[Dec. 17.] “Sure I am that the ministry have no where such sanguine
hopes of a defection as from that quarter (New-York.) Their influence is
no where so forcibly extended; it is certain they will be astonishingly
disappointed if they do not find a sensibility to their touch. Lord C——
said in the house of lords, the other day, “Were I an American, I would
resist to the last drop of my blood.” Your parliamentary friends say,
snatch the opportunity for peace and reconciliation. Your sanguine and
warm partizans say, “You are united and inspired now, circumstances that
may never happen again. Seize the happy and glorious opportunity for
establishing the freedom and social felicity of all America. There is a
tide in the affairs of men.”
[Jan. 2, 1775.] While (at Bath) viewing the most magnificently elegant
new rooms, in company with colonel Barre, he said, pointing to the
pictures taken from the ruins found at Herculaneum, “I hope you have not
the books containing the draughts of those ruins with you.” I replied,
“There was one set I believed in the public library at our college.”
“Keep them there (said he) and they may be of some service as a matter
of curiosity for the speculative, but let them get abroad and you are
ruined. They will infuse a taste for buildings and sculpture; and when a
people get a taste for the fine arts, they are ruined. ’Tis taste that
ruins whole kingdoms. ’Tis tase that depopulates whole nations. I could
not help weeping when I surveyed the ruins at Rome. All the remains of
the Roman grandeur are of works which were finished, when Rome and the
spirit of Romans were no more, unless I except the ruins of the Emilian
baths. Mr. Quincy, let your countrymen beware of taste in their
buildings, equipage and dress, as a deadly poison.”
Colonel Barre also added, in the course of conversation—“About fourteen
or fifteen years ago, I was through a considerable part of your country;
for, in the expedition against Canada, my business called me to pass by
land through Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, York and Albany; and when I
returned again to this country, I was often speaking of America, and
could not help speaking well of its climate, soil and inhabitants; for
you must know, sir, America was always a favorite with me. But will you
believe it, sir, yet I assure you it is true, more than two-thirds of
this island at that time, thought the Americans were all negroes.” I
replied, “I did not in the least doubt it; for if I was to judge by the
late acts of parliament, I should suppose that a majority of the people
of Great-Britain still thought so, for I found that their
representatives still treated them as such.” He smiled, and the
discourse dropped. The colonel was among those who voted for the Boston
port-bill.
[Dec. 20.] Attended the debates of the house of lords.—Good fortune gave
me one of the best places for taking a few minutes.
Lord Chatham rose like Marcellus. “Viros superiment omnes.” He seemed to
feel himself superior to those around him. His language, voice and
gesture, were more pathetic than I ever saw or heard before at the bar
or senate. He seemed like an old Roman senator, rising with the dignity
of age, yet speaking with the fire of youth.
The illustrious sage stretched fourth his hand with the decent solemnity
of a Paul, and rising with his subject, he smote his breast with the
energy and grace of a Demosthenes. He opened with some general
observations on the importance and magnitude of the American quarrel (as
he called it.) He enlarged upon the dangerous and ruinous events that
were coming upon the nation in consequence of the present dispute, and
the measures already begun and now carrying on by his majesty’s
ministers. He arraigned their conduct with great severity and freedom.
He then proceeded:
“My lords, these papers from America, now laid for the first time before
your lordships, have been, to my knowledge, five or six weeks in the
pocket of the minister. And notwithstanding the fate of this kingdom
hangs upon the event of this great controversy, we are but this moment
called to a consideration of this important subject. My lords, I do not
want to look into one of those papers; I know their contents well enough
already. I know that there is not a member in this house but is
acquainted with their purport also. There ought therefore to be no delay
in entering upon this matter; we ought to proceed to it immediately. We
ought to seize the first moment to open the door of reconciliation. The
Americans will never be in a temper or state to be reconciled (they
ought not to be) till the troops are withdrawn. The troops are a
perpetual irritation to these people: they are a bar to all confidence,
and all cordial reconcilement. I therefore, my lords, move—That an
humble address be presented to his majesty, most humbly to advise and
beseech his majesty, that, in order to open the way towards an happy
settlement of the dangerous troubles in America, by beginning to allay
ferments, and soften animosities there; and above all, for preventing,
in the mean time, any sudden and fatal catastrophe at Boston, now
suffering under the daily irritation of an army, before their eyes,
posted in their town, it may graciously please his majesty, that
immediate orders may be dispatched to general Gage, for removing his
majesty’s forces from the town of Boston, as soon as the rigor of the
season, and other circumstances indispensible to the safety and
accommodation of the said troops, may render the same practicable.”
“The way, my lords, must be immediately opened for reconciliation. It
will soon be too late. I know not who advised the present measures. I
know not who advises to a perseverance and enforcement of them; but this
I will say, that whoever advises them ought to answer for it, at his
utmost peril.—I know that no one will avow, that he advised, or that he
was the author of these measures: every one shrinks from the charge. But
somebody has advised his majesty to these measures, and if his majesty
continues to hear such evil counsellors, his majesty will be undone. His
majesty indeed my wear his crown; but the American jewel out of it, it
will not be worth the wearing.”
“What more shall I say? I must not say, that the king is betrayed; but
this I will say, the NATION is ruined. What foundation have we for our
claims over America? What is our right to persist in such cruel and
vindictive measures against that loyal and respectable people? They say
you have no right so tax them without their consent. They say truly.
Representation and taxation must go together: they are inseparable. Yet
there is hardly a man in our streets, though so poor as scarce to be
able to get his daily bread, but thinks he is the legislator of America.
_Our_ American subjects is a common phrase in the mouth of the lowest
orders of our citizens; but property, my lords, is the sole and entire
dominion of the owner: it excludes all the world besides the owner. None
can intermeddle with it. It is a unity; a mathematical point. It it at
atom; untangible by any but the proprietor. Touch it—and the owner loses
his whole property. The touch contaminates the whole mass; the whole
property vanishes. The touch of another annihilates it; for whatever is
a man’s own, is absolutely and exclusively his own.”
“In the last parliament all was anger—all was rage. Administration did
not consider what was practicable, but what was revenge. _Sine clade
victoria_ was the language of the ministry last sessions, but every body
knew, an idiot might know, that such would not be the issue. But the
ruin of the nation was a matter of no concern, if administration might
be revenged. Americans were abused, misrepresented, and traduced in the
most atrocious manner, in order to give a colour, and urge on the most
precipitate, unjust, cruel, and vindictive measures that ever disgraced
a nation.”
Gnossius hæc Rhadamanthus habet _durissima_ regna,
_Custig at_ que, AUDIT que dolos.
“My lords, the very infernal spirits, they _chastise_, _castigatque_:
sed _auditque_, my lords. The very spirits of the infernal regions HEAR
_before_ they _punish_. But how have these respectable people behaved
under all their grievances? With unexampled patience, with unparalleled
wisdom. They chose delegates by their free suffrages: no _bribery_, no
_corruption_, no INFLUENCE here, my lords. Their representatives meet
with the sentiments and temper, and speak the sense of the continent.
For genuine sagacity, for singular moderation, for solid wisdom, manly
spirit, sublime sentiments and simplicity of language, for every thing
respectable and honorable, the congress of Philadelphia shine
unrivalled. This wise people speak out. They do not hold the language of
slaves; they tell you what they mean.—They do not ask you to repeal your
laws as a favor; they claim it as a right; they demand it. They tell
you, they will not submit to them; and I tell you the acts must be
repealed; they will be repealed; you cannot enforce them. The ministry
are checker-mated. They have a move to make on the board; and yet not a
move but they are ruined.
Repeal, therefore, my lords, I say. But bare repeal will not satisfy
this enlightened and spirited people. What! repeal a bit of paper:
repeal a piece of parchment! That alone won’t do, my lords. You must go
through. You must declare you have no right to tax; then they may trust
you; then they will have confidence in you. I have heard a noble lord
speak, who seemed to lay some blame upon general Gage. I think that
honorable gentleman has behaved with great prudence and becoming
caution. He has entrenched himself and strengthened his fortifications.
I don’t know what he could do more. His situation puts me in mind of a
similar transaction in the civil wars of France, when the great Condee
on one side, and Marshall Turenne on the other, with large armies lay
many weeks very near each other. Turenne, conscious of the terrible
consequences of a victory to himself and country, though the armies were
several days in sight of each other, never came to a battle. On his
return to the court of France, the queen asked him, “Why, Marshall, I
think you lay several days in sight of your enemy, and you might have
been up with him at any time; pray why did you not take him?” The
general very shrewdly replied, “Should I have taken him, please your
majesty, I was afraid all Paris would have taken me.”——My lords, there
are three millions of whigs. Three millions of whigs, my lords, with
arms in their hands, are a very formidable body. ’Twas the whigs, my
lords, that set his majesty’s royal ancestors upon the throne of
England. I hope, my lords, there are yet double the number of whigs in
England that there are in America. I hope the whigs of both countries
will join and make a common cause. Ireland is with the Americans to a
man. The whigs of that country will, and those of this country ought, to
think the American cause their own. They are allied to each other in
sentiment and interest, united in one great principle of defence and
resistance; they ought therefore, and will run to embrace and support
their brethren. The cause of ship-money was the cause of all the whigs
of England. _You shall not take my money without my consent_, is the
doctrine and language of whigs. It is the doctrine and voice of whigs in
America, and whigs here. It is the doctrine in support of which I do not
know how many names I could—I may call in this house; among the living I
cannot say how many I could, to join with me and maintain these
doctrines with their blood; but among the dead I could raise an host
innumerable. And, my lords, at this day, there are very many sound,
substantial, honest whigs, who ought, and who will consider the American
controversy as a great common cause.”
“My lords, consistent with the preceding doctrines, and with what I have
ever and shall continue to maintain, I say, I shall oppose America
whenever I see her aiming at throwing off the navigation act, and other
regulatory acts of trade, made _bona fide_ for that purpose, and wisely
framed and calculated for reciprocation of interest, and the general
extended welfare and security of the whole empire. It is suggested such
is their design. I see no evidence of it. But to come at a certain
knowledge of their sentiments and designs on this head, it would be
proper first to do them justice. Treat them as subjects before you treat
them as aliens, rebels, and traitors.”
“My lords, deeply impressed with the importance of taking some healing
measurs at this most alarming distracted state of our affairs, though
bowed down with a cruel disease, I have crawled to this house, to give
you my best experience and counsel; and my advice is to beseech his
majesty, &c. &c. This is the best I can think of. It will convince
America that you mean to try her cause in the spirit and by the laws of
freedom and fair enquiry, and not by codes of blood. How can she now
trust you, with the bayonet at her breast? She has all the reason in the
world now to believe you mean her death or bondage.”
“Thus entered on the threshhold of this business, I will knock at your
gates for justice without ceasing, unless inveterate infirmities stay my
hand. My lords, I pledge myself never to leave this business: I will
pursue it to the end in every shape. I will never fail of my attendance
on it, at every step and period of this great matter, unless nailed down
to my bed by the severity of disease. My lords, there is no time to be
lost; every moment is big with dangers. Nay, while I am now speaking,
the decisive blow may be struck, and millions involved in the
consequence. The very first drop of blood will make a wound that will
not easily be skinned over. Years, perhaps ages may not heal it. It will
be _irritabile vulnus_, a wound of that rancorous, malignant, corroding,
festering nature, that in all probability it will mortify the whole
body. Let us then, my lords, set to this business in earnest, not take
it up by bits and scraps as formerly, just as exigencies pressed,
without any regard to the general relations, connections and
dependencies. I would not by any thing I have said, my lords, be thought
to encourage America to proceed beyond the right line. I reprobate all
acts of violence by her mobility, but when her inherent constitutional
rights are invaded, those rights that she has an equitable claim to the
full enjoyment of by the fundamental laws of the English constitution,
and ingrafted thereon by the fundamental laws of nature, then I own
myself an _American_, and feeling myself such, shall to the verge of my
life, vindicate those rights against all men who strive to trample upon
or oppose them.”
From the effects of this speech on the great audience without the bar,
and from my own emotions and feelings, the miracles of ancient
eloquence—_the blaze of genius and the burst of thought_—with which
Grecian and Roman orators have been said to work wonders in the senate
and the field, no longer appeared fabulous.
Lord Camden spoke next on the side of America, and in support of the
motion. He equalled lord Chatham in every thing but that fire and pathos
which are the _forte_ of his lordship. In learning, perspicuity, and
pure eloquence, probably no one ever surpassed lord Camden.
His lordship opened briefly upon the nature of property, the right of
taxation, and its inseparability from representation. “My lords (he
said) I will not enter into the large field of collateral reasoning
applicable to the abstruse distinctions touching the omnipotence of
parliament. The declaratory law sealed my mouth. But this I will say,
not only as a statesman, politician and philosopher, but as a COMMON
LAWYER, my lords, you have no right to tax America. I have searched the
matter. I repeat it, my lords, you have no right to tax America. The
natural rights of man, and the immutable laws of nature, are all with
that people. Much stress is laid on the supreme legislative authority of
Great-Britain, and so far as the doctrine is directed to its proper
object, I accede to it. But it is equally true, according to all
approved writers on government, that no man, agreeable to the principles
of natural or civil liberty, can be divested of any part of his property
without his consent. Every thing has been staked on this single
position, that acts of parliament must be obeyed; but this general,
unconditional, unlimited assertion, I am far from thinking applicable to
every possible case that may arise in the turn of times. For my part, I
imagine that a power resulting from a trust arbitrarily exercised, may
be lawfully resisted; whether the power is lodged in a collective body,
or single person, in the few or the many. However modified makes no
difference. Whenever the trust is wrested to the injury of the people,
whenever oppression begins, all is unlawful and unjust; and resistance
of course becomes lawful and right. But some lords tell us seriously,
that administration must reduce the Americans to obedience and
submission; that is, you must make them absolute and infamous slaves,
and _then_——what? We will, say they, give them full liberty. Ah! is this
the nature of man? No my lords, I would not trust myself, _American_ as
I am, in this situation. I do not think I should, in that case, be
myself for giving of them liberty. No, if they submitted to such unjust,
such cruel, such degrading slavery, I should think they were made for
slaves; that servility was suited to their nature and genius. I should
think they would best serve this country as their slaves; that their
servility would be for the benefit of Great-Britain; and I should be for
keeping such _Cappadocians_ in a state of servitude, such as was suited
to their constitution, and might redound much to our advantage.”
“My lords, some noble lords talk very much of resistance to acts of
parliament. King, lords, and commons, are fine sounding names. But, my
lords, acts of parliament have been resisted in all ages. King, lords,
and commons, may become tyrants as well as others. Tyranny in one or
more is the same. It is as lawful to resist the tyranny of many as of
one. Somebody once asked the great Mr. _Seldon_ in what law-book, in
what records or archives of the state, you might find the law for
resisting tyranny. “I don’t know (said Mr. Seldon) whether it is worth
your while to look deeply into the books upon this matter; but I’ll tell
you what is most certain, that it has always been the custom of
England—and the custom of England is the law of the land.”
“There is a gentleman, whom I need not name, his works are well received
and well known, who avoids stating any rule when resistance is lawful;
and he lays down the revolution as the only precedent. He says, that the
various circumstances, events, and incident that may justify, cannot be
defined; but the people at large will judge of their welfare and
happiness, and act accordingly. The same writer says, that whenever a
case exactly similar in all its parts and circumstances to the
revolution, when a case shall run upon _all fours_ with that, then the
law seems to be settled that resistance is lawful. I do not pretend to
quote his words. I think his meaning is very much as I have stated it.
But undoubtedly in cases in many respects dissimilar, but in equal
degree tyrannical and oppressive, resistance may be lawful, and the
people in all ages, countries, and climes, have at times known these
things, and they have, and will for ever act accordingly.”
Lord Shelburne, in the course of his argument, said, “My lords, we know,
we all know, that justice and injustice, right and wrong, are not at all
considered in the course of our parliamentary proceedings. We all know
that nothing is debated in parliament for information or conviction, but
for mere form. Every thing is considered in the cabinet, and brought
into parliament, not for consideration, but for the sanction of the
legislature, and the screening the counsellors of the king. The measures
of parliament are the measures of the minister; and the measures of this
minister are very often those of his commissioner.” The marquis of
Rockingham also supported the motion.
Lords Littleton, Suffolk, Gower, Townsend, Rochford, and Weymouth, spoke
in opposition. I omit relating what their lordships said, lest I should
be suspected by any who may see this journal, of an unfair report of
their speeches. But a very remarkable saying of lord G—— I cannot omit.
His lordship said, “I am for enforcing these measures (and with great
sneer and contempt) let the Americans sit talking about their natural
and divine rights, their rights as men and citizens, their rights from
God and nature.”
The house, at about ten, divided after the preceding debates on the
question.—Contents 18—Non-contents 77, including proxies.
Thus far from Mr. Quincy’s papers.
The language of the lords in administration, was high and decisive. And
it was declared, that the mother country should never relax till America
confessed her supremacy; and it was acknowledged to be the ministerial
resolution, to enforce obedience by arms.
The principal trading and manufacturing towns in the kingdom, having
waited to regulate their conduct as to American affairs, by that of the
merchants of London and Bristol, followed the example of these two great
commercial bodies, and prepared petitions upon that subject to be
presented to parliament.
[Jan. 23.] The petition from the merchants of London was of course the
first delivered, and it was moved to be referred to the committee
appointed to take into consideration the American papers; but it was
moved by way of amendment on the ministerial side, that it should be
referred to a separate committee to meet on the 27th, the day succeeding
that appointed for the consideration of American papers. This was
objected to as a shameful pitiful evasion; but upon the question’s being
put, the amendment was carried, 197 against 81, who supported the
original motion.
A similar fate attended the petitions from Bristol, Glasgow, Norwich,
Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Dudley, and some other
places; all of which, in turn, were consigned to what the opposition
termed the committee of oblivion.
[Jan. 26.] On the day appointed for the consideration of American affair
a second and very strong petition was presented from the merchants of
London. On which it was moved, that the order for referring the
merchants petition to a separate committee should be discharged, and
that it should be referred to a committee of the whole house, appointed
to consider the American affairs. The indignity and mockery offered to
so great a body as the merchants of London by the late resolution, which
with an insidious affectation of civility, received the petition with
one hand, and threw it out of the window with the other, was painted in
strong colours. All the debates, on the subject of the petitions, were
attended with an unusual degree of asperity, and even acrimony on the
side of opposition. The conduct also of the late parliament was
scrutinized without mercy, and its memory treated with more than want of
respect. A gentleman, remarkable for a sarcastic poignancy in his
observations, in sketching a short history of that parliament, said,
that they began their political life with a violation of the sacred
right of election in the case of Middlesex; that they had died in the
act of popery, when they established the Roman Cotholic religion in
Canada; and that they had left a rebellion in America as a legacy. The
question was rejected upon a division by a very great majority.
Though it was then late, a petition was offered from Mr. Bollan, Dr.
Franklin, and Mr. Lee, stating that they were authorised by the American
continental congress, to present a petition from the congress to the
king, which petition his majesty had referred to that house, and that
they were enabled to throw great light upon the subject: they prayed to
be heard at the bar in support of the said petition. A violent debate
ensued. The ministry alledged, that the congress was no legal body, and
none could be heard in reference to its proceedings, without giving that
illegal body some degree of countenance. It was answered, that the
congress, however illegal as to other purposes, was sufficiently legal
for presenting a petition. It was signed by the names of all the persons
who composed it, and might be received as from individuals. It was said,
That it was their business rather to find every plausible reason for
receiving petitions, than to invent pretences for rejecting them; that
the rejection of petitions was one principal, if not the most powerful
cause of the present troubles: and that this mode of constantly
rejecting their petitions, and refusing to hear their agents, would
infallibly end in universal rebellion, and not unnaturally, as those
seem to give up the rights of government, who refuse to hear the
complaints of the subject. The ministry insulted the petition as
containing nothing but pretended grievances, while they refused to hear
and discuss it. It was rejected by 218 to 68. This rejection must have
been foreseen by all who knew, that on the fourth of the month, Lord
Dartmouth, by the king’s orders, had written a circular letter to the
governors of his majesty’s colonies, requiring them to use their utmost
endeavors to prevent the holding of any more congresses; and that the
American grievances were in the letter termed _pretended_. This letter
was written a few days after the petition had met with an apparent
gracious reception, and had been promised a due consideration; but
probably not before favorable advices had been received respecting the
New-York assembly.
It was evident, that both houses of parliament were ready to adopt any
measures which administration should propose; and it was confidently
believed and asserted, that when the merchants and manufacturers were
deprived of all hopes of preventing the operation of force, it would
then become their interest to give all possible effect to it. They would
thus become by degrees, a principal support of that cause which they now
so eagerly opposed.
The opinion of the efficacy of a forcible mode of proceeding in America,
and the hopes of compelling a great body at home to concurrence, have
made the ministers more and more resolved to go through, and complete
the plan with which they have begun. It may however be much doubted,
whether they suspect that the American contest will end in blood. Some
of them in all probability have such a firm reliance upon Mr.
Hutchinson’s judgment, as to flatter themselves that the colonists will
give way to those appearances of coercion, which they have adopted, and
mean further to adopt; and so have engaged in the present hazardous
politics, in hopes of enjoying a bloodless conquest, and therein a
complete triumph over all opposition.
[Feb. 8.] Lord Chatham persevered in the prosecution of his conciliatory
scheme with America, and accordingly brought into the house of lords the
outlines of a bill, which he hoped would answer that salutary purpose,
under the title of “A provincial act for settling the troubles in
America, and for asserting the supreme legislative authority, and
superintending power of Great-Britain over the colonies.”
This bill caused a variety of discussion within and without doors. The
ministry observed, that it was a proposition of reconciliation by
concession, which was cause sufficient to induce them to reject it;
their plan being, at present, to show a firm resolution not to give way
in any instance, while the opposition in America continued. It was usual
in parliament to reject, on the first proposition, any bill for any
object allowed to be necessary; and promising, however faintly or
rudely, any plan for obtaining the end proposed. But the proceeding on
this occasion was different. They condemned without reserve the bill in
the whole, and in all its parts; and it was moved, and strongly
supported by all the lords on the side of administration, that the bill
be rejected in the first instance. The noble framer defended himself and
his bill from the numerous attacks which were made on both, with great
spirit and vigor. The indignity offered him, seemed to renew all the
fire of youth; and he retorted the sarchasms, which were levelled at him
from different quarters, with a most pointed severity. The nature of the
subjects debated, and the state of temper on both sides, produced much
warmth, severe altercation, and even personal animadversion. The bill
was rejected by a majority of 61 to 32, not being allowed to lie upon
the table. The rejection of it may be of no disservice to the colonists.
It contained in it, a proposal to require of congress the making of a
free grant to the king, of a certain perpetual revenue, subject to the
disposition of the British parliament; and congress was to adjust the
proportions of the several charges to be borne by each province toward
the general contributory supply. Had it passed into an act, the
colonists might not have united in the proposal, but dangerous divisions
have followed, so that you may have no occasion to regret its fate,
especially as that will strengthen your union, and increase your
friends.
A petition was presented to the commons, from the planters of the sugar
colonies residing in Great-Britain, and the merchants of London trading
to those colonies, setting forth the distress to which the West-India
islands will be reduced, unless the former harmony between this kingdom
and the American colonies is restored. Like all the former upon the
subject, it was referred to the established petition committee. The day
it was presented, the minister opened his designs in respect to America.
Having prepared the way by a speech, he moved for an address to the
king, and for a conference with the lords, that it might be the joint
address of both houses. The address returns thanks for the communication
of the American papers; and declares, that they find from them, that a
_rebellion_ actually exists within the province of the Massachusetts
Bay; that the parties concerned in it have been countenanced and
encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements entered into, in
several of the other colonies; that they never can relinquish any part
of the sovereign authority over all the dominions, which by law is
vested in his majesty and the two houses of parliament; but they ever
have been, and always shall be ready to pay attention and regard to any
real grievances of any of his majesty’s subjects, which shall in a
dutiful and constitutional manner be laid before them; but at the same
time they beseech his majesty to take the most effectual measures to
enforce due obedience to the authority of the supreme legislature; and
in the most solemn manner assure him, that at the hazard of their lives
and properties, they will stand by him against all rebellious attempts,
in the maintenance of the just rights of his majesty and the two houses
of parliament.
Lord North then gave a sketch of the measures he intended to pursue,
which were to send a greater force to America, and to bring in a
temporary act to put a stop to all the foreign trade of the different
colonies of New-England, particularly their fishery on the banks of
Newfoundland, till they returned to their duty.
The address was so loaded with consequences, the extent of which could
not be defined, that it called up all the powers of opposition; and even
some few of the most moderate in the house seemed to feel a kind of
horror, at entering upon a measure so dangerous in the tendency, and
inexplicable in the event.
A gentleman, of the first eminence in the law, followed the minister
through the whole detail of his speech, and answered the different
positions. He insisted, that having examined with legal precision the
definitions of treason, the Americans were not in rebellion, and said,
“Whatever the disorders may be, they are created by the conduct of
those, whose views are to establish despotism, and which are manifestly
directed to reduce America to the most abject state of servility, as a
prelude to the realizing the same wicked system in the mother country.”
He concluded by maintaining, that an opposition to arbitrary measures is
warranted by the constitution, and established by precedent.
The other gentlemen of the minority entered but little into the
juridical part of the debate; but maintained, that it would be imprudent
for the parliament at this time to _declare_ the disturbances
rebellious. They said, “It is well known no act of violence has been
committed in the Massachusetts Bay, which has not been equalled by
something similar in every other province, and sometimes even exceeded
by acts of a more heinous nature; that therefore the only effect of this
violent, but partial declaration of rebellion, will be to delude
ourselves into preparations of hostility, as if against one province
only, when in truth we have to contend with twelve.”
On the other side, the crown lawyers and ministerial debaters
maintained, that such Americans as come within certain descriptions, and
have been guilty of certain acts, and still persevere in the support and
commission of such acts, are in a state of actual rebellion; that the
punishment of a few of the worst sort of traitors, such as Hancock and
his crew, may be sufficient to teach the rest their duty in future; and
that the boasted union of the colonies will dissolve the moment
parliament shows itself resolved on vigorous and severe measures. Some
gentlemen of rank in the army, treated all idea of resistance by the
Americans with the utmost contempt. They said, “They are neither
soldiers, nor ever can be made so, being naturally of a pusillanimous
disposition, and utterly incapable of any sort of order or discipline;
and by their laziness, uncleanliness, and radical defect of
constitution, they are disabled from going through the service of a
campaign, but will melt away with sickness before they can face an
enemy; so that a slight force will be more than sufficient for their
complete reduction.” Many ludicrous stories to that purport were told,
greatly to the entertainment of the house. A motion however was made for
an amendment, which, upon a division, was rejected by a large majority,
304 against 105. The question being then put for the address, was
carried by nearly The same majority.
But the minority had not done with the business. [Feb. 5.] Upon
receiving the report from the committee a few days after, a noble lord
made a motion to re-commit the address, and supported it with many
arguments. He stated our domestic situation, and inferred the
impropriety and danger of a declaration from that house, of the
existence of a rebellion in any part of our dominions; and showed the
desperate measures into which it might precipitate the Americans, and
the advantage that might be taken of such an occasion by our powerful
and watchful neighbors, whose ancient enmity and jealousy were much
increased by the glory we had acquired, and the disgrace and loss they
had suffered in the last war. He said, “My head and my heart join in
deprecating the horrors of a civil war, which will be rendered still
more dreadful, by its involving in it certain consequences, a foreign
one with the combined forces of great and powerful nations.”
This motion introduced the longest and most interesting debate that had
taken place in the new parliament. It was acknowledged on all hands,
that the present crisis was the most perilous and intricate in which the
nation had been involved since the revolution. It was contended by those
who opposed the motion, that the Americans were not to be won by
kindness, or retained by benefits; and that the tenderness, which had
been constantly practised by government, had produced the present fatal
consequences. The danger from foreign powers supporting the Americans,
was said to be imaginary: and it was still contended by several that an
appearance of vigorous measures, with some reinforcement of the troops
at Boston, would prove sufficient to quell the disturbances in America,
without the drawing of blood.
On the other side, the address was stigmatized as cruel, sanguinary, and
unjust. It was urged, “The Americans have given the strongest and most
unequivocal demonstrations of their filial piety toward the mother
country. They have fought and bled by our side. In the present state of
distraction, they require no more for the restoration of harmony, than
to be placed in the same situation they were in at the close of the last
war. They have been nursed up, for a long series of years, in ideas of
certain rights, of which, the electing of their own representatives, and
the disposal of their own money for the public service only through
them, are among the principal. If this is an error, the crown and
parliament are equally faulty with the Americans, having in their whole
conduct constantly nourished the delusion. At the time of the repeal of
the stamp-act, two of the first names of this kingdom, for ability as
well as legal knowledge, beside many others, utterly denied the right of
taxation. Is it then to be wondered at, that the Americans, with such
authorities on their side, are tenacious of a right so invaluable in its
nature, which has at all times been considered as the distinction
between freemen and slaves, which has been confirmed by so long a
prescription, and upon which, to this instant, the wisest and honestest
men, even in the mother country, are divided in opinion?—Philip the
second, and his seventeen provinces, are the counterpart of what we are
acting. In comparing the probability of events, can any man say,
Great-Britain has such a prospect of victory in the event as Spain might
then have expected? If we imagine that the powers of Europe will sit
still during this contest, we must suppose a system of policy now to
prevail, or rather an extension of folly, all over Europe, which never
before was known in any period of its existence.
Much ill temper appeared in every part of the house in the course of
these debates. The ministry were charged with acting uniformly and
systematically upon tory and arbitrary principles, which had thrown the
whole empire into a state of confusion and distraction. “In a word,” it
was said, “the short and simple question before the house is, whether we
shall lose the colonies, or give up our ministry.”
The ministry, on the other hand, talked much about faction at home, and
republican principles; and the Americans being spirited up to their
rebellion by incendiary writers and speakers in England. After a debate,
which continued till half an hour after two in the morning, the motion
for the re-commitment of the address was rejected by nearly the former
majority.
When it was moved in the house of lords, to fill up the blank, left open
in the address, by the insertion of the words, “The lords spiritual and
temporal, &c.” to render the instrument the joint act of both houses, a
debate ensued. The questions of treason, rebellion and constructive
treasons, were deeply entered into by two great law lords, who differed
totally in their legal and political sentiments, and carried on a long
argument between them, with great warmth and ability; in which a large
stock of professional and general learning was displayed on each side.
It is to be lamented, that with all the boasted excellency of our
constitution, a question of so vast magnitude as to include in its
consequences, the lives, fortunes, and honors of all the subjects of
this empire, still remains involved in such obscurity, as not only to
admit of a difference of opinion, but that even the great oracles of the
law are bewildered in its darkness. This extraordinary debate was
attended with some singular circumstances. Lord Mansfield, to the great
surprize of most of his auditors, condemned, in very explicit and
unreserved terms, the measure of laying on the duties in 1767, which he
declared to be the most absurd and pernicious that could be advised, and
the cause of all the present impending evils. The duke of Grafton, Lord
Shelburne, and Lord Camden, who were at that time cabinet counsellors
and held the first offices in the state, declared separately in their
places, that they had no share in that measure, nor had ever given any
approbation. The manner in which a measure of ministry was carried
against the opinion of ministers was not explained. A disclosure
relative to a matter, which had already convulsed the whole empire, and
was still more to be dreaded in its future consequences, excited general
amazement, mixt with indignation and regret in individuals. The fatal
and over-ruling secret influence, which had so long guided and marred
all public affairs, was deplored and animadverted upon in different
parts of the house.
When the question came to be put, whether to agree with the commons in
the address, by inserting the words necessary to fill up the blank, it
was carried by a prodigious majority. But the lords Richmond, Craven,
Archer, Abergavenny, Rockingham, Wycombe, Courtenay, Torrington,
Ponsonby, Cholmondeley, Abington, Portland, Camden, Effingham, Stanhope,
Scarborough, Fitzwilliam and Tankerville, protested against “an address
amounting to _a declaration of war_, which is founded on no proper
parliamentary information, which follows the rejection of every mode of
conciliation, which hold out no substantial offer of redress of
grievances, and which promises support to those ministers, who have
inflamed America, and grossly misconducted the affairs of
Great-Britain.”
[Feb. 9.] The address was delivered, and an answer given, wherein his
majesty assured both houses, that they might depend upon his taking the
most speedy and effectual measures for enforcing due obedience to the
laws, and the authority of The supreme legislature.
On that or the preceding day, the petition and memorial from the
assembly of _Jamaica_ to his majesty, was laid before the commons. It
was drawn up in very strong terms. The petitioners entered into a full,
free, and argumentative discussion of the late claims of the mother
country, and of the rights of the colonies: the former of which they
combated, and the latter defended with great force. They equally
deplored and beheld with amazement, a plan almost carried into execution
for reducing the colonies into the most abject state of slavery; and
they supplicated the throne, and demanded and claimed from the
sovereign, as the guarantee of their just rights, that no laws should be
forced upon them, injurious to their rights as colonists or Englishmen;
and that, as the common parent of his people, his majesty would become a
mediator between his European and American subjects.
[Feb. 10.] The next day the minister moved for leave to bring in a bill
to restrain the trade and commerce of the New-England provinces, to
Great-Britain, Ireland, and the British West-India islands, and to
prohibit them from carrying on any fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland,
and other places therein to be mentioned, under certain conditions, and
for a limited time. In answer to the objections made to it while the
subject of debate, the charges of injustice and cruelty were denied; and
the contrary maintained; it was declared to be necessary; and it was
observed, that though the innocent were involved with the guilty, and
friends with foes, the necessity might be lamented, but could not be
helped. The motion for a bill was carried by a majority of three to one.
In the progress of the bill, the London merchants and traders interested
in the American commerce, petitioned against it, and were allowed to be
heard. In consequence of this a long train of witnesses were examined,
and it appeared, That in 1764, the four New-England colonies employed in
their several fisheries, no less than 45,880 ton of shipping, and 6002
men, and that the produce of their fisheries in the foreign markets for
that year, amounted to £.322,220 16s. sterling—that the fisheries were
greatly increased—that all the materials used in them, except salt, and
the timber of which their vessels were built, were taken from this
country, and that the nett proceeds of the fish were remitted here—and
that there was near a million of money owing from New-England to the
city of London only. They stated to the house, that the calamities
consequent upon the bill must fall in a particular degree, upon the
innocent. The case of the inhabitants of Nantucket, would be
particularly hard. They amounted to some thousands; nine-tenths of them
quakers, inhabiting a barren land; but by an astonishing industry they
kept 140 vessels in constant employ, eight in the importation of
provisions for the island, and the rest in the whale fishery.
[Feb. 20.] While the bill was pending, lord North amazed all parties,
and seemed for a time nearly to dissolve his own, by a _conciliatory
motion_ in regard to America. It proposed, “That when the governor,
council, and assembly, or general court, of his majesty’s provinces or
colonies, shall propose to make provision, according to their respective
conditions, circumstances, and situations, for contributing their
proportion to the common defence (such proportion to be raised under the
authorities of the general court or general assembly of such province or
colony, and disposable by parliament) and shall engage to make provision
also for the support of the civil government, and the administration of
justice in such province or colony, it will be proper, if such proposal
should be approved by his majesty in parliament, and for so long as such
provision shall be made accordingly, to forbear, in respect of such
province or colony, to levy any duties, tax, or assessment: or to impose
any further duty, tax, or assessment, except only such duties as it may
be expedient to impose for the regulation of the commerce, the nett
produce of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of
such province, colony or plantation, respectively.” The numerous high
prerogative party, who had ever opposed any relaxation in favor of the
colonies, heard the proposition with horror, and considered themselves
as abandoned or betrayed. They pronounced it a shameful prevarication,
and a mean departure from principle; and finally concluded with
declaring, that they would make no concessions to rebels with arms in
their hands; and that they would enter into no measure for a settlement
with the Americans, in which an express and definitive acknowledgment
from them of the supremacy of parliament was not a preliminary article.
A gentleman of the long robe, and who has lately distinguished himself
for his zeal in promoting all the measures for reducing the colonies
(Mr. W——) had the address in a few minutes to hush the commotion, by
convincing the mal-contents, that the _appearance_ of concession,
lenity, and tenderness, which had so much alarmed them, were of such a
nature, that they could not interfere with the most rigid measures which
they wished to enforce. The gentlemen in opposition said, “The motion is
insidious, base and treacherous in the highest degree.”—The minister
acknowledged it to be a cheat, and designed for the purpose of
dis-uniting the Americans; but it will tend only to consolidate that
common mass of union into which they have been thrown by the Boston port
act. The question was carried by a majority of three to one.
[Feb. 27.] A petition from the merchants, traders, and principal
inhabitants of Poole in Dorsetshire, was presented, in avowed opposition
to that from London, and in support of the principle of the
fishery-bill. This petition set fourth, that the restraints upon the
colonies would not by any means be injurious to commerce; and that the
foreign markets might be amply supplied, by extending the Newfondland
fishery from England.—They concluded by soliciting, no less for their
own immediate advantage, than for the universal benefit of their
country, such encouragement as parliament should think proper.
A petition was also delivered from the Quakers in behalf of their
brethren and others, the inhabitants of Nantucket, in which they stated
their innocence and industry, the utility of their labours to themselves
and the community, the hazards attending their occupation, and the
uncertainty of their gains; and showed, that if the bill passed into a
law, they must shortly be exposed to all the miseries of a famine.
In every stage of the bill, the debate re-kindled; and in the course of
it, the minority observed, “When it was thought wisdom to overthrow
established privileges, and to combat national prejudices, by starting
the new claim of taxation, the Americans went no further than to deny
our right of internal taxation. Having gained the point of urging them
to question one right, we soon convinced them, both by argument and
practice, that an external tax might be made to answer all the purposes,
and to produce all the mischiefs of internal taxation. They then denied
our right of taxing for supply. Parliament then proceeded to deprive
them of their charter, and to change the course of justice and trials.
Then they were pushed to deny the power of internal legislation. But
still they had hitherto never formally rejected the power of parliament
to bind their trade. We are now to convince them, however, that if but a
single branch of legislative power is left to this country, we can
distort that branch in such a manner, that it shall include all the
purposes of unlimited tyranny.” It appeared upon evidence, at the bar of
the house, that by the operation of the bill, many thousands of innocent
inhabitants would be reduced to the sad alternative, either of perishing
through want at home, or of removing to some other less rigorous
government for protection and support; so that a famine among the
New-Englanders was predicted, as the consequence of the bill.
Some gentlemen on the other side of the question, acknowledged the
harshness of the measure; but lamented its being indispensably
necessary. A much greater number contended, that the bill was in an high
degree merciful, and that the New-England colonies did not want
resources to prevent a famine. A few went so far as to regret that the
bill did not convey punishments adequate to the crimes of the Americans,
and to dread that the famine which had been strongly prognosticated, and
pathetically lamented, would not take place.
Mr. Quincy sails to-morrow for the _Massachusetts_. He is very far from
being well; and has been attended upon repeatedly by Dr. Fothergill. The
doctor thinks the Bristol air and water would give him perfect health;
and it is greatly against his own opinion and inclination that he takes
the voyage. But he risks his life for the good of his own colony in
particular, and of America in general. His most intimate friends insist
upon his going directly to Boston. They say no letter can go with
safety; and that he can deliver more information and advice, _viva
voce_, than can or ought to be written. They urge that by going now, if
he arrives safe, he must be of great advantage to the American cause.
He is to tell the people of your colony, by no means to take any step of
great consequence (unless on a sudden emergency) without the advice of
the continental congress; and is to repair to that honorable body, when
met at Philadelphia.
You will hear from him, how egregiously the Americans have been insulted
by several in both houses of parliament, in being pronounced dastardly
cowards and paltroons, _to be looked into submission_ at the approach of
a regiment; and that if this is your true character, there will be no
great exploit in the brave general _Grant_’s marching successfully, with
only five regiments, from one end of the continent to the other, of
which he has declared himself capable. It is said that an American durst
not look at a red coat. The senator holds this language in the senate;
and the general at the head of an army. It passes for a maxim, and it is
thought scepticism to doubt it. Every subaltern, upon half-pay, looks
upon himself as qualified for subduing America. If a man says otherwise,
the finger is pointed at him as to an enemy of his country. Mr. Quincy
will be likely also to give you the name of the member, who in a late
speech adulterated the English tongue, that he might gratify his
inveteracy by punishing you with _starvation_.
By a future opportunity you will receive an account of the progress of
the restraining and fishery bill, through the house of lords; of the
further proceedings of parliament and ministry; and of the national
complection.