British Enforcement and Colonial Resistance As the British Empire grew, Parliament needed to control the huge volume of trade that was coming in and out of its faraway colonies. However, the great distances made it very difficult and very costly to enforce the trade rules of the Empire. The navy, busy fighting wars with France, was not available to patrol American ports. The cost, distance, and wars ensured that the laws were rarely enforced. The British Navigation Acts, originally passed in 1660, attempted to control the shipment of goods from the colonies. Crops such as sugar and tobacco could not be shipped anywhere but to Britain and in any ships but British ones. Later, Parliament added more goods such as copper, indigo, white pines, and rice to the list of controlled goods. Parliament also set high tariffs (taxes due when a ship lands) to many items shipped into the colonies from foreign countries. These tariffs protected British interests. If sugar from French Caribbean islands were allowed into the colonies without being taxed, it would hurt British plantation owners, whose sugar prices would drop. Colonial merchants and ship owners often ignored tariffs and trade restrictions, even during wartime. Smuggling and bribery of customs officials were commonplace. At the end of the French and Indian War, Parliament decided to clamp down on the widespread smuggling. Not only did they need more tax revenue to pay off their war debt, but they also needed to assert their control over the American colonies. Many Americans were outraged by British attempts to regain control. In 1762, when Parliament overturned a Massachusetts trade law, Massachusetts lawmakers took a stand in favor of self-­‐government. A colonial legislature had every right to make laws regulating its own taxes and fees. The legislators told their colony’s agent in London to inform Parliament that “no Reason can be given why a man should be abridg’d in his Liberty, by removing from London to Dover, or from one side of the street to the other. So long as he remains a British Subject, so long must he be intitled to all the privileges of one.” (Slaughter 2658) Parliament did not agree with the men of Massachusetts. According to historian Thomas Slaughter, “the British imperial vision was of colonists as dependents, not equals.” The King in Parliament was sovereign; anything Parliament passed was higher law than colonial measures. This attitude was behind the issuing of the Writs of Assistance, which allowed colonial officials to search any ship, warehouse, or private home without a specific warrant. In addition, Parliament required that all trials of accused smugglers be moved to military tribunals called vice admiralty courts. The burden of proof was placed on the defendant to prove his innocence. The cost of traveling to Nova Scotia for trial, along with the likelihood of being found guilty anyway, led many accused Americans to forfeit their seized ships to the Crown. Even though these writs had been issued several times in the previous decade, the colonists, especially those in Massachusetts, were ready to challenge Parliament’s rule. James Otis, a Boston attorney, argued that any law passed by Parliament that violated the so-­‐called Rights of Englishmen was illegal and therefore, the colonies need not follow it. According to John Adams, Otis’s argument was the beginning of the independence movement. The violent protests related to the Stamp Tax, the Townshend Acts, the Tea Act, and the “Intolerable Acts” led to even more conflict, and eventually to war. Quotes from the time: Virginia Charter: “all subjects living in Virginia shall have and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities..as if they had been abiding and born within this our Realm of England.” Governor Francis Bernard of Massachusetts: (1764) “The King in Parliament has the sole right of legislation, and the supreme superintendency of the government…and therefore, in a political sense, can do no wrong.” James Otis (1764), commenting on Writs of Assistance “There is no one act, which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility, and prosperity of the people.” Lord Camden, House of Lords (1766) “Parliament have no right to tax the Americans…taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to this constitution.” A Bostonian complaining about the Sons of Liberty (1770): “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not one mile away?” Charles Van, member of Parliament, about Boston (1774): “You will never meet with that proper obedience to the laws of this country, until you have destroyed that nest of locusts.” Lord North, British Prime Minister (1774): “The Americans have tarred and feathered our subjects, plundered our merchants, burnt our ships, denied all obedience to our laws and authority. All quotes taken from Thomas Slaughter, Independence: The Tangled Roots of the Revolution (2014)