CHAPTER V.

{GEORGE III. 1773–1775}

The Caribbs of St. Vincents..... Petition of Naval

Officers..... Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles.....

Debates on East India Measures..... The Session

closed..... Proceedings in the City..... Continental

Politics-Irish Affairs..... Disputes with the American

Colonies..... Meeting of Parliament..... Early Measures in

this Session..... The Bostonian Petition..... Parliamentary

Proceedings against America..... Bill for the Administration

of Canada..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Proceedings at

Boston..... General Election..... Meeting of the New

Parliament.

{A.D. 1773}

THE CARIBBS OF ST. VINCENTS.

Before the Christmas holidays, Alderman Trecothick mentioned in the

house that the island of St. Vincent had been made a scene of iniquity

and cruelty: our troops having committed against the Caribbs, a

defenceless and innocent people, the most shocking barbarities. Other

members spoke on the same subject, and said that the troops had been

barbarously made to suffer even more evils than those they inflicted on

the Indians. Papers were produced which seemed to prove that proper care

had been taken of the troops, but on the reassembling of parliament,

a further inquiry was set on foot upon the subject. It appears that the

Caribbs, who were in possession of the most fertile parts of the island,

had not been mentioned when it was ceded to Great Britain; and that

the British settlers wished them to exchange their districts for tracts

which were said to be more appropriate to their occupations of hunting

and fishing. This proposal was received by the Caribbs with indignation.

They replied that they had held their lands independent of the King of

France, and would still hold them independent of the King of England.

The planters then submitted a plan to government for transporting this

brave people to Africa, which plan met with approbation. The Caribbs,

however, were passionately attached to their native plains, and hence

determined on resistance. Two regiments were then dispatched from North

America, to join others in the island, for the purpose of reducing them

to subjection. Several skirmishes took place, but the rainy season and

sickness, added to the difficulties of the country, prevented our troops

from completing their subjugation. Such was the state of the island

when Parliament met, and the account of these hostilities, in which

detestable cruelties had been committed on both sides, was made the

subject of animadversion. Motions concerning the cause of the war and

the state of our troops were made by the opposition, but ministers

negatived them with their usual majorities; and before the discussions

were over, intelligence arrived, that the Caribbs had acknowledged

themselves subject to the British crown, retaining their ancient customs

in their intercourse with each other, and ceding certain districts to

the British settlers. This put an end to all further debates on the

question.

PETITION OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

On the 9th of February, a petition was presented by Lord Howe, from the

captains of the navy, praying for a trifling increase of their half-pay.

This was opposed by Lord North, who stated that the present state of

the public finances put it out of his power to be liberal, and that by

granting this petition a door would be open to similar claims. It was,

however, so warmly defended by Lord Howe, and other members—some of

whom ridiculed the idea that the finances of this great and opulent

country were in so wretched a state as not to be able to afford the

pittance of £6000 a year, for the relief of men to whom her power

and glory were so much indebted—that the prayer of the petition was

granted. A motion was carried by which the half-pay of naval officers

was increased by the addition of two shillings a day.

SUBSCRIPTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

This subject again occupied the attention of parliament in this session.

A bill, more generally conceived than the last, was brought into the

commons for the relief of Protestant Dissenters. Upon this occasion the

Wesleyan methodists, now a numerous and powerful body, made common cause

with the church, and denounced any change or innovation in the Act of

Toleration, as dangerous. Petitions were sent up to parliament by them

against the relief prayed for by the dissenting body, although they

were, in point of fact, themselves dissenters. Burke supported the bill,

and his eloquence and powerful reasoning had a great effect upon the

house. But his exertions this time were scarcely needed, for Lord North

himself, and other ministers gave the bill their warmest support, and

it passed the commons by large majorities. In the house of lords, it was

strongly opposed, and rejected by a majority of 102 against 29. In the

debate upon it, the bill was defended by the Earl of Chatham, who in his

speech did not even spare the right reverend bench. In the debate, Dr.

Drummond, Archbishop of York, had called the dissenting ministers

“men of close ambition.” In reply to this, Chatham observed:—“Whoever

brought such a charge against them defamed them. The dissenting

ministers are represented as men of close ambition. They are so in some

respects. Their ambition is to keep close to the college of fishermen,

not of cardinals; and to the doctrine of the inspired apostles, not

to the decrees of interested and aspiring bishops. They contend for a

spiritual creed and a spiritual worship: we have a Calvinistic creed,

a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy.” At a later period of the

session a motion was made in the commons by Sir William Meredith, for

abolishing the subscription to the thirty-nine articles at the time of

matriculation, but this was rejected.

DEBATES ON EAST INDIA MEASURES.

During the recess, the East India directors reduced their dividend to

six per cent. This palliative, however, was of no avail, and they were

obliged to pass a vote for applying to government for the loan of one

million and a half to relieve them from their pecuniary difficulties.

A petition to this effect was presented to parliament, and Lord North,

after exculpating government from various insinuations regarding the

annual payment of the company, moved a series of resolutions, tending to

establish the grant of a loan as a matter of necessary policy, but not

as a claim of right or justice. He proposed that £1,400,000 should be

advanced, and that their dividends should be restricted to six per cent,

till the whole was repaid, and afterwards to seven per cent, until their

bond debt was reduced to £1,500,000. This passed without a division.

At the same time, Lord North suggested some regulations as proper to

prevent the recurrence of similar embarrassments, and to reform all

abuses in the government of India. On a future day he moved that the

company should be permitted to export tea to America free of all duty,

which was accepted by the company as a great boon: they having at that

time seventeen millions of pounds of tea in their warehouses in England.

Finally, he proposed his grand plan for the regulation of their affairs,

as well in India as in Europe. This plan provided that six directors

should be elected annually, none holding their seats more than four

years; that the stock for the qualification of an elector should be

raised from five hundred to one thousand pounds, and possessed twelve

months previous to an election; and that in lieu of the mayor’s court

at Calcutta, a new tribunal should be established, consisting of a chief

justice and three puisne judges appointed by the crown, a superiority

being also given to Bengal over all the other presidencies. These latter

resolutions occasioned warm debates, and met with vehement opposition,

but they were all eventually carried, and a bill framed on them passed

through both houses with overwhelming majorities. From this time the

affairs of India are generally regarded as being lodged securely in the

hands of government.

THE SESSION CLOSED.

During this session, ministers seem to have carried their motions and

plans with great facility. The opposition for the most part was tame

and spiritless, whence Burke calls it,—“a tedious session.” On one

occasion, however, the harmony which prevailed in the cabinet, and

between the two houses, was momentarily interrupted. The lords having

taken upon themselves to make some amendments in a money bill, sent it

again down to the commons, and they resenting this as an infringement of

their rights, tossed it over the table, and kicked it out of the house

as though it had been a foot-ball. This matter, however, was soon

forgotten; and when his majesty put an end to the session, he expressed

his satisfaction at the harmony which had subsisted during their

deliberations, as well as at the zeal, assiduity, and perseverance which

had been displayed. In his speech he regretted the continuance of the

war between the Porte and Russia; declared he had a close friendship

both with the czarina and sultan, but no engagements with either;

applauded the relief and support given to the East India Company; and

stated that the national debt had been somewhat reduced. But not one

word was said about the fate of Poland.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE CITY.

During the month of May the Duke of Gloucester’s wife was delivered of

a daughter, and on this occasion, Wilkes moved at a court of

common-council, that an humble address of congratulation should be

presented to his majesty on the safe delivery, and the birth of a

princess. This motion was supported by Sir Watkin Lewes, but other

aldermen opposed it, not only on the ground that the king had never

acknowledged the lady for his sister, but because it was unusual for the

city to address the king, except for the issue of his immediate heir.

Earlier in the year, indeed, the queen had been delivered of another

son, Augustus Frederic, the late duke of Sussex, and no mention had then

been made of an address, and therefore to have presented one on this

occasion, would have been invidious, if not indelicate. This motion,

therefore, proved abortive. Wilkes, however, with his friend Oliver,

succeeded in obtaining from the court of alderman a resolution “that a

frequent appeal to the people by short parliaments was their undoubted

right, as well as the only means of obtaining a real representation;”

and the livery not only passed a similar resolution, but proposed it

as a test for the city candidates at a future election. Another strong

petition and remonstrance on the old grievances, the Middlesex election,

the imprisonment of the lord mayor, etc., and praying for a dissolution

of parliament, and a change of ministers, was got up in the city and

presented to the king, by the lord mayor, Sergeant Glynn, Alderman

Bull, and others of the city officers, on the 26th of March. Before the

citizens were introduced to his majesty, they were given to understand

that they would not be allowed the honour of kissing his hand, and when

it was presented, the king sternly told them, that their petition was so

void of foundation, and conceived in such disrespectful terms, that he

felt convinced the petitioners did not seriously imagine that its prayer

could be complied with.

CONTINENTAL POLITICS.

While the cabinets of Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin were occupied in

dismembering Poland, and aggrandizing their dominions at the expense

of that ill-fated country, France was making preparations to send a

powerful fleet into the Baltic. This was evidently the forerunner of

some ulterior design, although D’Aigullon, the prime minister of France,

endeavoured to keep those designs from the public view. He was, however,

unable to elude the vigilance, or to baffle the penetration of the

British cabinet. After expatiating on the ambition of Russia, as well

as the ties of honour and interest by which France was bound to

assist Sweden, D’Aigullon was informed by Lord Stormont, the British

ambassador, that, if France sent her ships into the Baltic, they would

be followed by a British fleet. The presence of two fleets, he said,

would have no more effect than a neutrality, and that, however the

British cabinet might desire peace between England and France, it was

impossible to foresee the consequences that might arise from accidental

collision. This had some effect, for the squadron at Brest was

countermanded; but soon after the French minister, in hopes of eluding

observation, gave orders for the equipment of an armament at Toulon,

under pretence of exercising the sailors of France in naval tactics.

Discovering this, the British cabinet made vigorous demonstrations of

resistance. The English ambassador was directed to declare that the

objections made against a fleet of France occupying the Baltic, applied

equally to the Mediterranean, and a memorial was presented to the French

minister, accompanied by a demand that it should be laid before the

king, and council. This was sufficient: the armament was countermanded

and the sailors discharged.

IRISH AFFAIRS.

The spirit of disaffection was still rife in Ireland. The Earl of

Harcourt having been appointed to the government, was at first received

with great joy, but he soon found that his popularity was not sufficient

to ensure obedience to the dictates of the British cabinet, or to

repress the overflowings of human passion. The White Boys, and the

Hearts of Steel, still exhibited a turbulent spirit, which nothing could

allay or soothe. Nor was it among the populace alone that ill-feeling

was displayed. When the Irish parliament met, the spirit of liberty

was discerned in that assembly likewise. The speaker of the house of

commons, in a speech to his excellency before the lords, expressed the

inability of the country to endure any additional taxation, by reason

of those commercial restrictions, which, he said, had fettered all its

energies. The claim of commercial freedom was, indeed, warmly repeated

in the official addresses of the speaker during the continuance of the

government of this viceroy, and a spirit of jealousy also appeared in

a refusal to admit foreign mercenaries, when the British troops were

withdrawn to America, although the English government offered to defray

all the expenses. A relaxation of the penal code, however, by which

the condition of the Roman Catholics was improved, had the effect

of lowering the angry feelings of the nation, and on the whole the

government of the Earl of Harcourt is looked upon as having produced

beneficial results to the country. Dr. Miller says, “The government of

Lord Townshend had termininated the oligarchical administration: that of

Lord Harcourt unfolded those germs of political energy, which were soon

to expand themselves into national prosperity and importance.”

DISPUTES WITH THE AMERICAN COLONIES.

The storm which had long been gathering in the horizon, was now

gathering thick over our American colonies, and threatened ere long

to pour out its fury throughout the whole length and breadth of the

conn-try. It was now increased by the attempt of Lord North at taking

the payment of the colonial judges and governors out of the hands of the

houses of assembly. This the Americans declared was an attempt of the

British government to impose its own arbitrary instruments upon them; to

destroy the very essence of their charters and liberties, by making the

judges and governors wholly independent of the people, and dependent on

the crown. Resistance was therefore resolved upon. A series of protests

were issued from the assembly of Boston, and the example was followed

by all the assemblies throughout the colonies. For the purpose of

making the opposition more effectual, a corresponding committee was

established, with branches and ramifications, which reached nearly to

every town and village throughout the colonies, and the effect of this

great lever of the revolution was soon seen in a general combination

of measures, a unanimity of language, and a general persecution of all

those who were in favour of the British government. The movement, which

had hitherto been slow in its progress, now took rapid strides, the

celerity of which nothing could impede. The assembly of Boston, always

in the van, next got up a manifesto, which treated the authority of

the British parliament with contempt. This manifesto declared that the

British parliament had no right to legislate for the colonies in any

matter whatever; denounced the declaratory act recommended by Chatham,

and passed in 1768, as an unjust assumption of a legislative power,

without the consent of the colonists; and charged the British ministry

with a design to complete a system of slavery begun in the house of

commons. Copies of this manifesto were dispersed throughout the province

of Massachusets, urging the people not to dose any longer, or to sit

supinely, whilst the hand of oppression was plucking the choicest fruits

from the tree of liberty. The people, however, seem to have considered

it as too violent, for it was not responded to as the Bostonians

expected it would have been, and they were compelled somewhat to retrace

their steps, They apologized to the British government for having

gone thus far, throwing the whole blame on their new governor, Mr.

Hutchinson, who, they said, had provoked them to act thus by his

intemperate conduct. At the same time they stated that they were

faithful subjects of his majesty, and that they conceived themselves

happy in their connexion with Great Britain! At this critical moment,

however, when the minds of the people of New England wavered, and

when the southern and middle countries were comparatively peaceable,

communications were received from England, which set the whole country

in commotion.

During the course of the disputes, certain letters had been written by

Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Oliver, lieutenant-governor., and others, to the

home government, reflecting strongly on the character of the colonial

opposition, and recommending the adoption of coercive measures, and a

material change in the system of the government of the colonies. These

letters were strictly confidential, but they were purloined from

the office in which they were deposited by some person favourable to

American interests, and placed in the hands of Dr. Franklin, agent for

the province of Massachusets. Franklin thought proper to transmit these

letters to a friend in that province, with a strict injunction against

their being printed, as he had given a promise to the friend who had

furnished him with them to that effect. Their contents, however,

soon became known, and the legislative assembly obliged Franklin’s

correspondent to produce them, and having resolved that the tendency of

them was to overthrow the constitution and to introduce arbitrary power

into the province, the house of assembly drew up a petition to the

king, charging the governor with betraying his trust, and slandering the

people under his government; declaring him an enemy to the colony; and

praying for the instant dismissal of both Hutchinson and Oliver, the

governor and deputy-governor of the province. Copies of this petition,

and also of the letters which gave rise to it, were soon scattered over

all the continent, from the Lawrence to the Mississippi, and from the

shores of the Atlantic to the regions of the far west; and their effects

soon became manifest. Long before this, in 1772, the people of Rhode

Island had insulted the British flag by boarding, capturing, and burning

a British ship of war, and though government had offered a large

reward with pardon, if claimed by an accomplice, for the discovery and

apprehension of any persons engaged in the outrage, all the offenders

had escaped with impunity. Opposition to the British government, now

that the letters transmitted by Franklin had inflamed the public mind,

grew more bold. In the midst of the discontent two ships arrived at

Boston with the cargoes of tea which Lord North had allowed the East

India Company to export duty free. Anterior to their arrival, meetings

had been held and mobs raised, to terrify the consignees into an

engagement not to receive the tea, and when they arrived, another

meeting of the inhabitants of Boston and all the neighbouring towns was

called to prevent its being landed. At this meeting a resolution was

passed, asserting among other things that the tea ships were sent for

the purpose of enslaving and poisoning all freeborn Americans, and that

the tea which came charged with a duty to be paid in America should not

be landed, but be sent back in the same bottoms. The consignees offered

to store the teas till they could receive further instructions; but

this moderate offer was rejected with disdain, and a strong body of

Bostonians armed with muskets, rifles, swords, and cutlasses, were sent

down to Griffin’s wharf to watch the ships, in order to prevent a single

leaf from being put on shore. This was on the 30th of November, and

on the 14th of December, two other ships freighted by the East India

Company having arrived, another crowded meeting was held at the Old

South Meeting-house, whence orders were sent to the captains of the

tea vessels to return without delay. The answer received was, that the

collector could not give any clearance until the vessels had discharged

their cargoes, and, indeed, if the captains had been disposed to return,

they could not have complied with the demand, as the governor had

ordered that they should not be allowed to pass the forts without a

permit signed by himself, and Admiral Montague had sent two ships of war

to guard all the passages out of the harbour. The meeting waited for the

reply, and when it arrived, a question was put whether those assembled

would abide by their former resolutions respecting the tea, which was

carried unanimously. A message was then sent to desire the governor

to give the ships a permit to depart, and he replied that he could not

consistently with his duty to the king give any pass unless the vessels

were properly qualified from the custom-house. The meeting was about

to consider this reply, when a person disguised like an Indian, began

uttering the war-whoop in tones so natural that he might have been taken

for a real savage. His yell was succeeded by the cry of “A mob, a mob!”

and some, more cautious than the rest, moved that the meeting should be

dissolved. This was done, and many of the people ran at once from the

old meeting-house to Griffin’s wharf, where they were met by a number

of men disguised as Mohawk Indians, and by a still greater number of

skippers, sailors, boatmen, and men of colour. In overwhelming force

these boarded the ships, split open the tea-chests, and having emptied

their contents into the sea, returned, without being discovered, to

their homes. The moment of excitement was followed by trembling anxiety.

The Bostonians now began to tremble for their charter, their property,

and their trade; and, as before, some attempted to throw all the blame

upon the conduct of their governor. As for the governor himself, he

represented to the ministry at home, that it was out of his power to

prevent the destruction of the tea, without yielding to unreasonable

demands, and thereby rendering the authority of government null and

void. It is to be regretted that the assembly took part with the mob,

and thereby accelerated the fearful consummation of their violent

proceedings. As if animated by the popular proceedings they renewed

their personal contests with the governor, and even proceeded so far as

to vote articles of impeachment against the chief justice, Peter

Oliver, for a design of introducing a partial, arbitrary, and corrupt

administration of the laws, he having declined to receive the annual

grant of the assembly, and accepted a stipend from his majesty. The

message conveying this resolution was indignantly rejected by the

governor, who disclaimed all power of determining on such cases, and as

the house persevered in attempting to force it on him under a different

form, he dissolved the assembly.

{A.D. 1774}

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 13th of January. At that time little was known of

the disturbances in America, and the king’s speech represented the state

of foreign affairs to be in such a quiescent state, that the legislature

would have ample time to attend to the improvement of our domestic

concerns, and to the prosecution of measures immediately connected with

the revenue and commerce of the kingdom. The deteriorated state of the

gold coin was especially mentioned as an object requiring attention. The

addresses were voted in both houses with little or no debate.

EARLY MEASURES IN THIS SESSION.

In the early part of this session public attention was excited by

the proceedings of the house of commons, respecting a libel on their

speaker, which had been published in the Public Advertiser. The house

issued an order for Woodfall the printer to attend at the bar, which was

obeyed without hesitation, and being interrogated as to the author, he

gave the name of the Rev. John Home. Woodfall was then ordered into the

custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and Home was then brought before the

house. Home inquired whether Woodfall’s declaration was to be taken

as evidence, or as the charge against him, and being told that it

constituted the charge, he pleaded “Not guilty,” as in an ordinary

court. The house was embarrassed; Woodfall was again called in and

confronted with Home, but as he was implicated in the guilt of the

publication, his evidence was not sufficient to warrant conviction.

Three of Woodfall’s printers were next brought before the house; but

they failed in proving the accusation, and Home was set at liberty.

The first parliamentary struggle in this session, took place on the

ministerial motion for 20,000 seamen, as in the preceding year. The

opposition argued that it was absurd to talk of peace and yet keep up

such an establishment, and they called upon ministers to state how they

had disposed of the supplies voted in the last meeting of parliament for

the navy. This motion, however, was carried without a division. On the

part of the opposition two motions were made and negatived: the

first being that of Alderman Sawbridge for shortening the duration of

parliament, and the second, that of Sir George Saville, concerning the

Middlesex election, and the infringement of the rights of electors.

Ministers, however, were not so successful in their opposition to a

motion made by Sir Edward Stanley, to bring in a bill for rendering

Grenville’s Controverted Election Act perpetual. Experience seems to

have proved its utility, and though Lord North appeared at the head of

the opposition, many of his friends forsook him on this occasion, and

the bill was passed by a large majority, and received the royal assent

before the end of the session. From this period disputed elections

have been tried with the same scrupulousness and solemnity as any other

titles: while previous to it, as Dr. Johnson observed, “the nation

was insulted with a mock election, and the parliament was filled with

spurious representatives.”

THE BOSTONIAN PETITION.

It has been seen that the assembly of Boston had voted a petition to

the king for the removal of their governor and deputy governor. This

petition, together with attested copies of the letters, were transmitted

to Dr. Franklin, the agent for the colony, or house of representatives

of Massachusets. These were delivered by Franklin to Lord Dartmouth, who

presented them to the king, and his majesty signified his pleasure that

they should be laid before the privy council.

In the mean time the affair had been the cause of bloodshed. Mr.

Whately, secretary to the treasury, to whom the letters had been

originally addressed, had recently died, and a sharp correspondence

took place between his brother, a banker in Lombard-street, and Mr.

John Temple, lieutenant-governor of New Hampshire: the former wishing

to avoid the charge of giving up the documents, and the latter that

of purloining them. The dispute ran so high that a duel was the

consequence, in which Mr. Whately was dangerously wounded. The event

caused great excitement, and Dr. Franklin wrote and published a letter

in the Public Advertiser, in which he declared that neither Mr. Whately

nor Mr. Temple had any thing to do with the letters, and that both of

them were totally ignorant of the transaction. His words are:—“I think

it incumbent on me to declare, for the prevention of further mischief,

that I alone am the person who obtained and transmitted to Boston the

letters in question. Mr. Whately could not communicate them, because

they were never in his possession; and for the same reason, they could

not have been taken from him by Mr. Temple. They were not of the nature

of private letters between friends; they were written by public officers

to persons in public stations, on public affairs, and intended to

procure public measures; they were, therefore, handed to other public

persons, who might be influenced by them to produce those measures;

their tendency was to incense the mother country against her colonies,

and by the steps recommended to widen the breach, which they effected.

The chief caution expressed with regard to privacy was, to keep their

contents from the colony agents, who, the writers apprehended, might

return them, or copies of them, to America. That apprehension was, it

seems, well founded; for the first agent who laid his hands on them

thought it his duty to transmit them to his constituents.”

It was on the 29th of January that the subject of the Bostonian petition

was brought before the privy council. On that day, Franklin, with

Mr. Dunning as council, attended to support the petition, and Mr.

Wedderburne, the solicitor-general, attended as counsel for the

governor. The counsel for the Assembly of Boston was first heard, and he

endeavoured to substantiate their complaints, by exhibiting the letters

which had been published, and drawing an inference from them, that the

writers were unworthy of confidence, either from the government or the

province of Massachusets. He called for the instant dismissal of an

officer so hostile to the rights and liberties of his countrymen. He

argued that the man who declared that “there must be an abridgment of

English liberty in the colonies,” was justly charged with making wicked

and injurious representations, designed to influence the ministry and

the nation, and to excite jealousies in the breast of the king against

his faithful subjects.

Mr. Dunning was replied to by Mr. Wedderburne, whose naturally sharp

tongue was on this occasion rendered still sharper by his friendship for

Mr. Whately who was lying between life and death. After reviewing the

arguments of the opposite counsel, Wedderburne directed himself to an

inculpation of the assembly and people of Massachusets; in the course of

which he attacked Dr. Franklin in a strain of bitter invective, on the

ground of having violated private confidence in the disclosure of the

letters. He observed, “These could not have come to Dr. Franklin by fair

means; the writers did not give them to him, nor yet did the deceased

correspondent, who from our intimacy, would otherwise have told me of

it. Nothing then will acquit Dr. Franklin of the charge of obtaining

them by fraudulent or corrupt means, for the most malignant of purposes,

unless he stole them from the person who stole them.... I hope, my

lords, you will mark and brand the man for the honour of this country,

of Europe, and of mankind. Private correspondence has hitherto been held

sacred in times of the greatest party rage, not only in politics, but

religion;—he has forfeited all the respect of societies and of men.

Into what companies will he hereafter go with an unembarrassed face, or

the honest intrepidity of virtue? Men will watch him with a jealous eye;

they will hide their papers from him, and lock up their escrutoires; he

will henceforth esteem it a libel to be called a man of letters; _homo

trium literarum_! He not only took away the letters from one brother,

but kept himself concealed till he nearly occasioned the murder of the

other. It is impossible to read his account, expressive of the coolest

and most deliberate malice, without horror.” Wedderburne concluded with

this indignant burst of feeling:—“Amidst tranquil events, here is a

man who, with the utmost insensibility of remorse, stands up and avows

himself the author of all. I can compare him only to Zanga, in Dr.

Young’s Revenge:—

‘Know, then, ’twas I. I forged the letter—I disposed the picture—I

hated—I despised—and I destroy’

I ask, my lords, whether the revengeful temper attributed to the

bloody African, is not surpassed by the coolness and apathy of the wily

American?”

It is said that during this celebrated invective the members of the

council laughed with exultation; none preserving a decent gravity,

except Lord North. On the other hand, Franklin is said to have heard it

all with composure, standing erect in one corner of the room, and not

suffering the slightest alteration of his countenance to be visible. The

words of Wedderburne, however, coupled with the derisive and exulting

laugh of the council, sank deep into the soul of Franklin. He appeared

in a full dress of spotted Manchester velvet, and it is said that, when

he returned to his lodgings he took off this dress, and vowed he would

never wear it again until he should sign the degradation of England and

the independence of America. After proceedings against him tended to

perpetuate that feeling. Hitherto he had been allowed to retain the

profitable place of postmaster general for America, but three days

after the meeting of the council, he was dismissed by letter from that

office. The report of the council also, on the subject of the petition,

tended to confirm him in feelings of hostility toward the British

government. It stated “that the petition was founded on resolutions

which were formed on false and erroneous allegations: that it was

groundless, vexatious, scandalous, and calculated only for the seditious

purpose of keeping up a spirit of clamour and discontent in the

province: that nothing had appeared to impeach in any degree the honour,

integrity, and conduct of the governor or deputy-governor; and that

their lordships were humbly of opinion that the said petition ought to

be dismissed.” Moreover, the sympathy which Franklin met with from

some of the leading members of the opposition, tended still further

to embitter the passions which had been roused in the mind of

the philosopher. That boastful patriot himself—the great Earl of

Chatham—hastened to express his sympathy with Franklin, and his

detestation of the treatment he had received from Wedderburne and the

government. It is due to the character of Chatham, however, to say that

had he been aware of Franklin’s extreme intentions, he would, instead of

affording him his sympathy, have joined with Wedderburne in holding him

up to public contempt. That great orator, indeed, at all times, whether

in office or out of office, whether in favour of the measures of

government or banding against them, invariably held that the dependence

of the colonies was absolutely and vitally essential, not merely to the

honour and greatness and wealth of the mother country, but also to her

safety and existence. He had, in truth, asserted that the moment America

should be free, wholly independent of, and separated from Great Britain,

the sun of England would set for ever. It cannot be, therefore, supposed

for one moment, that he would willingly and knowingly have aided in

lopping this fair and fruitful branch from the parent tree. In point of

fact, Franklin endeavoured, to conceal his extreme views from the public

eye; for while in private life, and to bosom friends, he stated his

unalterable resolution of procuring the independence of America, he was

openly professing to his best advocates, the leaders of the opposition

in both houses of parliament, that the wish dearest to his heart—in

common with the hearts of all honest Americans—was a continuance of the

connexion with his dear old mother country!

{GEORGE III. 1773–1775}

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AMERICA.

At length intelligence arrived in England concerning the alarming

transactions in America. The news excited strong national resentment, so

that when the subject was brought before parliament, ministers had not

to encounter any formidable opposition to the measures they proposed

in order to meet the case. It was on the 7th of March that Lord North

introduced this subject to the house. On that day he delivered a

message to the members from the king, in which a design was intimated of

correcting and preventing such disorders, and submitted a vast mass of

documents from the governor of Boston, and other persons in authority

for their inspection. In reply to this message, a motion was made for

an address to the throne, to return thanks for it, and the gracious

communication of the papers, with an assurance that they would not fail

to exert every means in their power of effectually providing for objects

so important to the general welfare as maintaining the due execution

of the laws, and securing the just dependence of the colonies upon the

crown and parliament of Great Britain. Some few opposed this address,

although they admitted that the conduct of the Bostonians and Rhode

Islanders was exasperating in the highest degree; but the motion was

nevertheless carried without a division. Following up this address, on

the 14th of March, Lord North moved for leave to bring in a bill “for

the immediate removal of all officers concerned in the collection and

management of his majesty’s duties and customs from the town of Boston;

and to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping, of

goods, wares, and merchandize at the said town of Boston, or within the

harbour thereof.” This bill encountered scarcely more opposition than

the address had met with. On its first introduction it was received with

general applause, and it was pushed on with such vigour that it passed

through both houses within fourteen days, and on the 31st of March it

received the royal assent: the trade of Boston was annihilated.

While the Boston Port Bill was before the lords, North, in a committee

of the whole house, brought in a bill “for better regulating the

government of Massachusets Bay.” The object of this bill was to alter

the constitution of that province as it stood upon the charter of

William III.; to do away with the popular elections, which decided

everything in that colony; to take the executive power out of the hands

of the democratic party; and to vest the nomination of the members of

the council, of the judges, and of magistrates, including sheriffs, in

the crown, and in the king’s governor. In support of this bill, Lord

North said, that the province of Massachusets Bay had been turbulent

beyond all bearing, and had set an ill example to all the colonies; that

an executive power was required in that province, inasmuch as the force

of the civil power consisted solely in the _posse comitatus_: that is,

in the very people by whom the tumults were excited. He asked if the

democratic party exhibits a contempt for the laws, how any governor

was to enforce them, if he had not the power either of appointing or

removing magistrates? He could now, he said, give no order without the

assent of seven members of the popularly elected council; and he urged

that it was in vain laws and regulations were made in England, when

there were none found to execute them in America. In conclusion, he

expressed a hope that the present bill would create an executive power,

and give strength and spirit to the civil magistracy; and professed

himself open to discussion and a change of opinion, if his views were

proved to be erroneous.

This bill encountered more opposition than that of the Boston Port Bill,

and it was considerably altered in committee. As it stood when presented

anew, after the Easter recess, the council of Massachusets Bay was

placed on the same footing as the councils of other colonies: the

nomination was vested in the crown., and they were to have no negative

voice, or power to appoint, as hitherto, the judicial officers of the

province. Moreover, the mode of choosing juries was altered, and the

continual assemblies and town-meetings held in Boston were not to be

convened without the consent of the governor, unless for the annual

election of certain officers. The bill, as altered, however, encountered

much opposition. In support of it Mr. Welbore Ellis asserted that it was

the duty of the legislature to alter or take away charters, if they were

abused, or found deficient; and he was supported in these views by Mr.

Charles Jenkinson and Mr. Dyson, who argued that in this case the

house proceeded, not in its judicial, but in its legislative capacity,

regulating and supplying deficiencies in charters granted by the crown.

The opposition took a different view of the measure, denouncing it as

arbitrary and likely to lead to permanent evils. Thus General Conway

could see nothing but increased exasperation, misfortune, and ruin from

the adoption of such measures; and he, with other members, asked for

more time, and demanded that the province should be heard before an act

was passed which would deprive its people of their chartered rights. The

opposition, also, argued, that the Bostonians and their neighbours had

flourished for nearly fourscore years under their democratic charter,

and that, therefore, they ought not now to be deprived of it. Some even

asked what crime and errors the New Englanders had really been guilty

of, as though they had never heard of the outrages which had been

committed. In reply to this latter question, Lord North said, with more

than his usual warmth, “I will tell you what the Americans have done:

they have tarred and feathered the officers and subjects of Great

Britain; they have plundered our merchants, burnt our ships, denied all

obedience to our laws and authority! Our conduct has been clement and

forbearing, but now it is incumbent to take a different course. Whatever

may be the consequence, we must risk something, or all is over.” To

adopt such a measure as this, however, was clearly risking too much.

Governor Pownall, who said that he spoke for the last time on the

subject, warned ministers of the more than probable consequences of it,

in these terms:—“The measure which you are pursuing will be resisted,

not by force or the effect of arms, but by a regular united system. I

told this house, four years ago, that the people of America would resist

the tax then permitted to remain on them—that they would not oppose

power to power, But would become implacable. Have they not been so from

that time to this very hour? I tell you again, that they will resist

the measures now pursued in a more vigorous way. Committees of

correspondence in the different provinces are in constant communication:

they do not trust in the conveyance of the post-office; they have set up

a constitutional courier, which will quickly grow up to the superseding

of your post-office. As soon as intelligence of these affairs reaches

them, they will judge it necessary to communicate with each other: it

will be found inconvenient and ineffectual to do so by letters. They

must confer; they will hold a conference; and to what these committees,

thus met in congress, will grow up, I will not say. Should recourse be

had to arms, you will hear of other officers than those appointed by

your governor Then, as in the late civil wars of this country, it

will be of little consequence to dispute who were the aggressors.” Sir

Richard Sutton spoke in a similar strain; asserting, that though it

was not confessed, the Americans were aiming at total independence,

and would never again submit quietly to English laws and regulations of

trade.

This debate took place on the second reading of the bill. The third

reading occurred on the 2nd of May, when Sir William Meredith insisted

that the parliament of Great Britain had an indisputable right to

lay duties upon the Americans, and to tax them externally. Mr. Thomas

Townshend, also, though equally warm as Sir William Meredith in

opposition to ministers on general points, gave this measure his decided

support. Though averse to meddling with charters, he said, the evils of

town-meetings justified interference, and that the institution of juries

was properly altered according to the forms of the mother country.

Thurlow, the attorney-general, and Lord North spoke in favour of the

bill, likewise, on this occasion, the latter expressing a hope that good

consequences might arise from its adoption. It was opposed by Mr. Burke,

Mr. Charles Fox, and Colonel Barré, the latter of whom reprobated the

violence of both houses. “In the lords,” said he, “the phrase is, ‘We

have passed the Rubicon!’—in the commons, ‘Delenda est Carthago!’”

But opposition was of no avail. The bill was carried by an overwhelming

majority in the lower house; and when it was taken into the upper house,

though it was severely criticised, opposed, and denounced by a few

lords, most of the peers were in its favour, and it passed into a law.

In order to qualify the severity of the bill for regulating the

government of Massachusets, Mr. Rose Fuller, on the 19th of April,

moved that the house should, that day se’nnight, resolve itself into a

committee for taking into consideration the question of a total repeal

of the tea duty. This was opposed by Lord North, who contended that no

acts of lenity ought to attend their restrictive measures. He argued,

that to repeal at this time would show such wavering and inconsistent

policy as would defeat the good effects of that vigorous system which

had been too long delayed, and which was now adopted. The expediency of

the repeal, however, was ably advocated by Mr. Burke. He contended, that

from the period of the repeal of the Stamp Act, the practical right of

taxing America ought to have been for ever banished from the minds of

all statesmen; and he severely exposed the absurdity of continuing a

tax merely for the sake of a preamble to an act of parliament, when

five-sixths of the revenue intended to be raised by it had been

abandoned. Burke then gave a concise detail of our ministerial and

political transactions with America; after which he recommended the

repeal of this impost as a measure of policy, and advised the house, if

they found any ill effects arising from this concession, then at once to

stop short, and to oppose the ancient policy and practice of the empire

to innovations on both sides. This, he said, would enable them to stand

on great, manly, and sure grounds. As for the distinctions of rights

he deprecated all reasonings about them. “Leave the Americans,” he

observed, “as they anciently stood; and these distinctions, born of our

unhappy contest, will die with it. Be content to bind America by laws

of trade. You have always done so; and let this be your reason for

continuing to do it. Do not burden them with taxes; for you were not

used to do so from the beginning. These are arguments for states

and kingdoms: leave the rest to the schools where alone they can be

discussed with safety.” The rejection of this advice, he said, would

be followed by resistance on the part of the colonies; for if the

sovereignty of England and the freedom of America could not be

reconciled, the Americans would be sure to cast off sovereignty: no man

would be argued into slavery. The opinions which Burke uttered on this

occasion were at variance with those expressed on the passing of the

Declaratory Act, and with the act itself. He attempted to reconcile

them, however, by the nice distinction of a double power in parliament.

He remarked:—“The parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her

extensive empire in two capacities—one as the local legislature of this

island, with the executive power as her instrument of action; the other

and nobler capacity is what I call her imperial character, by which she

guides and controls all the inferior and provincial legislatures.” In

this, he maintained, her power was boundless; and having entered at

large on its utility, and the manner in which it had been exercised,

he thus concluded:—“It is agreed that a revenue is not to be had from

America: if, then, we lose the profit, let us at least get rid of the

odium.” No arguments, however powerful, were of avail—the motion was

negatived.

A third measure of restriction introduced into the commons by ministers

was “A Bill for the impartial Administration of Justice in the Cases

of Persons questioned for any Acts done by them in the Execution of the

Laws, as for the Suppression of Riots and Tumults in the Province of

Massachusets Bay, in New England.” By this bill the governor, if he

found that a person indicted for murder, or any other capital offence,

incurred in suppressing such tumults, was not likely to obtain an

impartial trial, might send the person so indicted to another colony or

to Great Britain, to be fairly tried there. This bill was to be limited

to four years, and in support of it Lord North argued, that it was

absolutely necessary to give effect to the other coercive measures; that

it was in vain to appoint a magistracy that would act if none could be

found bold enough to act with them and execute their orders; that

these orders would probably be resisted by force; and this force would

necessitate force on the side of government, and probably occasion the

shedding of blood. He asked, what officers would risk this event if the

rioters themselves, or their abettors, were afterwards to sit as

their judges? And he alleged, that a precedent was to be found in our

own laws, in the case of smuggling, it being customary to remove the

trial of smugglers to another county: the Scotch rebels were also,

he said, in 1745, tried in England. North next urged, that particular

privileges ought to give way on some occasions, and that when the public

safety of our own country was endangered even the _Habeas Corpus_ had

been suspended. The bill, he remarked, was not meant to screen guilt,

but to protect innocence. The Americans, he said, must be taught that we

will no longer sit quietly under their insults; and that, being

roused, our measures, though free from cruelty and revenge, would be as

efficacious as they were necessary. This was the last act, he stated,

that he had to propose in order to perfect his plan, and that the rest

would depend on the vigilance of his majesty’s servants employed in

America. In conclusion, he mentioned that four regiments, usually

stationed in different parts of North America, had all been ordered

to Boston; and that General Gage was appointed governor and

commander-in-chief.

This measure was opposed with greater vehemence and better arguments

than those which had preceded it. Colonel Barré, who had given a

partial support to the Boston Port Bill, denounced it as unprecedented,

unwarranted, and as fraught with misery and oppression to America, and

with danger to this country. It stigmatised a whole people, he remarked,

as persecutors of innocence, and as men incapable of doing justice,

whereas the very reverse was the fact. As a proof of the impartiality

of Bostonian courts and juries, he instanced the acquittal of Captain

Preston and the soldiers who had killed some persons in a riot; and

he denied that the instances of trials for smuggling and for treason,

adduced by Lord North, were at all applicable to the present case. He

asked, what reliance the Americans could have on the impartiality of

juries in other provinces, or in England, and dwelt with great force

on the danger of screening the soldiery, whose passions were already

inflamed against the people of Massachusets Bay. “A soldier,” he

observed, “feels himself so much above the rest of mankind, that the

strict hand of the civil power is necessary to check and restrain

the haughtiness of disposition which such superiority inspires. What

constant care is taken in this country to remind the military that they

are under the restraint of civil power! In America their superiority is

felt still more. Remove the check of the law, as this bill proposes, and

what insolence, what outrage, may you not expect! Every passion that

is pernicious to society will be let loose on a people unaccustomed

to licentiousness and intemperance. The colonists, who have been long

complaining of oppression, will see in the soldiery those who are to

enforce it on them; while the military, strongly prepossessed against

the people as rebellious, unawed by the civil power, and actuated by

that arbitrary spirit which prevails in the best troops, will commit

violences that might rouse the tamest people to resistance, and which

the vigilance of their officers cannot effectually restrain. The

inevitable consequences will be open rebellion, which you profess by

this act to obviate. I have been bred a soldier; I have served long; I

respect the profession, and live in the strictest habits of friendship

with many officers; but no country gentleman in this house looks on

the army with a more jealous eye, or would more strenuously resist the

setting them above the control of civil power. No man is to be trusted

in such a situation. It is not the fault of the soldier, but the vice of

human nature, which, unbridled by law, becomes insolent and licentious,

wantonly violating the peace of society, and trampling upon the rights

of human kind.” In conclusion, Barré warned ministers of the results of

their restrictive measures; entreating them, likewise, not to urge them

on to rebellion. In the course of his speech Lord North had said that

he had had the advantage of being aided by the ablest lawyers; and

when Colonel Barré had concluded his harangue Mr. Wedderburne, the

solicitor-general, arose, and explained and defended the principles

of the bill, which, he observed, was limited as to time, and intended

solely to procure a fair trial for the imputed offences of all who might

be concerned or engaged to act under government.

The motion for leave to bring in this bill was passed without a

division, and it was introduced on the 21st of April, on which occasion

another stormy debate occurred. Alderman Sawbridge contended, that it

was a ridiculous and cruel measure—a measure designed to enslave the

Americans, by a minister who would, if opportunity was afforded him,

enslave England. He added:—“But I sincerely hope the Americans will

not admit of the execution of any of those destructive bills, but nobly

refuse them all. If they do not, they are the most abject slaves upon

the face of the earth, and nothing which the minister can do is base

enough for them.” Lord North, in reply, calmly disclaimed any intention

of enslaving America, and declared that the assertion was about as true

as another report, circulated in some quarters, which stated that the

colonists had seen their error, and were willing to make reparation to

the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. Instead of making

reparation, he added, letters had been recently received which conveyed

intelligence of renewed acts of violence. In the course of the debate

one member uttered these remarkable words:—“I will now take my leave of

the whole plan: you will commence your ruin from this day. I am sorry to

say, that not only the house has fallen into this error, but the people

approve of the measure. The people, I am sorry to say it, are misled.

But a short time will prove the evil tendency of this bill. If ever

there was a nation running headlong to its ruin it is this.” The people

were, in fact, as violently excited against the Americans, and the

Bostonians in particular, as the ministers themselves, which doubtless

had the effect of encouraging them in their measures. As a dissolution

of parliament was near at hand, this may have caused the absence of many

members; for it is a remarkable circumstance, that during the debates

on these momentous questions there never was a full house. On the

third reading, indeed, only one hundred and fifty-one members were

present—one hundred and twenty-seven out of which number voted for the

measure.

In the house of lords the bill was opposed in the same manner, and to

a similar degree as in the commons. One of the most striking arguments

against the measure was uttered by the Marquess of Rockingham. After

reviewing ministerial transactions relative to America, since the repeal

of the Stamp Act, and denouncing the tea duty as an uncommercial

and unproductive claim, retained only as a bone of contention, he

remarked:—“If officers were men of honour and sensibility, their

situation would be worse under the protection of such a law than without

it, as no acquittal could be honourable where the prosecutor had not the

usual means of securing a fair trial.” The bill, however, passed by

a large majority—eight peers signing a strong protest against it, in

which it was designated as “a virtual indemnity for murder.”

During these debates the Earl of Chatham had been absent from

indisposition. An opportunity, however, was afforded him of uttering his

sentiments concerning the measure adopted towards America, on the

27th of May, in a discussion on a bill “for the quartering and better

regulating the troops in the colonies.” He had long been complaining of

the gout and other infirmities; but on this night, which was the

third reading of the bill, he made a very long speech. He commenced by

asserting, that the whole history of the Americans, their descent, and

the character and disposition which they inherited from their English

ancestors, all forbade the thought that they would ever submit to

slavish and tyrannical principles; for as was the mother, so were her

offspring. He admitted that the conduct of the Americans, and especially

the Bostonians, was unwarrantable; but he denied that the means adopted

to bring them back to a sense of their duty were either wise or

just. Against the blocking up the harbour of Boston he inveighed most

bitterly, assuming in the face of all fact, that it was “some guilty

profligates” who had been concerned in destroying our goods, and not

the main body of the people. He assumed, also, what was notoriously

untrue, that the colonies had no thought of prosecuting the quarrel;

asserting, that their gratitude was full to overflowing for the repeal

of the Stamp Act, and that it was the tea tax alone which had goaded

them on to insubordination and rebellion. Forgetting, moreover, that his

own Declaratory Act had inflamed the passions of the colonists after

the repeal of the Stamp Act, he charged ministers with having purposely

irritated them into their late outrages. Finally, although it is clear

that Chatham, as a minister, would never have granted the objects which

the American leaders required of the government, he recommended the

substitution of kindness for severity. He remarked:—“Proceed like a

kind and affectionate parent towards a child whom he tenderly loves;

and, instead of these harsh and severe proceedings, pass an amnesty

on all their youthful errors; clasp them once more in your fond and

affectionate arms, and I will venture to affirm that you will find them

children worthy of their sire. But should their turbulence exist after

your proffered terms of forgiveness, I, my lords, will be among the

foremost to move for such measures as will effectually prevent a

relapse, and make them feel what it is to provoke a fond and forgiving

parent.” It is manifest, however, that the children had already resolved

to run all risks in discarding allegiance to their parent, and that

they could never be bound to their duty by the law of kindness. So the

majority of the peers whom Chatham addressed seemed to think, for the

bill he was opposing passed.

BILL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CANADA.

Towards the close of this session a bill was brought into the house of

lords, “for making more effectual provision for the government of the

province of Quebec, in North America.” The main objects of this bill was

to ascertain the limits of that province; to form a legislative council

for all its affairs, except taxation, which council should be appointed

and be removable by the crown, and in which his majesty’s Canadian Roman

Catholic subjects should have a place; to establish the old French laws,

to which the Canadians had been accustomed, including trial without

jury, in all civil cases, and the English laws with trial by jury in all

criminal cases; and to secure to the Roman Catholics those rights which

the articles of capitulation had allowed—that is, the legal enjoyments

of their lands and of their tithes, in their own community, or from

all who professed their doctrines. This bill passed through the

lords without difficulty; but in the commons it met with a storm of

opposition. On the second reading, which took place on the 20th of May,

Mr. Thomas Townshend, junior, asked why the affairs of Canada had been

so long postponed, and why the country, from the time of its conquest,

had been left a prey to anarchy and confusion? The bill proposed to

enlarge the boundaries of the province, so as to comprehend the whole

country lying between New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, to the

Ohio and eastern bank of the Mississippi; and northward, to the southern

boundary of the territory granted to the merchant adventurers of England

trading to Hudson’s Bay. Of this Townshend complained, and he said that

it was the general opinion, that ministers intended to make all this

vast tract of country an essentially French colony, as the population

was almost entirely French, and the religion, laws, &c., that of

France—the only exception being that they had at their head a subject

of Great Britain as their governor. This, he opined, would one day cause

a revolution, and would tend to re-establish the dominion of France in

that country. As for the legislative council he deemed it as proposed

the very worst kind of government ministers could have invented. He

remarked:—“If it is not the proper time to give to Canada an assembly

like those which exist in our other American colonies, it is better to

let the governor be absolute—better to let him be without a council. He

will then be responsible. But what have we here? Seventeen or eighteen

gentlemen, who may be removed or suspended by the governor; so that, if

an act of oppression should come from the crown, these may be a screen

for the governor to excuse and justify him.” Townshend next condemned

the countenance given by the bill to the church of Rome, and then put

a series of stringent questions to the ministers concerning the

administration of the French laws in Canada. Were they, he asked, to be

administered by Canadians or French lawyers? and were English gentlemen

who had bought estates in that country to be subject to them? It would

be better, he conceived, to show the French Canadians, by degrees, the

advantages of English law, and to gradually mix it with their own. In

reply, Lord North excused the delay which had occurred in bringing this

measure forward, on the ground that he had been seeking the fullest

information before he legislated. He did not pretend that the bill was

perfect, but he considered that it was the best that could have been

devised, both for Great Britain and the colony, under all circumstances.

North then justified the enlargement of the limits of the colony,

and the concessions which the bill made to the Roman Catholics. He

observed:—“The honourable gentleman dislikes the omitting the assembly;

but the assembly cannot be granted, seeing that it must be composed of

Canadian Roman Catholic subjects, for otherwise it would be oppressive.

On the other hand, as the bulk of the inhabitants are Roman Catholics,

to subject them to an assembly, composed of a few British Protestant

subjects would be a great hardship. Being, therefore, under the

necessity of not appointing an assembly, this is the only legislature

you can give the Canadians, and it is the one under which they live at

present. The governor and council really have been the legislature

ever since our conquest, only now it is put under some regulation.”

As regarded the question of law, he reminded the house, that the most

material part, that of the criminal law, was to be English, and that if

the French civil law should be found incompatible with the wishes of the

colony, the governor and council would have power to alter it. Returning

to the question of religion, North remarked, that the free exercise of

it was confirmed to the Canadians by treaty, and that the laws of Great

Britain permitted the full and free exercise of any religion different

from that of the Church of England, in any and all of the colonies. It

was another question, he added, whether it is convenient to continue

or abolish the bishop’s jurisdiction; though, at the same time, he

asserted, no bishop could be there under papal authority, as such

is expressly forbidden in the act of supremacy. North concluded by

asserting, that there was no intention of substituting French lawyers

and judges for the English who now administered the laws in that

country. Townshend rejoined; complaining bitterly of carrying the

system of French law into those parts of the country where it had not

previously existed, and where there were some thousands of British

subjects. Having, at the end of the war, promised the Canadians English

law, he conceived that injustice would be done them by giving them that

of France. Mr. Townshend was followed by Mr. Dunning, who called the

measure one of the most extensive, as well as the most pernicious, ever

offered to parliament. He particularly inveighed against the concessions

made to the Roman Catholics, though he admitted that the free exercise

of their religion was promised to the Canadians by the treaty of

peace. This bill, however, he contended, gave them more than this: it

established the Roman Catholic faith, whereas Protestantism was merely

tolerated, and its clergy left for a maintenance to the discretion

of the crown. He observed:—“Different gentlemen may entertain

different opinions: my opinion of toleration is, that nothing can be

more impolitic than to give establishment to that religion which is

not the religion of our own country. Among the circumstances that unite

countries, or divide countries, a difference in religion has ever been

thought to be the principal and leading one. The Catholic religion

unites France, but divides England. Without going further into the

subject, it suffices me to say, that the religion of England seems to be

preferable to the religion of France, if your object is to make this

an English colony. When one sees that the Roman Catholic religion

is established by law, and that the same law does not establish the

Protestant religion, the people are, of course, at liberty to choose

which they like. Are we, then, to establish the Roman Catholic religion,

and tolerate the Protestant religion?” Mr. Dunning next insisted,

that the civil law, as well as the criminal law of England, should be

preserved, and that the institution of juries, however unpalatable

it might prove to the Canadians, ought not to be dispensed with. He

concluded by showing the unfitness of this political state to the habits

and character of English settlers, and that there was an insurmountable

difficulty in reconciling the feelings and habits of the small minority

with the great French majority. The bill was next defended warmly in all

its points by Attorney-general Thurlow. The definitive treaty of peace,

he said, was made in favour of property in Canada; in favour of the

Catholic religion, and in favour of the several religious orders, under

which obligations it was that the crown of this country was called

upon to frame a constitution for the colony. As for the importing and

enforcing English laws in a country already settled, and habitually

governed by other laws, he considered that it would be an act of the

most absurd and cruel tyranny ever practised by a conquering nation over

a conquered country—an act which would be unprecedented in the world’s

history. He thought it would be equally monstrous to strip the Roman

Catholic clergy of their rights and dues, and to set up an Anglican

establishment where the followers of our church were but few in number.

To assimilate the constitution of the province to that of England

he deemed neither practicable nor desirable, and asserted, that the

constitution now proposed was on the side of liberality, and the

best that could be given under existing circumstances. He concluded

thus:—“If any English resort to that country, they do not carry with

them the laws that are to prevail the moment they get there. It would be

just as wise to say, if an Englishman goes to Guernsey, the laws of the

city of London are carried over with him. To take the laws as they stand

in Canada has been allowed—to act according to those laws, and to be

bound by their coercion, is a natural consequence. In this view I think

the bill has done nothing obnoxious. I have no speculative opinions. I

would have consulted the French customs to a much greater extent, if

it had been for me to have framed the law.” Colonel Barré, Lord John

Cavendish, and Sergeant Glynn next warmly opposed the bill, and they

were followed by the Solicitor-general, Wedderburne, who defended

it with greater ability and more knowledge of history than had been

displayed by any of the preceding speakers. Sergeant Glynn had asserted,

that in conquering the Irish and Welsh our laws had been imposed upon

them; but Wedderburne clearly showed that this was only effected in the

lapse of ages; English laws not being introduced into Ireland till the

time of James I., and in Wales till the time of Henry VIII. He argued,

that it was the custom of all conquering states to leave the conquered

countries in the possession of their own laws. He remarked:—“Not

only are there instances of great states not considering themselves

warranted, by right of conquest, in forcing their laws upon the

conquered, but even countries that have scarcely any trace of public

laws and general systems, have had that good policy with regard to the

countries they have made themselves masters of. The very Mussulman, the

Ottoman, the Turks—the worst of all conquerors—in the countries they

subdued left the people in possession of their municipal laws. This is

the case in Wallachia; this is the case in Moldavia; this is the case

with all the great settlements in which the Turks have pushed their

arms.” Wedderburne next showed the difference existing in the law of

succession in England and Canada, and argued, that it would be hard

upon all younger sons in that province to establish the right of

primogeniture on a sudden. He concluded by representing the people of

Canada as having, for several years past, been annually calling upon

government to let them know what really was to be the law of the

province. Charles Fox argued, that as the bill allowed the clergy of the

Church of Rome their dues and rights, which dues he understood to mean

the receiving of tithes, which were a tax upon the Canadians, it was to

all intents and purposes a money bill. This objection he conceived

fatal to the bill, inasmuch as the commons never permitted bills of that

nature to originate in the lords. Dunning now took up the same line of

argument, and as Lord North denied the conclusion to which these members

had suddenly come, the speaker was appealed to for his opinion. The

speaker replied, that he had seen bills that had originated in the lords

that, he thought, ought not to have been brought into the lower house,

but that he never presumed to judge upon them himself, and in this in

stance it would be very unbecoming in him to do so, therefore’ he would

leave it for the house to determine as was thought right. The second

reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and five, against

twenty-nine; and on the 31st of May, when the house went into committee

on the bill, several amendments were negatived, with equally large

majorities. On this occasion petitions were presented against the

measure from Thomas Penn, on behalf of himself and of John Penn, Esq.,

true and absolute proprietors of Pennsylvania, and the counties of

Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex, in Delaware, praying that the territory

granted by King Charles II. to their father and grandfather might not be

encroached upon by any extension of the frontiers of Canada. Ministers

denied that it was ever intended to entrench upon other colonies, and

the petition was ordered to lie upon the table; leave, also, being given

to the petitioners to be heard by counsel if they thought proper. At the

same time a petition was presented from merchants of the city of London,

trading to the province of Quebec, praying for the preservation or

establishment of the English civil law, in all matters of controversy

relative to property and civil rights, with trial by jury, &c. This

petition was ordered to be referred to the committee on the bill, and

the petitioners were also ordered to be heard by themselves or counsel.

Counsel were heard, and witnesses examined, which occupied the attention

of the house for more than a week; but on the 13th of June the bill

passed the commons as it originally stood—a few boundary amendments,

made in committee, alone excepted. The bill thus passed was sent back

to the lords for their concurrence in the amendments, on which occasion

Chatham rose to reprobate the whole spirit of the bill. It tended, he

said, to establish the worst of despotisms, and denounced it as a most

cruel, oppressive, and odious measure—a measure which destroyed the

very roots of justice and good principle. He called the bill “a child of

inordinate power,” and asked, if any on the bench of bishops would hold

it out for baptism? He invoked the bishops to resist a law which would

spread the Roman Catholic tenets over so vast a continent, and asserted,

that parliament had no more right to alter the oath of supremacy than

to repeal the great charter, or the bill of rights. The dangerous

innovations of the bill, he declared, were at utter variance with all

the safeguards and barriers against the return of popery and of popish

influence, so wisely provided against by all oaths and offices of trust,

from the constable up to the members of both houses, and even to the

sovereign in his coronation oath. Chatham concluded by expressing his

fears that such a measure might shake the confidence of his majesty’s

Protestant subjects in England and Ireland, and totally alienate the

hearts of all his American subjects. The bill, however, passed by

twenty-six to seven, and received the royal assent on the 22nd of June;

the corporation of London having ineffectually petitioned the king to

refuse it.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the same day that his majesty gave his assent to the above-mentioned

bill, he prorogued parliament. In his speech he expressed his approval

of that bill, conceiving it likely to produce the best effect in

quieting the minds, and promoting the happiness of the Canadians. His

majesty also applauded the temper and firmness, and general concurrence

of parliament in the measures they had adopted with reference to

Massachusets Bay; at the same time assuring them that nothing depending

on him should be wanting to render those measures effectual. At

the close of this session, Lord North, notwithstanding his many

embarrassments, appeared to be more firmly seated in office than ever.

Even Chatham himself was obliged to confess his success, efficiency, and

the solidity of his position; asserting that no minister in any age

ever held a better tenure. It was necessary that North should be well

supported, for he had difficulties before him which would soon have

compelled him to resign, and to seek solace in the shades of retirement,

had not the voice of parliament been with him.

PROCEEDINGS AT BOSTON.

During the deliberations of the British parliament, the Bostonians and

people of Massachusets Bay had continued their outrages. The assembly

and populace alike showed their utter aversion to the British government

in language and actions which could not be misunderstood. The mob

destroyed every cargo of tea that arrived in the port, and the

assembly showed its hostility by petitioning for the removal of the

chief-justice, Peter Oliver, Esq., because he had taken his majesty’s

grant. The house further resolved to impeach the chief-justice in their

own name, and in the name of all the inhabitants of the province; and

when the governor denounced their proceedings as unconstitutional, they

drew up articles according to this resolution, charging him with high

crimes and misdemeanors. The governor, however, refused to take any step

in the matter, and this only tended to exasperate them still more. At

this moment, indeed, some of the leaders, at the head of whom was Mr.

Samuel Adams, were publicly proclaiming that America must and should

become independent of Great Britain. Their sentiments were also made

known by their unbounded admiration of Benjamin Franklin. His name was

mentioned everywhere with enthusiasm, and before their dissolution the

assembly resolved to continue him their agent in England, although the

governor refused to ratify the appointment, or to sanction their act for

paying him his salary.

Among the ministerial arrangements was the substitution of General Gage

in the room of Hutchinson as governor. General Gage landed on the wharf

on the 13th of May, with part of his family and suite, and was warmly

welcomed by the council, magistrates, and others, and afterwards

entertained at a public dinner. On the other hand, the mob spent their

impotent rage on Hutchinson by burning him in effigy. The reception

which Gage met with on landing seemed to augur well for his

administration, and his prospect seemed the more cheering because he was

united to an American lady, and from long residence in the colony, had

made many friends. But there was a strong under-current at work which

threatened to sweep away all the authority which any governor might

possess however popular he might be as a man. And this was made more

impetuous at this time by the intelligence which arrived concerning

the Boston Port Bill. This intelligence was received a few days before

General Gage arrived, and although the Bostonians gave him a hearty

welcome, they soon displayed what feelings they possessed upon the

subject. On the very next day after they had given him this welcome, a

numerous town meeting took the bill into consideration, and resolved,

“That it is the opinion of this town, that, if the other colonies come

into a joint resolution to stop all importation from, and exportation

to Great Britain, and every part of the West Indies, till the act be

repealed, the same will prove the salvation of North America and her

liberties; and that the impolicy, injustice, inhumanity, and cruelty of

the act exceed all our powers of expression: we, therefore, leave it to

the just censure of others, and appeal to God and the world.” In order

to spread disaffection, the act was printed and widely circulated

throughout the colonies. Nor were the presses of Boston alone engaged

in this work. Other colonies had thousands of copies struck off, and in

some the copy of the act was accompanied with comments, and with a

black border, while the vendors cried it about under the title of “A

barbarous, cruel, bloody, and inhuman murder.” In some places it

was burned with great solemnity; in others, as at Philadelphia,

subscriptions were set on foot for the relief of those Bostonians who

should be deprived of the means of subsistence by the operations of the

act; while in Virginia the assembly which was then sitting, adopted

a proposal that the first day of June, on which the Post Bill was

to commence, should be a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to

implore heaven to avert the evils of civil war, to inspire the Americans

with firmness in support of their rights, and to turn the hearts of king

and parliament to moderation and justice. For this vote, Lord Dunmore,

the governor of the province of Virginia, dissolved the assembly, and

the members then repaired to a tavern, where they agreed to articles

of association, in which they pronounced the Boston Port Bill to be

the result of a system having for its object the reduction of the

inhabitants of British America to slavery. At this meeting it

was declared that tea ought not to be used by any well-wisher to

constitutional liberty; and that from the course pursued by the East

India Company in favour of arbitrary taxation, the people ought not to

purchase any of their commodities, except saltpetre and spices, until

their grievances should be redressed. It was also declared that an

attack on one colony was an attack upon all, and that it should be

resisted by their united councils. Acting upon this opinion, which was

by no means logical, they recommended to the committee of correspondence

to communicate with all the other committees, “on the expediency of

appointing deputies from the several colonies of British America, to

meet in general congress, at such place, annually, as should be thought

most convenient, to deliberate on the measures required by their common

interests.” Finally, this meeting of the dissolved assembly of Virginia,

agreed that the members who should be elected under the new writs then

issuing, should meet in convention at Williamsburgh, on the first of

August, for the purpose of appointing delegates to sit in congress.

This was a monster stride in the march of revolution, and it was easy to

foresee its ultimate and awful consequences.

The first of June was not only observed as a day of fasting and

humiliation in Virginia, but also at Philadelphia, Boston, and other

places. Shops were closed, and the church-bells tolled dolefully; but

whether prayer was offered in sincerity and truth, and in calm devotion,

demands a doubt; for when men’s passions are inflamed, there can be no

fitness for acts of piety. In the mean time the assembly of Massachusets

Bay met at Boston, on the 25th of May, for the last time. On that day,

General Gage laid before them some common business of the province, and

then announced the painful necessity he was under of removing them and

all public offices to Salem, by the first of June, in conformity with

the recent acts of parliament. He adjourned them to the 7th of June,

then to meet at Salem, and on that day they reassembled at the place

appointed, and named a committee to consider and report the state of

the province. Some of the committee named were for pursuing mild and

conciliatory measures, and seeing this, Mr. Samuel Adams conferred with

Mr. Warren on the necessity of obtaining a better display of spirit.

Warren engaged to keep the committee in play, while Adams should be

secretly engaged in winning over members to their party. In a few days

Adams succeeded in gaining over and concerting measures with more than

thirty members, and it was then resolved to proceed at once to business.

On the 17th of May they ordered the doors to be locked, and that no one

should be permitted to go in or out. They hoped by this plan to keep

all friends of government from giving any information concerning

their councils, and to finish their business before the governor could

interfere with a prorogation or dissolution. One member favourable to

government, however, contrived to get out, and to give information of

what was doing within. The governor sent his secretary to dissolve

them, but he was refused admittance, and he read the proclamation of

dissolution upon the stairs leading to the chamber in the hearing of

several members, who, like himself, could not obtain admittance. By this

time, however, the committee had done all they wanted to do: they had

appointed a committee to meet other provincial committees on the 1st

of September, at Philadelphia; had voted £500 for its use; had chosen

a treasurer; and having no money in hand, had recommended the towns and

districts of the province to raise the sum by equitable proportions,

according to the last provincial tax. This was a gross insult to the

governor, and the committee exulted in having had the opportunity of

offering it. Their feelings of triumph, however, do no honour to human

nature, since that triumph, such as it was, was obtained by the paltry

artifice of obtaining possession of the house to the exclusion of all

such members as would have voted against the measure they had proposed

and carried.

On the 1st of June, exactly as the clock struck twelve, the custom-house

of Boston was shut up, and all lawful business ceased in its port. Its

trade was nominally transferred to Salem; but the spirit of rivalry

which formerly distinguished American merchants seemed now to be wholly

lost in sympathy. No one discovered the slightest inclination to profit

by the distress of the refractory town of Boston. The merchants and

freeholders of Salem, indeed, presented an address to General Gage,

censuring the measures that had been adopted, commiserating the people

of Boston, and declining to derive any advantage offered them by the

Boston Port Bill. Nature, they said, by the formation of their harbour,

forbade their becoming rivals with that convenient mart, and were it

otherwise they must be dead to every idea of justice, and lost to all

feelings of humanity, if they could indulge one thought of acquiring

wealth, and building up their fortunes upon the ruin of their suffering

neighbours. These certainly were sentiments honourable to humanity, but

unfortunately they were coupled with others of a different character.

The petitioners repeated the old saying, which was now become

notoriously false, that they still ardently wished to preserve their

connexion with the British empire: and yet the people of Salem falsified

their assertion on the very next day after it was made, by joining a

general association, which by this time had been got up by many of the

committees of correspondence, and which was called “a solemn league

and covenant,” after the famous bond of their Puritan forefathers.

The nature of this league may be seen from the document which all its

members signed. It declared that the compact had been entered into as

the only means of avoiding the horrors of slavery, or the carnage and

desolation of civil war; that those who subscribed to it covenanted in

the presence of God to suspend all commercial intercourse with Great

Britain till the Boston Port Bill should be restored; and that they

would have no dealings with persons who would not sign it, or should

afterwards violate it, but would publish their names as enemies to

their country, and as men excommunicated or cut off from all social

intercourse. This league spread rapidly through all the states;

thousands joined it of their own free will, and others were impelled to

subscribe to it through fear. In most places, indeed, it was conceived

more dangerous to oppose the popular will, than to risk a war with Great

Britain. And it was in vain that the governor sought to stem the onward

progress of the tide of revolution. He issued a proclamation, forbidding

such unlawful and traitorous combinations, and warned the people against

countenancing them; but his orders were disregarded, and his very power

questioned. In Boston all became sullen and threatening, and General

Gage at length deemed it advisable to take means more efficacious than

proclamations in repressing tumult. A detachment of artillery, with some

regiments of infantry were ordered to encamp near Boston, and these were

soon reinforced by fresh troops from Great Britain and Ireland. But it

was soon found that the troops could not be depended upon:—bought by

gills of ardent spirits and promises of reward, many, and especially the

raw recruits, deserted their ranks; and General Gage next placed a guard

on the Isthmus, called Boston-neck, which joins the peninsula whereon

the town is built to the main land. This movement, like all the other

movements made by the officers of government, was misrepresented, and

hastened on the crisis. A cry was raised and a report spread that the

governor intended to cut off all communications, and compel the town to

submit to terms. The exciting cry produced the effect that was wished

far and near. Even those provinces which had hitherto been slow to join

the Bostonians in their hostility towards government, now earnestly

exhorted them to brave their supposed doom, as the eye of all America

was upon them; and the hands of all the Americans ready to be stretched

forth for their deliverance.

In conformity to the bill for regulating the government of Massachusets

Bay, General Gage reorganised the Massachusets council. Commissions

arrived in August for the new council, and thirty-six were appointed,

but twelve out of that number refused to accept office; and even those

who did accept office, were soon glad, for the most part, to throw

up their commissions, from the odium which they had incurred and the

threats by which they were intimidated. General Gage, however, issued

writs for convening an assembly in October. But order and law were now

out of the question in Boston. The juries would not serve under the new

judges, and the very officers refused, from disaffection or fear, to

summon them. The colonists had now, in fact, begun to arm, to collect

warlike stores, and to train the youth to military exercises. Nothing

was to be seen or heard of except the purchasing of arms and ammunition,

the casting of balls, and the making of all those preparations

which testified immediate and determined resistance. Under these

circumstances, General Gage fortified Boston-neck, and seized and

removed to head-quarters all the gunpowder and military stores that

were deposited at Charlestown, Cambridge, and other places within his

province. The people now rose in arms, and threatened to attack the

troops. Several thousands marched from all quarters for this purpose,

and though they did not come to blows, they threw every possible

obstruction in the way of those employed in constructing the works on

Boston-neck, burning the materials by night, sinking the boats laden

with bricks, and overturning the trucks laden with timber. The governor

saw clearly that scenes of bloodshed were at hand, and though thus

braved, he mercifully forbore to commence them.

In the mean time the committees of correspondence in order to fan the

flames of sedition into one universal conflagration, had been spreading

abroad rumours of massacres, and of attacks on Boston both by land and

sea. It was in this state of affairs that a meeting of delegates from

all the neighbouring towns was called, and which was held, in spite

of the governor’s proclamation. This meeting passed resolutions

more decidedly hostile to the British government than any previously

promulgated. They called the late acts of parliament gross infractions

of civil and religious liberty, and wicked attempts to establish

despotism, which ought to be resisted; they resolved to indemnify all

officers who should refuse to execute any process issued by the judges

appointed by the crown; they declared every member of the new council an

enemy to his country; they condemned the plan of fortifying Boston-neck;

they denounced the late act establishing the Roman Catholic religion in

Canada, as dangerous alike to the Protestant religion, and to the rights

and liberties of all America; they recommended a total suspension of

commercial intercourse with Great Britain, the encouragement of domestic

manufactures, the appointment of a provincial congress, and the exercise

of the people in arms; they advised collectors of taxes to retain the

money in their own hands until the civil government of the province

should be placed on a constitutional basis, or a provincial congress

should direct its application; and while they exhorted the people to

abstain from riots, they expressed their determination to resist the

measures of government to the utmost. Their resolutions concluded

thus:—“Should our enemies by any sudden manoeuvre, render it necessary

for us to ask aid of our brethren in the country, some one of the

committee of correspondence, or a select man from the town where

hostilities shall commence or be expected, or from the town adjoining,

shall despatch couriers with written messages to the select men, or

committees of correspondence in the vicinity, who shall send others to

committees more remote, until sufficient assistance be obtained: the

expense of couriers to be defrayed by the county, until otherwise

ordered by the provincial assembly.” The meeting also drew up a petition

of remonstrance to the governor, respecting the fortification of

Boston-neck, in which they plainly stated that although they had

no inclination to commence hostilities, they were resolved,

notwithstanding, to resist the late acts of the British parliament at

all hazards. Gage replied, that it was his duty to preserve the peace,

and to erect such works as should protect his soldiers from surprise: at

the same time he assured them that his artillery should not be employed

unless hostile proceedings on their part rendered it necessary.

By this time the people of Virginia had taken one of the front ranks

in the march of revolution and independence. On the 1st of August,

Jefferson and other members of the convention met as appointed, to

agree as to instructions for the delegates to be sent to the approaching

congress. Jefferson had drawn up a violent paper, but falling sick, it

was presented by Peyton Randolph. The sum and substance of this paper

was, in fact, that the Virginians should claim an absolute independence

and sovereignty. The leap, however, which Jefferson proposed to take was

far too long for the mass of his fellow-citizens as yet to take; but the

document was deemed worthy of being printed, and it was published under

the title of “A summary View of the Rights of British America.” The

members of this convention, however, took a leap which did not fall far

short of that which Jefferson proposed. The instructions they prepared,

at least, made it manifest unto all men, that, although they professed

loyalty to the sovereign, their aim was to undermine his throne; or, in

other words, to obtain independence. They averred their allegiance to

King George, declared that they sincerely approved of a constitutional

connexion with their mother country, and even professed a willingness to

submit to reasonable regulations and restrictions on their commerce—but

this was only a preamble to sentiments teeming with rebellion and

hostility to the king whom they professed to obey, and the country with

which they asserted they still wished to be connected. In this section

of their instructions the Virginians instructed their deputies at

congress to co-operate cordially with Massachusets Bay and the other

colonies; declared that the proclamation issued by General Gage

was alarming, and illegal, and such as would justify resistance and

reprisals if attempted to be carried into effect; agreed to send speedy

and liberal relief to the Bostonians, and to abide by such alterations

in their present articles as congress might recommend and the delegates

of Virginia assent to; and bound themselves not to export any tobacco

after the 10th of August, and in lieu of its cultivation to encourage

manufactures; to deal with no merchants who raised the price of articles

during the present crisis, and to require the county committees to

publish the name of those who would not conform to their regulations.

The convention finished by choosing the delegates who were to represent

them in congress.

This congress met, as appointed, at Philadelphia, on the 4th of

September. On their meeting, all the provinces from Massachusets to

South Carolina, with the single exception of North Carolina, were found

to be represented, and even delegates from that province arrived on a

later day. The delegates met on the following day at Carpenters’-hall,

chose Payton Randolph president, and organised themselves into a

deliberate assembly. At the commencement, although there were several

delegates from some of the provinces, it was agreed that each state

should have only one distinct vote. They then proceeded to business.

At first they agreed upon a declaration of rights to which they were

entitled, they said, by the laws of nature, the principles of the

British constitution, and their several charters. Their next step was

to concoct a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation

association, which was not to be infringed by any American citizen.

This was followed by a series of solemn addresses; one to the king,

expressing loyalty and affection; one to the people of Great Britain,

showing how barbarously and tyrannically they had been treated by a

corrupt administration, etc.; and one to the French people of Quebec,

inviting them to make common cause with them, and urging them to take up

arms against the English, who had only recently conquered Canada. Their

province was only wanting, they said, to complete the bright and strong

chain of union! The congress also sent letters to the colonists of

Georgia, East and West Florida, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, exhorting

them to shake off their dependence on their mother country, and to join

them in their contest. They also sent a remonstrance to General Gage,

against his military proceedings, which bore, they said, a hostile

appearance unwarranted by the tyrannical acts of parliament: forgetting

that it was the conduct of the Bostonians alone which induced him to

take these steps. Finally, the congress resolved that if any attempts

were made to seize any American, in order to transport him beyond sea

for trial of offences committed in America, resistance and reprisals

should be made: then, having agreed that another general congress should

be held on the 10th of May next, they dissolved themselves; i. e. on the

28th of October.

It has been seen that General Gage had issued writs calling the assembly

to meet at Salem on the 5th of October. Before that day arrived, he

thought it expedient to countermand the writs by proclamation, and to

discharge such members as were already returned. This proclamation,

however, was not heeded. Ninety members met on the day appointed,

and though the governor was not there to open the session, or any one

deputed by him to administer the oaths, they appointed a committee to

consider the proclamation, and resolved themselves, with others who

might afterwards join them, into a provincial congress. Having chosen

Mr. John Hancock, the owner of the Liberty sloop, and a great merchant

in the contraband line, to be their president, they adjourned to the

town of Concord, about twenty-live miles distant from Boston Here their

first business was to appoint a committee to wait upon Governor Gage

with a remonstrance, in which they vindicated their meeting by a

reference to the distracted state of the province, and called upon him,

for the honour of the king and the public peace, to desist from the

construction of fortifications against the town of Boston. The governor

indignantly replied, “That the lives, liberty, and property of none but

avowed enemies could be endangered by the troops of Great Britain, who

had shown no disposition for hostilities, though they might be expected

to feel resentment at the exertions employed to deprive them even of the

necessaries of life.” He also reminded this self-constituted provincial

congress that while they affected to complain of alterations made in

their charter by acts of parliament, their very meeting was in direct

violation of their own constitution; and, finally, he exhorted them to

desist from all illegal proceedings. The governor’s exhortation was,

however, unheeded. On receiving his reply, they adjourned to Cambridge,

where they appointed a committee to draw up a plan for the military

defence of the province. They likewise settled all matters relating to

the militia; arranged means for the collection of arms; provided for

the receipt of taxes; appointed committees for these different purposes;

named Jedediah Pribble and Artemas Ward, who had seen some service in

the war with the French and Canadians, to be their generals; and even

deliberated upon the precise period for opposing or attacking the

king’s troops. Emissaries were also sent by them to Rhode Island, New

Hampshire, and Connecticut, to request them to prepare their respective

quotas, so as to make up an army of 20,000 men, and a committee was

appointed to correspond with the Protestants of Canada, and especially

those of the Presbyterian persuasion. Finally, they addressed a circular

letter to all the dissenting ministers in New England, exhorting them

to assist in averting the slavery with which the country was threatened,

and appointed a day of public thanksgiving for the happy union which

existed throughout the colonies. Having done all this, early in December

the provincial congress of Massachusets prorogued themselves, appointing

a new meeting in the ensuing month of February.

This conduct naturally excited the indignation of the governor, and

he issued a proclamation forbidding the people to pay any obedience to

these seditious resolutions. But proclamations now sounded in the ears

of the people of Massachuset’s Bay as idle words, and the resolutions

were strictly obeyed. The same disregard to the mandates of government

was also shown in other colonies. The king had issued a proclamation

strictly prohibiting the exportation of warlike stores to America; and

as soon as this became known in the colonies, the people of Rhode Island

seized upon forty pieces of cannon belonging to the crown, which had

been mounted on batteries for the defence of the harbour, and carried

them off, while those of New Hampshire surprised a small fort, called

“William and Mary,” and carried off the ordnance, gunpowder, and other

military stores. Mills, moreover, were erected for making gunpowder, and

manufactories for making arms. Every thing, in fact, indicated that a

fierce and bitter struggle was about to commence between America and

the mother country. The train was laid, and the application of the match

only was wanting to effect a fearful conflagration.

{GEORGE III. 1773–1775}

GENERAL ELECTION.

In the month of September, although parliament had more than a year

to complete its septennial term, it was dissolved by proclamation,

and writs issued for a new one. This step was taken, it would appear,

chiefly that the sense of the nation might be known more fully

concerning the affairs of America. This was found to be decidedly hostile

to the late proceedings of the Americans. Loyalty, indeed, had increased

at home in proportion as it had decreased in the colonies. All classes

united in the opinion that the king, parliament, and country had been

grossly insulted by the Americans, and that they deserved chastisement.

Hence the general election, which took place in October, resulted

greatly in favour of ministers. Some few places, it is true, proposed

tests to the candidates, including pledges to stop hostilities with

America, but the great majority were in favour of coercive measures if

the Americans did not lay down their arms of rebellion. In this election

Wilkes and Glynn were elected for Middlesex, so that this popular idol

once more found a seat in parliament. He took his seat more proudly than

ever, for he was this year also elected lord mayor of London: a high

dignity for a man whose chief merits were those of agitation.

MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The new parliament met on the 29th of November when the king signified

his pleasure that the commons should elect a speaker to be presented on

the next day for his approbation. Sir Fletcher Norton was unanimously

re-elected, and on the following day his majesty opened the session with

a speech in the usual form. The leading topic in this speech was the

rebellious spirit displayed in America. His Majesty remarked: “It gives

me much concern that I am obliged at the opening of this parliament, to

inform you that a most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to

the law still unhappily prevails in the province of Massachusets Bay,

and has, in divers parts of it, broke forth in fresh violences of a very

criminal nature. These proceedings have been countenanced and encouraged

in others of my colonies, and unwarrantable attempts have been made to

obstruct the commerce of this country by unlawful combinations. I have

taken such measures and given such orders as I judged most proper and

effectual for carrying into execution the laws which were passed in the

last session of the late parliament, for the protection and security of

the commerce of my subjects, and for the restoring and preserving peace,

order, and good government in the province of Massachusets Bay; and

you may depend upon my firm and steadfast resolution to withstand every

attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of this legislature

over all the dominions of my crown: the maintenance of which I consider

as essential to the dignity, the safety, and the welfare of the British

empire; assuring myself that, while I act upon these principles, I shall

never fail to receive your assistance and support.” In conclusion, his

majesty recommended both houses to proceed with temper and unanimity

in their resolutions, in order that his subjects in every part of his

dominions might be taught by their example to preserve a due reverence

for the laws, and a just sense of the blessings of the British

constitution.

In the debate on the address in the commons, an amendment was proposed

on the part of the opposition, to the effect that his majesty would be

pleased to communicate the whole intelligence received from America,

and to lay all letters, orders, and instructions relating to the late

transactions before parliament. This was opposed by Lord North, who

argued that it was not a proper time for entering into a discussion on

the subject, since matters were in a state of suspense, He said that a

reconcilliation was highly desirable, but as no terms of concession had

been made by the Americans, it could not be expected that England would

offer terms of submission. On the opposition benches the conduct of the

late parliament in passing the American acts was severely censured, and

the prime-minister was taunted with the failure of those acts from

which he had augured such great and beneficial effects. The amendment,

however, was negatived by a majority of 264 against 73, and the original

address carried. Opposition shared the same fate in the lords. The Duke

of Richmond moved an amendment similar to that in the commons, and a hot

debate took place in consequence, but it was lost by a majority of 63

against 13. Nine of the minority entered a strong protest against the

address—the first ever made upon an address—which concluded with these

words: “Whatever may be the mischievous designs or the inconsiderate

temerity, which leads others to this desperate course, we wish to be

known as persons who have ever disapproved of measures so pernicious in

their past effects and their future tendency; and who are not in haste,

without inquiry or information, to commit ourselves in declarations

which may precipitate our country into all the calamities of a civil

war.”

It might have been expected that ministers, having apparently made up

their minds to pursue coercive measures, would have prepared to meet the

alternative of war with an efficient force. Ministers, however, seem to

have been as impotent in execution as they were magnanimous in resolve.

Instead of increasing the forces, they left the estimates to be entirely

formed upon a peace establishment: continuing the army as it was and

actually reducing the navy by 4000 men; leaving only 16,000 for

the service of the ensuing year. The country felt a difficulty in

reconciling this conduct of the ministers with the speech from the

throne, and vehement debates took place in both houses on the subject.

Lord Sandwich, however, asserted that our navy establishment, small as

it was, would be sufficient to reduce the colonies to obedience, as

the power, courage, and discipline of the Americans were by no means so

formidable as had been represented, and as was generally supposed. Their

very numbers, he said, would only add to the facility of their defeat

when brought into action. Beyond this, the commons did little more

before the Christmas recess than receive petitions which had been got

up by Franklin and his agents in the North, and counter petitions which

were concocted through the agency of Adam Smith, Dr. Roebuck, and others

who seem to have been set to work by ministers, although they pretended

some surprise when they were presented. In the house of lords, in the

meantime, one important resolution had passed on the motion of the Duke

of Manchester. This was to admit not only the members of the house of

commons, but also other strangers, to hear the debates of the upper

house. This put an end to a bitter contention which had existed between

the lords and commons for four years.