In contrast with Shipley was his contemporary, Josiah Tucker, also of
the Church, who was born 1712, and died 4th November, 1799.
The contrast is more curious, when it is considered that Tucker,
like Shipley, was for the peaceful separation of the Colonies from
the mother country; but the former was biting and cynical, while the
latter was sympathetic and kind. The former sent forth a succession of
criticisms as from the tub of Diogenes, while the latter, with genial
power, vindicated America and predicted its future. The former was a
carping censor and enemy of Franklin; the latter, his loving friend.
Tucker was rector of a church in Bristol and Dean of Gloucester, and he
announces that he had “written near three hundred sermons, and preached
them all again and again”;[439] but it was by political essays that he
made his name known and became a conspicuous gladiator.
Here it is easy to recognize industry, facility, boldness. He was not
afraid to speak out, nor did he shrink from coping with those who
commanded the public attention,--joining issue directly with Burke,
“in answer to his printed speech, _said to be spoken_ in the House of
Commons on the 22d of March, 1775,”[440] being that famous masterpiece,
on “Conciliation with America,” so much read, so often quoted, and so
highly placed among the efforts of human genius. The Dean used plain
language, charging the great orator with excelling “in the art of
ambiguous expressions,” and at all times having one general end in
view, “to amuse with tropes and figures and great swelling words,” and
hoping, that, while emulating the freedom of Burke in examining the
writings and opinions of others, he should do it “with more decency and
good manners.”[441] More than once the Dean complains that the orator
had classed him by name with what he called “court vermin.”[442]
As early as 1766, in the heats of the Stamp Act, he entered the lists
by an unamiable pamphlet, entitled “A Letter from a Merchant in London
to his Nephew in North America, relative to the Present Posture of
Affairs in the Colonies.” Here appears the vigorous cynicism of
his nature. The mother country is vindicated, and the Colonies are
told that “the complaint of being unrepresented is entirely false
and groundless,” inasmuch as every member of Parliament, when once
chosen, becomes “the equal guardian of all,” and “_our_ Birminghams,
Manchesters, Leeds, Halifaxes, &c., and _your_ Bostons, New Yorks, and
Philadelphias are all as _really_, though not so nominally, represented
as any part whatsoever of the British Empire.”[443] In the same spirit
he ridiculed the pretensions of the Colonists, putting into their
mouths the words: “What! an Island! a spot such as this to command the
great and mighty Continent of North America! Preposterous! A Continent,
whose inhabitants double every five-and-twenty years! who, therefore,
within a century and an half will be upwards of an hundred and twenty
millions of souls! Forbid it, Patriotism, forbid it, Politics, that
such a great and mighty Empire as this should be held in subjection by
the paltry Kingdom of Great Britain! _Rather let the seat of empire
be transferred; and let it be fixed where it ought to be, namely, in
Great America!_”[444] And then declaring “the calculations themselves
both false and absurd,” taunting the Colonists with inability to make
the mother country “a province of America,” and depicting the evils
that will ensue to them from separation, he announces, that, “having
been surfeited with the bitter fruits of American Republicanism, they
will heartily wish and petition to be again united to the mother
country.”[445]
As the conflict approached, the Dean became more earnest and incessant.
In 1774 he published a book entitled “Four Tracts on Political
and Commercial Subjects,” of which the third was a reprint of the
“Letter from a Merchant in London,” and the fourth was a new appeal,
entitled “The True Interest of Great Britain set forth in regard to
the Colonies, and the only Means of Living in Peace and Harmony with
them,”--“including Five different Plans for effecting this Desirable
Event.”[446] Here he openly proposed separation, and predicted
its advantage to England. On general grounds he was persuaded that
extensive colonies were an evil rather than an advantage, especially to
a commercial nation, while he was satisfied of a present alienation on
the part of America, which it would be unprofitable, if not perilous,
to combat. England was in no mood for such truth, and the author was
set down as madman or quack. Evidently he was a prophet.
A few passages will show the character of this remarkable production.
“It is the nature of them all [colonies] to aspire after
independence, and to set up for themselves as soon as ever they
find that they are able to subsist without being beholden to
the mother country.”[447]
True enough, and often said by others. In dealing with the different
plans the Dean shows originality. To the idea of compulsion by arms he
exclaimed: “But, alas! victory alone is but a poor compensation for all
the blood and treasure which must be spilt.”[448] The scheme numbered
Fourth was nothing less than “to consent that America should become
the general seat of empire, and that Great Britain and Ireland should
be governed by viceroys sent over from the court residences either at
Philadelphia or New York, or at some other American imperial city,”--to
which the indefatigable Dean replies:--
“Now, wild as such a scheme may appear, there are certainly
some Americans who seriously embrace it; and the late
prodigious swarms of emigrants encourage them to suppose that a
time is approaching when the seat of empire must be changed.
But, whatever events may be in the womb of Time, or whatever
revolutions may happen in the rise and fall of empires, there
is not the least probability that this country should ever
become a province to North America: … unless, indeed, we should
add one extravagance to another, by supposing that these
American heroes are to conquer all the world; and in that case
I do allow that England must become a province to America.”[449]
Then comes the Fifth Scheme, which was, “To propose to separate
entirely from the North American Colonies, by declaring them to be
a free and independent people, over whom we lay no claim, and then
by offering to guaranty this freedom and independence against all
foreign invaders whatever.”[450] And he proceeds to show that by such
separation the mother country would not lose the trade of the Colonies.
His unamiable nature flares out in the suggestions, that, “the moment
a separation takes effect, intestine quarrels will begin,” and that,
“in proportion as their factious republican spirit shall intrigue
and cabal, shall split into parties, divide and subdivide, in the
same proportion shall we be called in to become their general umpires
and referees,”[451] while his confidence in the result is declared:
“And yet I have observed, and have myself had some experience, that
measures evidently right will prevail at last”; therefore he had “not
the least doubt” but that a separation would take place “within half a
century.”[452] Though seeing the separation so clearly, he did not see
how near at hand it then was.
The Dean grew more earnest. Other pamphlets followed: for instance, in
1775, “An Humble Address and Earnest Appeal, … whether a Connection
with or a Separation from the Continental Colonies of America be most
for the National Advantage and the Lasting Benefit of these Kingdoms.”
Here he says openly:--
“My scheme, which Mr. Burke, in his last speech, of March 22,
1775, is pleased to term a _childish_ one, is, To separate
totally from the Colonies, and to reject them from being
fellow-members and joint partakers with us in the privileges
and advantages of the British Empire, because they refuse
to submit to the authority and jurisdiction of the British
legislature,--offering at the same time to enter into alliances
of friendship and treaties of commerce with them, as with any
other sovereign, independent state.”[453]
Then, insisting that his scheme “most infallibly cuts off all the
present causes of dispute and contention between the two countries, so
that they never can revive again,”[454] he establishes that commercial
intercourse with the Americans would not cease, inasmuch as it cannot
be shown that they “will no longer adhere to their own interest when
they shall be disunited from us.”[455]
Among subsequent tracts was one entitled “_Cui Bono?_ or, An Inquiry,
What Benefits can arise either to the English or the Americans, the
French, Spaniards, or Dutch, from the Greatest Victories or Successes
in the Present War? Being a Series of Letters addressed to Monsieur
Necker, late Controller-General of the Finances of France. London,
1782.” Here was the same ardor for separation, with the same bitter
words for the Colonies.
Tardily the foresight of the Dean was recognized, until at last
Archbishop Whately, in his annotations upon Bacon’s Essay on Honor
and Reputation, commemorates it as an historic example. According
to him, “the whole British nation were in one particular manifestly
_puzzle-headed_, except _one_ man, who was accordingly derided by
all.” Then mentioning the dispute between the mother country and her
colonies, he says: “But Dean Tucker, standing quite alone, wrote a
pamphlet to show that the separation would be no loss at all, and that
we had best give them the independence they coveted at once and in a
friendly way. Some thought he was writing in jest; the rest despised
him, as too absurd to be worth answering. But now, and for above half
a century, every one admits that he was quite right, and regrets that
his view was not adopted.”[456] Unquestionably this is a remarkable
tribute. Kindred to it was that of the excellent Professor Smyth, who,
in exhibiting the “American War,” dwells on “the superior and the
memorable wisdom of Tucker.”[457]
The bad temper shooting from his writings interfered, doubtless, with
their acceptance. His spirit, so hostile to us, justified his own
characterization of himself as “the author of these tracts against the
rebel Americans.” As the war drew to a close, his bad temper still
prevailed, heightened by antipathy to republicanism, so that, after
picturing the Colonies, separated at last from the mother country,
as having “gained a general disappointment mixed with anger and
indignation,”[458] he thus predicts their terrible destiny:--
“As to the future grandeur of America, and its being a rising
empire under one head, whether republican or monarchical, it
is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that ever was
conceived, even by writers of romance. For there is nothing
in the genius of the people, the situation of their country,
or the nature of their different climates, which tends to
countenance such a supposition.… Above all, when those immense
inland regions beyond the back settlements, which are still
unexplored, are taken into the account, they form the highest
probability that the Americans never can be united into one
compact empire, under any species of government whatever.
Their fate seems to be--_a disunited people till the end of
time_.”[459]
Alas! But evidently the Dean saw the future of our continent no better
than the Ministry saw their duty with regard to it.
* * * * *
Unlike in spirit was Matthew Robinson, a contemporary friend of
America, whose able and elaborate tracts[460] in successive editions
are now forgotten, except so far as revived by the notice of Professor
Smyth.[461] His vindication of the Colonies, at the time of the Boston
Port Bill, was complete, without the harshness of Tucker, and he did
not hesitate to present the impossibility of conquering them. “What
expectation or probability,” he asks, “can there be of sending from
hence armies capable to conquer and subdue so great a force of men
defending and defended by such a continent?”[462] Then, while depicting
English mastery of the sea, he says: “We may do whatever a fleet can.
Very true; but it cannot sail all over North America.”[463] The
productions of this enlightened author cannot have been without effect.
Doubtless they helped the final acknowledgment of independence. When
will the “Old Mortality” appear, to discover and restore his monument?
The able annotator of Lord Bacon was too sweeping, when he said that on
the great American question all England was wrong, “except _one_ man.”
Robinson was as right as the Dean, and there were others also. The
“Monthly Review,” in an article on the Dean’s appeal for separation,
said: “This, however, is not a new idea. It has frequently occurred
to others.”[464] Even Soame Jenyns, a life-long member of Parliament,
essayist, poet, defender of Christianity, while upholding the right
to tax the Colonies, is said to have accepted the idea of “total
separation”:--
“Let all who view th’ instructive scene,
And patronize the plan,
Give thanks to Gloucester’s honest Dean,
For, Tucker, thou’rt the man.”[465]
In a better spirit, and with affecting earnestness, John Cartwright,
once of the Royal Navy, and known as Major from his rank in the
Nottinghamshire Militia, followed the Dean, in 1774, with a series of
letters collected in a pamphlet entitled “American Independence the
Interest and Glory of Great Britain,” where he insists upon separation,
and thenceforward a friendly league, “that the true and lasting welfare
of both countries can be promoted.”[466] In enforcing his conclusion
the author says: “When we talk of asserting our sovereignty over the
Americans, do we foresee to what fatal lengths it will carry us? Are
not those nations increasing with astonishing rapidity? _Must they not,
in the nature of things, cover in a few ages that immense continent
like a swarm of bees?_”[467] Then again: “We may, indeed, by means of
fleets and armies, maintain a precarious tyranny over the Americans for
a while; but the most shallow politicians must foresee what this would
end in.”[468] Then, in reply to the Dean: “’Tis a pity so able a writer
had not discovered that the Americans have a right to choose their own
governors, and thence enforced the necessity of his proposed separation
as a religious duty, no less than a measure of national policy.”[469]
Cartwright continued at home the conflicts of principle involved in our
War of Independence, and became an English Reformer. Honor to his name!