to the colonies to crush the rebellion and to impose the brutal model of British policy in conquered Ireland on the Americans.

At this point William Pitt, ill and erratic as usual, exercised his charisma once more. Pitt, felled by illness and insanity, had not appeared in Parliament for two years. Now Pitt played his pivotal role to maximum dramatic effect, after having kept everyone in the dark about his position. Staggering to his feet, Pitt stunned everyone with a fiery defense of the Americans and a scathing attack on Grenville: “As to the late ministry, every capital measure they have taken, has been entirely wrong.” The Whigs were criticized by Pitt, in an odd turnabout, for hesitancy in treating the problem. As for the Americans, Pitt averred that they had “all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen.” Only American assemblies have the right to tax the colonies; any other dispensation would be “slavery.” Pitt concluded that “this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies,” although sovereign over them in every field of legislation or regulation. Pitt therefore urged immediate repeal of the Stamp Act on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional tax on the colonies. The repeal was to be accompanied by a declaratory act asserting Parliament’s sovereignty (limited by a lack of taxing power) over the Americans.

After Grenville answered with one of his typical legalistic speeches, Pitt’s reply rose to the heights of eloquence:

I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime.... The gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit and be slaves, would have been fit to make slaves of the rest. I come not here armed at all points, with law cases... to defend the cause of liberty. I am passed the time of life to be turning to books to know whether I love liberty or not.... Will you sheath your sword in the bowels of your brother, the Americans? You may coerce and conquer, but when they fall, they will fall like the strong man embracing the pillars of this constitution, and bury it in ruin with them....

Pitt’s brilliant speech was a mighty blow for the American cause. Yet it is surely ironic that this, one of the few libertarian stands of Pitt’s career, was to make this Johnny-come-lately a supposedly libertarian hero to the American colonists. Rockingham’s thankless role was forgotten, even though Pitt had refused to coordinate his moves with the ministry, and even now continued to refuse cooperation with Rockingham. In fact, Pitt, erratically, continued to insist on Earl Temple’s inclusion into the cabinet as the price of his support, even though Temple was ardently defending the Stamp Act in the House of Lords.

Still, Pitt had drastically changed his mind. Three weeks before, he was ready to impose British authority on the colonists. Now he stood fast for repeal. What, apart from inherent instability, had changed him? The answer lies in the Trecothick agitation among the merchants and manufacturers, shrewdly directed from behind the scenes by the Rockingham ministry and spurred by the depression and the trade boycotts waged in the colonies.

During December and January, the merchants’ agitation received a great boost from the temporary suppression of American shipping because of the lack of stamped clearances, and from the closing of the civil courts to British creditors. The English agitation for repeal was also joined to great effect in the pubic press: the leading Whig publicists in the campaign were William Burke, Edmund Burke, and, particularly, David Hartley, a lifelong friend and adviser of Savile’s who had first urged Sir George, the previous fall, to press for complete and immediate repeal.

Foremost in influencing Pitt was the unanimous clamor for repeal among the merchants. All his life Pitt had been the spokesman of the merchants, especially those engaged in West India planting, but now all the merchants, whether in America or West India trade, united to urge repeal. Of the fifty-two merchants sitting in Parliament in February 1766, forty-six voted for repeal (of the maverick six, two were members of the king’s Scots bloc; two were agents of the East India Company, headed by the Tory Earl of Sandwich; and two were indebted to Grenville). Of the West Indian planting interests, Beckford, the Lascelles family, and the Fullers, as well as the West Country gentry, were all ardent opponents of the Stamp Act. It was therefore clear to Pitt that there was only one way for him to reattract his old mercantile, West Country, and West India support, and to wean them from their attachment to the Whigs over the Stamp Act. That way was to make a grandstand play, to shout louder than the Rockingham Whigs for the American cause. No matter that the Whigs had to engage in subtle and often silent strategy to maneuver a repeal through Parliament. Never mind destruction of the Whig’s well-laid plans. By thundering dramatically in Parliament Pitt could seem to be the heroic champion of American liberty, and make the Rockinghams seem pale and timorous by comparison. Such is precisely what Pitt did in his irresponsibly designed speech.

Having tried and failed to induce Pitt to join the cabinet, the Rockingham ministry met on January 17 to decide the strategy for repeal. Within the cabinet a fierce struggle raged, with Attorney General Yorke reluctant on repeal and insistent on the harshest possible declaratory act asserting the absolute sovereignty of Parliament over the colonies. Yorke pressed alone for a specific declaration of Parliament’s right to tax the colonies, but was overruled by Rockingham and the final version of the Declaratory Act.

In the meantime, a flood of petitions for repeal by merchants and manufacturers was deluging Parliament. Their zeal was intensified by the sharp drop in exports to America caused by postwar depression, trade restrictions, and boycotts by American merchants. Exports to America had fallen by seven hundred thousand pounds from 1764, a drop of over twenty-five percent. Furthermore, unemployment was now severe in the export industries, especially in shipping, and fears grew of riots by the restless unemployed. Above all, Americans owed English merchants and financiers a mass of debt, and fears of default bestirred almost every merchant in England. Total American debt to England at this time has been estimated at nearly five million pounds. And all this to be sacrificed for the sake of a stamp tax designed to yield an annual revenue of only sixty thousand pounds! Skillfully timed, petitions for repeal poured into Parliament on January 17 from the merchants of Bristol, Lancaster, Liverpool, Leeds, and Halifax, from the manufacturers of Manchester, Leicester, and Bradford, and from the wool manufacturers of Yorkshire. Additional petitions soon came from Jamaica and from over twenty towns and cities, including Birmingham, Coventry, Nottingham, and Glasgow.

The Rockingham ministry’s almost exclusive stress on the economic reasons for repeal and its blurring and playing down of constitutional reasons, while perhaps effective in the short run, stored up great trouble for the future. William Pitt’s speech was generally misinterpreted as only denying Parliament’s power of internal taxation of the colonies; whereas Pitt, as well as the colonists, denied all taxation imposed by the mother country, and agreed only to the latter’s power to regulate the trade of the colonies. The Rockingham ministry, anxious to appease its vehement opposition, decided to stress the weaker limits, and to give the impression that the arbitrary internal-external distinction was that of the colonists also. Thus, when Pitt and his friend George Cooke tried to bring the petitions of the Stamp Act Congress—which clearly denied the right of all parliamentary taxation—before Parliament, the administration managed to suppress their hearing.

In keeping with this soft-sell strategy, of the forty or so administration witnesses appearing before the House on the Stamp Act, the featured American was none other than Benjamin Franklin.* The deft and witty Franklin pleased the administration, not only by stressing the economic consequences rather than moral or political rights, but also by raising and stressing the old arbitrary and flimsy distinction between internal and external taxation that he and his friend Richard Jackson had originated over two years before. Nor was that all. Franklin changed the terms of the debate by his mendacious assertion that his was the dominant American argument. A completely rejected and bizarre distinction of Franklin’s and of a few of his cronies was elevated by the wily Franklin to become in the eyes of the English the official stand of the American colonies.

On February 3, two weeks before introducing the motion for repeal, the Rockingham ministry introduced some sugarcoating for the forthcoming pill, the Declaratory Act. This bill asserted full parliamentary authority over the colonies. The crucial question of whether the power extended in full or in part to taxation was deliberately left ambiguous, as sop to all factions. Here Rockingham overrode the objections of the arch-conservative Whigs Attorney General Yorke and his brother, the Earl of Hardwicke, who urged that the right to tax the colonies be inserted into the bill. From the other side, Newcastle believed that the declaratory bill went too far. In Commons, Colonel Isaac Barré and William Pitt made a tactical error and tried to weaken the declaration; by losing they gave the impression to all England that the bill did include the power to tax the colonies. The Declaratory Act passed Parliament overwhelmingly, with only Pitt and a few hard-hitting liberals opposed in the Commons, and Lord Camden leading the handful of opponents in the Lords.

At this point, however, the Tory opposition counterattacked with a resolution calling for armed enforcement of the Stamp Act in the colonies. On February 6, the Lords carried the resolution by three votes, and Bute’s vote in favor was a clear signal of the king’s true wishes. The vote, ominous to the administration, reflected an alliance of the Bedford, Grenville, and Bute forces. The next day, the elated Grenville introduced a similar enforcement resolution into the House of Commons. Grenville’s motion was roundly defeated by a vote of 274 to 134. Its defeat indicated a critical turning point in the entire parliamentary struggle. The leading arguments in opposition to Grenville varied from those of the cynical Townshend, who favored force but first wanted troops to be built up in America, and of Pitt, to those of the impassioned Whig generals Conway and Howard, who threatened to maim or kill themselves before killing fellow men who were, in the words of Howard, “contending for their liberty.”

The opposition had used poor tactics. The sight of their defeat on the enforcement issue staggered the politicians, and paved the way for the repeal of the Stamp Act. The motion for repeal was introduced on February 21 and passed early the next morning by a vote of 275 to 167. This was the decisive though not the final vote, and the people of England rejoiced throughout the land. The government had feared an insurrection at home if repeal had not passed; the industrial towns had threatened to send mobs to Westminster to enforce their demands for repeal. As it was, the throng of merchants outside Parliament cheered Conway and Pitt and hissed and threatened George Grenville. The bells of London’s churches rang all day at the happy news; ship captains broke their colors; manufacturers began to rehire their workers; and merchants put their ships to sea once more.

The debate in the Lords opened on March 11. The lead for repeal was taken by Whig Lords Dartmouth, Newcastle, Grafton, Richmond, and Camden, and against by Halifax, Temple, Bute, and Bedford. The repeal passed the Lords by 105 to 71, with thirty-three Lords issuing a special public protest against it as weakness and surrender. The repeal was officially signed on March 18, to the accompaniment of more celebrations throughout the country.

Despite this signal victory, as well as such other accomplishments for liberty as making general warrants illegal and repealing the hated cider tax, the Rockingham ministry was close to collapse. The king hated the repeal and during the Revolutionary War was to recall it as his only political regret. Most of the King’s Friends had voted against the repeal. Pitt was refusing to back the administration; by his grandstand play he had succeeded in making himself rather than the ministry the hero of the merchants and of the Americans.

*The Whigs were not above using bribery. None other than Major Thomas James, the anti-American hard-line commander from New York, was bribed with a very large sum to testify in Commons in favor of repeal of the Stamp Act. See Bernhard Knollenberg, Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775 (New York: Free Press, 1975), p. 23.