Imperial Authority, Colonial Opposition, 1760-1766
Imperial Authority, Colonial Opposition, 1760-1766
P127 to 128
After Seven Years' War, Anglo-American tensions centered on Britain's efforts to finance its suddenly enlarged empire through a series of revenue measures and to enforce these and other measures directly rather than relying on local authorities. Following passage of the Stamp Act, opposition movements arose in the mainland colonies to protest not only the new measures' cost but also what many people considered a dangerous extension of Parliament's power. Opponents came from all segments of colonial society, including poor and working people. The crisis revealed a widening gulf between British and colonial perceptions of the proper relationship between the empire and its colonies.
Writs of Assistance, 1760-1761
Even before the Seven Years’ War ended, British authorities attempted to halt American merchants’ trade with the French enemy in the West Indies. In 1760, the royal governor of Massachusetts authorized revenue offices to employ a search warrant called a writ of assistance to seize illegally imported goods.. The writ permitted customs officials to enter any ship or building (including a merchant’s residence)where smuggled goods might be hidden. Because the document required no evidence of probable cause for suspicion, many critics considered it unconstitutional.
Writs of assistance proved effective against smuggling. In quick reaction, some Boston merchants hired lawyer James Otis to challenge the constitutionality of the writs. Before the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1761, Otis argued that ‘’an act against the Constitution is void’’--even one passed by Parliament. But the court, influenced by Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson, who noted the use of identical writes in England,ruled against the merchants.
Despite losing the case, Otis expressed the fundamental conception of many, both in Britain and in the colonies, of Parliament’s role under the British constitution. The British constitution was not a written document but instead a collection of customs and accepted principles that guaranteed certain rights to all citizens. Most British politicians assumed that Parliament’s law were themselves part of constitution and hence that Parliament could alter the constitution at will. But Otis contended that Parliament possessed no authority to violate the “rights of Englishmen,” and he asserted that there were limits “beyond which if Parliaments go, the Acts bind not.” Such challenges to parliamentary authority would be renewed once peace was restored.
