Page images
PDF
EPUB

was the feeling of the immense majority of both Houses. The Address was carried without a division, and the country, in the main, ratified the resolve that had been come to by its representatives and hereditary legislators. As a consequence of this unanimity, the remonstrant provinces were reprimanded by the Home Government, and assured that the King would not listen to the representations of men who were so wicked as to question the supreme authority of Parliament.

In the colonies themselves there was a considerable agreement of opinion. The circular letter of Massachusetts was supported by provinces holding very divergent ideas on many subjects, and it was generally felt that the chief New England settlement was standing in the van of American liberty. The regiments at Boston had failed to crush disaffection it was now sought to cripple trade. An order was issued by the three Secretaries of State to the ministers, consuls, and agents of the British Government in the ports of Europe, Madeira, and the Azores, to keep watch on the merchant-vessels of America, so that they should not establish with France and Spain a commerce in those articles which the provincials had refused to take from or through England. The French Government was particularly desirous of developing such a trade, as being lucrative in itself, and of a nature to injure the prosperity of Great Britain. But the King of Spain did not care to take any active measures of this kind, and nothing was done, though Franklin was consulted on the subject, and gave to it all the penetration and experience of his sagacious and everactive intellect.

The colonial agents in London did the utmost they could to advance the cause of their several provinces; but the position of defiance, not far removed from actual rebellion, which had been taken up by the popular leaders at Boston, made compromise almost impossible. The denial by the colonies of any jurisdiction inherent in the English Parliament, compelled that body to assert its power, or give up the colonies altogether. If the patriotic leaders in America really desired, as they sometimes professed, to retain some degree of friendly connection with England, they acted in the worst way for promoting such an object. If, on the contrary, their wish was to foment a quarrel, to take every advantage of a provocation, in order that they might find or create an opportunity for establishing complete independence - a supposition rendered probable by the whole tenor of New England history-then, indeed, their policy was admirably adapted to the end in view, and its success, under the circumstances of the case, is not

surprising. England often behaved capriciously and unjustly to her plantations; and the desire for independence on their part was very natural, all things considered. But it is essential to a complete view of the facts to bear in mind that the Americans were frequently defiant even of a just jurisdiction; that they sought occasions of rupture; and that they advanced pretensions which no parent State was likely to acknowledge. In one breath they claimed the privileges of Englishmen, and rejected the rule of England.

When giving an audience to the colonial agents in a body, on the 6th of December, Lord Hillsborough said:"Administration will enforce the authority of the Legislature of Great Britain over the colonies in the most effectual manner, but with moderation and lenity. All the petitions we have received are very offensive, for they contain a denial of the authority of Parliament. We have no fondness for the acts complained of: particularly, the late Duty Act is so anti-commercial that I wish it had never existed; and it would certainly have been repealed, had the colonies said nothing about it, or petitioned against it only on the ground of its inexpediency. But the principle you proceed upon extends to all laws; and we cannot, therefore, think of repealing it, at least this session of Parliament, or until the colonies shall have dropped the point of right. Nor can the conduct of the people of Boston pass without a severe censure." The argument of Lord Hillsborough on this occasion was not unreasonable. The particular objections of the Americans to particular acts of the English Legislature might have been met and satisfied. It was the denial of all Parliamentary jurisdiction that made the struggle as inevitable as, on the part of many of the Americans, it was evidently desired.

The friends of America made a gallant stand in Parliament, but were completely outvoted. Alderman Beckford, in the Commons, demanded a general inquiry into the affairs of the colonies, with a view to measures of relief; but, in a House of two hundred, a hundred and twenty-seven voted in favour of the Government, who were for confining the inquiry to a consideration of the conduct of Massachusetts. The Ministry were determined to follow without flinching the path on which they had entered. Lord Hillsborough, in the House of Lords, said that legislation and taxation must stand or fall together, and added that, if pacific measures proved insufficient, the whole force of the country would be exerted to bring the colonies into subjection. He then introduced a series of resolutions condemning the acts of the patriotic party in Massa

[blocks in formation]

chusetts, approving the resort to military force, and indicating various approaching changes in the charter of the province, and in the local government of the towns. In addition to these resolutions, the Duke of Bedford moved an address to the King, praying him to bring to condign punishment the chief authors and instigators of the recent disorders, and, on sufficient grounds appearing, to put them on their trial for treason before a special commission in England, pursuant to the provisions of a statute passed in the reign of Henry VIII., the object of which was to punish treason committed "abroad." To revive so obsolete a statute-one, moreover, which could not possibly have been intended to apply to circumstances at all resembling those which had arisen under George III-was a most injudicious and despotic exercise of power; but the resolutions and address were carried with scarcely any opposition, and the Government of the day had made another step towards the inevitable crisis. Every move on one side of the ocean was seconded by a similar move on the other side. The representatives of authority in New England threatened to send the popular leaders to the old country for trial; but they seemed afraid to carry out their own menaces. Samuel Adams was more violent than ever in his opposition to the Royal Government and its agents; yet no attempt was made to restrain him. At his suggestion, the justices at quarter-sessions found various soldiers and officers guilty of disorderly conduct. The higher courts sometimes set aside these convictions, but nothing more was done.

In these irritating discussions and acts, the year 1768 came to a close. But events of another kind had been occurring in the direction of the Mississippi, which it will be fitting to relate in this place. After the Peace of 1763, Louisiana was ceded by France to Spain. The people of that province objected to the cession, and, calling together an Assembly, entreated the French King not to desert them. They were told that France could not support the charge of her once-favoured colony; and in 1766 the Spaniards took possession of New Orleans, but were received with so much opposition that Ulloa, the new Governor, after remaining a few months, found it advisable to quit the city in September of the same year. An independent Government was then formed, and it was resolved once more to seek the protection of France, or, failing that, to establish a Republic. Louis XV. still refused to reclaim his former possession, and the species of self-governing Commonwealth which was found existing there in 1768, but which in the following year was put down with a high hand by

57

the Spaniards, served to stimulate in the AngloAmericans a desire for similar political conditions. This was especially the case in the west. The people in the settlement of Illinois were dissatisfied with their state. The towns in that province were very thinly populated, and were even declining in numbers; for it was the policy of Hillsborough to prevent the colonisation of the west, and to create a long line of Indian frontier at the back of the old colonies. One of the consequences of this policy was to detach from the jurisdiction of Virginia the whole of Kentucky, and all lands north-west of the Ohio. Virginia of course objected to so serious a loss of territory; but the agent of the English Government, one Stuart, was instructed to disregard all remonstrances, and to carry out the ideas of his principal. On the 14th of October, 1768, Stuart met the chiefs of the Upper and Lower Cherokees at Hard Labour, in the western part of South Carolina, and concluded a treaty, by which the Indians ratified their former grants of land, and established a western boundary to Virginia, such as excluded the territories to which she laid claim. At the same time, the Virginians held a congress at Fort Stanwix with the Six Nations, which was attended by Sir William Johnson, Indian agent for the northern district, by Thomas Walker, commissioner for Virginia, and by William Franklin, the only son of Benjamin, who represented New Jersey. Very nearly three thousand of the savages were present, and sumptuous presents were made them, to obtain their favour. The result, however, was an agreement by which the Tennessee was constituted the western boundary of Virginia. In making this arrangement, Johnson disregarded his instructions; and the general issue of both congresses was displeasing to the Virginians, who looked with all the more admiration on the virtual independence of the people of Louisiana.

The Assembly of New York was dissolved early in 1769, after having, at the close of the previous year, unanimously asserted its legislative rights, and appointed an intercolonial committee of correspondence. The new elections were in favour of the Government party, and in some respects the principles of the official candidates were more liberal than those of their opponents. For instance, they supported the introduction of the ballot, which the tenantry greatly desired. In other ways they conciliated particular interests, sometimes with more of policy than of wisdom; and they reaped the advantage of their clever management. Affairs in Massachusetts continued in a very unsatisfactory state. Governor Bernard still advised measures of repression; Chief Justice Hutchinson recommended

an abridgment of English liberties as regarded the colonists; and Hutchinson's brother-in-law, Oliver, hinted that the malcontents should be got out of the way. Affidavits against Samuel Adams were sworn to before Hutchinson, with a view to his being sent to England under the statute of Henry VIII.; and others were similarly threatened. The violence of party increased with these acts. The official newspapers and the patriotic newspapers reviled each other with every ingenuity of virulent accusation. A storm of recriminations clattered up and down the columns of the press, and the voices of moderation, of fairness, and of reason, had little chance of being heard in the midst of so angry a roar. In England, Lord North, unfortunately, took his stand on the most absolutist principles. He rejected, without reply or examination, petitions which set forth the grievances of the colonists, and prayed for their removal; and on the 26th of January, 1769, he introduced into the House of Commons the resolves and address which had been previously affirmed in the Lords.

“Away

These were strongly opposed by Pownall, the late Governor of Massachusetts, by Colonel Barré, by Burke, and by a few other members of liberal views. Barré, with rather doubtful wisdom, told Ministers that, if they were resolved to oppose the colonists, they had better do so with open violence, rather than with a pretended moderation. with these partial, resentful trifles!" he exclaimed; "trifles calculated to irritate, not to quell or appease inadequate to their purpose, unworthy of us. Why will you endeavour to deceive yourselves and us? You know that it is not Massachusetts only that disputes your right, but every part of America. From one end of the continent to the other, they tell you that you have no right to tax them. My sentiments on this matter you know. Consider well what you are doing. Act openly and honestly. Tell them you will tax them, and that they must submit. Do not adopt this little, insidious, futile plan. They will despise you for it." He warned the Government that the Americans would not be easily humbled, and that, even if this could be effected, the result would be disastrous to the old country. Unless the attempt to tax the colonists were abandoned, England would run the risk of losing America. To the same effect testified Pownall. Speaking from his experience of the Americans, he affirmed that they would undoubtedly contend for their rights until either they recovered them, or were annihilated by superior force. Notwithstanding these representations, the House of Commons sanctioned the resolutions

of the Lords, and the joint address of both Houses was then sent up to the King. It expressed the perfect satisfaction of the Legislature with the measures which his Majesty had pursued, and tendered the strongest assurances of effectual support to him in such further steps as might be found necessary to maintain a due execution of the laws in Massachusetts. It besought him to direct the Governor of that province to take the most effectual methods for procuring information of all treasonable offences committed within his jurisdiction since the 30th of December, 1767, and to transmit the names of the offenders to one of the Secretaries of State, in order that a special commission might be issued for bringing them to trial in England, in conformity with the provisions of the statute previously described. The determination thus arrived at was a fatal error. Du Châtelet, the French Ambassador at London, saw how full of evil omen for England was the path on which an incapable Administration had now entered. Some of the best members of the House of Commons earnestly protested against the tyranny of bringing the offenders to England for trial. It was fairly and justly pointed out that in England the accused would not be able to call witnesses in their defence, and, if condemned, would be condemned on a one-sided statement. Moreover, it was very doubtful whether the statute of the 35th of Henry VIII. was applicable to America. Sir William Meredith, in the House of Commons, bluntly denied its applicability, and added that, if he were an American, he would not submit to it. Nothing, however, could prevail against the infatuation of the Ministry and their supporters.

France and Spain looked on the growing quarrel with different feelings. To Du Châtelet it appeared that free trade should be established with the Angio-American colonies, as a means of supporting them and of crippling England; and proposals to this effect were made to Spain. But the latter Power saw that the removal of restrictions on commerce would injure her own monopolies, and she dreaded the creation of a Republican Government on her colonial frontiers. "The cession of Canada," wrote Du Châtelet to Choiseul from London, on the 17th of February, 1769, "will one day be amply compensated for, if it shall cause the rebellion and independence of the English colonies, which become every day more probable and more near." Spain had not such serious cause to desire revenge against England; and she felt uneasy at the new principles which were rising in the world of politics.

1769.]

PUBLIC OPINION IN AMERICA.

59

CHAPTER VIII.

Public Opinion in America-Progress of Republican Principles-French Influence-Fate of New Orleans when ceded to SpainThe British Government in 1769-Lord North and King George-Policy of repeating Townshend's Revenue Acts of 1767 -State of Parties-The Opposition Cliques-The Independent Liberals-The Duke of Grafton and Lord Camden in the Cabinet-Growth of a Common Sentiment between the Colonies-Alternate support of each other-Delaware and Pennsylvania-New York Non-Importation Agreement-Re-assembling of the Massachusetts Legislature-More Disputes with Governor Bernard -The Troops at Boston-The Adjournment to Cambridge-Departure of Sir Francis BernardLieutenant-Governor Hutchinson-His Sons in the Tea Trade-Quarrels with the Revenue Officers and the SoldiersFall of the Ministry in England, 1770-New Government of Lord North-Continued Troubles in Boston-The Hutchinsons' Tea Store-Soldiers, Workmen, and Street Boys-Affray with the Military-The 5th of March-Firing on the People— A Night of Alarm-Hutchinson in Council-Town Meeting-Demand for Removal of the Troops-Captain Preston sent for Trial-Parliamentary Debates-Tea-duty the Symbol of Contention-Reopening of Trade with England-Royal Orders in Council for the Coercion of Boston-Military and Naval Occupation of Boston-The Provincial Fortress, Castle William, delivered up to Colonel Dalrymple-Constitution of the Provincial Council altered-Franklin sent to London for Massachusetts-The western territories, Kentucky and Tennessee-Oppression in North Carolina-The Regulators -Herman Husbands-Riots at Hillsborough-Governor Tryon's Vengeance, 1771-His expedition to Orange CountyA local Reign of Terror.

Ir is not difficult to trace the process by which, in the popular sentiment of English America, during the protracted strife with the British Government, zeal for provincial rights and interests at length took the form of enthusiasm for a Republican system. The descendants in New England of those seventeenth-century Puritans who shared every religious and political conviction of the Commonwealth-men, were predisposed to accept the abstract notions of an ideal civil union, the doctrines of a social compact among freemen to constitute the State, which French metaphysical writers had begun to promulgate. A tendency to this association of principles had been manifested a hundred years before in the speculations of such men as Vane, Harington, and Sydney; and the mental habits of the colonists were favourable to active free-thinking beyond the ordinary scope of public discussions at home. They had remained almost wholly exempt from those influences of a political reaction, in a great measure due to the Episcopalian Church Establishment, which were so powerful about the commencement of George III.'s reign. In the controversy between Dean Tucker and Dr. Franklin, for example, and in other pamphlets or speeches of that time, America was reproached for cherishing "a factious Republican spirit;" while those who stood the brunt of this accusation confessed their misfortune "to be Whigs in a reign when Whiggism was out of fashion, besides Protestant Dissenters and lovers of liberty." But their old-fashioned maxims of civil and religious freedom had become largely modified by the precepts of the new French philosophy, conveyed in a rhetorical language then beginning to prevail. It is remarkable that the authors and expounders of that universal solvent for the removal of social obstructions and incon

[ocr errors]

gruities were, o a certain extent, patronised and assisted by the despotic monarchy of Versailles, more especially with a view to loosening and weakening the bonds of political strength in rival communities. Germany and England were to be rendered less formidable opponents of France by the insinuating effect of such teaching as that of Rousseau and other apostles of a bare individualism, one development of which lay in a scheme of unmixed democracy and the absolute Sovereignty of the People. The Ministers of Louis XV. and his unfortunate successor perceived an opportunity for the use of this weapon in the disturbed and excited condition of the public mind throughout the EnglishAmerican colonies, which they studied far more diligently than the Ministers of King George ever did. In the correspondence of Du Châtelet with the Duc de Choiseul, towards the end of 1768, it was urged that France and Spain ought now to get their revenge for the recent loss of vast territories in America, by seeing the result of British mismanagement in the speedy assertion of American independence. As a practical example contributing to this object, it was proposed by the French Government that the King of Spain should forego his sovereignty over the French colony at New Orleans which had been ceded to Spain, and that a free State of Louisiana should be formed under their joint protection. The Spanish Government, however, preferred to enforce its legal title, by sending a squadron and a body of troops from Cuba, under Alexander O'Reilly, taking possession of New Orleans without resistance, and cruelly putting to death the patriotic French citizens who had led the brief revolt against their compulsory transfer to a foreign Empire. This event, which took place in 1769, was certainly not an example calculated to make the English colonists of the Atlantic coast

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Peren Esgts tuce and absolute Propnotanes of Percyl.
vania by the hands of the honorable Sur Williams Johnfas
Baronet the sum of tour thousand Dollars bring the
full consideration of the Lands lately sold to them
by
the Indians of the syx Trations at the lete Treaty of
Tal Showry we say received this Twenty Eighth
day of July Anno Doment 1769 - for curselves
and the other Indians of the r gex Stations and then confedentes
and dependant Trebes for whom, wo act and by whoun
appointed and empowered

we we

Wittress present Not. MacLeod

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Anahgogare

Onoghranoron

Onughshiony

For the Cajuga Nation
by the derne of the whole

Anaquadocka

Serrehouna

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

REDUCED FAC-SIMILE OF TREATY WITH INDIAN TRIBES, 1769.

« PreviousContinue »