ENGLAND AND AMERICA. II: THE KING'S WAR
In America, the repeal of the Stamp Act had been regarded as a great
victory: ships displayed their colours, houses were illuminated,
joybells were set ringing. The South Carolina Assembly voted a sum of
money for the purchase of a marble statue of William Pitt; and at
Philadelphia the principal inhabitants gave a great ball to the English
officials, at the conclusion of which the hosts passed an informal
resolution: "that to demonstrate our zeal to Great Britain, and our
gratitude for the repeal of the Stamp Act, each of us will, on June 4
next, on the birthday of our most gracious sovereign George III, dress
ourselves in a new suit of the manufactures of England, and give what
homespun we have to the poor." Adams, who certainly was in a position to
speak with authority, declared that, "The repeal of the Stamp Act has
hushed into silence almost every popular clamour, and composed every
wave of popular disorder into a smooth and peaceful calm"; and Lord
Chatham in a speech some years later, referring to this time, said, "The
Americans had almost forgot, in their excess of gratitude for the
repeal of the Stamp Act, any interest but that of the mother-country;
there seemed an emulation among the different provinces who should be
most dutiful and forward in their expression of loyalty."[147]
[147] Thackeray: _Life of Chatham_.
This view of the state of affairs in the American colonies was, however,
far too deeply tinged with optimism, for, after the first outburst of
enthusiasm, the joy of the inhabitants diminished as they reflected upon
the malign possibilities inevitably suggested by the Declaratory Act.
The well informed were aware that this was intended by the English
ministers only as a salve to the King and Parliament; but to the
majority it was a menace, and even those who understood the reason for
the measure could not feel sure it would never be invoked. So it
happened that "there were not wanting many, who, by pamphlets and
newspaper publication, prevented the return of cordial affection, and
cautioned the colonies against a too implicit reliance on the moderation
of the mother country."[148]
[148] Adolphus: _History of England_.
This feeling of insecurity might by judicious handling have been
removed, but it was fanned into irritation by that clause in the Mutiny
Act which compelled the colonials to furnish supplies for the English
troops. "An Act of Parliament commanding to do a certain thing, if it
has any validity," said Dickinson, "is a tax upon us for the expense
that accrues in complying with it."[149] Thus it came to pass that while
England was still congratulating itself upon the fortunate results of
the repeal of the Stamp Act, New York was refusing to provision or to
house the British troops, and its merchants were petitioning against
this attempted imposition.
[149] _The Farmer's Letters._
Wisdom and tact were required in the English ministers who, as usual
when dealing with America, were found wanting in those qualities; and,
indeed, there was during the next years ample ground for Nicholls's
scathing indictment of the policy of the mother-country. "From the
formation of Lord Chatham's cabinet in 1766 to the ultimate
determination in 1774, of forcing the Americans into rebellion, the
measures adopted seem to have been calculated to provoke and irritate
the Americans. Perhaps this was not the intention of those in power, but
it was the result of the different measures at different times adopted;
sometimes the Earl of Chatham's opinion prevailed, viz., that the
British Parliament had no right to tax the American colonies. At other
times the opinion of the interior cabinet prevailed, viz., that the
King was humiliated if the right of the British Parliament to tax
America was not asserted."[150]
[150] _Reflections, Personal and Political._
If the irritation of the colonists was only partially allayed by the
repeal of the Stamp Act, George III was suffering from what he regarded
as the humiliation inflicted by Lord Rockingham's conciliatory policy,
and no sooner had he dismissed that minister than he endeavoured to
persuade the new government to take steps to re-assert the royal
dignity. While Lord Chatham was at the head of affairs, George could do
nothing, but when the illness of this Prime Minister prevented his
participation in the management of public business, the King brought
pressure to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "The whole body
of courtiers drove him [Townshend] onwards," said Burke. "They always
talked as if the King stood in a sort of humiliated state until
something of the kind should be done [to neutralize the repeal]."[151]
Townshend was an ambitious man and eventually he yielded to these
representations, in spite of the known hostility of his absent leader to
such measures as were indicated. "I will not use so strong an expression
as to say that Townshend was treacherous to this administration," wrote
Nicholls, "but he certainly saw that the Earl of Chatham's greatness was
on the decline; and that he should most readily increase his own
importance by acquiescing in the wishes of the King. He therefore
brought forward measures tending to revive the question of the right of
the British Parliament to tax the American colonies; but his premature
death protects him from being considered as the author of the American
War."[152]
[151] _Speech on American Taxation_, 1774.
[152] _Recollections and Reflections._
Untaught by experience, George Grenville, on January 26, 1767, moved in
the House of Commons that America, like Ireland, should support an
establishment of its own, and in the course of the discussion which
followed, Townshend declared himself an advocate of the principle of the
Stamp Act. "I know the mode by which a revenue may be drawn from the
Americans without giving offence," he stated, to the astonishment and
dismay of the cabinet, who had not been taken into his confidence.
George Grenville at once took the opportunity to pin the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to his project; and his colleagues then had only the
alternative to demand Townshend's resignation or adopt his scheme. They
would gladly have had him removed, for, intoxicated by success and royal
flatterers, "his behaviour on the whole," as the Duke of Grafton wrote
to Chatham, "is such as no cabinet will, I am confident, ever submit
to."[153] Unfortunately Chatham was too ill to intervene, and so
Townshend prepared his Bill. "No one of the Ministry had authority to
advise the dismissal of Mr. Charles Townshend, and nothing less could
have stopped the measure," Grafton explained, "Lord Chatham's absence
being, in this instance as well as others, much to be lamented."[154]
[153] _Chatham Correspondence._
[154] _Ibid._
On May 13 Townshend introduced a Bill to impose taxes on glass, paper,
pasteboard, white lead, red lead, painters' colours, and tea imported
into the American colonies, the proceeds of which would, it was
estimated, amount to less than L40,000 a year, and would be devoted to
payment of the governors and judges in America. If taxation was
permissible without representation, then there was little to be said
against the measure. It inflicted no hardship, for, to take one article
as an example, even with the threepence a pound tax, the colonists were
still able to purchase tea cheaper than it could be obtained in England,
where the tax (returnable on exportation) was a shilling a pound.
Further, in regard to the whole measure, it was contended that there was
a very distinct difference between a tax on imports and an excise tax.
"An excise the Americans think you have no right to levy within their
country," Franklin said, when examined by the House of Commons. "But the
sea is yours; you maintain by your fleets the safety of navigation in
it, and keep it clear of pirates. You may have, therefore, a natural and
equitable right to some toll or duty and merchandise carried through
that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in
the ships to maintain the safety of that carriage."
Parliament had not profited by the lessons of the Stamp Act, and
ministers ignored the advice of the colonial Governors that now the
colonists had tasted the fruits of their power, it was even more
dangerous than before to attempt to impose taxation without
representation. The situation was further complicated by the fact that
the King was known to have instigated the measure. "The distance of the
colonies would make it impossible for them to take an active interest in
your affairs if they were as well affected to your government as they
once pretended to be to your person. They were ready enough to
distinguish between _you_ and your ministers. They complained of an act
of the legislature, but traced the origin of it no higher than to the
servants of the Crown; they pleased themselves with the hope that their
sovereign, if not favourable to their cause, at least was impartial. The
decisive, personal part you took against them has effectually banished
that first distinction from their minds. They consider you as united
with your servants against America."[155]
[155] _Letters of "Junius."_
More clear-sighted than the English was the Duc de Choiseul, who wrote
in August, 1867, to Durand, the French Minister in London: "Let England
but attempt to establish taxes in her colonies and those countries,
greater than England in extent, and perhaps becoming more
populous--having fisheries, forests, shipping, corn, iron and the
like--will easily and fearlessly separate themselves from the
mother-country."[156] The feeling of loyalty in the colonies was still
strong, however, and as De Kalb, the secret agent of De Choiseul, wrote
to his chief, "There is a hundred times more enthusiasm for the American
Revolution in any of our coffee houses of Paris, than in all the
thirteen provinces of America united."[157] None the less the subsequent
events vindicated the judgment of De Choiseul.
[156] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
[157] Grahame: _History of the United States_.
The immediate result of Townshend's Act falsified Franklin's opinion.
Instead of the measure being accepted in all good-will, the seizure of
John Hancock's sloop _Liberty_ for a breach of the revenue laws resulted
in a serious riot in Boston. It is true that the other provinces
contented themselves for the moment with indignation meetings; but it
became very obvious that everywhere there was a feeling of increased
hostility to the motherland. This was sedulously and successfully fanned
by De Kalb, who was busily engaged in the endeavour to foment rebellion
in the colonies; and it was not long before Massachusetts, as usual,
took the lead, and, on February 11, 1768, addressed a circular letter to
the other Assemblies denouncing the new laws as unconstitutional and
inviting them to take united measures for their repeal. Otis sounded the
note of revolt: "Let Britain rescind her measures, or her authority is
lost for ever"; and half the colonists banded themselves together as
"Sons of Liberty" and "Daughters of Liberty," and pledged themselves not
to use British imports. Petitions, worded with great moderation, were
presented to the King, but the American newspapers contained articles
couched in very different language, and colonial orators did not mince
their words. "We will submit to no tax, neither will we become slaves.
Before the King and Parliament shall impose upon us, or settle Crown
officers independent of the Colonial Legislature, we will take up arms
and shed the last drop of our blood."[158]
[158] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
England was not at first inclined to be conciliatory. Charles
Townshend's death in September, 1767, and the appointment of Lord North
as Chancellor of the Exchequer had necessitated various changes in the
ministry; and in December, in consequence of the increase of business in
connexion with the American colonies, a third Secretary of State with
the title of Secretary of State for America was appointed in the person
of Lord Hillsborough.[159] The latter, whom Horace Walpole has described
as "nothing more than a pompous composition of ignorance and want of
judgment," was a most unwise selection for the very difficult office. He
seems to have had no opinion of his own, and to have been undismayed by
the outbreaks, relying mainly upon the advice of Bernard, Governor of
Massachusetts, that a show of force would be sufficient to subdue the
malcontents.
[159] Wills Hill (1718-1793), succeeded as second Viscount Hillsborough
1742, created Irish Earl 1751, and Marquis of Downshire 1789.
"The affairs in North America tend more and more to confusion," Lord
Rockingham wrote on August 11, 1768; and about the same time Bernard,
stating that his position was one of "utter and humiliating impotence,"
asked for troops. Soldiers were sent, in spite of Franklin's warning
that "they would not find, but would easily create rebellion." The
troops arrived in November, and were kindly received by the colonists,
who made it clear to them that the widespread indignation was not
against them but against their masters. This show of force on a small
scale was without effect. "Of what avail will an army be in so vast a
country?" De Chatelet said to De Choiseul. "The Americans have made
these reflections, and they will not give way."[160]
[160] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
For a while, however, the English continued their blundering.
Hillsborough instructed Bernard to order the Massachusetts Assembly to
rescind its circular letter, and when the Assembly reaffirmed its
resolution by a still larger majority, it was dissolved. When Parliament
met in December, the Duke of Bedford moved a petition to the Crown to
apply to Massachusetts an act of 35 Henry VIII, by which offenders
outside the kingdom were liable to be brought to England for trial, on
the ground that owing to the state of public feeling in that province it
would be impossible to obtain a conviction in any action brought by the
Government. This extraordinary proposal actually passed through
Parliament, in spite of the opposition of Burke and Pownall, an
ex-governor of Massachusetts, for, as Burke said, "Repeal began to be in
as bad odour in the House of Commons as the Stamp Act had been the
session before."[161] There was so great an outcry, both in England and
America, against this measure that no attempt was made to enforce it;
indeed, it is probable that it was only intended to frighten the
colonists, for it was impossible to make the mother-country realize that
its American colonies were not a band of naughty children. As Horace
Walpole wrote to Conway: "Our conduct has been that of pert children. We
have thrown a pebble at a mastiff and are surprised it is not
frightened."
[161] _Speech on American Taxation, 1774._
America was not frightened, but its attitude was so threatening that the
Duke of Grafton, influenced by the complaint of London merchants that
between Christmas 1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America had
decreased by L700,000, moved at a Cabinet Council held on May 1, 1769,
for the Bill for the repeal of the import dues. At first it seemed as if
it would be carried, but at a subsequent discussion Lord North, who, in
the interval, had yielded to the King's prayers, proposed that the duty
on tea should be retained, not for its financial value, but as a sign
of the right of Parliament to impose taxation. As the question at issue
was the right to tax, not what to tax, North's amendment practically
neutralized the original proposal; but when Grafton divided the Cabinet
upon the question, he was left in a minority of one. Soon after he
resigned, and Lord North, reigning in his stead, introduced his measure
on March 6, 1770. In vain Pownall, who after his return from America in
1760 had published a book on "The Administration of the Colonies," in
which he laid especial stress upon the determination of the Americans
not to be taxed without their own consent, begged the new ministry to
reconsider its measure, assuring them that it would be entirely
ineffectual unless all the duties were repealed.
The time had gone by for partial concession, and on the very day before
Lord North brought in his Bill, a serious riot broke out at Boston, when
the soldiers fired and the first blood was shed. Yet nothing warned the
King, whose passion for prerogative it was impossible to quench, and he
now strengthened the anti-colonial side of the new Cabinet. "Rigby ...
who cursed and swore when the repeal of the Stamp Act was alluded to in
his presence, and Sandwich, who never spoke of the Americans except as
rebels and cowards, openly proclaimed that three battalions and
half-a-dozen frigates would soon bring New York and Massachusetts to
their senses. They became ministers on an express understanding that the
British Government, in its dealing with the Provincial Assemblies,
should henceforth employ undisguised coercion and insist upon
unconditional submission."[162]
[162] Trevelyan: _Early Life of Charles James Fox._
In August, 1772, Lord Hillsborough was replaced as Secretary of State
for America by the Earl of Dartmouth, who was known to be anxious for
conciliation; but the colonies found fresh cause of offence in a measure
that provided for the payment of the Massachusetts judges by the Crown
instead of the colonies, "a change which was designed to render the
judges independent of popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to
make him subservient to the Crown, for they held office during the
King's pleasure."
Meantime delegates from the various Assemblies met in congress, and
presented to the King a petition, at once firm and temperate, assuring
him of their desire to restore amicable relations with the
mother-country. "As your Majesty enjoys the signal distinction of
reigning over freemen, the language of freedom cannot be displeasing. We
ask for peace, liberty, and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in our favour.
In the magnanimity and justice of your Majesty and Parliament, we
confide for a redress of our grievances, trusting that when the causes
of our apprehensions are removed, our future conduct will prove us not
unworthy of the regard we have been accustomed, in our happier days, to
enjoy. We implore, therefore, your Majesty, as the loving father of all
your people, connected by the same bonds of law, loyalty, faith and
blood, not to suffer the transcendent relation, formed by these ties, to
be further violated in uncertain expectation of effects which, if
attained, never can compensate for the calamities through which they
must be gained. So may your Majesty enjoy every temporal felicity,
through a long and glorious reign, and your descendants inherit your
prosperity and dominions, till time shall be no more." After passing
this Address, Congress, which had sat in defiance of the Government,
dissolved, but not before it had agreed to a resolution that if the
differences at issue were not previously settled, another Congress
should meet on May 10, 1775. The petition was, under the circumstances,
so reasonable that on November 10 the Duke of Richmond moved in the
House of Lords that the petition of the American Congress to the King
afforded _ground_ of conciliation. The King, however, would only regard
the Address as an impertinence, and his reply was deliberately void of
any conciliatory phrase. "It is with the utmost astonishment that I find
any of my subjects capable of encouraging the rebellious disposition
which unhappily exists in some of my colonies in North America. Having
entire confidence in the wisdom of my Parliament, the great council of
the nation, I will steadily pursue those measures which they have
recommended, for the support of the constitutional rights of Great
Britain and the protection of the commercial interests of my kingdom."
The irritation of the American colonists broke out on December 16, 1773,
when the ships laden with tea arrived at the port of Boston. These were
boarded by a small army of responsible citizens disguised as Mohawk
Indians in full war paint, with tomahawks and scalping knives, too
numerous to be opposed, who flung the cargoes into the sea. The news of
"the Boston Tea-Party," as the incident was subsequently known, only
established George III in his belief that of all weapons firmness only
would be effectual; and accordingly he sanctioned and, indeed, welcomed
the Boston Port Bill, which ordered the closing of the port of Boston
and altered the charter of the province of Massachusetts. It was clear
that if this Act could be enforced Boston would be punished for its sins
by nothing less than ruin, and ministers believed that the dispersal of
the trade of that flourishing town among its commercial competitors
would result in internal quarrels. However, instead of the hoped for
disunion, the colonies banded themselves together yet more closely, and
when Hutchinson was recalled and General Gage sent out as Governor of
Massachusetts and Commander-in-Chief, the latter found himself
confronted with the colonies on the very border-line of rebellion.
"Very little that is satisfactory has transpired of America. On Monday
Lord North moved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove the Customs and
Courts of Justice from Boston to New Salem--a step so detrimental to the
former town, as must soon reduce it to your own terms; and yet of so
mild an appearance that it was agreed to without a division and almost
without a debate," Gibbon wrote on March 16, 1774. The truth is, outside
a small body of active politicians, Englishmen had not yet realized that
the American question had become so acute, that close at hand was the
end of peaceful negotiations. Even when it seemed probable that
hostilities must ensue, the landed gentry, the backbone of the House of
Commons, were in favour of thrashing their impenitent brethren across
the sea, and a little later, according to Burke, "The merchants began to
snuff the cadaverous _haut gout_ of lucrative war; the freighting
business never was so lively, on account of the prodigious taking up for
transport service: great orders for provisions of all kinds, new
clothing for the troops, puts life into the woollen manufactures."[163]
[163] "I am grieved to observe that the landed interest is almost
altogether anti-American, though the common people hold the war in
abhorrence, and the merchants and tradesmen, for obvious reasons, are
likewise against it."--Lord Camden to Lord Chatham, February, 1775.
Even the general body of the public was deluded, by the specious
arguments of the ministers, into the support of the appeal to arms. "I
recollect," Nicholls has recorded, "in one debate, Lord North stated
that the inhabitants of Great Britain, considered collectively, paid one
man with another twenty-five shillings a year in taxes; while the
inhabitants of our American colonies, considered collectively, paid each
only sixpence a year in taxes; he added, 'Is this equitable?' The
country gentlemen were weak enough to believe that, by persevering in
the contest, their taxes would be diminished."[164]
[164] _Recollections and Reflections._
The Boston Port Act was the last straw. The Americans realized that they
must either submit unconditionally to the home government or take arms
in defence of their liberties. They did not long hesitate. In September
the inter-provincial Congress approved the opposition of the inhabitants
of Massachusetts Bay to the execution of the late Acts of Parliament,
and stated that if the same should be attempted to be carried into
execution by force, in such cases all Americans ought to support them in
their opposition. "I am not sorry that the line of conduct seems now
chalked out," wrote the King on hearing the news. "The New England
government are in a state of rebellion. Blows must decide whether they
are to be subject to this country or independent."[165]
[165] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
The appeal to the God of Battles was not allowed without protest, and in
January, 1775, Chatham, moving for the recall of the troops in Boston,
made an impassioned speech. "For solidity of reasoning, and wisdom of
conclusion under such a complication of difficult circumstances, no
nation or body of men can stand in preference to the General Congress at
Philadelphia. All attempts to impose servitude upon such men, to
establish despotism over such a mighty continental nation must be vain,
must be fatal. We shall be forced ultimately to retract. Let us retract
while we can, not when we must." In vain London and other cities
petitioned against extreme measures, in vain Lord Effingham and
Chatham's eldest son resigned their commissions in the Army lest they
should have to serve against the Americans, in vain Grafton resigned the
Privy Seal. Lord Dartmouth took the Duke's place; Lord George Germaine,
a violent opponent of the colonies, became Secretary of State for
America; and Howe took over from Gage the command of the British troops
in the colonies; while those who opposed the war were looked upon as
traitors by the Court. "The war was considered as the war of the King
personally. Those who supported it were called the King's friends; while
those who wished the country to pause, and reconsider the propriety of
persevering in the contest, were branded as disloyal."[166]
[166] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections._
The first blood was shed at Lexington on the morning of April 19, 1775,
when General Gage's troops engaged with a body of the colonial militia.
At that time no doubt was felt at home that the rebels would be promptly
defeated, and still society at large did not take the American question
very seriously. Even Selwyn referred to it as "that little dispute."
"You pant after news from America, there are none _pour le moment_," he
wrote to Lord Carlisle on October 11, 1775. "But you may depend upon it,
if that little dispute interests you, I will let you know, _quand le
monde sera rassemble, tout ce que j'apprens, et de bon lieu_. Charles
[James Fox] assures us that nothing is so easy as to put an end to all
this, but then there must be a change of ministry, _quelconque_, no
matter what, as a preliminary assurance to the insurgents."[167] Two
months later Selwyn was still optimistic. "Our last news from America
are certainly not good, but it does not alter my expectations of what
will be the issue of the next campaign." The delay in inflicting a
serious defeat upon the colonists filled the latter with hope of
ultimate success. "Britain," said Franklin jubilantly, "at expense of
three millions, had killed a hundred and fifty Yankees this campaign,
which is L20,000 a head; and at Bunker's Hill she gained a mile of
ground, part of which she lost again by our taking post on Ploughed
Hill. During the same time sixty thousand children have been born in
America: from these data may easily be calculated the time and expense
necessary to kill us all and conquer our territory."
[167] _George Selwyn: His Life and Letters._
Lexington and Bunker's Hill only served to irritate the King, who could
not see to what these encounters would lead, and he was the more
shocked, being in hourly expectation of the surrender of the rebels, to
receive despatches from Sir William Howe, containing an account of the
action on Long Island. "Since the future consequences of the American
rebellion, if we may judge from this fatal event," he said to Lord
George Germaine, after glancing at the lists of killed and wounded at
Long Island, "are likely to be still more bloody and tragical, may my
deluded subjects on the other side of the Atlantic behold their
impending destruction with half the horror that I feel on the occasion;
then I think I shall soon hear of their throwing off the yoke of
republicanism and, like loyal subjects, returning to that duty they owe
to an indulgent sovereign." Doubtless he still cherished the hope that
colonists would come to heel, but even his optimism must have been
shattered by the publication of the Declaration of Independence on July
4, 1775.
The war proceeded with varying fortunes, and the capture of New York by
Howe encouraged the mother-country. Burgoyne's success at Philadelphia
in June, 1777, delighted the King, who is said to have rushed into the
Queen's room as soon as he heard of it, crying, "I have beat them! beat
all the Americans!" But his pleasure was soon dashed by the news that on
October 16, Burgoyne and his army capitulated at Saratoga, which,
however, after the first shock, he pronounced "very serious, but not
without remedy." After these distressing tidings became known in
England, a friend of Lord North said to him, "My Lord, you must now see
that the whole population of America is hostile to your designs." Lord
North replied, "I see that as clearly as you do; and the King shall
either consent to allow me to assure the House of Commons that some
means shall be found to put an end to the war, or I will not continue to
be his minister."[168] The King, however, was not to be moved from his
purpose, and his appeal to North not to desert him in the hour of his
trouble could not be disregarded by his faithful minister.
[168] Nicholls: _Reflections Personal and Political_.
The situation was, indeed, distressing. "What a wretched piece of work
do we seem to be making of it in America!" Gibbon wrote on April 13,
1777. "The greatest force which any European power ever ventured to
transport into that continent is not strong enough ever to attack the
enemy: the naval strength of Great Britain is not sufficient to prevent
the Americans (they have almost lost the appellation of rebels) from
receiving every assistance that they wanted; and in the meantime you are
obliged to call out the militia to defend your own coast against their
privateers. You possibly may expect from me some account of the designs
and policy of the French Court. I shall only say that I am not under any
immediate apprehension of a war with France. It is much more pleasant as
well as profitable to view in safety the raging of the tempest,
occasionally to pick up some pieces of wreck, and to improve their
trade, their agriculture and their finances while the two countries are
'_lento collisa duella_.' Far from taking any step to put an end to this
astonishing dispute, I should not be surprised if next summer they were
to lend their cordial assistance to England as the weaker party."[169]
[169] Walpole: _Last Journals_.
It is beyond the scope of this work to trace the progress of the war,
and it is for the military historian to criticise its conduct; but it
was patent that the purchase of Hessian troops was a great diplomatic
blunder. To invoke the aid of hired mercenaries was to make the breach
irrevocable, as well as to set against the country employing them the
sympathy of other nations. Frederick the Great said he "should make all
the Hessian troops, marching through his dominions to America, pay the
usual cattle tax, because though human beings they had been sold as
beasts." The case has been well put by Lord Mahon. "If any men were
needed, was there any lack of them in England?" he asked, "was it wise
to inform foreign states that we deemed ourselves thus dependent on
foreign aid. Was it wise to hold forth to America the first example of
obtaining assistance from abroad? Above all, if conciliation was the
object full as much as conquest, how signal the imprudence thus in the
midst of a civil strife, to thrust forward aliens to both parties, in
blood, in language, and in manners."[170] Chatham inveighed against "the
traffic and barter driven with every pitiful German prince that sells
his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country. This mercenary aid on
which you rely irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your
enemies. To overrun them with the mercenary sons of rapine and plunder;
devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty!
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while there was a foreign
troop in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never! never!
never!"
[170] Mahon: _History of England_.
Chatham's popularity, affected somewhat by his acceptance of a pension,
had been greatly diminished when he went to the House of Lords, but
now, when the country was in danger, all eyes were turned on him as the
only man who could conceivably extract from the situation peace with
honour. "If there be a man who has served this nation with honour to
himself and glory to his country," said George Grenville the younger in
the House of Commons on February 11, 1778, "if there be a man who has
carried the arms of Britain triumphant to every quarter of the globe
beyond the most sanguine expectations of the people, if there be a man
of whom the House of Bourbon stands more particularly in awe; if there
be a man in this country who unites the confidence of England and
America, is not he the proper person to treat with Americans, and not
those who have uniformly deceived and oppressed them? There is not one
present who is ignorant of the person to whom I allude. You all know I
mean a noble, near relation, Lord Chatham." Many years later an able
historian, reviewing the situation, repeated in no uncertain tone the
substance of the speech of the promising young statesman. "There was one
man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all
patriotic Englishmen were turned," Lecky has written. "In Chatham
England possessed a statesman whose genius in conducting a war was
hardly inferior to that of Marlborough in conducting an army. In France
his name produced an almost superstitious terror."[171]
[171] "I had the fortune [at Paris] to be treated with the sight of
what, next to Mr. Pitt, has occasioned most alarm in France, the Beast
of the Gevandon."--Walpole to Lady Mary Coke, 1765.
In America it was pronounced with the deepest affection and reverence.
He had, in the great French war, secured the Anglo-Saxon preponderance
in the colonies; he had defended the colonies in every stage of their
controversy about the Stamp Act, and had fascinated them by the
splendour of his genius. If any statesman could at the last moment
conciliate them, dissolve the new alliance, and kindle into flame the
loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was
Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no
statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a
war.[172]
[172] Lecky: _History of England_.
The state of affairs at home and abroad called for the strong hand of a
great minister. British troops were confined in Philadelphia and New
York; the navy had been starved; the commissariat of the troops in
America was shamefully mismanaged. America, not slow to follow the
example of the mother-country to employ foreign troops, signed a treaty
with France, the ratification of which by Congress took place on May 4,
1778.
"Thy triumphs, George, the western world resounds,
And Europe scarce thy paper _glory_ bounds!
Paper that trumps abroad thy martial toils,
And copious harvest of Canadian spoils:
_Tyrtaeus-like_, how Burgoyne fights his men,
Belligerent alike with _sword_ and _pen_!
How Gates retires: and, as you rattle louder,
One Arnold sickens at the smell of powder!
How brave thine admirals! and so discreet
They never risk the honour of the fleet;
Nor trust the dangers of the middle-main,
Where Britain bids her thunder roar in vain;
But wisely _coasting_, give some privateer
A broadside; making her both feel and hear.
And sure, if _paper_ can so cheaply win,
The harmless war of paper is no sin.
* * * * *
Proceed, great Sir! and, breaking all restraint,
Embrace the _scarlet whore_, and be a _Saint_
_Sworn_ to maintain th' _established church_, advance
The cross of Rome, the miracles of France;
And leave us, though our liberties be lost,
In pious bills the privilege to _roast_.[173]
In breaking oaths be like Alcides strong;
Be weakly right, but obstinately wrong:
Be all the bigot martyr was before--
A blessing for the nation yet in store!
See other _Hampdens_, other _Cromwells_ rise,
And modern _tea-acts_ mimic _ship-supplies_:
Hark! the glad sounds revive of _me_ and _mine_,[174]
And stale prerogative of _right divine_!
ONE REVOLUTION RAIS'D YOU TO THE CROWN;
ANOTHER REVOLUTION MAY--DETHRONE."[175]
[173] In 1778 Sir George Saville introduced a Bill to enable Catholics
in England who abjured the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope to purchase
and inherit land, and to free their priests from liability to
imprisonment. The outcome of this was the Gordon Riots.
[174] "My subjects! My army! My dominions! My colonies! the odds,
however, even at St. James's are, that we shall hear no more of _my_
colonies from the same quarter."--Note by the author of the lampoon.
[175] Peregrine the Elder: _An Heroic Epistle to an Unfortunate
Monarch_.