Thomas Hutchinson, Patrick Henry, and the Stamp Act

When the stamp act crisis arose, a number of American colonial legislatures opposed the measure and sent remonstrances to Parliament objecting to it. Two of those colonies were Virginia and Massachusetts. The methods utilized by each were different and had differing results. The difference may be attributed to what may be called “Patrick Henry’s Hoax”.

When the stamp act was announced, Thomas Hutchinson, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, opposed the act. However, as an official of the colony’s government it was his duty to execute all the laws of the colony and Great Britain as they applied to the colony. Therefor he was in no position to speak publicly of his opposition. He was able to speak privately. In July of 1764 he wrote to a friend in London who had political connections. He instructed his friend to share the letter with as many people within the government as possible.

Hutchinson’s letter made four points in opposition to the stamp tax. First, the British government had long ago conceded to the various colonies in America the power to make their own laws and to tax themselves through their own legislatures. Second, Americans were not represented in Parliament and thus Parliament had no authority to tax the colonies. Third, the colonies owed no debt to the British government for their existence. The colonies had been founded by private enterprise, bearing the costs themselves along with the settler’s own costs in clearing land, establishing communities and dealing with the Native Americans. They had cost the British taxpayers nothing. Fourth, he advised readers that the stamp tax would jeopardize the profits expected from British trade with America and that lost profits from reduced trade would not be offset by revenue gained from the stamp tax.[1] No radical patriot could have put the case against the stamp tax more clearly and as succinctly.

In the fall of 1764, the Massachusetts legislature met to consider a response to the proposed stamp tax. They decided to draw up a memorial to be sent to the authorities in London explaining their reasons for opposing the tax. The lower house, under the leadership of James Otis, Jr., drew up a radical document challenging Parliament head-on and proclaiming the “natural rights” of Americans as inheritors of the rights of free Englishmen. Hutchinson, as lieutenant governor, was president of the Governor’s Council. All correspondence from the legislature of the colony required approval by both the House of Representatives and the Council. Hutchinson rejected the document and suggested a joint committee with members of both the House and the Council to meet and work out a document that would be acceptable to everyone. The joint committee met over a period of several weeks. Originally the House of Representatives drew up the first draft for the council’s approval. The council rejected it. The committee quickly agreed that they would frame a memorial to just the British House of Commons, which had issued the stamp act. But deciding what to say was not so readily agreed upon:

Advertisement

Many days . . . were spent by the committee without an agreement upon a report. A variety of addresses, proposed by the committee by different members, had been rejected. At length one was offered by the chairman, the Lieutenant Governor, had the good fortune to be accepted without a dissenting voice.[2]

Notwithstanding this unity, “it was rejected by the house.” A number “amendments and alterations” were sent to the council, which were rejected. Days passed with back and forth negotiations. Finally, it came down to a difference of opinion over the word “principles”. “The house had changed it to “rights,” which the council rejected. At length a compromise was reached by the insertion of the word “liberties.”[3]

When the memorial was completed, Hutchinson felt that it was good. The memorial pointed out that the people of Massachusetts “had enjoyed the liberties and privileges which English subjects claim, of being taxed by their representatives, but not a right which exempted them from the authority of Parliament, when it should think necessary to exercise it.”[4] In essence the memorial stated the objection to the stamp act exactly as James Otis, a member of the house, had framed it in his published pamphlet, “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved.”

It concluded with the words, “your petitioners, therefor, most humbly pray that they may be relieved from the burdens of which they have humbly represented to have been brought upon them by the late act of Parliament.”[5]

Advertisement

Because it did not challenge Parliament, Hutchinson anticipated a favorable consideration by the authorities in London. He was satisfied with what he had done and felt that he had helped to defuse a situation that was clearly headed for trouble had the radicals had their way. He felt that for the first time he had acted ahead of the radicals and had undercut their bombastic platitudes.

In Virginia the House of Burgesses, the lower house of the legislature, did not meet to discuss the stamp tax until May 29, 1765. It was next to the last day of the session. There were, at that time, one hundred and sixteen members of the House of Burgesses, but on this the next to last day of the session, only thirty-nine showed up. It only took thirty to make a quorum in the Virginia legislature. All of the other members had already left for home or were preparing to leave. Most people assumed that the Burgesses would simply swallow any reservations they had about the stamp tax and try to make the best of a bad situation. “Older members, such as Edmund Pendleton of Caroline County . . . hoped for a quick approval of the new law without debate . . . Most colonies to the north had already approved the stamp act quite routinely, with little debate, and expected Virginia to follow suit.”[6] That was not what happened.

A copy of the Stamp Act was introduced into the House of Burgesses, or in the words of Lieutenant Governor Francis Fauquier, “it crept into the House.”[7] Patrick Henry had only been elected to the House a few days before. When Henry rose to ask the speaker for recognition, the older members of the house demanded that he sit, as it was tradition that a first term member sit and listen and not take part in discussions. However, the speaker gave him leave to speak. Henry then began to read his propositions, one after the other.

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 [of] his majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in 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.
Resolved. That by two Royal charters granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born in the realm of England.
Resolved. That taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves, to represent then, 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 upon the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and is the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.
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, representing their internal policy and taxation, as are devised from their own consent, with the approbation of their sovereign, or his substitute; and that the same has never forfeited or yielded up, but has been constantly recognized by he kings and people of Great Britain.[8]

With these four resolutions Henry was just stating basic facts that everyone knew and would agree with. There was nothing that challenged Parliament or the crown. But Henry did not stop there. He then began to draw conclusions from the above facts. His fifth resolution was different from the previous four.

Resolved. Therefor that the General Assembly of this colony have the only and exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of the colony and that every attempt to vest such power in any other person or persons . . . in any other than the general assembly aforesaid has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.[9]

Here without specifically naming Parliament, Henry had laid down the gauntlet. Everyone knew what he meant when he said, “person or persons.” He was talking about Parliament. He was saying that Parliament’s efforts to tax Americans directly was destroying their freedoms. With this proposed resolution the House erupted. Cries of “treason, treason” were heard again and again. It was here that Henry, upon hearing the cries of treason, is supposed to have said, “Ceasar had his Brutus, Charles I, his Cromwell, George III . . .” at which time the cries of “treason” were again hurled at him, even louder. Henry is said to have concluded, “and may George III profit by their example! If this be treason, make the most of it,” in a defiant voice.

There is no official record of this speech. The fiery words that Henry was to have spoken first appeared in a biography written in 1816.[10] A number of people who were there remembered it differently.

It seems there was a Frenchman traveling through America that was there that day also. His writings were discovered in 1912 at the Carnegie Institute in Washington D.C. His identity has not been determined, but the paper has been authenticated. His report on Henry’s resolutions are the only known contemporary account of the events of that day.[11] Our French friend made a number of notes about things he saw, including three negroes hanging at the court house for theft, but he also reported that he was at the House of Burgesses when Henry entered his resolves. He wrote that when the cries of treason broke out, that instead of challenging the house and the speaker, Henry, “That if he had affronted the speaker, or the house, he was ready to ask pardon, and he would show his loyalty to his Majesty King George III at the expense of the last drop of his blood, but what he had said must be attributed to the interest of his country’s liberty.”[12]

There is no doubt that if the full house members had been present that day, the fifth resolve would never have passed. The five resolutions passed by one vote, twenty to nineteen. Even then, they would not have passed had not two of the largest land owners and richest of the Burgesses not voted with Henry: Richard Henry Lee, of the Lee family, probably the largest and richest landowner in the tidewater region, and George Washington, the second largest and richest.[13]

The next day the speaker called for an extra session of the legislature and this time many more members were present. Edmund Pendleton opened by proposing that all of Henry’s resolves be stricken from the record, and an extensive debate ensued. Henry was not present that day. Many were surprised at his absence. However, led by Washington and Lee, the house decided to keep the first four, with some revisions, and strike just the fifth resolution from the record. [14] Thus, officially the “Virginia Resolutions” consist of only four resolutions. Two of the changes made were to the first two resolutions when the word “liberties” was struck out.[15]

But then Henry pulled his hoax. On his way out of town he stopped by the office of the Virginia Gazette and told them about the resolutions he had presented to the House of Burgesses and proceeded to give them copies of all seven of his resolves, the last two of which were never presented to the house. Presumably, as the fifth one only passed by one vote, Henry decided not to present the other two which were even more inflammatory. His sixth resolution read:

Resolved. That his Majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatsoever designed to impose any taxation whatsoever on them, other than the laws or ordinances of the general assembly aforesaid.

But Henry was not done. His final resolution was:

Resolved. That any person who shall by speaking or writing, assent, maintain that any person or persons, other than the General Assembly of this colony, have any right or power to lay any taxation on the people here shall be deemed an enemy to his Majesty’s colony.[16]

Henry was making a definite challenge to the parliament by openly declaring that Virginians had no obligation to obey the laws passed by Parliament. He was declaring it to be unlawful for any person to even say that Parliament had a right to tax Virginians, and to do so was to be an “enemy of the colony.” This would put that person outside the protection of the law. Hence to destroy his property, to tar and feather them, was not illegal in the eyes of the radicals.

The editors of the Gazette printed all seven resolves and mailed them to all the colonies throughout America. The resolves were printed in the Newport Messenger in Rhode Island on June 24, 1765 and from there they were reprinted in Boston and New York.[17] There was no mention of the fact that the last two were never voted on and the fifth was rescinded. When copies hit the other colonies, it was assumed that all seven had passed the House of Burgesses.

Back in Boston the Virginia Resolves, all seven of them, hit like a thunderstorm. The stark words were to hit Hutchinson hardest of all. The people of Massachusetts, especially the radicals, when they saw the resolves and compared them to the mild memorial that the Massachusetts legislature had sent, became angry. It was shameful to the radicals like Samuel Adams. No one knew that the last three had not been passed by the Virginia legislature. This was a severe humiliation for Hutchinson, who had staked his reputation on the document sent by Massachusetts and now found himself branded a traitor by the radicals.

Because he had been the driving force in the wording of the Massachusetts petition and had, in the minds of the radicals, destroyed the unanimity of the petitions challenging Parliament’s authority, it became commonplace to assume that Hutchinson was secretly in favor of promoting the stamp act, notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary. As a result, Hutchinson was “charged with treachery and . . . betraying his country.[18] The protesters believed that had all the colonies taken a firm stand in the language of their petitions, the stamp act would never have been passed.

Actually, that was not the case. When all the petitions from the other colonies reached London, “they were deemed inadmissible, because they denied the authority of Parliament. That objection could not be made to the Massachusetts petition.”[19] Governor Francis Bernard, “at the request of the council and the house, sent a copy of it to the secretary of state, to be laid before the king in council. It was afterwards laid before the House of Commons, and read.[20]

Hutchinson reported that there was a growing uneasiness in the house over the stamp act and it was thought possible it might not pass. “But the doctrine of exemption from the authority of Parliament” found in all the other petitions, “was alarming in England.”[21]

As a result, the stamp act was passed 294-49. There was no longer any hope of “the stamp act being quashed.” Hutchinson felt that had the other colonies followed Massachusetts lead, there might have been a different outcome. But the challenge to Parliament was too much for the English to accept.[22] And so the struggle went on to its conclusion.

[1] Bernard Bailyn, The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1974), 62-63.

[2] Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, from 1749-1774, (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1828), 113-114.

[3] Ibid., 114-115.

[4] Ibid., 114.

[5] Massachusetts Petition to the House of Commons, November 3, 1764, www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/massachusetts-petition-house-of-commons.

[6] Harlow Giles Unger, Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation (Cambridge, MA. DaCapo Press, 2010), 37.

[7] Kevin J. Hayes, The Mind of a Patriot, Patrick Henry and the World of Ideas (Charlottesville, VA, University of Virginia Press,2008), 37.

[8] Patrick Henry, Stamp Act Resolutions (1765), www.minio.la.utexas.edu/webeditor-files/coretexted/pdf/176520stamp20act.pdf.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Les Standiford, Desperate Sons: Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and a Secret Band of Radicals Who Led the Colonies to War (New York: Harper Collins, 2012), 40.

[11] Hayes, The Mind of a Patriot, 54.

[12] Standiford, Desperate Sons, 42.

[13] Unger, Lion of Liberty, 40.

[14] Ibid., 41.

[15] Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, Encyclopedia Virginia, www.encyclopediavirginia.org/primary/document/virginia-resolves-on-the-stamp-act/1764.

[16] Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions, 1765, www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/usa65.htm.

[17] Patrick Henry’s Resolutions Against the Stamp Act, www.redhill.org/primary-sources/Patrick-henry-resolutions-against-the-stamp-act/.

[18] Bailyn, The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson, 65-66.

[19] Hutchinson, The History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 114.

[20] Ibid., 115.

[21] Ibid., 116.

[22] Ibid.