THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.
The failure of the non-importation agreements in 1770 led Englishmen to
expect a peaceable end to the quarrel with America, and the colonists
were for the most part inclined to let it die out. Samuel Adams had no
such inclination, and did all in his power to fan the smouldering embers
of strife. For some time longer he and his friends professed loyalty,
but he at least was consciously working for separation. A rising in
North Carolina, called the regulators' war, because the insurgents
claimed to regulate their own police affairs, was smartly quelled by the
governor, Tryon, in 1771; it need not detain us, for it had no connexion
with the quarrel with England. There was much lawlessness elsewhere.
Mobs tyrannised over their more loyal neighbours, tarring and feathering
some of those who would not comply with their demands, and using other
barbarous modes of advancing the cause of liberty. In Boston the revenue
officers were exposed to insult and violence. Hutchinson held the
assembly of the province at Cambridge, and further disgusted his
opponents by informing them that he was no longer dependent on their
votes for his salary; it would thenceforward be paid by the king. The
more peaceable Americans were gratified in 1772 by the appointment of
the Earl of Dartmouth to succeed Hillsborough as secretary for the
colonies, for Dartmouth, a pious and amiable person of no political
ability, was known to be anxious for conciliation. Fresh cause of
offence, however, was found in a decision of the ministers that the
salaries of the Massachusetts judges should be paid by the crown instead
of by the colony. This change, which was designed to render the judges
independent of popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to make them
subservient to the crown, for they held office during the king's
pleasure.
[Sidenote: _HUTCHINSON'S LETTERS._]
Meanwhile the contempt with which the authority of the crown was
regarded, and the necessity for restraining the provincial judges from
political partisanship, were forcibly illustrated. Smuggling was carried
on freely, especially in Rhode Island. The duty of preventing it in
Narragansett Bay was discharged by Lieutenant Duddingston, in command of
the _Gaspee_ schooner. He was zealous, and, according to American
accounts, was guilty of illegal and oppressive acts. On June 9, while
engaged in a chase, the _Gaspee_ ran aground, and on the night of the
10th was boarded by eight boat-loads of men. Duddingston was
treacherously shot at and wounded; he and his men were set on shore, and
the schooner was burnt. This destruction of one of the king's ships, an
act alike of rebellion and piracy, and, as Thurlow said, "an event five
times the magnitude of the stamp act," was unpunished. A law, enacted in
the previous April, and evoked by a fire in an English dockyard,
provided that the setting on fire of a public dockyard or a king's ship
should be felony, and that those accused of such an offence should be
tried in England. Commissioners were appointed by the crown to inquire
into the destruction of the _Gaspee_, and send those concerned in it to
England for trial. On their applying for warrants to the chief justice
of the province, he declared that he would allow no one to be arrested
with a view to deportation, and the commission was fruitless. The
colonists were angered by this attempt to enforce the law; and in 1773
took an important step towards union and a future congress by
establishing committees of correspondence between the provinces.
Samuel Adams unexpectedly found an opportunity of rousing fresh
excitement in Massachusetts. A number of private letters written by
Hutchinson and Oliver, the deputy governor, to a gentleman of England,
named Whately, and stolen after his death, were sent over by Franklin to
the committee of correspondence at Boston, were read by Adams to the
assembly, and were subsequently published. Hutchinson, a patriotic
American, was a faithful servant of the crown and believed in the
supremacy of parliament. His letters contained no statements that were
not true and no comments discreditable to a man of honour, holding the
opinions on which he had consistently acted. They were declared to be
evidences of malice and bad faith; he and Oliver were, John Adams said,
"cool-thinking, deliberate villains," and the assembly sent a petition
to the king for their removal. The letters were industriously circulated
throughout the province, and were denounced by preachers in their Sunday
sermons. Such was the state of affairs when, in accordance with the act
of parliament authorising the East India Company to export its surplus
stock of tea direct to America, three ships laden with tea appeared in
Boston harbour. Other ships with like cargoes had also been despatched
to New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. At Boston, on the night of
December 16, a large body of men, disguised as Indians and encouraged by
Samuel Adams and his friends, boarded the ships and emptied their
cargoes, 340 chests of tea valued at L18,000, into the sea. The ships
for Philadelphia and New York returned to London without discharging
their cargoes. At Charleston the tea was landed, but the consignees were
forced to renounce their engagement, and the tea rotted in the cellars
of the custom-house.
In England the Boston riot caused much irritation. The news came when
the publication of Hutchinson's letters was exciting strong feelings.
Who was responsible for their abstraction from Whately's correspondence
was for some time a mystery. Franklin kept his counsel, and a duel took
place between Whately's brother and a Bostonian who was suspected of
stealing them. Then Franklin declared that he alone had obtained them
and sent them to Boston. As agent for Massachusetts he appeared before a
committee of the privy council on January 29, 1774, in support of the
petition against Hutchinson and Oliver. Both sides were heard by
counsel. Wedderburn, who spoke against the petition, made a violent
attack on Franklin; he described him as a thief and accused him of
acting from the meanest motives. The temper of his audience was
irritated by the news from Boston, and his speech was received with
manifestations of delight, indecent on the part of men sitting as judges
in that august court. The petition was rejected as groundless and
scandalous, and men went away "almost ready to throw up their hats for
joy," as though a lawyer's bitter tongue had given England a victory.
Franklin was at once dismissed from his office of deputy postmaster.
Wedderburn's speech and the spirit in which it was received were
impolitic as well as discreditable. While strongly opposed to the
ministerial policy in America, Franklin had shown himself anxious to
maintain the tie between Great Britain and her colonies. This attack
upon his character made him one of England's enemies, and, as it proved,
one of the most dangerous of them. His conduct is not palliated by the
indecency of his opponents. It has been urged in his defence that, as
Whately had shown the letters to certain English politicians, it was
fair that Boston politicians should also see them, that as agent he was
bound to do the best for his province, and that governments did
intercept and use correspondence which was believed to contain important
political information.[89] Conduct befitting a man of honour needs no
defence.
[Sidenote: _FOX DISMISSED FROM OFFICE._]
The general opinion in England was that Boston should be punished, and
that if the government made an example of that rebellious town, the
Americans would learn a wholesome lesson. The king held this opinion,
and was delighted when General Gage told him that the Americans "would
be lions whilst we are lambs, but if we take the resolute part they will
undoubtedly prove very meek". He determined to force Boston to
submission, and his ministers were at his command. A junior lord of the
treasury was insubordinate, and was promptly dismissed. It seemed a
small matter, but it had important consequences, for the rebel was
Charles Fox. He had more than one grudge against the king, and he was
perhaps growing impatient of serving under a minister who was virtually
the king's representative, though his actual revolt may have been an
unpremeditated ebullition of youthful vanity. A libel on the speaker, of
which the turbulent parson, Horne, was the author, gave him an
opportunity for self-display; he usurped the functions of leader of the
house, persuaded it to enter on proceedings which might have ended in
another awkward quarrel with a printer, and placed North in a most
embarrassing position. The king, whom he had already offended by his
opposition to the royal marriage bill, heartily disliked him, and urged
North to get rid of him. He was curtly dismissed from office on February
24. He at once went into opposition, and acted generally with the
Rockingham party, though he did not distinctly join it until a later
period. He was already intimate with Burke, who soon gained much
influence over him. On almost every question he combated the opinions
which he had previously supported, and constantly attacked his former
chief with great bitterness. In debate the opposition gained enormously
by his alliance, but it was in the end injurious to their cause. His
sympathy with the enemies of his country in time of war strengthened the
king and his ministers in their efforts to maintain the honour of
England by persevering in the struggle, for it revolted the patriotic
feelings of the nation and kept it steadfast in its support of the
government.
[Sidenote: _THE PENAL ACTS._]
On March 14 North began to lay before the commons the measures by which
the government hoped to bring the Americans to submission. By the first
of these penal laws, as they are called, Boston was to be punished by
the transference of the seat of government to Salem, and by the closing
of its harbour, which entailed the suspension of its trade, until the
town had made good the loss inflicted on the East India Company, and the
king was satisfied that the laws would be observed. North spoke with
remarkable moderation. Both he and Dartmouth disliked violent measures,
and their tone with regard to America was so different from that of
their colleagues, that it indicated a division in the cabinet.[90] The
bill met with little opposition in the commons, though Dowdeswell and
Burke spoke against it. In the lords, Rockingham and Shelburne opposed
it, Chatham was absent through ill-health, and Mansfield strongly
advocated it, declaring that Boston had committed "the last overt act of
treason," and that it was a lucky event, for if the bill passed we
should have crossed the Rubicon, the Americans would see that we would
temporise no longer, and if it passed unanimously, Boston would submit
without bloodshed. The bill passed both houses without a division. The
next bill, "for regulating the government of Massachusetts Bay,"
overthrew the charter of the colony; it increased the power of the
governor, vested the nomination of the council in the crown, altered the
system by which juries were chosen, and prohibited town meetings, the
principal engine of democratic rule, from being held without the consent
of the governor. The abrogation of chartered rights excited strong,
though ineffectual, opposition; the bill was passed in the commons by
239 to 64, and in the lords by 92 to 20, eleven peers signing a protest
against it.
This measure was calculated to alarm and irritate the colonies
generally, for the alteration of the charter of one of them would be
taken as a menace to the constitutional liberties of all. In the hope of
counteracting this effect, the opposition wished the house of commons,
before it passed the bill, to conciliate the Americans by repealing the
tax on tea.[91] A motion was made for the repeal on April 19, and was
supported by Burke in a speech of remarkable power. He maintained that
the concession would be well received, and entreated the house to resort
to its old principles, to be content to bind the colonies by laws of
trade, to disregard the question of its right, and to refrain from
taxation. Only forty-nine voted for the motion. A third bill ordered
that any one accused of a capital offence should, if the act was done in
the execution of the law in Massachusetts, be tried in Nova Scotia or
Great Britain; and a fourth provided for the quartering of troops. When
the quartering bill was before the lords, Chatham returned to
parliament. He opposed the bill, declared his dislike of the Boston port
bill, which, he said, punished a whole town for the crime of a few; and
while he condemned the turbulence of the Americans, declared that their
discontent was due to the irritating treatment they had received, and
urged that England should act towards them as a fond and forgiving
parent, for the time was at hand when she would "need the help of her
most distant friends". On all these bills the numbers of the minority
were very low, and the king declared himself "infinitely pleased" with
the reception they met with. Meanwhile Hutchinson was recalled, and Gage
was appointed governor of Massachusetts as well as commander-in-chief.
[Sidenote: _THE QUEBEC ACT._]
Another bill, closely connected with the state of affairs in America,
though not devised merely with reference to it, provided for the
government of Canada, which had remained as it had been settled
temporarily by royal proclamation in 1763. The province of Quebec, as it
was called, only extended eastward to the St. John's river on the north
of the St. Lawrence, the territory beyond being annexed to the
jurisdiction of Newfoundland, while on the south the islands of Cape
Breton and St. John (Prince Edward's island) belonged to Nova Scotia.
No settlement was made as to the country west of the Appalachian range,
which was claimed by the old colonies, nor as to the vast tract between
Lake Nipissing and the Mississippi, the boundary of the Spanish land.
The government of Canada was in the hands of a military governor-general
and a council. In 1764 the English-speaking and protestant population
was a mere handful; in 1774 it numbered about 360, while the French
Roman catholics were at the least 80,000. In accordance with the treaty
of Paris the catholics had full liberty of worship. English was,
however, the only official language, and all offices were held by men of
British nationality. The administration of the law was confused, and,
though the king's proclamation held out a prospect that an assembly
might be called, it required oaths and declarations which would have
shut Roman catholics out from it. The French disliked the English law
with reference to land, and as far as possible evaded it. Constant
difficulties arose, and, in 1766, Charles Yorke, then attorney-general,
advised that English should cease to be the only official language, and
that French law should be recognised in cases which concerned land. On
the other hand the British minority, largely consisting of immigrants
from New England, pressed for an assembly, which would have strengthened
and perpetuated their supremacy over their French neighbours.
The discontent in the American colonies made the ministers specially
anxious to conciliate the French Canadians, and with the advice of Sir
Guy Carleton, the governor, they brought in a bill for the government of
the province. The Quebec act of 1774 included in Canada the territory
previously annexed to Newfoundland, and extended its boundaries to the
Ohio and the Mississippi. It confirmed freedom of worship to the Roman
catholics and secured to their priests, with the exception of the
religious orders, their former tithes and dues, so far as concerned
their own people only, for protestants were exempted from such payments.
Civil cases were to be decided according to the French law, criminal
cases according to the English law, by juries. It was declared
inexpedient to call an assembly; a legislative council was nominated by
the crown, and taxation was reserved to the parliament of Great Britain.
The bill was strenuously opposed, Chatham in the lords, and Burke and
Barre in the commons speaking strongly against it. The government, it
was urged, was setting up a despotism and was depressing the British
population to please the French _noblesse_, and the trial of civil cases
without juries and the withholding of the _habeas corpus_ were
represented as intolerable grievances.
The conflict was hottest on the religious question. The whigs, who
secured the support of the dissenters by posing as the protestant party,
had a hereditary claim to the popular cry of No popery. They denounced
the bill as establishing popery, while it merely permitted
protestantism. It was, Chatham declared, a breach of the reformation, of
the revolution, and of the king's coronation oath. The City petitioned
against the bill, and when, on June 22, the king went to give his assent
to it and to prorogue parliament, he was received in the streets with
angry cries of "No popery". The agitation soon died out, for the
government was popular. In America the act caused much irritation; New
York, Virginia, and other colonies complained that it deprived them of
the right to extend their territories; the revolutionary party saw with
uneasiness the establishment of the power of the crown over a vast
district on their borders, and religious prejudices were aroused by the
favour shown to the catholics. Strong protestant as he was, the king was
thoroughly in favour of the bill. It was a wise and a just measure. It
gave the French Canadians all that they really needed: they thought it
absurd that rights to land should be decided by juries; they had no
political ambitions, and only desired to enjoy in peace the
ministrations of their own priests and the right to deal with their
lands according to their ancient customs. They rejoiced that their
priests were satisfied, and in the coming struggle between Great Britain
and her colonies the priests were mindful of the justice with which they
were treated and used their boundless influence with good effect on the
British side.
The Rubicon, as Mansfield said, was passed, but the event was to be
different from the expectation of the king and the nation at large. When
Gage went out to enforce the repressive acts neither he nor those who
sent him thought that his task would be hard. Four regiments, he
believed, would be enough to settle the business. The Americans,
Sandwich said, were cowardly and undisciplined; they would not stand a
cannon-shot. That they would not fight was the firm opinion of all but
a very few. More than this, it was generally expected that Massachusetts
would not be supported by the other colonies, and no special military
preparation was thought necessary. On June 1, Boston harbour was closed.
The busy little town lay desolate, its wharfs were deserted, its
warehouses shut up, its streets silent; its merchants were threatened
with ruin, its seamen, shipwrights, and labourers and their families
with starvation. The act was enforced to the utmost, and small as Gage's
force was, it was sufficient to keep the town in subjection. Its
punishment was heavy, but surely not heavier than its offences. Be this
as it may, it was worse than ineffectual. The penal acts irritated the
Americans and did not intimidate them. Boston was regarded as suffering
for the common cause. Supplies poured in from the towns and villages of
New England, from the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland; and a
continental congress was decided on. Encouraged by the prospect of
support, the revolutionary party in Massachusetts defied Gage's
authority; gatherings of armed men took place, and warlike preparations
were set on foot. Gage began to fortify Boston Neck and brought in some
guns which might otherwise have been seized by the people.
On September 5 the continental congress met at Philadelphia. Of the
thirteen colonies only Georgia was unrepresented. Yet the delegates came
with different instructions and different intentions, and even among
delegates from the same province there was much difference of opinion.
As a body the congress did not meet with any predetermined revolutionary
purpose. Many loyalists and indeed moderate men of both parties believed
that it would be a means of arranging a reconciliation with Great
Britain, and though the most decided loyalists would have nothing to do
with it, even they hoped for a good result:[92] one-third of the
delegates, John Adams said, were whigs, one-third tories (loyalists),
and the rest mongrel. A proposal for a new constitution with a president
over all the colonies to be appointed by the crown, and a grand council
to be elected by the several assemblies and to act in connexion with
parliament, was only negatived by the votes of six colonies to five. Yet
the revolutionists gained a decided preponderance, largely through the
skilful management of Samuel Adams, who persuaded the congress to
approve the "resolves" passed at a meeting of Suffolk county,
Massachusetts. These "resolves" rejected the act for the government of
the province, required tax collectors not to pay money into the
governor's treasury, and advised towns to appoint their own officers of
militia. Besides endorsing a policy of armed resistance to government,
congress further demanded the revocation of a series of acts of
parliament, including the Quebec act and the late penal legislation,
drew up a declaration of rights, agreed on non-exportation and
non-importation, sent a petition to the king, and published an address
to the English people. It arranged that a new congress should meet the
following May, and invited the Canadians to join in it, suggesting
grounds of discontent with the English government and pretending a zeal
for religious equality. But the Canadians were not to be caught.
[Sidenote: _AMERICAN LOYALISM._]
Congress separated without having laid down any basis for conciliation
save complete surrender on the part of parliament, which was clearly
impossible. It professed loyalty to the crown, and it is probable that
certain eminent Americans, who, like George Washington, declared that
they knew of no wish for independence, really desired to maintain the
connexion with England, if they could bring affairs back to their
condition before 1763, and actually believed that by cutting off
commercial relations with her, they could compel her to assent to their
demands without an appeal to arms. Like the vast majority of Englishmen,
who did not believe that the Americans would fight, they failed to
understand the situation. In the case of others, like Patrick Henry and
the Adamses, it is useless to attach any weight to loyal expressions.
Too much, indeed, has been made of the American professions of loyalty,
for men's loyalty is better judged by their actions than by their words.
Thousands of Americans proved their loyalty by tremendous sacrifices.
Loyalism on its religious side was connected with the teaching of the
English Church; politically it was the outcome of attachment to law,
monarchy, and the unity of the empire as against revolution, democracy,
and separation.[93] The loyalists, however, included men of various
religious persuasions and of different shades of political opinion. As
Americans, they felt the British colonial system burdensome, and only
the more extreme among them approved of the stamp act and the Townshend
duties. Many took the American view of the rights of the colonies; they
desired reforms and redress of grievances, and some of them were not
averse from the milder forms of resistance. Yet all were loyal to the
crown and acknowledged the supremacy of parliament. The hopes of the
moderate section were disappointed by the congress of 1774; in common
with the more extreme loyalists they held that it exceeded its powers,
and their denial of its authority united the loyalist party.
The loyalists, or tories as they were called, comprised, in addition to
the royal officers, many of the best and most cultivated people in the
colonies, a majority of the larger landowners, by far the greater number
of the episcopal clergy together with some other religious teachers,
very many physicians, fewer lawyers, though some of the most eminent
among them, and many of the wealthier merchants, who disliked the
interruption of trade and believed that its prosperity depended on
British commerce. Among the lower classes some farmers, mechanics, and
labourers were loyalists. They were weakest in New England, though
fairly numerous in Connecticut. New York was throughout the loyalist
stronghold, and, of the other middle colonies, Pennsylvania was
disinclined to revolution and New Jersey contained a strong loyalist
minority. In the southern colonies they were about as numerous as the
whigs, and in South Carolina and Georgia perhaps outnumbered them. John
Adams, who would be inclined to underestimate their number, thought that
they were a third of the population of the thirteen colonies. The number
on each side fluctuated from time to time; the loyalists claimed to be
in a majority, and it is probable that at least half of the most
respected part of the population were throughout the struggle either
avowedly or secretly averse from revolution.[94] At the lowest
computation 20,000 loyalists joined the British army, and some thirty
regiments or battalions of them were regularly organised and paid. Most
of them were peaceable men, not more inclined for fighting than the
mass of their opponents who were forced into war by an active minority.
Through the skilful management of this minority the loyalists were
disarmed everywhere at the beginning of the struggle. They suffered
terrible persecution. A man suspected of loyalism would be summoned to a
meeting of the "sons of liberty," and ordered to take an oath to them.
If he refused he was tarred and feathered, or set to ride upon a rail,
and his house was defiled with filth. Loyalists were declared liable to
imprisonment, exile, and confiscation. These men were not less patriotic
than the revolutionists; they believed that the welfare of their country
depended on its remaining part of the British empire; and holding this
belief they suffered, fought, and died for their country's sake.
[Sidenote: _A GENERAL ELECTION._]
Although parliament had not lasted its full term of seven years, it was
dissolved on September 30. The king was probably anxious that a new
parliament should be elected before any event took place which might
suggest doubt as to the success of his American policy. Besides, he was
anxious to secure more men of landed property as members, and reckoned
that a sudden dissolution would foil "the nabobs, planters, and other
volunteers," who would not be ready for the battle.[95] His design was
successful, and the election as a whole was marked by the predominance
of the country gentlemen, at that period the best element in a house of
commons. Much to George's annoyance the Grenville election act had been
made perpetual during the last session. Its good effects were apparent
in the election of 1774; it made the bribery of borough electors
dangerous, and there was far less of it than before. Bargains, however,
could still be made with the owners and patrons of boroughs, and the
king made himself responsible for the money North expended. North
offered Lord Falmouth L2,500 a piece for three Cornish seats and had "to
make it guineas". Other bargains of the same kind were made. George, who
was great at electioneering manoeuvres, took much interest in the
proceedings. He was unable to find a candidate to stand against Wilkes,
then lord mayor elect, and Wilkes and Glynn were returned for Middlesex
without opposition. Wilkes took his seat without encountering any
difficulties and his political importance virtually ended with his
exclusion. Bristol returned Burke, who was recommended to that great
commercial city by his desire for conciliation with America, and his
knowledge of mercantile affairs. At the declaration of the poll he dwelt
on the relations which should exist between a member and his
constituents: he should, he said, as their representative in all cases
prefer their interests to his own, but he should not sacrifice his
mature judgment to their opinion, or be subservient to their mandates.
As a whole the election satisfied the king, for the ministers had a
large and indeed an increased majority.
"I am not sorry," George wrote on hearing of the proceedings of
congress, "that the line of conduct seems now chalked out; the New
England colonies are in a state of rebellion, blows must decide whether
they are to be subject to this country or independent." He expressed the
feeling of by far the larger part of his people. Not of all, for his
ministers North and Dartmouth and a few of their party, were averse from
violent measures; the merchants who traded with America were anxious for
conciliation; and the whigs as a body were opposed to the king's policy.
Chatham exulted in "the manly wisdom and calm resolution of congress".
The experience and sentiments of his great days led him to foresee that,
in case of war France and Spain would seize the opportunity of attacking
England. Unfortunately his theory that the colonies owed only a limited
obedience to the crown, that while parliament had a right to crush
disobedience and to pass acts regulating trade, it had no right to
impose taxes, his violence, his inveterate habit of "talking
fustian,"[96] and his friendship with Franklin, who was commonly
regarded as a rebel, deprived his warnings of the weight which they
deserved. The Rockingham party did not act cordially with him. It was
inspired by Burke who urged that parliament should disregard the
question of right, should act in accordance with the spirit rather than
the letter of the constitution, should respect a desire for free
institutions, and should be guided by what was practicable and what was
advisable, specially with reference to England's trade. His influence
was somewhat injured by the fact that since 1771 he had been the paid
agent of the province of New York. Equally with Chatham, he considered
that colonial trade and industry should be restrained in order to bring
wealth to the mother-country, nor does either of them seem to have
perceived that the root of American discontent lay in these
restrictions.
[Sidenote: _THE CRISIS UNDER-ESTIMATED._]
It was not until 1776 that Adam Smith in his famous _Wealth of Nations_
showed that such restrictions were actually injurious to the prosperity
of the country which imposed them, and combated the theories on which
the relations of England with her colonies had been built up. He desired
that the colonies should be represented in parliament, a proposal which
found some advocates both here and in America, but was condemned by
Burke and did not enter into practical politics. Meanwhile a pamphleteer
of originality and genius, Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, maintained that
separation was inevitable and advisable, that the Americans were a
turbulent and ill-conditioned people, a source of expense to which they
would not contribute, and that England would be better off without them.
She would not, he contended, lose commercially; for, like Adam Smith, he
pointed out that trade goes to the best market, and that so long as
England remained superior to other countries in capital and industry,
she would keep the American trade, and, as war was destructive of trade,
he would have had her separate herself peacefully from her rebellious
colonies. His proposal was denounced by Burke and found no acceptance
with either party in England.
Numerically weak as the opposition in parliament was, it made a vigorous
fight over American affairs. Parliament opened on November 30, and the
king's speech took note of the resistance to the law which prevailed in
Massachusetts, and the "unwarrantable combinations for the obstruction"
of trade. In both houses an amendment to the address was proposed. The
divisions illustrate the strength of the two parties; in the lords it
was defeated by 63 to 13, and in the commons by 264 to 73. The ministers
asserted that the force already in America was sufficient to bring the
colonies to obedience; the naval establishment was reduced to a peace
footing, and no extra soldiers were voted. Gage, however, who had only
some 3,000 troops, asked for a large reinforcement, and wrote that, if
matters came to an extremity, 20,000 men would be needed for the
conquest of New England, a number which, Dartmouth said, "the nation
would not be able to furnish in a twelvemonth".[97] The ministers
resolved to send a small reinforcement from Ireland, they were
encouraged to believe that the Americans would yield by tidings that the
New York assembly had rejected the decisions of congress and by more
hopeful news from Gage. After the recess the campaign opened in earnest.
On January 20, 1775, Chatham moved for the recall of the troops from
Boston, and declared that, if the ministers persisted in their policy,
they would mislead the king and the kingdom would be undone. He was
defeated by a large majority. Petitions against coercion were presented
from London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, and other trading towns, and
were virtually shelved. Meanwhile Lord Howe, encouraged by the dislike
of North and Dartmouth to coercive measures, made ineffectual attempts
to arrange terms of conciliation through Franklin.
[Sidenote: _CONCILIATORY RESOLUTIONS._]
On February 1 Chatham, who was in constant communication with Franklin,
brought in a conciliation bill. It was a strange composition, florid in
terms, embracing a multiplicity of subjects, and depending for its
operation on the good-will of the Americans. He proposed to assert the
supremacy of parliament, specially in matters of trade, to confine
taxation to the provincial assemblies, and to legalise the coming
congress in order that it might make a perpetual free grant to the
crown, which was to be appropriated by parliament to the reduction of
the national debt. Having obtained this grant, parliament was to reduce
the power of the admiralty courts, which checked illicit trading, and to
suspend all the acts, including the Quebec act, of which the Americans
complained. The bill was not allowed a second reading. Soon after its
ignominious rejection the gout laid hold on Chatham, and he did not
appear in parliament again for two years. Franklin returned to America
about this time; he disclaimed responsibility for Chatham's proposals,
which, he considered, would only have been useful as a basis for future
arrangement. North at last informed parliament of the threatening state
of affairs. Massachusetts was declared in rebellion; votes were passed
for 2,000 additional seamen and about 4,400 soldiers; it was resolved to
increase the force at Boston to 10,000 men; and a bill was passed
confining the commerce of the New England provinces to Great Britain
and the West Indies, and shutting them out from the Newfoundland
fishery. These restraints, which were evoked by the American
non-intercourse agreements, were soon extended to five other provinces.
While George promoted these strong measures, he willingly fell in with
North's desire to "hold out the olive-branch"; and on the 20th North
moved a resolution to the effect that if any colony provided what
parliament considered its fair proportion towards the common defence and
the expenses of its civil administration, no duty or tax should be
imposed upon it, except for the regulation of trade. His proposal
excited the indignation of the high prerogative party, who thought
themselves betrayed; his followers rose in revolt; "the treasury bench
seemed to totter". The storm was stilled at last, and then Barre, Burke,
and Dunning fell upon the bill, describing it as a mean attempt to
divide the Americans, and a plan for coercing each province separately.
The motion was, however, carried. As the opposition scorned North's
plan, which Burke called "a project of ransom by auction," it behoved
them to bring forward a plan of their own which would be acceptable to
the Americans. Accordingly, on March 22, Burke propounded a series of
conciliatory resolutions which he enforced in one of his most famous
speeches. He urged the house to return to its old policy, to respect the
Americans' love of freedom, to look to the colonial assemblies to supply
the expenses of their government and defence, to abandon the futile
attempt to impose taxation, and to extend to Americans the privileges of
Englishmen. His proposal was defeated. Nevertheless, by accepting
North's resolution parliament showed a desire for pacification. The
resolution proposed a compromise; while it maintained the authority of
parliament, it offered the Americans self-taxation. It was made with a
sincere desire to end the quarrel. At one time it might have led to
pacification, but it came too late.
Gage found the fortification of Boston Neck no easy matter; the people
would not sell him materials, and somehow his barges sank, his waggons
were bogged, and their loads caught fire. The work was finished at last,
and with his small force he could do little else. In Rhode Island the
people seized the cannon mounted for the defence of the harbour, and in
New Hampshire they surprised a small fort, and carried off ordnance and
stores. Manufactories of arms and powder-mills were set up in different
places. In February, 1775, the Massachusetts provincial congress met,
and urged the militia, and specially the "minute-men"--militiamen ready
to serve on the shortest notice--to perfect their discipline. Virginia,
Maryland, and the Carolinas were astir with warlike preparations; in
Massachusetts men were practising the use of arms on every village
green, a number of Stockbridge Indians were enlisted as minute-men, and
efforts were made to induce the Six Nations to "whet the hatchet"
against the English.[98] Express-riders kept the country people well
supplied with intelligence, in order that they might anticipate any
projected movement of the British troops. On the 26th Gage sent a
detachment to Salem to bring in some guns, but the people removed them
in time. Some opposition was offered to the troops, but they were kept
well in hand and no blood was shed.
[Sidenote: _SKIRMISH AT LEXINGTON._]
He determined to be beforehand at Concord, where the provincials had
gathered a quantity of military stores, and on April 18 sent some
companies of grenadiers and light infantry under Colonel Smith and Major
Pitcairn to destroy them. They went by night up the Charles river in
boats, landed, and began their march. The alarm had been given and the
country was aroused. When they arrived at Lexington at 5 in the morning
of the 19th they found a body of militia on the green. "Disperse, you
rebels!" shouted Pitcairn, and the troops advanced with a cheer. As the
militia dispersed some shots were fired. From which side the first shot
came is not clear. A soldier was hit and Pitcairn's horse was wounded.
The troops fired a volley, a few militiamen were killed and others
wounded, and the soldiers marched on. While the grenadiers were
destroying the stores at Concord a sharp engagement took place with the
militia, and several on both sides were killed and wounded. The troops,
having accomplished their purpose as far as was possible, for part of
the stores had already been removed, set out to return to Boston. As
they marched back, tired and impeded by their wounded, militiamen and
volunteers fired upon them from every hedge, and wall, and house, and
the shots told heavily on their close ranks. Forced on by the ceaseless
fire, like a driven flock of sheep, thick together and helpless, they
staggered back to Lexington, where they arrived completely exhausted.
There they were met by a large detachment under Lord Percy, which had
been sent to their relief. After a rest the whole body marched back,
harassed all the way by an incessant fire from cover, which they were
for the most part unable to return. The British loss was sixty-five
killed, about 157 wounded, and a few missing; the American casualties
are stated as ninety-three in all. Not, unhappily, for the last time did
our soldiers find that farmers and the like, who know their country, are
accustomed to shoot, and understand the importance of taking cover, may
be more than a match for brave and disciplined soldiers with no
knowledge of war save the drill of a parade ground. It was evident that
there was fighting stuff in the Americans, that they had some good
marksmen, and that, undisciplined as they were, like the Boers of our
own day, they knew how to use such advantages as they possessed.
Thus was the first blood shed in this long quarrel. The revolution was
begun. Sooner or later it must have come, though the date of its coming
and the violent means by which it was accomplished were decided by
individual action. The spirit which underlay it can be traced with
growing distinctness since 1690; it was a spirit of independence,
puritan in religion and republican in politics, impatient of control,
self-assertive, and disposed to opposition. It was irritated by
restraints on industry and commerce, and found opportunities for
expression in a system which gave the colonies representative assemblies
while it withheld rights of self-government. Great Britain has since
then adopted a more enlightened colonial policy; yet the statesmen of
past times are not to be condemned because they were men of their own
days and lacked the experience of a future age. And it is to be
remembered that England's colonial policy was then, as it is now, the
most liberal in the world. American discontent existed before the reign
of George III.; it was kept in check by the fear of French invasion. It
was when that fear was removed that England began to enforce the
restraints on commerce. This change in policy fell most heavily on the
New England provinces, where whig tendencies were strongest, and
specially on Massachusetts. A small and violent party in the province
fanned the flame of discontent, and the attempts at taxation, which
added to the grievances of the colonists, afforded a respectable cry to
the fomenters of resistance. Their work was aided by the apprehension
aroused in the minds of their fellow-countrymen, by the increase in the
part played by the prerogative, and by the predominance of the tories in
England. While men in other provinces, as Patrick Henry in Virginia,
worked in sympathy with Samuel Adams and his associates, the revolution
was at its outset engineered at Boston, and was immediately determined
by the quarrel between Great Britain and Massachusetts. In the events
which led to the revolution the British government appears to have shown
a short-sighted insistence on legal rights and a contemptuous disregard
of the sentiments and opinions of the colonists; the revolutionists
generally a turbulent, insolent, and unreasonable temper.
FOOTNOTES:
[89] Franklin, _Works_, v., 189-90, 205-7, 305-14, ed. Bigelow.
[90] _Chatham Corr._, iv. 339.
[91] _Parl. Hist._, xvii., 1197.
[92] Jones, _History of New York_, i., 34-35, 449, _sq._; Flick,
_Loyalism in New York_, pp. 24-25.
[93] Flick, _Loyalism in New York_, pp. 9-12.
[94] Sabine, _The American Loyalists_, pp. 51-55, 65.
[95] _Corr. with North_, i., 201.
[96] Burke to Flood, May 18, 1765, _Works_, i., 41.
[97] Dartmouth Papers, America, _Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep._, xiv., App. x.,
251.
[98] _The Border Warfare of the Revolution_, in _Narr. and Crit. Hist._,
vi., 612-14.