| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Loyalists of America and Their Times, Vol. 1 of 2. - From 1620-1816
Author: Ryerson, Egerton, 1803-1882
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Loyalists of America and Their Times, Vol. 1 of 2. - From 1620-1816" ***
[Illustration: (signature) E. Ryerson]
THE
LOYALISTS OF AMERICA
AND
THEIR TIMES:
FROM 1620 TO 1816.
BY EGERTON RYERSON, D.D., LL.D.,
_Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada from 1844 to 1876._
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
TORONTO:
WILLIAM BRIGGS, 80 KING STREET EAST;
JAMES CAMPBELL & SON, AND
WILLING & WILLIAMSON.
MONTREAL: DAWSON BROTHERS.
1880.
ENTERED, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year
One thousand eight hundred and eighty, by the REV. EGERTON RYERSON,
D.D., LL.D., in the Office of the Minister of Agriculture.
PREFACE.
As no Indian pen has ever traced the history of the aborigines of
America, or recorded the deeds of their chieftains, their "prowess and
their wrongs"--their enemies and spoilers being their historians; so the
history of the Loyalists of America has never been written except by
their enemies and spoilers, and those English historians who have not
troubled themselves with examining original authorities, but have
adopted the authorities, and in some instances imbibed the spirit, of
American historians, who have never tired in eulogizing Americans and
everything American, and deprecating everything English, and all who
have loyally adhered to the unity of the British Empire.
I have thought that the other side of the story should be written; or,
in other words, the true history of the relations, disputes, and
contests between Great Britain and her American colonies and the United
States of America.
The United Empire Loyalists were the losing party; their history has
been written by their adversaries, and strangely misrepresented. In the
vindication of their character, I have not opposed assertion against
assertion; but, in correction of unjust and untrue assertions, I have
offered the records and documents of the actors themselves, and in their
own words. To do this has rendered my history, to a large extent,
_documentary_, instead of being a mere popular narrative. The many
fictions of American writers will be found corrected and exposed in the
following volumes, by authorities and facts which cannot be successfully
denied. In thus availing myself so largely of the proclamations,
messages, addresses, letters, and records of the times when they
occurred, I have only followed the example of some of the best
historians and biographers.
No one can be more sensible than myself of the imperfect manner in which
I have performed my task, which I commenced more than a quarter of a
century since, but I have been prevented from completing it sooner by
public duties--pursuing, as I have done from the beginning, an untrodden
path of historical investigations. From the long delay, many supposed I
would never complete the work, or that I had abandoned it. On its
completion, therefore, I issued a circular, an extract from which I
hereto subjoin, explaining the origin, design, and scope of the work:--
"I have pleasure in stating that I have at length completed the
task which the newspaper press and public men of different parties
urged upon me from 1855 to 1860. In submission to what seemed to be
public opinion, I issued, in 1861, a circular addressed to the
United Empire Loyalists and their descendants, of the British
Provinces of America, stating the design and scope of my proposed
work, and requesting them to transmit to me, at my expense, any
letters or papers in their possession which would throw light upon
the early history and settlement in these Provinces by our U.E.
Loyalist forefathers. From all the British Provinces I received
answers to my circular; and I have given, with little abridgment,
in one chapter of my history, these intensely interesting letters
and papers--to which I have been enabled to add considerably from
two large quarto manuscript volumes of papers relating to the U.E.
Loyalists in the Dominion Parliamentary Library at Ottawa, with the
use of which I have been favoured by the learned and obliging
librarian, Mr. Todd.
"In addition to all the works relating to the subject which I could
collect in Europe and America, I spent, two years since, several
months in the Library of the British Museum, employing the
assistance of an amanuensis, in verifying quotations and making
extracts from works not to be found elsewhere, in relation
especially to unsettled questions involved in the earlier part of
my history.
"I have entirely sympathized with the Colonists in their
remonstrances, and even use of arms, in defence of British
constitutional rights, from 1763 to 1776; but I have been compelled
to view the proceedings of the Revolutionists and their treatment
of the Loyalists in a very different light.
"After having compared the conduct of the two parties during the
Revolution, the exile of the Loyalists from their homes after the
close of the War, and their settlement in the British Provinces, I
have given a brief account of the government of each Province, and
then traced the alleged and real causes of the War of 1812-1815,
together with the courage, sacrifice, and patriotism of Canadians,
both English and French, in defending our country against eleven
successive American invasions, when the population of the two
Canadas was to that of the United States as one to twenty-seven,
and the population of Upper Canada (the chief scene of the War) was
as one to one hundred and six. Our defenders, aided by a few
English regiments, were as handfuls, little Spartan bands, in
comparison of the hosts of the invading armies; and yet at the end
of two years, as well as at the end of the third and last year of
the War, not an invader's foot found a place on the soil of Canada.
"I undertook this work not self-moved and with no view to profit;
and if I receive no pecuniary return from this work, on which I
have expended no small labour and means, I shall have the
satisfaction of having done all in my power to erect an historical
monument to the character and merits of the fathers and founders of
my native country."
E. RYERSON.
"TORONTO, Sept. 24th, 1879."
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.--TWO CLASSES OF EMIGRANTS--TWO GOVERNMENTS FOR SEVENTY
YEARS--THE PILGRIM FATHERS, THEIR PILGRIMAGES AND SETTLEMENT.
PAGE
The writer a native Colonist 1
Massachusetts the seed-plot of the American Revolution 1
Two distinct emigrations to New England--the "Pilgrim
Fathers" in 1620, the "Puritan Fathers" in 1629; two separate
governments for seventy years; characteristics of each 1
Objects and documentary character of the history, which is
not a popular narrative, but a historical discussion (in a note) 2
The "Pilgrim Fathers;" their pilgrimages and settlement in
New England 2
Origin of Independents 2
Flight to Holland, and twelve years' pilgrimage; trades and
wearisome life there 3
Long to be under English rule and protection 3
Determine and arrange to emigrate to America 3
Voyage, and intended place of settlement 4
Landing at Cape Cod; constitution of government; Messrs.
Bancroft and Young's remarks upon it 5
Settlement of "New Plymouth" 6
What known of the harbour and coast before the landing
of the Pilgrims 7
Inflated and extravagant accounts of the character and
voyage of the Pilgrims (in a note) 7
Results of the first year's experience and labours;
a week's celebration of the first "harvest home"--such a
_first_ harvest home as no United Empire Loyalists
were ever able to celebrate in Canada 9
CHAPTER II.
GOVERNMENT OF THE "PILGRIM FATHERS" AT NEW PLYMOUTH DURING
SEVENTY YEARS, FROM 1620 TO 1690, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE
"PURITAN FATHERS" OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY. 11-23
Two governments--difference between the government of the
Pilgrims and that of the Puritans 11
Compact, and seven successive governors of the Pilgrims 12
Simple, just, popular and loyal government of the Pilgrims
and their descendants 13
Illustrations of their loyalty to successive sovereigns,
and the equity and kindness with which Charles the First
and Charles the Second treated them 14
Complaints against the unjust and persecuting conduct of
the government of Massachusetts Bay, the cause of Parliamentary
and Royal Commissions in 1646, 1664, and 1678 17
Four questions of inquiry by the Commissioners of Charles
the Second, in 1665, and satisfactory answers by the
Plymouth Government 18
Opposition of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts
Bay to the Pilgrim Government in seeking a Royal Charter
in 1630 and 1678 21
Absorption of the Plymouth Colony into that of Massachusetts
Bay by the second Royal Charter; the exclusion of its chief men
from public offices 21
Reflections on the melancholy termination of the Plymouth
Government; the noble and loyal character of the Pilgrim
Fathers and their descendants 22
CHAPTER III.
THE PURITANS OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY AND THEIR
GOVERNMENT, COMMENCING IN 1629. 24-84
PART FIRST.
First settlement--Royal Charter granted 24
Causes, characteristics, and objects of early emigration
to New England 25
The Puritan emigrants to Massachusetts Bay professed members
of the Established Church when they left England 26
Professed objects of the emigration two-fold--religious and
commercial; chiefly _religious_, for "converting and
civilizing the idolatrous and savage Indian tribes" 26
Endicot; Royal Charter 27
Second emigration; Endicot becomes a Congregationalist,
and establishes Congregationalism as the only worship of
the Company at Massachusetts Bay, and banishes John and
Samuel Brown for adhering (with others) to the old worship 28
PART SECOND.
The question involving the primary cause of the American
Revolution; the setting up of a new form of worship, and
abolishing and proscribing that of the Church of England,
and banishing Episcopalians who adhered to the old form of
worship; the facts analysed and discussed; instructions of
the Company in England, and oaths of allegiance and of office
prescribed by it 30
PART THIRD.
Complaints of the banished Episcopalians in England;
proceedings by the Company, denials, proofs, conduct and
correspondence of the parties concerned 46
Address of Governor Winthrop, &c., on leaving England, in
1630, to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of
England," affirming their filial and undying love to the
Church of England, as their "dear mother," from whose breasts
they had derived their spiritual nourishment, &c., &c. 55
Remarks on this address, and absurd interpretations of it 57
Puritan authorities alone adduced as evidence on the
subjects of discussion; Puritan letters suppressed;
first seeds of the American Revolution 59
PART FOURTH.
Contest between King Charles the First and the Massachusetts
Bay Puritans during ten years, from 1630 to 1640 61
Professions of the Puritans on leaving England, and their
conduct on arriving at Massachusetts Bay 62
In the Church revolution at Massachusetts Bay, none but
Congregationalists could be citizen electors, or eligible
for office of any kind; five-sixths of the male population
disfranchised 63
This first violation of the Royal Charter and laws of England 65
Complaints to the King in Council in 1632 65
Imputations upon the complainants, and upon the King and
Council for listening to their complaints 66
Proceedings of the King and Council in 1632; the accused deny
the charges, and convince the King of their innocence and
good faith; further inquiry to be made; in the meantime the
King dismisses the complaints, assures the accused that he
never intended to impose at Massachusetts Bay the religious
ceremonies to which they had objected in England, and assures
them of his desire to promote the interests of their plantation 66
The King's kind and indulgent conduct, and how the advocates
of the Company deceived him 67
Continued oppressions and proscriptions at Massachusetts Bay,
and fresh complaints to the King in Council in 1634 69
Transfer of the Charter; kept secret during four years;
remarks upon it; effect of the disclosure, and renewed
complaints 69
Issue of a Royal Commission; proposed armed resistance at
Massachusetts Bay advised by the Congregational ministers;
remarks on Mr. Bancroft's attacks and statements; official
representations, and conduct of parties concerned 72
Massachusetts Bay rulers the aggressors throughout; review
of the controversy 75
More despotism practised in Massachusetts Bay than was
ever practised in Upper Canada 82
CHAPTER IV.
THE GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY UNDER THE LONG PARLIAMENT,
THE COMMONWEALTH, AND CROMWELL. 85-129
Commissioners from the Massachusetts Bay rulers to the Long
Parliament 85
Change of Government in England stops emigration to Massachusetts 85
First Address of the Massachusetts Commissioners to the
Long Parliament 86
Ordinance of the Long Parliament in regard to Massachusetts
trade, &c., in 1642, and remarks upon it 87
The Massachusetts Bay Court pass an Act in 1644, of persecution
of the Baptists; another Act authorising discussion, &c., in
favour of the Parliament, but pronouncing as a "high offence,"
to be proceeded against "capitally," anything done or said in
behalf of the King 87
In 1646, the Long Parliament pass an ordinance appointing a
Commission and Governor-General over Massachusetts and other
Colonies, with powers more extensive than the Commission which
had been appointed by Charles the First in 1634 88
The parliamentary authority declared in this ordinance, and
acknowledged by the Puritans in 1646, the same as that
maintained by the United Empire Loyalists of America one
hundred and thirty years afterwards, in the American Revolution
of 1776 (in a note) 88-92
The Presbyterians in 1646 seek liberty of worship at
Massachusetts Bay, but are punished for their petition to
the Massachusetts Bay Government, and are fined and their
papers seized to prevent their appeal to the Puritan Parliament 93
How their appeal to England was defeated 98
Further illustrations of the proceedings of the rulers
of Massachusetts Bay as more intolerant and persecuting
than anything ever attempted by the High Church party in
Upper Canada 98
Colonial government according to Massachusetts Bay
pretensions impossible 99
The order of the Long Parliament to the Massachusetts
Bay Government to surrender the Charter and receive
another; consternation 99
Means employed to evade the order of Parliament 100
Mr. Bancroft's statements, and remarks upon them (in a note) 100
Mr. Palfrey's statements in regard to what he calls the
"Presbyterian Cabal," and remarks upon them 103
Petition of the Massachusetts Bay Court to the Long
Parliament in 1651; two addresses to Cromwell--the one
in 1651, the other in 1654 108
Remarks on these addresses 110
The famous Navigation Act, passed by the Long Parliament
in 1651, oppressive to the Southern Colonies, but
regularly evaded in Massachusetts Bay by collusion
with Cromwell 111
Intolerance and persecutions of Presbyterians, Baptists,
&c., by the Massachusetts Bay rulers, from 1643 to 1651 112
Letters of remonstrance against these persecutions by
the distinguished Puritans, Sir Henry Vane and Sir
Richard Saltonstall 116
Mr. Neal on the same subject (in a note) 120
The Rev. Messrs. Wilson and Norton instigate, and
the Rev. Mr. Cotton justifies, these persecutions
of the Baptists 120
Summary of the first thirty years of the Massachusetts
Bay Government, and character of its persecuting laws
and spirit, by the celebrated Edmund Burke 122
The death of Cromwell; conduct and professions of the
rulers of Massachusetts Bay in regard to Cromwell and
Charles the Second at his restoration; Scotchmen, fighting
on their own soil for their king, taken prisoners at Dunbar,
transported and received as slaves at Massachusetts Bay 124
CHAPTER V.
GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND OTHER COLONIES
DURING TWENTY YEARS, UNDER CHARLES THE SECOND, FROM 1660
TO 1680. 130-203
Restoration; the news of it was received with joy in the
Colonies, except in Massachusetts Bay, where false rumours
were circulated alone 130
Change of tone and professions at Massachusetts Bay on
the confirmation of the news of the King's restoration
and firm establishment on the throne; John Eliot, Indian
apostle, censured for what he had been praised 131
When and under what circumstances the Massachusetts
Bay Government proclaimed the King, and addressed him;
the address (in a note) 132
Remarks on this address, and its contrariety to the
address to Cromwell ten years before 133
The King's kind letter addressed to Governor Endicot (in a note) 135
The Massachusetts Court's "ecstasy of joy" at the King's
letter, and reply to it 135
The King enjoins ceasing to persecute the Quakers: how
answered (in a note) 137
Petitions and representations to the King from Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, Baptists, &c., in Massachusetts Bay, on their
persecutions and disfranchisement by the local Government 137
The King's Puritan Councillors, and kindly feelings for
the Colony of Massachusetts Bay 138
The King's letter of pardon and oblivion, June 28, 1662
(in a note), of the past misdeeds of the Massachusetts
Bay Government, and the six conditions on which he promised
to continue the Charter 139
The King's oblivion of the past and promised continuance
of the Charter for the future joyfully proclaimed; but the
publication of the letter withheld, and when the publication
of it could be withheld no longer, all action on the royal
conditions of toleration, &c., prescribed, was ordered by
the local Government to be suspended until the order of the
Court 141
Messrs. Bradstreet and Norton, sent as agents to England to
answer complaints, are favourably received; are first
thanked and then censured at Boston; Norton dies of grief 142
On account of the complaints and representations made to
England, the King in Council determines upon the
appointment of a Commission to inquire into the matters
complained of in the New England Colonies, and to remedy
what was wrong 145
Slanderous rumours circulated in Massachusetts against
the Commission and Commissioners 146
Copy of the Royal Commission (in a note), explaining
the reasons and objects of it 147
All the New England Colonies, except Massachusetts Bay,
duly receive the Royal Commissioners; their report on
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Plymouth (in a note) 148
Report of the Royal Commissioners on the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay (in a note); difference from the other
Colonies; twenty anomalies in its laws inconsistent with
its Charter; evades the conditions of the promised continuance
of the Charter; denies the King's jurisdiction 149
They address the King, and enclose copies of their
address, with letters, to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the
Earl of Manchester, Lord Say, and the Honourable Robert Boyle 152
The United Empire Loyalists the true Liberals of that day 152
Copy of the long and characteristic address of the
Massachusetts Bay Court to the King, October 25, 1664 (with notes) 153
Letters of Lord Clarendon and the Honourable Robert
Boyle to the Massachusetts Bay Court, in reply to
their letters, and on their address to the King;
pretensions and conduct 160
Conduct and pretensions of the Massachusetts Bay Court
condemned and exposed by loyalist inhabitants of Boston,
Salem, Newbury, and Ipswich, in a petition 163
The King's reply to the long address or petition of
the Massachusetts Bay Court, dated February 25, 1665,
correcting their misstatements, and showing the
groundlessness of their pretended fears and actual
pretensions 166
The King's kind and courteous letter without effect
upon the Massachusetts Bay Court, who refuse to
acknowledge the Royal Commissioners; second and more
decisive letter from the King, April, 1666 169
Retrospect of the transactions between the two Charleses
and the Massachusetts Bay Court from 1630 to 1666, with
extracts of correspondence 171
Royal Charters to Connecticut and Rhode Island, in 1663,
with remarks upon them by Judge Story (in a note) 172
The narrative of the discussion of questions between
Charles the Second and the Massachusetts Bay Court resumed;
summary of facts; questions at issue 178
On receiving the report of his Commissioners, who had
been rejected by the Massachusetts Bay Court, the King
orders agents to be sent to England to answer before
the King in Council to the complaints made against the
Government of the Colony 179
Meetings and proceedings of the Massachusetts Bay Court
on the Royal Message; their address of vindication and
entreaty to the King; and instead of sending agents, send
two large masts, and resolve to send £1,000 to propitiate
the King 180
Loyalists in the Court and among the people, who maintain
the Royal authority 182
Complaints a pretext to perpetuate sectarian rule and
persecutions 183
Baptists persecuted by fine, imprisonment, &c., as late
as 1666 and 1669 (extract of Court proceedings in a note),
several years after the King had forbidden such intolerance
in Massachusetts 184
Statements of Hutchinson and Neal in regard to such
persecutions, and remonstrances by the Rev. Drs. Owen and
T. Goodwin, and other Nonconformist ministers in England 185
Efforts by addresses, gifts, and compliance in some matters,
to propitiate the King's favour 186
Why the King desists for some years from further action 187
Complaints from neighbouring Colonists and individual
citizens, of invasion of rights, and persecutions and
proscriptions by the Massachusetts Bay Government, awaken
at last the renewed attention of the King's Government to
their proceedings; and the King addresses another letter,
July, 1679 (copy of the letter in a note) 187
Seven requirements of this letter just and reasonable,
and observed by all British Colonies at this day 188
Remarks on the unfair statements and unjust imputations
against the British Government of that day, by Mr. Palfrey
and other New England historians 190
Nineteen years' evasions and disregard of the conditions
on which the King promised to perpetuate the Charter;
strong and decisive letter from the King, September, 1680,
to the Massachusetts Bay Court, which caused a special
meeting of the Court, the sending of agents to England, and
the passing of some remedial Acts 193
Examples and proofs of the deceptive character of these
Acts, with measures to neutralize or prevent them from
being carried intoeffect--such as the Navigation Act, Oath
of Allegiance, the Franchise, Liberty of Worship, and
Persecution of Baptists and Quakers 195
Recapitulation; manner of extending the territory and
jurisdiction, so as to include Maine, part of New
Hampshire, &c. (in a note); Mr. Bancroft's statement,
confirming the positions of this and preceding
chapters as to the pretensions and conduct of the
Massachusetts Bay Government 200
CHAPTER VI.
MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF CHARLES
THE SECOND AND THE THREE YEARS' REIGN OF JAMES THE SECOND,
FROM 1680 TO 1689; THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES AND MANNER OF
CANCELLING THE FIRST CHARTER. 204-220
Crisis approaching; the double game of Massachusetts Bay
Court played out; threat of a writ of _quo warranto_ 204
Proceedings of Massachusetts Bay Court; offer a bribe
to the King; bribe clerks of the Privy Council 205
The Massachusetts Bay Court refuse the proposed conditions
of perpetuating the Charter; refuse submission to the
King on any conditions; determine to contest in a Court of
Law; agents restricted; the King provoked 206
The Governor and a majority of the assistants or magistrates
vote in favour of submitting to the King's decision; the
Ministers advise, and a majority of the deputies vote against it 208
A writ of _quo warranto_ issued and sent, June and
July, 1683, summoning the Corporation of Massachusetts Bay
to defend their acts against the complaints and charges
(thirteen in number) made against them, but assuring the
inviolableness of private property, and offering to stay
legal proceedings against the Corporation in case of their
submitting to the decision of the King, on the points
heretofore required by his Majesty as conditions of
perpetuating the Charter 208
The Colony of Massachusetts Bay divided; origin of parties;
the Governor and a majority of the "Upper Branch of the
Government" were the moderate or loyalist party; the majority
of the "House of Deputies," whose "elections were controlled
by the ministers," were the _independence_ party;
violent language by Dr. Increase Mather, whose appeal from
man to God was decided against him (in a note) 209
Resolutions of the two Houses of the Court on the subject 210
Notice to the Massachusetts Bay Court of the issue of
the writ of _quo warranto_, to answer to the complaints
against them, _received_ October, 1683; judgment given
July 1685, nearly two years afterwards 211
The questions at issue unfairly put to popular vote in
Massachusetts; remarks on Mr. Palfrey's account of the
transactions 211
Results of the fall of the Charter; death of Charles
the Second; proclamation of the accession of James the
Second; appointment of Joseph Dudley as Governor;
character of his seven months' government 212
Appointment of Andros as local Governor and
Governor-General; popular beginning of his government;
his tyranny; seized at Boston and sent prisoner to
England; acquitted on account of having obeyed his
instructions 215
Toleration first proclaimed in Massachusetts by
James the Second; thanked by the Massachusetts Bay
Court, and its agent in England, the Rev. Increase
Mather, for the proclamation which lost the King the Crown
of England 216
Concluding review of the characteristics of the
fifty-four years' government of Massachusetts Bay
Government under the first Charter 217
CHAPTER VII.
SECOND ROYAL CHARTER, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
MASSACHUSETTS UNDER IT FROM 1691 TO 1748; THE CLOSE
OF THE FIRST WAR BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, AND THE
PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. 221-241
Retrospect; reasons assigned by Mr. Palfrey why
the Massachusetts Bay Government did not make
armed resistance against "the fall of the first
Charter," and remarks upon them 221
The Government of Massachusetts Bay continued two
years after "the fall of the Charter," as if
nothing had happened 226
They promptly proclaim King James the Second;
take the oath of allegiance to him; send the
Rev. Increase Mather as agent to thank his
Majesty for his proclamation of indulgence,
to pray for the restoration of the first Charter,
and for the removal of Sir Edmund Andros; King
James grants several friendly audiences, but
does nothing 226
On the dethronement of James the Second, Dr. Increase
Mather pays his homage to the new King, with
professions (no doubt sincere) of overflowing
loyalty to him (in a note) 226
Unsuccessful efforts of Dr. Increase Mather to
obtain the restoration of the first Charter, though
aided by the Queen, Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop
Burnet, the Presbyterian clergy, and others 228
How the second Charter was prepared and granted; Dr.
Increase Mather first protests against, and then
gratefully accepts the Charter; nominates the first
Governor, Sir William Phips 229
Nine principal provisions of the new Charter 233
Puritan legal opinions on the defects of the first
Charter, the constant violation of it by the
Massachusetts Bay Government, and the unwisdom of
its restoration (in a note) 233
A small party in Boston opposed to accepting the new
Charter; Judge Story on the salutary influence of
the new Charter on the legislation and progress of
the Colony 235
Happy influence of the new Charter upon toleration,
loyalty, peace and unity of society in Massachusetts--proofs 237
The spirit of the old leaven of bigotry still surviving;
and stung with the facts of Neal's History of New
England on "the persecuting principles and practices of
the first planters," a remarkable letter from the Rev.
Dr. Isaac Watts, dated February 19, 1720, addressed to the
Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, explanatory of Neal's History, and
urging the formal repeal of the "cruel and sanguinary
statutes" which had been passed by the Massachusetts
Bay Court under the first Charter (in a note) 239
Happiness and progress of Massachusetts during seventy
years under the second Charter 240
Debts incurred by the New England Colonies in the
Indian Wars; issue of paper money; how Massachusetts
was relieved by England, and made prosperous 240
CHAPTER VIII.
MASSACHUSETTS AND OTHER COLONIES DURING THE SECOND
WAR BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE, FROM THE PEACE
OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 1748, TO THE PEACE OF PARIS, 1763. 242-279
Places taken during the war between France and England
mutually restored at the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle;
Louisburg and Cape Breton restored to France, in return
for Madras restored to England 242
Boundaries in America between France and England to
be defined by a joint Commission, which could not agree 242
Encroachments of the French on the British Colonies
from 1748 to 1756; complaints of the Colonial Governors
to England; orders to them to defend their territories;
conflicts between the Colonies, French and Indians 243
England's best if not only means of protecting the
Colonies, to prevent the French from transporting soldiers
and war material to Canada; naval preparations 244
Evasive answers and disclaimers of the French
Government, with naval and military preparations 245
Braddock's unfortunate expedition; capture of French
vessels, soldiers, &c., (in a note) 247
The King's speech to Parliament on French encroachments;
convention of Colonies at Albany, and its representatives,
a year before war was declared 247
Mr. Bancroft's imputation against the British Government,
and reply to it (in a note) 247
Mr. Bancroft represents this war as merely _European_;
refuted by himself; his noble representations of the
Protestant character of the war on the part of Great
Britain and other Powers 248
Contests chiefly between the Colonists, the French,
and the Indians, from 1648 to 1654; English soldiers
under General Braddock sent to America in 1655; campaigns
actual and devised that year; Massachusetts active; Sir
William Johnson's victory over the French General, Dieskau 250
War formally declared by England and France in 1756;
French successes in 1755, 1756, and 1757 252
Parliament votes £115,000 sterling to compensate
the Colonies for expenses incurred by them 252
Arrival of the Earl of Loudon from England with troops,
as Commander-in-Chief 252
Capture of Forts Oswego and William Henry by the
French General, Montcalm 253
Dispute between the Earl of Loudon and the Massachusetts
Court, in regard to the Mutiny Act, and quartering
the troops upon the citizens 255
Alarming situation of affairs at the close of the year 1757 255
Divided counsels and isolated resources and action of
the Colonies 257
General Abercrombie arrives with more troops, and
forty German officers to drill and command regiments
to be raised in America (which gave offence to the Colonists) 257
The Governor of Virginia recommends Washington, but
his services are not recognized 257
Generals Abercrombie and Loudon at Albany hesitate
and delay, while the French generals are active and successful 258
The Earl of Loudon's arbitrary conduct in quartering
his officers and troops in Albany and New York (in a note) 258
Loudon never fought a battle in America; and in the only
battle fought by Abercrombie, he was disgracefully defeated
by Montcalm, though commanding the largest army which had
ever been assembled in America. Among the slain in this
battle was the brave General, Lord Howe, the favourite
of the army and citizens 259
The Massachusetts Court appropriate £250 sterling to
erect a monument in Westminster Abbey in honour of Lord Howe 260
Abercrombie--the last of the incompetent English
Generals--recalled, and succeeded by Lord Amherst as
Commander-in-Chief, assisted by General Wolfe, when,
under the Premiership of the elder Pitt, the whole policy
and fortunes of the war undergo a complete change 260
Colonel Bradstreet's brilliant achievement in taking
and destroying Fort Frontenac 261
Lord Amherst plans three expeditions, all of which
were successful 261
Louisburg besieged and taken; heroism of General Wolfe;
great rejoicings 262
Admiral Boscawen returns to England; Lord Amherst's
energetic movements 262
Niagara taken; Fort du Quesne taken, and called Pittsburg;
Ticonderoga and Crown Point taken; Quebec taken 263
Attempt of the French to recover Quebec 266
Parliamentary compensation to Massachusetts (in a note) 267
Montreal besieged and taken, and all Canada surrendered
to the King of Great Britain, through Lord Amherst 267
General Amherst's address to the army (in a note) 268
The war not closed; conquests in the West Indies;
troubles with the Indians; reduction of the Cherokees 269
Treaty of Paris; general rejoicings 269
Massachusetts benefited by the war 270
Moneys provided by England for the war abstracted
from England and expended in the Colonies 270
Grateful acknowledgments and avowed loyalty to England
by Massachusetts; the language and feelings of the other
Colonies the same 271
CHAPTER IX.
RELATION OF ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES WITH EACH OTHER
AND WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 273-279
I. The position of England in respect to the other
European Powers after the Peace of Paris, 1763 273
II. The position of the American Colonies, in regard
to England and other nations, after the Peace of Paris
in 1763 274
III. Effects of the change of policy by the English
Government in regard to the Colonies 277
IV. First acts of the British Government which caused
dissatisfaction and alienation in the Colonies 279
CHAPTER X.
THE STAMP ACT; ITS EFFECTS IN AMERICA; VIRGINIA LEADS
THE OPPOSITION TO IT; RIOTS AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN
BOSTON; PETITIONS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT IN ENGLAND; REPEAL
OF THE STAMP ACT; REJOICINGS AT ITS REPEAL IN ENGLAND AND
AMERICA; THE DECLARATORY ACT. 283-293
APPENDIX "A" TO CHAPTER X.
Containing extracts of the celebrated speeches of
Mr. Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré on passing the
Stamp Act 294
Remarks on the speeches of the Right Honourable Mr.
Townsend and Colonel Barré; Puritan treatment of the Indians 296
APPENDIX "B" TO CHAPTER X.
Containing the speeches of Lords Chatham and Camden
on the Stamp Act and its repeal 302
Dr. Franklin's evidence at the Bar of the House of Commons 308
CHAPTER XI.
AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT OVER THE BRITISH COLONIES. 317-322
CHAPTER XII.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS FROM THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT,
MARCH, 1766, TO THE END OF THE YEAR. 323-328
CHAPTER XIII.
1767.--A NEW PARLIAMENT; FIRST ACT AGAINST THE
PROVINCE OF NEW YORK; BILLETING SOLDIERS ON THE COLONIES. 329-336
Raising a revenue by Act of Parliament in the Colonies 330
Three Bills brought in, and passed by Parliament, to
raise a revenue in the Colonies 331
Vice-Admiralty Courts and the Navy employed as custom-house
officers 334
The effect of these Acts and measures in the Colonies 335
CHAPTER XIV.
EVENTS OF 1768.--PROTESTS AND LOYAL PETITIONS OF THE
COLONISTS AGAINST THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY ACTS FOR
RAISING REVENUES IN THE COLONIES. 337-352
Petition to the King 337
Noble circular of the Massachusetts Legislative
Assembly to the Assemblies of the other Colonies, on
the unconstitutional and oppressive Acts of the British
Parliament 338
This circular displeasing to the British Ministry, and
strongly condemned by it in a circular from the Earl of
Hillsborough 341
Admirable and patriotic reply of the Virginia House of
Burgesses to the Massachusetts circular 342
Similar replies from the Legislative Assemblies of
other Colonies 343
Excellent answer of the General Assembly of Maryland to
a message of the Governor on the same subject 344
The effects of Lord Hillsborough's circular letter to the
Colonial Governors 345
Experiment of the newly asserted power of Parliament to
tax and rule the Colonies, commended at Boston and in
Massachusetts 348
Three causes for popular irritation; seizures; riotous
resistance; seven hundred soldiers landed, and required to
be provided for, which was refused; the Provincial Assembly
and its proceedings; ships of war in Boston Harbour 348
CHAPTER XV.
EVENTS OF 1769.--UNJUST IMPUTATIONS OF PARLIAMENT ON
THE LOYALTY OF THE COLONISTS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF
THEIR JUST AND LOYAL PETITIONS. 353-363
Manly response to these imputations on the part of the
Colonists, and their assertion of British constitutional
rights, led by the General Assembly of Virginia 355
Dissolution of Colonial Assemblies; agreements for the
non-importation of British manufactured goods entered
into by the Colonists 356
The General Assembly of Massachusetts refuse to legislate
under the guns of a land and naval force; Governor
Barnard's reply 357
Proceedings of the Governor and House of Assembly on
quartering troops in Boston 358
Governor Barnard's recall and character (in a note) 359
Origin of the non-importation agreement in New York;
sanctioned by persons in the highest stations; union of
the Colonies planned 360
Sons of Governors Barnard and Hutchinson refuse to enter
into the non-importation agreement 360
They were at length compelled to yield; humiliating
position of the soldiers in Boston; successful resistance
of the importation of British goods 360
Joy in the Colonies by a despatch from Lord Hillsborough
promising to repeal the obnoxious Revenue Acts, and to
impose no more taxes on the Colonies 361
The duty of threepence per pound on tea excepted 363
CHAPTER XVI.
EVENTS OF 1770.--AN EVENTFUL EPOCH.--EXPECTATIONS
OF RECONCILIATION AND UNION DISAPPOINTED. 364-373
Collisions between the soldiers and inhabitants in Boston 365
The soldiers insulted and abused 365
The Boston Massacre; the soldiers acquitted by a Boston jury 365
The payment of official salaries independent of the
Colonies another cause of dissatisfaction 366
What had been claimed by the old American Colonies contended
for in Canada, and granted, to the satisfaction and progress
of the country 367
Lord North's Bill to repeal the Colonial Revenue Acts,
except the duty on tea, which he refused to repeal until
"America should be prostrate at his feet" 368
Governor Pownall's speech and amendment to repeal the
duty on tea, rejected by a majority of 242 to 204 369
Associations in the Colonies against the use of tea
imported from England 370
The tea duty Act of Parliament virtually defeated in America 370
The controversy revived and intensified by the agreement
between Lord North and the East India Company, to remit
the duty of a shilling in the pound on all teas exported
by it to America, where the threepence duty on the pound
was to be collected 371
Combined opposition of English and American merchants,
and the Colonists from New Hampshire to Georgia, against
this scheme 372
CHAPTER XVII.
EVENTS OF 1771, 1772, 1773.--THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S
TEA REJECTED IN EVERY PROVINCE OF AMERICA; NOT A CHEST OF
ITS TEA SOLD; RESOLUTIONS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN PHILADELPHIA
ON THE SUBJECT, THE MODEL FOR THOSE OF OTHER COLONIES. 374-387
The Governor, Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, and his
sons (the consignees), alone determined to land the tea
at Boston 376
The causes and affair of throwing the East India Company's
tea into the Boston Harbour, as stated on both sides 377
The causes and the disastrous effect of the arrangement
between the British Ministry and the East India Company 381
The King the author of the scheme; His Majesty's
condemnation of the petitions and remonstrances from
the Colonies (in a note) 382
Governor Hutchinson's proceedings, and his account of
the transactions at Boston 383
His vindication of himself, and description of his
pitiable condition 383
Remarks on the difference between his conduct and that of
the Governors of other provinces 387
CHAPTER XVIII.
EVENTS OF 1774.--ALL CLASSES IN THE COLONIES
DISCONTENTED; ALL CLASSES AND ALL THE PROVINCES REJECT
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA. 388-402
Opposition to the tea duty represented in England as
"rebellion," and the advocates of colonial rights
designated "rebels" and "traitors" 388
Three Acts of Parliament against the inhabitants of
Boston and of Massachusetts, all infringing and
extinguishing the heretofore acknowledged constitutional
rights and liberties of the people 389
Debates in Parliament, and misrepresentations of the
English press on American affairs 390
Lord North explains the American policy; the Bill to
punish the town of Boston; petitions against it from the
agent of Massachusetts and the city of London; debates on
it in the Commons and Lords 394
Distress of Boston; addresses of sympathy, and contributions
of relief from other towns and provinces; generous conduct
of the inhabitants of Massachusetts and Salem 395
The second penal Bill against Massachusetts, changing
the constitution of the government of the province 396
Third penal Bill for the immunity of governors,
magistrates, and other public officers in Massachusetts 396
The fourth Act of Parliament, legalizing the quartering
of the troops in Boston 397
The effects of these measures in the Colonies the reverse
of what their authors and advocates had anticipated; all
the Colonies protest against them 397
General Gage's arrival in Boston, and courteous reception,
as successor to Governor Hutchinson--his character (in a note) 398
Meeting of the Massachusetts Legislature; adjournment to
Salem; their respectful, loyal, but firm reply to the
Governor's speech; his bitter answer 399
Courteous, loyal, and patriotic answer of the Assembly
to the Governor's speech 400
The House of Assembly proceed with closed doors, and
adopt, by a majority of 92 to 12, resolutions declaring
the necessity of a meeting of all the Colonies to consult
together upon the present state of the Colonies 401
Curious dissolution of the last Legislature held in
the Province of Massachusetts, according to the tenor of
its Charter (in a note) 401
CHAPTER XIX.
1774, CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF THE FIRST
GENERAL CONGRESS IN SEPTEMBER. 403-408
Resolutions in all the Colonies in favour of a general
Convention or Congress, and election of delegates to it 403
General sympathy and liberality on behalf of the town
of Boston 404
How information on subjects of agitation was rapidly
diffused throughout the Colonies 405
The Act of Parliament changing the Constitution of
Massachusetts without its consent gave rise to the
American Revolution; the authority of that Act never
acknowledged in Massachusetts 407
CHAPTER XX.
GENERAL CONGRESS OR CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA,
SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1774. 409-421
The word Congress "defined" 409
Each day's proceedings commenced with prayer; each
Province allowed but one vote 410
The members of the Congress and their constituents
throughout the Colonies thoroughly loyal, while
maintaining British constitutional rights 410
The declaration of rights and grievances by this
Congress (in a note) 411
The explicit, loyal, and touching address and petition of
this Congress to the King 414
Manly and affectionate appeal to the British nation 416
The address of the members of the Congress to their
constituents--a temperate and lucid exposition of their
grievances and sentiments 417
Reasons for giving a summary and extracts of these
addresses of the first General Congress 418
General elections in England hastened; adverse to the Colonies 419
The King's speech at the opening of the new Parliament,
the 30th of November, and answers of both Houses 419
Opposition in both Houses; protest in the Lords 420
The proceedings of the first American Congress reach
England before the adjournment of Parliament for the
Christmas holidays, and produce an impression favourable
to the Colonies; hopes of a change of the
Ministerial policy in regard to the Colonies 420
CHAPTER XXI.
(1775.)
THE RE-ASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT THE 20TH OF JANUARY;
LETTERS FROM COLONIAL GOVERNORS, REVENUE AND MILITARY OFFICERS,
AGAINST THE COLONISTS OPPOSED TO THE MINISTERIAL POLICY AND
THE PARLIAMENTARY ACTS; THE MINISTRY, SUPPORTED BY PARLIAMENT,
DETERMINE UPON CONTINUING AND STRENGTHENING THE COERCIVE POLICY
AGAINST THE COLONIES. 422-432
The Earl of Chatham's amendment and speech in the Lords,
against the coercive policy of the Ministry and in behalf
of Colonial rights, supported by other Lords and
numerous politicians 423
Lord Suffolk in favour of coercion; Lord Camden against it,
and in favour of the rights of the Colonies; Lord Chatham
and others denounced by the King (in a note) 424
The amendment negatived by a majority of 68 to 18; but the
King's own brother, the Duke of Cumberland, was one of the
minority; yet the King boasted of the "handsome majority" in
support of his coercive policy 425
The Earl of Chatham's bill "to settle the troubles in
America," not allowed a first reading in the Lords 425
Petitions from various towns in England, Scotland, and
Ireland against the American policy of the ministry 425
Petition to the Commons from Dr. Franklin, Mr. Bollan,
and Mr. Lee, Colonial agents, praying to be heard at
the bar of the House in support of the petition of the
American Continental Congress, rejected by a
majority of 218 to 68 426
Dr. Franklin's dismissal from office; his success in
office; his sentiments on the rejection of the petitions
of the Colonies and punishment of their agents (in a note) 426
Lord North's resolution for an address (given entire) to
the King, endorsing the coercive policy, and denouncing
complaints and opposition to it in America as "rebellion" 426
Remarks on the gross inaccuracies and injustice and
empty promises of this address 428
Debates in the Commons on Lord North's address to the King 429
Mr. Fox's amendment to Lord North's address rejected by a
majority of 304 to 105 430
Second great debate on Lord North's warlike resolution for an
address to the King, and Lord John Cavendish's amendment to
it; speakers on both sides 430
Lord North's address, made the joint address of both Houses
of Parliament, presented to the King, with His Majesty's reply 431
Remarks on the King's reply, and the proceedings of Parliament
in respect to the Colonies 431
The Ministry and Parliament virtually declare war against the
Colonies 432
CHAPTER XXII.
(1775, CONTINUED.)
PARLIAMENT PROCEEDS TO PASS AN ACT TO PUNISH THE NEW
ENGLAND COLONIES FOR SYMPATHISING WITH MASSACHUSETTS, BY
RESTRICTING THEIR TRADE TO ENGLAND AND DEPRIVING THEM OF
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES. 433-441
Parliament passes a second Act to punish in the same way
all the Colonies, for the same reason as those of the New
England Colonies, except New York, Delaware, North Carolina;
these Provinces decline the exception 433
Much expected from the General Assembly of New York, which
had not endorsed the first Continental Congress; the
Assembly meets and adopts a petition and remonstrances on
the grievances of all the Colonies, including Massachusetts;
this address, adopted as late as May, 1775, a Loyal United
Empire Document; extracts from this admirable and statesmanlike
address 434
Mr. Burke, in a conciliatory speech, proposes to present
this memorial to the House of Commons 437
Lord North opposes it 438
Mr. Fox defends it, and moves against its rejection 438
Governor Johnstone justifies the reception of it by example 439
Lord North's amendment to reject the petition adopted by a
majority of 186 to 67 439
The memorial, after debate, rejected by the House of Lords 440
Reflections of the royal historian on the effect upon the
public mind in England from the rejection of the New York
Assembly's appeal by both Houses of Parliament (in a note) 440
The Colonists still persist in hopes of reconciliation and
the maintenance of their constitutional rights, without
entertaining a thought of independence 441
CHAPTER XXIII.
(1775, CONTINUED.)
THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS IN AMERICA. 442-458
The second Continental Congress meets at Philadelphia,
in the month of September 442
Number and character of its members 442
Their credentials and instructions to seek remedies for
grievances, but not separation from the Mother Country;
mode of proceeding 443
Noble and affectionate petition to the King 443
This petition read in the House of Commons the 7th of
December, 1775, but rejected 444
Penn, the agent of the Congress, not asked a question
when he presented the petition, and was refused an
interview by the King (in a note) 444
The King's answer a proclamation declaring the petition
"rebellion" and the petitioners "rebels" 445
The effect of this proclamation upon the Continental
Congress, and of the accompanying announcement, that the
army and navy were to be greatly increased, and seventeen
thousand mercenary soldiers from Hanover and Hesse were
to be engaged to bring the Colonists to absolute submission 446
Refusal of English Generals and soldiers to fight against
the Colonists (in a note) 446
Bombardment and burning of Falmouth (now Portland) by
Captain Mowat, of the British navy (two accounts of
it, in a note) 446
The large majority of the Congress yet opposed to
independence, but were unanimously in favour of energetic
measures for the defence of their constitutional rights 448
Tom Paine's appeal to the Colonists, called _Common Sense_,
the first publication in America against monarchy 450
But the majority of the Congress opposed to republicanism 450
The exact time when the leading men of the Colonies
conceived the measure of independence not certainly known 451
Prompted by the now-known King's own personal acts and
hostility to the American Colonists 451
Deprecated by South Carolina in May, 1775, after the bloody
affair of Concord and Lexington (in a note) 451
Disclaimed by Dr. Franklin in 1773 452
Disclaimed by Washington and Jefferson until after the
middle of the year 1775 453
Though urged by President Dwight (of Yale), discountenanced
by leading New Englanders in July, 1775 453
Retrospect of events and position of affairs between
Great Britain and the Colonies at the close of the year 1775 454
CHAPTER XXIV.
(THE YEAR 1775 AND BEGINNING OF 1776.)
AN EVENTFUL YEAR; PREPARATION IN ENGLAND TO REDUCE
COLONISTS TO ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION; SELF-ASSERTED AUTHORITY
OF PARLIAMENT. 459-478
Oppressive Acts of Parliament enumerated, with the
measures of employing foreign soldiers, Indians, and
slaves; and all with the express sanction of the King,
and while Colonists professed loyalty, and asked for
nothing but the redress of grievances and restoration
of rights which they had heretofore enjoyed 459
The loyalty and effective services of the Colonists
in the English and French war, and the experience and
skill they thereby acquired in military affairs;
their superiority as marksmen 460
They desire to provide for their own defence, and
for the support of their own civil government, as
aforetime, and as is done in the provinces of the
Canadian Dominion, but this is opposed by the King and
his ministers 460
General Gage (Governor of Massachusetts, and
Commander-in-Chief of the British in America)
commences the first attack upon the Colonists, by
ordering soldiers at night to seize Colonial arms
and ammunition; sends 800 soldiers to Concord for
that purpose; driven back to Lexington with
heavy loss; loss of the Colonists 460
The affair of Concord and Lexington followed by the
Battle of Bunker's Hill; numbers engaged on both sides 460
In the Battle of Bunker's Hill, as well as the previous
conflicts, the first shot was fired by the British
soldiers upon the Colonists, who, by order and policy,
acted strictly on the defensive 461
English account of the Battle of Bunker's Hill, by the
royal historian, Dr. Andrews (in a note) 461
Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, about the same
time, committed outrages upon the inhabitants of
Virginia similar to those which General Gage
committed upon the people of Massachusetts 462
Traditional and deep loyalty of the Virginians, and
their aversion to revolution, but resolved to
defend their rights 464
Lord Dunmore (by order of the Secretary of State)
assembles the Burgesses of Virginia, to deliberate
and decide upon Lord North's so-called "conciliatory
proposition" to the Colonies; the proposition
rejected; Mr. Jefferson's report upon, quoted;
an admirable document, eulogized in the strongest terms
by the Earl of Shelburne; how viewed by the French
Foreign Minister, Vergennes (in a note) 464
Lord Dunmore issues a proclamation to free the slaves;
on the night of the 20th of April sends a body of
marines to seize and carry off a quantity of gunpowder,
belonging to the Colony, stored in a magazine at
Williamsburg; excitement of the inhabitants, and
their demand for the restoration of the powder; Lord
Dunmore threatens, but is at length compelled to
return the value of the powder 465
Lord Dunmore's threat to free the slaves, and letter
to the Secretary of State, as to how, with aid "of a
small body of troops and arms," he could raise an
ample force "among the Indians and negroes and other
persons" 466
Horror and alarm in the South at Lord Dunmore's
threat to free the slaves, and preparation for
resistance (in a note) 466
Lord Dunmore (moved by his fears) leaves the
Government House, and goes on board of a ship of
war at Norfolk, almost twelve miles from
Williamsburg, the seat of government 466
The House of Burgesses remonstrate with Lord Dumnore
for leaving the seat of government; entreat him to
return, and assure him and his family of perfect
safety; but he refuses, seizes a private printing
establishment and two printers, and issues
proclamations and attempts to govern from a ship of war 467
Lord Dunmore commands the water by a small flotilla of
war vessels, and frequently landed forces to seize arms,
&c.; attempt to destroy the town of Hampton; is repelled
by the inhabitants, and volunteer rifle companies come
to their aid; the first battle in Virginia; its success
with the Virginians 467
Account of this affair, and of Lord Dunmore's policy,
by the _English Annual Register_ (in a note) 468
In consequence of Lord Dunmore's failure against the
town of Hampton, he issues a proclamation from on
board the war ship _William_, off Norfolk, declaring
martial law throughout the Colony, "requiring all persons
capable of bearing arms to repair to His Maiesty's standard,
or be considered as _traitors_;" and declaring all
indentured servants, negroes and others, appertaining
to _rebels_, who were able and willing to bear arms,
and who joined His Majesty's forces, to be free 468
Remarks of the _English Annual Register_ on this
abominable proclamation. 469
Lord Dunmore's conduct unlawful, as well as unjust and inhuman 470
The men on Lord Dunmore's fleet distressed for want of
provisions, which the inhabitants on land refused to
supply: in consequence of which the town of Norfolk
(the first commercial town in Virginia) is reduced to
ashes 471
Account of this barbarous transaction by the _English
Annual Register_ and Mr. Bancroft (in a note); remarks
upon, by the English and American press; effect of its
announcement upon the mind of Washington 472
The conduct and situation of the Governors of South
and North Carolina similar to that of Lord Dunmore
in Virginia (in a note) 472
The loyal Churchmen of Virginia, and the loyal
Presbyterians of the two Carolinas, receive the same
treatment from Dunmore, Campbell, and Martin, as the
"republican" Congregationalists did from General Gage 473
Each of the three Southern Governors betook themselves
to ships; all the Colonists treated with like severity 473
The King's speech at the meeting of Parliament, October
26th, 1775, and discussion upon it 474
CHAPTER XXV.
CONGRESS OF 1776: PROCEEDINGS PRELIMINARY TO, AND
ADOPTION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; A COPY OF
THE DECLARATION ITSELF. 479-491
Meeting of Congress at Philadelphia, the 12th of May,
1776; state of the Colonies 479
Formidable preparations in England; effect of them upon
the Colonies different from that expected in England 479
The thirteen Colonies a unit for the defence of their
constitutional rights and liberties 479
Separation from England not even yet contemplated;
though resisting the King they were loyal to the
constitution and liberties of the Kingdom, as were the
Barons at Runnymede when they resisted King John to maintain
constitutional rights; the words of Washington and the New York
Provincial Congress (in a note) 480
The question of questions with the Congress; one
Republican, but the others professedly Monarchists;
Samuel Adams, his character and writings 481
Independence first moved in Congress, May, 1776; how
manipulated and promoted; not the spontaneous uprising
of the people 482
Agitation to prepare the minds of the people for independence 482
The writings of Tom Paine the chief instrument of
creating hatred to monarchy and a desire for
independence (in a note) 483
Congress itself divided on the question of independence;
what Provinces opposed to or not prepared for independence 483
Resolution for independence; long debates; postponed
for three weeks, by a vote of seven to five Colonies 484
Committee to prepare a Declaration appointed 485
Agitation to promote independence 485
Three days' debates on the question of independence 485
Decision to vote by Colonies, and that the decision on
each _question should be reported to the world as
unanimous_, whatever might be the votes in Congress 486
On the question of independence, _six_ Colonies
were in the affirmative and _six_ in the negative;
how Pennsylvania was brought over to vote for
independence, by one of its members being induced
to absent himself; and how the votes of other Colonies
were obtained for the affirmative (in a note) 486
The Declaration of Independence reported, discussed,
amended, and adopted, but not unanimously, though so
reported (in a note) 487
Remarks on the voting of Congress on the Declaration
of Independence 487
Copy of the Declaration of Independence 488
CHAPTER XXVI.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISCUSSED. 492-517
The Author's sympathy with the Colonists, and advocacy
of their rights as British subjects, and their right to
defend them by force of arms 492
Preliminary remarks on the impolicy and injustice to
many thousands on both sides of the Atlantic of the
Declaration of Independence 493
The pure and exalted character of the advocates of
Colonial rights, and high eulogy upon them and their
descendants, by the Earls of Chatham and Shelburne,
both of whom were opposed to the separation of the Colonies
from the mother country 494
Homage to the motives and patriotism of the fathers
of American Independence; the provocation which they
had received; the successes of the Colonists on the
field of battle before the Declaration of Independence,
and their disasters afterwards; but for having committed
themselves to such Declaration, they would to all appearance
have obtained within a twelvemonth all they had desired,
without the shedding of blood, without the unnatural alliance
with France, much less a war of seven years 495
I. The Declaration of Independence a renunciation of
all the principles on which the General Congress,
Provincial Legislatures and Convention professed to
act from the beginning of the contest; proofs and
illustrations 496
II. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of
good faith to those statesmen and numerous other parties in
England who had, in and out of Parliament, defended and
supported the rights and character of the Colonies during
the whole contest; proofs and illustrations 499
III. The Declaration of Independence was also a violation,
not only of good faith, but of justice to the numerous
Colonists who adhered to connexion with the mother country;
proofs and illustrations 501
IV. The Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, was the
commencement of persecutions and proscriptions and confiscation
of property against those who refused to renounce the oaths
which they had taken, as well as the principles and traditions
which had until then been professed by their persecutors and
oppressors as well as by themselves; proofs and illustrations 504
The plea of tyranny (in a note) 504
Numbers, character, and position of Loyalists at the time,
as stated by American writers; laws passed against them 504
The beneficial results of the Congress had it adhered to
the former principles of its members, and acted justly
to all parties 507
V. The Declaration of Independence was the commencement
of weakness in the army of its authors, and of defeats
in their field of battle; proofs and illustrations 508
VI. The Declaration of Independence was the avowed
expedient and prelude for an alliance with France and
Spain against the Mother Country; proofs and illustrations;
the secret and double game played between the Congress and
France, both before and after the Declaration of Independence 513
LOYALISTS OF AMERICA
AND
THEIR TIMES.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.--TWO CLASSES OF EMIGRANTS--TWO GOVERNMENTS FOR SEVENTY
YEARS--THE "PILGRIM FATHERS"--THEIR PILGRIMAGES AND SETTLEMENT.
In proceeding to trace the development and characteristics of Puritanism
in an English colony, I beg to remark that I write, not as an
Englishman, but as a Canadian colonist by birth and life-long residence,
and as an early and constant advocate of those equal rights, civil and
religious, and that system of government in the enjoyment of which
Canada is conspicuous.
In tracing the origin and development of those views and feelings which
culminated in the American Revolution, in the separation of thirteen
colonies from Great Britain, it is necessary to notice the early
settlement and progress of those New England colonies in which the seeds
of that revolution were first sown and grew to maturity.
The colonies of New England resulted from two distinct emigrations of
English Puritans; two classes of Puritans; two distinct governments for
more than sixty years. The one class of these emigrants were called
"Pilgrim Fathers," having first fled from England to Holland, and thence
emigrated to New England in 1620, in the _Mayflower_, and called their
place of settlement "New Plymouth," where they elected seven Governors
in succession, and existed under a self-constituted government for
seventy years. The other class were called "Puritan Fathers;" the first
instalment of their emigration took place in 1629, under Endicot; they
were known as the Massachusetts Bay Company, and their final capital was
Boston, which afterwards became the capital of the Province and of the
State.
The characteristics of the separate and independent government of these
two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant and
non-persecuting, and loyal to the King during the whole period of its
seventy years' existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all
religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal from the
beginning to the Government from which it held its Charter.
It is essential to my purpose to compare and contrast the proceedings of
these two governments in relation to religious liberty and loyalty. I
will first give a short account of the origin and government of the
"_Pilgrim_ Fathers" of New Plymouth, and then the government of the
"_Puritan_ Fathers" of Massachusetts Bay.[1]
In the later years of Queen Elizabeth, a "fiery young clergyman," named
Robert Brown, declared against the lawfulness of both Episcopal and
Presbyterian Church government, or of fellowship with either
Episcopalians or Presbyterians, and in favour of the absolute
independence of each congregation, and the ordination as well as
selection of the minister by it. This was the origin of the Independents
in England. The zeal of Brown, like that of most violent zealots, soon
cooled, and he returned and obtained a living again in the Church of
England, which he possessed until his death; but his principles of
separation and independence survived. The first congregation was formed
about the year 1602, near the confines of York, Nottingham, and
Leicester, and chose for its pastor John Robinson. They gathered for
worship secretly, and were compelled to change their places of meeting
in order to elude the pursuit of spies and soldiers. After enduring many
cruel sufferings, Robinson, with the greater part of his congregation,
determined to escape persecution by becoming _pilgrims_ in a foreign
land. The doctrines of Arminius, and the advocacy and sufferings of his
followers in the cause of religious liberty, together with the spirit of
commerce, had rendered the Government of Holland the most tolerant in
Europe; and thither Robinson and his friends fled from their persecuting
pursuers in 1608, and finally settled at Leyden. Being Independents,
they did not form a connection with any of the Protestant Churches of
the country. Burke remarks that "In Holland, though a country of the
greatest religious freedom in the world, they did not find themselves
better satisfied than they had been in England. There they were
tolerated, indeed, but watched; their zeal began to have dangerous
languors for want of opposition; and being without power or consequence,
they grew tired of the indolent security of their sanctuary; they chose
to remove to a place where they should see no superior, and therefore
they sent an agent to England, who agreed with the Council of Plymouth
for a tract of land in America, within their jurisdiction, to settle in,
and obtained from the King (James) permission to do so."[2]
During their twelve years' _pilgrimage_ in Holland they were good
citizens; not an accusation was brought against any one of them in the
courts; they were honourable and industrious, and took to new trades for
subsistence. Brewster, a man of property, and a gentleman in England,
learned to be a printer at the age of forty-five. Bradford, who had been
a farmer in England, became a silk-dyer. Robinson became noted as a
preacher and controversialist against Arminianism.
Bradford, the historian of their colony and its Governor for eleven
years, gives the chief reasons for their dispute in Holland and of their
desire to remove to America.[3]
As to what particular place these Pilgrims should select for settlement
in America, some were for Guiana, some for Virginia; but they at length
obtained a patent from the second or Northern Virginia Company for a
settlement on the northern part of their territory, which extended to
the fortieth degree of North latitude--Hutchinson Bay. "The Dutch
laboured to persuade them to go to the Hudson river, and settle under
the West India Company; but they had not lost their affection for the
English, and chose to be under their government and protection."[4]
Bancroft, after quoting the statement that "upon their talking of
removing, sundry of the Dutch would have them go under them, and made
them large offers," remarks: "But the Pilgrims were attached to their
nationality as Englishmen, and to the language of their times. A secret
but deeply-seated love of their country led them to the generous purpose
of recovering the protection of England by enlarging her dominions. They
were restless with the desire to live once more under the government of
their native land."[5] It appears from Bradford's History, as well as
from his Letter Book, and other narratives, that there were serious
disputes and recriminations among the Pilgrim exiles and their friends
in England, before matters could be arranged for their departure. But
only "the minor part [of Robinson's congregation], with Mr. Brewster,
their elder, resolved to enter upon this great work." They embarked at
Delft Haven, a seaport town on the River Maeser, eight miles from Delft,
fourteen miles from Leyden, and thirty-six miles from Amsterdam. The
last port from which they sailed in England was Southampton; and after a
tempestuous passage of 65 days, in the _Mayflower_, of 181 tons, with
101 passengers, they spied land, which proved to be Cape Cod--about 150
miles north of their intended place of destination. The pilot of the
vessel had been there before and recognised the land as Cape Cod; "the
which," says Bradford, "being made and certainly known to be it, they
were not a little joyful."[6] But though the Pilgrims were "not a
little joyful" at safely reaching the American coast, and at a place so
well known as Cape Cod; yet as that was not their intended place of
settlement, they, without landing, put again to sea for Hudson river
(New York), but were driven back by stress of weather, and, on account
of the lateness of the season, determined not to venture out to sea
again, but to seek a place of settlement within the harbour.
As the Pilgrims landed north of the limits of the Company from which
they received their patent, and under which they expected to become a
"body politic," it became to them "void and useless." This being known,
some of the emigrants on board the _Mayflower_ began to make "mutinous
speeches," saying that "when they came ashore they would use their own
liberty, for none had power to command them." Under these circumstances
it was thought necessary to "begin with a combination, which might be as
firm as any patent, and in some respects more so." Accordingly, an
agreement was drawn up and signed in the cabin of the _Mayflower_ by
forty-one male passengers, who with their families constituted the whole
colony of one hundred and one.[7] Having thus provided against disorder
and faction, the Pilgrims proceeded to land, when, as Bradford says,
they "fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven who had
brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from
all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the
firm and stable earth, their proper element."[8] Of the manner of their
settlement, their exposures, sufferings, labours, successes, I leave the
many ordinary histories to narrate, though they nearly all revel in the
marvellous.[9]
I will therefore proceed to give a brief account of the Plymouth
government in relation to religious liberty within its limits and
loyalty to the Mother Country.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: From the nature of the facts and questions discussed, the
following history is largely _documentary_ rather than popular; and the
work being an _historical argument_ rather than a popular narrative,
will account for repetitions in some chapters, that the vital facts of
the whole argument may be kept as constantly as possible before the mind
of the reader.]
[Footnote 2: Burke's (the celebrated Edmund) Account of European
Settlements in America. Second Edition, London, 1758, Vol. II., p. 143.]
[Footnote 3: Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 22-24.
Massachusetts Historical Collection, 4th Series, Vol. III.]
[Footnote 4: History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., pp. 11, 12.]
[Footnote 5: History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 304.]
[Footnote 6: Many American writers and orators represent the Pilgrims as
first finding themselves on an unknown as well as inhospitable coast,
amidst shoals and breakers, in danger of shipwreck and death. But this
is all fancy; there is no foundation for it in the statement of Governor
Bradford, who was one of the passengers, and who says that they were
"not a little joyful" when they found certainly that the land was Cape
Cod; and afterwards, speaking of their coasting in the neighbourhood,
Bradford says, "They hasted to a place that their pilot (one Willm.
Coppin, _who had been there before_) did assure them was a good harbour,
which he had been in." (History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 86.) They did
not even go ashore on their first entrance into Cape Cod harbour; but,
as Bradford says, "after some deliberation among themselves and with the
master of the ship, they _tacked about_ and resolved to stand for the
_southward, to find some place about Hudson river for their
habitation_." (_Ib._, p. 117.) "After sailing southward half a day, they
found themselves suddenly among shoals and breakers" (a ledge of rocks
and shoals which are a terror to navigators to this day); and the wind
shifting against them, they scud back to Cape Cod, and, as Bradford
says, "thought themselves happy to get out of those dangers before night
overtook them, and the next day they got into the Cape harbour, where
they rode in safety. Being thus arrived in a good harbour, and brought
safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven,"
&c.
The selection, before leaving England, of the neighbourhood of the
Hudson river as their location, showed a worldly sagacity not to be
exceeded by any emigrants even of the present century. Bancroft
designates it "the best position on the whole coast." (History of the
United States, Vol. I., p. 209.)]
[Footnote 7: The agreement was as follows:--"In the name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
Sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain,
France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c., having undertaken,
for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour
of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the
northern parts of [then called] Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly
and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and
combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better
ordering and preservation, and furthermore of the ends aforesaid; and by
virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just laws,
ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as
shall be thought most mete and convenient for the general good of the
colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In
witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the
11th of November, in the 18th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord
King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of
Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620." Mr. John Carver was chosen
Governor for one year.
This simple and excellent instrument of union and government, suggested
by apprehensions of disorder and anarchy, in the absence of a patent for
common protection, has been magnified by some American writers into an
almost supernatural display of wisdom and foresight, and even the
resurrection of the rights of humanity. Bancroft says, "This was the
birth of popular constitutional liberty. The middle ages had been
familiar with charters and constitutions; but they had been merely
compacts for immunities, partial enfranchisements, patents of nobility,
concessions of municipal privileges, or the limitations of sovereign in
favour of feudal institutions. In the cabin of the _Mayflower_ humanity
recorded its rights, and instituted a government on the basis of 'equal
laws' for the 'general good.'" (History of the United States, Vol. I, p.
310.)
Now, any reader of the agreement will see that it says not a word about
"popular constitutional liberty," much less of the "rights of humanity."
It was no Declaration of Independence. Its signers call themselves
"loyal subjects of the King of England," and state one object of their
emigration to be the "honour of our King and country." The Pilgrim
Fathers did, in the course of time, establish a simple system of popular
government; but from the written compact signed in the cabin of the
_Mayflower_ any form of government might be developed. The good sense of
the following remarks by Dr. Young, in his _Chronicles of the Pilgrims
of Plymouth_, contrast favourably with the fanciful hyperboles of
Bancroft: "It seems to me that a great deal more has been discovered in
this document than the signers contemplated. It is evident that when
they left Holland they expected to become a body politic, using among
themselves civil government, and to choose their own rulers from among
themselves. Their purpose in drawing up and signing this compact was
simply, as they state, to restrain certain of their number who had
manifested an unruly and factious disposition. This was the whole
philosophy of the instrument, whatever may have since been discovered
and deduced from it." (p. 120.)]
[Footnote 8: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Plantation, p. 78. "The
31st of December (1620) being Sabbath, they attended Divine service for
the first time on shore, and named the place _Plymouth_, partly because
this harbour was so called in Capt. John Smith's map, published three or
four years before, and partly in remembrance of very kind treatment
which they had received from the inhabitants of the last port of their
native country from which they sailed." (Moore's Lives of the Governors
of Plymouth, pp. 37, 38.)
The original Indian name of the place was _Accomack_; but at the time
the Pilgrims settled there, an Indian informed them it was called
_Patuxet_. Capt. John Smith's Description of New England was published
in 1616. He says, "I took the description as well by map as writing, and
called it New England." He dedicated his work to Prince Charles
(afterwards King Charles II.), begging him to change the "barbarous
names." In the list of names changed by Prince Charles, _Accomack_ (or
Patuxet) was altered to _Plymouth_. Mr. Dermer, employed by Sir F.
Gorges and others for purposes of discovery and trade, visited this
place about four months before the arrival of the Pilgrims, and
significantly said, "I would that Plymouth [in England] had the like
commodities. I would that the first plantation might here be seated if
there come to the number of fifty persons or upward."]
[Footnote 9: See following Note:--
NOTE _on the Inflated American Accounts of the Voyage and Settlement of
the Pilgrim Fathers_.--Everything relating to the character, voyage, and
settlement of the Pilgrims in New England has been invested with the
marvellous, if not supernatural, by most American writers. One of them
says, "God not only sifted the three kingdoms to get the seed of this
enterprise, but sifted that seed over again. Every person whom He would
not have go at that time, to plant the first colony of New England, He
sent back even from mid-ocean in the _Speedwell_." (Rev. Dr. Cheever's
Journal of the Pilgrims.)
The simple fact was, that the _Mayflower_ could not carry any more
passengers than she brought, and therefore most of the passengers of the
_Speedwell_, which was a vessel of 50 tons and proved to be unseaworthy,
were compelled to remain until the following year, and came over in the
_Fortune_; and among these Robert Cushman, with his family, one of the
most distinguished and honoured of the Pilgrim Fathers. And there was
doubtless as good "seed" in "the three kingdoms" after this "sifting" of
them for the New England enterprise as there was before.
In one of his speeches, the late eloquent Governor Everett, of
Massachusetts, describes their voyage as the "long, cold, dreary
autumnal passage, in that one solitary, adventurous vessel, the
_Mayflower_ of forlorn hope, freighted with prospects of a future state,
and bound across the unknown sea, pursuing, with a thousand misgivings,
the uncertain, the tedious voyage, suns rise and set, and winter
surprises them on the deep, but brings them not the sight of the
wished-for shore. The awful voice of the storm howls through the
rigging. The labouring masts seem straining from their base; the dismal
sound of the pumps is heard; the ship leaps, as it were, madly from
billow to billow; the ocean breaks, and settles with engulfing floods
over the floating deck, and beats with deadening, shivering weight
against the staggering vessel."
It is difficult to imagine how "winter" could surprise passengers
crossing the ocean between the 6th of September and the 9th of
November--a season of the year much _chosen_ even nowadays for crossing
the Atlantic. It is equally difficult to conceive how that could have
been an "unknown sea" which had been crossed and the New England coasts
explored by Gosnold, Smith, Dermer and others (all of whom had published
accounts of their voyage), besides more than a dozen fishing vessels
which had crossed this very year to obtain fish and furs in the
neighbourhood and north of Cape Cod. Doubtless often the "suns rose and
set" upon these vessels without their seeing the "wished-for shore;" and
probably more than once, "the awful voice of the storm howled through
their rigging," and "the dismal sound of their pumps was heard," and
they "madly leaped from billow to billow," and "staggered under the
deadening, shivering weight of the broken ocean," and with its
"engulfing floods" over their "floating decks." The _Mayflower_ was a
vessel of 180 tons burden--more than twice as large as any of the
vessels in which the early English, French, and Spanish discoverers of
America made their voyages--much larger than most of the vessels
employed in carrying emigrants to Virginia during the previous ten
years--more than three times as large as the ship _Fortune_, of 53 tons,
which crossed the ocean the following year, and arrived at Plymouth also
the 9th of November, bringing Mr. Cushman and the rest of the passengers
left by the _Speedwell_ the year before. Gosnold had crossed the ocean
and explored the eastern coasts of America in 1602 in a "small bark;"
Martin Pring had done the same in 1603 in the bark _Discovery_, of 26
tons; Frobisher, in northern and dangerous coasts, in a vessel of 25
tons burden; and two of the vessels of Columbus were from 15 to 30 tons
burden, and without decks on which to "float" the "engulfing floods"
under which the _Mayflower_ "staggered" so marvellously. All these
vessels long preceded the _Mayflower_ across the "unknown ocean;" but
never inspired the lofty eloquence which Mr. Everett and a host of
inferior rhapsodists have bestowed upon the _Mayflower_ and her voyage.
Bancroft fills several pages of his elaborate history to the same
effect, and in similar style with the passages above quoted. I will give
a single sentence, as follows:--"The Pilgrims having selected for their
settlement the country near the Hudson, the best position on the whole
coast, were conducted to the most barren and inhospitable part of
Massachusetts." (History of the United States, Vol. 1., p. 309.)
There was certainly little self-abnegation, but much sound and worldly
wisdom, in the Pilgrims selecting "the best position on the whole coast"
of America for their settlement; and there is as little truth in the
statement, though a good antithesis--the delight of Mr. Bancroft--that
the Pilgrims were conducted to "the most barren and inhospitable part of
Massachusetts" for "actual settlement," as appears from the descriptions
given of it by Governors Winslow and Bradford and other Pilgrim Fathers,
written after the first and during the subsequent years of their
settlement. I will give but two illustrations. Mr. Winslow was one of
the passengers in the _Mayflower_, and was, by annual election, several
years Governor of the Plymouth colony. It has been stated above that the
ship _Fortune_, of 53 tons burden, brought in the autumn of 1621 the
Pilgrim passengers who had been left in England the year before by the
sea-unworthiness of the _Speedwell_. The _Fortune_ anchored in Plymouth
Bay the 9th of November--just a year from the day on which the
_Mayflower_ spied the land of Cape Cod. Mr. Winslow prepared and sent
back by the _Fortune_ an elaborate "Relation" of the state and prospects
of the colony, for the information of the merchant adventurers and
others in England. He describes the climate, soil, and all the resources
of the colony's means of support, together with the process and result
of the first year's labour. I will simply give his account of the manner
in which they celebrated what in England would be called a "Harvest
Home." He says: "Our harvest being got in, our Governor sent four men on
fowling, that so we might, after a more special manner, rejoice together
after we had gathered the fruit of our labours. They four in a day
killed as much fowl as, with little help besides, served the company
almost a week; at which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised
our arms. Many of the Indians came amongst us, and amongst the rest
their greatest king, Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three
days we entertained and feasted; and they went out and killed fine deer,
which they brought to the Plantation, and bestowed them on our Governor,
and upon the Captain and others; and although it be not always so
plentiful with us, we are so far from want that we _often wish you
partakers of our plenty_."
Governor Bradford, writing in 1646, twenty-five years after this feast,
and referring to it, says: "Nor has there been any general want of food
amongst us since to this day." (Morton's Memorials, p. 100.)
Such was the result of the first year's experience in this chosen place
of settlement by the first New England colony, as stated by the most
distinguished of its founders. During the winter of this year more than
half the pioneer settlers had died of a prevalent sickness,--not owing
to the climate, but their sea voyage, their want of experience, and to
temporary circumstances, for not a death occurred amongst them during
the three succeeding years. As great as was the mortality amongst the
noble colonists of New England, it was far less, comparatively, than
that which fell upon the first colonists of Virginia, who were, also,
more than once almost annihilated by the murderous incursions of the
Indians, but from whom the Pilgrim Fathers did not suffer the loss of a
life.
In his "true and brief Relation," Mr. Winslow says: "For the temper of
the air here, it agreeth well with that in England; and if there be any
difference at all, this is somewhat hotter in summer. Some think it
colder in winter, but I cannot out of experience say so. The air is very
clear and foggy, not as hath been reported. I never in my life remember
a more seasonable year than we have here enjoyed."
Mr. Winslow's doubt as to whether the cold of his first winter in New
England exceeded that of the ordinary winters which he had passed in
England, refutes the fictitious representations of many writers, who to
magnify the virtues and merits of the Plymouth colonists, describe them
as braving, with a martyr's courage, the appalling cold of an almost
Arctic winter--a winter which enabled the new settlers to commence their
gardens the 16th of March, and they add in their Journal: "Monday and
Tuesday, March 19th and 20th, proved fair days. We digged our grounds
and _sowed our garden seeds_."
Not one of the American United Empire Loyalists--the Pilgrim Fathers of
Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick--could tell of a winter in the
countries of their refuge, so mild, and a spring so early and genial, as
that which favoured the Pilgrim Fathers of New England during their
first year of settlement; nor had any settlement of the Canadian Pilgrim
Fathers been able to command the means of celebrating the _first_
"Harvest Home" by a week's festivity and amusements, and entertaining,
in addition, ninety Indians for three days.]
CHAPTER II.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PILGRIM[10] FATHERS DURING SEVENTY YEARS, FROM
1620 TO 1692, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE PURITAN FATHERS.
TWO GOVERNMENTS.--_Difference between the Government of the Pilgrims and
that of the Puritans_.--Most historians, both English and American, have
scarcely or not at all noticed the fact that within the present State of
Massachusetts two separate governments of Puritan emigrants were
established and existed for seventy years--two governments as distinct
as those of Upper and Lower Canada from 1791 to 1840--as distinct as
those of any two States of the American Republic. It is quite natural
that American historians should say nothing of the Pilgrim government,
beyond the voyage and landing of its founders, as it was a standing
condemnation of the Puritan government, on which they bestow all their
eulogies. The two governments were separated by the Bay of
Massachusetts, about forty miles distant from each other by water, but
still more widely different from each other in spirit and character. The
government of the Pilgrims was marked from the beginning by a full and
hearty recognition of franchise rights to all settlers of the Christian
faith; the government of the Puritans denied those rights to all but
Congregational Church members for sixty years, and until they were
compelled to do otherwise by Royal Charter in 1692. The government of
the Pilgrims was just and kind to the Indians, and early made a treaty
with the neighbouring tribes, which remained inviolate on both sides
during half a century, from 1621 to 1675; the government of the
Puritans maddened the Indians by the invasion of their rights, and
destroyed them by multitudes, almost to entire extermination. The
government of the Pilgrims respected the principles of religious liberty
(which they had learned and imbibed in Holland), did not persecute those
who differed from it in religious opinions,[11] and gave protection to
many who fled from the persecutions of neighbouring Puritans'
government, which was more intolerant and persecuting to those who
differed from it in religious opinions than that of James, and Charles,
and Laud had ever been to them. The government of the Pilgrims was frank
and loyal to the Sovereign and people of England; the government of the
Puritans was deceptive and disloyal to the Throne and Mother Country
from the first, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of
disaffection and hostility to the Royal government, until they grew and
ripened into the harvest of the American revolution.
These statements will be confirmed and illustrated by the facts of the
present and following chapters.
The compact into which the Pilgrims entered before landing from the
_Mayflower_, was the substitute for the body politic which would have
been organized by charter had they settled, as first intended, within
the limits of the Northern Virginia Company. The compact specified no
constitution of government beyond that of authority on the one hand, and
submission on the other; but under it the Governors were elected
annually, and the local laws were enacted during eighteen years _by the
general meetings of the settlers_, after which a body of elected
representatives was constituted.
The first _official record_ of the election of any Governor was in 1633,
thirteen years after their settlement at Plymouth; but, according to the
early history of the Pilgrims, the Governors were elected annually from
1620. The Governors of the colony were as follows:--
1. John Carver, in 1620, who died a few months afterwards;
2. William Bradford, 1621 to 1632, 1635, 1637, 1639 to 1643, 1645 to
1656;
3. Edward Winslow, 1633, 1636, 1644;
4. Thomas Prince, 1634, 1638, 1657 to 1672;
5. Josiah Winslow, 1673 to 1680;
6. Thomas Hinckley, 1681 to 1692;[12]
when the colony of Plymouth[13] (which had never increased in population
beyond 13,000) was incorporated with that of Massachusetts Bay, under
the name of the Province of Massachusetts, by Royal Charter under
William and Mary, and by which religious liberty and the elective
franchise were secured to all freeholders of forty shillings per annum,
instead of being confined to members of the Congregational Churches, as
had been the case down to that period under the Puritans of
Massachusetts Bay--so that equal civil and religious liberty among all
classes was established in Massachusetts, not by the Puritans, but by
Royal Charter, against the practice of the Puritans from 1631 to 1692.
The government of the Pilgrims was of the most simple kind. At first the
Governor, with one assistant, was elected annually by general suffrage;
but in 1624, at the request of Governor Bradford, a Council of five
assistants (increased to seven in 1633) was annually elected. In this
Court, or Executive Council, the Governor had a double vote. In the
third year, 1623, trial by jury was established. During eighteen years,
from 1620 to 1638, the legislative body, called the General Court, or
Court of Associates, was composed of the whole body of freemen. It was
not until 1639 that they established a House of Representatives. The
qualifications of a _freeman_ were, that he "should be twenty-one years
of age, of sober, peaceable conversation, orthodox in religion [which
included belief in God and the Holy Scriptures, but did not include any
form of Church government], and possess rateable estate to the value of
twenty pounds."
In 1636--sixteen years after their landing at New Plymouth--the laws
which they had enacted were first collected, prefaced by a declaration
of their right to enact them, in the absence of a Royal Charter. Their
laws were at various times revised and added to, and finally printed in
1671, under the title of "Their Great Fundamentals." They recognized the
general laws of England, and adopted local statutes or regulations
according to what they considered their needs.[14] Of their sense of
duty as British subjects, and of the uniform mutual relations of
friendship existing between them and their Sovereigns, their records and
history furnish abundant proofs. The oath required of their Governors
commenced in the following words: "You shall swear to be truly loyal to
our Sovereign Lord King Charles, his successors and heirs." "At the
Court held," (says the record,) "at Plymouth, the 11th of June, 1664,
the following was added, and the Governor took the oath thereunto: 'You
shall also attend to what is required by His Majesty's Privy Council of
the Governors of the respective colonies in reference unto an Act of
Parliament for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and
navigation, bearing date from the 1st of December, 1660.'"
The oath of a freeman commenced with the same words, as did the oath of
the "Assistants" or Executive Councillors, the oath of constables and
other officers in the colony. It was likewise ordered, "That an oath of
allegiance to the King and fidelity to the Government and to the several
colonies [settlements] therein, be taken of every person that shall live
within or under the same." This was as follows: "You shall be truly
loyal to our Sovereign Lord the King and his heirs and successors: and
whereas you make choice at present to reside within the government of
New Plymouth, you shall not do or cause to be done any act or acts,
directly or indirectly, by land or water, that shall or may tend to the
destruction or overthrow of the whole or any of the several colonies
[settlements] within the said government that are or shall be orderly
erected or established; but shall, contrariwise, hinder, oppose and
discover such intents and purposes as tend thereunto to the Governor for
the time being, or some one of the assistants, with all convenient
speed. You shall also submit unto and obey such good and wholesome laws,
ordinances and officers as are or shall be established within the
several limits thereof. So help you God, who is the God of truth and
punisher of falsehood."
The Government of Plymouth prefaced the revised collection of their laws
and ordinances as follows:
"A form to be placed before the records of the several inheritances
granted to all and every of the King's subjects inhabiting with the
Government of New Plymouth:
"Whereas John Carver, William Bradford, Edward Winslow, William
Brewster, Isaack Alliston and divers others of the subjects of our late
Sovereign Lord James, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland,
France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., did in the eighteenth
year of his reigne of England, France and Ireland, and of Scotland the
fifty-four, which was the year of our Lord God 1620, undertake a voyage
into that part of America called Virginia or New England, thereunto
adjoining, there to erect a plantation and colony of English, intending
the glory of God and the enlargement of his Majesty's dominions, and the
special good of the English nation."
Thus the laws and ordinances of the Plymouth Government, and the oaths
of office from the Governor to the constable, freeman and transient
resident, recognize their duty as British subjects, and breathe a spirit
of pure loyalty to their Sovereign. The only reference I find in their
records to the Commonwealth of England is the following declaration,
made in 1658, the last year of Cromwell's government. It is the preface
to the collection of the General Laws, revised and published Sept. 29,
1658, and is as follows:
"We, the associates of New Plymouth, coming hither as freeborn subjects
of the State of England, endowed with all the privileges belonging to
such, being assembled, do ordain, constitute and enact that no act,
imposition, laws or ordinances be made or imposed on us at present or to
come, but such as shall be made and imposed by consent of the body of
the associates or their representatives legally assembled, which is
according to the free libertie of the State of England."
At the first annual meeting of the Plymouth House of Representatives
after the restoration of Charles the Second, the following declaration
and order was made:
"Whereas we are certainly informed that it hath pleased God to establish
our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second in the enjoyment of his
undoubted rights to the Crowns of England, Scotland, France and Ireland,
and is so declared and owned by his good subjects of these kingdoms; We
therefore, his Majesty's loyal subjects, the inhabitants of the
jurisdiction of New Plymouth, do hereby declare our free and ready
concurrence with such other of his Majesty's subjects, and to his said
Majesty, his heirs and successors, we do most humbly and faithfully
submit and oblige ourselves for ever. God save the King.
"June the fifth, Anno Dom. 1661.
"The fifth day of June, 1661, Charles the Second, King of England,
Scotland, France and Ireland, &c., was solemnly proclaimed at Plymouth,
in New England, in America." (This the Puritan Government of
Massachusetts Bay refused to do.)
On the accession of James the Second we find the following entry in the
Plymouth records: "The twenty fourth of April, 1685, James the Second,
King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, &c., was solemnly
proclaimed at Plymouth according to the form required by his Majesty's
most honourable Privy Council."
After the Revolution of 1688 in England, there is the following record
of the proceedings of the Legislature of the Plymouth colony--proceedings
in which testimony is borne by the colonists of the uniformly kind
treatment they had received from the Government of England, except during
a short interval under the three years' reign of James the Second:
"At their Majesties' General Court of Election, held at Plymouth on the
first Tuesday in June, 1689.
"Whereas, through the great changes Divine Providence hath ordered out,
both in England and in this country, we the loyal subjects of the Crown
of England are left in an unsettled estate, destitute of government and
exposed to the ill consequences thereof: and _having heretofore enjoyed
a quiet settlement of government in this their Majesties' colony of New
Plymouth for more than threescore and six years, without any
interruptions; having also been by the late kings of England from time
to time, by their royal letters, graciously owned and acknowledged
therein_: whereby, notwithstanding our late unjust interruption and
suspension therefrom by the illegal arbitrary power of Sir Edmond
Andros, now ceased, the General Court held there in the name of their
present Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, &c.,
together with the encouragement given by their said Majesties' gracious
declarations and in humble confidence of their said Majesties' good
liking: do therefore hereby resume and declare their reassuming of their
said former way of government, according to such wholesome
constitutions, rules and orders as were here in force in June, 1686, our
title thereto being warranted by prescription and otherwise as
aforesaid; and expect a ready submission thereunto by all their
Majesties' good subjects of this colony, until their Majesties or this
Court shall otherwise order; and that all our Courts be hereafter held
and all warrants directed and officers sworn in the name of their
Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, &c.
"The General Court request the Honourable Governor, Thomas Hinckley,
Esq., in behalf of said Court and Colony of New Plymouth, to make their
address to their Majesties the King and Queen of England, &c., for the
re-establishment of their former enjoyed liberties and privileges, both
sacred and civil."
We have thus the testimony of the Plymouth colony itself that there was
no attempt on the part of either Charles the First or Second to
interfere with the fullest exercise of their own chosen form of worship,
or with anything which they themselves regarded as their civil rights.
If another course of proceedings had to be adopted in regard to the
Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay, it was occasioned by their own
conduct, as will appear hereafter. Complaints were made by colonists to
England of the persecuting and unjust conduct of the Puritan Government,
and inquiries were ordered in 1646, 1664, 1678, and afterwards. The
nature and result of these inquiries will be noticed hereafter. At
present I will notice the first Commission sent out by Charles the
Second, in 1664, and which was made general to the several colonies, to
avoid invidious distinction, though caused by complaints against the
conduct of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay. The
Commissioners proposed four questions to the Governments of the several
colonies of New England. I will give the questions, or rather
propositions, and the answers to them on the part of the Pilgrim
Government of Plymouth, as contained in its printed records:--
"_The Propositions made by His Majesty's Commissioners to the General
Court of (New Plymouth), held at Plymouth, for the jurisdiction of New
Plymouth, the 22nd of February, Anno Dom. 1665._
"1. That all householders inhabiting in the colony take the oath of
allegiance, and the administration of justice be in his Majesty's name.
"2. That all men of competent estates and civil conversation, though of
different judgments, may be admitted to be freemen, and have liberty to
choose and to be chosen officers, both civil and military.
"3. That all men and women of orthodox opinions, competent knowledge and
civil lives (not scandalous), may be admitted to the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper, and their children to baptism if they desire it; either
by admitting them into the congregation already gathered, or permitting
them to gather themselves into such congregations, where they may have
the benefit of the sacraments.
"4. That all laws and expressions in laws derogatory to his Majesty, if
any such have been made in these late troublesome times, may be
repealed, altered, and taken off from the file."
THE COURT'S ANSWER.
"1. To the first we consent, it _having been the practice of this
Court_, in the first place, _to insert in the oath of fidelity required
of every householder, to be truly loyal to our Sovereign Lord the King,
his heirs and successors. Also to administer all acts of justice in his
Majesty's name_.
"2. To the second we also consent, _it having been our constant practice
to admit men of competent estates and civil conversation, though of
different judgments, yet being otherwise orthodox, to be freemen, and
to have liberty to choose and be chosen officers, both civil and
military_.
"3. To the third, we cannot but acknowledge it to be a high favour from
God and from our Sovereign, that we may enjoy our consciences in point
of God's worship, the main end of transplanting ourselves into these
remote corners of the earth, and should most heartily rejoice that all
our neighbours so qualified as in that proposition would adjoin
themselves to our societies, according to the order of the Gospel, for
enjoyment of the sacraments to themselves and theirs; but if, through
different persuasions respecting Church government, it cannot be
obtained, we could not deny a liberty to any, according to the
proposition, that are truly conscientious, although differing from us,
especially where his Majesty commands it, they maintaining an able
preaching ministry for the carrying on of public Sabbath worship, which
we doubt not is his Majesty's intent, and withdrawing not from paying
their due proportions of maintenance to such ministers as are orderly
settled in the places where they live, until they have one of their own,
and that in such places as are capable of maintaining the worship of God
in two distinct congregations, we being greatly encouraged by his
Majesty's gracious expressions in his letter to us, and your Honours'
further assurance of his Royal purpose to continue our liberties, that
where places, by reason of our paucity and poverty, are incapable of
two, it is not intended, that such congregations as are already in being
should be rooted out, but their liberties preserved, there being other
places to accommodate men of different persuasions in societies by
themselves, which, by our known experience, tends most to the
preservation of peace and charity.
"4. To the fourth, we consent that all laws and expressions in laws
derogatory to his Majesty, if any sect shall be formed amongst us, which
at present we are not conscious of, shall be repealed, altered, and
taken off from the file.
"By order of the General Court
For the jurisdiction of New Plymouth,
Per me, NATHANIEL MORTON, _Secretary_."
"The league between the four colonies was not with any intent, that ever
we heard of, to cast off our dependence upon England, a thing which we
utterly abhor, intreating your Honours to believe us, for we speak in
the presence of God."
"NEW PLYMOUTH, May 4th, 1665.
"The Court doth order Mr. Constant Southworth, Treasurer, to present
these to his Majesty's Commissioners, at Boston, with all convenient
speed."
The above propositions and answers are inserted, with some variations,
in Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., p. 214. The remark
respecting the union between the colonies is not on the colony
records--it was inserted at the close of the copy delivered to the
Commissioners, in conformity to a letter from the Commissioners, written
to Governor Prince after they had left Plymouth. The conditions
expressed in the answer to the third proposition appeared so reasonable
to the Commissioners, that when they afterward met the General Assembly
of Connecticut, in April, 1663, their third proposition is qualified, in
substance, conformably to the Plymouth reply. (Morton's Memorial, Davis'
Ed., p. 417.)
It is thus seen that there was not the least desire on the part of King
Charles the Second, any more than there had been on the part of Charles
the First, to impose the Episcopal worship upon the colonists, or to
interfere in the least with their full liberty of worship, according to
their own preferences. All that was desired at any time was toleration
and acknowledgment of the authority of the Crown, such as the Plymouth
colony and that of Connecticut had practised from the beginning, to the
great annoyance of the Puritans of Massachusetts.
Several letters and addresses passed between Charles the Second and the
Pilgrim Government of Plymouth, and all of the most cordial character on
both sides; but what is given above supersedes the necessity of further
quotations.[15]
It was an object of special ambition with the Government of Plymouth to
have a Royal Charter like those of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and
Rhode Island, instead of holding their land, acting under a Charter from
the Plymouth Council (England) and Charles the Second. In his last
address to Mr. Josiah Winslow, their Governor promised it to them in
most explicit terms; but there was a case of _quo warranto_ pending in
the Court of King's Bench against the Puritan Government for the
violation of their Charter, which delayed the issuing of a Royal Charter
to Plymouth. Charles died soon after;[16] the Charter of the
Massachusetts Corporation was forfeited by the decision of the Court,
and James the Second appointed a Royal Governor and a Royal
Commissioner, which changed for the time being the whole face of things
in New England.
It, however, deserves notice, that the Massachusetts Puritans, true to
their instinct of encroaching upon the rights of others, whether of the
King or of their neighbours, white or tawny, did all in their power to
prevent the Pilgrims of Plymouth--the pioneers of settlement and
civilization in New England--from obtaining a Royal Charter. This they
did first in 1630, again in the early part of Charles the Second's
reign, and yet again towards its end. Finally, after the cancelling of
the Massachusetts Charter, and the English Revolution of 1688, the
agents of the more powerful and populous Massachusetts colony succeeded
in getting the colony of Plymouth absorbed into that of Massachusetts
Bay by the second Royal Charter granted by William and Mary in 1692.
"The junction of Plymouth with Massachusetts," says Moore, "destroyed
all the political consequence of the former. The people of Plymouth
shared but few favours which the new Government had to bestow, and it
was seldom indeed that any resident of what was termed the old colony
obtained any office of distinction in the Provisional Government, or
acquired any influence in its councils."[17]
This seems a melancholy termination of the Government of the
Pilgrims--a princely race of men, who voluntarily braved the sufferings
of a double exile for the sake of what they believed to be the truth and
the glory of God; whose courage never failed, nor their loyalty wavered
amidst all their privations and hardships; who came to America to enjoy
religious liberty and promote the honour of England, not to establish
political independence, and granted that liberty to others which they
earned and had suffered so much to enjoy themselves; who were honourable
and faithful to their treaty engagements with the aborigines as they
were in their communications with the Throne; who never betrayed a
friend or fled from an enemy; who left imperishable footprints of their
piety and industry, as well as of their love of liberty and law, though
their self-originated and self-sustained polity perished at length, by
royal forgetfulness and credulity, to the plausible representations and
ambitious avarice of their ever aggressive Massachusetts Puritan
neighbours.
While the last act of the Pilgrims before leaving the _Mayflower_, in
the harbour of Cape Cod, was to enter into a compact of local
self-government for common protection and interests, and their first act
on landing at New Plymouth was, on bended knees, to commend themselves
and their settlement to the Divine protection and blessing, it is a
touching fact that the last official act of the General Assembly of the
colony was to appoint a day of solemn fasting and humiliation on the
extinction of their separate government and their absorption into that
of Massachusetts Bay.
It was among the sons and daughters of the Plymouth colony that almost
the only loyalty in New England during the American Revolution of the
following century was found. Most of the descendants of Edward Winslow,
and of his more distinguished son, Josiah Winslow, were loyalists during
that revolution.[18] In the councils of the mother country, the merits
of the posterity of the Pilgrims have been acknowledged; as in her
service some of them, by their talents and courage, have won their way
to eminence. Among the proudest names in the British navy are the
descendants of the original purchaser of Mattapoisett, in Swansey
(William Brenton, afterwards Governor of Rhode Island);[19] to the
distinguished title of one of the English peerage is attached the name
of one of the early settlers of Scituate, in the Plymouth colony
(William Vassall, who settled there in 1635.)[20]
"In one respect," says Moore, "the people of the Old Colony present a
remarkable exception to the rest of America. They are the purest English
race in the world; there is scarcely an intermixture even with the
Scotch or Irish, and none with the aboriginals. Almost all the present
population are descended from the original English settlers. Many of
them still own the lands which their early ancestors rescued from the
wilderness; and although they have spread themselves in every direction
through this wide continent, from the peninsula of Nova Scotia to the
Gulf of Mexico, some one of the family has generally remained to
cultivate the soil which was owned by his ancestors. The fishermen and
the navigators of Maine, the children of Plymouth, still continue the
industrious and bold pursuits of their forefathers. In that fine
country, beginning at Utica, in the State of New York, and stretching to
Lake Erie, this race may be found on every hill and in every valley, on
the rivers and on the lakes. The emigrant from the sandbanks of Cape Cod
revels in the profusion of the opulence of Ohio. In all the Southern and
South-Western States, the natives of the "Old Colony," like the
Arminians of Asia, may be found in every place where commerce and
traffic offer any lure to enterprise; and in the heart of the peninsula
of Michigan, like their ancestors they have commenced the cultivation of
the wilderness--like them originally, with savage hearts and savage men,
and like them patient in suffering, despising danger, and animated with
hope."[21]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 10: "The term PILGRIMS belongs exclusively to the Plymouth
colonists." (Young's Chronicles of the Pilgrims, p. 88, note.)]
[Footnote 11: The only exception was by Prence, when elected Governor in
1657. He had imbibed the spirit of the Boston Puritans against the
Quakers, and sought to infuse his spirit into the minds of his
assistants (or executive councillors) and the deputies; but he was
stoutly opposed by Josias Winslow and others. The persecution was short
and never unto death, as among the Boston Puritans. It was the only
stain of persecution upon the rule of the Pilgrims during the seventy
years of their separate government, and was nobly atoned for and effaced
by Josias Winslow, when elected Governor in the place of Prence.]
[Footnote 12: Massachusetts Historical Collections, 3rd Series, Vol.
II., p. 226.]
[Footnote 13: "The colony of Plymouth included the present counties of
Plymouth, Barnstaple, and Bristol, and a part of Rhode Island. All the
Providence Plantations were at one time claimed by Plymouth. The
boundaries between Plymouth and Massachusetts were settled in 1640 by
commissioners of the united colonies." (_Ib._, p. 267.)]
[Footnote 14: The laws they intended to be governed by were the laws of
England, the which they were willing to be subject unto, though in a
foreign land, and have since that time continued of that mind for the
general, adding only some particular municipal laws of their own,
suitable to their constitution, in such cases where the common laws and
statutes of England could not well reach, or afford them help in
emergent difficulties of place. (Hubbard's "General History of New
England, from the Discovery to 1680." Massachusetts Historical
Collection, 2nd Series, Vol. I., p. 62.)
Palfrey says: "All that is extant of what can properly be called the
legislation of the first twelve years of the colony of Plymouth,
suffices to cover in print only two pages of an octavo volume." (History
of New England, Vol. I., pp. 340, 341.)]
[Footnote 15: "Their residence in Holland had made them acquainted with
the various forms of Christianity; a wide experience had emancipated
them from bigotry; and they were never betrayed into the excesses of
religious persecution, though they sometimes permitted a disproportion
between punishment and crime." (Bancroft's History of the United States,
Vol. I., p. 322.)
"The Plymouth Church is free from blood." (Elliott's History of New
England, Vol. I., p. 133.)]
[Footnote 16: "Charles the Second, with a spirit that does honour to his
reign, at that time meditated important plans for the reformation of New
England." (Annals of the Colonies, pp. 88, 89.)]
[Footnote 17: Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, p. 228.
The contest between the Pilgrims of Plymouth and the Puritans of
Massachusetts, in regard to granting a separate charter to the former,
was severe and bitter. The Plymouth Government, by its tolerance and
loyalty, had been an "eyesore" to the other intolerant and disloyal
Puritans of Massachusetts. Perhaps the Imperial Government of the day
thought that the fusion of the two Governments and populations into one
would render the new Government more liberal and loyal; but the result
proved otherwise.]
[Footnote 18: "Most of his descendants were loyalists during the
American Revolution. One of them was the wife of John S. Copley, the
celebrated painter, and father of the late Lord Lyndhurst" (Moore.)]
[Footnote 19: Jahleel Brenton, grandson of Governor Wm. Brenton, had
twenty-two children. His fourth son, born Oct. 22, 1729, entered the
British navy when a youth, distinguished himself and rose to the rank of
Admiral. He died in 1802. "His son Jahleel was bred to the sea, rose to
be an Admiral, and was knighted in 1810." (Moore's Lives of the
Governors of New Plymouth, p. 229.)]
[Footnote 20: In 1650 he removed to the West Indies, where he laid the
foundation of several large estates, and where he died, in Barbadoes, in
1655. (Moore, p. 126.) "Thomas Richard, the third Lord Holland, married
an heiress by the name of Vassall, and his son, Henry Richard Fox
Vassall, is the present Lord Holland, Baron Holland in Lincolnshire, and
Foxley in Wilts." (Playfair's British Family Antiquities, Vol. II., p.
182.)]
[Footnote 21: Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, pp.
228-230.]
CHAPTER III.
THE PURITANS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY AND THEIR GOVERNMENT,
COMMENCING IN 1629.
PART I.
FIRST SETTLEMENT--ROYAL CHARTER GRANTED.
English Puritanism, transferred from England to the head of
Massachusetts Bay in 1629, presents the same characteristics which it
developed in England. In Massachusetts it had no competitor; it
developed its principles and spirit without restraint; it was absolute
in power from 1629 to 1689, and during that sixty years it assumed
independence of the Government to which it owed its corporate existence;
it made it a penal crime for any emigrant to appeal to England against a
local decision of Courts or of Government; it permitted no oath of
allegiance to the King, nor the administration of the laws in his name;
it allowed no elective franchise to any Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Baptist, Quaker, or Papist. Every non-member of the Congregational
Churches was compelled to pay taxes and bear all other Puritan burdens,
but was allowed no representation by franchise, much less by eligibility
for any office.
It has been seen that the "_Pilgrim_ Fathers" commenced their settlement
at New Plymouth in 1620--nine years before the "_Puritan_ Fathers"
commenced their settlement on the opposite side of Massachusetts Bay,
making Boston their ultimate seat of government. The Pilgrim Fathers and
their descendants were professedly congregational separatists from the
Church of England; they had fled by stealth, under severe sufferings,
from persecution in England to Holland, where they had resided eleven
years and upwards, and where they had learned the principles of
religious toleration and liberty--the fruit of Dutch Arminian advocacy
and suffering. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company emigrated
directly from England, on leaving which they professed to be members of
the Church of England; their emigration commenced in 1628, the very year
that Charles the First, having quarrelled with and dissolved the last of
three Parliaments in less than four years, commenced his eleven years'
rule without a Parliament. During that eleven years a constant current
of emigration flowed from England to Massachusetts Bay, to the extent of
13,000, including no less than seventy clergymen of the Church of
England, and many men of rank, and wealth to the amount of some
£300,000. All these emigrants, or "adventurers," as they were called,
left England with a stinging sense of royal and episcopal despotism, and
with a corresponding hatred of royalty and episcopacy, but with no
conception of the principles of religious toleration or liberty beyond
themselves.
During the eight years' interval between the settlement of the Pilgrims
at New Plymouth to that of the Puritans at Salem and Boston, trade had
largely increased between England and Massachusetts Bay,[22] and the
climate, fisheries, furs, timber, and other resources of northern New
England became well known, and objects of much interest in England.
King James had divided all that part of North America, 34° and 45° of
North latitude, into two grand divisions, bestowing the southern part
upon a London Company, and the northern part upon a Company formed in
Plymouth and Bristol. The Northern Company resolved to strengthen their
interests by obtaining a fresh grant from the King. A new patent was
issued reorganizing the Company as the Council for the Affairs of New
England, the corporate power of which was to reside at Plymouth, west of
England, under the title of the "Grand Council of Plymouth," with a
grant of three hundred square miles in New England. The Company formed
projects on too large a scale, and did not succeed; but sold that
portion of its territory which constituted the first settlements of the
Massachusetts Bay Company to some merchants in the west of England, who
had successfully fished for cod and bartered for furs in the region of
Massachusetts Bay, and who thought that a plantation might be formed
there. Among the most active encouragers of this enterprise was the Rev.
John White, a clergyman of Dorchester, a maritime town, which had been
the source of much commercial adventure in America.[23] One special
object of Mr. White was to provide an asylum for the ministers who had
been deprived and silenced in England for nonconformity to the canons
and ceremonies imposed by Laud and his associates. Through Mr. White the
guarantees became acquainted with several persons of his religious
sympathies in London, who first associated with them, and afterwards
bought rights in their patent. Among these was Matthew Cradock, the
largest stockholder in the Company, who was appointed its first
president, with eighteen associates, including John Winthrop, Isaac
Johnson, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and other persons of "like quality."
The chief object of these gentlemen in promoting a settlement in New
England was to provide a retreat where their co-religionists of the
Church of England could enjoy liberty in matters of religious worship
and discipline. But the proposed undertaking could not be prosecuted
with success without large means; in order to secure subscriptions for
which the commercial aspect of it had to be prominently presented.
The religious aspect of the enterprise was presented under the idea of
connecting and civilizing the idolatrous and savage Indian tribes of New
England. There was no hint, and I think no intention, of abolishing and
proscribing the worship of the Church of England in New England; for Mr.
White himself, the projector and animating spirit of the whole
enterprise, was a conformist clergyman.[24] It was professedly a
religio-commercial undertaking, and combined for its support and
advancement the motives of religion and commerce, together with the
enlargement of the Empire.
For greater security and more imposing dignity, the "adventurers"
determined to apply for a Royal Charter of incorporation. Their
application was seconded by Lord Dorchester and others near the Throne;
and Charles the First, impressed with the novel idea of at once
extending religion, commerce, and his Empire, granted a Royal Patent
incorporating the Company under the name of "The Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay, in New England." But several months before the Royal
Charter was obtained, or even application for it made, Endicot, one of
the stockholders, was sent out with a ship of one hundred emigrants,
and, in consequence of his favourable report, application was made for a
Royal Charter.[25]
It was the conduct of Endicot, a few months after his arrival at
Massachusetts Bay--first condemned and afterwards sustained and
justified by the Directors of the Corporation in London--that laid the
foundation of the future Church history of New England, and of its
disputes with the mother country. Endicot and his one hundred emigrant
adventurers arrived in the summer of 1628, and selected Naumkeag, which
they called Salem, as their place of settlement, the 6th of September.
Endicot was sent, with his company, by the Council for New England, "to
supersede Roger Conant at Naumkeag as local manager."[26] "The colony,
made up of two sources, consisted of not much above fifty or sixty
persons, none of whom were of special importance except Endicot, who was
destined to act for nearly forty years a conspicuous part in New England
history."[27] The Royal Charter passed the seals the 4th of March, 1629,
with Mr. Cradock as the first Governor of the Company. "The first step
of the new Corporation was to organize a government for its colony. It
determined to place the local administration in the hands of thirteen
councillors, to retain their office for one year. Of these, seven,
besides the Governor (in which office Endicot was continued), were to be
appointed by the Company at home; these eight were to choose three
others; and the whole number was to be made up by the addition of such
as should be designated by the persons on the spot at the time of
Endicot's arrival, described as "old planters."[28] A second embarkation
of planters and servants was ordered by the Company at a meeting, April
30, 1629, shortly after its incorporation by Royal Charter. Five ships
were provided for this embarkation; and four ministers were
provided--Francis Higginson, Samuel Skelton, Francis Bright, and Ralph
Smith.[29] Mr. Higginson says in his journal that he sailed from the
Isle of Wight the 11th of May, and arrived at Cape Ann the 27th of June,
and at Naumkeag (Salem) the 29th. They found at Naumkeag about one
hundred planters and houses, besides a fair house built for Mr. Endicot.
The old and new planters together were about three hundred, of whom one
hundred removed to Charlestown, where there was a house built; the rest
remained at Salem.
"Mr. Endicot had corresponded with the settlers at Plymouth, who
satisfied him that they were right in their judgments of the outward
form of worship, being much like that of the Reformed Churches of
France, &c. On the 20th of July, Mr. Higginson and Mr. Skelton, after
fasting and prayer, were first elected by the Company for their
ministers--the first, teacher; the other, pastor. Each of them, together
with three or four grave members, lay their hands on each and either,
with solemn prayer. Nothing is said of any Church being formed; but on
the 6th of August, the day appointed for the choice and ordination of
elders and deacons, thirty persons entered into a covenant in writing,
which is said to be the beginning of the Church, and that the ministers
were ordained or instituted anew. The repetition of this form they
probably thought necessary, because the people were not in a Church
state before. It is difficult to assign any other reason. Messengers or
delegates from the Church of Plymouth were expected to join with them,
but contrary winds hindered them, so that they did not arrive until the
afternoon, but time enough to give the right hand of fellowship.
"Two of the company, John and Samuel Brown, one a lawyer, the other a
merchant, both men of good estates, and of the first patentees of the
Council, were dissatisfied. They did not like that the Common Prayer and
service of the Church of England should be wholly laid aside, and
therefore drew off, with as many as were of their sentiments, from the
rest, and set up a separate society. This offended the Governor, who
caused the two members of his Council to be brought before him; and
judging that this practice, together with some speeches they had
uttered, tended to sedition, he sent them back to England. The heads of
the party being removed, the opposition ceased."[30]
PART II.
THE QUESTION INVOLVING THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, THE
SETTING UP OF A NEW FORM OF WORSHIP, AND ABOLISHING AND PROSCRIBING THAT
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND; THE FACTS ANALYZED AND DISCUSSED; INSTRUCTIONS
AND OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE ORDERED BY THE LONDON COMPANY AND DISREGARDED BY
THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
As the whole question of the future Church-state in Massachusetts, and
the future relations of the colony to England, is involved in and
resulted from this proceeding, it is necessary to examine it thoroughly
in relation both to the state of things in the mother country and in the
colony, as well as the provisions of the Royal Charter. To do this,
several things are to be considered: 1. With what views was the Royal
Charter granted, and with what professed views did the first Governor
and his associates leave England under the provisions of the Charter,
and carrying it with them to Massachusetts Bay? 2. What were the
provisions of the Charter itself on the subject of religion? 3. What
were the powers claimed and exercised under it by the Massachusetts
Puritans? 4. How far the proceedings of the Massachusetts Puritans were
consistent with their original professions, with good faith towards the
Mother Country, and with the principles of civil and religious liberty
in the colony?
A careful recollection of the collateral events in England and those of
the colony, at the time and after granting the Royal Charter, is
requisite to a correct understanding of the question, and for the
refutation of those statements by which it was misrepresented and
misunderstood.
1. The first question is, with what views was the Royal Charter granted,
and with what professed views did the Governor and his associates leave
England under the provisions of the Charter, and carrying it with them
to Massachusetts Bay?
The theory of some New England historians is, that Puritanism in England
was opposed to the Church of England, and especially to its Episcopal
government--a theory true as respects the Puritanism of the Long
Parliament after the second year of its existence, and of the
Commonwealth and Cromwell, but which is entirely at variance with facts
in respect to the Puritanism professed in England at the time of
granting the Royal Charter to the Massachusetts Company in 1620, and for
twelve years afterwards. In the Millenary Petition presented by the
Puritan party in the Church to James the First, on his coming to the
throne, presbytery was expressly disclaimed; and in the first three
Parliaments of Charles the First, during which all the grievances
complained of by the Puritans were stated and discussed in the Commons,
not the slightest objection was made to Episcopacy, but, on the
contrary, reverence and fidelity in regard to it was professed without
exception; and when the Long Parliament first met, eleven years after
the granting of the Royal Charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company,
every member but one professed to be an Episcopalian, and the Holy
Communion, according to the order of the Church, was, by an unanimous
vote of the Commons, ordered to be partaken by each member. In all the
Church, as well as judicial and political, reforms of this Parliament
during its first session, Episcopacy was regarded and treated as
inviolate; and it was not until the following year, under the promptings
of the Scotch Commissioners, that the "root and branch" petition was
presented to Parliament against Episcopacy and the Prayer Book, and the
subject was discussed in the Commons. The theory, therefore, that
Puritanism in England was hostile to the Church at the period in
question is contradicted by all the "collateral" facts of English
history, as it is at variance with the professions of the first
Massachusetts Puritans themselves at the time of their leaving England.
This is true in respect to Endicot himself, who was appointed manager of
the New England Company, to succeed Roger Conant, and in charge of one
hundred "adventurers" who reached Naumkeag (which they called Salem) in
September, 1628--seven months before the Royal Charter granted by
Charles the First passed the seals. Within two months after the Royal
Charter was granted, another more numerous party of "adventurers"
embarked for New England, and among these two gentlemen, original
patentees and members of the Council--John and Samuel Brown, and four
ministers--Higginson, Skelton, Bright, and Smith. During the winter of
1628-9 much sickness prevailed among the emigrants who accompanied
Endicot, who sent for a physician to the Plymouth settlement of the
Pilgrim Fathers. A Doctor Fuller was sent, who, while he prescribed
medicine for the sick of the newly-arrived emigrants, converted Endicot
from Episcopalianism to Congregationalism--at least from being a
professed Churchman to being an avowed Congregationalist. This is
distinctly stated by all the historians of the times.[31]
It is therefore clear that Endicot had imbibed new views of Church
government and form of worship, and that he determined not to perpetuate
the worship of the Church of England, to which he had professed to
belong when he left England, but to form a new Church and a new form of
worship. He seems to have brought over some thirty of the new emigrants
to his new scheme; and among these were the newly-arrived ministers,
Higginson and Skelton. They were both clergymen of the Puritan
school--professing loyalty to the Church, but refusing to conform to the
novel ceremonies imposed by Laud and his party.[32] But within two
months after their arrival, they entered into the new views of Endicot
to found a new Church on the Congregational system. Their manner of
proceeding to do so has been stated above (p. 29.) Mr. Hutchinson
remarks--"The New England Puritans, when at full liberty, went the full
length which the Separatists did in England. It does not follow that
they would have done so if they had remained in England. In their form
of worship they universally followed the New Plymouth Church."[33]
The question is naturally suggested, could King Charles the First, in
granting the Charter, one declared object of which was converting the
Indians, have intended or contemplated the superseding the Church for
whose episcopacy he perished on the scaffold, by the establishment of
Congregationalism in New England? The supposition is absurd, and it is
equally unreasonable to suppose that those who applied for and obtained
the Charter contemplated anything of the kind, as will appear presently.
It can hardly be conceived that even among the newly-arrived emigrants
on the shores of Massachusetts, such a revolution as the adoption of a
new form of worship could be accomplished without doing violence to the
convictions and endeared associations of some parties. However they
might have objected to the ceremonies and despotic acts of the Laudian
school in England, they could not, without a pang and voice of
remonstrance, renounce the worship which had given to England her
Protestantism and her liberties, or repudiate the book which embodied
that form of worship, and which was associated with all that had exalted
England, from Cramner and Ridley to their own day. Congregationalism
had done nothing for the Protestantism or liberties of England, and it
would have been strange indeed had there not been some among the
emigrants who would not consider their change of latitude and longitude
as destroying their Church membership, and sundering the additional ties
which connected them with their forefathers and the associations of all
their past life. Endicot, therefore, with all his authority as local
Governor, and all his energy and zeal, and canvassing among the two or
three hundred new emigrants for a new Church, had not been able to get
more than thirty of them, with the aid of the two newly-arrived
ministers, to unite in the new Covenant Confession; but he had got the
(if not coerced) majority of the local Councillors to join with him, and
therefore exercised absolute power over the little community, and
denounced and treated as mutinous and factious all who would not
renounce the Church of their fathers and of their own profession down to
that hour, and adopt the worship of his new community.
As only thirty joined with Endicot in the creation of his new Church
organization and Covenant, it is obvious that a majority of the
emigrants either stood aloof from or were opposed to this extraordinary
proceeding. Among the most noted of these adherents to the old Church of
the Reformation were two brothers, John and Samuel Brown, who refused to
be parties to this new and locally-devised Church revolution, and
resolved, for themselves, families, and such as thought with them, to
continue to worship God according to the custom of their fathers and
nation.
It is the fashion of several American historians, as well as their
echoes in England, to employ epithets of contumely in regard to those
men, the Browns--both of them men of wealth--the one a lawyer and the
other a private gentleman--both of them much superior to Endicot himself
in social position in England--both of them among the original patentees
and first founders of the colony--both of them Church reformers, but
neither of them a Church revolutionist. It is not worthy of Dr. Palfrey
and Mr. Bancroft to employ the words "faction" and "factionists" to the
protests of John and Samuel Brown.[34]
What is stated by Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft more than refutes and
condemns the opprobrious epithets they apply to the Browns. On pages 29
and 30 I have given, in the words of Mr. Hutchinson, the account of the
formation of the new Church, and the expulsion of the Browns for their
refusal to conform to it. Dr. Palfrey states the transaction between
Endicot and the Browns in the following words:
"The transaction which determined the religious constitution of New
England gave offence to two of the Councillors, John and Samuel Brown.
Considering the late proceedings, _as well they might do_, to amount to
a _secession from the national Establishment_, they, with some others of
the same mind, set up a separate worship, conducted according to the
Book of Common Prayer. Endicot and his friends were in no mood to
tolerate this schism. The brothers, brought before the Governor, said
that the ministers 'were Separatists, and would be Anabaptists.' The
ministers replied that 'they came away from the Common Prayer and
ceremonies, and had suffered much for their nonconformity in their
native land, and therefore, being placed where they might have their
liberty, they neither could nor would use them, because they judged the
imposition of these things to be sinful corruptions of God's worship.'
There was no composing such strife, and 'therefore, finding these two
brothers to be of high spirits, and their speeches and practice tending
to mutiny and faction, the Governor told them that New England was no
place for such as they, and therefore he sent them both back for England
at the return of the ships the same year.'"[35]
Mr. Bancroft says: "The Church was self-constituted. It did not ask the
assent of the King or recognize him as its head; its officers were set
apart and ordained among themselves; it used no Liturgy, and it rejected
unnecessary ceremonies; and reduced the simplicity of Calvin to a still
plainer standard." "There existed even in this little company a few
individuals to whom the new system was unexpected; and in John and
Samuel Brown they found able leaders. Both were members of the Colonial
Council, and they had been favourites of the Corporation in England; and
one of them, an experienced and meritorious lawyer, had been a member of
the Board of Assistants in London. They declared their dissent from the
Church of Higginson; and at every risk of union and tranquillity, they
insisted upon the use of the English Liturgy." "Finding it to be a vain
attempt to persuade the Browns to relinquish their resolute opposition,
and _believing_ that their speeches _tended_ to produce _disorder_ and
dangerous feuds, Endicot sent them back to England in the returning
ships; and _faction_, deprived of its leaders, died away."[36]
It is clear from these statements--partial as they are in favour of
Endicot and against the Browns--that Endicot himself was the innovator,
the Church revolutionist and the would-be founder of a new Church, the
real schismatic from the old Church, and therefore responsible for any
discussions which might arise from his proceedings; while the Browns and
their friends were for standing in the old ways and walking in the old
paths, refusing to be of those who were given to change. Mr. Bancroft
says that "the _new system_ was _unexpected_" to them. Mr. Palfrey says
that "John and Samuel Brown, considering the late proceedings, _as well
they might_, to amount to a _secession from the national Establishment_,
they, with some others of the same mind, set up a separate worship
conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer." Or, more properly,
they _continued_ the worship according to the Book of Common Prayer,
which they and their fathers had practised, as well as Endicot and
Higginson themselves up to that day, refusing to leave the old Church of
the Reformation, and come into a new Church founded by joining of hands
of thirty persons, in a new covenant, walking around the place of the
old town-pump of Salem. Mr. Endicot is sent from England as the manager
of a trading Company, and invested with powers as their local temporary
Governor, to manage their business and remove persons that might disturb
or interfere with its operations; and he becomes acquainted with a
Doctor Fuller, a deacon of a Congregational Church at New Plymouth, and
imbibes his views; and forthwith sets himself to abolish the old Church,
and found a new one, and proceeds at length to banish as seditious and
mutinous those who would not forsake the old way of worship and follow
him in his new way of worship.
Some of the above quoted language of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft
implies improper conduct on the part of the brothers Brown, for which
they were banished. Even if that were so, their position of unchangeable
loyalty to their post and of good faith to their Company might be
pleaded in justification of the strongest language on their part. But
such was not the fact; it was their _position_, and not their language
or tempers. Mr. Bancroft himself says, in the American edition of his
History, that "the Browns were banished _because they were Churchmen.
Thus was Episcopacy professed in Massachusetts, and thus was it exiled.
The blessings of the promised land were to be kept for Puritan
dissenters_."[37] This statement of Mr. Bancroft is confirmed and the
conduct of Endicot more specifically stated by earlier New England
historians. In the "Ecclesiastical History of Massachusetts," reprinted
by the Massachusetts Historical Society, the whole affair is minutely
related. The following passages are sufficient for my purpose:
"An opposition of some consequence arose from several persons of
influence, who had been active in promoting the settlement of the place.
At the head of this were Mr. Samuel Brown and Mr. John Brown, the one a
lawyer and the other a merchant, who were attached to the form and usage
of the Church of England. The ministers [Higginson and Skelton],
assisted by Mr. Endicot, endeavoured to bring them over to the practice
of the Puritans, but without success." "These gentlemen, with others,
were conscientious Churchmen, and desired to use the Liturgy, and for
this purpose met in their own houses. The magistrates, or rather Mr.
Endicot, sent to demand a reason for their separation. They answered,
that as they were of the Church established by law in their native
country, it was highly proper they should worship God as the Government
required, from whom they had received their Charter. Surely they might
be allowed that _liberty of conscience_ which all conceived to be
reasonable when they were on the other side of the water. But these
arguments were called _seditious_ and _mutinous_."
"Mr. Bentley imputes the errors of the ministers to the temper of
Endicot, who was determined to execute his own plan of Church
government. Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to
consult even his friends, he was resolved to suffer no opposition; and
as the Salem Church had disdained the authority of the Church of
England, his feelings were hurt and his temper raised against those who
preferred a Liturgy, and whose object might be, as he conceived, to
cause a schism in the community."[38]
The Mr. Bentley referred to above was the historian of the town of
Salem, in a book entitled "Description and History of Salem, by the Rev.
William Bentley," and reprinted in the "Collection of the Massachusetts
Historical Society," Vol. VI., pp. 212-277. Referring to Endicot's
conduct to the Browns, Mr. Bentley says:
"Endicot had been the cause of all the rash proceedings against the
Browns. He was determined to execute his own plan of Church government.
Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even
his friends, he was resolved to admit of no opposition. They _who could
not be terrified into silence_ were _not commanded to withdraw, but they
were seized and banished as criminals_. The fear of injury to the colony
induced its friends in England to give private satisfaction, and then to
write a reproof to him who had been the cause of the outrages; and
Endicot never recovered his reputation in England." (p. 245.)
It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that the sole offence of the
Browns, and those who remained with them, was that they adhered to the
worship which they had always practised, and which was professed by all
parties when they left England, and because they refused to follow Mr.
Endicot in the new Church polity and worship which he adopted from the
Congregational Plymouth physician, after his arrival at Salem, and which
he was determined to establish as the only worship in the new
Plantation. It was Endicot, therefore, that commenced the change, the
innovation, the schism, and the power given him as Manager of the
trading business of the Company he exercised for the purpose of
establishing a Church revolution, and banishing the men who adhered to
the old ways of worship professed by the Company when applying for the
Royal Charter, and still professed by them in England. It is not
pretended by any party that the Browns were not interested in the
success of the Company as originally established, and as professed when
they left England; it is not insinuated that they opposed in any way or
differed from Endicot in regard to his management of the general affairs
of the Company; on the contrary, it is manifest by the statement of all
parties that the sole ground and question of dispute between Endicot and
the Browns was the refusal of the latter to abandon the Episcopal and
adopt the Congregational form of worship set up by Endicot and thirty
others, by joining of hands and subscribing to a covenant and confession
of faith around the well-pump of Naumkeag, then christened Salem.
The whole dispute, then, narrowed to this one question, let us inquire
in what manner the Browns and their friends declined acting with Endicot
in establishing a new form of worship instead of that of the Church of
England?
It does not appear that Endicot even consulted his local Council, much
less the Directors of the Company in England, as to his setting up a new
Church and new form of worship in the new Plantation at Salem. Having
with the new accession of emigrants received the appointment of
Governor, he appears to have regarded himself as an independent ruler.
Suddenly raised from being a manager and captain to being a Governor, he
assumed more despotic power than did King Charles in England, and among
the new emigrants placed under his control, and whom he seems to have
regarded as his subjects--himself their absolute sovereign, in both
Church and State. In his conferences with Fuller, the Congregational
doctor from New Plymouth, he found the Congregational worship to answer
to his aspirations as in it he could on the one hand gratify his hatred
of King and Church, and on the other hand become the founder of the new
Church in a new Plantation. He paused not to consider whether the
manager of a trading Company of adventurers had any authority to abolish
the worship professed by the Company under whose authority he was
acting; how far fidelity required him to give effect to the worship of
his employers in carrying out their instructions in regard to the
religious instruction of their servants and the natives; but he
forthwith resolved to adopt a new confession of faith and to set up a
new form of worship. On the arrival of the first three chaplains of the
Company, in June of 1629, several months after his own arrival, Endicot
seems to have imparted his views to them, and two of them, Higginson and
Skelton, fell in with his scheme; but Mr. Bright adhered to his Church.
It was not unnatural for Messrs. Higginson and Skelton to prefer
becoming the fathers and founders of a new Church than to remain
subordinate ministers of an old Church. The Company, in its written
agreement with them, or rather in its instructions accompanying them to
Endicot, allowed them discretion in their new mission field as to their
mode of teaching and worship; but certainly no authority to ignore it,
much less authority to adopt a new confession of faith and a new form of
worship.
Within three months after the arrival of these chaplains of the Company
at Salem, they and Endicot matured the plan of setting up a new Church,
and seemed to have persuaded thirty-one of the two hundred emigrants to
join with them--a minority of less than one-sixth of the little
community; but in that minority was the absolute Governor, and against
whose will a majority was nothing, even in religious matters, or in
liberty of conscience. Government by majorities and liberty of
conscience are attributes of freedom.
Let it be observed here, once for all, that Endicot and his friends are
not, in my opinion, censurable for changing their professed religious
opinions and worship and adopting others, if they thought it right to do
so. If, on their arrival at Massachusetts Bay, they thought and felt
themselves in duty bound to renounce their old and set up a new form of
worship and Church discipline, it was doubtless their right to do so;
but in doing so it was unquestionably their duty not to violate their
previous engagements and the rights of others. They were not the
original owners and occupants of the country, and were not absolutely
free to choose their own form of government and worship; they were
British subjects, and were commencing the settlement of a territory
granted them by their Sovereign; they were sent there by a Company
existing and acting under Royal Charter; Endicot was the chief agent of
that Company, and acting under their instructions. As such, duty
required him to consult his employers before taking the all-important
step of setting aside the worship they professed and establishing a new
one, much less to proscribe and banish those who had adventured as
settlers upon the old professed worship, and declined adopting the new.
And was it not a violation of good faith, as well as liberty of
conscience, to deny to the Browns and their friends the very worship on
the profession of which by all parties they had embarked as settlers in
New England? To come to New England as Churchmen, and then abolish the
worship of the Church and set up a new form of worship, without even
consulting his employers, was what was done by Endicot; and to come as
Churchmen to settle in New England, and then to be banished from it for
being Churchmen, was what was done to the Browns by Endicot.
This act of despotism and persecution--apart from its relations to the
King, and the Company chartered by him--is the more reprehensible from
the manner of its execution and the circumstances connected with it.
It appears from the foregoing statements and authorities, that the
Browns were not only gentlemen of the highest respectability, Puritan
Churchmen, and friends of the colonial enterprise, but that when Endicot
resolved upon founding a new Church and worship, they did not interfere
with him; they did not interrupt, by objection or discussion, his
proceedings around the well-pump of Salem in organizing a new Church and
in heretofore professing clergymen of the Church of England, and with
its vows upon them, and coming as chaplains of a Church of England
Corporation, submitting to a new ordination in order to exercise
ecclesiastical functions. The Browns and their friends seem to have been
silent spectators of these proceedings--doubtless with feelings of
astonishment if not of grief--but determined to worship in their
families and on the Sabbath in their old way. But in this they were
interrupted, and haled before the new Governor, Endicot, to answer for
their not coming to his worship and abandoning that which they and their
fathers, and Endicot himself, had practised; were called "Separatists,"
for not acting as such in regard to their old way of worship; and were
treated as "seditious and mutinous," for justifying their fidelity to
the old worship before the new "Star Chamber" tribunal of Endicot. The
early New England ecclesiastical historian above quoted says: "The
magistrates, or rather Endicot, _sent to demand a reason_[39] for their
separation. They _answered_ that as they were of the Church established
by law in their native country, it was highly proper they should worship
God as the Government required from whom they had received their
Charter. Surely they might be allowed that liberty of conscience which
all conceived to be reasonable when they were on the other side of the
water." But their arguments were called "seditious and mutinous." The
first Congregational historian of Salem, above quoted, says: "Endicot
had been the cause of all the rash proceedings against the Browns. He
was determined to execute his plan of Church government. Inexperienced
in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even his friends, he
was resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be terrified
into silence _were not commanded to withdraw_, but were _seized_ and
_transported as criminals_."[40]
Such are the facts of the case itself, as related by the New England
Puritan writers themselves. I will now for a short time cross the
Atlantic, and see what were the professions and proceedings of the
Council or "Grand Court" of the Company in England in regard to the
chief objects of establishing the Plantation, their provision for its
religious wants, and their judgment afterwards of Endicot's proceedings.
In the Company's first letter of instructions to Endicot and his
Council, dated the 17th of April, 1629, they remind him that the
propagation of the Gospel was the primary object contemplated by them;
that they had appointed and contracted with three ministers to promote
that work, and instructed him to provide accommodation and necessaries
for them, according to agreement. They apprise him also of his
confirmation as "Governor of _our_ Plantation," and of the names of the
Councillors joined with him.[41] In their letter to Endicot, they call
the ministers sent by them "your ministers," and say: "For the manner of
exercising their ministry, and teaching both our own people and the
Indians, we leave that to themselves, hoping they will make God's Word
the rule of their actions, and mutually agree in the discharge of their
duties." Such instructions and directions have doubtless been given by
the Managing Boards of many Missionary Societies to missionaries whom
they sent abroad; but without the least suspicion that such missionaries
could, in good faith, on arriving at their destination, ignore the
Church and ordination in connection with which they had been employed,
and set up a new Church, and even be parties to banishing from their new
field of labour to which they had been sent, the members of the Church
of which they themselves were professed ministers when they received
their appointment and stipulated support.
Six weeks after transmitting to Endicot the letter above referred to,
the Company addressed to him a second general letter of instructions.
This letter is dated the 28th of May, 1629, and encloses the official
proceedings of the Council or "General Court" appointing Endicot as
Governor, with the names of the Councillors joined with him, together
with the form of _oaths_ he and the other local officers of the Company
were to take.[42] The oath required to be taken by Endicot and each
local Governor is very full and explicit.[43] It is also to be observed
that these two letters of instructions, with forms of oaths and
appointments of his Council, were sent out three months before Endicot,
Higginson, and Skelton proceeded to ignore and abolish the Church
professed by the Company and themselves, and set up a new Church.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 22: Two years after the Plymouth settlement, "Thirty-five
ships sailed this year (1622) from the west of England, and two from
London, to fish on the New England coasts, and made profitable voyages."
(Holmes' Annals of America, Vol. I., p. 179.) In a note on the same page
it is said: "Where in Newfoundland they shared six or seven pounds for a
common man, in New England they shared fourteen pounds; besides, six
Dutch and French ships made wonderful returns in furs."]
[Footnote 23: "The Council of New England, on the 19th of March (1627),
sold to Sir Henry Rowsell, Sir John Young, and four other associates,
[Thomas Southwood, John Humphrey, John Endicot, and Simeon Whitcombe,]
in the vicinity of Dorchester, in England, a patent for all that part of
New England lying between three miles to the northward of Merrimack
River, and three miles to the southward of Charles River, and in length
within the described breadth from the Atlantic Ocean to the South Sea."
(Holmes' Annals, Vol. I., p. 193.)]
[Footnote 24: The zeal of White soon found other powerful associates in
and out of London--kindred spirits, men of religious fervour, uniting
emotions of enthusiasm with unbending perseverance in action--Winthrop,
Dudley, Johnson, Pynchon, Eaton, Saltonstall, Bellingham, so famous in
colonial annals, besides many others, men of fortune and friends to
colonial enterprise. Three of the original purchasers parted with their
rights; Humphrey and Endicot retained an equal interest with the
original purchasers. (Bancroft's United States, Vol. I., pp. 368, 369.)]
[Footnote 25: Bancroft says: "Endicot, a man of dauntless courage, and
that cheerfulness which accompanies courage, benevolent though austere,
firm though choleric, of a rugged nature, which the sternest forms of
Puritanism had not served to mellow, was selected as a fit instrument
for this wilderness work.' (History of the United States, Vol. I., pp.
369, 370.)
"When the news reached London of the safe arrival of the emigrants
(under Endicot), the number of the adventurers had already enlarged. The
Puritans throughout England began to take an interest in the efforts
which invited the imagination to indulge in delightful visions. Interest
was also made to obtain a Royal Charter, with the aid of Bellingham and
White, an eminent lawyer, who advocated the design. The Earl of Warwick
had always been a friend to the Company; and Lord Dorchester, then one
of the Secretaries of State, is said to have exerted a powerful
influence in behalf of it. At last [March 4th, 1629], after much labour
and large expenditures, the patent for the Company of Massachusetts Bay
passed the seals." (_Ib._, p. 379.)]
[Footnote 26: The precursor of this Company was a Joint Stock
Association, established at Dorchester under the auspices of the Rev.
Mr. White, "patriarch of Dorchester," and called the "Dorchester
Adventurers," with a view to fishing, farming, and hunting; but the
undertaking was not successful, and an attempt was made to retrieve
affairs by putting the colony under a different direction. The
Dorchester partners heard of some religious and well-affected persons
that were lately removed out of New Plymouth, out of dislike of their
principles of rigid separation, of which Mr. Roger Conant was one--a
religious, sober, and prudent gentleman. (Hubbard's History of New
England, Chap. xviii.) The partners engaged Conant to be their Governor,
with the charge of all their affairs, as well fishing as planting. The
change did not produce success. The Association sold its land, shipping,
&c.; and Mr. Endicot was appointed under the new _regime_. (Palfrey's
Hist. of New England, Vol. I., pp. 285-8.)]
[Footnote 27: Palfrey, Vol. I., p. 289.]
[Footnote 28: _Ib._, p. 292.]
[Footnote 29: Mr. Bright, one of these ministers, is said by Hubbard to
have been a Conformist. He went, soon after his arrival, to Charlestown,
and tarried about a year in the country, when he returned to England.
Ralph Smith was required to give a pledge, under his hand, that he would
not exercise his ministry within the limits of the patent, without the
express leave of the Governor on the spot. Mr. Smith seems to have been
of the separation in England, which occasioned the caution to be used
with him. He was a little while in Nantasket, and went from thence to
Plymouth, where he was their minister for several years. (Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 10, 11.)]
[Footnote 30: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
11, 12.]
[Footnote 31: How much of the Church system thus introduced had already
been resolved upon before the colonists of the Massachusetts Company
left England, and how long a time, if any, previous to their emigration
such an agreement was made, are questions which we have probably not
sufficient means to determine. Thus much is certain--that when Skelton
and Higginson reached Salem, they found Endicot, who was not only their
Governor, but one of the six considerable men who had made the first
movement for a patent, fully prepared for the ecclesiastical
organization which was presently instituted. In the month before their
arrival, Endicot, in a letter [May 11, 1629] to Bradford thanking him
for the visit of Fuller, had said: 'I rejoice much that I am by him
satisfied touching your judgments of the outward form of God's
worship.'--Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, First
Series, Vol. III., p. 65.]
[Footnote 32: Cotton Mather relates that, taking the last look at his
native shore, Higginson said, 'We will not say, as the Separatists say,
"Farewell, Babylon; farewell, Rome;" but we will say, "Farewell, dear
England; farewell, Church of God in England, and all the Christian
friends there. We do not go to New England as separatists from the
Church of England, though we cannot but separate from the corruptions of
it. But we go to practise the positive part of Church reformation, and
propagate the gospel in America.'"--Magnalia, Book III., Part II., Chap.
i., quoted by Palfrey, Vol. I., p. 297, in a note.
"They were careful to distinguish themselves from the Brownist and other
Separatists. Had they remained in England, and the Church been governed
with the wisdom and moderation of the present day, they would have
remained, to use their own expression, 'in the bosom of the Church where
they had received their hopes of salvation.'"--Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 417.
Note by Mr. Hutchinson: "The son of one of the first ministers, in a
preface to a sermon preached soon after the Revolution, remarks that 'if
the bishops in the reign of King Charles the First had been of the same
spirit as those in the reign of King William, there would have been no
New England.'"]
[Footnote 33: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., Chap, iv., p. 418.]
[Footnote 34: "The Messrs. Brown went out with the second emigration, at
the same time as Messrs. Higginson and Skelton, a few months after
Endicot, and while he was the local Governor, several months before the
arrival of the third emigration of eleven ships with Governor Winthrop.
In the Company's first letter of instructions to Endicot, dated the 17th
of April, 1629, they speak of and commend the Messrs. Brown in the
following terms:
"'Through many businesses we had almost forgot to recommend to you two
brethren of our Company, Mr. John and Mr. Samuel Brown, who though they
be no adventurers in the general stock, yet are they men we do much
respect, being fully persuaded of their sincere affections to the good
of our Plantation. The one, Mr. John Brown, is sworn assistant here, and
by us chosen one of the Council there; a man experienced in the laws of
our kingdom, and such an one as we are persuaded will worthily deserve
your favour and furthermore, which we desire he may have, and that in
the first division of lands there may be allotted to either of them two
hundred acres.'" (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony
of Massachusetts Bay, from 1623 to 1636, p. 168.)]
[Footnote 35: History of New England, Vol. I., p. 298.]
[Footnote 36: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 379.]
[Footnote 37: History of the United States, Am. Ed. 8vo, Vol. I., p.
350. These three sentences are not found in the British Museum (English)
Edition of Mr. Bancroft's History, but are contained in Routledge's
London reprint of the American Edition.]
[Footnote 38: "Ecclesiastical History of Massachusetts," in the
Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. IX., pp. 3-5.]
[Footnote 39: It is clear, from these and other corresponding
statements, that the Messrs. Brown had had no controversy with Endicot;
had not in the least interfered with _his_ proceedings, but had quietly
and inoffensively pursued their own course in adhering to the old
worship; and only stated their objections to his proceedings by giving
the reasons for their own, when arraigned before his tribunal to answer
for their not coming to his worship, and continuing in that of their own
Church. The reasonings and speeches thus drawn from them were deemed
"seditious and mutinous," and for which they were adjudged "criminals'"
and banished. Looking at all the facts of the case--including the want
of good faith to the Browns and those who agreed with them--it exceeds
in inquisitorial and despotic prescriptive persecution that which drove
the Brownists from England to Holland in the first years of James the
First.]
[Footnote 40: Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
Mr. F.M. Hubbard, in his new edition of Belknap's American Biography,
iii. 166, referring to Endicot, says: "He was of a quick temper, which
the habit of military command had not softened; of strong religious
feelings, moulded on the sternest features of Calvinism; resolute to
uphold with the sword what he had received as gospel truth, and fearing
no enemy so much as a gainsaying spirit. Cordially disliking the English
Church, he banished the Browns and the Prayer Book; and averse to all
ceremonies and symbols, the cross on the King's colours was an
abomination he could not away with. He cut down the Maypole on Merry
Mount, published his detestation of long hair in a formal proclamation,
and set in the pillory and on the gallows the returning Quakers."]
[Footnote 41: The words of the Company's letter are as follows:
"And for that the propagating of the Gospel is the thing we do profess
above all to be our aim in settling this Plantation, we have been
careful to make plentiful provision of godly ministers, by whose
faithful preaching, godly conversation, and exemplary life, we trust not
only those of our own nation will be built up in the knowledge of God,
but also the Indians may, in God's appointed time, be reduced to the
obedience of the Gospel of Christ. One of them, viz., Mr. Skelton, whom
we have rather desired to bear a part in this work, for that we have
been informed yourself formerly received much good by his ministry.
Another is Mr. Higgeson (Higginson), a grave man, and of worthy
commendations. The third is Mr. Bright, sometimes trained up under Mr.
Davenport. We pray you, accommodate them all with necessaries as well as
you may, and in convenient time let there be houses built for them,
according to the agreement we have made with them, copies whereof, as of
all others we have entertained, shall be sent you by the next ships,
time not permitting now. We doubt not these gentlemen, your ministers,
will agree lovingly together; and for cherishing of love betwixt them,
we pray you carry yourself impartially to all. For the manner of
exercising their ministry, and teaching both our own people and the
Indians, we leave that to themselves, hoping they will make God's Word
the rule of their actions, and mutually agree in the discharge of their
duties.
"We have, in prosecution of that good opinion we have always had of you,
confirmed you Governor of our Plantation, and joined in commission with
you the three ministers--namely, Mr. Francis Higginson, Mr. Samuel
Skelton, and Mr. Francis Bright; also Mr. John and Samuel Brown, Mr.
Thomas Groves, and Mr. Samuel Sharpe."--The Company's First General
Letter of Instructions to Endicot and his Council, the 17th of April,
1629. (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay, pp. 142-144.)
"A form of an oath for a Governor beyond the seas, and of an oath for
the Council there, was drawn and delivered to Mr. Humphrey to show to
the (Privy) Council." (Company's Records, Young, &c., p. 69.)]
[Footnote 42: The following is an extract of the Company's Second
General Letter of Instructions to Endicot and his Council, dated London,
28th May, 1629:
"We have, and according as we then advised, at a full and ample Court
assembled, elected and established you, Captain John Endicot, to the
place of Governor in our Plantation there, as also some others to be of
the Council with you, as more particularly you will perceive by an Act
of Court herewith sent, confirmed by us at a General Court, and sealed
with our common seal, to which Act we refer you, desiring you all
punctually to observe the same, and that the _oaths_ we herewith send
you (which have been penned by learned counsel, to be administered to
each of you in your several places) may be administered in such manner
and form as in and by our said order is particularly expressed; and that
yourselves do frame such other oaths as in your wisdom you shall think
fit to be administered to your secretary or other officers, according to
their several places respectively." (Young's Chronicles, &c., p. 173.)]
[Footnote 43: The form of oath, which had been prepared under legal
advice, submitted to and approved of by the King's Privy Council, was as
follows:
"Oaths of Office for the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Council in New
England (ordered May 7th, 1629).
"The Oath of the Governor in New England." (The same to the Deputy
Governor.)
"You shall be faithful and loyal unto our Sovereign Lord the King's
Majesty, and to his heirs and successors. You shall support and
maintain, to the best of your power, the Government and Company of
Massachusetts Bay, in New England, in America, and the privileges of the
same, having no singular regard to yourself in derogation or hindrance
of the Commonwealth of this Company; and to every person under your
authority you shall administer indifferent and equal justice. Statutes
and Ordinances shall you none make without the advice and consent of the
Council for Government of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. You
shall admit none into the freedom of this Company but such as may claim
the same by virtue of the privileges thereof. You shall not bind
yourself to enter into any business or process for or in the name of
this Company, without the consent and agreement of the Council
aforesaid, but shall endeavour faithfully and carefully to carry
yourself in this place and office of Governor, as long as you shall
continue in it. And likewise you shall do your best endeavour to draw
the natives of this country called New England to the knowledge of the
true God, and to conserve the planters, and others coming hither, in the
same knowledge and fear of God. And you shall endeavour, by all good
unions, to advance the good of the Plantations of this Company, and you
shall endeavour the raising of such commodities for the benefit and
encouragement of the adventurers and planters as, through God's blessing
on your endeavours, may be produced for the good and service of the
kingdom of England, this Company, and the Plantations. All these
premises you shall hold and keep to the uttermost of your power and
skill, so long as you shall continue in the place of Governor of this
fellowship; so help you God." (The same oath of allegiance was required
of each member of the Council.) (Young's Chronicles of First Planters of
the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, from 1623 to 1636, pp. 201, 202.)]
PART III.
EVASIONS AND DENIALS OF THE ABOLITION OF EPISCOPAL, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY; PROOFS OF THE FACTS, THAT
THE COMPANY AND FIRST SETTLERS OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY WERE PROFESSED
EPISCOPALIANS WHEN THE LATTER LEFT ENGLAND; LETTERS OF THE LONDON
COMPANY AGAINST THE INNOVATIONS WHICH ABOLISHED THE EPISCOPAL, AND
ESTABLISHED CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP BY THE "ADVENTURERS" AFTER CROSSING
THE ATLANTIC; THIS THE FIRST SEED OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, AND OF
CRUEL PERSECUTIONS.
When the Browns arrived in England as banished "criminals" from the
Plantation to which they had gone four months before as members of the
Council of Government, and with the highest commendation of the London
General Court itself, they naturally made their complaints against the
conduct of Endicot in superseding the Church of England by the
establishment of a new confession of faith and a new form of worship. It
is worthy of remark, that in the Records of the Company the specific
subjects of complaint by the Browns are carefully kept out of
sight--only that a "dispute" or "difference" had arisen between them and
"Governor Endicot;" but what that difference was is nowhere mentioned in
the Records of the Company. The letters of Endicot and the Browns were
put into the hands of Goffe, the Deputy Governor of the Company; were
never published; and they are said to have been "missing" unto this day.
Had the real cause and subject of difference been known in England, and
been duly represented to the Privy Council, the Royal Charter would
undoubtedly have been forthwith forfeited and cancelled; but the
Puritan-party feeling of the Browns seems to have been appealed to not
to destroy the Company and their enterprise; that in case of not
prosecuting their complaints before a legal tribunal, the matter would
be referred to a jointly selected Committee of the Council to arbitrate
on the affair; and that in the meantime the conduct of Endicot in making
Church innovations (if he had made them) would be disclaimed by the
Company. To render the Browns powerless to sustain their complaints,
their letters were seized[44] and their statements were denied.
Nevertheless, the rumours and reports from the new Plantation of
Massachusetts produced a strong impression in England, and excited great
alarm among the members and friends of the Company, who adopted three
methods of securing themselves and their Charter, and of saving the
Plantation from the consequences of Endicot's alleged innovations and
violent conduct. Firstly--The Governor of the Company, Mr. Cradock,
wrote to Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, professing doubts of the truth
of the charges made against them--disclaiming and warning them against
the reported innovations--thus protecting themselves in case of charge
from all participation in or responsibility for such proceedings.
Secondly--They positively denied the statements of the Browns as to
Endicot's alleged "innovations," and used every means to depreciate the
trustworthiness and character of the Browns, notwithstanding their
former commendation of them and their acknowledged respectability.
Thirdly--They prepared and published documents declaring their adherence
to the Church of England, and the calumny of the charges and rumours put
forth against them as being disaffected to it.
1. Their Governor, Mr. Cradock, wrote to Endicot in the name of the
Company. This letter, dated October 16, 1629, is given at length in a
note.[46] It will be seen by this letter how strongly the Company
condemned the innovations charged against Endicot by the Browns, and how
imperatively they direct him to correct them, while they profess to
doubt whether he could have been a party to any such proceedings. In
this letter is also the most explicit testimony by the Company of the
King's kindness and generosity to them, as well as a statement of the
clear understanding between the King and the Company as to the
intentions and spirit of the Royal Charter, and which the Company in
London expressed their determination to observe in good faith--a good
faith which was invariably and even indulgently observed by both Charles
the First and Second, but which was as constantly violated by the
Government of Massachusetts Bay, as will appear hereafter from the
transfer of the Charter there in 1630, to the cancelling of the Charter
under James the Second, in 1687. Endicot, confident in his ability to
prevent the transmission of any evidence to England that could sustain
the statements of the Browns, paid no heed to the instructions of the
Company, and persisted in his course of Church revolution and
proscription.
The letter addressed to Higginson and Skelton was signed not only by the
Governor, but by the chief members of the Company, and among others by
John Winthrop, who took the Royal Charter to Massachusetts Bay, and
there, as Governor, administered it by maintaining all that Endicot was
alleged to have done, continued to proscribe the worship of the Church
of England, allowed its members no elective franchise as well as no
eligibility for office, and persecuted all who attempted to worship in
any other form than that of the Church of Endicot, Higginson and
Skelton--a course in which he persevered until his energies began to
fail; for Mr. Bancroft says: "The elder Winthrop had, I believe,
relented before his death, and, it is said, had become weary of
banishing heretics; the soul of the younger Winthrop [who withdrew from
the intolerance of the Massachusetts Puritans, and was elected Governor
of Connecticut] was incapable of harbouring a thought of intolerant
cruelty; but the rugged Dudley was not mellowed by old age."[49]
The letter addressed to Higginson and Skelton expressed a hope that the
report made, in England as to their language and proceedings were "but
shadows," but at the same time apprised them of their duty to vindicate
their innocency or acknowledge and reform their misdeeds, declaring the
favour of the Government to their Plantation, and their duty and
determination not to abuse the confidence which the State had reposed
in them. This letter is given entire in a note.[50]
Nothing can be more clear, from the letters addressed by the Company
both to Endicot and the ministers Higginson and Skelton, that
renunciation of the worship of the Church of England was at variance
with the intentions and profession of all parties in granting and
receiving the Royal Charter, and that the only defence set up in England
of Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton was a positive denial that they had
done so. Dudley himself, Deputy Governor, who went to Massachusetts Bay
in the same fleet of eleven ships with Governor Winthrop, wrote to his
patroness, the Countess of Lincoln, several months after his arrival,
and in his letter, dated March 12, 1630, explicitly denies the existence
of any such changes in their worship as had been alleged; that they had
become "Brownists [that is, Congregationalists] in religion," etc., and
declaring all such allegations to be "false and scandalous reports;"
appealing to their friends in England to "not easily believe that we are
so soon turned from the profession we so long have made at home in our
native land;" declaring that he knew "no one person who came over with
us last year to be altered in judgment or affection, either in
ecclesiastical or civil respects, since our coming here;" acknowledging
the obligations of himself and friends to the King for the royal
kindness to them, and praying his friends in England to "give no credit
to such malicious aspersions, but be more ready to answer for us than we
hear they have been." Dudley's own words are given in note.[51] The only
escape from the admission of Dudley's statements being utterly untrue is
resort to a quibble which is inconsistent with candour and
honesty--namely, that the Brownist or Congregational worship had been
adopted by Endicot and his party before the arrival of Dudley; but the
scope and evident design of his letter was to assure the Countess of
Lincoln and his friends in England that no new Church worship had been
established at Massachusetts Bay, when the reverse must have been known
to Dudley, and when he, in support of the new Brownist or Congregational
worship, became a fierce persecutor, even to old age, of all who would
not conform to it; for, as Mr. Bancroft says, "the rugged soul of Dudley
was not mellowed by old age."
But while Dudley, in Massachusetts, was denying to his English friends
the existence of ecclesiastical changes there which all history now
declares to have taken place, the "Patriarch of Dorchester," the father
of the whole enterprise--the Rev. John White, a conformist clergyman of
the Church of England, even under Archbishop Laud--wrote and published a
pamphlet called "The Planters' Plea,"[52] in which he denied also that
any ecclesiastical changes, as alleged, had taken place in the
Massachusetts Plantation, and denounces the authors of such allegations
in no measured terms. This pamphlet contains a "Brief Relation of the
Occasion of the Planting of this Colony." After referring to the third,
or "great emigration under Winthrop,"[53] the author proceeds:
"This is an impartial though brief relation of the occasion of planting
the colony; the particulars whereof, if they could be entertained, were
clear enough to any indifferent judgment, that the suspicious and
scandalous reports raised upon these gentlemen and their friends (as if,
under the colour of planting a colony, they intended to raise a seminary
of faction and separation), are nothing than the fruits of jealousy of
some distempered mind or, which is worse, perhaps savour of a desperate
malicious plot of men ill affected to religion, endeavouring, by casting
the undertakers into the jealousy of the State, to shut them out of
those advantages which otherwise they might expect from the countenance
of authority. Such men would be entreated to forbear that base and
unchristian course of traducing persons under these odious names of
Separatists, and enemies of Church and State, for fear lest their own
tongues fall upon themselves by the justice of His hand who will not
fail to clear the innocency of the just, and to cast back into the bosom
of every slanderer the filth that he rakes up to throw into other men's
faces. As for men of more indifferent and better minds, they would be
seriously advised to beware of entertaining or admitting, much more
countenancing and crediting, such uncharitable persons as discover
themselves by their carriage, and that in this particular to be men ill
affected towards the work itself, if not to religion, at which it aims,
and consequently unlikely to report any truths of such as undertake
it."[54]
This language is very severe, not to say scurrilous; but it is the style
of all Puritan historians and writers in regard to those who complained
of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts. Not even Messrs. Bancroft
and Palfrey have thought it unworthy of their eloquent pages. But
imputation of motives and character is not argument, is most resorted to
for want of argument, much less is it a refutation of statements now
universally known to be true. The venerable author of this "Planters'
Plea" denied in indignant terms that Endicot and his friends had become
"Separatists" or "enemies of the Church" (he had doubtless been so
assured); the very thing in which Endicot gloried--setting up a
"Separatist" worship, forbidding the worship of "the Church," and
banishing its members who resolved to continue the use of its Prayer
Book, in public or in private.
This, however, is not all. Not only did the Company, in their letters to
Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, disdain to forbid anything like
abolishing the Church of England and setting up a new Church, and the
use of language offensive to their Sovereign and the Established Church;
not only were there the most positive denials on both sides of the
Atlantic that anything of the kind had been done by Endicot; but on the
appointment of Winthrop to supersede Endicot as Governor, and on his
departure with a fleet of eleven ships and three hundred "Adventurers"
and "Planters," as they were called, a formal and affectionate address
to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England" was published
by Winthrop from his ship _Arabella_, disclaiming any acts of some among
them (evidently alluding to what Endicot had been alleged to have done)
hostile to the Church of England, declaring their obligation and
attachment to it, their prayers for it, and entreating the prayers of
its members for the success of their undertaking. This address is said
to have been written by the Rev. John White, the "Patriarch of
Dorchester," and prime mover of the whole Plantation enterprise. It is
an imputation upon the integrity of the author, and upon all parties
concerned in the address, and absurd in itself, to suppose that the
prayers of the Church in England were solicited with a view to the
abolition of its worship in Massachusetts, and the establishment there
of a "Separatist" Church. This address--not to be found in any modern
history of the Massachusetts Puritans--speaks for itself, and is given
in a note as originally published.[55] It will be recollected that
Winthrop and the other signers of this address had the Royal Charter
with them, and now constituted the "principals" of the Company, whose
authority in England now ceased, and was henceforth to be exercised at
Massachusetts Bay. They beg that the "disaffection or indiscretion" of
some of the Company--evidently alluding to what Endicot was reported to
have done--might not be imputed to "the principals and body of the
Company." Their words are, addressing their Fathers and Brethren of the
Church of England: "And howsoever your charity may have met with some
occasional discouragement through the misreport of our intentions, or
through the disaffection or indiscretion of some of us, or rather
amongst us (for we are not of those who dream of perfection in this
world); yet we desire you would look at the _principals and body of_ our
_Company, as those who esteem it an honour to call the Church of
England, whence we rise, our dear Mother," &c._
It is passing strange that any man who respects himself could say, in
the face of these words and of the whole address, that Mr. Winthrop and
the "principals and body of the Company" did not profess to be members
of the Church of England, and did not assure their "Fathers and Brethren
in England" of their intention to remain so, and implore the prayers of
their Fathers and Brethren for their success. No darker stigma could be
inflicted upon the character of Winthrop and his Company, than the
assertion that at the very moment of making and publishing these
professions in England they intended to extinguish their "dear Mother"
in Massachusetts, and banish every one from their Plantation who should
use her Prayer Book, or worship as the "dear Mother" worshipped. Yet
such is the theory, or fallacy, of some Puritan writers.
It has also been pretended that there was no Church of England in
Massachusetts, and therefore the planters were free to set up what form
of worship they pleased. It may be asked in reply, what makes a Church
but the presence of members of it? An early Christian writer says that
"wherever there are two or three believers there is a Church." But were
not Endicot, and Higginson, and Skelton as much members of the Church of
England on their arrival at Massachusetts Bay as when they left England?
And were not the two latter as much clergymen of the Church of England
when they met Endicot at Naumkeag, or Salem, as when they engaged with
the Company in England to go out as ministers to the new Plantation?
Does crossing the sea change or annihilate the churchmanship of the
missionary, or the passenger, or the emigrant? There may not be a place
of worship, or a minister, but there are the members of the Church. Is a
missionary or agent of a Committee or Board of a particular Church in
London, no longer a member of that Church when he reaches the foreign
land to which he is sent because he finds no Church worship there, much
less if he finds members of his own Church already there? Yet such are
the pretences on which some Puritan writers, and even historians,
attempt to justify the conduct of Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton! But,
be it remembered, I make no objection to their renouncing their Church,
and establishing for themselves and those who chose to follow them, a
new Church confession and worship. The points of discussion are: 1. Was
it honest for them to do so without consulting those who employed and
settled them there, and provided for their religious instruction by
clergymen of the Church of England? 2. Was it right or lawful, and was
it not contrary to the laws of England, for them to abolish the worship
of the Church of England and banish its members from the Plantation, as
settlers, for continuing to worship according to the Church of England?
3. And can they be justified for denying to their friends in England,
and their friends denying to the public and to the King, on their behalf
and on their authority, what they had done, and what all the world now
knows they had done, at Massachusetts Bay? 4. And finally, was it not a
breach of faith to their Sovereign, from whom they had received their
Charter, and, as they themselves acknowledged, most kind treatment, to
commence their settlement by abolishing the established religion which
both the King and they professed when the Charter was granted, and when
they left England, and banish from the territory which the King had
granted them all settlers who would not renounce the form of worship
established in England from the Reformation, and adopt a new form of
worship, which was not then lawful in England?
The foregoing pages bear witness that I have not taken a sentence from
any writer adverse to the Puritans. I have adhered to their own
statements in their own words, and as printed in their Records. Their
eloquent apologist and defender, Mr. Bancroft, says: "The Charter
confers on the colonists the rights of English subjects; it does not
confer on them new and greater rights. On the contrary, they are
strictly forbidden to make laws or ordinances repugnant to the laws or
statutes of the realm of England. The express concession of power to
administer the oath of supremacy demonstrates that universal toleration
was not designed; and the freemen of the Corporation, it should be
remembered, were not at that time Separatists. Even Higginson, and
Hooker, and Cotton were still ministers of the Church of England."[56]
From this accumulation of evidence--which might be greatly increased--I
think it is as clear as day that the abolition of the worship of the
Church of England, and the establishment of a new form of worship, and a
new confession of faith, and a new ordination to the ministry at
Massachusetts Bay in 1629, was a violation of the Charter, an insult to
the King, and a breach of faith with him, notwithstanding his
acknowledged kindness to them, and a renunciation of all the
professions which were made by the Company in England.
This was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and
thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution; it was the
opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent
stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence
and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the
laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Massachusetts
Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings--to prevent
all evidence from being transmitted to England as to their proceedings,
and to punish as criminals all who should appeal to England against any
of their proceedings--to claim, in short, independence and immunity from
all responsibility to the Crown for anything that they did or might do.
Had Endicot and his party not done what they knew to be contrary to the
loyal Charter and the laws of England, they would have courted inquiry,
that the light of their fair and loyal acts might be manifest to all
England, in refutation of all statements made against them. Had the
Browns and their Church friends been permitted to worship after the
manner of their fathers and of their childhood, while Endicot and his
converts elected to worship in a new manner, there would have been no
cause of collision, and no spirit of distrust and hostility between the
Massachusetts settlement and the King, any more than there was between
either Charles the First or Second, and the settlements and separate
Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island, or Connecticut. But Endicot, in
the spirit of tyranny and intolerance, would allow no liberty of worship
not of his own establishment; and to maintain which in the spirit of
proscription and persecution, caused all the disputes with the parent
Government and all the persecutions and bloodshed on account of religion
in Massachusetts which its Government inflicted in subsequent years, in
contradistinction to the Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and even Maryland.[57]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 44: The Company's Records on the whole affair are as
follows:--
"Sept. 19, 1629.
"At this Court letters[45] were read from Mr. Endicot and others of New
England. And whereas a difference hath fallen out betwixt the Governor
there and John and Samuel Brown; it was agreed by the Court that, for
the determination of those differences, John and Samuel Brown might
choose out any three of the Company on their behalf to hear the said
differences, the Company choosing as many."
From the Records of the Company, September 29, 1629:
"The next thing taken into consideration was the letters from John and
Samuel Brown to divers of their private friends here in England, whether
the same should be delivered or detained, and whether they should be
opened and read, or not. And for that it was to be doubted by probable
circumstances that they had defamed the country of New England, and the
Governor and Government there, it was thought fit that some of the said
letters should be opened and publicly read, which was done accordingly;
and the rest to remain in the Deputy's house (Goffe's), and the parties
to whom they are directed to have notice; and Mr. Governor and Mr.
Deputy, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr. Wright, or any two of them, are entreated
to be at the opening and reading thereof, to the end that the Company
may have notice if aught be inserted prejudicial to their Government or
Plantation in New England. And it is also thought fit that none of the
letters from Mr. Samuel Brown shall be delivered, but to be kept for use
against him as occasion shall be offered." (Young's Chronicles, &c., pp.
91, 92.)
"Upon the desire of John and Samuel Brown it is thought fit that they
should have a copy of the accusation against them, to the end they may
be better prepared to make answer thereto."
The accusation against the Browns seems to have been simply for sedition
and seditious speeches--a charge brought by persecutors for religion
against the persecuted since the days of our Lord and his Apostles--a
charge for being the victims of which the Puritans in England had loudly
complained in the reigns of James and Charles.
There is but one other record of the Company on the affair of Endicot
and the Browns, but the suppression of their letters shows clearly that
the publication of them would have been damaging to the Company.
The intercepting and seizure of private letters, after the example of
the Company in seizing private letters of the Browns and punishing their
authors, was reduced to a system by the Government of Massachusetts Bay,
whose officers were commanded to inspect all letters sent by each vessel
leaving their port, and to seize all suspected letters, which were
opened, and, if found to contain any complaint or statement against the
local authorities, were retained and the authors arraigned and punished.
Thus the Government and public in England were kept in perfect ignorance
of what was transpiring at Massachusetts Bay, except what the local
Government chose to communicate; and aggrieved persons in the
Plantations were deprived of all means of appealing to the higher
tribunals in England, and were condemned and punished for sedition in
attempting to do so. This practice continued (as will be shown
hereafter) until the death of King Charles and the usurpation of the
regicides in England.
The following extract from the Company's Records seems to explain the
manner in which the further proceedings of the Browns was stayed. In
order to get some compensation for their losses, they seem to have
agreed to the stipulations of the Company. But previous to this meeting
of the Company, their Governor had written to Endicot, Higginson, and
Skelton, in letters dated Oct. 18, 1629. These letters will be found in
a note on a subsequent page. The extract from the Company's Records,
dated February 10, 1630, is as follows:
"A writing of grievances of Samuel and John Brown was presented to the
Court, wherein they desire recompense for loss and damage sustained by
them in New England; and which this Assembly taking into consideration,
do think fit upon their submitting to stand to the Company's _final
order for ending all differences between them (which they are to signify
under their hands)_. Mr. Wright and Mr. Eaton are to hear their
complaint, and to set down what they in their judgments shall think
requisite to be allowed them for their pretended damage sustained, and
so to make a final end with them accordingly." (Young's Chronicles, &c.,
p. 123.)]
[Footnote 45: Note by the compiler of the Records--"Those letters are
unfortunately missing."]
[Footnote 46: The Company's letter to the Governor, dated October 16,
1629:--
"SIR,--We have written at this time to Mr. Skelton and Mr. Higginson
touching the rumours of John and Samuel Brown, spread by them upon their
arrival here, concerning some unadvised and scandalous speeches uttered
by them in their public sermons or prayers, so have we thought meet to
advertise you of what they have reported against you and them,
concerning some rash innovations[47] begun and practised in the civil
and ecclesiastical government. We do well to consider that the Browns
are likely to make the worst of anything they have observed in New
England, by reason of your sending them back, against their wills, for
their _offensive behaviour_, expressed in a _general letter_ from the
Company there;[48] yet--for we likewise do consider that you are in a
government newly formed, and want that assistance which the weight of
such a business doth require--we may have leave to think it is possible
some _indigested counsels have too suddenly been put in execution, which
may have ill construction with the State here, and make us obnoxious to
any adversary_. Let it therefore seem good unto you to be _very sparing
in introducing any laws or commands which may render yourself or us
distasteful to the State here, to which we must and will have an
obsequious eye. And as we make it our care to have the Plantation so
ordered as may be most to the honour of God and of our gracious
Sovereign, who hath bestowed many large privileges and royal favours
upon this Company, so we desire that all such as shall by word or deed
do anything to detract from God's glory or his Majesty's honour, may be
duly corrected, for their amendment and the terror of others_. And to
that end, if you know anything which hath been spoken or done, either by
the ministers (whom the Browns do seem tacitly to blame for some things
uttered in their sermons or prayers) or any others, we require you, if
any such there be, that you form due process against the offenders, and
send it to us by the first, that we may, as our duty binds us, use means
to have them duly punished.
"So not doubting but we have said enough, we shall repose ourselves upon
your wisdom, and do rest
"Your loving friends.
"To the Governor, Capt. Endicot."]
[Footnote 47: These innovations, I suppose, had reference principally to
the formation of the Church at Salem, the adoption of a confession of
faith and covenant by the people, and their election and ordination of
the ministers. Endicot, we know, sympathized fully with the Separatists
of New Plymouth.--_Note by the Editor of the Records._]
[Footnote 48: This letter has always been missing.]
[Footnote 49: History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 486, 487.]
[Footnote 50: The Company's letter to the Ministers:--
"REVEREND FRIENDS,--
There are lately arrived here, being sent from the Governor, Mr. John
Endicot, as men of faction and evil-conditioned, John and Samuel Brown,
being brethren who since their arrival have raised rumours (as we hear)
of divers scandalous and intemperate speeches passed from one or both of
you in your public sermons and prayers in New England, as also of some
innovations attempted by you. We have reason to hope that their reports
are but slanders; partly, for your godly and quiet conditions are well
known to some of us; as also, for that these men, your accusers, seem to
be embittered against Captain Endicot for injuries which they have
received from some of you there. Yet, for that we all know that the best
advised may overshoot themselves, we have thought good to inform you of
what we hear, and if you be innocent you may clear yourselves; or, if
otherwise, you may be intreated to look back upon your miscarriage with
repentance; or at least to notice that we utterly disallow any such
passages, and must and will take order for the redress thereof, as shall
become us. But hoping, as we said, of your unblamableness herein, we
desire only that this may testify to you and others that we are tender
of the least aspersion which, either directly or obliquely, may be cast
upon the State here; to whom we owe so much duty, and from whom we have
received so much favour in this Plantation where you reside. So with our
love and due respect to your callings, we rest,
Your loving friends,
R. SALTONSTALL, THO. ADAMS,
ISA JOHNSON, SYM WHITCOMBE,
MATT. CRADOCK, _Governor_, WM. VASSAL,
THOS. GOFFE, _Deputy_, WM. PYNCHION,
GEO. HARWOOD, _Treasurer_, JOHN REVELL,
JOHN WINTHROP, FRANCIS WEBB.
London, 16th October, 1629."]
[Footnote 51: Extract from Deputy Governor Dudley's letter to the
Countess of Lincoln, dated November 12th, 1631:
"To increase the heap of our sorrows, we received from our friends in
England, and by the reports of those who came hither in this ship [the
_Charles_] to abide with us (who were about twenty-six), that they who
went discontentedly from us last year, out of their evil affections
towards us, have raised many false and scandalous reports against us,
affirming us to be Brownists in religion, and ill affected to our State
at home, and that these vile reports have won credit with some who
formerly wished us well. But we do desire and cannot but hope that wise
and impartial men will at length consider that such malcontents have
ever pursued this manner of casting dirt, to make others seem as foul as
themselves, and that our godly friends, to whom we have been known, will
not easily believe that we are so soon turned from the profession we so
long have made in our native country. And for our further clearing, I
truly affirm that I know no one person, who came over with us last year,
to be altered in judgment and affection, either in ecclesiastical and
civil respects, since our coming hither. But we do continue to pray
daily for our Sovereign Lord the King, the Queen, the Prince, the Royal
blood, the Council and whole State, as duty binds us to do, and reason
persuades us to believe. For how ungodly and unthankful should we be if
we should not do thus, who came hither by virtue of his Majesty's
letters patent and under his gracious protection; under which shelter we
hope to live safely, and from whose kingdom and subjects we now have
received and hereafter expect relief. Let our friends therefore give no
credit to such malicious aspersions, but be more ready to answer for us
than we hear they have been." (Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 331, 332.)]
[Footnote 52: "'The Planters' Plea' was printed in London in 1630, soon
after the sailing of Winthrop's fleet [with Dudley]. It has generally
been ascribed to the Rev. John White, of Dorchester, England. 'The
Planters' Plea' appears to have been unknown to our historians. Neither
Mather, Prince, Hutchinson, Bancroft, nor Graham make any allusion to
it." (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of
Massachusetts, from 1623 to 1630, pp. 15, 16, in a note.)]
[Footnote 53: The _first_ emigration under the authority of the
Massachusetts Company was that under "Master Endicot, who was sent over
Governor, assisted with a few men, and arriving in safety there in
September, 1628, and uniting his own men with those who were formerly
planted there into one body, they made up in all not much above fifty or
sixty persons."
The second emigration was under Higginson, who says: "We brought with us
about two hundred passengers and planters more," arriving in June, 1629.
The third, or "great emigration," was under Winthrop, arriving in May,
1630.]
[Footnote 54: Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 15, 16.]
[Footnote 55: This address is called "The humble Request of his
Majesties loyall subjects, the Governor and the Company late gone for
New England; to the rest of their Brethren in and of the Church of
England," and is as follows;
"REVEREND FATHERS AND BRETHREN,--
"The generall rumor of this solemne enterprise, wherein ourselves, with
others, through the providence of the Almightie, are engaged, as it may
spare us the labour of imparting our occasion unto you, so it gives us
the more incouragement to strengthen ourselves by the procurement of the
prayers and blessings of the Lord's faithful servants: For which end wee
are bold to have recourse unto you, as those whom God hath placed
nearest his throne of mercy; which, as it affords you the more
opportunitie, so it imposeth the greater bond upon you to intercede for
his people in all their straights. We beseech you, therefore, by the
mercies of the Lord Jesus, to consider us as your Brethren, standing in
very great need of your helpe, and earnestly imploring it. And howsoever
your charitie may have met with some occasion of discouragement through
the misreport of our intentions, or through the disaffection or
indiscretion of some of us, or rather amongst us, for wee are not of
those that dreame of perfection in this world; yet we desire you would
be pleased to take notice of the principals and body of our Company, as
those who esteeme it an honour to call the Church of England, from
whence we rise, our deare Mother, and cannot part from our native
countrie, where she specially resideth, without much sadness of heart
and many tears in our eyes, ever acknowledging that such hope and part
as we have obtained in the common salvation, we have received it in her
bosome, and suckt it from her breasts: Wee leave it not, therefore, as
loathing the milk wherewith wee were nourished there; but blessing God
for the parentage and education, as members of the same body shall
always rejoice in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrow that
shall ever betide her; and, while we have breath, sincerely desire and
endeavour the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the
enlargement of her bounds in the kingdome of Christ Jesus.
"Be pleased, therefore, Reverend Fathers and Brethren, to helpe forward
this worke now in hand; which, if it prosper, you shall be the more
glorious; howsoever, your judgment is with the Lord, and your reward
with your God. It is an usuall and laudable exercise of your charity to
recommend to the prayers of your congregations the necessities and
straights of your private neighbours. Doe the like for a Church
springing out of your owne bowels. Wee conceive much hope that this
remembrance of us, if it be frequent and fervent, will bee a most
prosperous gale in our sailes, and provide such a passage and welcome
for us from the God of the whole earth, as both we which shall finde it,
and yourselves with the rest of our friends who shall heare of it, shall
be much enlarged to bring in such daily returns of thanksgivings, as the
specialties of his Providence and Goodnes may justly challenge at all
our hands. You are not ignorant that the Spirit of God stirred up the
Apostle Paul to make continuall mention of the Church of Philippi (which
was a colonie of Rome); let the same Spirit, we beseech you, put you in
mind, that are the Lord's Remembrancers, to pray for us without ceasing
(who are a weake Colony from yourselves), making continuall request for
us to God in all your prayers.
"What we entreat of you, that are the ministers of God, that we crave at
the hands of all the rest of our Brethren, that they would at no time
forget us in their private solicitations at the throne of grace.
"If any there be, who, through want of clear intelligence of our course,
or tendernesses of affection towards us, cannot conceive so well of our
way as we could desire, we would entreat such not to despise us, nor to
desert us in their prayers and affections; but to consider rather that
they are so much the more bound to expresse the bowels of their
compassion towards us; remembering alwaies that both Nature and Grace
doth binde us to relieve and rescue, with our utmost and speediest
power, such as are deare unto us, when we conceive them to be running
uncomfortable hazards.
"What goodness you shall extend to us, in this or any other Christian
kindnesse, wee, your Brethren in Christ Jesus, shall labour to repay, in
what dutie wee are or shall be able to performe; promising, so farre as
God shall enable us, to give him no rest on your behalfes, wishing our
heads and hearts may be as fountains of tears for your everlasting
welfare, when wee shall be in our poore cottages in the wildernesse,
overshadowed with the spirit of supplication, through the manifold
necessities and tribulations which may, not altogether unexpectedly nor
we hope unprofitably, befall us.
"And so commending you to the Grace of God in Christ, we shall ever rest
"Your assured Friends and Brethren."
Signed by JOHN WINTHROP, _Governor_;
Charles Fines, George Philips, Richard Saltonstall,
Isaac Johnson, Thomas Dudley, William Coddington,
&c., and was dated "From Yarmouth, aboard the _Arabella_,
April 7, 1630."]
[Footnote 56: History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 273.
In a note, Mr. Bancroft says:--"The Editor of Winthrop did me the
kindness to read to me _unpublished letters_ which are in his
possession, and _which prove that the Puritans in England were amazed as
well as alarmed at the boldness of their brethren in Massachusetts_."
(_Ib._)
Why have these letters remained unpublished, when every line from any
opposed to Endicot and his party, however private and confidential, has
been published to the world? The very fact that all the letters of
Endicot and the Browns, and of the Puritans who wrote on the subject,
according to Mr. Bancroft, have been suppressed, affords very strong
ground to believe that the Massachusetts Puritans violated the
acknowledged objects of the Charter and the terms of their settlement,
and committed the first breach of faith to their Sovereign, and
inculcated that spirit and commenced that series of acts which resulted
in the dismemberment of the British Empire in America.]
[Footnote 57: The General Assembly of the Province of Maryland passed an
Act in 1649 containing the following provision:
"No person whatsoever, in this province, professing to believe in Jesus
Christ, shall from henceforth be anywise troubled or molested for his or
her religion, or in the free exercise thereof, or any way compelled to
the belief or exercise of any other religion against his or her
consent."
Mr. Bancroft says: "Christianity was made the law of the land [in
Maryland], and no preference was given to any sect, and equality in
religious rights, no less than civil freedom, was assured."]
PART IV.
CONTEST BETWEEN KING CHARLES AND THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY PURITANS, DURING
TEN TEARS, FROM 1630 TO 1640; PROFESSIONS OF THE PURITANS ON LEAVING
ENGLAND; THEIR CONDUCT ON ARRIVING AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY; SUPPRESSION OF
PURITAN CORRESPONDENCE; COMPLAINTS TO ENGLAND OF THEIR CHURCH REVOLUTION
AND INTOLERANCE; MEMBERS OF THE NEW CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES ALONE
ELECTORS AND ELIGIBLE TO OFFICE; FIVE-SIXTHS OF THE POPULATION
DISFRANCHISED; COMPLAINTS OF THE DISFRANCHISED AND PROSCRIBED TO
ENGLAND; SUPPRESSION OF CORRESPONDENCE AND THE DENIAL OF FACTS, AND THE
PROFESSIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PERSECUTORS OF
EPISCOPALIANS OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE DECISION OF THE KING AND PRIVY
COUNCIL, AND THEY ARE ENCOURAGED IN THEIR SETTLEMENT AND TRADE; TRANSFER
OF THE CHARTER, PLAIN VIOLATIONS OF IT; RUMOURS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A
GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND APPOINTMENT OF A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY AND
REGULATION; PREPARATION TO RESIST THE APPOINTMENT AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY;
ROYAL AND COLONIAL RESTRICTIONS ON EMIGRATION; IT CEASES; COLONIAL
PROPERTY AND TRADE DEPRESSED; REVIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BAY COLONY BY KING CHARLES THE FIRST, AND THEIR PROFESSIONS AND
TREATMENT IN RETURN; THE REAL AUTHORS AND PROMOTERS OF RELIGIOUS
TOLERATION AND LIBERTY IN ENGLAND.
It is well known that the Puritans in England objected to the ceremonies
enforced by Laud, as "corrupt and superstitious," and many ministers
were ejected from their benefices for nonconformity to them; but none of
the nonconformists who refused compliance with such "corrupt and
superstitious" ceremonies ever professed that the _polity_ and _worship_
of the Church was "corrupt and superstitious," and should therefore be
renounced, much less abolished, as did Endicot and his party at
Massachusetts Bay, and that twenty years before the death of Charles the
First and the usurpation of Cromwell.[58]
It might be confidently expected that Mr. Winthrop, after an address of
loyalty and affection to his "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of
England," from the very ship on which he left his native land, would, on
his arrival at Massachusetts Bay and assuming its government, have
rectified the wrongs of Endicot and his party, and have secured at least
freedom of worship to the children of his "dear Mother." But he seems to
have done nothing of the kind; he seems to have fallen in with the very
proceedings of Endicot which had been disclaimed by him in his address
to his "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England," on embarking at
Yarmouth for his new government. American historians are entirely silent
on the subject. It is very clear that Mr. Winthrop had correspondence
with his English friends on these matters, as intimated by Mr. Bancroft
in words quoted on page 59. If this suppressed correspondence were
published, it would doubtless show how it was that Mr. Winthrop, like
Endicot, and to the astonishment of his Puritan friends in England,
changed from and suppressed the worship of his "dear Mother" Church, on
changing from one side of the Atlantic to the other. Mr. Hutchinson,
referring to the address of Governor Winthrop to his "Fathers and
Brethren of the Church of England," to remove suspicions and
misconstructions, says: "This paper has occasioned a dispute, whether
the first settlers in Massachusetts were of the Church of England or
not. However problematical it may be what they were while they remained
in England, they left no room to doubt after they arrived in
America."[59]
But though the Editor of Winthrop has suppressed the letters which would
explain how Mr. Winthrop changed from Episcopalianism to
Congregationalism on his assuming the government of Massachusetts Bay,
we are at no loss to know the character of his proceedings, since, in
less than a year after his arrival there, the worship of his "dear
Mother" Church not only continued to be suppressed, but its members were
deprived of the privilege of even becoming "freemen" or electors in the
new "Commonwealth," as it forthwith begun to call itself, and the
privileges of citizenship were restricted to members of the new
established Congregational Churches; for on May 18th, 1631, the newly
organized Legislature, or "General Court," as it was called, enacted
that, "To the end the body of the commons may be preserved of honest and
good men, it was ordered and agreed that for time to come, no man shall
be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as are members
of some of the churches within the limits of the same."
Mr. Bancroft, after quoting this extraordinary and unprecedented
enactment, remarks--"The principle of universal suffrage was the usage
of Virginia; Massachusetts, resting for its defence on its unity and its
enthusiasm, gave all power to the select band of religious votaries,
into which the avenues could be opened only by the elders [ministers].
The elective franchise was thus confined to a small proportion of the
whole population, and the Government rested on an essentially
aristocratic foundation. But it was not an aristocracy of wealth; the
polity was a sort of theocracy; the servant of the bondman, if he were a
member of the Church, might be a freeman of the Company."--"It was the
reign of the Church; it was a commonwealth of the chosen people in
covenant with God."[60]
It thus appears that the new Congregationalists of Massachusetts were
far behind the old Episcopalians of Virginia in the first principle of
civil liberty; for while among the latter the Episcopal Church alone was
the recognized Church, the elective franchise was not restricted to the
members of that Church, but was universal; while in the new Government
of Massachusetts, among the new Puritan Congregationalists, none but a
Congregational Church member could be a citizen elector, and none could
be a Church member without the consent and recommendation of the
minister; and thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay, at the very
beginning, became, in the words of Mr. Bancroft, "the reign of the
Church"--not indeed of the Church of England, but of the new
Congregational Church established by joining of hands and covenant
around the well-pump of Naumkeag--then christened Salem.
The New England historians assure us that on the settlement of the
Puritans at Massachusetts Bay, the connection between Church and State
ceased. It is true that the connection of the Church of England with the
State ceased there; it is true that there was not, in the English sense
of the phrase, connection between the Church and State there; for there
was no State but the Church; the "Commonwealth" was not the government
of free citizens by universal suffrage, or even of property citizens,
but was "the reign of the Church," the members of which, according to
Mr. Bancroft himself, constituted but "a small proportion of the whole
population"--this great majority (soon five-sixths) of the population
being mere helots, bound to do the work and pay the taxes imposed upon
them by the "reigning Church," but denied all eligibility to any office
in the "Commonwealth," or even the elective franchise of a citizen! It
was indeed such a "connection between Church and State" as had never
existed, and has never existed to this day, in any Protestant country.
"The reign of the Church"--the small minority over the great majority of
the "Commonwealth;" and this system of "the reign of the Church" over
the State--of the government of a Church minority of one-sixth over a
whole population of five-sixths--continued for sixty years (as will
hereafter appear), until suppressed by a second Royal Charter, which
placed all citizens upon equal footing before the law, and in respect to
the elective franchise. Though the Congregational Puritans of
Massachusetts Bay may have been the fathers of American independence of
England, they were far from being the fathers or even precursors of
American liberty. They neither understood nor practised the first
principles of civil and religious liberty, or even the rights of British
subjects as then understood and practised in England itself.
It is admitted on all sides, that, according to the express words of the
Royal Charter, the planter emigrants of Massachusetts Bay should enjoy
all "the privileges of British subjects," and that no law or resolution
should be enacted there "contrary to the laws and statutes of England."
Was it not, therefore, perfectly natural that members of the Church of
England emigrating to Massachusetts Bay, and wishing to continue and
worship as such after their arrival there, should complain to their
Sovereign in Council, the supreme authority of the State, that, on their
arrival in Massachusetts, they found themselves deprived of the
privilege of worshipping as they had worshipped in England, and found
themselves subject to banishment the moment they thus worshipped? And
furthermore, when, unless they actually joined one of the new
Congregational Churches, first established at Massachusetts Bay, August
6th, 1629, five months after granting the Royal Charter (March 4th,
1629), they could enjoy none of the rights of British subjects, they
must have been more or less than men had they not complained, and loudly
complained, to the highest authority that could redress their
grievances, of their disappointments, and wrongs as British subjects
emigrating to Massachusetts. And could the King in Council refuse to
listen to such complaints, and authorize inquiry into their truth or
falsehood, without violating rights which, even at that period of
despotic government, were regarded as sacred to even the humblest
British subject? And the leading complainants were men of the most
respectable position in England, and who had investments in New
England--not only the Messrs. Brown, but Capt. John Mason and Sir
Ferdinand Gorges, who complained that the Massachusetts Company had
encroached upon the territory held by them under Royal Charter--territory
which afterwards constituted portions of New Hampshire and Maine. Were
the King and Privy Council to be precluded from inquiring into such
complaints? Yet New England historians assail the complainants for stating
their grievances, and the King and Council for listening to them even so
far as to order an inquiry into them. The petitioners are held up as
slanderers and enemies, and the King and Council represented as acting
tyrannically and as infringing the rights of the Massachusetts Puritans,
and seeking the destruction of their liberties and enterprise even by
inquiring into complaints made. The actual proceedings of the King in
Council prove the injustice and falsity of such insinuations and
statements.
The pretence set up in Massachusetts was that the authority of the Local
Government was _supreme_; that to appeal from it to the King himself was
sedition and treason;[61] and the defence set up in England was that the
allegations were untrue, and that the Massachusetts Corporation was
acting loyally according to the provisions of the Charter and for the
interests of the King. The account of these proceedings before the
King's Privy Council is given in a note from Mr. Palfrey himself.[62]
In regard to these proceedings, the reader's attention is directed to
the following facts: 1. The principal charges of the complainants were
denied--resting to be proved by parties that must be called from that
place [Massachusetts], which required long, expensive time, "and were in
due time further to be inquired into;" and the Massachusetts Corporation
took effectual precaution against any documentary evidence being brought
thence, or "parties" to come, unless at the expense of their all, even
should the complainants be able and willing to incur the expense of
bringing them to England. The Privy Council therefore deferred further
inquiry into these matters, and in the meantime gave the accused the
benefit of the doubt and postponement. 2. The nominal Governor of the
Company in England, Mr. Cradock, Sir R. Saltonstall, &c., "appeared
before the Committee of Council on the Company's behalf, and _had the
address or good fortune_ to vindicate their clients," &c. This they did
so effectually as to prejudice the King and Council against the
complainants, and excite their sympathies in favour of the Company, the
King saying "he would have them severely punished who did abuse his
Governor and Plantations." But the question arises, And by what sort of
"address or good fortune" were Messrs. Cradock and Company able to
vindicate their clients "to the King's satisfaction and their complete
triumph?" Must it not have been by denying the charges which all the
world now knows to have been true? Must it not have been by appealing to
the address of Mr. Winthrop and Company to their "Fathers and Brethren
of the Church of England," declaring their undying attachment to their
"dear Mother?" and also by appealing to the letter of Deputy Governor
Dudley to the Countess of Lincoln, declaring in 1630 that no such Church
innovations as had been alleged had taken place at Massachusetts Bay?
Must it not have been by their assuring the King's Council that the
worship of the Church of England had not been abolished in
Massachusetts, much less had anyone been banished thence for continuing
to worship according to the Prayer Book of that Church? Must it not have
been by their declaring that they were faithfully and loyally carrying
out the intentions and provisions of the Charter, according to the
statutes and laws of England? 3. Let it be further observed that the
King, according to the statements of the very party who was imposing
upon his confidence in their sincerity, that throughout this proceeding
he evinced the same good-will to the Massachusetts Bay colony that he
had done from the granting of the Charter, and which they had repeatedly
acknowledged in their communications with each other, as quoted above.
Yet the Puritan historians ascribe to Charles jealous hostility to their
colony from the commencement, and on that ground endeavour to justify
the deceptive conduct of the Company, both in England and at
Massachusetts Bay. Had Charles or his advisers cherished any hostile
feelings against the Company, there was now a good opportunity of
showing it. Had he been disposed to act the despot towards them, he
might at once, on a less plausible pretext than that now afforded him,
have cancelled his Charter and taken the affairs of the colony into his
own hands.
It is a singular concurrence of circumstances, and on which I leave the
reader to make his own comments, that while the representatives of the
Company were avowing to the King the good faith in which their clients
were carrying out his Majesty's royal intentions in granting the
Charter, they at that very time were not allowing a single Planter to
worship as the King worshipped, and not one who desired so to worship to
enjoy the privilege of a British subject, either to vote or even to
remain in the colony. As Mr. Bancroft says in the American, but not in
the English edition of his History, men "were banished because they were
Churchmen. Thus was Episcopacy first professed in Massachusetts, and
thus was it exiled. The blessings of the promised land were to be kept
for Puritan dissenters."
But while the King and Privy Council were showering kindness and offers
of further help, if needed, to advance the Plantation, believing their
statements "that things were carried there as was pretended when the
patents were granted," complaints could not fail to reach England of the
persecution of members of the Church of England, and of the
disfranchisement of all Planters who would not join the Congregational
Church, in spite of the efforts of the dominant party in Massachusetts
to intercept and stifle them; and it at length came to the knowledge of
the King and Privy Council that the Charter itself had been, as it was
expressed, "surreptitiously" carried from England to Massachusetts, new
councillors appointed, and the whole government set up at Massachusetts
Bay instead of being administered in England, as had been intended when
the Charter was granted. This had been kept a profound secret for nearly
four years; but now came to light in 1634.
It has been contended that this transfer of the Charter was lawful, and
was done in accordance with the legal opinion of an able lawyer, Mr.
John White, one of the party to the transfer. I enter not into the legal
question; the more important question is, Was it honourable? Was it
loyal? Was it according to the intention of the King in granting it? Was
there any precedent, and has there ever been one to this day, for such a
proceeding? And when they conceived the idea of transferring the
management of the Company from London to Massachusetts, and Mr. Winthrop
and his friends refused to emigrate except on the condition of such
transfer of the Charter, did not fairness and duty dictate application
to the King, who granted the Charter, for permission to transfer it as
the best means of promoting the original objects of it? And is there not
reason to believe that their application would have been successful,
from the kind conduct of the King and Privy Council towards them, as
stated above by themselves, when complaints were made against them? Was
their proceeding straightforward? Was not the secrecy of it suspicious,
and calculated to excite suspicion, when, after more than three years
of secrecy, the act became known to the King and Privy Council?[63]
The complainants against the Company in 1632, who found themselves so
completely overmatched before the Privy Council by the denials,
professions, and written statements produced by Mr. Cradock, Sir R.
Saltonstall, and others, could not but feel exasperated when they knew
that their complaints were well-founded; and they doubtless determined
to vindicate the truth and justice of them at the first opportunity.
That opportunity was not long delayed. The discovery that the Charter
and government of the Company had been secretly transferred from London
to Massachusetts Bay excited suspicion and curiosity; rumours and
complaints of the proscriptions and injustice of the Colonial Government
began to be whispered on all sides; appeal was again made to the King in
Council; and the further inquiry indicated in the proceedings of the
Privy Council two years before, was decided upon; a Royal Commission was
appointed to inquire into these and all other complaints from the
colonies, and redress the wrongs if found to exist; the appointment of a
Governor-General over all the New England colonies, to see justice done
to all parties, was contemplated.
The complainants against the conduct of the government of Endicot and
Winthrop are represented by their historians as a few individuals of
malicious feelings and more than doubtful character; but human nature at
Massachusetts Bay must have been different from itself in all civilized
countries, could it have been contented or silent when the rights of
citizenship were denied, as Mr. Bancroft himself says, to "by far the
larger proportion of the whole population," and confined to the members
of a particular denomination, when the only form of worship then
legalized in England was proscribed, and its members banished from the
land claimed as the exclusive possession of Puritan dissenters. The most
inquisitorial and vigilant efforts of the Local Government to suppress
the transmission of information to England, and punish complainants,
could not prevent the grievances of the proscribed and oppressed being
wafted to England, and commanding attention, and especially in
connection with the startling fact now first discovered, that the Royal
Charter had been removed from England, and a government under its
authority set up at Massachusetts Bay.
Mr. Bancroft ascribes the complaints on these subjects as originating in
"revenge," and calls them "the clamours of the malignant," and as
amounting to nothing but "marriages celebrated by civil magistrates,"
and "the system of Colonial Church discipline;" confined, as he himself
says elsewhere, "the elective franchise to a small proportion of the
whole population," and "established the reign of the [Congregational]
Church." Mr. Bancroft proceeds: "But the greater apprehensions were
raised by a requisition that the Letters Patent of the Company should be
produced in England--a requisition to which the emigrants returned no
reply."
"Still more menacing," says Mr. Bancroft, "was the appointment of an
arbitrary Special Commission [April 10, 1634] for all the colonies.[64]
"The news of this Commission soon reached Boston [Sept. 19, 1634;] and
it was at the same time rumoured that a Governor-General was on his way.
The intelligence awakened the most intense interest in the whole colony,
and led to the boldest measures. Poor as the new settlements were, six
hundred pounds were raised towards fortifications; 'and the assistants
and the deputies discovered their minds to one another,' and the
fortifications were hastened. All the ministers assembled in Boston
[Jan. 19, 1635]; it marks the age, that their opinions were consulted;
it marks the age still more, that _they unanimously declared against the
reception of a General Governor_. 'We ought,' said the fathers of
Israel, 'to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if not, _to
avoid and protract_.'"
The rumour of the appointment of a Governor-General over all the New
England colonies was premature; but it served to develop the spirit of
the ruling Puritans of Massachusetts Bay in their determining to resist
the appointment of a general officer to which no other British colony
had, or has, ever objected.[65] The decision in their behalf by the
King in Council, in regard to the complaints made against them in 1632,
deserved their gratitude; the assurance in the recorded Minutes of the
Privy Council, that the King had never intended to impose upon them
those Church ceremonies which they had objected to in England, and the
liberty of not observing which they went to New England to enjoy, should
have produced corresponding feelings and conduct on their part. In their
perfect liberty of worship in New England, there was no difference
between them and their Sovereign. In the meeting of the Privy Council
where the Royal declaration is recorded that liberty of worship, without
interference or restriction, should be enjoyed by all the settlers in
New England, Laud (then Bishop of London) is reported as present.
Whatever were the sins of King Charles and Laud in creating by their
ceremonies, and then punishing, nonconformists in England, they were not
justly liable to the charge of any such sins in their conduct towards
the Puritans of New England. Throughout the whole reign of either
Charles the First or Second, there is no act or intimation of their
interfering, or intending or desiring to interfere, with the worship
which the Puritans had chosen, or might choose, in New England. In
Plymouth the Congregational worship was adopted in 1620, and was never
molested; nor would there have been any interference with its adoption
nine years afterwards at Massachusetts Bay, had the Puritans there gone
no further than their brethren at Plymouth had gone, or their brethren
afterwards in Rhode Island and Connecticut. But the Puritans at
Massachusetts Bay assumed not merely the liberty of worship for
themselves, but _the liberty of prohibiting any other form of worship,
and of proscribing and banishing all who would not join in their
worship_; that is, doing in Massachusetts what they complained so loudly
of the King and Laud doing in England. This was the cause and subject of
the whole contest between the Corporation of Massachusetts Bay and the
authorities in England. If it were intolerance and tyranny for the King
and Laud to impose and enforce one form of worship upon all the people
of England, it was equal intolerance and tyranny for the Government of
Massachusetts Bay to impose and enforce one form of worship there upon
all the inhabitants, and especially when their Charter gave them no
authority whatever in the matter of Church organization.[66] They went
to New England avowedly for liberty of worship; and on arriving there
they claimed the right to persecute and to banish or disfranchise all
those who adhered to the worship of the Church to which they professed
to belong, as did their persecutors when they left England, and which
was the only Church then tolerated by the laws of England.
When it could no longer be concealed or successfully denied that the
worship of the Church of England had been forbidden at Massachusetts Bay
and its members disfranchised; and when it now came to light that the
Charter had been secretly transferred from England to Massachusetts, and
a new Governor and Council appointed to administer it there; and when it
further became known that the Governor and Council there had actually
prepared to resist by arms the appointment of a General Governor and
Royal Commission, and had not only refused to produce the Charter, but
had (to "avoid and protract") not even deigned to acknowledge the Privy
Council's letter to produce it, the King was thrown upon the rights of
his Crown, either to maintain them or to have the Royal authority exiled
from a part of his dominions. And when it transpired that a large and
increasing emigration from England was flowing to the very Plantation
where the Church had been abolished and the King's authority set at
defiance,[67] it became a question of prudence whether such emigration
should not be restricted; and accordingly a Royal Order in Council was
issued forbidding the conveyance of any persons to New England except
those who should have a Royal license.
This Order has been stigmatized by New England writers as most
tyrannical and oppressive. I do not dispute it; but it was provided for
in the Royal Charter, and the writers who assail King Charles and his
Council for such an Act should remember that Cromwell himself and his
Rump Parliament passed a similar Act eighteen years later, in 1653, as
will hereafter appear; and it is a curious coincidence, that the same
year, 1637, in which the King ordered that no person should be conveyed
to New England without first obtaining a certificate that they had taken
the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and conformed to the worship of
the Church of England, the Massachusetts General Court passed an
ordinance of a much more stringent character, and interfering with
emigration and settlement, and even private hospitality and business to
an extent not paralleled in Colonial history. It was enacted "That none
shall entertain a stranger who should arrive with intent to reside, or
shall allow the use of any habitation, without liberty from the Standing
Council."[68]
The Charter having been transferred to Massachusetts, a new Council
appointed to administer it there, and no notice having been taken of the
Royal order for its production, the Commissioners might have advised the
King to cancel the Charter forthwith and take into his own hands the
government of the obstreperous colony; but instead of exercising such
authority towards the colonists, as he was wont to do in less flagrant
cases in England, he consented to come into Court and submit his own
authority, as well as the acts of the resistant colonists, to judicial
investigation and decision. The Grand Council of Plymouth, from which
the Massachusetts Company had first procured their territory, were
called upon to answer by what authority and at whose instigation the
Charter had been conveyed to New England. They disclaimed any
participation in or knowledge of the transaction, and forthwith
surrendered their own patent to the King. In doing so they referred to
the acts of the new patentees at Massachusetts Bay, "whereby they did
rend in pieces the foundation of the building, and so framed unto
themselves both new laws and new conceits of matter of religion, forms
of ecclesiastical and temporal orders of government, and punishing
divers that would not approve them," etc. etc., and expressed their
conviction of the necessity of his Majesty "taking the whole business
into his own hands."[69]
After this surrender of their Charter by the Grand Council of Plymouth
(England), the Attorney-General Bankes brought a _quo warranto_ in the
Court of King's Bench against the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and Council
of the Corporation of the Massachusetts Bay, to compel the Company to
answer to the complaints made against them for having violated the
provisions of the patent.[70] The patentees residing in England
disclaiming all responsibility for the acts complained of at
Massachusetts (except Mr. Cradock), and no defence having been made of
those acts, nor the authors of them appearing either personally or by
counsel, they stood outlawed, and judgment was entered against the
Company in the person of Mr. Cradock for the usurpation charged in the
information.
The Lords Commissioners, in pursuance of this decision of the Court of
King's Bench, sent a peremptory order to the Governor of Massachusetts
Bay, to transmit the Charter to England, intimating that, in case of
"further neglect or contempt," "a strict course would be taken against
them."[71] They were now brought face to face with the sovereign
authority; the contempt of silence; nor did they think it prudent to
renew military preparations of resistance, as they had done in 1634;
their policy now was to "avoid and protract," by pleading exile,
ignorance, innocence, begging pardon and pity, yet denying that they
had done anything wrong, and insinuating that if their Charter should be
cancelled, their allegiance would be forfeited and they would remove,
with the greater part of the population, and set up a new government. I
have not met with this very curious address in any modern history of the
United States--only glosses of it. I give it entire in a note.[72] They
profess a willingness to "yield all _due_ obedience to their Soveraigne
Lord the King's Majesty," but that they "are much grieved, that your
Lordships should call in our patent, there being no cause knowne to us,
nor any delinquency or fault of ours expressed in the order sent to us
for that purpose, our government being according to his Majestie's
patent, and wee not answerable for any defects in other plantations.
This is that which his Majestie's subjects here doe believe and
professe, and thereupon wee are all humble suitors to your Lordships,
that you will be pleased to take into _further consideration_ our
condition, and to afford us the _liberty of subjects, that we may know
what is laid to our charge_; and have leaive and time to _answer for
ourselves before_ we be condemned as a people unworthy of his Majestie's
favour or protection."
This profession and these statements are made in presence of the facts
that three years before the Royal Commissioners had in like manner
demanded the production of the patent in England, giving the reasons for
it, and the present "humble suitors to their Lordships" had "avoided and
protracted," by not even acknowledging the reception of the order, much
less answering the charges of which they were informed, but rather
preparing military fortifications for resisting a General Governor and
Royal Commissioners of Inquiry, and "for regulating the Plantations."
Yet they profess not to know "what is laid to their charge," and are
"grieved that their Lordships should now demand the patent," as if the
production of it had never before been demanded. It will be seen by the
letter of their Lordships, given in a note on p. 77, that they refer to
this treatment of their former order, and say, in the event of "further
_neglect and contempt_" a strict course would be taken against them.
The authors of the Address profess that the cancelling of their Charter
would involve the loss of their labours, their removal from
Massachusetts, the exposure of the country to the invasions of the
French and Dutch, the forfeiture of their allegiance, and their setting
up a new government. It was a mere pretext that the Plantation becoming
a Crown colony, as it would on the cancelling of the Charter, would not
secure to the planters the protection of the Crown, as in the
neighbouring Plymouth settlement, which had no Royal Charter. They knew
that, under the protection of the King and laws of England, their
liberties and lives and properties would be equally secure as those of
any other of his Majesty's subjects. They twice repeat the misstatement
that "nothing had been laid to their charge," and "no fault found upon
them;" they insinuate that they would be causelessly denied the
protection of British subjects, that their allegiance would be
renounced, and they with the greater part of the population would
establish a new government, which would be a dangerous precedent for
other colonies. These denials, professions, insinuations, and threats,
they call "opening their griefes," and conclude in the following
obsequious, plaintive, and prayerful words:
"If in any thing wee have offended his Majesty and your Lordships, wee
humbly prostrate ourselves at the footstool of supreme authority; let us
be made the objects of his Majestie's clemency, and not cut off, in our
first appeal, from all hope of favour. Thus with our earnest prayers to
the King of kings for long life and prosperity to his sacred Majesty and
his Royall family, and for all honour and welfare to your Lordships."
The Lords Commissioners replied to this Address through Mr. Cradock,
pronouncing the jealousies and fears professed in the Address to be
groundless, stating their intentions to be the regulation of all the
Colonies, and to continue to the settlers of Massachusetts Bay the
privileges of British subjects. They repeated their command upon the
Corporation to transmit the Charter to England, at the same time
authorising the present Government to continue in office until the
issuing of a new Charter. Mr. Cradock transmitted this letter to the
Governor of Massachusetts Bay, the General Court of which decided not to
acknowledge the receipt of it, pronouncing it "unofficial" (being
addressed to Mr. Cradock, who, though the Governor mentioned in the
Charter, and the largest proprietor, was not now Governor); that the
Lords Commissioners could not "proceed upon it," since they could not
prove that it had been delivered to the Governor; and they directed Mr.
Cradock's agent not to mention Lords Commissioners' letter when he wrote
to Mr. C.
At this juncture the whole attention of the King was turned from
Massachusetts to Scotland, his war with which resulted ultimately in the
loss of both his crown and his life.
In view of the facts stated in this and the preceding chapters, I think
it must be admitted that during the nine years which elapsed between
granting the first Charter by Charles and the resumption of it by _quo
warranto_ in the Court of King's Bench, the aggression and the hostility
was on the side of the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay. Their first act
was one of intolerance, and violation of the laws of England in
abolishing the worship of the Church of England, and banishing its
members for adhering to its worship. Their denials of it were an
admission of the unlawfulness of such acts, as they were also
dishonourable to themselves. Their maxim seems to have been, that the
end sanctified the means--at least so far as the King was concerned; and
that as they distrusted him, they were exempt from the obligations of
loyalty and truth in their relations to him; that he and his were
predestined reprobates, while they and theirs were the elected saints to
whom, of right, rule and earth belonged. They were evidently sincere in
their belief that they were the eternally elected heirs of God, and as
such had a right to all they could command and possess, irrespective of
king or savage. Their brotherhood was for themselves alone--everything
for themselves and nothing for others; their religion partook more of
Moses than of Christ--more of law than of Gospel--more of hatred than
of love--more of antipathy than of attractiveness--more of severity than
of tenderness. In sentiment and in self-complacent purpose they left
England to convert the savage heathen in New England; but for more than
twelve years after their arrival in Massachusetts they killed many
hundreds of Indians, but converted none, nor established any missions
for their instruction and conversion.
The historians of the United States laud without stint the Puritans of
Massachusetts Bay; and they are entitled to all praise for their
industry, enterprise, morality, independence. But I question whether
there are many, if any, Protestants in the United States who would wish
the views and spirit of those Puritans to prevail there, either in
religion or civil government--a denial of the liberty of worship to
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, or Quakers; a denial of
eligibility to office or of elective franchise to any other than members
of the Congregational Churches; compulsory attendance upon
Congregational worship, and the support of that worship by general
taxation, together with the enforcement of its discipline by civil law
and its officers.
Had the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay understood the principles and
cherished the spirit of civil and religious liberty, and allowed to the
Browns and their Episcopalian friends the continued enjoyment of their
old and venerated form of worship, while they themselves embraced and
set up a new form of worship, and not made conformity to it a test of
loyalty and of citizenship in the Plantation, there would have been no
local dissensions, no persecutions, no complaints to England, no Royal
Commissions of Inquiry or Regulation, no restraints upon emigration, no
jealousies and disputes between England and the colony; the feelings of
cordiality with which Charles granted the Charter and encouraged its
first four years' operations, according to the testimony of the Puritans
themselves, would have developed into pride for the success of the
enterprise, and further countenance and aid to advance it; the religious
toleration in the new colony would have immensely promoted the cause of
religious toleration in England; and the American colonies would have
long since grown up, as Canada and Australia are now growing up, into a
state of national independence, without war or bloodshed, without a
single feeling other than that of filial respect and affection for the
Mother Country, without any interruption of trade or commerce--presented
an united Protestant and English nationality, under separate
governments, on the great continents of the globe and islands of the
seas.
I know it has been said that, had Episcopal worship been tolerated at
Massachusetts Bay, Laud would have soon planted the hierarchy there,
with all his ceremonies and intolerance. This objection is mere fancy
and pretence. It is fancy--for the Corporation, and not Laud, was the
chartered authority to provide for religious instruction as well as
settlement and trade in the new Plantation, as illustrated from the very
fact of the Company having selected and employed the first ministers, as
well as first Governor and other officers, for the two-fold work of
spreading religion and extending the King's dominions in New England.
The objection is mere pretence, for it could not have been dread of the
Church of England, which dictated its abolition and the banishment of
its members, since precisely the same spirit of bigotry, persecution,
and proscription prevailed, not only against Roger Williams, Mrs.
Hutchinson and her brother Wright and their friends, but in 1646 against
the Presbyterians, and in 1656 against the Baptists, as will hereafter
appear.
Their iron-bound, shrivelled creed of eternal, exclusive election
produced an iron-hearted population, whose hand was against every man
not of their tribal faith and tribal independence; but at the same time
not embodying in their civil or ecclesiastical polity a single element
of liberty or charity which any free State or Church would at this day
be willing to adopt or recognize as its distinctive constitution or
mission.
It was the utter absence of both the principles and spirit of true civil
and religious liberty in the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay, and in their
brethren under the Commonwealth and Cromwell in England, that left
Nonconformists without a plea for toleration under Charles the Second,
from the example of their own party on either side of the Atlantic, and
that has to this day furnished the most effective argument to opponents
against dissenters' pretensions to liberality and liberty, and the
strongest barrier against their political influence in England. They
were prostrate and powerless when the liberal Churchmen, guided by the
views of Chillingworth, Burnet, and Tillotson, under William and Mary,
obtained the first Parliamentary enactment for religious toleration in
England. It is to the same influence that religious liberty in England
has been enlarged from time to time; and, at this day, it is to the
exertions and influence of liberal Churchmen, both in and out of
Parliament, more than to any independent influence of Puritan
dissenters, that civil and religious liberty are making gradual and
great progress in Great Britain and Ireland--a liberty which, I believe,
would ere this have been complete but for the prescriptive, intolerant
and persecuting spirit and practice of the Puritans of the seventeenth
century.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 58: It appears that the cause of dissatisfaction among the
Puritan clergy of the Church, and of the emigration of many of them and
of their lay friends to New England, was not the Prayer Book worship of
the Church (abolished by Endicot at Massachusetts Bay), but the enforced
reading of the Book of Sports, in connection with "the rigorous
proceedings to enforce ceremonies;" for Rushworth, Vol. II., Second
Part, page 460, Anno 1636, quoted by the American antiquarian, Hazard,
Vol. I., p. 440, states as follows:
"The severe censures in the _Star Chamber_, and the greatness of the
fines and the rigorous proceedings to impose ceremonies, the suspending
and silencing of multitudes of ministers, for not reading in the Church
the Book of Sports to be exercised on the Lord's Day, caused many of the
nation, both ministers and others, to sell their estates, and set sail
for New England (a late Plantation in America), where they held a
Plantation by patent from the Crown."]
[Footnote 59: History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
19, 20. It appears, however, that within a month after Mr. Winthrop's
arrival at Massachusetts Bay, both he and the Deputy-Governor Dudley
joined the new Endicot and Higginson Church; for Mr. Holmes in his
Annals says: "A fleet of 14 sail, with men, women and children, and
provisions, having been prepared early in the year to make a firm
plantation in New England, 12 of the ships arrived early in July [1630]
at Charlestown. In this fleet came Governor Winthrop, Deputy Governor
Dudley, and several other gentlemen of wealth and quality. In this fleet
came about 840 passengers." "On the 30th of July, a day of solemn prayer
and fasting was kept at Charlestown; when Governor Winthrop, Deputy
Governor Dudley, and Mr. Wilson first entered into Church covenant; and
now was laid the foundation of the Church of Charlestown, and the first
Church in Boston." (Vol. I., pp. 202, 203.)]
[Footnote 60: History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 390, 391.
Referring to this order, May 18, 1631--not a year after Mr. Winthrop's
arrival--Mr. Hutchinson says: "None may now be a freeman of that Company
unless he be a Church member among them. None have voice in the election
of Governor, or Deputy, or assistants--none are to be magistrates,
officers, or jurymen, grand or petit, but freemen. The ministers give
their votes in all the elections of magistrates. Now the most of the
persons at New England are not admitted to their Church, and therefore
are not freemen; and when they come to be tried there, be it for life or
limb, name or estate, or whatsoever, they must be tried and judged too
by those of the Church, who are, in a sort, their adversaries. How equal
that hath been or may be, some by experience do and others may
judge."--In a note, quoted from the lawyer Lichford, Vol. I., p. 26.]
[Footnote 61: Examples of such pretensions and imputations will be given
in future pages.]
[Footnote 62: The malcontents had actually prevailed to have their
complaints entertained by the Privy Council. "Among many truths
misrepeated," writes Winthrop, "accusing us to intend rebellion, to have
cast off our allegiance, and to be wholly separate from the Church and
laws of England, that our ministers and people did continually rail
against the State, Church, and Bishops there, etc." Saltonstall,
Humphrey, Cradock (Ratcliff's master) appeared before the Committee of
the Council in the Company's behalf, and _had the address or good
fortune to vindicate their clients_, so that on the termination of the
affair, the King said "_he would have them severely punished who did
abuse his Governor and Plantation_;" and from members of the Council it
was learned, says Winthrop, "_that his Majesty did not intend to impose
the ceremonies of the Church of England upon us, for that it was
considered that it was freedom from such things that made the people
come over to us; and it was credibly informed to the Council that this
country would be beneficial to England for masts, cordage, etc., if the
Sound_ [the passage to the Baltic] _should be debarred_." "The reason
for dismissing the complaint was alleged in the Order adopted by Council
to that effect: '_Most of the things informed being denied, and resting
to be proved by parties that must be called from that place, which
required a long expense of time_, and at the present their Lordships
finding that the adventurers were upon the despatch of men, victuals,
and merchandise for that place, all which would be at a stand if the
adventurers should have discouragement, or take suspicion that the State
there had no good opinion of that Plantation,--their Lordships not
laying the fault, or fancies (if any _be_,) _of some particular men upon
the general government, or principal adventurers_, which in _due time
is_ further to be inquired into, have thought fit in the meantime to
declare that _the appearances were so fair, and the hopes so great, that
the country would prove both beneficial to this country and to the
particular adventurers, as that the adventurers had cause to go on
cheerfully with their undertakings, and rest assured, if things were
carried as was pretended_ when the patents were granted, and accordingly
as by the patents is appointed, his Majesty would not only maintain the
liberties and privileges heretofore granted, but supply anything further
that might tend to the good government of the place, and prosperity and
comfort of his people there."--Palfrey's History of New England, Vol.
I., Chap, ix., pp. 364, 365.]
[Footnote 63: The Congregational Society of Boston has published, in
1876, a new book in justification of the "Banishment of Roger Williams
from the Massachusetts Plantation," by the Rev. Dr. Henry M. Dexter, of
Boston. It is a book of intense bitterness against Roger Williams, and
indeed everything English; but his account of the origin and objects of
the Massachusetts Charter suggests, stronger than language can express,
the presumption and lawlessness of Endicot's proceedings in establishing
a new Church and abolishing an old one; and Dr. Dexter's account of the
removal of the Charter, and its secrecy, is equally suggestive. It is as
follows:
"Let me here repeat and emphasize that it may be remembered by and by
that this 'Dorchester Company,' originally founded on the transfer of a
portion of the patent of Gorges, and afterwards enlarged and
re-authorized by the Charter of Charles the First, as the 'Governor and
Company of Massachusetts Bay,' was in its beginning, and in point of
fact, neither more nor less than a private corporation chartered by the
Government for purposes of fishing, real estate improvement, and general
commerce, for which it was to pay the Crown a fifth part of all precious
metals which it might unearth. It was then more than this only in the
same sense as the egg, new-laid, is the full-grown fowl, or the acorn
the oak. It was not yet a State. It was not, even in the beginning, in
the ordinary sense, a colony. It was a plantation with a strong
religious idea behind it, on its way to be a colony and a state. In the
_original intent_, the Governor and General Court, and therefore the
Government, _were to be and abide in England_. When, in 1628, Endicot
and his little party had been sent over to Salem, his authority was
expressly declared to be 'in subordination to the Company here' [that
is, in London]. And it was only when Cradock [the first Governor of the
Company] found that so many practical difficulties threatened all
proceedings upon that basis, as to make it unlikely that Winthrop, and
Saltonstall, and Johnson, and Dudley, and other men whose co-operation
was greatly to be desired, would not consent to become partners in the
enterprise unless a radical change were made in that respect, that he
proposed and the Company consented, 'for the advancement of the
Plantation, the inducing and encouraging persons of worth and quality to
transplant themselves and families thither, and for other weighty
reasons therein contained, to transfer the government of the Plantation
to those that shall inhabit there,' &c. It was even a grave question of
law whether, under the terms of the Charter, this transfer were
possible." ... "They took the responsibility--so quietly, however, that
the Home Government seem to have remained in ignorance of the fact for
more than four years thereafter." (pp. 12, 13.)
In a note Dr. Dexter says: "I might illustrate by the Hudson Bay
Company, which existed into our time with its original Charter--strongly
resembling that of the Massachusetts Company--and which has always been
rather a corporation for trade charterers in England than a colony of
England on American soil." (_Ib._, p. 12.)
It is evident from the Charter that the original design of it was to
constitute _a corporation in England_ like that of the East India and
other great Companies, with powers to settle plantations within the
limits of the territory, under such forms of government and magistracy
as should be fit and necessary. The first step in sending out Mr.
Endicot, and appointing him a Council, and giving him commission,
instructions, etc., was agreeable to this constitution of the Charter.
(Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 12, 13.)]
[Footnote 64: History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 439, 440.]
[Footnote 65: The New England historians represent it as a high act of
tyranny for the King to appoint a Governor-General over the colonies,
and to appoint Commissioners with powers so extensive as those of the
Royal Commission appointed in 1634. But they forget and ignore the fact
that nine years afterwards, in 1643, when the Massachusetts and
neighbouring colonies were much more advanced in population and wealth
than in 1634, the Parliament, which was at war with the King and
assuming all his powers, passed an Ordinance appointing a
Governor-General and Commissioners, and giving them quite as extensive
powers as the proposed Royal Commission of 1634. This Ordinance will be
given entire when I come to speak of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans,
under the Long Parliament and under Cromwell. It will be seen that the
Long Parliament, and Cromwell himself, assumed larger powers over the
New England colonies than had King Charles.]
[Footnote 66: "The Charter was far from conceding to the patentees the
privilege of freedom of worship. Not a single line alludes to such a
purpose; nor can it be implied by a reasonable construction from any
clause in the Charter." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol.
I., pp. 271, 272.)]
[Footnote 67: It has been seen, p. 45, that the London Company had
transmitted to Endicot in 1630 a form of the oath of allegiance to the
King and his successors, to be taken by all the officers of the
Massachusetts Bay Government. This had been set aside and a new oath
substituted, leaving out all reference to the King, and confining the
oath of allegiance to the local Government.]
[Footnote 68: Historians ascribe to this circumstance a remarkable
change in the political economy of that colony; a cow which formerly
sold for twenty pounds now selling for six pounds, and every colonial
production in proportion. (Chalmers' Annals, pp. 265, 266. Neal's
History of New England, Vol. I., Chap. ix., pp. 210-218.)]
[Footnote 69: Hazard, Vol. I.]
[Footnote 70: "At the trial, 'In Michas. T. XImo Carl Primi,' and the
patentees, T. Eaton, Sir H. Rowsell, Sir John Young, Sir Richard
Saltonstall, John Ven, George Harmood, Richard Perry, Thomas Hutchins,
Nathaniel Wright, Samuel Vassall, Thomas Goffe, Thomas Adams, John Brown
pleaded a disclaimer of any knowledge of the matters complained of, and
that they should not 'for the future intermeddle with any the liberties,
privileges and franchises aforesaid, but shall be for ever excluded from
all use and claim of the same and every of them."
"Matthew Cradock [first Governor of the Company] comes in, having had
time to interplead, etc., and on his default judgment was given, that he
should be convicted of the usurpation charged in the information, and
that the said liberties, privileges and franchises should be taken and
seized into the King's hands; the said Matthew not to intermeddle with
and be excluded the use thereof, and the said Matthew to be taken to
answer to the King for the said usurpation."
"The rest of the patentees stood outlawed, and no judgment entered
against them."
Collection of Original Papers relative to the Colony of Massachusetts
Bay (in the British Museum), by T. Hutchinson, Vol. I., pp. 114-118.]
[Footnote 71: The following is a copy of the letter sent by appointment
of the Lords of the Council to Mr. Winthrop, for the patent of the
Plantations to be sent to them:
"At Whitehall, April 4th, 1638:--
"This day the Lords Commissioners for Foreign Plantations, taking into
consideration the petitions and complaints of his Majesty's subjects,
planters and traders in New England, grew more frequent than heretofore
for want of a settled and orderly government in those parts, and calling
to mind that they had formerly given order about two or three years
since to Mr. Cradock, a member of that Plantation (alleged by him to be
there remaining in the hands of Mr. Winthrop), to be sent over hither,
and that notwithstanding the same, the said letters patent were not as
yet brought over; and their Lordships being now informed by Mr.
Attorney-General that a _quo warranto_ had been by him brought,
according to former order, against the said patent, and the same was
proceeded to judgment against so many as had appeared, and that they
which had not appeared were outlawed: 'Their Lordships, well approving
of Mr. Attorney-General's care and proceeding therein, did now resolve
and order, that Mr. Meawtis, clerk of the Council attendant upon the
said Commissioners for Foreign Plantations, should, in a letter from
himself to Mr. Winthrop, inclose and convey this order unto him; and
their Lordships hereby, in his Majesty's name and according to his
express will and pleasure, strictly require and enjoin the said
Winthrop, or any other in whose power and custody the said letters
patent are, that they fail not to transmit the said patent hither by the
return of the ship in which the order is conveyed to them, it being
resolved that in case of any further neglect or contempt by them shewed
therein, their Lordships will cause a strict course to be taken against
them, and will move his Majesty to resume into his hands the whole
Plantation.'" (_Ib._, pp. 118, 119.)]
[Footnote 72: "To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for
Foreign Plantations.
"The humble Petition of the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, in New
England, of the Generall Court there assembled, the 6th day of
September, in the 14th year of the Reigne of our Soveraigne Lord King
Charles.
"Whereas it hath pleased your Lordships, by order of the 4th of April
last, to require our patent to be sent unto you, wee do hereby humbly
and sincerely professe, that wee are ready to yield all due obedience to
our Soveraigne Lord the King's majesty, and to your Lordships under him,
and in this minde wee left our native countrie, and according thereunto,
hath been our practice ever since, so as wee are much grieved, that your
Lordships should call in our patent, there being no cause knowne to us,
nor any delinquency or fault of ours expressed in the order sent to us
for that purpose, our government being according to his Majestie's
patent, and we not answerable for any defects in other plantations, etc.
"This is that which his Majestie's subjects here doe believe and
professe, and thereupon wee are all humble suitors to your Lordships,
that you will be pleased to take into further consideration our
condition, and to afford us the liberty of subjects, that we may know
what is layd to our charge; and have leaive and time to answer for
ourselves before we be condemned as a people unworthy of his Majestie's
favour or protection. As for the _quo warranto_ mentioned in the said
order, wee doe assure your Lordships wee were never called to answer it,
and if we had, wee doubt not but wee have a sufficient plea to put in.
"It is not unknowne to your Lordships, that we came into these remote
parts with his Majestie's license and encouragement, under the great
seale of England, and in the confidence wee had of that assurance, wee
have transported our families and estates, and here have wee built and
planted, to the great enlargement and securing of his Majestie's
dominions in these parts, so as if our patent should now be taken from
us, we shall be looked up as renegadoes and outlaws, and shall be
enforced, either to remove to some other place, or to returne into our
native country againe; either of which will put us to unsupportable
extremities; and these evils (among others) will necessarily follow.
(1.) Many thousand souls will be exposed to ruine, being laid open to
the injuries of all men. (2.) If wee be forced to desert this place, the
rest of the plantations (being too weake to subsist alone) will, for the
most part, dissolve and goe with us, and then will this whole country
fall into the hands of the French or Dutch, who would speedily embrace
such an opportunity. (3.) If we should loose all our labour and costs,
and be deprived of those liberties which his Majestie hath granted us,
and nothing layd to our charge, nor any fayling to be found in us in
point of allegiance (which all our countrymen doe take notice of, and
will justify our faithfulness in this behalfe), it will discourage all
men hereafter from the like undertakings upon confidence of his
Majestie's Royal grant. Lastly, if our patent be taken from us (whereby
wee suppose wee may clayme interest in his Majestie's favour and
protection) the common people here will conceive that his Majestie hath
cast them off, and that, heereby, they are freed from their allegiance
and subjection, and, thereupon, will be ready to confederate themselves
under a new Government, for their necessary safety and subsistence,
which will be of dangerous example to other plantations, and perillous
to ourselves of incurring his Majestie's displeasure, which wee would by
all means avoyd.
"Wee dare not question your Lordships' proceedings; wee only desire to
open our griefs where the remedy is to be expected. If in any thing wee
have offended his Majesty and your Lordships, wee humbly prostrate
ourselves at the footstool of supreme authority; let us be made the
object of his Majestie's clemency, and not cut off, in our first appeal,
from all hope of favour. Thus with our earnest prayers to the King of
kings for long life and prosperity to his sacred Majesty and his Royall
family, and for all honour and welfare to your Lordships, we humbly take
leave.
"EDWARD RAWSON, _Secretary_."
(Hutchinson's History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I.,
Appendix V., pp. 507, 508, 509.)]
CHAPTER IV.
THE GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY UNDER THE LONG PARLIAMENT, THE
COMMONWEALTH, AND CROMWELL.
Charles the First ceased to rule after 1640, though his death did not
take place until January, 1649. The General Court of Massachusetts Bay,
in their address to the King's Commissioners in September, 1637,
professed to offer "earnest prayers for long life and prosperity to his
sacred Majesty and his royal family, and all honour and welfare to their
Lordships;" but as soon as there was a prospect of a change, and the
power of the King began to decline and that of Parliament began to
increase, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay transferred all their
sympathies and assiduities to the Parliament. In 1641, they sent over
three agents to evoke interest with the Parliamentary leaders--one
layman, Mr. Hibbins, and two ministers, Thomas Weld and Hugh Peters, the
latter of whom was as shrewd and active in trade and speculations as he
was ardent and violent in the pulpit. He made quite a figure in the
civil war in England, and was Cromwell's favourite war chaplain. Neither
he nor Weld ever returned to New England.
As the persecution of Puritans ceased in England, emigration to New
England ceased; trade became depressed and property greatly depreciated
in value; population became stationary in New England during the whole
Parliamentary and Commonwealth rule in England, from 1640 to 1660--more
returning from New England to England than emigrating thither from
England.[73]
The first success of this mission of Hugh Peters and his colleagues soon
appeared. By the Royal Charter of 1629, the King encouraged the
Massachusetts Company by remitting all taxes upon the property of the
Plantations for the space of seven years, and all customs and duties
upon their exports and imports, to or from any British port, for the
space of twenty-one years, except the five per cent. due upon their
goods and merchandise, according to the ancient trade of merchants; but
the Massachusetts delegates obtained an ordinance of Parliament, or
rather an order of the House of Commons, complimenting the colony on its
progress and hopeful prospects, and discharging all the exports of the
natural products of the colony and all the goods imported into it for
its own use, from the payment of any custom or taxation whatever.[74]
On this resolution of the Commons three remarks may be made: 1. As in
all previous communications between the King and the Colony, the House
of Commons termed the colony a "Plantation," and the colonists
"Planters." Two years afterwards the colony of Massachusetts Bay assumed
to itself (without Charter or Act of Parliament) the title and style of
"a Commonwealth." 2. While the House of Commons speaks of the prospects
being "very happy for the propagation of the Gospel in those parts," the
Massachusetts colony had not established a single mission or employed a
single missionary or teacher for the instruction of the Indians. 3. The
House of Commons exempts the colony from payment of all duties on
articles exported from or imported into the colony, _until the House of
Commons shall take further order therein to the contrary_,--clearly
implying and assuming, as beyond doubt, the right of the House of
Commons to impose or abolish such duties at its pleasure. The colonists
of Massachusetts Bay voted hearty thanks to the House of Commons for
this resolution, and ordered it to be entered on their public records as
a proof to posterity of the gracious favour of Parliament.[75]
The Massachusetts General Court did not then complain of the Parliament
invading their Charter privileges, in assuming its right to tax or not
tax their imports and exports; but rebelled against Great Britain a
hundred and thirty years afterwards, because the Parliament asserted and
applied the same principle.
The Puritan Court of Massachusetts Bay were not slow in reciprocating
the kind expressions and acts of the Long Parliament, and identifying
themselves completely with it against the King. In 1644 they passed an
Act, in which they allowed perfect freedom of opinion, discussion, and
action on the side of Parliament, but none on the side of the King; the
one party in the colony could say and act as they pleased (and many of
them went to England and joined Cromwell's army or got places in public
departments); no one of the other party was allowed to give expression
to his opinions, either "directly or indirectly," without being
"accounted as an offender of a high nature against this Commonwealth,
and to be prosecuted, capitally or otherwise, according to the quality
and degree of his offence."[76]
The New England historians have represented the acts of Charles the
First as arbitrary and tyrannical in inquiring into the affairs of
Massachusetts Bay, and in the appointment of a Governor-General and
Commissioners to investigate all their proceedings and regulate them;
and it might be supposed that the Puritan Parliament in England and the
General Court of Massachusetts Bay would be at one in regard to local
independence of the colony of any control or interference on the part of
the Parent State. But the very year after the House of Commons had
adopted so gracious an order to exempt the exports and imports of the
colony from all taxation, both Houses of Parliament passed an Act for
the appointment of a Governor-General and seventeen Commissioners--five
Lords and twelve Commoners--with unlimited powers over all the American
colonies. Among the members of the House of Commons composing this
Commission were Sir Harry Vane and Oliver Cromwell. The title of this
Act, in Hazard, is as follows:
"An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament: whereby
Robert Earl of Warwick is made Governor-in-Chief and Lord High Admiral
of all those Islands and Plantations inhabited, planted, or belonging to
any of his Majesty the King of England's subjects, within the bounds and
upon the coasts of America, and a Committee appointed to be assisting
unto him, for the better government, strengthening and preservation of
the said Plantations; but chiefly for the advancement of the true
Protestant religion, and further spreading of the Gospel of Christ[77]
among those that yet remain there, in great and miserable blindness and
ignorance."[78]
This Act places all the affairs of the colonies, with the appointment
of Governors and all other local officers, under the direct control of
Parliament, through its general Governor and Commissioners, and shows
beyond doubt that the Puritans of the Long Parliament held the same
views with those of Charles the First, and George the Third, and Lord
North a century afterwards, as to the authority of the British
Parliament over the American colonies. Whether those views were right or
wrong, they were the views of all parties in England from the beginning
for more than a century, as to the relations between the British
Parliament and the colonies. The views on this subject held and
maintained by the United Empire Loyalists, during the American
Revolution of 1776, were those which had been held by all parties in
England, whether Puritans or Churchmen, from the first granting of the
Charter to the Company of Massachusetts Bay in 1629. The assumptions and
statements of American historians to the contrary on this subject are at
variance with all the preceding facts of colonial history.[79]
Mr. Bancroft makes no mention of this important ordinance passed by
both Houses of the Long Parliament;[80] nor does Hutchinson, or Graham,
or Palfrey. Less sweeping acts of authority over the colonies, by
either of the Charters, are portrayed by these historians with
minuteness and power, if not in terms of exaggeration. The most absolute
and comprehensive authority as to both appointments and trade in the
colonies ordered by the Long Parliament and Commonwealth are referred to
in brief and vague terms, or not at all noticed, by the historical
eulogist of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans,[81] who, while they were
asserting their independence of the royal rule of England, claimed and
exercised absolute rule over individual consciences and religious
liberty in Massachusetts, not only against Episcopalians, but equally
against Presbyterians and Baptists; for this very year, says Hutchinson,
"several persons came from England in 1643, made a muster to set
Presbyterian government under the authority of the Assembly of
Westminster; but the New England Assembly, the General Court, soon put
them to the rout."[82] And in the following year, 1644, these "Fathers
of American liberty" adopted measures equally decisive to "rout" the
Baptists. The ordinance passed on this subject, the "13th of the 9th
month, 1644," commences thus: "Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully
and often proved that since the first arising of the Anabaptists, about
one hundred years since, they have been the incendaries of the
Commonwealths and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion,
and the troubles of churches in all places where they have been, and
that they who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually
held other errors or heresies therewith, though they have (as other
heretics used to do) concealed the same till they spied out a fit
advantage and opportunity to vent them by way of question or scruple,"
etc.: "It is ordered and agreed, that if any person or persons within
this jurisdiction shall either openly condemn _or_ oppose the baptizing
of infants, _or_ go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation
or use thereof, _or_ shall purposely depart the congregation at the
ministration of the ordinance, _or_ shall deny the ordinance of
magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, _or_ to
punish the outward breakers of the first Table, and shall appear to the
Court to continue therein after the due time and means of conviction,
_shall be sentenced to banishment_."[83]
In the following year, 1646, the Presbyterians, not being satisfied with
having been "put to the rout" in 1643, made a second attempt to
establish their worship within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Bay.
Mr. Palfrey terms this attempt a "Presbyterian cabal," and calls its
leaders "conspirators." They petitioned the General Court or Legislature
of Massachusetts Bay, and on the rejection of their petition they
proposed to appeal to the Parliament in England. They were persecuted
for both acts. It was pretended that they were punished, not for
petitioning the local Court, but for the expressions used in their
petition--the same as it had been said seventeen years before, that the
Messrs. Brown were banished, not because they were Episcopalians, but
because, when called before Endicot and his councillors, they used
offensive expressions in justification of their conduct in continuing to
worship as they had done in England. In their case, in 1629, the use and
worship of the Prayer Book was forbidden, and the promoters of it
banished, and their papers seized; in this case, in 1646, the
Presbyterian worship was forbidden, and the promoters of it were
imprisoned and fined, and their papers seized. In both cases the victims
of religious intolerance and civil tyranny were men of the highest
position and intelligence. The statements of the petitioners in 1646
(the truth of which could not be denied, though the petitioners were
punished for telling it) show the state of bondage and oppression to
which all who would not join the Congregational Churches--that is,
five-sixths of the population--were reduced under this system of Church
government--the Congregational Church members alone electors, alone
eligible to be elected, alone law-makers and law administrators, alone
imposing taxes, alone providing military stores and commanding the
soldiery; and then the victims of such a Government were pronounced and
punished as "conspirators" and "traitors" when they ventured to appeal
for redress to the Mother Country. The most exclusive and irresponsible
Government that ever existed in Canada in its earliest days never
approached such a despotism as this of Massachusetts Bay. I leave the
reader to decide, when he peruses what was petitioned for--first to the
Massachusetts Legislature, and then to the English Parliament--who were
the real "traitors" and who the "conspirators" against right and
liberty: the "Presbyterian cabal," as Mr. Palfrey terms the petitioners,
or those who imprisoned and fined them, and seized their papers. Mr.
Hutchinson, the best informed and most candid of the New England
historians, states the affair of the petitioners, their proceedings and
treatment, and the petition which they presented, as follows:
"A great disturbance was caused in the colony this year [1646] by a
number of persons of figure, but of different sentiments, both as to
civil and ecclesiastical government, from the people in general. They
had laid a scheme for petition of such as were non-freemen to the courts
of both colonies, and upon the petitions being refused, to apply to the
Parliament, pretending they were subjected to arbitrary power,
extra-judicial proceedings, etc. The principal things complained of by
the petitioners were:
"1st. That the fundamental laws of England were not owned by the Colony,
as the basis of their government, according to the patent.
"2nd. The denial of those civil privileges, which the freemen of the
jurisdiction enjoyed, to such as were not members of Churches, and did
not take an oath of fidelity devised by the authority here, although
they were freeborn Englishmen, of sober lives and conversation, etc.
"3rd. That they were debarred from Christian privileges, viz., the
Lord's Supper for themselves, and baptism for their children, unless
they were members of some of the particular Churches in the country,
though otherwise sober, righteous, and godly, and eminent for knowledge,
not scandalous in life and conversation, and members of Churches in
England.
"And they prayed that civil liberty and freedom might be forthwith
granted to all truly English, and that all members of the Church of
England or Scotland, not scandalous, might be admitted to the privileges
of the Churches of New England; or if these civil and religious
liberties were refused, that they might be freed from the heavy taxes
imposed upon them, and from the impresses made of them or their children
or servants into the war; and if they failed of redress there, they
should be under the necessity of making application to England, to the
honourable Houses of Parliament, who they hoped would take their sad
condition, etc.
"But if their prayer should be granted, they hoped to see the then
contemned ordinances of God highly prized; the Gospel, then dark, break
forth as the sun; Christian charity, then frozen, wax warm; jealousy of
arbitrary government banished; strife and contention abated; and all
business in Church and State, which for many years had gone backward,
successfully thriving, etc.
"The Court, and great part of the country, were much offended at this
petition. A declaration was drawn up by order of the Court, in answer to
the petition, and in vindication of the Government--a proceeding which
at this day would not appear for the honour of the supreme authority.
The petitioners were required to attend the Court. They urged their
right of petitioning. They were told they were not accused of
petitioning, but of contemptuous and seditious expressions, and were
required to find sureties for their good behaviour, etc. A charge was
drawn up against them in form; notwithstanding which it was intimated to
them, that if they would ingenuously acknowledge their offence, they
should be forgiven; but they refused, and were fined, some in larger,
some in smaller sums, two or three of the magistrates dissenting, Mr.
Bellingham,[85] in particular, desiring his dissent might be entered.
The petitioners claimed an appeal to the Commissioners of Plantations
in England; but it was not allowed. Some of them resolved to go home
with a complaint. Their papers were seized, and among them was found a
petition to the Right Honourable the Earl of Warwick, etc.,
Commissioners, from about five and twenty non-freemen, for themselves
and many thousands more, in which they represent that from the
pulpits[86] they had been reproached and branded with the names of
destroyers of Churches and Commonwealths, called Hamans, Judases, sons
of Korah, and the Lord entreated to confound them, and the people and
magistrates stirred up against them by those who were too forward to
step out of their callings, so that they had been sent for to the Court,
and some of them committed for refusing to give two hundred pounds bond
to stand to the sentence of the Court, _when all the crime was a
petition to the Court_, and they had been publicly used as malefactors,
etc.
"Mr. Winslow, who had been chosen agent for the colony to answer to
Gorton's complaint, was now instructed to make defence against these
petitioners; and by his prudent management, and the credit and esteem he
was in with many members of the Parliament and principal persons then in
power, he prevented any prejudice to the colony from either of these
applications."[87]
Mr. (Edward) Winslow, above mentioned by Mr. Hutchinson, had been one
of the founders and Governors of the _Plymouth_ colony; but twenty-five
years afterwards he imbibed the persecuting spirit of the Massachusetts
Bay colony, became their agent and advocate in London, and by the
prestige which he had acquired as the first narrator and afterwards
Governor of the Plymouth colony, had much influence with the leading men
of the Long Parliament. He there joined himself to Cromwell, and was
appointed one of his three Commissioners to the West Indies, where he
died in 1655. Cromwell, as he said when he first obtained possession of
the King, had "the Parliament in his pocket;" he had abolished the
Prayer Book and its worship; he had expurgated the army of
Presbyterians, and filled their places with Congregationalists; he was
repeating the same process in Parliament; and through him, therefore
(who was also Commander-in-Chief of all the Parliamentary forces), Mr.
Winslow had little difficulty in stifling the appeal from Massachusetts
Bay for liberty of worship in behalf of both Presbyterians and
Episcopalians.
But was ever a petition to a local Legislature more constitutional, or
more open and manly in the manner of its getting up, more Christian in
its sentiments and objects? Yet the petitioners were arraigned and
punished as "conspirators" and "disturbers of the public peace," by
order of that Legislature, for openly petitioning to it against some of
its own acts. Was ever appeal to the Imperial Parliament by British
subjects more justifiable than that of Dr. Child, Mr. Dand, Mr. Vassal
(progenitor of British Peers), and others, from acts of a local
Government which deprived them of both religious rights of worship and
civil rights of franchise, of all things earthly most valued by
enlightened men, and without which the position of man is little better
than that of goods and chattels? Yet the respectable men who appealed to
the supreme power of the realm for the attainment of these attributes of
Christian and British citizenship were imprisoned and heavily fined,
and their private papers seized and sequestered!
In my own native country of Upper Canada, the Government for nearly half
a century was considered despotic, and held up by American writers
themselves as an unbearable tyranny. But one Church was alleged to be
established in the country, and the government was that of a Church
party; but never was the elective franchise there confined to the
members of the one Church; never were men and women denied, or hailed
before the legal tribunals and fined for exercising the privilege of
Baptism, the Lord's Supper, or public worship for themselves and
families according to the dictates of their own consciences; never was
the humblest inhabitant denied the right of petition to the local
Legislature on any subject, or against any governmental acts, or the
right of appeal to the Imperial Government or Parliament on the subject
of any alleged grievance. The very suspicion and allegation that the
Canadian Government did counteract, by influences and secret
representations, the statements of complaining parties to England,
roused public indignation as arbitrary and unconstitutional. Even the
insurrection which took place in both Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 and
1838 was professedly against alleged partiality and injustice by the
_local_ Government, as an obstruction to more liberal policy believed to
be desired by the Imperial Government.
But here, in Massachusetts, a colony chartered as a Company to
distribute and settle public lands and carry on trade, in less than
twenty years assumes the powers of a sovereign Commonwealth, denies to
five-sixths of the population the freedom of citizenship, and limits it
to the members of one Church, and denies Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and
worship to all who will not come to the one Church, punishes petitioners
to itself for civil and religious freedom from those who were deprived
of it, and punishes as "treason" their appeal for redress to the English
Parliament. Though, for the present, this unprecedented and unparalleled
local despotism was sustained by the ingenious representations of Mr.
Winslow and the power of Cromwell; yet in the course of four years the
surrender of its Charter was ordered by the regicide councillors of the
Commonwealth, as it had been ordered by the beheaded King Charles and
his Privy Council thirteen years before. In the meantime tragical
events in England diverted attention from the colonies. The King was
made prisoner, then put to death; the Monarchy was abolished, as well as
the House of Lords; and the Long Parliament became indeed Cromwell's
"pocket" instrument.
It was manifest that the government of Massachusetts Bay as a colony was
impossible, with the pretensions which it had set up, declaring all
appeals to England to be "treason," and punishing complainants as
"conspirators" and "traitors." The appointment by Parliament in 1643 of
a Governor-General and Commissioners had produced no effect in
Massachusetts Bay Colony; pretensions to supremacy and persecution were
as rife as ever there. Dr. Child and his friends were punished for even
asking for the administration that appointed the Governor-General and
those Commissioners; and whether the Government of England were a
monarchy or republic, it was clear that the pretensions to independence
of the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay must be checked, and their local
tyranny restrained. For this purpose the Long Parliament adopted the
same policy in 1650 that King Charles had done in 1637; demanded the
surrender of the Charter; for that Parliament sent a summons to the
local Government ordering it to transmit the Charter to England, to
receive a new patent from the Parliament in all its acts and processes.
This order of Parliament to Massachusetts Bay Colony to surrender its
Charter was accompanied by a proclamation prohibiting trade with
Virginia, Barbadoes, Bermuda, and Antigua, because these colonies
continued to recognize royal authority, and to administer their laws in
the name of the King. This duplicate order from the Long Parliament was
a double blow to the colony of Massachusetts Bay, and produced general
consternation; but the dexterity and diplomacy of the colony were equal
to the occasion. It showed its devotion to the cause of the Long
Parliament by passing an Act prohibiting trade with the loyal, but by
them termed rebel colonies;[88] and it avoided surrendering the Charter
by repeating its policy of delay and petition, which it had adopted on a
similar occasion in 1638 to King Charles; and its professions of
loyalty to Charles, and prayers for the Royal Family, and the success of
the Privy Council, it now repeated for the Long Parliament and its
leaders, supporting its petition by an appeal to its ten years' services
of prayers and of men to the cause of the Long Parliament against the
King. I will, in the first place, give in a note Mr. Bancroft's own
account of what was claimed and ordered by the Long Parliament, and the
pretensions and proceedings of the Legislature of Massachusetts Bay, and
then will give the principal parts of their petition to the Long
Parliament in their own words. The words and statements of Mr. Bancroft
involve several things worthy of notice and remembrance: 1. The
Congregational Church rulers of Massachusetts Bay denied being British
subjects, admitting no other allegiance to England than the Hanse Towns
of Northern Germany to the Empire of Austria, or the Normandy ducal
kings of England to the King of France; or, as Mr. Palfrey says, "the
relations which Burgundy and Flanders hold to France." 2. Mr. Bancroft
calls the petitioners "disturbers of the public security," and Mr.
Palfrey calls them "conspirators"--terms applied to the Armenian
remonstrants against the persecuting edicts of the Synod of Dort--terms
applied to all the complainants of the exclusive and persecuting policy
of the Tudor and Stuart kings of England--terms applied to even the
first Christians--terms now applied to pleaders of religious and civil
freedom by the advocates of a Massachusetts Government as intolerant and
persecuting as ever existed in Europe. The petition of these impugned
parties shows that all they asked for was equal religious and civil
liberty and protection with their Congregational oppressors. Opprobrious
names are not arguments; and imputations of motives and character are
not facts, and are usually resorted to for want of them. 3. Mr. Bancroft
designates as "usurpations of Parliament" the proceedings of the Long
Parliament in appointing a Governor-General and Commissioners for the
colonies, and in exercising its right to receive and decide upon appeals
from the colonies; and terms the support of the Parliament in the colony
"domestic treachery;" and the one member of the Legislature who had the
courage to maintain the supremacy of the Mother Country is called the
"faithless deputy," who was forthwith turned out of the House, which
then proceeded, "with closed doors," to discuss in secret conclave its
relations to England, and concluded by declaring "against any assertion
of paramount authority" on the part of the English Parliament. This was
substantially a "Declaration of Independence;" not, indeed, against an
arbitrary king, as was alleged sixteen years before, and a hundred and
thirty years afterwards, but against a Parliament which had dethroned
and beheaded their King, and abolished the House of Lords and the
Episcopal Church! All this Mr. Bancroft now treats as maintaining the
_Charter_, of which he himself had declared, in another place, as I have
quoted above: "The Charter on which the freemen of Massachusetts
succeeded in erecting a system of independent representative liberty did
not secure to them a single privilege of self-government, but left them
as the Virginians had been left, without any valuable franchise, at the
mercy of the Corporation within the realm." Who then were the
"usurpers," and had been for twenty years, of power which had not been
conferred on them--the new Church and the persecuting Government of
Massachusetts Bay, or the supreme authority of England, both under a
King and under a professed republican commonwealth? 4. Mr. Bancroft
says: "Had the Long Parliament succeeded in revoking the patent of the
Massachusetts Bay,[90] the tenor of American history would have been
changed." I agree with him in this opinion, though probably not in his
application of it. I believe that the "tenor of American history" would
have led to as perfect an independence of the American States as they
now enjoy--as free, but a better system of government, and without their
ever having made war and bloodshed against Great Britain.
The facts thus referred to show that there were _Empire Loyalists_ in
America in the seventeenth, as there were afterwards in the eighteenth
century; they then embraced all the colonies of New England, except the
ruling party of Massachusetts Bay; they were all advocates of an equal
franchise, and equal religious and civil liberty for all classes--the
very reverse of the Massachusetts Government, which, while it denied any
subordination to England, denied religious and civil liberty to all
classes except members of the Congregational Churches.
It is a curious and significant fact, stated by Mr. Bancroft, that these
intolerant and persecuting proceedings of the Massachusetts Bay
Legislature were submitted to the Congregational ministers for their
approval and final endorsement. The Long Parliament in England checked
and ruled the Assembly of Westminster divines; but in Massachusetts the
divines, after a day's consideration, "approved the proceedings of the
General Court." No wonder that such divines, supported by taxes levied
by the State and rulers of the State, denounced all toleration of
dissent from their Church and authority.
Before leaving this subject, I must notice the remarks of Mr.
Palfrey,--the second, if not first in authority of the historians of New
England.
Mr. Palfrey ascribes what he calls "the Presbyterian Cabal" to Mr.
William Vassal, who was one of the founders and first Council of the
colony of Massachusetts Bay, whose brother Samuel had shared with
Hampden the honour of having refused to pay ship-money to Charles, and
who was now, with the Earl of Warwick,[91] one of the Parliamentary
Commissioners for the colonies. It appears that Mr. Vassal opposed from
the beginning the new system of Church and proscriptive civil government
set up at Massachusetts Bay, and therefore came under Mr. Bancroft's
category of "disturbers of the public security," and Mr. Palfrey's
designation of "conspirators;" but was in reality a liberal and a
loyalist, not to King Charles indeed, but to the Commonwealth of
England. I give Mr. Palfrey's statements, in his own words, in a
note.[92]
The spirit and sentiments of Mr. Palfrey are identical with those which
I have quoted of Mr. Bancroft; but while Mr. Bancroft speaks
contemptuously of the authors of the petition for equal civil and
religious rights, Mr. Palfrey traces the movement to Mr. William Vassal,
one of the founders and first Council of the Massachusetts Colony, and
progenitor of the famous Whig family of Holland House. Nor does Mr.
Palfrey venture to question the doctrine or one of the statements of the
petitioners, though he calls them "conspirators."
Mr. Palfrey--very unfairly, I think--imputes to the petitioners a design
to subvert the Congregational worship and establish the Presbyterian
worship in its place; and to give force to his imputations says that a
numerous party in the English Parliament "were bent on setting up
Presbytery as the established religion in England and _its
dependencies_." There is not the slightest ground for asserting that any
party in the Long Parliament, any more than in Massachusetts, designed
the setting up of Presbytery as _the_ established worship in the
"_dependencies_ of England." King Charles the First, on his first
sitting in judgment on complaints against the proceedings of the
Massachusetts Bay Council, declared to his Privy Council, in 1632, that
he had never intended to impose the Church ceremonies, objected to by
the Puritan clergy of the time, upon the colonists of Massachusetts.
Charles the Second, thirty years afterwards, declared the same, and
acted upon it during the quarter of a century of his reign. The Long
Parliament acted upon the same principle. There is not an instance,
during the whole sixty years of the first Massachusetts Charter, of any
attempt, on the part of either King or Commonwealth, to suppress or
interfere with the Congregational worship in New England; all that was
asked by the King, or any party in Massachusetts, was _toleration_ of
other forms of Protestant worship as well as that of the Congregational.
The very petition, whose promoters are represented as movers of
sedition, asked for no exclusive establishment of Presbyterianism, but
for the toleration of both the Episcopal and Presbyterian worship, and
the worship of other Protestant Churches existing in England; and their
petition was addressed to a Legislature of Congregationalists, elected
by Congregationalists alone; and it was only in the event of their
reasonable requests not being granted by the local Legislature that they
proposed to present their grievances to the Imperial Parliament. The
plea of fear for the safety of Congregational worship in Massachusetts
was a mere pretence to justify the proscription and persecution of all
dissent from the Congregational establishment. The spirit of the local
Government and of the clergy that controlled it was _intolerance_.
Toleration was denounced by them as the doctrine of devils; and the
dying lines of Governor Dudley are reported to have been--
"Let men of God, in Court and Church, watch
O'er such as do a toleration hatch."[94]
There is one other of Mr. Palfrey's statements which is of special
importance; it is the admission that a majority of the population of
Massachusetts were excluded from all share in the Government, and were
actually opposed to it. Referring to the petition to the local
Legislature, he says: "The demand was enforced by considerations which
were not without plausibility, and were presented in a seductive form.
It was itself an appeal to the _discontent of the numerical majority not
invested with a share in the government_."[95]
It is thus admitted, and clear from indubitable facts, that professing
to be republicans, they denied to the great majority of the people any
share in the government. Professing hatred of the persecuting
intolerance of King Charles and Laud in denying liberty of worship to
all who differed from them, they now deny liberty of worship to all who
differ from themselves, and punish those by fine and imprisonment who
even petition for equal religious and civil liberty to all classes of
citizens. They justify even armed resistance against the King, and
actually decapitating as well as dethroning him, in order to obtain,
professedly, a government by the majority of the nation and liberty of
worship; and they now deny the same principle and right of civil and
religious liberty to the great majority of the people over whom they
claimed rule. They claim the right of resisting Parliament itself by
armed force if they had the power, and only desist from asserting it, to
the last, as the _salus populi_ did not require it, and for the sake of
their "godly friends in England," and to not afford a pretext for the
"rebellious course" of their fellow-colonists in Virginia and the West
Indies, who claimed the same independence of Parliament that the
Government of Massachusetts claimed, but upon the ground which was
abhorrent to the Congregational Puritans of Massachusetts--namely, that
of loyalty to the king.
I will now give in a note, in their own words, the principal parts of
their petition, entitled "General Court of Massachusetts Bay, New
England, in a Petition to Parliament in 1651,"[97] together with
extracts of two addresses to Cromwell, the one enclosing a copy of their
petition to Parliament, when he was Commander-in-Chief of the army, and
the other in 1654, after he had dismissed the Rump Parliament, and
become absolute--denying to the whole people of England the elective
franchise, as his admiring friends in Massachusetts denied it to the
great majority of the people within their jurisdiction. Chalmers says
they "outfawned and outwitted Cromwell." They gained his support by
their first address, and thanked him for it in their second. Having "the
Parliament in his pocket" until he threw even the rump of it aside
altogether, Cromwell caused Parliament to desist from executing its own
order.
It will be seen in the following chapter, that ten years after these
laudatory addresses to Parliament and Cromwell, the same General Court
of Massachusetts addressed Charles the Second in words truly loyal and
equally laudatory, and implored the continuance of their Charter upon
the ground, among other reasons, that they had never identified
themselves with the Parliament against his Royal father, but had been
"passive" during the whole of that contest. Their act against having any
commerce with the colonies who adhered to the King indicated their
neutrality; and the reader, by reading their addresses to the Parliament
and Cromwell, will see whether they did not thoroughly identify
themselves with the Parliament and Cromwell against Charles the First.
They praise Cromwell as raised up by the special hand of God, and crave
upon him the success of "the Captain of the Lord's hosts;" and they
claim the favourable consideration of Parliament to their request upon
the ground that they had identified themselves with its fortunes to rise
or fall with it; that they had aided it by their prayers and fastings,
and by men who had rendered it valuable service. The reader will be able
to judge of the agreement in their _professions_ and _statements_ in
their addresses to Parliament and Cromwell and to King Charles the
Second ten years afterwards. In their addresses to Parliament and
Cromwell they professed their readiness to _fall_ as well as rise with
the cause of the Parliament; but when that _fell_, they repudiated all
connection with it.
In the year 1651, and during the very Session of Parliament to which the
General Court addressed its petition and narrated its sacrifices and
doings in the cause of the Parliament, the latter passed the famous
Navigation Act, which was re-enacted and improved ten years afterwards,
under Charles the Second, and which became the primary pretext of the
American Revolution. The Commonwealth was at this time at war with the
Dutch republic, which had almost destroyed and absorbed the shipping
trade of England. Admiral Blake was just commencing that series of naval
victories which have immortalized his name, and placed England from that
time to this at the head of the naval powers of the world. Sir Henry
Vane, as the Minister of the Navy, devised and carried through
Parliament the famous Navigation Act--an Act which the colony of
Massachusetts, by the connivance of Cromwell (who now identified himself
with that colony), regularly evaded, at the expense of the American
colonies and the English revenue.[98] Mr. Palfrey says:
"The people of Massachusetts might well be satisfied with their
condition and prospects. Everything was prospering with them. They had
established comfortable homes, which they felt strong enough to defend
against any power but the power of the Mother Country; and that was
friendly. They had always the good-will of Cromwell. In relation _to
them_, he allowed the Navigation Law, _which pressed on the Southern
colonies, to became_ A DEAD LETTER, and they received the commodities of
all nations free of duty, and sent their ships to all the ports of
continental Europe."[99]
But that in which the ruling spirits of the Massachusetts General
Court--apart from their ceaseless endeavours to monopolise trade and
extend territory--seemed to revel most was in searching out and
punishing _dissent_ from the Congregational Establishment, and, at
times, with the individual liberty of citizens in sumptuary matters. No
Laud ever equalled them in this, or excelled them in enforcing
uniformity, not only of doctrine, but of opinions and practice in the
minutest particulars. When a stand against England was to be taken, in
worship, or inquisition into matters of religions dissent, and woman's
apparel, Endicot became Governor (according to the "advice of the
Elders" in such matters), and Winthrop was induced to be Deputy
Governor, although the latter was hardly second to the former in the
spirit and acts of religious persecution. He had been a wealthy man in
England, and was well educated and amiable; but after his arrival at
Massachusetts Bay he seems to have wanted firmness to resist the
intolerant spirit and narrow views of Endicot. He died in 1649. Mr.
Palfrey remarks: "Whether it was owing to solicitude as to the course of
affairs in England after the downfall of the Royal power, or to the
absence of the moderating influence of Winthrop, or to sentiments
engendered, on the one hand by the alarm from the Presbyterians in 1646,
and on the other by the confidence inspired by the [Congregational]
Synod in 1648, or to all these causes in their degree, the years 1650
and 1651 appear to have been some of more than common sensibility in
Massachusetts to danger from _Heretics_."[100]
In 1650, the General Court condemned, and ordered to be publicly burnt,
a book entitled "The Meritorious Price of our Redemption, Justification,
etc., Clearing of some Common Errors," written and published in England,
by Mr. Pynchion, "an ancient and venerable magistrate." This book was
deficient in orthodoxy, in the estimation of Mr. Endicot and his
colleagues, was condemned to be burnt, and the author was summoned to
answer for it at the bar of the inquisitorial court. His explanation was
unsatisfactory; and he was commanded to appear a second time, under a
penalty of one hundred pounds; but he returned to England, and left his
inquisitors without further remedy.
"About the same time," says Mr. Palfrey, "the General Court had a
difficulty with the Church of Malden. Mr. Marmaduke Matthews having
'given offence to magistrates, elders, and many brethren, in some unsafe
and unsound expressions in his public teaching,' and the Church of
Malden having proceeded to ordain him, in disregard of remonstrances
from 'both magistrates, ministers, and churches,' Matthews was fined ten
pounds for assuming the sacred office, and the Church was summoned to
make its defence" (Massachusetts Records, III., 237); which "failing to
do satisfactorily, it was punished by a fine of fifty pounds--Mr.
Hathorne, Mr. Leverett, and seven other Deputies recording their votes
against the sentence." (_Ibid._ 252; compare 276, 289.)
But these reputed fathers of civil and religious liberty not only held
inquisition over the religious writings and teachings of magistrates and
ministers, and the independence of their Congregational Churches, but
even over the property, the income, and the apparel of individuals; for
in this same year, 1651, they passed a Sumptuary Act. Mr. Holmes justly
remarks: "This sumptuary law, for the matter and style, is a curiosity."
The Court, lamenting the inefficacy of former "Declarations and Orders
against excess of apparel, both of men and women," proceed to observe:
"We cannot but to our grief take notice, that intolerable excess and
bravery hath crept in upon us, and especially among people of mean
condition, to the dishonour of God, the scandal of our profession, the
consumption of estates, and altogether unsuitable to our poverty. The
Court proceed to order, that no person whose visible estate should not
exceed the true and indifferent sum of £200, shall wear any gold or
silver lace, or gold and silver buttons, or have any lace above two
shillings per yard, or silk hoods or scarves, on the penalty of ten
shillings for every such offence." The select men of every town were
required to take notice of the apparel of any of the inhabitants, and to
assess such persons as "they shall judge to exceed their ranks and
abilities, in the costliness or fashion of their apparel in any respect,
especially in wearing of ribbands and great boots," at £200 estates,
according to the proportion which some men used to pay to whom such
apparel is suitable and allowed. An exception, however, is made in
favour of public officers and their families, and of those "whose
education and employment have been above the ordinary degree, or whose
estates have been considerable, though now decayed."[101]
It will be recollected by the reader that in 1644 the Massachusetts Bay
Court passed an act of banishment, etc., against Baptists; that in 1643
it put to "the rout" the Presbyterians, who made a move for the
toleration of their worship; that in 1646, when the Presbyterians and
some Episcopalians petitioned the local Court for liberty of worship,
and in the event of refusal expressed their determination to appeal to
the English Parliament, they were punished with fines and imprisonment,
and their papers were seized. The above acts of censorship over the
press, and private opinions in the case of Mr. Pinchion, and their
tyranny over the organization of new Churches and the ordinations of
ministers--fining both Church and ministers for exercising what is
universally acknowledged to be essential to _independent_ worship--are
but further illustrations of the same spirit of intolerance. It was the
intolerance of the Massachusetts Bay Government that caused the
settlement of Connecticut, of New Haven, as well as of Rhode Island. The
noble minds of the younger Winthrop, of Eaton, no more than that of
Roger Williams, could shrivel themselves into the nutshell littleness of
the Massachusetts Bay Government--so called, indeed, by courtesy, or by
way of accommodation, rather than as conveying a proper idea of a
Government, as it consisted solely of Congregationalists, who alone were
eligible to office and eligible as electors to office, and was therefore
more properly a Congregational Association than a civil government; yet
this association assumed the combined powers of legislation,
administration of government and law, and of the army--absolute
censorship of the press, of worship, of even private opinions--and
punished as criminals those who even expressed their griefs in
petitions; and when punished they had the additional aggravation of
being told that they were not punished for petitioning, but for what the
petitions contained, as if they could petition without using words, and
as if they could express their griefs and wishes without using words for
that purpose. Yet under such pretexts was a despotism established and
maintained for sixty years without a parallel in the annals of colonial
history, ancient or modern; under which five-sixths of the population
had no more freedom of worship, of opinion, or of franchise, than the
slaves of the Southern States before the recent civil war. It is not
surprising that a Government based on no British principle, based on the
above principle of a one Church membership, every franchise under which
was granted, or cancelled, or continued at the pleasure of Elders and
their Courts--such a Government, un-British in its foundation and
elements, could not be expected to be loyal to the Royal branch of the
constitution.
It is not surprising that even among the Puritan party themselves, who
were now warring against the King, and who were soon to bring him to the
block, such unmitigated despotism and persecutions in Massachusetts
should call forth, here and there, a voice of remonstrance,
notwithstanding the argus-eyed watchfulness and espionage exercised by
the Church government at Massachusetts Bay over all persons and papers
destined for England, and especially in regard to every suspected person
or paper. One of these is from Sir Henry Vane, who went to Massachusetts
in 1636, and was elected Governor; but he was in favour of toleration,
and resisted the persecution against Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and her
brother, Mr. Wheelwright. The persecuting party proved too strong for
him, and he resigned his office before the end of the year. He was
succeeded as Governor by Mr. Winthrop, who ordered him to quit
Massachusetts. He was, I think, the purest if not the best statesman of
his time;[102] he was too good a man to cherish resentment against
Winthrop or against the colony, but returned good for evil in regard to
both in after years. Sir Henry Vane wrote to Governor Winthrop, in
regard to these persecutions, as follows:
"Honoured Sir,--
"I received yours by your son, and was unwilling to let him return
without telling you as much. The exercise of troubles which God is
pleased to lay upon these kingdoms and the inhabitants in them, teaches
us patience and forbearance one with another in some measure, though
there be no difference in our opinions, which makes me hope, that from
the experience here, it may also be derived to yourselves, lest while
the Congregational way amongst you is in its freedom, and is backed with
power, it teach its oppugners here to extirpate it and roote it out, and
from its own principles and practice. I shall need say no more, knowing
your son can acquaint you particularly with our affairs.
"&c., &c.,
H. VANE.[103]
June 10, 1645."
Another and more elaborate remonstrance of the same kind was written by
Sir Richard Saltonstall, one of the original founders, and of the first
Council of the Company--one who had appeared before the King in Council
in 1632, in defence of Endicot and his Council, in answer to the charges
of Church innovation, of abolishing the worship of the Church of
England, and banishing the Browns on account of their adhering to the
worship which all the emigrants professed on their leaving England. Sir
R. Saltonstall and Mr. Cradock, the Governor of the Company, could
appeal to the address of Winthrop and his eleven ships of emigrants,
which they had delivered to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of
England" on their departure for America, as to their undying love and
oneness with the Church of England, and their taking Church of England
chaplains with them; they could appeal to the letter of Deputy Governor
Dudley to Lady Lincoln, denying that any innovations or changes whatever
had been introduced; they could appeal to the positive statements of the
Rev. John White, "the Patriarch of Dorchester," a Conformist clergyman,
and the first projector of the colony, declaring that the charges of
innovations, etc., were calumnies. Doubtless all these parties believed
what they said; they believed the denials and professions made to them;
and they repeated them to the King's Privy Council with such earnestness
as to have quite captivated the Judges, to have secured even the
sympathies of the King, who was far from being the enemy of the colony
represented by his enemies. Accordingly, an order was made in Council,
January 19, 1632, "declaring the fair appearances and great hopes which
there then were, that the country would prove beneficial to the kingdom,
as profitable to the particular persons concerned, and that the
_adventurers might be assured_ that if things should be carried as was
pretended when the patents were granted, and according as by the patent
is appointed, his Majesty would not only maintain the liberties and
privileges heretofore granted, but supply anything further which might
tend to the good government, prosperity, and comfort of the people
there." According to the statement of some of the Privy Council, the
King himself said "he would have severely punished who did abuse his
Governor and Plantation."
Mr. Palfrey well observes: "Saltonstall, Humphrey, and Cradock appeared
before a Committee of the Council on the Company's behalf, and had the
_address or good fortune_ to vindicate their clients."[104] It was
certainly owing to their "address or good fortune," and not to the
justice of their case, that they succeeded in deceiving the King and
Council. The complainants had unwisely mixed the charge of disloyal
speeches, etc., with Church innovations. It was to parry the former, by
assuming the statements to be _ex parte_, and at any rate uttered by
private individuals, who should be called to account for their conduct,
and for whose words the Company could not be justly held responsible. On
the main charge of Church innovations, or Church revolution, and
proscription of the worship of the Church of England, positive denials
were opposed--the profession of Winthrop with his company and chaplains
on leaving England, the positive statement of the "Patriarch of
Dorchester," and that of Deputy Governor Dudley, who went to
Massachusetts with Winthrop, and wrote to the Countess of Lincoln the
year after his arrival, denying that any innovations had been made. To
all this the complainants had only to oppose their own words--their
papers having been seized. They were overwhelmed by the mass of
authority arrayed against them. But though they were defeated for the
time, they were not silenced; and the following two years were
productive of such a mass of rumours and statements, all tending to
prove the Church revolutionary and Church proscriptive proceedings of
the Massachusetts Corporation, that the King and Council found it
necessary to prosecute those inquiries which they had deferred in 1632,
and to appoint a Royal Commission to proceed to Massachusetts Bay and
inquire into the disputed facts, and correct all abuses, if such should
be found, on the spot. This was what the Massachusetts Bay persecutors
most dreaded. As long as the inquiry should be conducted in London, they
could, by intercepting papers and intimidating witnesses, and with the
aid of powerful friends in England--one or two of whom managed to retain
their place in office and in the Privy Council, even when Charles ruled
without a Parliament--with such advantages they could laugh to scorn the
complaints of the persecuted, and continue their proscriptions and
oppressions with impunity. But with a Royal Commission sitting on the
spot, these acts of concealment and deception would be impossible. They
therefore changed their ground; they now denied the right of the King to
inquire into their proceedings; they invoked, as was their wont, the
counsel of their ministers, or "Elders," who preached warlike sermons
and gave warlike advice--"to resist if they were strong enough;" but if
not strong enough to fight, "to avoid and delay." For the former purpose
they forthwith raised £800 to erect a fort to protect the entrance of
their harbour, and organized and armed companies; and in pursuance of
the latter, they delayed a year even to acknowledge the receipt of the
Royal orders to answer the charges preferred against them, and then,
when a more imperative and threatening Royal demand was sent, they
pleaded for another year to prepare for their defence, and thus "avoided
and delayed" from time to time, until the King, getting so entangled
with his Scottish subjects and Parliament, became unable to pursue his
inquiries into the proceedings of the Massachusetts Bay Plantation; and
the Congregational Church rulers there had, for more than twenty years,
the luxury of absolute rule and unrestricted persecution of all that
dissented from their newly set up Church polity and worship.
Sir Richard Saltonstall, as well as Sir Henry Vane, and doubtless many
others of the Puritan party in England, could not endure in silence the
outrageous perversions of the Charter, and high-handed persecutions by
the Congregational rulers of Massachusetts Bay.[105] Sir R. Saltonstall
therefore wrote to Cotton and Wilson, who, with Norton, were the ablest
preachers among the "Elders," and were the fiercest persecutors. The
letter is without date, but is stated by Mr. Hutchinson, in his
Collection of Massachusetts State Papers, to have been written "some
time between 1645 and 1653." Sir R. Saltonstall's indignant and noble
remonstrance is as follows:
"Reverend and deare friends, whom I unfaynedly love
and respect:
"It doth not a little grieve my spirit to heare what sadd things are
reported day by day of your tyranny and persecutions in New England as
that you fine, whip and imprison men for their consciences. First, you
compell such to come to your assemblys as you know will not joyne, and
when they show their dislike thereof or witness against it, then you
stirre up your magistrates to punish them for such (as you conseyve)
their publicke affronts. Truly, friends, this your practice of
compelling any in matters of worship to do that whereof they are not
fully persuaded, is to make them sin, for so the apostle (Rom. xiv. 23)
tells, and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward
man for feare of punishment. We pray for you and wish you prosperity
every way; we hoped the Lord would have given you so much light and love
there, that you might have been eyes to God's people here, and not to
practise those courses in the wilderness, which you went so far to
prevent. These rigid ways have laid you very lowe in the hearts of the
saints. I do assure you I have heard them pray in the public assemblies
that the Lord would give you meeke and humble spirits, not to strive so
much for uniformity as to keepe the unity of the spirit in the bond of
peace."
Addressed: "For my reverend and worthyly much esteemed friends, Mr.
Cotton and Mr. Wilson, preachers to the Church which is at Boston, in
New England."[106]
It is seen that Sir R. Saltonstall's letter was addressed to the two
principal Congregational ministers of Boston. It has been shown that the
preachers were the counsellors and prompters of all violent measures
against dissenting Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and
Quakers--a fact further illustrated and confirmed by Mr. Bancroft, who,
under the date of 1650 and 1651, says: "Nor can it be denied, nor should
it be concealed, that the Elders, especially Wilson and Norton,
instigated and sustained the Government in its worst cruelties."[107]
During this first thirty years of the Massachusetts Bay Government, it
evinced, in contrast with all the other British American colonies,
constant hostility to the authorities in England, seizing upon every
possible occasion for agitation and dispute; perverting and abusing the
provisions of the Royal Charter to suppress the worship of the Church of
England, and banishing its adherents; setting up a new Church and
persecuting, by whipping, banishment and death, those who refused to
conform to it; seeking its own interests at the expense of the
neighbouring colonies; sacrificing the first principles of civil and
religious liberty in their legislation and government; basing
eligibility to office, and even the elective franchise, upon the
condition of membership in a Congregational Church--a condition without
a precedent or a parallel in any Protestant country.
I cannot better conclude this review of the first three decades of the
Massachusetts Bay Puritan Government, than in the words of the
celebrated Edmund Burke, who, in his account of the European settlements
in America, after describing the form of government established at
Massachusetts Bay, remarks that: "From such a form as this, great
religious freedom might, one would have imagined, be well expected. But
the truth is, they had no idea at all of such freedom. The very
doctrine of any sort of toleration was so odious to the greater part,
that one of the first persecutions set up here was against a small party
which arose amongst themselves, who were hardy enough to maintain that
the civil magistrate had no lawful power to use compulsory measures in
affairs of religion. After harassing these people by all the vexatious
ways imaginable, they obliged them to fly out of their jurisdiction."
"If men, merely for the moderation of their sentiments, were exposed to
such severe treatment, it was not to be expected that others should
escape unpunished. The very first colony had hardly set its foot in
America, when, discovering that some amongst them were false brethren,
and ventured to make use of the Common Prayer, they found means to make
the country so uneasy to them, that they were glad to fly back to
England. As soon as they began to think of making laws, I find no less
than five about matters of religion; all contrived, and not only
contrived, but executed in some respects with a rigour that the
persecution which drove the Puritans out of England, might be considered
lenity and indulgence in the comparison. For, in the first of these
laws, they deprive every man who does not communicate with their
Established Church, of the right to his freedom, or a vote in the
election of their magistrates. In the second, they sentence to
banishment any who should oppose the fourth commandment, or deny the
validity of infant baptism, or the authority of the magistrates. In the
third, they condemn Quakers to banishment, and make it capital for them
to return; and not stopping at the offenders, they lay heavy fines upon
all who should bring them into the province, or even harbour them for an
hour. In the fourth, they provide banishment, and death in case of
return, for Jesuits and Popish priests of every denomination. In the
fifth, they decree death to any who shall worship images. After they had
provided such a complete code of persecution, they were not long without
opportunities of reading bloody lectures upon it." "In short, this
people, who in England could not bear to be chastised with rods, had no
sooner got free from their fetters than they scourged their
fellow-refugees with scorpions; though the absurdity as well as
injustice of such proceeding in them might stare them in the
face!"[108]
Mr. Palfrey observes, that "the death of the Protector is not so much as
referred to in the public records of Massachusetts." If this silence
even as to the fact of Cromwell's death was intended to disclaim having
had any connection or sympathy with the Protector, it was a deception;
if it was intended as preparatory to renouncing the worship of the
setting sun of Cromwell, and worshipping the rising sun of Charles the
Second, it was indeed characteristic of their siding with the stronger
party, if they could thereby advance their own interests. But I think
every candid man in this age will admit, that there was much more
dignity of sentiment and conduct of those loyal colonies who adhered to
their Sovereign in his adversity as well as in his prosperity, who
submitted to compulsory subjection to the Cromwell power without
acknowledging its legitimacy, and were the first to recognize and
proclaim the restored king.[109]
The reader will be better able to appreciate the professions of the
Massachusetts Bay Government, in regard to the restored king, after
reviewing its professions and relations to the Government of the Long
Parliament and of Cromwell.
It has been shown above, that when obstinate silence could not prevent
the inquiry by a Royal Commission into the oppressive and disloyal
proceedings complained of, and that resistance was fruitless, the
Massachusetts Bay Government, September 1638, transmitted to the Lords
Commissioners for the Colonies a petition in which it professed not to
question the authority of their Lordships' proceedings, but only to open
their griefs; that if they had offended in anything, they prostrated
themselves at the foot of authority. They begged for time to answer,
before condemnation, professed loyalty to the King and prayers for his
long life, and the happiness of his family, and for the success of the
Lords of his Council. Two years after, when the King's power began to
wane, the Massachusetts Bay Government sent home a Commission, headed by
the notorious Hugh Peters,[110] to conciliate the support of the leading
members of the Commons against the King's commission, and to aid the
opposition to the King. In 1644, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay
enacted, "that what person so ever shall draw a party to the King,
against the Parliament, shall be accounted a high offender against this
Commonwealth, and shall be punished capitally." (See this Act, quoted at
large in a previous page.) This proceeding was as decisive as possible
against the King and all who adhered to the monarchy.
Again, in the Massachusetts General Court's address to Parliament, in
1651, occur the following words:
"And for our carriage and demeanour to the honourable Parliament, for
these _ten years_, since the first beginning of your differences with
the late king, and the war that after ensued, _we have constantly
adhered to you_, not withdrawing ourselves in your weakest condition and
doubtfullest times, but by our fasting and prayers for your good
success, and our thanksgiving after the same was attained, in days of
solemnity set apart for that purpose, _as also by our over-useful men_
(others going voluntarily from us to help you), _who have been of good
use and done good acceptable service to the army, declaring to the
world hereby_ that such was the duty and love we bear unto the
Parliament that we were ready to rise and fall with them; for which we
have suffered the hatred and threats of other English colonies, now in
rebellion against you, as also the loss of divers of our ships and
goods, taken by the King's party that is dead, by others commissioned by
the King of Scots [Charles II.] and by the Portugalls."[111]
An address of the same General Court, in the same year, 1651, and on the
same occasion (against the order of Parliament to recall the old and
grant the new Charter), to Oliver Cromwell, concludes in the following
words:
"We humbly petition your Excellence to be pleased to show us what
favour God shall be pleased to direct you unto on our behalf, to the
most honourable Parliament, unto whom we have now presented a petition.
The copy of it, _verbatim_, we are bold to send herewith, that if God
please, we may not be hindered in our comfortable work of God here in
this wilderness. Wherein, as for other favours, we shall be bound to
pray, that the Captain of the host of Israel may be with you and your
whole army, in all your great enterprises, to the glory of God, the
subduing of his and your enemies, and your everlasting peace and comfort
in Jesus Christ."
Likewise, August 24th, 1654, after Cromwell had not only put the King to
death, but abolished the House of Lords, excluded by his soldiers 154
members of Parliament, then dismissed the remaining "rump" of the
Parliament itself and become sole despot, the General Court of
Massachusetts Bay concluded an address to him as follows:
"We shall ever pray the Lord, your protector in all your dangers, that
hath crowned you with honour after your long service, to lengthen your
days, that you may long continue Lord Protector of the three nations,
and the Churches of Christ Jesus."[112]
The documentary evidence which I have adduced, shows, I think, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the rulers of Massachusetts Bay Colony were
disaffected to the King from the beginning, and so displayed that
feeling on every occasion except one, in 1638, when they professed
humiliation and loyalty in order to avert the investigation which they
dreaded into their proceedings; that the King, whatever may have been
his misdoings towards his subjects in England, treated his subjects in
the colonies, and especially in Massachusetts Bay, with a kindness and
consideration which should have secured their gratitude; that the
moment, in the matters of dispute between the King and his Parliament
(and in which the colonies had no concern), the scale appeared to turn
in favour of the Parliament, the rulers of Massachusetts Bay renounced
their allegiance to the King, and identified themselves as thorough
partizans of the war against the King--that they suppressed, under the
severest penalties, every expression of loyalty to the King within their
jurisdiction--offered prayers for and furnished men in aid of the
Parliamentary army--denounced and proscribed all recognition, except as
enemies, the other American colonies who adhered to their oaths of
allegiance to the King; that when Cromwell had obliterated every
landmark of the British constitution and of British liberty--King,
Lords, and Commons, the freedom of election and the freedom of the
press, with the freedom of worship, and transformed the army itself to
his sole purpose--doing what no Tudor or Stuart king had ever presumed
to do--even then the General Court of Massachusetts Bay bowed in
reverence and praise before him as the called and chosen of the Lord of
hosts.[113]
But when Cromwell could no longer give them, in contempt to the law of
Parliament, a monopoly of trade against their fellow-colonists, and
sustain them in their persecutions; when he ceased to live, they would
not condescend to record his demise, but, after watching for a while the
chances of the future, they turned in adulation to the rising sun of the
restored Charles the Second.
The manner in which they adjusted their denials and professions to this
new state of things, until they prevailed upon the kind-hearted King not
to remember their past transgressions, and to perpetuate their Charter
on certain conditions; how they evaded those conditions of toleration
and administering the government, and resumed their old policy of
hostility to the Sovereign and of persecution of their Baptist and other
brethren who differed from them in worship, and in proscribing them from
the elective franchise itself, will be treated in the following
chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 73: Neal says: "Certainly never was country more obliged to a
man than New England to Archbishop Laud, who by his cruel and arbitrary
proceedings drove thousands of families out of the kingdom, and thereby
stocked the Plantations with inhabitants, in the compass of a very few
years, which otherwise could not have been done in an age." This was the
sense of some of the greatest men in Parliament in their speeches in
1641. Mr. Tienns (afterwards Lord Hollis) said that "a certain number of
ceremonies in the judgment of some men unlawful, and to be rejected of
all the churches; in the judgment of all other Churches, and in the
judgment of our own Church, but indifferent; yet what difference, yea,
what distraction have those indifferent ceremonies raised among us? What
has deprived us of so many thousands of Christians who desired, and in
all other respects deserved, to hold communion with us? I say what has
deprived us of them, and scattered them into I know not what places and
corners of the world, but these indifferent ceremonies."--(Several other
speeches to the same effect are quoted by Neal.)--History of New
England, Vol. I., pp. 210-212.]
[Footnote 74: "Veneris, 10 March, 1642:
"Whereas the plantations in New England have, by the blessing of the
Almighty, had good and prosperous success, without any public charge to
the State, and are now likely to prove very happy for the propagation of
the gospel in those parts, and very beneficial and commodious to this
nation. The Commons assembled in Parliament do, for the better
advancement of those plantations and the encouragement of the planters
to proceed in their undertaking, ordain that all merchandising goods,
that by any person or persons whatsoever, merchant or other, shall be
exported out of the kingdom of England into New England to be spent or
employed there, or being of the growth of that kingdom [colony], shall
be from thence imported thither, or shall be laden or put on board any
ship or vessel for necessaries in passing to and fro, and all and every
the owner or owners thereof shall be freed and discharged of and from
paying and yielding any custom, subsidy, taxation, or other duty for the
same, either inward or outward, either in this kingdom or New England,
or in any port, haven, creek or other place whatsoever, until the House
of Commons shall take further order therein to the contrary."--Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 114, 115.]
[Footnote 75: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p.
114.]
[Footnote 76: The following is the Act itself, passed in 1644: "Whereas
the civil wars and dissensions in our native country, through the
seditious words and carriages of many evil affected persons, cause
divisions in many places of government in America, some professing
themselves for the King, and others for the Parliament, not considering
that the Parliament themselves profess that they stand for the King and
Parliament against the malignant Papists and delinquents in that
kingdom. It is therefore ordered, that what person whatsoever shall by
word, writing, or action endeavour to disturb our peace, directly or
indirectly, by drawing a party under pretence that he is for the King of
England, and such as join with him against the Parliament, shall be
accounted as an offender of a high nature against this Commonwealth, and
to be proceeded with, either _capitally_ or _otherwise_, according to
the quality and degree of his offence." (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 135, 136.)]
[Footnote 77: It was not until three years after this, and three years
after the facts of the banished Roger Williams' labours in Rhode Island
(see note V. below), that the _first_ mission among the Indians was
established by the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay--seventeen years after
their settlement there; for Mr. Holmes says: "The General Court of
Massachusetts passed the _first_ Act (1646) to encouraging the carrying
of the Gospel to the Indians, and recommended it to the ministers to
consult on the best means of effecting the design. By their advice, it
is probable, the first Indian Mission was undertaken; for on the 28th of
October [1646] Mr. John Eliot, minister of Roxbury, commenced those
pious and indefatigable labours among the natives, which procured for
him the title of The Indian Apostle. His first visit was to the Indians
at Nonantum, whom he had apprised of his intention." (Annals of America,
Vol. I., p. 280.)]
[Footnote 78: Hazard, Vol. I., pp. 533, 534. The provisions of this
remarkable Act are as follows:
"Governours and Government of Islands in America.--November 2nd, 1643:
"I. That Robert Earl of Warwick be Governour and Lord High Admirall of
all the Islands and other Plantations inhabited, planted, or belonging
unto any of his Majestie's the King of England's subjects, or which
hereafter may be inhabited, planted, or belonging to them, within the
bounds and upon the coasts of America.
"II. That the Lords and others particularly named in the Ordinance shall
be Commissioners to joyne in aid and assistance of the said Earl, Chief
Governour and Admirall of the said Plantations, and shall have power
from Time to Time to provide for, order, and dispose of all things which
they shall think most fit and advantageous for the well governing,
securing, strengthening and preserving of the sayd Plantations, and
chiefly for the advancement of the true Protestant Religion amongst the
said Planters and Inhabitants, and the further enlarging and spreading
of the Gospel of Christ amongst those that yet remain there in great
Blindness and Ignorance.
"III. That the said Governour and Commissioners, upon all weighty and
important occasions which may concern the good and safety of the
Planters, Owners of Lands, or Inhabitants of the said Islands, shall
have power to send for, view, and make use of all Records, Books, and
Papers which may concern the said Plantations.
"IV. That the said Earl, Governour in Chief, and the said Commissioners,
shall have power to nominate, appoint, and constitute, as such
subordinate Commissioners, Councillors, Commanders, Officers, and
Agents, as they shall think most fit and serviceable for the said
Islands and Plantations: and upon death or other avoidance of the
aforesaid Chief Governour and Admirall, or other the Commissioners
before named, to appoint such other Chief Governour or Commissioners in
the roome and place of such as shall be void, as also to remove all such
subordinate Governours and Officers as they shall judge fit.
"V. That no subordinate Governours, Councillors, Commanders, Officers,
Agents, Planters, or Inhabitants, which now are resident in or upon the
said Islands or Plantations, shall admit or receive any new Governours,
Councillors, Commanders, Officers, or Agents whatsoever, but such as
shall be allowed and approved of under the hands and seals of the
aforesaid Chief Governour and High Admirall, together with the hands and
seals of the said Commissioners, or six of them, or under the hands of
such as they shall authorize thereunto.
"VI. That the Chief Governour and Commissioners before mentioned, or the
greater number of them, are authorized to assign, ratifie, and confirm
so much of their aforementioned authority and power, and in such manner,
to such persons as they shall judge fit, for the better governing and
preserving the said Plantations and Islands from open violence and
private distractions.
"VII. That whosoever shall, in obedience to this Ordinance, do or
execute any thing, shall by virtue hereof be saved harmless and
indemnified."]
[Footnote 79: In 1646 the Parliament passed another ordinance, exempting
the colonies for three years from all tollages, "except the excise,"
provided their productions should not be "exported but only in English
vessels." While this Act also asserted the parliamentary right of
taxation over the Colonial plantations, it formed a part of what was
extended and executed by the famous Act of Navigation, first passed by
the Puritan Parliament five years afterwards, in 1651, as will be seen
hereafter.]
[Footnote 80: Mr. Bancroft must have been aware of the existence of this
ordinance, for he makes two allusions to the Commission appointed by it.
In connection with one allusion to it, he states the following
interesting facts, illustrative of Massachusetts exclusiveness on the
one record, and on the other the instruments and progress of religious
liberty in New England. "The people of Rhode Island," says Mr. Bancroft,
"_excluded from the colonial union_, would never have maintained their
existence as a separate state, had they not sought the interference and
protection of the Mother Country; and the founder of the colony (Roger
Williams) was chosen to conduct the important mission. Embarking at
Manhattan [for he was not allowed to go to Boston], he arrived in
England not long after the death of Hampden. _The Parliament had placed
the affairs of the American Colonies under the Earl of Warwick, as
Governor-in-Chief, assisted by a Council of five peers and twelve
commoners_. Among these commoners was Henry Vane, a man who was ever
true in his affections as he was undeviating in his principles, and who
now welcomed the American envoy as an ancient friend. The favour of
Parliament was won by his [Roger Williams'] incomparable 'printed Indian
labours, the like whereof was not extant from any part of America;' and
his merits as a missionary induced both houses of Parliament to grant
unto him and friends with him a free and absolute charter[84] of civil
government for those parts of his abode.' Thus were the places of refuge
for 'soul-liberty' on the Narragansett Bay incorporated 'with full power
and authority to rule themselves.' To the Long Parliament, and
especially to Sir Harry Vane, Rhode Island owes its existence as a
political State."--History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 460, 461.
The other allusion of Mr. Bancroft to the Parliamentary Act and
Commission of 1643 is in the following words: "_The Commissioners
appointed by Parliament, with unlimited authority over the Plantations_,
found no favour in Virginia. They promised indeed freedom from English
taxation, but this immunity was already enjoyed. They gave the colony
liberty to choose its own Governor, but it had no dislike to Berkeley;
and though there was a party for the Parliament, yet the King's
authority was maintained. The sovereignty of Charles had ever been
mildly exercised."--_Ib._, p. 222.]
[Footnote 84: Hazard, Vol. 1., p. 538; Massachusetts Records. The
working of this Act, and the punishments inflicted under it for more
than twenty years, will be seen hereafter.]
[Footnote 81: This is not quite accurate. The word 'absolute' does not
occur in the patent. The words of the Charter are: "A _free_ Charter of
civil incorporation and government; that they may order and govern their
Plantations in such a manner as to maintain justice and peace, both
among themselves, and towards all men with whom they shall have to
do"--"Provided nevertheless that the said laws, constitutions, and
punishments, for the civil government of said plantations, be
conformable to the laws of England, so far as the nature and
constitution of the place will admit. And always reserving to the said
Earl and Commissioners, and their successors, power and authority for to
dispose the general government of that, as it stands in relation to the
rest of the Plantations in America, as they shall conceive from time to
time most conducing to the general good of the said Plantations, the
honour of his Majesty, and the service of the State."--(Hazard, Vol. I.,
pp. 529-531, where the Charter is printed at length.)]
[Footnote 82: But Mr. Holmes makes explicit mention of the parliamentary
ordinance of 1643 in the following terms:--"The English Parliament
passed an ordinance appointing the Earl of Warwick Governor-in-Chief and
Lord High Admiral of the American Colonies, with a Council of five Peers
and twelve Commoners. It empowered him, in conjunction with his
associates, to examine the state of affairs; to send for papers and
persons, to remove Governors and officers, and appoints other in their
places; and to assign over to these such part of the powers that were
now granted, as he should think proper." (Annals of America, Vol. I., p.
273.)]
[Footnote 83: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 117;
Massachusetts Laws, pp. 140-145.]
[Footnote 85: "Mr. Winthrop, who was then Deputy-Governor, was active in
the prosecution of the petitioners, but the party in favour of them had
so much interest as to obtain a vote to require him to answer in public
to the complaint against him. Dr. Mather says: 'He was most irregularly
called forth to an ignominious hearing before a vast assembly, to which,
"with a sagacious humility," he consented, although he showed he might
have refused it. The result of the hearing was that he was honourably
acquitted,' etc."]
[Footnote 86: This refers to a sermon preached by Mr. Cotton on a fast
day, an extract of which is published in the Magnalia, B. III., p. 29,
wherein he denounces the judgments of God upon such of his hearers as
were then going to England with evil intentions against the country.]
[Footnote 87: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
145-149.
Mr. Palfrey, under the head of "Presbyterian Cabal," states the
following facts as to the treatment of Dr. Child, Mr. Dand, and others
who proposed to make their appeal to the English Parliament:
"Child and Dand, two of the remonstrants, were preparing to go to
England with a petition to the Parliament from a number of the
non-freemen. Informed of their intention, the magistrates ordered a
seizure of their papers. The searching officers found in their
possession certain memorials to the Commissioners for Plantations,
asking for 'settled Churches according to the (Presbyterian) Reformation
in England;' for the establishment in the colony of the laws of the
realm; for the appointment of 'a General Governor, or some honourable
Commissioner,' to reform the existing state of things. For this further
offence, such of the prominent conspirators as remained in the country
were punished by additional fines. Child and Dand were mulcted in the
sum of two hundred pounds; Mauerick, in that of a hundred and fifty
pounds; and two others of a hundred pounds each."--Palfrey's History of
New England [Abridged edition], Vol. I., pp. 327, 328.]
[Footnote 88: Mr. Bancroft, referring to the petition of Dr. Child and
others, quoted on page 94, says: "The document was written in the spirit
of wanton insult;" then refers to the case of Gorton, who had appealed
to the Earl of Warwick and the other Parliamentary Commissioners against
a judicial decision of the Massachusetts Bay Court in regard to land
claimed by him. From Mr. Bancroft's statement, it appears that the claim
of Gorton, friendless as he was, was so just as to commend itself to the
favourable judgment of an impartial and competent tribunal of the
Parliamentary Commissioners, whose authority his oppressors expressly
denied, and then, in their address to Parliament in reference to its
order, denied any authority of Parliament over their proceedings. Mr.
Bancroft's words are as follows:
"Gorton had carried his complaints to the Mother Country; and, though
unaided by personal influence or by powerful friends, had succeeded in
all his wishes. At this very juncture an order respecting his claims
arrived in Boston; and was couched in terms _which involved an assertion
of the right of Parliament to reverse the decisions and control the
Government of Massachusetts_. The danger was imminent; it struck at the
very life and foundation of the rising Commonwealth. _Had the Long
Parliament succeeded in revoking the patent of Massachusetts_, the
Stuarts, on their restoration, would have found not one chartered
government in the colonies; and the tenor of American history would have
been changed. The people[89] rallied with great unanimity in support of
their magistrates.
"At length the General Court assembled for the discussion of _the
usurpations of Parliament_ and the _dangers from domestic treachery_.
The elders [ministers] did not fail to attend in the gloomy season. One
faithless deputy was desired to withdraw; and then, _with closed doors_,
that the consultation might remain in the breast of the Court, the
_nature of the relation with England_ was made the subject of debate.
After much deliberation it was agreed that Massachusetts owed the same
allegiance to England as the free Hanse Towns had rendered to the
Empire; as Normandy, when its dukes were kings in England, had paid to
the monarchs of France. It was also resolved not to accept a new Charter
from Parliament, for that would imply a surrender of the old. Besides,
Parliament granted none but by way of ordinance, and always made for
itself an express preservation of a supreme power in all things. The
_elders_ (ministers), after a day's consultation, _confirmed the
decisions_.
"The colony proceeded to exercise the _independence_ which it claimed.
The General Court replied to the petition in a State paper, written with
great moderation; and the disturbers of the public security were
summoned into its presence. Robert Child and his companions appealed to
the Commissioners in England. _The appeal was not admitted._" "To the
Parliament of England the Legislature remonstrated with the noblest
frankness _against any assertion of permanent authority of that
body_."--Hist. U.S., Vol. I., pp. 475-477.]
[Footnote 89: By the "people" here Mr. Bancroft must mean the members of
the Congregational Churches (one-sixth of the whole population), for
they alone were _freemen_, and had all the united powers of the
franchise--the _sword_, the _legislation_--in a word, the whole civil,
judicial, ecclesiastical, and military government.]
[Footnote 90: But Mr. Bancroft seems to forget that in less than forty
years after this the Charter was revoked, and that very system of
government was established which the General Court of Massachusetts Bay
now deprecated, but under which Massachusetts itself was most prosperous
and peaceful for more than half a century, until the old spirit was
revived, which rendered friendly government with England impossible.]
[Footnote 91: Mr. Hutchinson says: "The Earl of Warwick had a patent for
Massachusetts Bay about 1623, but the bounds are not known." (History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 7.)]
[Footnote 92: Mr. Palfrey says: "While in England the literary war
against Presbytery was in great part conducted by American combatants,
their attention was presently required at home. William Vassal, a man of
fortune, was one of the original assistants named in the Charter of the
Massachusetts Company. He came to Massachusetts with Winthrop's fleet in
the great emigration; but for some cause--_possibly from dissatisfaction
with the tendencies to Separatism which he witnessed_--he almost
immediately returned. He crossed the sea again five years after, but
then it was to the colony of Plymouth. Establishing his home at
Seituate, he there conducted himself so as to come under the reproach of
being 'a man of a busy, factious spirit, and always opposite to the
civil government of the country and the way of the Churches.'"
(Winthrop, II., p. 261.) His disaffection occasioned the more
uneasiness, because his brother Samuel, also formerly an assistant of
the Massachusetts Company, was now one of the Parliament's Commissioners
for the government of Foreign Plantations.
In the year when the early struggle between the Presbyterians and
Independents in England had disclosed the importance of the issues
depending upon it, and the obstinate determination with which it was to
be carried on, Vassal "practised with" a few persons in Massachusetts
"to take some course, first by petitioning the Courts of Massachusetts
and of Plymouth, _and if that succeeded not_, then to the Parliament of
England, that the distinctions which were maintained here, both in civil
and church state, might be done away, and that we might be wholly
governed by the laws of England." In [93] a "Remonstrance and Humble
Petition," addressed by them to the General Court [of Massachusetts],
they represented--1. That they could not discern in that colony "a
settled form of government according to the laws of England;" 2. That
"many thousands in the plantation of the English nation were debarred
from civil employments," and not permitted "so much as to have any vote
in choosing magistrates, captains, or other civil and military
officers;" and, 3. "That numerous members of the Church of England,...
not dissenting from the latest reformation in England, Scotland, etc.,
were detained from the seals of the covenant of free grace, as it was
supposed they will not take these Churches' covenants." They prayed for
relief from each of these grievances; and they gave notice that, if it
were denied, they should "be necessitated to apply their humble desires
to the honourable Houses of Parliament, who, they hoped, would take
their sad condition into their serious consideration."
After describing the social position of the representative petitioners,
Mr. Palfrey proceeds: "But however little importance the movement
derived from the character or position of the agitators, it was
essentially of a nature to create alarm. It proposed nothing less than
an abandonment of institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, which the
settlers and owners of Massachusetts had set up, for reasons impressing
their own minds as of the greatest significance and cogency. The demand
was enforced by considerations which were not without plausibility, and
were presented in a seductive form. _It was itself an appeal to the
discontent of the numerical majority, not invested with a share in the
government._ And it frankly threatened an appeal to the English
Parliament--an authority always to be dreaded, for encroachment on
colonial rights, and especially to be dreaded at a moment when the more
numerous party among its members were bent on setting up a Presbytery as
the established religion of England and its dependencies, determined on
a severe suppression of dissent from it, and keenly exasperated against
that Independency which New England had raised up to torment them in
their own sphere, and which, for herself, New England cherished as her
life."
"It being understood that two of the remonstrants, Fowle and Smith, were
about to embark for England, to prosecute their business, the Court
stopped them with a summons to appear and 'answer _to the matter of the
petition_.' They replied 'to the Gentlemen Commissioners for
Plantations;' and the Court committed them to the custody of the Marshal
till they gave security to be responsible to the judgment of the Court.
The whole seven were next arraigned as authors of divers false and
scandalous statements in a certain paper ... against the Churches of
Christ and the civil government here established, derogating from the
honour and authority of the same, and tending to sedition. Refusing to
answer, and 'appealing from this government, they disclaimed the
jurisdiction thereof.' This was more than Presbyterian malcontents could
be indulged in at the present critical time in Massachusetts. The Court
found them all deeply blamable, and punished them by fines, which were
to be remitted on their making 'an ingenuous and public acknowledgment
of their misdemeanours;' a condition of indemnity which they all
refused, probably in expectation of obtaining both relief and applause
in England."--"Four deputies opposed the sentence; three
magistrates--Bellingham, Saltonstall, and Bradstreet--also
dissented."--Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. I., pp. 166-170.]
[Footnote 93: Winthrop, II., 261. "The movement in Plymouth was made at
a General Court in October, 1645, as appears from a letter of Winslow to
Winthrop (Hutchinson's Collection, 154); though the public record
contains nothing respecting it. I infer from Winslow's letter, that half
the assistants (namely, Standish, Hatherly, Brown, and Freeman) were in
favour of larger indulgence to the malcontents." (Note by Mr. Palfrey.)
(The majority of the General Court were clearly in favour of the
movement; and knowing this, the Governor, Prince (the only persecuting
Governor of the Plymouth Colony), refused to put the question to vote.)]
[Footnote 94: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., Chap.
v., p. 75.]
[Footnote 95: History of New England, Vol. II. p. 169. In another case
mentioned by Mr. Palfrey, it is clear the public feeling was not with
the local Government, which pretended to absolute independence of
Parliament, and called the entrance of a parliamentary war vessel into
its harbour, and action there, a "_foreign_ encroachment." A Captain
Stagg arrived at Boston from London, in a vessel carrying twenty-four
guns, and found there a merchant vessel from Bristol (which city was
then held for the King), which he seized. Governor Winthrop wrote to
Captain Stagg "to know _by what authority_ he had done it in _our_
harbour." Stagg produced his commission from the Earl of Warwick to
capture vessels from ports in the occupation of the King's party, as
well in harbours and creeks as on the high seas. Winthrop ordered him to
carry the paper to Salem, the place of the Governor's residence, there
to be considered at a meeting of the magistrates. _Of course the public
feeling was with the Parliament and its officers_; but it was not so
heedless as to forget its jealousy of _foreign encroachment_ from
whatever quarter. "Some of the elders, the last Lord's Day, had in their
sermons reproved this proceeding, and exhorted magistrates to maintain
the people's liberties, which were, they said, _violated by this act_,
and that a commission could not supersede a patent. And at this meeting
some of the magistrates and some of the elders were of the same opinion,
and that the captain should be forced to restore the ship." The
decision, however, was different; and the reasons for _declining to defy
the Parliament_, and allowing its officer to retain possession of his
prize, are recorded. The following are passages of this significant
manifesto: "This could be no precedent to bar us from opposing any
commission or other foreign power that might indeed tend to our hurt or
violate our liberty; for the Parliament had taught us that _salus
populi_ is _suprema lex_."[96] "If Parliament should hereafter be of a
malignant spirit, then, _if we have strength sufficient_, we may make
use of _salus populi_ to withstand any authority from thence to our
hurt." "If we who have so openly declared our affection to the cause of
Parliament by our prayers, fastings, etc., should now oppose their
authority, or do anything that would make such an appearance, it would
be laid hold on by those in Virginia and the West Indies to confirm them
in their rebellious course, and it would grieve all our godly friends in
England, or any other of the Parliament's friends."--Palfrey's History
of New England, Vol. II., pp. 161-163.
Note.--It is plain from these words, as well as from other words quoted
elsewhere, how entirely and avowedly the Massachusetts Court identified
themselves with the Parliament and Cromwell against the King, though
they denied having done so in their addresses to Charles the Second.]
[Footnote 96: This maxim, that _the safety of the people is the supreme
law_, might, by a similar perversion, be claimed by any mob or party
constituting the majority of a city, town, or neighbourhood, as well as
by the Colony of Massachusetts, against the Parliament or supreme
authority of the nation. They had no doubt of their own infallibility;
they had no fear that they "should hereafter be of a malignant spirit;"
but they thought it very possible that the Parliament might be so, and
then it would be for them to fight if they should have "strength
sufficient." But after the restoration they thought it not well to face
the armies and fleets of Charles the Second, and made as humble, as
loyal, and as laudatory professions to him--calling him "the best of
kings"--as they had made to Cromwell.]
[Footnote 97: They say: "Receiving information by Mr. Winslow, our
agent, that it is the Parliament's pleasure that we should take a new
patent from them, and keep our Courts and issue our warrants in their
names, which we have not used in the late King's time or since, not
being able to discern the need of such an injunction,--these things make
us doubt and fear what is intended towards us. Let it therefore please
you, most honourable, we humbly entreat, to take notice hereby what were
our orders, upon what conditions and with what authority we came hither,
and what we have done since our coming. We were the first movers and
undertakers of so great an attempt, being men able enough to live in
England with our neighbours, and being helpful to others, and not
needing the help of any for outward things. About three or four and
twenty years since, seeing just cause to fear the persecution of the
then Bishops and High Commissioners for not conforming to the ceremonies
then pressed upon the consciences of those under their power, we thought
it our safest course to get to this outside of the world, out of their
view and beyond their reach. Yet before we resolved upon so great an
undertaking, wherein should be hazarded not only all our estates, but
also the lives of ourselves and our posterity, both in the voyage at sea
(wherewith we were unacquainted), and in coming into a wilderness
uninhabited (unless in some few places by heathen, barbarous Indians),
we thought it necessary to procure a patent from the late King, who then
ruled all, to warrant our removal and prevent future inconveniences, and
so did. By which patent liberty and power was granted to us to live
under the government of a Governor, magistrates of our own choosing, and
under laws of our own making (not being repugnant to the laws of
England), according to which patent we have governed ourselves above
this twenty years, we coming hither at our proper charges, without the
help of the State, an acknowledgment of the freedom of our goods from
custom," etc. "And for our carriage and demeanour to the honourable
Parliament, for these ten years, since the first beginning of your
differences with the late King, and the war that after ensued, we have
constantly adhered to you, not withdrawing ourselves in your weakest
condition and doubtfullest times, but by our fasting and prayers for
your good success, and our thanksgiving after the same was attained, in
days of solemnity set apart for that purpose, as also by our sending
over useful men (others also going voluntarily from us to help you), who
have been of good use and done acceptable services to the army,
declaring to the world hereby that such was the duty and love we bear
unto the Parliament, that we were ready to rise and fall with them; for
which we have suffered the hatred and threats of other English colonies
now in rebellion against you, as also the loss of divers of our ships
and goods, taken by the King's party that is dead, by others
commissioned by the King of Scots [Charles II.], and by the Portugalls."
"We hope that this most honourable Parliament will not cast such as have
adhered to you and depended upon you, as we have done, into so deep
despair, from the fear of which we humbly desire to be speedily freed by
a just and gracious answer; which will freshly bind us to pray and use
all lawful endeavours for the blessing of God upon you and the present
Government." Appendix viii. to the first volume of Hutchinson's History
of Massachusetts Bay, pp. 516-518.
The "General Court" also sent a letter to Oliver Cromwell, enclosing a
copy of the petition to Parliament, to counteract representations which
might be made against them by their enemies, and intreat his interest in
their behalf. This letter concludes as follows:
"We humbly petition your Excellence to be pleased to shew us what favour
God shall be pleased to direct you unto on our behalf, to the most
honourable Parliament, unto whom we have now presented a petition. The
copy of it, _verbatim_, we are bold to send herewith, that, if God so
please, we be not hindered in our comfortable proceedings in the work of
God here in this wilderness. Wherein, as for other favours, we shall be
bound to pray, that the Captain of the Host of Israel may be with you
and your whole army, in all your great enterprises, to the glory of God,
the subduing of his and your enemies, and your everlasting peace and
comfort in Jesus Christ." (_Ib._, Appendix ix., p. 522.)
In August (24th), 1654, the General Court addressed another letter to
Oliver Cromwell, commencing as follows:
"It hath been no small comfort to us poor exiles, in these utmost ends
of the earth (who sometimes felt and often feared the frowns of the
mighty), to have had the experience of the good hand of God, in raising
up such, whose endeavours have not been wanting to our welfare: amongst
whom we have good cause to give your Highness the first place: who by a
continued series of favours, have oblidged us, not only while you moved
in a lower orb, but since the Lord hath called your Highness to supreme
authority, whereat we rejoice and shall pray for the continuance of your
happy government, that under your shadow not only ourselves, but all the
Churches, may find rest and peace." (_Ib._, Appendix x., p. 523.)]
[Footnote 98: "1651.--The Parliament of England passed the famous Act of
Navigation. It had been observed with concern, that the English
merchants for several years past had usually freighted the Hollanders'
shipping for bringing home their own merchandise, because their freight
was at a lower rate than that of the English ships. For the same reason
the Dutch ships were made use of even for importing American products
from the English colonies into England. The English ships meanwhile lay
rotting in the harbours, and the English mariners, for want of
employment, went into the service of the Hollanders. The Commonwealth
now turned its attention towards the most effectual mode of retaining
the colonies in dependence on the parent State, and of securing to it
the benefits of their increasing commerce. With these views the
Parliament enacted, 'That no merchandise, either of Asia, Africa, or
America, including the English Plantations there, should be imported
into England in any but English-built ships, and belonging either to
English or English Plantation subjects, navigated also by an English
commander, and three-fourths of the sailors to be Englishmen; excepting
such merchandise as should be imported directly from the original place
of their growth, manufactured in Europe solely: and that no fish should
thenceforward be imported into England or Ireland, nor exported thence
to foreign parts, nor even from one of their own ports, but what should
be caught by their own fishers only." (Holmes' Annals of America,
Anderson, ii., 415, 416; Robertson, B. 9, p. 303; Janes' edit. Vol. I.,
p. 294.) Mr. Holmes adds in a note: "This Act was evaded at first by New
England, which still traded to all parts, and enjoyed a privilege
peculiar to themselves of importing their goods into England free of
customs." (History Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 40.)]
[Footnote 99: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. II., p. 393.]
[Footnote 100: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. II., p. 397, in a
note.]
[Footnote 101: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p.
152; Holmes' Annuls, Vol. I., p. 294. Note xxxi., p. 579.
This law was passed in 1651, while Endicot was Governor. Two years
before, shortly after Governor Winthrop's death, Governor Endicot, with
several other magistrates, issued a declaration against men wearing long
hair, prefaced with the words, "Forasmuch as the wearing of long hair,
after the manner of the ruffians and barbarous Indians, has begun to
invade New England," and declaring "their dislike and detestation
against wearing of such long hair as a thing uncivil and unmanly,
whereby men do deform themselves, and offend sober and modest men, and
do corrupt good manners," etc.--_Ib._]
[Footnote 102: Such was the opinion of the late Mr. John Forster, in his
beautiful Life of Sir Henry Vane, in his Lives of the Puritan Statesmen
of the Commonwealth.]
[Footnote 103: Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers, etc.;
Publication of the Prince Society.
_Note_ by Mr. Hutchinson: "Mr. Winthrop had obliged Mr. Vane to leave
Massachusetts and return to England. The letter was written when Mr.
Vane's interest in Parliament was very great. It shows a good spirit,
and the reproof is decent as well as seasonable."]
[Footnote 104: History of New England, Vol. I., p. 364.]
[Footnote 105: Mr. Neal gives the following account of certain
Baptists--Clarke, Holmes and Crandall--who "were all apprehended upon
the 20th July this year, (1651), at the house of one William Witters, of
Lin. As they were worshipping God in their own way on a Lord's-day
morning, the constable took them into custody. Next morning they were
brought before the magistrate of the town, who sent them in custody to
Boston, where they remained in prison a fortnight, when they were
brought to trial, convicted and fined: John Clarke, twenty pounds or to
be well whipped; John Crandall, five pounds or to be whipped; Obadiah
Holmes, thirty pounds for several offences." Mr. Neal adds: "The
prisoners agreed not to pay their fines but to abide the corporal
punishment the Court had sentenced them to; but some of Mr. Clarke's
friends paid the fine without his consent; and Crandall was released
upon the promise to appear at the next Court; but Holmes received thirty
lashes at the whipping-post. Several of his friends were spectators of
his punishment; among the rest John Spear and John Hazell, who, as they
were attending the prisoner back to prison, took him by the hand in the
market-place, and, in the face of all the people, praised God for his
courage and constancy; for which they were summoned before the General
Court the next day, and were fined each of them forty shillings, or to
be whipped. The prisoners refused to pay the money, but some of their
friends paid it for them."
Mr. Neal adds the following just and impressive remarks: "_Thus the
Government of New England, for the sake of uniformity in divine worship,
broke in upon the natural rights of mankind, punishing men, not for
disturbing the State, but for their different sentiments in religion_,
as appears by the following Law:" [Then Mr. Neal quotes the law passed
against the Baptists seven years before, in 1644, and given on page 92.]
(Neal's History of New England, Vol. I., pp. 299, 300, 302, 303.)]
[Footnote 106: Hutchinson's Collection of State Papers, etc., pp. 401,
402.
Mr. Cotton wrote a long letter in reply to Sir R. Saltonstall, denying
that he or Mr. Wilson had instigated the complaints against the
Baptists, yet representing them as _profane_ because they did not attend
the established worship, though they worshipped God in their own way.
Cotton, assuming that the Baptist worship was no worship, and that the
only lawful worship was the Congregational, proceeds to defend
compulsory attendance at the established worship upon the ground of
preventing Sabbath profaneness (which was a perversion of Sir R.
Saltonstall's letter), the same as compulsory attendance at the
established worship was justified in the time of Elizabeth and James the
First, and against which the whole army of Puritan writers had
contended. Some of Cotton's words were as follows: "But (you say) it
doth make men hypocrites to compel men to conforme the outward men for
fear of punishment. If it did so, yet better be hypocrites than profane
persons. Hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man; but the
profane person giveth God neither the outward or inward man."--"If the
magistrate connive at his absenting himself from the Sabbath duties, the
sin will be greater in the magistrate than can be the other's coming."
Mr. Hutchinson, referring to Sir R. Saltonstall's letter, says:--"It
discovers a good deal of that catholic spirit which too many of our
first settlers were destitute of, and confirms what I have said of Mr.
Dudley's zeal in the first volume of the Massachusetts History."]
[Footnote 107: History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 484.
"I believe," says Mr. Bancroft, "that the elder Winthrop had relented
before his death, and, it is said, became weary of banishing heretics.
The soul of the younger Winthrop was incapable of harbouring a thought
of intolerant cruelty; but the rugged Dudley was not mellowed by old
age." Cotton affirmed: "Better tolerate hypocrites and tares than thorns
and briers." "Religion," said Norton, from the pulpit, "admits of no
eccentric motions." (_Ib._, pp. 486, 487.)]
[Footnote 108: Burke, Vol. II., Second London Edition, 1758, pp.
148-152.]
[Footnote 109: "In October, 1650, the Commons passed a memorable
ordinance, prohibiting trade with Barbadoes, Virginia, Antigua, and the
Bermudas, because they had adhered to the fortunes of their late
Sovereign. It declared such persons 'notorious robbers and traitors;' it
forbade every one to confederate with them; it prohibited all foreign
vessels from sailing thither, and it empowered the Council of State to
compel all opponents to obey the authority of Parliament. Berkley's
defence of Virginia against the fortunate invaders gained him the
approbation of his prince and the applause of his countrymen. When he
could no longer fight, he delivered up the government, upon such
favourable terms as the English Commissioners were willing to grant. He
retired to a private station, to wait with patience for favourable
events. Virginia changed the various rulers which the revolutions of the
age imposed on England, with the reluctance that acknowledged usurpation
generally incites. But with the distractions that succeeded the death of
Cromwell, she seized the opportunity to free herself from the dominion
of her hated masters by recalling Berkley from his obscurity, and
proclaiming the exiled king; and she by this means acquired the
unrivalled honour of being the last dominion of the State which
submitted to that unjust exercise of government, and the first which
overturned it."--Chalmers' History of the Revolt of the American
Colonies, Vol. I., pp. 74, 75 (Boston Collection).]
[Footnote 110: It was proved on Hugh Peters' trial, twenty years
afterwards, that he had said his work, out of New England, was, "to
promote the interest of the Reformation, _by stirring up the war and
driving it on_." He was Cromwell's favourite chaplain, and preached
before the Court that tried King Charles I., urging the condemnation and
execution of the King.]
[Footnote 111: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I.,
Appendix viii., pp. 517, 518.
"The 'other English Colonies' with which Massachusetts, by her
attachment to the new Government, had been brought into unfriendly
relations, were 'Barbadoes, Virginia, Bermudas, and Antigua.' Their
persistent loyalty had been punished by an ordinance of Parliament
forbidding Englishmen to trade with them--a measure which the General
Court of Massachusetts seconded by a similar prohibition addressed to
masters of vessels belonging to that jurisdiction. The rule was to
remain in force 'until the compliance of the aforesaid places with the
Commonwealth of England, or the further order of this Court;' and the
penalty of disobedience was to be a confiscation of ship and cargo. In
respect to Virginia, it may be presumed that this step was not the less
willingly taken, on account of a grudge of some years' standing. At an
early period of the civil war, that colony had banished nonconformist
ministers who had gone thither from Massachusetts [1643]; and the
offence had been repeated five years afterwards."--Palfrey's History of
New England, Vol. II., pp. 402, 403.
But Mr. Palfrey omits to remark that the Act of the Virginia
Legislature, in forbidding the Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts
Bay from propagating their system in Virginia, was but a _retaliation_
upon the Government of Massachusetts Bay, which had not only forbidden
Episcopal worship, but denied citizenship to Episcopalians. The Virginia
Legislature, while it established the Episcopal Church, had never, like
the Legislature of Massachusetts Bay, disqualified all except the
members of one Church from either holding office or exercising the
elective franchise. The Massachusetts Bay Government, like that of the
Papacy, would tolerate only their own form of worship; would allow no
Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Baptist worship within their
jurisdiction; yet complain of and resent it as unjust and persecuting
when they are not permitted to propagate their system in other colonies
or countries.]
[Footnote 112: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I.,
Appendix ix., p. 522.
To these extraordinary addresses may be added a letter from the Rev.
John Cotton, a chief Congregational minister in Boston, to "Lord General
Cromwell," dated Boston, N.E., May 5th, 1651.
There are three things in this letter to be specially noticed.
The _first_ is, the terms in which Cromwell is addressed and
complimented.
The _second_ is, the indication here given of the manner in which the
Scotch prisoners taken at the battle of Dunbar (while fighting in their
own country and for their King) were disposed of by Cromwell, and with
what complacency Mr. Cotton speaks of the slavery into which they were
sold not being "perpetual servitude," but limited to "6 or 7, or 8
years."
The _third_ thing noteworthy in this letter, in which Mr. Cotton
compliments Cromwell for having cashiered from the army every one but
his own partizans, thus placing the army beneath his feet, to support
his absolutism in the State, having extinguished the Parliament itself,
and with it every form of liberty dear to the hearts of all true
Englishmen.
The chief passages of Mr. Cotton's letter are as follows:
"Right Honourable,--For so I must acknowledge you, not only for the
eminency of place and command to which the God of power and honour hath
called you; but also for that the Lord hath set you forth as a vessell
of honour to his name, in working many and great deliverances for his
people, and for his truth, by you; and yet helping you to reserve all
the honour to him, who is the God of salvation and the Lord of hosts,
mighty in battell."
"The Scots, whom God delivered into your hand at Dunbarre, and whereof
sundry were sent hither, we have been desirous (as we could) to make
their yoke easy. Such as were sick of the scurvy or other diseases have
not wanted physick or chyrurgery. They have not been sold for slaves to
perpetual servitude, but for 6 or 7, or 8 years, as we do our owne: and
he that bought the most of them (I heare) buildeth houses for them, for
every 4 an house, layeth some acres of ground thereto, which he giveth
them as their owne, requiring three dayes in the weeke to worke for him
(by turnes), and 4 dayes for themselves, and promiseth, as soon as they
can repay him the money he layed out for them, he will set them at
liberty."
"As for the aspersion of factious men, I hear, by Mr. Desborough's
letter [Cromwell's brother-in-law], last night, that you have well
vindicated yourselfe therefrom _by cashiering sundry corrupt spirits_
out of the army. And truly, Sir, better a few and faithfull, than many
and unsound. The army on Christ's side (which he maketh victorious) are
called chosen and faithfull, Rev. 17. 14--a verse worthy your Lordship's
frequent and deepe meditation. Go on, therefore (good Sir), to overcome
yourselfe (Prov. 16. 32), to overcome your army (Deut. 29. 9, with v.
14), and to vindicate your orthodox integrity to the world."
(Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of
Massachusetts Bay, pp. 233-235.)]
[Footnote 113: In view of the documents which I have quoted, it seems
extraordinary to see Mr. Hutchinson, usually so accurate, so far
influenced by his personal prejudices as to say that the government of
the Massachusetts Bay Colony "prudently acknowledged subjection to
Parliament, and afterwards to Cromwell, _so far as was necessary to keep
upon terms, and avoid exception, and no farther_. The addresses to the
Parliament and Cromwell show this to have been the case."--History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 209.
The addresses to Parliament and to Cromwell prove the very
reverse--prove that the rulers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony avowedly
identified themselves with the Parliament and afterwards with Cromwell,
when he overthrew the Parliament, and even when he manipulated the army
to his purpose of absolutism.]
CHAPTER V.
GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND OTHER COLONIES, DURING TWENTY YEARS,
UNDER CHARLES THE SECOND.
The restoration of Charles the Second to the throne of his ancestors was
received in the several American colonies with very different feelings;
the loyal colonies, from the Bermudas to Plymouth, hailed and proclaimed
the restored King without hesitation; Virginia proclaimed him before he
was proclaimed in England;[114] the rulers of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony alone stood in suspense; hesitated, refused to proclaim him for a
year, until ordered to do so. When it was ascertained that the
restoration of the King, Lords, and Commons had been enthusiastically
ratified by the people of England, and was firmly established, the
General Court of Massachusetts Bay adopted a most loyal address to the
King, and another to the two Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding the
same Court had shortly before lauded the power which had abolished King,
Lords, and Commons. The Court also thought it needful to give practical
proof of the sincerity of their new-born loyalty to the monarchical
government by condemning a book published ten years before, and which
had been until now in high repute among them, written by the Rev. John
Eliot, the famous apostle to the Indians. This book was entitled "The
Christian Commonwealth," and argued that a purely republican government
was the only Christian government, and that all the monarchical
governments of Europe, especially that of England, was anti-Christian.
It appears that this book had been adduced by the complainants in
England against the Massachusetts Bay Government as a proof of their
hostility to the system of government now restored in England. To purge
themselves from this charge, the Governor and Council of Massachusetts
Bay, March 18, 1661, took this book into consideration, and declared
"they find it, on perusal, full of seditious principles and notions
relative to all established governments in the Christian world,
especially against the government established in their native country."
Upon consultation with the Elders, their censure was deferred until the
General Court met, "that Mr. Eliot might have the opportunity in the
meantime of public recantation." At the next sessions, in May, Mr. Eliot
gave into the Court the following acknowledgment under his hand:
"Understanding by an Act of the honoured Council, that there is offence
taken at a book published in England by others, the copy whereof was
sent over by myself about nine or ten years since, and that the further
consideration thereof is commended to this honoured Court now sitting in
Boston: Upon perusal thereof, I do judge myself to have offended, and in
way of satisfaction not only to the authority of this jurisdiction, but
also to any others that shall take notice thereof, I do hereby
acknowledge to this General Court, that such expressions as do too
manifestly scandalize the Government of England, by King, Lords and
Commons, as anti-christian, and justify the late innovators, I do
sincerely bear testimony against, and acknowledge it to be not only a
lawful but eminent form of government.
"2nd. All forms of civil government, deduced from Scripture, I
acknowledge to be of God, and to be subscribed to for conscience sake;
and whatsoever is in the whole epistle or book inconsistent herewith, I
do at once and most cordially disown.
"JOHN ELIOT."[115]
It must have been painful and humiliating to John Eliot to be brought to
account for and compelled to recant the sentiments of a book which had
been in circulation eight or nine years, and much applauded by those who
now arraigned and made a scapegoat of him, to avert from themselves the
consequence and suspicion of sentiments which they had held and avowed
as strongly as Eliot himself.
It has been said that the Government of Massachusetts Bay had desisted
from acknowledging and addressing Charles the Second as King, until they
found that their silence endangered their interests. Mr. Holmes, in his
Annals, speaking under the date of May, 1661 (a year after Charles had
entered London as King), says: "Charles II., had not yet been proclaimed
by the colony. The Governor (Endicot), on receiving intelligence of the
transactions that were taking place in England to the prejudice of the
colony, judged it inexpedient longer to delay that solemnity. Calling
the Court together, a form of proclamation was agreed to, and Charles
was acknowledged to be their sovereign Lord, and proclaimed to be the
lawful King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, and all other
territories thereto belonging." An address to the King was agreed to,
and ordered to be sent to England.[116]
In this remarkable address (given in a note) the reader will be struck
with several things which appear hardly reconcilable with words of
sincerity and truth.
First, the reason professed for delaying nearly a year to recognise and
address the King after his restoration. Nearly thirty years before, they
had threatened the King's Royal father with resistance, since which time
they had greatly increased in wealth and population; but now they
represent themselves as "poor exiles," and excuse themselves for not
acknowledging the King because of their Mephiboseth lameness of
distance--as if they were more distant from England than the other
American colonies. Their "lameness" and "ineptness" and "impotence"
plainly arose from disinclination alone. It is amusing to hear them
speak of themselves as "exanimated outcasts," hoping to be animated by
the breath of Royal favour. Their "script" was no doubt "the transcript
of their loyal hearts" when they supplicated the continuance of the
Royal Charter, the first intentions and essential provisions of which
they had violated so many years.
Secondly. But what is most suspicious in this address is their denial of
having taken any part in the civil war in England--professing that their
lot had been the good old nonconformists',[117] "only to act a passive
_part_ throughout these late vicissitudes," and ascribed to the favour
of God their "exemption from the temptations of _either party_." Now,
just ten years before, in their address to the Long Parliament and to
Cromwell, they said:
"And for our carriage and demeanour to the honourable Parliament for
these ten years, since the first beginning of your differences with the
late King, and the war that after ensued, we have constantly adhered to
you, notwithstanding ourselves in your weakest condition and
doubtfullest times, but by our fasting and prayers for your good
success, and our thanksgiving after the same was attained, in days of
solemnity set apart for that purpose, as also by our sending over useful
men (others also going voluntarily from us to help you) who have been of
good use and have done good acceptable service to the army, declaring to
the world hereby that such was the duty and love we bear unto the
Parliament that we were ready to rise and fall with them: for which we
suffered the hatred and threats of other English colonies now in
rebellion against you," etc.[118]
Whether this address to Parliament (a copy of it being enclosed with an
address to Cromwell) had ever at that time been made public, or whether
King Charles the Second had then seen it, does not appear; but it is not
easy to conceive statements and words more opposite than those addressed
by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay to the Parliament in 1651, and
to the King, Charles the Second, in 1661.
On the contrasts of acts themselves, the reader will make his own
remarks and inferences. The King received and answered their address
very graciously.[119] They professed to receive it gratefully; but their
consciousness of past unfaithfulness and transgressions, and their
jealous suspicions, apprehended evil from the general terms of the
King's reply, his reference to his Royal predecessors and religious
liberty, which above all things they most dreaded, desiring religious
liberty for themselves alone, but not for any Episcopalian,
Presbyterian, Baptist, or Quaker. They seem, however, to have been
surprised at the kindness of the King's answer, considering their former
conduct towards him and his Royal father, and towards the colonies that
loyally adhered to their King; and professed to have been excited to an
ecstasy of inexpressible delight and gratitude at the gracious words of
the best of kings.[120] Their address presented a curious mixture of
professed self-abasement, weakness, isolation, and affliction, with
fulsome adulation not surpassed by anything that could have been indited
by the most devout loyalist. But this honeymoon of adulation to the
restored King was not of long duration; the order of the King, September
8, 1661, to cease persecuting the Quakers, was received and submitted to
with remonstrance; and obedience to it was refused as far as sending the
accused Quakers to England for trial, as that would bring the Government
of Massachusetts Bay before the English tribunals.[121]
But petitions and representations poured in upon the King and Council
from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc., from Massachusetts
Bay, and their friends in England, complaining that they were denied
liberty of worship, the ordinance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to
their families and themselves, that they were deprived of even the
elective franchise because of their not being members of the
Congregational Church, and praying for the redress of their
grievances.[122]
The leaders of the colony had, however, warm and influential advocates
in the Council of the King: the Earl of Manchester, formerly commander
of the Parliamentary army against Charles the First, until supplanted by
Cromwell; Lord Say, a chief founder of Connecticut; and Mr. Morrice,
Secretary--all Puritans.[123] Under these influences the King sent a
letter to the colony, which had been avowedly at war in connection with
Cromwell, against his royal father and himself (and by which they had
justly forfeited the Charter, apart from other violations of it),
pardoning the past and assuring them he would not cancel but restore and
establish their Charter, provided they would fulfil certain conditions
which were specified. They joyously accepted the pardon of the past, and
the promised continuance of the Charter as if unconditional, without
fulfilling the conditions of it, or even mentioning them; just as their
fathers had claimed the power given them in the Royal Charter by Charles
the First in 1628, to make laws and regulations for order and good
government of the Massachusetts Bay Plantation, concealing the Charter,
claiming absolute power under it, and wholly ignoring the restrictive
condition that such laws and regulations were not to be "contrary to the
laws of England"--not only concealing the Charter, but not allowing
their laws and regulations to be printed until after the fall of Charles
the First, and resisting all orders for the production of their
proceedings, and all Commissions of Inquiry to ascertain whether they
had not made laws or regulations and performed acts "contrary to the
laws of England." So now, a generation afterwards, they claimed and
contended that Charles the Second had restored their Charter, as if done
absolutely and unconditionally without their recognising one of the five
conditions included in the proviso of the King's letter. Nothing could
have been more kindly and generously conceived than the terms of the
King's letter, and nothing could be more reasonable than the conditions
contained in its proviso--conditions with which all the other British
colonies of America readily complied, and which every province of the
Dominion of Canada has assumed and acted upon as a duty and pleasure
from the first establishment of their respective Governments. Of all the
colonies of the British Empire for the last three centuries, that of
Massachusetts Bay is the only one that ever refused to acknowledge this
allegiance to the Government from which it derived its existence and
territory. The conditions which Charles the Second announced as the
proviso of his consenting to renew and continue the Charter granted by
his Royal father to the Company of Massachusetts Bay, were the
following:
"1. That upon a review, all such laws and ordinances that are now, or
have been during these late troubles, in practice there, and which are
contrary or derogatory to the King's authority and government, shall be
repealed.
"2. That the rules and prescriptions of the said Royal Charter for
administering and taking the oath of allegiance, be henceforth duly
observed.
"3. That the administration of justice be in the King's name.
"4. That since the principle and formation of that Charter was and is
the freedom of liberty of conscience, we do hereby charge and require
you that freedom of liberty be duly admitted and allowed, so that they
that desire to use the Book of Common Prayer and perform their devotion
in the manner that is established here, be not denied the exercise
thereof, or undergo any prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they using
the liberty peaceably, without any disturbance to others.
"5. That all persons of good and honest lives and conversations be
admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the said
Book of Common Prayer, and their children to Baptism."[124]
Nothing could be more kind and assuring than the terms of the King's
letter, notwithstanding the former hostility of the Massachusetts Bay
rulers to him and his Royal father,[125] and nothing could be more
reasonable than the five conditions on which he assured them of the
oblivion of the past and the continuance of the Royal Charter; but with
not one of these conditions did they take a step to comply for several
months, under the pretext of affording time, after publishing it, that
"all persons might have opportunity to consider what was necessary to be
done," though the "all persons" referred to included only one-sixth of
the population: for the term "Freeman of Massachusetts" was at that
time, and for thirty years before and afterwards, synonymous with member
of one of the Congregational Churches. And it was against their
disloyalty and intolerance that the five conditions of the King's pardon
were chiefly directed. With some of these conditions they never
complied; with others only as they were compelled, and even complained
of them afterwards as an invasion of their chartered privileges,[126]
though, in their first order for public thanksgiving for the King's
letter, they spoke of it as assuring "the continuance of peace,
liberties and the gospel." Though the agent of Rhode Island met the
agents of Massachusetts Bay Colony before the King, and challenged them
to cite, in behalf of Massachusetts, one act of duty or loyalty to the
kings of England, in support of their present professions as loyal
subjects; yet the King was not disposed to punish them for the past, but
continue to them their privileges, as they desired and promised they
would act with loyalty and tolerance in the future.[127]
The King's promised oblivion of the past and recognition of the Charter
was hailed and assumed as _unconditional_, while the King's conditions
were ignored and remained a dead letter. The elective franchise and
eligibility for office were still, _as_ heretofore, the exclusive
prerogative of Congregational Church members; the government of the
colony was still in the hands alone of Congregational ministers and
magistrates, and which they cleaved to as for life; their persecutions
of those who did not worship as they did, continued without abatement;
they persisted in their theocratic independence, and pretended to do all
this under a Royal Charter which forbade their making laws or
regulations contrary to the laws of England, acting also in the face of
the King's conditions of pardoning their past offences, and perpetuating
their Charter privileges.
The King's letter was dated the 28th of June, 1662, and was presented by
Mr. Bradstreet and Mr. Norton to the Governor and General Court at
Boston, 8th of October, 1662;[128] but it was not until a General Court
called in August, 1664, that "the said letter was communicated to the
whole assembly, according to his Majesty's command, and copies thereof
spread abroad."[129] In the meantime they boasted of their Charter being
recognised by the King, according, of course, to their own
interpretation of it, while for _twenty-two months_ they withheld the
King's letter, against his orders, from being published; concealing from
the victims of their proscription and persecution the toleration which
the King had announced as the conditions of his perpetuating the
Charter.
It is not surprising that those proscribed and persecuted parties in
Massachusetts Bay Colony should complain to the King's Government that
the local Government had denied them every privilege which his Majesty
had assured to them through their friends in England, and by alleged
orders to the Government of Massachusetts Bay, and therefore that the
King's Government should determine to appoint Commissioners to proceed
to the New England colonies to investigate the complaints made, and to
regulate the affairs of the colonies after the disorders of the then
recent civil war, during which the Massachusetts Bay Government had
wholly identified itself with Cromwell, and acted in hostility to those
other American colonies which would not renounce their allegiance to the
Throne, and avow allegiance to the usurper.
It was not till the Government of Massachusetts Bay saw that their
silence could no longer be persisted in with safety, and that a Royal
Commission was inevitable,[130] that they even published the King's
letter, and then, as a means of further procrastination and delay, they
appended their order that the conditions prescribed in the Royal letter,
which "had influence upon the Churches as well as the civil state,
should be suspended until the Court should take action thereon"--thus
subordinating the orders of the King to the action of the Massachusetts
Bay Court.
From the Restoration, reports were most industriously circulated in the
Bay Colony, designed to excite popular suspicion and hostility against
the Royal Government, such as that their constitution and Church
privileges were to be suppressed, and superseded by a Royal Governor and
the Episcopal hierarchy, etc.; and before the arrival of the Royal
Commissioners the object of their appointment was misrepresented and
their character assailed; it was pretended their commission was a bogus
one, prepared "under an old hedge,"[131] and all this preparatory to the
intended resistance of the Commissioners by the Governor and Council of
Massachusetts Bay.
The five conditions of continuing the Charter, specified in the King's
letter of the 28th of June, 1662, the publication of which was
suppressed by the Massachusetts Bay Court for nearly two years, and the
intolerance and proscription which it was intended to redress being
still practised, were doubtless among the causes which led to the
appointment of the Royal Commissioners; but that Commission had
reference to other colonies as well as Massachusetts Bay, and to other
subjects than the intolerant proscriptions of that colony.[132]
All the New England colonies except that of Massachusetts Bay
respectfully and cordially received the Royal Commissioners, and gave
entire satisfaction in the matters which the Commissioners were intended
to investigate.[133] The Congregational rulers of Massachusetts Bay
alone rejected the Royal Commissioners, denied their authority, and
assailed their character. In the early history of Upper Canada, when one
Church claimed to be established above every other, and the local
Government sustained its pretensions as if authorized by law, it is
known with what tenacity and denunciation the Canadian ecclesiastic-civil
government resisted all appeals, both to the Local Legislature and to
England, for a liberal government of equal laws and equal rights for all
classes of the King's subjects in Canada. But the excluded majority of
the Canadians had little to complain of in comparison of the excluded
majority of his Majesty's subjects of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where
the only avenue to office, or even the elective franchise, was membership
in the Congregational Church, and where no dissenter from that Church
could have his children baptized, or worship God according to his
conscience, except under pain of imprisonment, fine, banishment, or
death itself.
The "Pilgrim Fathers" crossed the Atlantic to Plymouth in 1620, and the
"Puritan Fathers" to Massachusetts Bay in 1628, professedly for the same
purpose, namely, liberty to worship God without the imposition of
ceremonies of which they disapproved. The "Pilgrim Fathers," as true and
consistent friends of liberty, exercised full liberty of worship for
themselves, and left others to enjoy the same liberty of worship which
they enjoyed; but the "Puritan Fathers" exercised their liberty not only
by abandoning the Church and worship which they professed when they left
England, and setting up a Congregational worship, but by prohibiting
every other form of worship, and its adherents with imprisonment, fine,
exile, and death. And under this pretext of liberty of worship for
themselves, they proscribed and persecuted all who differed from them in
religious worship for fifty years, until their power to do so was taken
from them by the cancelling of the Charter whose provisions they had so
persistently and so cruelly abused, in contradistinction to the tolerant
and liberal conduct of their brethren and neighbours of the Plymouth,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut colonies. In note on page 148, I have
given extracts of the Report of the Royal Commissioners relative to
these colonies and their conduct and treatment of the Commissioners;
and in the lengthened extract of the report relative to Massachusetts
Bay Colony, it is seen how different was the spirit and government of
the rulers of that colony, both in respect to their fellow-colonists and
their Sovereign, from that of the rulers of the other New England
colonies, which had, indeed, to seek royal protection against the
oppressions and aggressions of the more powerful domineering Government
of Massachusetts Bay. The rulers of this colony alone rejected the Royal
Commissioners. For nearly two years the King's letter of the 28th of
June, 1662 (given in note on page 140), pardoning their acts of
disloyalty and assuring them of the continuance of their Charter on
certain conditions, remained unpublished and unnoticed; but on the
appointment of the Royal Commissioners, in 1664, they proceeded to
acknowledge the kindness of the King's letter of 1662, and other Royal
letters; then changing their tone, they protest against the Royal
Commission. They sent a copy of their address to the King, to Lord
Chancellor Clarendon, who, in connection with the Earl of Manchester and
Lord Say, had befriended them. They also wrote to others of their
friends, and among others to the Hon. and celebrated Robert Boyle, than
whom no man had shown himself a warmer or more generous friend to their
colony. I will give, not in successive notes, but in the text, their
address to the King, the King's reply, Lord Clarendon's and the Hon.
Robert Boyle's letters to them on the subject of their address to the
King, and their rejection and treatment of the Royal Commission. I will
then give the sentiments of what is called the "Petition of the
minority" of their own community on the subject, and their own answers
to the chief propositions of the Royal Commissioners. From all this it
will appear that the United Empire Loyalists were the true liberals, the
advocates of universal toleration and of truly liberal government; while
the rulers of Massachusetts Bay were the advocates of religious
intolerance and persecution of a government by a single religious
denomination, and hostile to the supreme authority of England, as well
as to their more tolerant and loyal fellow-colonists.
I will first give their characteristic address, called "Petition" or
"Supplication," to the King. I do so without abridgment, long as it is,
that I may not be chargeable with unfairness. It is as follows:--
Copy of the Address of the Massachusetts Colony to King Charles the
Second, in 1664:
"To the King's Most Excellent Majestie.--The humble Supplication of the
General Court of the Massachusetts Colony, in New England.
"DREAD SOVEREIGN,
"Iff your poor subjects, who have removed themselves into a remote
corner of the earth to enjoy peace with God and man, doe, in this day of
their trouble, prostrate themselves at your Royal feet, and beg your
favour, we hope it will be graciously accepted by your Majestie, and
that as the high place you sustain on earth doth number you here among
the gods, for you well imitate the God of heaven, in being ready to
maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor,[135] and
to receive their cries and addresses to that end. And we humbly beseech
your Majestie with patience and clemency to heare and accept our plain
discourse, tho' of somewhat greater length than would be comely in other
or lesser cases. We are remote,[136] and can speake but seldom, and
therefore crave leave to speake the more at once. Wee shall not largely
repeat how that the first undertakers for this Plantation, having by
considerable summs purchased the right thereof granted to the Council
established at Plimouth by King James, your Royal grandfather, did after
obtain a patent given and confirmed to themselves by your Royal father,
King Charles the First, wherein it is granted to them, and their heirs,
assigns and associates for ever, not only the absolute use and propriety
of the tract of land therein mentioned, but also full and absolute power
of governing[137] all the people of this place, by men chosen from among
themselves, and according to such lawes as they shall from time to time
see meet to make and establish, being not repugnant to the laws of
England (they paying only the fifth part of the ore of gold and silver
that shall here be found, for and in respect of all duties, demands,
exactions, and service whatsoever), as in the said patent is more at
large declared. Under the encouragement and security of which Royal
Charter this people did, at their own charges,[138] transport
themselves, their wives and families, over the ocean, purchase the lands
of the natives, and plant this colony, with great labour, hazards, cost
and difficulties, for a long time wrestling with the wants of a
wilderness and the burdens of a new plantation; having, also, now above
30 years enjoyed the aforesaid power and priviledge of government within
themselves, as their undoubted right in the sight of God and man,[139]
and having had, moreover, this further favour from God and from your
Majestie, that wee have received several gracious letters from your
Royal selfe, full of expressions tending to confirme us in our
enjoyments, viz., in your Majestie's letter bearing date the 15th day of
February, 1660, you are pleased to consider New England as one of the
chiefest of your colonies and plantations abroad, having enjoyed and
grown up in a long and orderly establishment, adding this royal promise:
'Wee shall not come behind any of our royal predecessors in a just
encouragement and protection of all our loving subjects there.' In your
Majestie's letter of the 28th of June, 1662, sent us by our messengers,
besides many other gracious expressions, there is this: 'Wee will
preserve and do hereby confirme the patent and Charter heretofore
granted unto them by our Royal father of blessed memory, and they shall
freely enjoy all the privileges and liberties granted unto them in and
by the same.'[140] As for such particulars, of a civil and religious
nature, as are subjoined in the said letter, we have applyed ourselves
to the utmost to satisfy your Majesty, so far as doth consist with
conscience, of our duty toward God and the just liberties and privileges
of our patent.[141] Wee are further bound, with humble thankfulness, to
acknowledge your Majestie's gracious expressions in your last letter we
have received, dated April 23, 1664, as (besides other instances
thereof) that your Majestie hath not the least intention or thought of
violating, or in the least degree infringing, the Charter heretofore
granted by your Royal father with great wisdom, and upon full
deliberation, etc.
"But what affliction of heart must it needs be unto us, that our sins
have provoked God to permit our adversaries to set themselves against us
by their misinformations, complaints and solicitations (as some of them
have made it their worke for many years), and thereby to procure a
commission under the great seal, wherein four persons (one of them our
knowne and professed enemy) are impowered to hear, receive, examine and
determine all complaints and appeals, in all causes and matters as well
military as criminal and civil, and to proceed in all things, for
settling this country according to their good and sound discretion,
etc., whereby, instead of being governed by rulers of our owne choosing
(which is the fundamental privilege of our patent), and by lawes of our
owne, wee are like to be subjected to the arbitary power of strangers,
proceeding not by any established law, but by their own discretion. And
whereas our patent gives a sufficient royal warrant and discharge to all
officers and persons for executing the lawes here made and published, as
is therein directed, we shall now not be discharged, and at rest from
further molestation, when wee have so executed and observed our lawes,
but be liable to complaints and appeales, and to the determinations of
new judges, whereby our government and administrations will be made void
and of none effect. And though we have yet had but a little taste of the
words or actings of these gentlemen that are come over hither in this
capacity of Commissioners, yet we have had enough to confirm us in our
feares that their improvement of this power, in pursuance of their
commission (should the same proceed), will end in the subversion of our
all. We should be glad to hope that your Majesty's instructions (which
they have not been pleased to impart to us) may put such limitations to
their business here as will take off our fear; but according to the
present appearance of things, we thus speak.
"In this case (dread Sovereign), our refuge under God is your royal
selfe, whom we humbly address ourselves unto, and are the rather
emboldened therein because your Majesty's last gracious letter doth
encourage us to suggest what, upon the experience we have had, and
observations we have made, we judge necessary or convenient for the good
and benefit of this plantation, and because we are well persuaded that
had your Majestie a full and right information of the state of things
here,[142] you would find apparent reason to put a stop to these
proceedings, which are certainly discervient to your Majesty's interest
and to the prosperity and welfare of this place.
"If these things go on (according to the present appearance), your
subjects here will either be forced to seek new dwellings, or sink and
faint under burdens that will to them be intolerable. The rigour of all
new endeavours in the several callings and occupations (either for
merchandise abroad or for subduing this wilderness at home) will be
enfeebled, as we perceive it already begins to be, the good of
converting the natives obstructed, the inhabitants driven to we know not
what extremities, and this hopeful plantation in the issue ruined. But
whatever becomes of us, we are sure the adversary cannot countervail the
King's damages.
"It is indeed a grief to our hearts to see your Majesty put upon this
extraordinary charge and cost about a business the product whereof can
never reimburse the one half of what will be expended upon it. Imposed
rulers and officers will have occasion to expend more than can be raised
here, so as nothing will return to your Majesty's exchequer; but instead
thereof, the wonted benefit of customs, exported and imported into
England from hence, will be diminished by discouragement and diminution
of men's endeavours in their several occupations; or if the aim should
be to gratify some particular by livings and revenues here that will
also fail, where nothing is to be had, the King himself will be loser,
and so will the case be formed here; for such is the poverty and
meanness of the people (by reason of the length and coldness of the
winters, the difficulty of subduing a wilderness, defect of staple
commodity, the want of money, etc.), that if with hard labour men get a
subsistence for their families, 'tis as much as the generality are able
to do, paying but very small rates towards the public charges; and yet
if all the country hath ordinarily raised by the year for all the
charges of the whole government were put together and then doubled or
trebled, it would not be counted, for one of these gentlemen, a
considerable accommodation.[143]
"It is true, that the estates men have in conjunction with hard labour
and vigorous endeavours in their several places do bring in a
comfortable subsistence for such a mean people (we do not diminish our
thankfulness to God, that he provides for us in a wilderness as he
doth), yet neither will the former stand or the latter be discouraged,
nor will both ever answer the ends of those that seek great things.
"We perceive there have been great expectations of what is to be had
here raised by some men's informations. But those informations will
prove fallacious, disappointing them that have relied upon them; and if
the taking of this course should drive the people out of the country
(for to a coalition therein they will never come), it will be hard to
find another people that will stay long or stand under any considerable
burden in it, seeing it is not a country where men can subsist without
hard labour and great frugality.
"There have also been high representations of great divisions and
discontents among us, and of a necessity of sending commissioners to
relieve the aggrieved, etc.; whereas it plainly appears that the body of
this colony are unanimously satisfied in the present government, and
abhorrent from change, and that what is now offered will, instead of
relieving, raise up such grievances as are intolerable. We suppose there
is no government under heaven wherein some discontented persons may not
be found; and if it be a sufficient accusation against a government that
there are some such, who will be innocent? Yet, through the favour of
God, there are but few amongst us that are malcontent, and fewer that
have cause to be so.
"Sir, the all-knowing God knows our greatest ambition is to live a poor
and quiet life, in a corner of the world, without offence to God or man.
We came not in this wilderness to seek great things for ourselves; and
if any come after us to seek them here, they will be disappointed. We
keep ourselves within our line, and meddle not with matters abroad; a
just dependence upon and subjection to your Majesty, according to our
Charter, it is far from our hearts to disacknowledge. We so highly prize
your favourable aspect (though at so great a distance), as we would
gladly do anything that is within our power to purchase the continuance
of it. We are willing to testify our affection to your Majesty's
service, by answering the proposal of your honourable Commissioners, of
which we doubt not but that they have already given your Majesty an
account. We are carefully studious of all due subjection to your
Majesty, and that not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and
should Divine Providence ever offer an opportunity wherein we might, in
any righteous way, according to our poor and mean capacity, testify our
dutiful affection to your Majesty, we hope we should most gladly embrace
it. But it is a great unhappiness to be reduced to so hard a case, as to
have no other testimony of our subjection and loyalty offered us but
this, viz., to destroy our own being, which nature teacheth us to
preserve; or to yield up our liberties, which are far dearer to us than
our lives, and which, had we had any fears of being deprived of, we had
never wandered from our fathers' houses into these ends of the earth,
nor laid our labours or estates therein; besides engaging in a most
hazardous and difficult war, with the most warlike of the natives, to
our great charge and the loss of some of the lives of our dear friends.
Neither can the deepest invention of man find out a more certain way of
consistence than to obtain a Royal donation from so great a prince under
his great seal, which is the greatest security that may be had in human
affairs.
"Royal Sir, it is in your power to say of your poor people in New
England, they shall not die. If we have found favour in the sight of our
King, let our life be given us at our petition (or rather that which is
dearer than life, that we have ventured our lives, and willingly passed
through many deaths to obtain), and our all at our request. Let our
government live, our patent live, our magistrates live, our laws and
liberties live, our religious enjoyments live; so shall we all yet have
further cause to say from our hearts, let the King live for ever. And
the blessing of them that were ready to perish shall come upon your
Majesty; having delivered the poor that cried, and such as had none to
help them. It was an honour to one of your royal ancestors that he was
called the poor man's king. It was Job's excellency that he sat as king
among his people--that he was a father to the poor. They are a poor
people (destitute of outward favour, wealth and power) who now cry to
their lord the King. May your Majesty please to regard their cause and
maintain their right. It will stand among the marks of lasting honour to
after generations. And we and ours shall have lasting cause to rejoice,
that we have been numbered among your Majesty's most humble servants and
suppliants.
"25th October, 1664."
As the Massachusetts Governor and Council had endorsed a copy of the
foregoing petition to the Earl of Clarendon, then Lord Chancellor (who
had dictated, with the Puritan ministers of the King, his generous
letter of the 28th of June, 1662), I will here insert Lord Clarendon's
reply to them, in which he vindicates the appointment of the
Commissioners, and exposes the unreasonableness of the statements and
conduct of the Massachusetts Court. The letter is as follows:
Copy of a letter from the Earl of Clarendon to the Massachusetts Colony
in 1664:--
"MR. GOVERNOR AND GENTLEMEN,
"I have received yours of the 7th of November, by the hands of Mr.
Ashurst, a very sober and discreet person, and did (by his communicating
it to me) peruse the petition you had directed to his Majesty; and I do
confess to you, I am so much a friend to your colony that if the same
had been communicated to nobody but myself, I should have dissuaded the
presenting the same to his Majesty, who I doubt will not think himself
well treated by it, or the singular care he hath expressed of his
subjects in those parts sufficiently acknowledged; but since I found by
your letter to my Lord Chamberlaine and Mr. Boyle, that you expect some
effect from your petition, upon conference with them wee all agreed not
to hinder the delivery of it, though I have read to them and Mr. Ashurst
every word of the instructions the Commissioners have; and they all
confessed that his Majesty could not expresse more grace and goodness
for that his plantation, nor put it more out of their power in any
degree to invade the liberties and privileges granted to you by your
Charter; and therefore wee were all equally amazed to find that you
demand a revokation of the Commission and Commissioners, without laying
the least matter to their charge of crymes or exorbitances. What sense
the King hath of your addresse to him, you will, I presume, heare from
himself, or by his direction. I shall only tell you that as you had long
cause to expect that the King would send Commissioners thither, so that
it was absolutely necessary he should do so, to compose the differences
amongst yourselves of which he received complaint, and to do justice to
your neighbours, which they demand from his royall hands. I know not
what you mean by saying, the Commissioners have power to exercise
government there altogether inconsistent with your Charter and
privileges, since I am sure their commission is to see and provide for
the due and full observation of the Charter, and that all the privileges
granted by that Charter may be equally enjoyed by all his Majesty's
subjects there. I know they are expressly inhibited from intermeddling
with or obstructing the administration of justice, according to the
formes observed there; but if in truth, in any extraordinary case, the
proceedings there have been irregular, and against the rules of justice,
as some particular cases particularily recommended to them by his
Majesty, seeme to be, it cannot be presumed that his Majesty hath or
will leave his subjects of New England without hope of redresse by any
appeale to him, which his subjects of all his other kingdoms have free
liberty to make. I can say no more to you but that it is in your owne
power to be very happy, and to enjoy all that hath been granted to you;
but it will be absolutely necessary that you perform and pay all that
reverence and obedience which is due from subjects to their king, and
which his Majesty will exact from you, and doubts not but to find from
the best of that colony both in quality and in number. I have no more to
add but that I am,
"Gentlemen,
"Your affectionate servant,
"CLARENDON, C.
"Worcester House, 15 March, 1665."
To Lord Clarendon's letter I will add the letter of the Honourable
Robert Boyle to Governor Endicot. The Hon. Robert Boyle was not only
distinguished as the first philosopher of his age, but as the founder of
the Royal Society and the President of the Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel in New England--the Society which supported John Eliot,
the apostle to the Indians of New England--for the Massachusetts Bay
Government neither established nor supported his mission to the Indians.
New England never had a warmer and more benevolent friend than the
celebrated Robert Boyle, who, in a letter dated March 17th, 1665, and
addressed to the Governor Endicot and the Massachusetts Court, after
acknowledging their resolution of thanks, through Mr. Winthrop, to him
for his exertions on their behalf, proceeds as follows:
"I dealt very sincerely with Mr. Winthrop in what I informed him
concerning the favourable inclinations I had found both in his Majesty
and in my Lord Chancellor toward the united colonies of New England; and
though his lordship again repeats and confirms the assurances he had
authorized me to give to your friends in the city, yet I cannot but
acquaint you with this, observing that in your last addresses to his
Majesty, and letters to his lordship, there are some passages that were
much more unexpected than welcome; insomuch that not only those who are
unconcerned in your affairs, but the most considerable persons that
favour you in England, have expressed to me their being unsatisfied in
some of the particulars I am speaking of. And it seems generally
unreasonable that when the King had so graciously remitted all that was
past, and upon just and important inducements, sent Commissioners to
promote the welfare of your colony, you should (in expressions not over
manly or respectfully worded) be importunate with him to do an action
likely to blemish his wisdom or justice, or both, as immediately to
recall public ministers from so remote a part of the world before they
or any of them be so much as accused of any one crime or miscarriage.
"And since you are pleased I should concern myself in this business, I
must deal so ingenuously with you as to inform you, that hearing about
your affairs, I waited upon my Lord Chancellor (and finding him, though
not satisfied with your late proceedings, yet neither your enemy, nor
indisposed to be your favourer as before). His lordship was pleased,
with a condescending and unexpected freedom, to read himself, not only
to me, but to another good friend of yours that I brought along with me,
the whole instructions and all the other papers that were delivered to
the Commissioners, and by the particulars of those it appeared to us
both that they had been so solicitous, viz., in the things that related
to your Charter, and especially to the liberty of your consciences, that
I could not but wonder at it, and add to the number of those that cannot
think it becomes his Majesty to recall Commissioners sent so far with no
other instructions than those, before they have time to do any part of
the good intended you by themselves, and before they are accused of
having done any one harmful thing, even in your private letters either
to me or (as far as I know) to any of your friends here, who will be
much discouraged from appearing on your behalf; and much disabled to do
it successfully so long as such proceedings as these that relate to the
Commissioners supply others with objections which those that wish you
well are unable to answer.
"I should not have taken this liberty, which the honour of your letter
ought to have filled with little less than acknowledgment, if the
favourable construction you have made of my former endeavours to do you
good offices did not engage me to continue them, though in a way which
(in my poor apprehension) tends very directly to serve you, whether I do
or no to please you; and as I presume you will receive, both from his
Majesty and my Lord Chancellor, express assurances that there is nothing
intended in violation to your Charter, so if the Commissioners should
break their instructions and endeavour to frustrate his Majesty's just
and favourable intentions towards you, you may find that some of your
friends here were not backward to accuse the Commissioners upon general
surmises that may injure you, than they will be ready to represent your
grievances, in case they shall actually oppress you; which, that they
may never do, is not more the expectation of them that recommended them
to you than it is the hearty wish of a person who, upon the account of
your faithfulness and care of so good a work as the conversion of the
natives among you, is in a peculiar manner concerned to shew himself,
honoured Sir, your most affectionate and most humble servant,[144]
"RO. BOYLE."
But in addition to the benevolent and learned Robert Boyle and their
other friends in England, besides Lord Clarendon and the King, who
disapproved of their pretentious spirit and proceedings, there were
numbers of their own fellow-colonists who equally condemned the
assumptions and conduct of Governor Endicot and his Council. It has been
shown in a previous chapter that in connection with the complete
suppression of the freedom of the press, petitioners to the Governor and
Court were punished for any expressions in their petitions which
complained of the acts or proceedings of the Court. It therefore
required no small degree of independence and courage for any among them
to avow their dissent from the acts of rulers so despotic and
intolerant. Yet, at this juncture of the rejection of the Royal
Commission, and the denial of the King's authority, there were found
United Empire Loyalists and Liberals, even among the Congregational
"freemen" of Massachusetts Bay, who raised the voice of remonstrance
against this incipient separation movement. A petition was prepared and
signed by nearly two hundred of the inhabitants of Boston, Salem,
Newbury, and Ipswich, and presented to the Court. The compiler of the
"Danforth Papers," in the Massachusetts Historical Collection, says:
"Next follows the petition in which the minority of our forefathers have
exhibited so much good sense and sound policy." The following is an
extract of the Boston petition, addressed "To the Honourable General
Court now assembled in Boston:"
"May it please the Hon. Court:
"Your humble petitioners, being informed that letters are lately sent
from his Majesty to the Governor and Council, expressive of resentment
of the proceedings of this colony with his Commissioners lately sent
hither, and requiring also some principal persons therein, with command
upon their allegiance to attend his Majesty's pleasure in order to a
final determination of such differences and debates as have happened
between his Majesty's Commissioners and the Governor here, and which
declaration of his Majesty, your petitioners, looking at as a matter of
the greatest importance, justly calling for the most serious
consideration, that they might not be wanting, either to yourselves in
withholding any encouragement that their concurrence might afford in so
arduous a matter, nor to themselves and the country in being involved by
their silence in the dangerous mistakes of (otherwise well united)
persons inclining to disloyal principles, they desire they may have
liberty without offence to propose some of their thoughts and fears
about the matter of your more serious deliberation.
"Your petitioners humbly conceive that those who live in this age are no
less than others concerned in that advice of the wise man, to keep the
King's commandment, because of the oath of God, and not to be tardy to
go out of his sight that doth whatever pleaseth him; wherefore they
desire that seeing his Majesty hath already taken no little displeasure
against us, as if we disowned his Majesty's jurisdiction over us,
effectual care be taken, lest by refusing to attend his Majesty's order
for clearing our pretences unto right and favour in that particular, we
should plunge ourselves into great disfavour and danger.
"The receiving of a Charter from his Majesty's royal predecessor for the
planting of this colony, with a confirmation of the same from his royal
person, by our late address, sufficiently declares this place to be
part of his dominions and ourselves his subjects. In testimony of which,
also, the first Governor, Mr. Matthew Cradock (as we are informed),
stands recorded _juratus de fide et obedientia_, before one of the
Masters in Chancery; whence it is evident that if any proceedings of
this colony have given occasion to his Majesty to say that we believe he
hath no jurisdiction over us, what effectual course had need be taken to
free ourselves from the incurring his Majesty's future displeasure by
continuance in so dangerous an offence? And to give his Majesty all due
satisfaction in that point, such an assertion would be no less
destructive to our welfare than derogatory to his Majesty's honour. The
doubtful interpretations of the words of a patent which there can be no
reason to hope should ever be construed to the divesting of the
sovereign prince of his Royal power over his natural subjects and liege
people, is too frail a foundation to build such transcendent immunity
and privilege upon.
"Your petitioners earnestly desire that no part will so irresistibly
carry on any design of so dangerous a consequence as to necessitate
their brethren equally engaged with them in the same undertaking to make
their particular address to his Majesty, and declaring to the world, to
clear themselves from the least imputation of so scandalous an evil as
the appearance of disaffection or disloyalty to the person and
government of their lawful prince and sovereign would be.
"Wherefore your petitioners do here humbly entreat that if any occasion
hath been given to his Majesty so to resent any former actings as in his
last letter is held forth, that nothing of that nature be further
proceeded in, but contrariwise that application be made to his Majesty,
immediately to be sent for the end to clear the transactions of them
that govern this colony from any such construction, lest otherwise that
which, if duly improved, might have been a cloud of the latter rain, be
turned into that which, in the conclusion, may be found more terrible
than the roaring of a lion.
"Thus craving a favourable interpretation of what is here humbly
presented, your petitioners shall ever be obliged to, etc."[145]
The following is the King's letter, referred to by Lord Clarendon,
evidently written on the advice of the Puritan Councillors, whom the
King retained in his government, and to whom the management of New
England affairs seems to have been chiefly committed, with the oversight
of the Lord Chancellor Clarendon. This letter, in addition to a previous
letter from the King of the same kind, together with the letters of Lord
Clarendon and the Hon. Robert Boyle, left them not a shadow of pretext
for the inflammatory statements they were putting forth, and the
complaints they were making, that their Charter privileges and rights of
conscience were invaded, and was a reply to the petition of the
Massachusetts Bay Governor and Council (inserted above at length, pages
153-159), and shows the utter groundlessness of their statements; that
what they contended for under the pretext of conscience was the right of
persecuting and proscribing all who did not conform to the
Congregational worship; and that what they claimed under the pretence of
Charter rights was absolute independence, refusing to submit even to
inquiry as to whether they had not encroached upon the rights and
territories of their white and Indian neighbours, or made laws and
regulations and performed acts contrary to the laws of England and to
the rights of other of the King's subjects. This letter breathes the
spirit of kindness and forbearance, and contends for _toleration_, as
did all the loyal colonists of the time, appealing to the King for
protection against the intolerance, persecution and proscription of the
Massachusetts Bay Congregational Government. The letter is as follows:
Copy of a Letter from Secretary Morrice to the Massachusetts Colony:
"SIRS,
"His Majesty hath heard this petition[146] read to him, and hath well
weighed all the expressions therein, and the temper and spirit of those
who framed it, and doth not impute the same to his colony of
Massachusetts, amongst whom he knows the major part consists of men well
affected to his service and obedient to his government, but he hath
commanded me to let you know that he is not pleased with this petition,
and looks upon it as the contrivance of a few persons who have had too
long authority there, and who use all the artifices they can to infuse
jealousies into his good subjects there, and apprehensions as if their
Charter were in danger, when it is not possible for his Majesty to do
more for the securing it, or to give his subjects there more assurance
that it shall not in any degree be infringed, than he hath already done,
even by his late Commission and Commissioners sent thither, who are so
far from having the least authority to infringe any clause in the said
Charter, that it is the principal end of their journey, so chargeable to
his Majesty, to see that the Charter be fully and punctually observed.
His Majesty did expect thanks and acknowledgments from that his colony,
of his fatherly care in sending his Commissioners thither, and which he
doubts not he shall receive from the rest of the colonies in those
parts, and not such unreasonable and groundless complaint as is
contained in your petition, as if he had thereby intended to take away
your privileges and to drive you from your habitations, without the
least mention of any misdemeanour or miscarriage in any one of the said
Commissioners or in any one particular. Nor can his Majesty comprehend
(except you believe that by granting your Charter he hath parted with
his sovereign power over his subjects there) how he could proceed more
graciously, or indeed any other way, upon so many complaints presented
to him by particular persons of injustice done contrary to the
constitution of that government: from the other colonies, for the
oppression they pretend to undergo by the conduct of Massachusetts, by
extending their bounds and their jurisdiction further than they ought to
do, as they pretend; from the natives, for the breach of faith and
intolerable pressures laid upon them, as they allege, contrary to all
kind of justice, and even to the dishonour of the English nation and
Christian faith, if all they allege be true. I say, his Majesty cannot
comprehend how he could apply proper remedies to these evils, if they
are real, or how he could satisfy himself whether they are real or no by
any other way or means than by sending Commissioners thither to examine
the truth and grounds of all the allegations, and for the present to
compose the differences the best they can, until, upon a full and clear
representation thereof to his Majesty, who cannot but expect the same
from them, his Majesty's own final judgement and determination may be
had. And it hath pleased God so far already to bless that service that
it's no small benefit his Majesty and his English colonies in those
parts have already received by the said Commissioners in the removal of
so inconvenient neighbours as the Dutch have been for these late years,
and which would have been a more spreading and growing mischief in a
short time if it had not been removed. To conclude, I am commanded by
his Majesty to assure you again of your full and peaceable enjoyment of
all the privileges and liberties granted to you by his Charter, which he
hath heretofore and doth now again offer to renew to you, if you shall
desire it; and that you may further promise yourselves all the
protection, countenance, and encouragement that the best subjects ever
received from the most gracious Prince; in return whereof he doth only
expect that duty and cheerful obedience that is due to him, and that it
may not be in the power of any malicious person to make you miserable by
entertaining any unnecessary and unreasonable jealousies that there is a
purpose to make you so. And since his Majesty hath too much reason to
suspect that Mr. Endicot,[147] who hath during all the late revolutions
continued the government there, is not a person well affected to his
Majesty's person or his government, his Majesty will take it very well
if at the next election any other person of good reputation be chosen in
the place, and that he may no longer exercise that charge. This is all I
have to signify unto you from his Majesty, and remain,
"Your very humble servant,
"WILL. MORRICE.
"Whitehall, February 25th, 1665."
But this courteous and explicit letter had no effect upon the Governor
and Council of Massachusetts Bay in allaying opposition to the Royal
Commissioners, whose authority they refused to acknowledge, nor did it
prevent their persecution of their brethren whom they termed
"Sectaries"--the "Dissenting party." The Commissioners having executed
the part of their commission relative to the Dutch and Indians, and
finding their authority resisted by the Governor and Council of
Massachusetts Bay, reported the result to the King's Government, which
determined to order the attendance of representatives of the
Massachusetts Bay Government, to answer in England the complaints
prepared against them, and for their conduct to the Commissioners. The
letter which the King was advised to address to that pretentious and
persecuting Government speaks in a more decisive but kindly tone, and is
as follows:
Copy of a letter from King Charles II. to the Massachusetts Colony,
April, 1666:
"CHARLES R.
"His Majesty having received a full information from his Commissioners
who were sent by him into New England, of their reception and treatment
in the several colonies and provinces of that plantation, in all which
they have received great satisfaction but only that of Massachusetts;
and he having likewise been fully informed of the account sent hither by
the Counsell of the Massachusetts, under the hand of the present
Governor, of all the passages and proceedings which have been there
between the said Commissioners and them from the time of their first
coming over; upon all which it is very evident to his Majesty,
notwithstanding many expressions of great affection and duty, that those
who govern the Colony of Massachusetts do believe that the commission
given by his Majesty to those Commissioners, upon so many and weighty
reasons, and after so long deliberation, is an apparent violation of
their Charter, and tending to the dissolution of it, and that in truth
they do, upon the matter, believe that his Majesty hath no jurisdiction
over them, but that all persons must acquiesce in their judgments and
determinations, how unjust soever, and cannot appeal to his Majesty,
which would be a matter of such a high consequence as every man
discernes where it must end. His Majesty, therefore, upon due
consideration of the whole matter, thinks fit to recall his said
Commissioners which he hath at this present done, to the end he may
receive from them a more particular account of the state and condition
of those his plantations, and of the particular differences and debates
they have had with those of the Massachusetts, that so his Majesty may
pass his final judgment and determination thereupon. His Majesty's
express command and charge is, that the Governor and Counsell of the
Massachusetts do forthwith make choice of five or four persons to attend
upon his Majesty, whereof Mr. Richard Bellingham and Major Hathorn are
to be two, both which his Majesty commands upon their allegiance to
attend, the other three or two to be such as the Counsell shall make
choice of; and if the said Mr. Bellingham be the present Governor,
another fit person is to be deputed to that office till his return, and
his Majesty will then, in person, hear all the allegations, suggestions,
or pretences to right or favour that can be made on the behalf of the
said colony, and will then make it appear how far he is from the least
thought of invading or infringing, in the least degree, the Royal
Charter granted to the said colony. And his Majesty expects the
appearance of the said persons as soon as they can possibly repair
hither after they have notice of this his Majesty's pleasure. And his
further command is, that there be no alterations with reference to the
government of the Province of Maine till his Majesty hath heard what is
alledged on all sides, but that the same continue as his Majesty's
Commissioners have left the same, until his Majesty shall further
determine. And his Majesty further expressly charges and commands the
Governor and Counsell there, that they immediately set all such persons
at liberty who have been or are imprisoned only for petitioning or
applying themselves to his Majesty's Commissioners. And for the better
prevention of all differences and disputes upon the bounds and limits of
the several colonies, his Majesty's pleasure is, that all determinations
made by his Majesty's said Commissioners with reference to the said
bounds and limits may still continue to be observed, till, upon a full
representation of all pretences, his Majesty shall make his own final
determination; and particularly the present temporary bounds set by the
Commissioners between the colonies of New Plymouth and Rhode Island,
until his Majesty shall find cause to alter the same. And his Majesty
expects that full obedience be given to this signification of his
pleasure in all particulars.
"Given at the Court at Whitehall, the 10th day of April, 1666, in the
eighteenth year of his Majesty's reign.
"WILL. MORRICE."
Before noticing the proceedings of the Massachusetts Bay Court in
reference to this letter of the King, it may be proper to pause a little
and retrospect past transactions between the two Charleses and the
Congregational rulers of Massachusetts Bay, and the correspondence of
the latter with the Royal Commissioners, so prominently referred to in
the above letter.
The foregoing documents which I have so largely quoted evince the Royal
indulgence and kindness shown to the Massachusetts Bay Colony after the
conduct of its rulers to the King and his father during the twenty years
of the civil war and Commonwealth; the utter absence of all intention on
the part of Charles the Second, any more than on the part of Charles the
First, to limit or interfere with the exercise of their own conscience
or taste in their form or manner of worship, only insisting upon the
enjoyment of the same liberty by those who preferred another form and
manner of worship. However intolerant and persecuting the Governments of
both Charles the First and Second were to all who did not conform to the
established worship and its ceremonies in England, they both disclaimed
enforcing them upon the New England colonies; and I repeat, that it may
be kept in mind, that when the first complaints were preferred to
Charles the First and the Privy Council, in 1632, against Endicot and
his Council, for not only not conforming to, but abolishing, the worship
of the Church of England, the accused and their friends successfully,
though falsely, denied having abolished the Episcopal worship; and the
King alleged to his Council, when Laud was present, that he had never
intended to enforce the Church ceremonies objected to upon the New
England colonists. The declarations of Charles the Second, in his
letters to them, confirmed as they were by the letters of the Earl of
Clarendon and the Honourable Robert Boyle, show the fullest recognition
on the part of the Government of the Restoration to maintain their
perfect liberty of worship. Their own address to the King in 1664 bears
testimony that for upwards of thirty years liberty of worship had been
maintained inviolate, and that King Charles the Second had himself
invariably shown them the utmost forbearance, kindness, and
indulgence.[148]
Yet they no sooner felt their Charter secure, and that the King had
exhausted the treasury of his favours to them, than they deny his right
to see to their fulfilment of the conditions on which he had promised to
continue the Charter. The Charter itself, be it remembered, provided
that they should not make any laws or regulations contrary to the laws
of England, and that all the settlers under the Charter should enjoy all
the rights and privileges of British subjects. The King could not know
whether the provisions of the Royal Charter were observed or violated,
or whether his own prescribed conditions of continuing the Charter were
ignored or fulfilled, without examination; and how could such an
examination be made except by a Committee of the Privy Council or
special Commissioners? This was what the King did, and what the Governor
and Court of Massachusetts Bay resisted. They accepted with a profusion
of thanks and of professed loyalty the King's pardon and favours, but
denied his rights and authority. They denied any other allegiance or
responsibility to the King's Government than the payment of five per
cent. of the proceeds of the gold and silver mines. The absurdity of
their pretensions and of their resistance to the Royal Commission, and
the injustice and unreasonableness of their attacks and pretended
suspicions, are well exposed in the documents above quoted, and
especially in the petition of the "minority" of their own
fellow-colonists. But all in vain; where they could not openly deny,
they evaded so as to render nugatory the requirements of the King as the
conditions of continuing the Charter, as will appear from their
correspondence with the Royal Commissioners. I will give two or three
examples.
They refused to take the oath of allegiance according to the form
transmitted to them by the King's order, or except with limitations that
neutralized it. The first Governor of their Corporation, Matthew
Cradock, took the oath of allegiance as other officers of the Crown and
British subjects, and as provided in the Royal Charter; but after the
secret conveyance of the Charter to Massachusetts Bay and the
establishment of a Government there, they, in secret deliberation,
decided that they were not British subjects in the ordinary sense; that
the only allegiance they owed to the King was such as the homage the
Hanse Towns paid to Austria, or Burgundy to the Kings of France; that
the only allegiance or obligation they owed to England was the payment
of one-fifth per cent. of the produce of their gold and silver mines;
that there were no appeals from their acts or decisions to the King or
Courts of England; and that the King had no right to see whether their
laws or acts were according to the provisions of the Charter. When the
King, after his restoration, required them to take the oath of
allegiance as the first condition of continuing the Charter, they evaded
it by attaching to the oath the Charter _according to their
interpretation of it_. Any American citizen could at this day take the
oath of allegiance to the Sovereign of England if it were limited to the
Constitution of the United States. First of all, they required of every
freeman the oath of fidelity to the local Government; and then, after
three years' delay and debating about the oath of allegiance to the
King, the Massachusetts Bay Court adopted the following order:
"May 16th, 1665.
"It is ordered by this Court and by the authority thereof, that the
following oath be annexed unto the oaths of every freeman, and oath of
fidelity, and to the Governor, Deputy Governor and Assistants, and to
all other public officers as followeth. The oaths of freemen and of
fidelity to run thus: 'Whereas, I, A.B., an inhabitant within this
jurisdiction, considering how I stand to the King's Majesty, his heirs
and successors, _by our Charter_, and the Government established
thereby, do swear _accordingly_, by the great and dreadful name of the
ever living God, that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to our
Sovereign Lord the King, his heirs and successors; and so proceed _as in
the printed oaths of freemen and fidelity_.'"[149]
On this, Col. Nichols, Chairman of the Royal Commission, addressing the
Court, remarks as follows:
"You profess you highly prize the King's favour, and that offending him
shall never be imputed to you; and yet you, in the same paper, refuse to
do what the King requires should be done--that all that come into this
colony to dwell should take the oath of allegiance here. Your Charter
commands it; yet you make promises not therein expressed, and, in short,
would curtail the oath, as you do allegiance, refusing to obey the King.
It is your duty to administer justice in the King's name; and the King
acknowledgeth in his letter, April 23, that it is his duty to see that
justice be administered by you to all his subjects here, and yet you
will not give him leave to examine by his Commissioners."
Referring to this subject again, Col. Nichols remarks:
"Touching the oath of allegiance, which is exactly prescribed in your
Charter, and no faithful subject will make it less than according to the
law of England. The oath mentioned by you was taken by Mr. Matthew
Cradock, as Governor, which hath a part of the oath of allegiance put
into it, and ought to be taken in that name by all in public office;
also in another part of the Charter it is expressly spoken of as the
oath of allegiance; and how any man can make that in fewer words than
the law of England enjoins, I know not how it can be acceptable to his
Majesty."[150]
As a sect in the Jewish nation made void the law by their traditions, so
the sect of Congregational rulers in Massachusetts Bay thus made void
the national oath of allegiance by their additions. On the subject of
liberty of worship according to the Church of England, these sectarian
rulers express themselves thus:
"Concerning the use of the Common Prayer Book and ecclesiastical
privileges, our humble addresses to his Majesty have fully declared our
ends, in our being voluntary exiles from our dear native country, which
we had not chosen at so dear a rate, could we have seen the word of God
warranting us to perform our devotions in that way; and to have the same
set up here, we conceive it is apparent, that it will disturb our peace
in our present enjoyments; and we have commended to the ministry and
people here the word of the Lord for their rule therein, as you may find
by your perusal of our law book, title 'Ecclesiastical,' p. 25."
To this the King's Commissioners reply as follows:
"The end of the first Planters coming hither was (as expressed in your
address, 1660), the enjoyment of the liberty of your own consciences,
which the King is so far from taking away from you, that by every
occasion he hath promised and assured the full enjoyment of it to you.
We therefore advise that you should not deny the liberty of conscience
to any, especially where the King requires it; and that upon a vain
conceit of your own that it will disturb your enjoyments, which the King
often hath said it shall not.
"Though you commend to the ministers and people the word of the Lord for
their rule, yet you did it with a proviso that they have the approbation
of the Court, as appears in the same page; and we have great reason both
to think and say that the King and his Council and the Church of England
understand and follow the rules in God's word as much as this
Corporation.
"For the use of the Common Prayer Book: His Majesty doth not impose the
use of the Common Prayer Book on any, but he understands that liberty of
conscience comprehends every man's conscience as well as any particular,
and thinks that all his subjects should have equal rights; and in his
letter of June 28, 1662, he requires and charges that all his subjects
should have equally an allowance thereof; but why you should put that
restraint on his Majesty's subjects that live under his obedience, his
Majesty doth not understand that you have any such privileges.
"Concerning ecclesiastical privileges, we suppose you mean sacraments,
baptisms, etc. You say we have commended the word of the Lord for our
rule therein, referring us to the perusal of the printed law, page 25.
We have perused that law, and find that that law doth cut off those
privileges which his Majesty will have, and see that the rest of his
subjects have."[151]
I now resume the narrative of questions as affecting the authority of
the Crown and the subjection of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That
colony was the most populous and wealthy of all the New England
colonies. Its principal founders were men of wealth and education; the
twelve years' tyranny of Charles the First and Laud, during the
suspension of Parliament, caused a flow of more than twenty thousand
emigrants to Massachusetts Bay, with a wealth exceeding half a million
sterling, and among them not less than seventy silenced clergymen.
During the subsequent twenty years of the civil war and Commonwealth in
England, the rulers of that colony actively sided with the latter, and
by the favour and connivance of Cromwell evaded the Navigation Law
passed by the Parliament, and enriched themselves greatly at the expense
of the other British colonies in America, and in violation of the law of
Parliament. In the meantime, being the stronger party, and knowing that
they were the favourites of Cromwell, they assumed, on diverse grounds,
possession of lands, south, east, north, and west, within the limits of
the neighbouring colonies, and made their might right, by force of arms,
when resisted; and denied the citizenship of freemen to all except
actual members of the Congregational Churches, and punished Dissenters
with fine, imprisonment, banishment, and death itself in many instances.
On the restoration of Charles the Second to the throne of his ancestors,
it was natural that the various oppressed and injured parties, whether
of colonies or individuals, should lay their grievances before their
Sovereign and appeal to his protection; and it was not less the duty of
the Sovereign to listen to their complaints, to inquire into them, and
to redress them if well founded. This the King, under the guidance of
his Puritan Councillors, proceeded to do in the most conciliatory and
least offensive way. Though the rulers of Massachusetts Bay did not, as
did the other New England as well as Southern colonies, recognize and
proclaim the King on the announcement of his restoration, but observed a
sullen silence until they saw that the monarchy was firmly established;
yet the King took no offence at this, but addressed them in terms the
most conciliatory, assuring them that he would overlook the past and
secure to them the privileges of their Charter, and the continued
freedom of their worship, upon the conditions of their taking the oath
of allegiance, administer their laws as British subjects, and grant to
all their fellow-colonists equal freedom of worship and of conscience
with themselves. They professed, as well they might, to receive the
King's declaration of oblivion for past offences and irregularities, and
promise of perpetuating their original Charter, with feelings of
inexpressible gratitude and delight; but they did not publish the King's
letter for nearly two years, notwithstanding his command to do so; and
when they did publish it, they appended an order that the conditions
were not to be acted upon until their further order.
The King's proclamation of pardon of the past, and promise of the
future, produced no other effect than a profusion of wordy compliments
and a vague intimation of doing as the King required, _as far as their
Charter and conscience would permit_. Their policy of proscription and
ignoring the Royal authority in their laws and government remaining
unchanged, and the complaints of oppressed colonies and individuals
multiplying, the adoption of further measures became necessary on the
part of the Crown; and it was decided to appoint a Royal Commission,
which should be at once a Court of Inquiry and a Court of Appeal, at
least in the first instance, reporting the results of their inquiries
and their decisions in cases of appeal for the information and final
decision of the highest authority in England, to which any dissatisfied
party could appeal against the report or decision of the Commissioners.
The address or "Petition" to the King, dated 1664, and given above, pp.
153-9, in all its tedious length and verbiage, shows how grossly they
misrepresented the character and objects of the Commission, preparatory
to resisting and rejecting it, while the King's letter in reply, also
given above at length, p. 166, completely refutes their misstatements,
and duly rebukes their unjust and offensive insinuations.
On receiving the report of the Commissioners, together with the
statements and pretensions of the Massachusetts Bay Court, the King
might have employed ships and soldiers to enforce his just and
reasonable commands, or have cancelled the Charter, as the conditions of
its continuance had not been fulfilled, and have established
Massachusetts Bay Plantation as a Royal colony; but he was advised to
adopt the milder and more forbearing course of giving them opportunity
of answering directly the complaints made against them, and of
justifying their acts and laws. He therefore, in the Royal letter given
above, dated April 6, 1666, required them within six months to send five
of their number to England to answer and to disprove if they could
complaints made against them, and to furnish proof of the professions
and statements they had made in their address and petition. They could
no longer evade or delay; they were brought face to face with the
authority of King and Parliament; they could adduce nothing but their
own assertions in their justification; facts were against their words;
they adopted their usual resource to evade all inquiry into their laws
and acts by pleading the immunity of their Charter, and refused to send
representatives to England. They wished the King to take their own words
alone as proofs of their loyalty to the Crown and equity to their
fellow-colonists. In place of sending representatives to England to meet
their accusers face to face and vindicate their acts, they sent two
large masts, thirty-four yards long, which they said they desired to
accompany with a thousand pounds sterling as a present to his Majesty,
but could get no one to lend them that sum, for the purpose of thus
expressing their good-will to the King, and of propitiating his favour.
Their language of adulation and profession was most abject, while they
implored the Royal clemency for refusing to obey the Royal commands.
Their records state that "11, 7mo., 1666, the General Court assembled on
account of a signification from his Majesty requiring the Council of
this colony to send five able and meet persons to make answer for
refusing jurisdiction to his Commissioners last year; whereof Mr.
Richard Bellingham and Mr. Hawthorne to be two of them, whom he
requires, on their allegiance, to come by first opportunity. The Court
met and agreed to spend the forenoon of the next day in prayer.
"12, 7mo., 1666. The Court met and sundry elders, and spent the forenoon
in prayer.
"13, 7mo., 1666. The Court met and the elders were present after lecture
and some debate had in Court concerning the duty we owe to his Majesty
in reference to his signification."
On the 14th sundry petitions were presented from the "minority" in
Boston, Salem, Ipswich, and Newbury, in favour of compliance with the
King's requirement; and the subject was debated in Council some days,
when, on the 17th, the Court adopted an answer to the "King's
signification," containing the following words addressed to the King's
Secretary of State, Mr. Morrice:
"We have, in all humility, given our reasons why we _could_ not submit
to the Commissioners and their mandates the last year, which we
understand lie before his Majesty. To the substance thereof we have
nothing to add; and therefore can't expect that the ablest persons among
us could be in a capacity to declare our case more fully.
"We must therefore commit this our great concernment unto Almighty God,
praying and hoping that his Majesty (a prince of so great clemency) will
consider the estate and condition of his poor and afflicted subjects at
such a time, being in imminent danger, by the public enemies of our
nation, by sea and land, and that in a wilderness far remote from
relief; wherefore we do in this wise prostrate ourselves before his
Majesty, and beseech him to be graciously pleased to rest assured of our
loyalty and allegiance _according to our former professions_. Thus with
our humble service to your Honour, and earnest prayers to God for his
Majesty's temporal and eternal happiness, we remain your Honour's humble
servants.
"17, 7mo., 1666."[152]
But even in their Council, where the "elders" or ministers and their
nominees were supreme, both to rule and to persecute, and to maintain
which they were plotting and struggling with the intensity of the Papacy
of late years against the Government of Italy, there were yet among
their number men of distinction, who contended for the rights of the
Crown, to decide questions of appeal from the colony, and to appoint a
special commission for that purpose, such as Mr. Simon Bradstreet, who
had been Governor, and as their Commissioner to England, with Mr.
Norton, had obtained the famous letter of Charles the Second, dated 10th
of June, 1662, which filled the Court of Massachusetts Bay with
inexpressible joy; and Mr. Dudley, son of a former Governor, and himself
first Governor appointed by the Crown after the cancelling of the
Charter; and Major Dennison, a man of mark, also in their Council.
In Mr. Danforth's notes of the debate on the answer to the King's
signification, _Mr. Bradstreet_ is reported to have said: "I grant legal
process in a course of law reaches us not in an ordinary course; yet I
think the King's prerogative gives him power to command our appearance,
which, before God and men, we are to obey." _Mr. Dudley_: "The King's
commands pass anywhere--Ireland, Calais, etc.--although ordinary process
from judges and officers pass not. No doubt you may have a trial at law
when you come to England, if you desire it, and you may insist upon and
claim it. Prerogative is as necessary as law, and it is for the good of
the whole that there be always power in being able to act; and where
there is a right of power, it will be abused so long as it is in the
hands of weak men, and the less pious the more apt to miscarry; but
right may not be denied because it may be abused."
After the Court had adopted its answer of refusal to the King's
signification, Mr. Bradstreet said: "I fear we take not a right course
for our safety. It is clear that this signification is from his Majesty.
I do desire to have it remembered that I do dissent, and desire to have
it recorded that I dissent, from that part of it as is an answer to the
King's signification." Major Dennison declared his dissent from the
letter to Mr. Morrice, as not being proportionate to the end desired,
and he hoped, intended, and desired it might be entered--namely, due
satisfaction to his Majesty, and the preservation of the peace and
liberty of the colony.[153]
It is clear from the foregoing facts that the alleged invasion of
chartered rights and privileges put forth by the ruling party of
Massachusetts Bay was a mere pretext to cover the long-cherished
pretensions (called by them "dear-bought rights") to absolute
independence; that is, the domination of the Congregationalist
Government, to the exclusion of the Crown, to proscribe from the
elective franchise and eligibility to office all but Congregationalists,
and to persecute all who differed from them in either religious or
political opinion, including their control and suppression of the
freedom of the press.[154] They persisted in the cruel persecution of
their Baptist brethren as well as of the Quakers, notwithstanding the
King had established the fullest religious liberty by Royal Charter,
granted in 1663 to the Colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and had
by his letters in 1662 and 1664, and subsequently, forbidden religious
persecution and prescribed religious toleration as a condition of the
continuance of the Charter in Massachusetts Bay Colony.[155]
I will give in a note, from the records of their own Court, their
persecuting proceedings against certain Baptists in April, 1666, six
years after the Restoration.[156]
The Puritan historian, Neal, writing under date three years later,
1669, says: "The displeasure of the Government ran very high against the
Anabaptists and Quakers at this time. The Anabaptists had gathered one
Church at Swanzey, and another at Boston, but the General Court was very
severe in putting the laws in execution against them, whereby many
honest people were ruined by fines, imprisonment, and banishment, which
was the more extraordinary because their brethren in England were
groaning under persecution from the Church of England at the same time.
Sad complaints were sent over to England every summer of the severity of
the Government against the Anabaptists, which obliged the dissenting
ministers in London to appear at length in their favour. A letter was
accordingly sent over to the Governor of Massachusetts, signed by Dr.
Goodwin, Dr. Owen, Mr. Nie, Mr. Caryl, and nine other ministers,
beseeching him to make use of his authority and interest for restoring
such to their liberty as were in prison on account of religion, and that
their sanguinary laws might not be put in execution in future." [Mr.
Neal gives the letter, and then proceeds.] "But the excellent letter
made no impression upon them; the prisoners were not released, nor the
execution of the laws suspended; nay, so far from this, that ten years
after, in the year 1679, a General Synod being called to inquire into
the evils that provoked the Lord to bring his judgments on New England,
they mention these among the rest, 'Men have set up their thresholds by
God's threshold, and their posts by God's post; Quakers are false
worshippers, and such Anabaptists as have risen up among us, in
opposition to the Churches of the Lord Jesus,' etc., etc."
"Wherefore it must needs be provoking to God if these things be not duly
and fully testified against by every one in their several capacities
respectively."[158]
The present of two large masts and a ship-load of timber; successive
obsequious and evasive addresses; explanations of agents; compliance in
some particulars with the Royal requirements in regard to the oath of
allegiance, and administering the law, so far appeased the King's
Government that further action was suspended for a time in regard to
enforcing the granting of the elective franchise, eligibility to office,
and liberty of worship to other than Congregationalists,[159] especially
as the attention of Charles was absorbed by exciting questions at home,
by his war with Holland, which he bitterly hated, and his intrigues with
France, on which he became a paid dependant. But the complaints and
appeals to the King from neighbouring colonies of the invasion of
individual and territorial rights by the Court of Massachusetts Bay, and
from the persecuted and proscribed inhabitants of their own colony,
awakened at last the renewed attention of the King's Government to the
proceedings of the Massachusetts Bay rulers. The letter which the King
was advised to address to them is kind and conciliatory in its tone; but
it shows that while the King, as he had declared in his first letter,
addressed to them seventeen years before, recognized the "Congregational
way of worship," he insisted on toleration of the worship of
Episcopalians, Baptists, etc., and the civil rights and privileges of
their members,[161] denied by these "fathers of American liberty" to
the very last; until then, power of proscription and persecution was
wrested from them by the cancelling of their Charter.
The chief requirements of this letter were, as stated by Mr. Hutchinson:
"1. That agents be sent over in six months, fully instructed to answer
and transact what was undetermined at that time.
"2. That freedom and liberty of conscience be given to such persons as
desire to serve God in the way of the Church of England, so as not to
be thereby made obnoxious, or discountenanced from their sharing in the
government, much less that they, or any other of his Majesty's subjects
(not being Papists) who do not agree in the Congregational way, be by
law subject to fines or forfeitures or other incapacities.
"3. That no other distinction be observed in making freemen than that
they be men of competent estates, rateable at ten shillings, according
to the rules of the place, and that such in their turns be capable of
the magistracy, and all laws made void that obstruct the same.
"4. That the ancient number of eighteen assistants be observed, as by
Charter. (They had been limited to eight or ten.)
"5. That all persons coming to any privilege, trust or office, take the
oath of allegiance.
"6. That all military commissions as well as proceedings of justice run
in his Majesty's name.
"7. That all laws repugnant to, and inconsistent with, the laws of
England for trade, be abolished."[164]
There were certain injunctions in regard to complaints from neighbouring
colonies; but the necessity for such injunctions as those above
enumerated, and stated more at large in the King's letter, as stated in
note on p. 187, given for the third or fourth time the nineteenth year
after the Restoration, shows the disloyal proscriptions and persecuting
character of the Government of Massachusetts Bay, and the great
forbearance of the King's Government in continuing the Charter while the
conditions of its proposed continuance were constantly violated.
Dr. Palfrey speaks of these requirements, and the whole policy of the
King's Government, as "usurpations" on the chartered rights of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony. But let any reader say in which of the above
seven requirements there is the slightest "usurpation" on any right of a
British subject; whether there is anything that any loyal British
subject would not freely acknowledge and respond to; requirements
unhesitatingly obeyed by all the colonies except that of Massachusetts
Bay alone, and which have been observed by every British Province of
America for the last hundred years, and are observed by the Dominion of
Canada at this day.
Dr. Palfrey, referring to this period (1676-82), says: "Lord Clarendon's
scheme of colonial policy was now ripe," but he does not adduce a word
from Lord Clarendon to show what that policy was only by insinuations
and assertions, and assumes it to have been the subversion of the rights
and liberties of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Lord Clarendon, in his
letter to the Governor Endicot, given above, pp. 160, 161, explains his
colonial policy, which was not only to maintain the Charter in its
integrity, but to see that its provisions and objects were not violated
but fulfilled, and that while the Congregational worship should not be
interfered with, the Congregational Government should not proscribe from
the elective franchise and liberty of worship the members of other
Protestant denominations. The Hon. Robert Boyle, the philosopher and
benefactor of New England, and President of the New England Society for
Propagation of the Gospel among the Indians, expressed the same views
with Lord Clarendon, and there is not a shadow of proof that Lord
Clarendon ever entertained any other policy in regard to New England
than that which he expressed in his letter to Governor Endicot in 1664.
Dr. Palfrey and other New England historians occupy four-fifths of their
pages with accounts of the continental proceedings of the Governments of
the Stuarts, and their oppressions and persecutions of Nonconformists in
England, and then _assume_ that their policy was the same in regard to
the New England Colonies, and that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was
therefore the champion defender of colonial liberties, in denying
responsibility to the Imperial Government for its acts, and refusing the
usual oaths, and acts of allegiance to the Throne; whereas their
_assumptions_ (for they are nothing else) are unsupported by a single
fact, and are contradicted, without exception, by the declarations and
acts of the Government of Charles the Second, as well as by those of his
royal father. Language can hardly exaggerate or reprobate in too strong
terms the cruel persecutions of dissenters from the Established
Episcopal Church in England, by both Charles the First and Charles the
Second; but the Congregational Government of Massachusetts Bay exceeded
that of the Charleses in proscribing and persecuting dissenters from
their Established Congregational Churches in that colony; and as well
might Messrs. Palfrey, Bancroft, and other New England historians
maintain that, because Congregationalists contended for liberty of
worship for themselves in England, they practised it in regard to those
who did not agree with them in worship in Massachusetts Bay. The
proscription and persecution of Congregationalists and Baptists by
Episcopalian rulers in England were outrivalled by the Congregational
rulers in their proscriptions and persecutions of Episcopalians and
Baptists in Massachusetts.
It is also assumed by the New England historians referred to that the
King's advisers had intimated the intention of appointing a
Governor-General over the Colonies of New England to see to the
observance of their Charters and of the Navigation Laws; but wherein did
this infringe the rights or privileges of any Colonial Charter? Wherein
did it involve any more than rightful attention to Imperial authority
and interests? Wherein has the appointment or office of a
Governor-General of British North America, in addition to the
Lieutenant-Governor of each province, ever been regarded to this day as
an infringement of the rights and privileges of any Legislature or
British subject in the colonies? Wherein has the right of appeal by any
colony or party to the Supreme Courts or authorities of England, against
the decisions of local Courts or local executive acts, been regarded as
an infringement of colonial rights, or other than a protection to
colonial subjects? When has the right of appeal by parties in any of the
neighbouring States, to the Supreme Court at Washington, been held to be
an invasion of the rights of such States?
The rulers of Massachusetts Bay Colony concealed and secreted their
Charter; they then represented it as containing provisions which no
Royal Charter in the world ever contained; they represented the King as
having abdicated, and excluded himself from all authority over them as a
colony or as individuals; they denied that Parliament itself had any
authority to legislate for any country on the western side of the
Atlantic; they virtually claimed absolute independence, erasing the oath
of allegiance from their records, proscribing and persecuting all
nonconformists to the Congregational worship, invading the territories
of other colonies and then maintaining their invasions by military
force, denying the authority of Great Britain or of any power on earth
to restrict or interfere with their acts. The New England historians
referred to are compelled to confess that the Royal Charter contained no
such provisions or powers as the rulers of Massachusetts Bay pretended;
yet their narratives and argumentations and imputations upon the British
Government assume the truth of the fabulous representations of the
Charter, and treat not only every act of the King as royal tyranny, but
every suspicion of what the King might do as a reality, and the
hostility of the Massachusetts Bay Government as a defence of
constitutional rights and resistance of royal despotism. But in these
laboured and eloquent philippics against the Government of the
Restoration, they seem to forget that the Parliament and Government of
the Commonwealth and Cromwell asserted far larger powers over the
colonies than did the Government and Parliament of Charles the Second
(as is seen by their Act and appointments in their enactments quoted
above, pp. 88-90).
The Commonwealth appointed a Governor-General (the Earl of Warwick),
Commissioners with powers to remove and appoint Colonial Governors and
other local officers; whereas the Commissioners appointed by Charles the
Second had no authority to remove or appoint a single local Governor or
other officer, to annul or enact a single law, but to inquire and
report; and even as a Court of Appeal their proceedings and decisions
were to be reported for final action in England.
The famous Act of Navigation itself, which ultimately became the chief
ground of the American revolutionary war, was passed by the
Commonwealth, though, by a collusion between Cromwell and the rulers of
Massachusetts Bay, its provisions were evaded in that colony, while
rigorously enforced in the other colonies.[165]
In the first year of Charles the Second this Act was renewed, with some
additional provisions.[166]
But to return to the correspondence between the King's Government and
the rulers of Massachusetts Bay. It may be supposed that after the King
had promised, in 1662, to forget past offences and continue the justly
forfeited Royal Charter upon certain conditions, and that those
conditions were evaded by various devices during nearly twenty years,
the Royal patience would become exhausted, and that, instead of the
gentle instructions and remonstrances which had characterized his former
letters, the King would adopt more severe and imperative language. Hence
in his next letter, September 30, 1680, to the Governor and Council of
the Massachusetts, he commences in the following words:
"CHARLES R.
"Trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. When by our Royal letter,
bearing date the 24th day of July, in the one and thirtieth year of our
reign, we signified unto you our gracious inclination to have all past
deeds forgotten, setting before you the means whereby you might deserve
our pardon, and commanding your ready obedience to several particulars
therein contained, requiring withall a speedy compliance with the
intimations of your duty given to your late agents during their
attendance here, all which we esteem essential to your quiet settlement
and natural obedience due unto us. We then little thought that those
marks of our grace and favour should have found no better acceptance
among you, but that, before all things, you should have given preference
to the execution of our commands, when after so many months we come to
understand by a letter from you to one of our principal Secretaries of
State, dated the 21st of May last, that very few of our directions have
been pursued by your General Court, the further consideration of the
remaining particulars having been put off upon insufficient pretences,
and even wholly neglecting your appointment of other agents which were
required to be sent over unto us within six months after the receipt of
our said letters, with full instructions to attend our Royal pleasure
herein in relation to that our Government."
Among other matters, the King "strictly commanded and required" them,
"as they tendered their allegiance," to despatch such agents within
three months after their reception of the order, and with full powers to
satisfy his Majesty on the subjects of complaint; and "he ended the
letter," says Mr. Palfrey, "with a very definite injunction:"
"That the due observance of all our commands above mentioned may not be
any longer protracted, we require you, upon receipt thereof, forthwith
to call a General Court, and therein to read these our letters and
provide for our speedy satisfaction, and in default thereof we shall
take the most effectual means to procure the same. And so we bid you
farewell."[167]
This letter led to the calling of a "Special General Court," January,
1681, in which very protracted debates ensued on the revision of the
laws, so long delayed, and the election of agents to England according
to the King's command. Samuel Nowell and John Richards were elected
agents to England, but were restricted by instructions which forbade
conceding anything from their original Charter pretensions, and
therefore rendered their agency an insult to the Government and the
King, and hastened the catastrophe which they so much dreaded, the
cancelling of their Charter.
In the meantime, to appease the displeasure of the Crown, they passed
several Acts which had the appearance of obedience to the Royal
commands, but which they were careful not to carry into effect.[168] I
will give two or three examples.
They enacted "that the Acts of Trade and Navigation should be forthwith
proclaimed in the market-place of Boston by beat of drum, and that all
clauses in said Acts relating to this Plantation should be strictly
taken notice of and observed." This appears very plausible, and is so
quoted by Dr. Palfrey; but he does not add that care was taken that it
should not be carried into effect. And to accomplish their purposes, and
to assert the subordination of the Royal authority to their own local
authority, "they constituted naval _officers_, one for Boston, the other
for 'Salem and adjacent parts,' to be commissioned by the Governor, and
to exercise powers of a nature to control the Collector appointed in
England."[169]
After nearly twenty years' delay and evasions, they enacted, in 1679,
"that the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Magistrates should take the
oath of allegiance 'without any reservation,' in the words sent them by
his Majesty's orders; but instead of the 'reservation' in their form of
oath in former Acts, they virtually neutralized the oath by an Act
requiring a prior preliminary oath of fidelity to the local
Government,[170] an Act which the Board of Colonial Plantations viewed
as 'derogatory to his Majesty's honour, as well as defective in point of
their own duty.'"
They instructed their agents in England to represent that there was no
colonial law "prohibiting any such as were of the persuasion of the
Church of England." The design of this statement plainly was to impress
upon the mind of the King's Government that there was no obstruction to
the worship and ordinances of the Church of England, and that the
elective franchise and privilege of worship were as open to
Episcopalians as to Congregationalists--the reverse of fact. After
repeated letters from the King in favour of toleration as one of the
conditions of continuing their Charter, notwithstanding their past
violation of it, they _professed_ to comply with the royal injunctions,
but their professed compliance amounted practically to nothing, as they
had evidently intended. The King's Commissioners had said to the
Massachusetts Bay Court on this subject: "For the use of the Common
Prayer Book: His Majesty doth not impose the use of the Common Prayer
Book on any; but he understands that liberty of conscience comprehends
every man's conscience, as well as any particular, and thinks that all
his subjects should have equal right." To this the Massachusetts Court
replied: "Concerning the use of the Common Prayer Book and
ecclesiastical privileges, our humble addresses to his Majesty have
fully declared our main ends, in our being voluntary exiles from our
dear native country, which we had not chosen at so dear a rate, could we
have seen the word of God warranting us to perform our devotions in that
way; and to have the same set up here, we conceive it is apparent that
it will disturb our peace in our present enjoyment."[171]
But afterwards they found it dangerous longer to resist the King's
commands, and professed to obey them by providing that those who were
not Congregationalists might exercise the elective franchise, provided
that, in addition to taking the oath of fidelity to the local
Government, and paying a rate which was not paid by one in a hundred,
_and obtaining a certificate from the Congregational minister as to
their being blameless in words and orthodox in religion, they were then
approved by the Court_. The right of franchise was possessed by every
member of any Congregational Church, whether he had property or not, or
paid rate or not;[172] not so with any other inhabitant, unless he
adduced proof that he had paid rate, produced a certificate of character
and of orthodoxy in religion, signed by a Congregational minister, and
was approved by the Court. No instance is recorded of any Episcopalian
ever having obtained the freedom of the colony under such conditions;
"nor," as Mr. Hutchinson says, "was there any Episcopal Church in any
part of the colony until the Charter was vacated."[174]
The Court of Massachusetts Bay also instructed their agents in England,
in 1682, to represent that "as for Anabaptists, they were now subject to
no other penal statutes than those of the Congregational way." But as
late as the spring of 1680 the General Court forbade the Baptists to
assemble for their worship in a meeting-house which they had built in
Boston.[175] The statement which they instructed their agents to make in
England was clearly intended to convey the impression that the Baptist
worship was equally allowed with the Congregational worship; but though
penalties against individual Baptists may have been relaxed, their
worship was no more tolerated than that of the Episcopalian until the
cancelling of the Charter.
The same kind of misleading evasion was practised upon the Government in
England in regard to the Quakers, as in respect to the Baptists, the
Episcopalians, and the elective franchise. The agents of the colony in
England were instructed to state that the "severe laws to prevent the
violent and impetuous intrusions of the Quakers had been suspended;"
but they did not say that laws less severe had been substituted, and
that fines and imprisonments were imposed upon any party who should be
present at a Quakers' meeting. Yet, as late as 1677, the Court of
Massachusetts Bay made a law "That every person found at a Quakers'
meeting shall be apprehended, _ex officio_, by the constable, and by
warrant from a magistrate or commissioner shall be committed to the
House of Correction, and there have the discipline of the house applied
to him, and be kept to work, with bread and water, for three days, and
then released, or else shall pay five pounds in money as a fine to the
country for such offence; and all constables neglecting their duty in
not faithfully executing this order, shall incur the penalty of five
pounds upon conviction, one-third thereof to the informer."[176]
They likewise instructed their agents in England to give assurance "That
the Acts of Trade, so far as they concerned the colony, should be
strictly observed, and that all due encouragement and assistance should
be given to his Majesty's officers and informers that might prosecute
the breaches of said Acts of Trade and Navigation."[177] But while as a
Court they professed this in their records and through their agents in
England, officers were elected in the colony who would not execute the
law, and so not a farthing of duties was collected under it at
Massachusetts Bay.
Thus for twenty years the rulers of Massachusetts Bay resisted and
evaded the six conditions on which King Charles the Second, after his
restoration, proposed to overlook and pardon their past offences and
perpetuate the Charter given to them by his Royal father; for twenty
years the King, without committing a single unconstitutional or
oppressive act against them, or without demanding anything which Queen
Victoria does not receive, this day, from every colony of the British
Empire, endured their evasions and denials of his authority and insults
of his Commissioners and officers. In all the despatches of the King's
Government to the rulers of Massachusetts Bay, during these twenty
years, as the reader of the preceding pages will have seen, the spirit
of kindness, and a full recognition of their rights in connection with
those of the Crown, were predominant.
This they repeatedly acknowledged in their addresses to the King. They
pretended the Royal Charter gave them absolute independence; and on that
absurd interpretation and lawless assumption they maintained a
continuous contest with the mother country for more than fifty years.
Every party in England, and the Commonwealth as well as Royalty,
maintained the right of King and Parliament to be the supreme tribunal
of appeal and control in America as well as in England; while the rulers
of Massachusetts Bay Colony alone, in contradistinction to all the other
British colonies in America, denied in short the authority of both King
and Parliament, though often amidst wordy professions of personal
loyalty to the Throne. Mr. Bancroft well sums up the history of
Massachusetts pretensions and intolerance in the sentences:
"Massachusetts owned no King but the King of Heaven." "Massachusetts
gave franchises to the members of the visible Church," but "inexorably
disfranchised Churchmen, Royalists, and all the world's people." "In
Massachusetts, the songs of Deborah and David were sung without change;
hostile Algonquins like the Canaanites were exterminated or enslaved;
and a peevish woman was hanged, because it was written, 'The witch shall
die.'"[178]
No hostile pen ever presented in so few and expressive words the
character and policy of the Government of Massachusetts Bay during the
whole existence of the first Charter, as is presented in these words of
their eulogist Bancroft; and these words express the causes of their
contests with the Crown and Parliament, of their proscription and
persecution of the majority of their fellow-colonists not of their
politics or form of worship, and of their dealing at pleasure with the
territories of their neighbours,[179] and the lands and lives of the
Indian tribes.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 114: The captain of a ship brought the news from England in
July, that the King had been proclaimed, but a false rumour was
circulated that the Government in England was in a very unsettled state,
the body of the people dissatisfied; that the Scotch had demanded work;
that Lord Fairfax was at the head of a great army, etc. Such a rumour
was so congenial to the feelings of the men who had been lauding
Cromwell, that when it was proposed in the General Court of
Massachusetts Bay, in the October following, to address the King, the
majority refused to do so. They awaited to see which party would prevail
in England, so as to pay court to it. On the 30th of November a ship
arrived from Bristol, bringing news of the utter falsity of the rumours
about the unsettled state of things and popular dissatisfaction in
England, and of the proceedings of Parliament; and letters were received
from their agent, Mr. Leverett, that petitions and complaints were
preferred against the colony to the King in Council. Then the Governor
and assistants called a meeting of the General Court, December 9th, when
a very loyal address to the King was presently agreed upon, and another
to the two Houses of Parliament. Letters were sent to Sir Thomas Temple,
to Lord Manchester, Lord Say and Seal, and to other persons of note,
praying them to intercede in behalf of the colony. A most gracious
answer was given to the address by the King's letter, dated February 15,
1660 (1661, new style), which was the first public act or order
concerning them after the restoration. (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 210, 211.)]
[Footnote 115: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
211, 212.]
[Footnote 116: Holmes' Annals of America, Vol. I., p. 318. Hutchinson,
Vol. I., p. 216. Hazard, Vol. II., pp. 593-595. The address is a
curiosity in its way, and a strange medley which I must leave the reader
to characterize in view of the facts involved. The following are the
principal passages of it:
Extracts from the Massachusetts General Court--Address to the King,
dated 19th December, 1660:
"To the High and Mighty Prince, Charles the Second, by the grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith.
"Most gracious and dread Sovereign:
"May it please your Majesty--In the day wherein you happily say you know
you are King over your British Israel, to cast a favourable eye upon
your poore Mephiboseth now, and by reason of lameness in respect of
distance, not until now appearing in your presence, we mean upon New
England, kneeling with the rest of your subjects before your Majesty as
her restored King. We forget not our ineptness as to those approaches;
we at present owne such impotence as renders us unable to excuse our
impotency of speaking unto our Lord the King; yet contemplating such a
King, who hath also seen adversity, that he knoweth the hearts of
exiles, who himself hath been an exile, the aspect of Majesty
extraordinarily influenced animateth exanimated outcasts, yet outcasts
as we hope for the truth, to make this address unto our Prince, hoping
to find grace in your sight. We present this script, the transcript of
our loyall hearts, wherein we crave leave to supplicate your Majesty for
your gracious protection of us in the continuance both of our civill and
religious liberties (according to the grantees known, and of suing for
the patent) conferred on this Plantation by your royal father. This,
viz., our libertie to walk in the faith of the gospell, was the cause of
our transporting ourselves, with our wives, little ones, and our
substances, from that over the Atlantick ocean, into the vast
wilderness, choosing rather the pure Scripture worship with a good
conscience in this remote wilderness among the heathen, than the
pleasures of England with submission to _the impositions_ of the _then_
so disposed and so far _prevailing hierarchy_, which we could not do
without an evil conscience." "Our witness is in heaven that we left not
our native country upon any dissatisfaction as to the constitution of
the civil state. Our lot after the good old nonconformists hath been
only to _act a passive part throughout these late vicissitudes_ and
successive turnings of States. Our separation from our brethren in this
desert hath been and is a sufficient bringing to mind the afflictions of
Joseph. But providentiall exemption of us hereby from the late warres
and temptations of _either party_ we account as a favour from God; the
former cloathes us with sackcloth, the latter with innocency.
(Signed) "JOHN ENDICOT, _Governor_.
"In the name and by order of the _General Court of Massachusetts_."]
[Footnote 117: It is known that the "_old_ nonconformists" did not fight
against the king, denounced his execution, suffered for their
"nonconformity" to Cromwell's despotism, and were among the most active
restorers of Charles the Second.]
[Footnote 118: See above, in a previous page.]
[Footnote 119: Letter from Charles II. to Governor Endicot:
"CHARLES R.
"Trusty and well beloved--Wee greet you well. It having pleased Almighty
God, after long trialls both of us and our people, to touch their hearts
at last with a just sense of our right, and by their assistance to
restore us, peaceably and without blood, to the exercise of our legall
authority for the good and welfare of the nations committed to our
charge, we have made it our care to settle our lately distracted kingdom
at home, and to extend our thoughts to increase the trade and advantages
of our colonies and plantations abroad, amongst which as wee consider
New England to be one of the chiefest, having enjoyed and grown up in a
long and orderly establishment, so wee shall not be behind any of our
royal predecessors in a just encouragement and protection of all our
loving subjects there, whose application unto us, since our late happy
restoration, hath been very acceptable, and shall not want its due
remembrance upon all seasonable occasions; neither shall wee forget to
make you and all our good people in those parts equal partakers of those
promises of liberty and moderation to tender consciences expressed in
our gracious declarations; which, though some persons in this kingdom,
of desperate, disloyal, and unchristian principles, have lately abused
to the public disturbance and their own destruction, yet wee are
confident our good subjects in New England will make a right use of it,
to the glory of God, their own spiritual comfort and edification. And so
wee bid you farewell. Given at our Court of Whitehall, the 15th day of
February, 1660 (1661, new style), in the thirteenth year of our reigne.
(Signed) "WILL. MORRICE."]
[Footnote 120: The following are extracts from the reply of the General
Court of Massachusetts Bay to the foregoing letter of Charles the
Second:
"ILLUSTRIOUS SIR,--
"That majestie and benignitie both sate upon the throne whereunto your
outcasts made their former addresse; witness this second eucharistical
approach unto the best of kings, who to other titles of royaltie common
to him with other gods amongst men, delighteth herein more particularily
to conforme himselfe to the God of gods, in that he hath not despised
nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, neither hath he hid his
face from him, but when he heard he cried.
"Our petition was the representation of exiles' necessities; this
script, congratulatory and lowly, is the reflection of the gracious
rayes of Christian majestie. There we besought your favour by presenting
to a compassionate eye that bottle full of tears shed by us in this
Teshimon: here we acknowledge the efficacie of regal influence to
qualify these salt waters. The mission of ours was accompanied with
these Churches sitting in sackcloth; the reception of yours was as the
holding forth the scepter of life. The truth is, such were the
impressions upon our spirits when we received an answer of peace from
our gracious Sovereigne as transcends the facultie of an eremitical
scribe. Such, as though our expressions of them neede pardon, yet the
suppression of them seemeth unpardonable."
The conclusion of their address was as follows:
"ROYAL SIR,--
"Your just Title to the Crown enthronizeth you in our consciences, your
graciousness in our affections: That inspireth us unto Duty, this
naturalizeth unto Loyalty: Thence we call you Lord; hence a Savior.
Mephibosheth, how prejudicially soever misrepresented, yet rejoiceth
that the King is come in Peace to his own house. Now the Lord hath dealt
well with our Lord the King. May New England, under your Royal
Protection, be permitted still to sing the Lord's song in this strange
Land. It shall be no grief of Heart for the Blessing of a people ready
to perish, daily to come upon your Majesty, the blessings of your poor
people, who (not here to alledge the innocency of our cause, touching
which let us live no longer than we subject ourselves to an orderly
trial thereof), though in the particulars of subscriptions and
conformity, supposed to be under the hallucinations of weak Brethren,
yet crave leave with all humility to say whether the voluntary quitting
of our native and dear country be not sufficient to expiate so innocent
a mistake (if a mistake) let God Almightie, your Majesty, and all good
men judge.
"Now, he in whose hands the times and trials of the children of men are,
who hath made your Majesty remarkably parallel to the most eminent of
kings, both for space and kind of your troubles, so that vere day cannot
be excepted, wherein they drove him from abiding in the inheritance of
the Lord, saying, 'Go, serve other gods; make you also (which is the
crown of all), more and more like unto him, in being a man after God's
own heart, to do whatsoever he will.' Yea, as the Lord was with David,
so let him be with your most excellent Majesty, and make the Throne of
King Charles the Second both greater and better than the Throne of King
David, or than the Throne of any of your Royal Progenitors. So shall
always pray,
"Great Sir,
"Your Majesty's most humble and loyal subjects.
"JOHN ENDICOT, _Governor_."
(Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers, etc., pp. 341, 342.
Massachusetts Records, August 7, 1661.)]
[Footnote 121: The Government of New England received a letter from the
King, signifying his pleasure that there should be no further
prosecution of the Quakers who were condemned to suffer death or other
corporal punishment, or who were imprisoned or obnoxious to such
condemnation; but that they be forthwith sent over to England for trial.
The Massachusetts General Court, after due consideration of the King's
letter, proceeded to declare that the necessity of preserving religion,
order, and peace had induced the enactment of laws against the Quakers,
etc., and concluded by saying, "All this, notwithstanding their restless
spirits, have moved some of them to return, and others to fill the royal
ear of our Sovereign Lord the King with complaints against us, and have,
by their unwearied solicitations, in our absence, so far prevailed as to
obtain a letter from his Majesty to forbear their corporal punishment or
death; although we hope and doubt not but that if his Majesty were
rightly informed, he would be far from giving them such favour, or
weakening his authority here, so long and orderly settled: Yet that we
may not in the least offend his Majesty, this Court doth hereby order
and declare that the execution of the laws in force against Quakers as
such, so far as they respect corporal punishment or death, be suspended
until this Court take further order." Upon this order of the Court
twenty-eight Quakers were released from prison and conducted out of the
jurisdiction of Massachusetts. (Holmes' Annals, Vol. I., pp. 318, 319.)]
[Footnote 122: "Upon the Restoration, not only Episcopalians, but
Baptists, Quakers, etc., preferred complaints against the colony; and
although, by the interest of the Earl of Manchester and Lord Say, their
old friends, and Secretary Morrice, all Puritans, King Charles continued
their Charter, yet he required a toleration in religion, and an
alteration in some civil matters, neither of which were fully complied
with." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 3.)]
[Footnote 123: "In the Earl of Manchester and Lord Say; in Annesley,
created Earl of Anglesea; in Denzil Hollis, now Lord Hollis; and in
Ashley Cooper, now Lord Ashley, the expectant cavaliers saw their old
enemies raised to the place of honour. Manchester had not taken any part
in public affairs since the passing of the self-denying ordinances. He
was still a Presbyterian, but had favoured the return of the King. Lord
Say, also, had long since withdrawn from public life, and though of a
less pliant temper than Manchester, his new friends had no reason to
doubt his steady adherence to the new order of things. Annesley was an
expert lawyer. Hollis had been the leader of the Presbyterians in the
Long Parliament, until the crisis which turned the scale in favour of
the Independents.
"Lord Ashley, better known as the Earl of Shaftesbury, had been devoted
successively to the King, the Parliament, and the Protector. Nichols and
Morrice were the two Secretaries of State."--Dr. R. Vaughan's
Revolutions in English History, Vol. III., B. 14, Chap. i., pp. 430,
431.
"Totally devoid of resentment, as well from natural lenity as
carelessness of his temper, Charles the Second ensured pardon to the
most guilty of his enemies, and left hopes of favour to his most violent
opponents. From the whole tenor of his actions and discourse, he seemed
desirous of losing the memory of past animosities, and of making every
party in affection to their prince and their native country.
"Into his Council he admitted the most eminent men of the nation,
without regard to former distinctions; the Presbyterians equally with
the Royalists shared this honour. Annesley was created Earl of Anglesea;
Ashley Cooper, Lord Ashley; Denzil Hollis, Lord Hollis; the Earl of
Manchester was appointed Lord Chamberlain; and Lord Say, Privy Seal.
Calamy and Baxter, Presbyterian clergymen, were even made chaplains to
the King; Admiral Montague, created Earl of Sandwich, was entitled from
his recent services to great favour, and he obtained it. Monk, created
Duke of Albemarle, had performed such signal services that according to
a vulgar and inelegant observation, he ought rather to have expected
hatred and ingratitude, yet was he ever treated by the King with great
marks of distinction. Charles' disposition was free from jealousy; and
the prudent conduct of the General, who never overrated his merits,
prevented all State disgusts which naturally arise in so delicate a
situation. Morrice, his friend, was created Secretary of State, and was
supported more by his patron's credit than by his own abilities and
experience."--Hume's History of England, Vol. VII., Chap, xliii., pp.
338, 339.]
[Footnote 124: Letter of King Charles the Second to the General Court at
Massachusetts (June 28, 1662):
"CHARLES REX.
"Trusty and well beloved, We greete you well:
"Whereas we have have lately received an humble address and petition
from the General Court of our colony of Massachusetts, in New England,
presented to us by Simon Bradstreet and John Norton: We have thought it
agreeable to our princely grace and justice to let you know that the
same have been very acceptable unto us, and that we are satisfied with
your expressions of loyalty, duty and good affection made to us in the
said address, which we doubt not proceeds from the hearts of good and
honest subjects, and We are therefore willing that all our good subjects
of that Plantation do know that We do receive them into our gracious
protection, and will cherish them with our best encouragement, and that
We will preserve and do hereby continue the patent and charter
heretofore granted to them by our royall father of blessed memory, and
that they shall freely enjoy all the priviledges and libertys granted to
them in and by the same, and that We will be ready to renew the same
charter to them under our great seale of England, whenever they shall
desire it. And because the licence of these late ill times has likewise
had an influence upon our colony, in which they have swerved from the
rules prescribed, and even from the government instituted by the
charter, which we do graciously impute rather to the iniquity of the
time than to the evil intents of the hearts of those who exercised the
government there. And we do therefore publish and declare our free and
gracious pardon to all our subjects of that our plantation, for all
crimes and offences committed against us during the late troubles,
except any persons who stand attainted by our parliament here of high
treason, if any such persons have transported themselves into these
parts; the apprehending of whom and delivering them into the hands of
justice, we expect from the dutiful and affectionate obedience of those
of our good subjects in that colony, if they be found within the
jurisdiction thereof. Provided always, and be it our declared
expectation, that upon a review of all such laws and ordinances that are
now or have been during these late troubles in practice there, and which
are contrary or derogatory to our authority and government, the same may
be annulled and repealed, and the rules and prescriptions of the said
charter for administering and taking the oath of allegiance be
henceforth duly observed, and that the administrations of justice be in
our name. And since the principle and foundation of that charter was and
is the freedom of liberty of conscience, We do hereby charge and require
you that freedom and liberty be duly admitted and allowed, so that they
that desire to use the book of common prayer and performe their devotion
in that manner that is established here be not denied the exercise
thereof, or undergoe any prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they using
their liberty peaceably without any disturbances to others; and that all
persons of good and honest lives and conversations be admitted to the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the said Book of Common
Prayer, and their children to baptism."]
[Footnote 125: Indeed, so conscious were they that they had justly
forfeited all consideration from the King, that the first address
extracted from them when they found the monarchy firmly established,
expressed deep humiliation and confession, and implored the forgiveness
and favour of their Sovereign; and being sensible of the many and
well-founded complaints made against them by the victims of their
persecuting intolerance, they appointed two of their ablest and most
trusted members--Simon Bradstreet, an old magistrate, and John Norton, a
minister of Boston--to proceed to England to present their address, to
intercede for them, and secure the interest of those of their old
friends who might have influence with the King and his councillors. But
as Bradstreet and Norton had both been persecutors of their
Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Baptist brethren, and were conspicuous
in promoting the bloody persecutions of the Quakers (now getting a
favourable hearing for their sufferings at the English Court), they were
unwilling to undertake so difficult and hazardous a mission without
formal provision being made by the Massachusetts Court for indemnity for
all the damage they might incur.
"At length," says their historian, "the Committee appointed to do
everything for their dispatch in the recess of the Court, 'engaged to
make good all damages they might sustain by the detention of their
persons in England, or otherwise.' They departed the 10th of February
(1662.)
"Their reception in England was much more favourable than was expected;
their stay short, returning the next autumn with the King's most
gracious letter, some parts of which cheered the hearts of the country;
and they then looked upon and afterwards recurred to them as a
confirmation of their charter privileges, and an amnesty of all past
errors. The letter was ordered to be published (as the King had
directed), and in an order for public thanksgiving, particular notice is
taken of 'the return of the messengers, and the continuance of the
mercies of peace, liberties, and the Gospel.'"
The early New England historian, Hubbard, says: "They returned like
Noah's dove, with an olive branch of peace in their mouths."
"There were some things, however, in the King's letter hard to comply
with; and though it was ordered to be published, yet it was with this
caution, that 'inasmuch as the letter hath influence upon the Churches
as well as the civil state, all manner of acting in relation thereto
shall be suspended until the next General Court, that all persons may
have opportunity to consider what was necessary to be done, in order to
know his Majesty's pleasure therein.'" (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 221, 222.)]
[Footnote 126: So dissatisfied were these Congregational "freemen" with
the conditions which were intended to put an end to their persecutions
of their brethren and their disloyal practices, that they denounced
their old friends and representatives to England, Messrs. Bradstreet and
Norton, for those conditions which they could not prevent, and upon
which they might well be thankful to preserve the Charter and obtain
pardon for their past offences. Their historian says: "The agents met
with the fate of most agents ever since. The favours they obtained were
supposed to be no more than might well have been expected, and their
merits were soon forgot; the evils which they had it not in their power
to prevent, were attributed to their neglect or unnecessary concessions.
Mr. Bradstreet was a man of more phlegm and not so sensibly touched, but
Mr. Norton was so affected that he grew melancholy; and died suddenly
soon after his return (April 5, 1633)." (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 223.)
In a note the historian quotes the remark of Mr. Norton to the
Massachusetts Court, that "if they complied not with the King's letter,
the blood that should be spilt would lie at their door."
"Dr. Mather says upon this occasion: 'Such has been the jealous
disposition of our New Englanders about their dearly bought privileges,
and such also has been the various interpretations of the people about
the extent of their privileges, that of all the agents sent over to the
Court of England for now forty years together, I know of not one who did
not, at his return, meet with some forward entertainment among his
countrymen.'" (_Ib._, p. 222.)]
[Footnote 127: Mr. Hildreth gives the following account of this mission
and its results upon the state of society in Massachusetts Bay Colony
and its agents to England:
"The Massachusetts' agents presently returned, bearers of a royal
letter, in which the King recognized the Charter and promised oblivion
of past offences. But he demanded the repeal of all laws inconsistent
with his due authority; an oath of allegiance to the royal person, as
formerly in use, but dropped since the commencement of the late civil
war; the administration of justice in his name; complete toleration for
the Church of England; the repeal of the law which restricted the
privilege of voting, and tenure of office to Church members, and the
substitution of property qualification instead; finally, the admission
of all persons of honest lives to the sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper.
"The claimants for toleration, formerly suppressed with such prompt
severity, were now encouraged, by the King's demands in their favour,
again to raise their heads. For the next thirty years the people of
Massachusetts (Bay) were divided into three parties, a very decided,
though gradually diminishing majority (of the Congregationalists, the
only "freemen") sustaining with ardour the theocratic system, and, as
essential to it, entire independence of external control. At the
opposite extreme, a party, small in numbers and feeble in influence
(among the "freemen"), advocated religious toleration--at least to a
limited extent--and equal civil rights for all inhabitants. They
advocated, also, the supremacy of the Crown, sole means in that day of
curbing the theocracy, and compelling it to yield its monopoly of power.
To this party belonged the Episcopalians, or those inclined to become
so; the Baptists, Presbyterians, the Quakers, and other sectaries who
feared less the authority of a distant monarch than the present rule of
their watchful and bitter spiritual rivals. In the intermediate was a
third party, weak at first but daily growing stronger, and drawing to
its ranks, one after another, some former zealous advocates of the
exclusive system, convinced that a _theocracy_, in its stricter form,
was no longer tenable, and some of them, perhaps, beginning to be
satisfied that it was not desirable. Among the earliest of these were
Norton and Bradstreet, the agents who came back from England impressed
with the necessity of yielding. But the avowal of such sentiments was
fatal to their popularity (among the Congregational "freemen"), and
Norton, accustomed to nothing but reverence and applause, finding
himself now looked at with distrust, soon died of melancholy and
mortification." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
xiv., pp. 455, 456.)]
[Footnote 128: Collection of Massachusetts, etc., Civil Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, p. 53.]
[Footnote 129: Collections of Massachusetts, etc., Civil Society, _Vol_.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 59, 60.]
[Footnote 130: From the representations made respecting the state of
affairs in the New England colonies, the appointment of this Commission
was decided upon after the restoration of the King, and the agents of
those colonies were informed of it. Col. Nichols, the head of the
Commission, stated in his introductory address to the Massachusetts Bay
Court, May 2, 1665, that "The King himself and the Lord Chancellor
(Clarendon) told Mr. Norton and Mr. Bradstreet of this colony, and Mr.
Winthrop of Connecticut, Mr. Clarke of Rhode Island, and several others
now in these countries, that he intended shortly to send over
Commissioners." (_Ib._, p. 56.)]
[Footnote 131: It was in refutation of such reports that Col. Nichols
made the statements quoted on a previous page; in the course of which,
referring to the slanders circulated by persons high in office under the
Court, he said: "Some of them are these: That the King hath sent us over
here to raise _£5,000 a year out of the colony_ for his Majesty's use,
and 12d. for every acre of improved land besides, and to take from this
colony many of their civil liberties and ecclesiastical privileges, of
which particulars we have been asked the truth in several places, all of
which reports we did, and here do, disclaim as false; and protest that
they are diametrically contrary to the truth, as ere long we shall make
it appear more plainly."
"These personal slanders with which we are calumniated, as private men
we slight; as Christians we forgive and will not mention; but as persons
employed by his Sacred Majesty, we cannot suffer his honour to be
eclipsed by a cloud of black reproaches, and some seditious speeches,
without demanding justice from you against those who have raised,
reported, or made them." (_Ib._, p. 56.)
These reports were spread by some of the chief officers of the Council,
and the most seditious of the speeches complained of was by the
commander of their forces; but they were too agreeable to the Court for
them even to contradict, much less investigate, although Col. Nichols
offered to give their names.
Hubbard, the earliest and most learned of the New England historians,
says:
"The Commissioners were but four in number, the two principal of whom
were Colonel Nichols and Colonel Cartwright, who were both of them
eminently qualified, with abilities fit to manage such a concern, nor
yet wanting in resolution to carry on any honourable design for the
promotion of his Majesty's interest in any of those Plantations whither
they were sent." (Massachusetts History Collection, Vol. V., Second
Series, p. 577.)]
[Footnote 132: The following is a copy of the Royal Commission, in which
the reasons and objects of it are explicitly stated:
"Copy of a Commission from King Charles the Second to Col. Nichols and
others, in 1664.
"Charles the 2nd, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland,
France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
"To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: Whereas we have
received several addresses from our subjects of several colonies in New
England, all full of duty and affection, and expressions of loyalty and
allegiance to us, with their humble desires that we would renew their
several Charters, and receive them into our favourable opinion and
protection; and several of our colonies there, and other our loving
subjects, have likewise complained of differences and disputes arisen
upon the limits and bounds of their several Charters and jurisdictions,
whereby unneighbourly and unbrotherly contentions have and may arise, to
the damage and discredit of the English interest; and that all our good
subjects residing there, and being Planters within the several colonies,
do not enjoy the liberties and privileges granted to them by our several
Charters, upon confidence and assurance of which they transported
themselves and their estates into those parts; and we having received
some addresses from the great men and natives of those countries in
which they complain of breach of faith, and acts of violence, and
injustice which they have been forced to undergoe from our subjects,
whereby not only our Government is traduced, but the reputation and
credit of the Christian religion brought into prejudice and reproach
with the Gentiles and inhabitants of those countries who know not God,
the reduction of whom to the true knowledge and feare of God is the most
worthy and glorious end of all those Plantations: Upon all which
motives, and as an evidence and manifestation of our fatherly affection
towards all our subjects in those several colonies of New England (that
is to say, of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Plimouth, Rhode Island,
and Providence Plantations, and all other Plantations within that tract
of land known under the appelation of New England), and to the end we
may be truly informed of the state and condition of our good subjects
there, that so we may the better know how to contribute to the further
improvement of their happiness and prosperity: Know ye therefore, that
we, reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity, wisdome and
circumspection of our trusty and well-beloved Colonel Richard Nichols,
Sir Robert Carre, Knt., George Cartwright, Esq., and Samuel Maverick,
Esq., of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have
made, ordained, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do
make, ordain, constitute and appoint the said Colonel Richard Nichols,
Sir Robert Carre, George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick, our
Commissioners, and do hereby give and grant unto them, or any three or
two of them, or of the survivors of them, of whom we will the said
Colonel Richard Nichols, during his life, shall be alwaies one, and upon
equal divisions of opinions, to have the casting and decisive voice, in
our name to visit all and every the several colonies aforesaid, and also
full power and authority to heare and receive and to examine and
determine all complaints and appeals in all causes and matters, as well
military as criminal and civil, and proceed in all things for the
providing for and settling the peace and security of the said country,
according to their good and sound discretion, and to such instructions
as they or the survivors of them have, or shall from time to time
receive from us in that behalfe, and from time to time, as they shall
find expedient, to certify us or our Privy Council of their actings or
proceedings touching the premises; and for the doing thereof, or any
other matter or thing relating thereunto, these presents, or the
enrolment thereof, shall be unto them a sufficient warrant and discharge
in that behalf. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to
be made patent. Witness ourselfe at Westminster, the 25th day of April,
in the sixteenth yeare of our reigne." (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., Appendix xv., pp. 535, 536.)]
[Footnote 133: The following are extracts from the report of the
Commissioners who were appointed to visit the several colonies of New
England in 1666:
"_The Colony of Connecticut_ returned their thanks to his Majesty for
his gracious letters, and for sending Commissioners to them, with
promises of their loyalty and obedience; and they did submit to have
appeals made to his Majesty's Commissioners, who did hear and determine
some differences among them. All forms of justice pass only in his
Majesty's name; they admit all that desire to be of their corporation;
they will not hinder any from enjoying the sacraments and using the
Common Prayer Book, provided that they hinder not the maintenance of the
public minister. They will amend anything that hath been done derogatory
to his Majesty's honour, if there be any such thing, so soon as they
shall come to the knowledge of it."
"_The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence_ Plantations returned their
humble thanks to his Majesty for sending Commissioners, and made great
demonstration of their loyalty and obedience. They approved as most
reasonable, that appeals should be made to his Majesty's Commissioners,
who, having heard and determined some cases among them, referred other
some in civility to their General Court, and some to the Governor and
others; some of which cases they again remitted to the Commissioners to
determine. All proceedings are in his Majesty's name; they admit all to
be freemen who desire it; they allow liberty of conscience and worship
to all who live civilly; and if any can inform of anything in their laws
or practices derogatory to his Majesty's honour, they will amend it."
"_The Colony of New Plymouth_ did submit to have appeals made to the
Commissioners, who have heard but one plaint made to them, which was
that the Governor would not let a man enjoy a farm four miles square,
which he had bought of an Indian. The complainant soon submitted to the
Governor when he understood the unreasonableness of it."
"_The Colony of Massachusetts Bay_ was the hardest to be persuaded to
use his Majesty's name in the forms of justice. In this colony, at the
first coming of the Commissioners, were many untruths raised and sent
into the colonies, as that the King had to raise £15,000 yearly for his
Majesty's use, whereupon Major Hawthorne made a seditious speech at the
head of his company, and the late Governor (Bellingham) another at their
meeting-house at Boston, but neither of them were so much as questioned
for it by any of the magistrates." ... "But neither examples nor reasons
could prevail with them to let the Commissioners hear and determine so
much as those particular cases (Mr. Deane's and the Indian Sachems),
which the King had commanded them to take care of and do justice in; and
though the Commissioners, who never desired that they should appear as
delinquents, but as _defendants_, either by themselves or by their
attorneys, assured them that if they had been unjustly complained of to
his Majesty, their false accusers should be severely punished, and their
just dealing made known to his Majesty and all the world; yet they
proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the General Court was the supremest
judiciary in all the province; that the Commissioners pretending to hear
appeals was a breach of the privileges granted by the King's royal
father, and confirmed to them by his Majesty's own letter, and that they
would not permit it; by which they have for the present silenced above
thirty petitioners which desired justice from them and were lost at sea.
"To elude his Majesty's desire for admitting men of civil and competent
estates to be freemen, they have an Act whereby he that is 24 years old,
a housekeeper, and brings a certificate of his civil life, another of
his being orthodox in matters of faith, and a third of his paying ten
shillings besides head-money, at a single rate, _may then have the
liberty to make his desires known to the Court_, and then it shall be
put to vote. The Commissioners examined many townships, and found that
scarce three in a hundred pay ten shillings at a single rate; yet if
this rate were general it would be just; but he that is _a church
member, though_ he be a servant, and pay not _twopence, may be a
freeman_. They do not admit any who is not a Church member to communion,
nor their children to baptism, yet they will marry their children to
those whom they will not admit to baptism, if they be rich. They did
imprison and barbarously use Mr. Jourdan for baptising children, as
himself complained in his petition to the Commissioners. Those whom they
will not admit to the communion, they compel to come to their sermons by
forcing from them five shillings for every neglect; yet these men
thought their paying one shilling for not coming to prayers in England
was an unsupportable tyranny." ... "They have made many things in their
laws derogatory to his Majesty's honour, of which the Commissioners have
made and desired that they might be altered, but they have done nothing
of it[134]. Among others, whoever keeps Christmas Day is to pay a fine
of five pounds."
"They caused at length a map of the territories to be made; but it was
made in a Chamber by direction and guess; in it they claim Fort Albany,
and beyond it all the land to the South Sea. By their South Sea line
they entrench upon the colonies of New Plymouth, Rhode Island and
Connecticut; and on the east they usurped Capt. Mason's and Sir
Ferdinardo Gorges' patents, and said that the Commissioners had nothing
to do betwixt them and Mr. Gorges, because his Majesty neither commanded
them to deliver possession to Mr. Gorges or to give his Majesty reason
why they did not." ...
"They of this colony say that King Charles the First granted to them a
Charter as a warrant against himself and his successors, and that so
long as they pay the fifth part of the gold and silver ore which they
get, they shall be free to use the privileges granted them, and that
they are not obliged to the King except by civility; they hope by
writing to tire the King, Lord Chancellor, and Secretaries too; seven
years they can easily spin out by writing, and before that time a change
may come; nay, some have dared to say, who knows what the event of this
Dutch war will be?"
"This colony furnished Cromwell with many instruments out of their
corporation and college; and those that have retreated thither since his
Majesty's happy return, are much respected, and many advanced to be
magistrates. They did solicit Cromwell by one Mr. Winslow to be declared
a free State, and many times in their laws declaring themselves to be
so."
(Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of
Massachusetts Bay, pp. 412-420.)]
[Footnote 134: The Commissioners specify upwards of twenty anomalies in
the book entitled the "Book of the General Laws and Liberties concerning
the Inhabitants of Massachusetts," which should be altered to correspond
with the Charter, and the relations of the colony to England. A few
specimens may be given: That the writs and forms of justice be issued
and performed in his Majesty's name; that his Majesty's arms be set up
in the courts of justice within the colony, and that the masters of
vessels and captains of foot companies do carry the colours of England,
by which they may be known to be British subjects; that in the 12th
capital law, if any conspire against our Commonwealth, _Commonwealth_
may be expunged, and "against the peace of his Majesty's colony" be
inserted instead of the other; that at p. 33, "none be admitted freemen
but members of some of the Churches within the limits of their
jurisdiction," be made to comprehend "other than members of the
Congregational Churches;" that on the same page, the penalty for keeping
Christmas so directly against the law of England, be repealed; that page
40, the law for settling the Indians' title to land, be explained, for
it seems as if they were dispossessed of their land by Scripture, which
is both against the honour of God and the justice of the King. In 115th
Psalm, 16, "Children of men" comprehend Indians as well as English; and
no doubt the country is theirs till they give it up or sell it, though
it be not improved.]
[Footnote 135: They were not so poor as when, just 30 years before,
they, by the advice of their ministers, prepared to make armed
resistance against the rumoured appointment over them of a Governor
General of New England.]
[Footnote 136: They were not more "remote" than when they wrote to their
friends in England as often as they pleased, or than when they addressed
the Long Parliament four years before, and twice addressed Cromwell,
stating their services to him in men and prayers against Charles the
First, and asking his favours.]
[Footnote 137: The words "full and absolute power of governing" are not
contained in the Royal Charter.]
[Footnote 138: Emigrants generally transport themselves from one country
to another, whether across the ocean or not, at their own charges.]
[Footnote 139: It is shown in this volume that they never had the
"undoubted right" by the Charter, or the "undoubted right in the sight
of God and man," to abolish one form of worship and set up another; to
imprison, fine, banish, or put to death all who did not adopt their
newly set up form of worship; to deny the rights of citizenship to
four-fifths of their citizens on religious grounds, and tax them without
representation. How far they invaded the "undoubted right" of others,
"in the sight of God and man," and exceeded their own lawful powers, is
shown on the highest legal authority in the 6th and 7th chapters of this
volume.]
[Footnote 140: These references are acknowledgments on the part of the
Massachusetts Bay Court, that they had been kindly and liberally treated
by both Charles the First and Charles the Second.]
[Footnote 141: They here limit their compliance with the six conditions
on which the King proposed to continue the Charter which they had
violated, to their "conscience" and "the just liberties and privileges
of their patent." But according to their interpretation of these, they
could not in "conscience" grant the "toleration" required by the King,
or give up the sectarian basis of franchise and eligibility to office,
or admit of appeals from their tribunals to the higher courts or the
King himself in England. They seize upon and claim the promise of the
King to continue the Charter, but evade and deny the fulfilment of the
conditions on which he made that promise.]
[Footnote 142: But they rejected the King's commission of inquiry,
refused the information required; and they modestly pray the King to
accept as proof of their innocence and right doings their own
professions and statements against the complaints made of their
proscriptions and oppressions.]
[Footnote 143: The threat at the beginning of this, and also in the
following paragraph, is characteristic; it was tried, but without
effect, on other occasions. The insinuations and special pleading
throughout these paragraphs are amply answered in the letters of Lord
Clarendon and the Hon. R. Boyle, which follow this extraordinary
address, which abounds alternately and successively in affected
helplessness and lofty assumptions, in calumnious statements and
professed charity, in abject flattery and offensive insinuations and
threats, in pretended poverty amidst known growing wealth, in appeals to
heaven and professed humility and loyalty, to avoid the scrutiny of
their acts and to reclaim the usurpation of absolute power.]
[Footnote 144: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 49-51.]
[Footnote 145: Collections of Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 103-105.]
[Footnote 146: The petition entire is inserted above, pp. 153-159. Mr.
Hutchinson gives this petition in the Appendix to the first volume of
his History of Massachusetts Bay, No. 16, pp. 537-539; but he does not
give the King's reply.]
[Footnote 147: Mr. Endicot died before the next election. He was the
primary cause of the disputes between the Massachusetts Bay Colony and
the Parent Government, and the unrelenting persecutor of all who
differed from him in religious worship. He was hostile to monarchy and
all English authority from the beginning; he got and kept the elective
franchise, and eligibility to office, in the hands of the
Congregationalists alone, and became of course their idol.
The King's suggesting the election of a Governor other than Endicot was
a refutation of their statements that he intended to deprive them of
their local self-government. The following is Neal's notice of the death
of Mr. Endicot: "On the 23rd of March, 1665, died Mr. John Endicot,
Governor of the Jurisdiction of Massachusetts. He arrived at Salem in
the year 1628, and had the chief command of those that first settled
there, and shared with them in all their hardships. He continued at
Salem till the magistrates desired him to remove to Boston for the more
convenient administration of justice, as Governor of the Jurisdiction,
to which he was frequently elected for many years together. He was a
great enemy of the Sectaries, and was too severe in executing the penal
laws against the Quakers and _Anabaptists_ during the time of his
administration. He lived to a good old age, and was interred at Boston
with great honour and solemnity."--Neal's History of New England Vol.
II., p. 346.]
[Footnote 148: The same year, 1662, in which Charles the Second sent so
gracious a letter to the Governor and Council of Massachusetts Bay, he
granted Charters to the colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island, in
both of which perfect liberty of conscience and religious liberty was
encouraged and provided for, evincing the settled policy of the
Government of the Restoration in regard to the New England colonies. The
annalist Holmes says:
"1662.--The Charter of Connecticut was granted by Charles II. with most
ample privileges, under the great seal of England. It was ordained by
the Charter that all the King's subjects in the colony should enjoy all
the privileges of free and natural born subjects within the realm of
England." (Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. I., pp. 320, 321.)
So liberal were the provisions of this Charter, that as Judge Story
says: "It continued to be the fundamental law of the State of
Connecticut until the year 1818, when a new constitution of government
was framed and adopted by the people." (Commentaries on the Constitution
of the United States, Vol. I., Sec. 88.)
_Rhode Island._--Rhode Island had two English Charters, the
circumstances connected with both of which were very peculiar. Its
founder, Roger Williams, had been banished from the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts Bay.
"Rhode Island," says Judge Story, "was originally settled by emigrants
from Massachusetts, fleeing hither to escape from religious persecution,
and it still boasts of Roger Williams as its founder and as the early
defender of religious freedom and the rights of conscience. One body of
them purchased the island which gave name to the State, and another the
territory of the Providence Plantations from the Indians, and began
their settlements at the same period, in 1636 and 1638. They entered
into separate associations of government. But finding their associations
not sufficient to protect them _against the encroachments of
Massachusetts_, and having no title under any royal patents, they sent
Roger Williams to England in 1643 to procure a surer foundation both of
title and government. He succeeded in obtaining from the Earl of Warwick
(in 1643) a Charter of incorporation of Providence Plantations; and also
in 1644 a Charter from the two Houses of Parliament (Charles the First
being driven from his capital) for the incorporation of the towns of
Providence, Newport, and Portsmouth, for the absolute government of
themselves, but according to the laws of England."
But such was the hostility of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay that they
refused to admit Rhode Island into the confederacy of the New England
colonies formed in 1643 to defend themselves against the Indians, the
Spanish, the Dutch, and the French; yet they had influence enough with
Cromwell to get the Charter of Rhode Island suspended in 1652. "But,"
says Dr. Holmes, "that colony, taking advantage of the distractions
which soon after ensued in England, resumed its government and enjoyed
it without further interruption until the Restoration." (Holmes' Annals,
etc., Vol. I., p. 297.)
"The restoration of Charles the Second," says Judge Story, "seems to
have given great satisfaction to these Plantations. They immediately
proclaimed the King and sent an agent to England; and in July, 1663,
after some opposition, they succeeded in obtaining a Charter from the
Crown."
"The most remarkable circumstance in the Charter, and that which
exhibits the strong feeling and spirit of the colony, is the provision
for _religious freedom_. The Charter, after reciting the petition of the
inhabitants, 'that it is much in their hearts (if they may be permitted)
to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state
may stand, and be _best maintained, and that among English subjects with
full liberty_ in religious concernments, and that true piety, rightly
grounded upon Gospel principles, will give the least and greatest
security to sovereignty,' proceeds to declare:
"'We being willing to encourage the hopeful undertaking of our said
loyal and loving subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise of
all their civil and religious rights appertaining to them as our loving
subjects, and to preserve to them that liberty in the true Christian
faith and worship of God which they have sought with so much travail and
with peaceful minds and loyal subjection to our progenitors and
ourselves to enjoy; and because some of the people and inhabitants of
the same colony cannot, in their private opinion, conform to the public
exercise of religion according to the liturgy, form, and ceremonies of
the Church of England, or take or subscribe to the oaths and articles
made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of
the remote distances of these places, will, as we hope, be no breach of
the unity and uniformity established in this nation, have therefore
thought fit, and do hereby publicly grant and ordain and declare, that
our royal will and pleasure is, that _no person within the said colony_,
at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted,
or called in question for any differences in opinion on matters of
religion, but that all and every person and persons may, from time to
time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his
and their own judgment and conveniences in matters of religious
concernment throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they
behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to
licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward
disturbance of others.'" (Hazard's Collection, p. 613.)
Judge Story, after quoting this declaration of the Royal Charter, justly
remarks, "This is a noble declaration, worthy of any Prince who rules
over a free people. It is lamentable to reflect how little it comports
with the domestic persecutions authorized by the same monarch during his
profligate reign. It is still more lamentable to reflect how little a
similar spirit of toleration was encouraged, either by precept or
example, in other of the New England Colonies." (Commentaries, etc.,
Vol. I., Chap, viii., Section 97.)]
[Footnote 149: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, p. 74.]
[Footnote 150: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 76-78.]
[Footnote 151: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 76, 78, 79.]
[Footnote 152: Danforth Papers, Collections of Massachusetts Historical
Society, Vol. VIII., pp. 98, 108, 109, Second Series.
The following particulars are given of the proceedings of the Court at a
subsequent meeting on the same subject:
"October 10th, 1666. The General Court met again, according to
adjournment in May last. At this Court many express themselves very
sensible of our condition. Several earnest for sending, and some against
sending. Those for sending none spake out fully that they would have the
Governor (Mr. Bellingham) and Major Hawthorne go; but some will have men
go to plead our cause with his Majesty; to answer what may be alleged
against us, alleging reason, religion and our own necessity as forcing
us thereto. Others are against it, as being the loss of all, by
endangering a _quo warranto_ to be brought against our patent, and so to
be condemned; a middle sort would have some go to present the Court's
present to his Majesty, of two large masts and a ship's load of masts:
and in case any demand were made why the Governor, Major Hawthorne, and
others did not appear, to crave his Majesty's favour therein, and to
plead with his Majesty, showing how inconsistent it is with our being,
for any to be forced to appear to answer in a judicial way in
England--to answer either appeals or complaints against the country.
"The last proposal is obstructed by sundry, as being ruinous to the
whole; and so nothing can be done, the Governor and some others chiefly
opposing it, so as that no orderly debate can be had to know the mind of
the Court.
"The Court agreed to send two large masts aboard Capt. Pierce, 34 yards
long, and the one 36 and the other 37 inches in diameter, and agreed to
levy £1,000 for the payment of what is needful at present; but is
obstructed--none will lend money unless men be sent, others because
anything is to be sent; a return whereof made to the Court, they say
they know not what to do more--in case they that have money will not
part with it, they are at a stand. Some speak of raising by rate
immediately. Others think there is so much dissatisfaction that men are
not sent, that it will provoke and raise a tumult; and in case that it
be raised by loan, it will be hardly paid--if consent be not given in
their sending men with it, and there be no good effect, which is
contingent, and thus we are every way at a stand; some fearing these
things will precipitate our ruin, and others apprehending that to act
further will necessitate our ruin."--_Ib._, pp. 110, 111.
From these notes, which Mr. Danforth made at the time when the
proceedings referred to took place, it is plain there were a large
number of loyalists even among the Congregationalists, as they alone
were eligible to be members of, or to elect to the Court, and that the
asserters of independence were greatly perplexed and agitated.]
[Footnote 153: Danforth Papers, Collections of Massachusetts Historical
Society, Vol. VIII., pp. 99, 100, 108, 109.]
[Footnote 154: "There had been a press for printing at Cambridge for
near twenty years. The Court appointed two persons (Captain Daniel
Guekins and Mr. Jonathan Mitchell, the minister of Cambridge), in
October, 1662, licensers of the press, and prohibited the publishing of
any books or papers which should not be supervised by them;" and in
1668, the supervisors having allowed the printing "Thomas à Kempis, de
Imitatione Christi," the Court interposed (it being wrote by a popish
minister, and containing some things less safe to be infused among the
people), and therefore they commended to the licensers a more full
revisal, and ordered the press to stop in the meantime. (Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 257, 258.)]
[Footnote 155: Even during the Commonwealth in England, the
Congregational Government of Massachusetts Bay was one of unmitigated
persecution. Mr. Hutchinson, under date of 1655, remarks:
"The persecution of Episcopalians by the prevailing powers in England
was evidently from revenge for the persecution they had suffered
themselves, and from political considerations and the prevalence of
party, seeing all other opinions and professions, however absurd, were
tolerated; but in New England it must be confessed that bigotry and
cruel zeal prevailed, and to that degree that no opinion but their own
could be tolerated. They were sincere but mistaken in their principles;
and absurd as it is, it is too evident, they believed it to be to the
glory of God to take away the lives of his creatures for maintaining
tenets contrary to what they professed themselves. This occasioned
complaints against the colony to the Parliament and Cromwell, but
without success." (History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 189.)]
[Footnote 156: "Proceedings and sentence of the County Court held at
Cambridge, on adjournment, April 17, 1666, against Thomas Goold, Thomas
Osburne, and John George [157] (being Baptists):
"Thomas Goold, Thomas Osburne, and John George, being presented by the
Grand Jury of this county (Cambridge), for absenting themselves from the
public worship of God on the Lord's dayes for one whole year now past,
alleged respectively as followeth, viz.:
"Thomas Osburne answered that the reason of his non-attendance was that
the Lord hath discovered unto him from His Word and Spirit of Truth,
that the society where he is now in communion is more agreeable to the
will of God; asserted that they were a Church, and attended the worship
of God together, and do judge themselves bound to do so, the ground
whereof he said he gave in the General Court.
"Thomas Goold answered that as for coming to public worship, they did
meet in public worship according to the rule of Christ; the grounds
thereof they had given to the General Court of Assistants; asserted that
they were a public meeting, according to the order of Christ Jesus,
gathered together.
"John George answered that he did attend the public meetings on the
Lord's dayes where he was a member; asserted that they were a Church
according to the order of Christ in the Gospell, and with them he walked
and held communion in the public worship of God on the Lord's dayes."
SENTENCE OF THE COURT.
"Whereas at the General Court in October last, and at the Court of
Assistants in September last, endeavours were used for their conviction.
The order of the General Court declaring the said Goold and Company to
be no orderly Church assembly, and that they stand convicted of high
presumption against the Lord and his holy appoyntments was openly read
to them, and is on file with the records of this Court.
"The Court sentenced the same Thomas Goold, Thomas Osburne, and John
George, for their absenting themselves from the public worship of God on
the Lord's dayes, to pay four pounds fine, each of them, to the County
order. And whereas, by their own confessions, they stand convicted of
persisting in their schismatical assembling themselves together, to the
great dishonour of God _and our_ profession of his holy name, contrary
to the _Act_ of the General Order of the Court of October last,
prohibiting them therein on the penalty of imprisonment, this Court doth
order their giving bond respectively in £20, each of them, for their
appearance to answer their contempt at the next Court of Assistants.
"The above named Thomas Goold, John George, and Thomas Osburne made
their appeal to the next Court of Assistants, and refusing to put in
security according to law, were committed to prison.
"_Vera Copia._"
"THO. DANFORTH, _Recorder_."
(Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 397-401.)]
[Footnote 157: _Note_ by Mr. Hutchinson.--"These three persons scrupled
at Infant Baptism, separated from the Churches of the country, and with
others of the same persuasion with themselves, set up a church in
Boston. Whilst Congregationalists in England were complaining of the
intolerant spirit of Episcopalians, these Antipædo Baptists in New
England had equal reason to complain of the same spirit in the
Congregationalists there."]
[Footnote 158: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap. viii., pp.
353, 354, 356.]
[Footnote 159: "They endeavoured not only by humble addresses and
professions of loyalty to appease his Majesty, but they purchased a
ship-load of masts (the freight whereof cost them sixteen hundred pounds
sterling), and presented them to the King, which he graciously accepted;
and the fleet in the West Indies being in want of provisions, a
subscription and contribution was recommended through the colony for
bringing in provisions to be sent to the fleet for his Majesty's
service,[160] but I find no word of the whole amount. Upon the news of
the great fire in London, a collection was made through the colony for
the relief of the sufferers. The amount cannot be ascertained."
(Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 256, 257.)]
[Footnote 160: _Note_ by Mr. Hutchinson.--"This was so well received
that a letter was sent to the General Court, under the King's sign
warrant, dated 21st April, 1669, signifying how well it was taken by his
Majesty. So the letter expresses it."]
[Footnote 161: The following is a copy of the King's very courteous and
reasonable letter:
"Copy of a letter from King Charles II. to the Governor, etc., of the
Massachusetts, dated July 24th, 1679.
"CHARLES R.
"Trusty and well beloved--We greet you well. These our letters are to
accompany our trusty and well beloved William Stoughton and Peter
Bulkly, Esqres., your agents, who having manifested to us great
necessity in their domestic concerns to return back into New England, we
have graciously consented thereunto, and the rather because for many
months past our Council hath been taken up in the discovery and
prosecution of a popish plot, and yet there appears little prospect of
any speedy leisure for entering upon such regulation in your affairs as
is certainly necessary, not only in respect of our dignity, but of your
own perfect settlement. In the meantime, we doubt not but the bearers
thereof, who have demeaned themselves, during their attendance, with
good care and discretion, will, from their _own observations_, acquaint
you with many important things which may be of such use and
advertisement to you, that we might well hope to be prevented, by your
applications, in what is expected or desired by us. So much it is your
interest to propose and intercede for the same; for we are graciously
inclined to have all past errors and mistakes forgotten, and that your
condition might be so amended as that neither your settlement, or the
minds of our good subjects there, should be liable to be shaken and
disquieted upon every complaint. We have heard with satisfaction of the
great readiness wherewith our good subjects there have lately offered
themselves to the taking of the oath of allegiance, which is a clear
manifestation to us that the unanswerable defect in that particular was
but the fault of a very few in power, who for so long a time obstructed
what the Charter and our express commands obliged them unto, as will
appear in our gracious letter of the 28th of June (1662), in the
fourteenth year of our reign; and we shall henceforth expect that there
will be a suitable obedience in other particulars of the said letter,
as, namely, in respect of freedom and liberty of conscience, so as those
that desire to serve God in the way of the Church of England be not
thereby made obnoxious or discountenanced from their sharing in the
government, much less that they or any other of our good subjects (not
being Papists) who do not agree in the Congregational way, be by law
subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other incapacities for the same,
which is a severity to be the more wondered at, whereas liberty of
conscience was made one principal motive for your first transportation
into those parts; nor do we think it fit that any other distinction be
observed in the making of freemen than that they be men of competent
estates, rateable at ten shillings,[162] according to the rules of the
place, and that such in their turns be also capable of the magistracy,
and all laws made void that obstruct the same. And because we have not
observed any fruits or advantage by the dispensation granted by us in
our said letter of June, in the fourteenth year of our reign, whereby
the number of assistants, settled by our Charter to be eighteen, might
be reduced unto the number of ten, our will and pleasure is that the
ancient number of eighteen be henceforth observed, according to the
letter of the Charter. And our further will and pleasure is, that all
persons coming to any privilege, trust, or office in that colony be
first enjoined to take the oath of allegiance, and that all the military
commissions as well as the proceedings of justice may run in our royal
name. We are informed that you have lately made some good provision for
observing the acts of trade and navigation, which is well pleasing unto
us[163]; and as we doubt not and do expect that you will abolish all
laws that are repugnant to and inconsistent with the laws of trade with
us, we have appointed our trusty and well beloved subject, Edward
Randolph, Esq., to be our collector, surveyor and searcher not only for
the colony, but for all our other colonies in New England, constituting
him, by the broad seal of this our kingdom, to the said employments, and
therefore recommending him to your help and assistance in all things
that may be requisite in the discharge of his trust. Given at our palace
of Hampton Court, the 24th day of July, 1679, and in the one and
thirtieth year of our reign.
"By his Majesty's Command,
"A. COVENTRY."]
[Footnote 162: _Note_ by the historian, Mr. Hutchinson.--They seem to
have held out till the last in refusing to admit any to be freemen who
were not either Church members, or who did not at least obtain a
certificate from the minister of the town that they were orthodox.]
[Footnote 163: _Note_ by the historian, Mr. Hutchinson.--This is very
extraordinary, for this provision was an act of the colony, declaring
that the acts of trade should be in force there. (Massachusetts History,
Vol. I., p. 322.)]
[Footnote 164: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 325, 326.]
[Footnote 165: "The people of Massachusetts had always the good-will of
Cromwell. In relation to them he allowed the Navigation Law, which
pressed hard on the Southern colonies, to become a dead letter, and they
received the commodities of all nations free of duty, and sent their
ships at will to the ports of continental Europe." (Palfrey's History of
New England, Vol. II., Book ii., Chap. x., p. 393.)]
[Footnote 166: "1660.--The Parliament passed an Act for the general
encouragement and increase of shipping and navigation, by which the
provisions made in the celebrated Navigation Act of 1651 were continued,
with additional improvements. It enacted that no sugar, tobacco, ginger,
indigo, cotton, fustin, dyeing woods of the growth of English
territories in America, Asia, or Africa, shall be transported to any
other country than those belonging to the Crown of England, under the
penalty of forfeiture; and all vessels sailing to the Plantations were
to give bonds to bring said commodities to England." (Holmes' American
Annals, Vol. I., pp. 314, 315.)
"The oppressive system," says Palfrey, "was further extended by an Act
which confined the import trade of the colonists to a direct commerce
with England, forbidding them to bring _from_ any other or _in_ any
other than English ships, the products not only of England but of any
European state." (History of New England, Vol. II., B. ii., Chap. xi.,
p. 445.)
Palfrey adds in a note: "Salt for New England fishermen, wines from
Madeira and the Azores, and provisions from Scotland and Ireland, were,
however, exempted."--_Ib._]
[Footnote 167: Hutchinson's Collection, etc., pp. 522-525. Palfrey's
History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii., Chap. viii., p. 341.]
[Footnote 168: To this there were two or three exceptions. They repealed
the penal laws "against keeping Christmas;" also for punishing with
death Quakers returned from banishment; and to amend the laws relating
to heresy and to rebellion against the country.]
[Footnote 169: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. viii., p. 352.
They usurped authority over New Hampshire and Maine, at the same time
that they prevented the execution of the Acts of Trade and Navigation
(the 12th and 15th of Charles the Second). Mr. Hutchinson says: "The
Massachusetts Government (1670) governed without opposition the Province
of New Hampshire and the Province of Maine, and were beginning
settlements even further eastward. The French were removed from their
neighbourhood on the one side, and the Dutch and Swedes on the other.
Their trade was as extensive as they could wish. _No custom-house was
established._ The Acts of Parliament of the 12th-15th of King Charles
the Second, for regulating the Plantation trade, _were in force_; but
the _Governor, whose business it was to carry them into execution, was
annually to be elected by the people, whose interest was that they
should not be observed_! Some of the magistrates and principal merchants
grew very rich." (History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol I., p. 269.)]
[Footnote 170: On the very day, October, 1677, that they proposed, in
obedience to his Majesty's command, to pass an order that "the Governor
and all inferior magistrates should see to the strict observation of the
Acts of Navigation and Trade," they made an order "that the law
requiring all persons, as well inhabitants as strangers, that have not
taken it, to take the oath of fidelity to the country, be revived and
put in practice throughout the jurisdiction" (Palfrey, Vol. III., pp.
311-315)--an order intended to counteract the execution of the Acts of
Navigation and Trade by the King's Collector, and of which he complained
to England.
"The agents of the colony endeavoured to explain this law to the Board
(of Colonial Plantations in England), and to soften their indignation
against it, but without effect." (_Ib._, p. 315.) "All persons who
refused to take the oath of fidelity to the country were not to have the
privilege of recovering their debts in Courts of law, nor to have the
protection of the Government." (Truth and Innocency Defended, etc.)]
[Footnote 171: (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
Second Series, Vol. VIII., pp. 73-78.) The liberty of worship, which
they declared had been the object of their emigration to Massachusetts,
had never been denied them; had been assured to them by both Charles the
First and Charles the Second. The King did not propose to impose the use
of the prayer book upon any inhabitant of the colony, but insisted upon
freedom of worship for each inhabitant; whereas the Massachusetts Bay
Court, under the pretext of liberty of worship for Congregationalists,
denied freedom of worship to all others not Congregationalists.]
[Footnote 172: "This extraordinary law continued in force until the
dissolution of the Government; it being repealed in appearance
only,[173] after the restoration of King Charles the Second. Had they
been deprived of their civil privileges in England by Act of Parliament,
unless they would join in communion with the Churches there, it might
very well have been the first on the roll of grievances. But such were
the requisites for Church membership here, that the grievance is
abundantly greater." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol.
I., pp. 25, 26.)]
[Footnote 173: _Note_ by the historian.--"The minister was to certify
that the candidates for freedom were of orthodox principles and of good
lives and conversation."]
[Footnote 174: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p.
431. "The test (that 'no man could have a share in the administration of
civil government, or give his voice in any election, unless he was a
member of one of the Churches') went a great way towards producing
general uniformity. He that did not conform was deprived of more civil
privileges than a nonconformist is deprived of by the Test Act in
England. Both the one and the other must have occasioned much formality
and hypocrisy. The mysteries of our holy religion have been prostituted
to mere secular views and advantages."--_Ib._, p. 432.]
[Footnote 175: (Palfrey, Vol. III., p. 353, in a note.) Mr. Hildreth
states the case as follows: "Encouraged by the King's demand for
toleration, construed as superseding the 'by-laws' of the colony, the
Baptists ventured to hold a service in their new meeting-house. For this
they were summoned before the magistrates, and when they refused to
desist the doors were nailed up and the following order posted upon
them: 'All persons are to take notice that, by order of the Court, the
doors of this house are shut up, and that they are inhibited to hold any
meeting therein, or to open the doors thereof without licence from
authority, till the General Court take further order, as they will
answer the contrary at their peril.' When the General Court met the
Baptists pleaded that their house was built before any law was made to
prevent it. This plea was so far allowed that their past offences were
forgiven; but they were not allowed to open the house." (History of the
United States, Vol. I., Chap, xiv., p. 501.)]
[Footnote 176: (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p.
320.) After quoting this law, the historian remarks: "I know of nothing
which can be urged in anywise tending to increase the severity of this
law, unless it be human infirmity, and the many instances in history of
persons of every religion being fully persuaded that the indulgence of
any other was a toleration of impiety and brought down the judgments of
Heaven, and therefore justified persecution. This law lost the colony
many friends."--_Ib._
The law punishing attendance at Quaker meetings was accompanied by
another containing the following clauses:
"Pride, in men wearing long hair like women's hair; others wearing
borders of hair, and cutting, curling, and immodest laying out their
hair, principally in the younger sort. Grand Jurors to present and the
Court to punish all offenders by admonition, fine, or correction, at
discretion."
"Excess in apparel, strange new fashions, naked breasts and arms, and
pinioned superfluous ribbands on hair and apparel. The Court to fine
offenders at discretion."
"A loose and sinful custom of riding from town to town, men and women
together, under pretence of going to lectures, but really to drink and
revel in taverns, tending to debauchery and unchastity. All single
persons, being offenders, to be bound in their good behaviour, with
sureties in twenty pounds fine, or suffer fine and imprisonment."--_Ib._,
pp. 320, 321, in a note.
The foregoing pages show the notions and appreciation of the religious
rights and liberties by the Massachusetts Bay rulers and legislators in
regard to Episcopalians, Baptists, and Quakers. The above quoted clauses
of their law passed in 1667, nearly fifty years after the establishment
of their government, illustrate their ideas of individual liberty.]
[Footnote 177: Palfrey, Vol. III., p. 353. Much has been written about
these Acts of Trade and Navigation, as if they were acts of royal
despotism and designed to oppress the colonies for the benefit of
England; whereas they originated with the Commonwealth, and were
designed to benefit the colonies as well as the mother country. "After
the decapitation of Charles I.," says Minot, "the confused situation of
England prevented any particular attention to the colony until
Cromwell's Government. The very qualities which existed in the character
of the inhabitants to render them displeasing to the late King, operated
as much with the Protector in their favour; and he diverted all
complaints of their enemies against them. Yet he procured the Navigation
Act to be passed by the Parliament, which was a source of future
difficulty to the colony, though it was evaded in New England at first
(by Cromwell's connivance with the rulers of Massachusetts Colony), as
they still traded in all parts and enjoyed a privilege, peculiar to
themselves, of importing their goods into England free of all customs."
(Minot's Continuation of the History of Massachusetts Bay, published
according to Act of Congress, Vol. I., p. 40.)
Mr. Hildreth, referring to the early part of Charles the Second's
restoration, says: "As yet the Acts of Trade were hardly a subject of
controversy. The Parliament, which had welcomed back the King, had
indeed re-enacted with additional clauses the ordinance of 1651--an Act
which, by restricting exportations from America to English, Irish, and
Colonial vessels, substantially excluded foreign ships from all
Anglo-American harbours. To this, which might be regarded as a benefit
to New England ship-owners, a provision was added still further to
isolate the colonies (from foreign countries), the more valuable
colonial staples, mentioned by the name, and hence known as 'enumerated
articles,' being required to be shipped exclusively to England or some
English colony. The exportation to the colonies was also prohibited of
any product of Europe, unless in English vessels and from England,
except horses, servants and provisions from Ireland and Scotland. But of
the 'enumerated articles' none were produced in New England; while salt
for fisheries, and wine from Madeira and the Azores, branches of foreign
trade in which New England was deeply interested, were specially
exempted from the operation of an Act which had chiefly in view the more
southern colonies." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol I.,
Chap xiv.' p. 473.)]
[Footnote 178: History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp.
461, 462.]
[Footnote 179: The following is a specimen of the manner in which they
interpreted their Charter to extend their territory. Having interpreted
their Charter to exempt themselves from all responsibility to the Crown
for their legislation or acts, they devised a new interpretation of
their Charter in order to extend their territory to the north and
north-east. The Charter limited their territories to three miles of the
north bank of the Merrimac. At the end of twenty years they decided that
the Charter meant three miles north of the most northern land or elbow
of the Merrimac, and then not follow within three miles of the north
bank of the river to its mouth, but a straight line east and west, which
would give to their Plantation, Maine and a large part of New Hampshire,
to the exclusion of the original patentees. When the Royal
Commissioners, as directed by the King, came to investigate the
complaints on this disputed boundary of territory, they decided against
the pretensions of the Massachusetts Bay rulers, and appointed
magistrates, etc., to give effect to their decision; but the authorities
of Massachusetts Bay, acknowledging no superior under heaven, resumed
control of the territory in dispute as soon as the Commissioners had
left the country. Mr. Hildreth says:
"Shortly after the departure of the Royal Commissioners, Leverett, now
Major-General of the Colony, was sent to Maine, with three other
magistrates and a body of horse, to re-establish the authority of
Massachusetts. In spite of the remonstrances of Col. Nichols at New York
(the head of the Royal Commission), the new Government lately set up was
obliged to yield. Several persons were punished for speaking
irreverently of the re-established authority of Massachusetts."
(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. xiv., pp. 473,
474.) For eleven years the Massachusetts Bay Government maintained this
ascendency against all complaints and appeals to England, when in 1677,
as Mr. Hildreth says, "After hearing the parties, the Privy Council
decided, in accordance with the opinion of the two Chief Justices, that
the Massachusetts patent did not give any territory more than three
miles distant from the left or north bank of the Merrimac. This
construction, which set aside the pretensions of Massachusetts to the
province of Maine, as well as to that part of New Hampshire east of the
Merrimac, appeared so plain to English lawyers that the agents (of
Massachusetts) hardly attempted a word in defence." (History of the
United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp. 496, 497.)
It has been shown that as early as the second year of the civil war in
England, the Massachusetts Bay Court passed an Act, in 1643, declaring
it a capital crime for any one in their jurisdiction to advocate or
support the cause of the King; some years afterwards they passed an Act
forbidding all trade with the other American colonies who would not
renounce their allegiance to the King; in their addresses to the
Parliament and Cromwell, in 1651 and 1654, as shown above, they claimed,
as a ground of merit for peculiar favour, that they had done their
utmost, by devotional and material aid of men and means, in support of
the Parliamentary, and afterwards regicide party, from the beginning to
the end of the war--so that loyalists as well as churchmen were treated
by them as outcasts and aliens--and now, after having begged, in
language of sycophantic subserviency, the Royal pardon for the past, and
obtained it on certain conditions, they claim the boon but refuse to
fulfil the conditions, making all sorts of excuses, promises, and
evasions for twenty years--professing and promising one thing in London,
doing the opposite in Massachusetts, protracting where they dare not
resist, but practically doing to the vacating of the Charter what Mr.
Bancroft states in the pregnant sentences above quoted in the text.]
CHAPTER VI.
MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF CHARLES THE SECOND AND JAMES
THE SECOND, FROM 1680 TO 1688--THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES AND MANNER OF
CANCELLING THE FIRST CHARTER.
A crisis was now approaching. The state of things shown in the latter
part of the preceding chapter could not be suffered always to continue.
Means must be devised to bring it to an end.
The Massachusetts Court had sent successive agents to England to explain
and to make promises concerning many things complained of, to crave
indulgence and delay in other things which they could not explain or
justify; but they prohibited their agents, by private instructions, from
conceding anything which the Charter, as they interpreted it, had given
them--namely, absolute independence. But this double game was nearly
played out. Party struggles in England had absorbed the attention of the
King and Cabinet, and caused a public and vacillating policy to be
pursued in regard to Massachusetts; but the King's Government were at
length roused to decisive action, and threatened the colony with a writ
of _quo warranto_ in respect to matters so often demanded and as often
evaded.
The Massachusetts Court met forthwith, passed an Act to control the
commission of the King's Collector, Edward Randolph, and another Act
charging their own newly-appointed Collector to look strictly after the
enforcement of the Acts of Trade (but in reality to counteract them);
repealed another Act which imposed a penalty for plotting the overthrow
of the Colonial Constitution--an Act levelled against Randolph; passed
another Act substituting the word "Jurisdiction" for the word
"Commonwealth" in their laws. They authorized their agents merely to
lay these concessions before the King, and humbly hoped they would
satisfy his Majesty. They also bribed clerks of the Privy Council to
keep them informed of its proceedings on Massachusetts affairs, and
offered a bribe of £2,000 to King Charles himself. Mr. Hildreth says
(1683): "On the appearance of these agents at Court, with powers so
restricted, a _quo warranto_ was threatened forthwith unless they were
furnished with ampler authority. Informed of this threat, the General
Court (of Massachusetts), after great debates, authorized their agents
to consent to the regulation of anything wherein the Government might
_ignorantly_, or _through mistake_, have deviated from the Charter; to
accept, indeed, any demands consistent with the Charter (as they
interpreted it), the existing Government established under it, and the
'main ends of our predecessors in coming hither,' which main ends were
defined by them to be 'our liberties and privileges in matters of
religion and worship of God, which you are, therefore, in no wise to
consent to any infringement of.' They were authorized to give up Maine
to the King, and even to tender him a private gratuity of two thousand
guineas. Bribes were quite fashionable at Charles's Court; the King and
his servants were accustomed to take them. The Massachusetts agents[180]
had expended considerable sums to purchase a favour, or to obtain
information, and by having clerks of the Privy Council in their pay they
were kept well informed of the secret deliberations of that body. But
this offer (of a bribe of two thousand guineas to the King), unskilfully
managed, and betrayed by Cranfield, the lately appointed Royal Governor
of New Hampshire, who had advised the magistrates to make it, exposed
the Colony to blame and ridicule."[181]
"If a liberty of appeal to England were insisted on, the agents were
'not to include the colony in any act or consent of theirs, but to crave
leave to transmit the same to the General Court for their further
consideration.' They were 'not to make any alteration of the
qualifications that were required by law, as at present established,
respecting the _admission of freemen_.'"[182]
It having appeared, on the perusal of the commission of the
Massachusetts agents by Sir Lionel Jenkins, Secretary of State, that
they did not possess the powers required to enable them to act, they
were informed by Lord Radnor that "the Council had unanimously agreed to
report to his Majesty, that unless the agents speedily obtained such
powers as might render them capable to satisfy in all points, a _quo
warranto_ should proceed."
"Upon receipt of these advices," says Mr. Hutchinson, "it was made a
question, not in the General Court only, but amongst all the
inhabitants, whether to surrender or not. The opinions of many of the
ministers, and their arguments in support of them, were given in
writing, and in general it was thought better to die by the hands of
others than by their own.[183] The address was agreed upon by the
General Court; another was prepared and sent through the colony, to be
signed by the several inhabitants, which the agents were to present or
not, as they thought proper; and they were (privately) to deliver up the
deeds of the Province of Maine, if required, and it would tend to
preserve their Charter, otherwise not; and they were to make no
concessions of any privileges conferred on the colony by the
Charter."[184] (That is, according to their interpretation and
pretensions.)
"Governor Bradstreet and the moderate party were inclined to authorise
the agents to receive the King's commands. The magistrates passed a vote
to that effect. But all the zeal and obstinacy of the theocratic party
had been roused by the present crisis--a zeal resulting, as hot zeal
often does, in the ultimate loss of what it was so anxious to
save."[185]
The agents of the colony were not willing to undertake the defence and
management of the question upon the Charter in Westminster Hall. The
writ of _quo warranto_, which summoned the Corporation of Massachusetts
Bay to defend their acts against the complaints and charges made against
them, was issued the 27th of June, 1683, and on the 20th of July "It was
ordered by the Privy Council, 'that Mr. Edward Randolph be sent to New
England with the notification of the said _quo warranto_, which he was
to deliver to the said Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
and thereupon to return to give his Majesty an account of his
proceedings therein.'"[186] This writ was accompanied by a declaration
from the King "that the private interests and properties of all persons
within the colony should be continued and preserved to them, so that no
man should receive any prejudice in his freehold or estate;" also, "that
in case the said Corporation of the Massachusetts Bay should, before the
prosecution had upon the said _quo warranto_, make a full submission and
entire resignation to his pleasure, he would then regulate their Charter
(as stated in another place, by adding supplementary clauses) in such a
manner as should be for his service and the good of the colony, without
any other alterations than such as he should find necessary for the
better support of his Government."[187]
On the issue of the writ of _quo warranto_, the business of the colony's
agents in London was at an end. They returned home, and arrived in
Boston the 23rd of October, 1683; and the same week Randolph arrived
with the _quo warranto_ and the King's accompanying declaration. The
announcement of this decisive act on the part of the King produced a
profound sensation throughout the colony, and gave rise to the question,
"What shall Massachusetts do?" One part of the colony advocated
_submission_; another party advocated _resistance_. The former were
called the "Moderate party," the latter the "Patriot party"--the
commencement of the two parties which were afterwards known as United
Empire Loyalists and Revolutionists.[188] The Moderate party was led by
the memorable Governor Bradstreet, Stoughton, and Dudley, and included a
majority of the assistants or magistrates, called the "Upper branch of
the Government." The Independence party was headed by the Deputy
Governor Danforth, Gookin, and Nowell, and included a majority of the
House of Deputies, over whose elections and proceedings the elders or
ministers exerted a potent influence.[189]
Governor Bradstreet and a majority of the assistants, or magistrates,
adopted the following resolution:
"The magistrates have voted that an humble address be sent to his
Majesty by this ship, declaring that, upon a serious consideration of
his Majesty's gracious intimations in his former letters, and more
particularly in his late declaration, that his pleasure and purpose is
only to regulate our Charter in such a manner as shall be for his
service and the good of this his colony, and without any other
alteration than what is necessary for the support of his Government
here, we will not presume to contend with his Majesty in a Court of law,
but humbly lay ourselves at his Majesty's feet, in submission to his
pleasure so declared, and that we have resolved by the next opportunity
to send our agents empowered to receive his Majesty's commands
accordingly. And, for saving a default for non-appearance upon the
return of the writ of _quo warranto_, that some person or persons be
appointed and empowered, by letter of attorney, to appear and make
defence until our agents may make their appearance and submission as
above.
"The magistrates have passed this without reference to the consent of
their brethren the deputies hereto.
(Signed) "EDMUND RAWSON, _Secretary_.
"15th November, 1683."
This resolution was laid before the House of Deputies and debated by
them a fortnight, when the majority of them adopted the following
resolution:
"November 30, 1683.--The deputies consent not, but adhere to their
former bills.
"WILLIAM TERRY, _Clerk_."[190]
"They voted instead," says Mr. Hildreth, "an Address to the King,
praying forbearance; but they authorized Robert Humphreys, a London
barrister and the legal adviser of the agents, to enter an appearance
and to retain counsel, requesting him 'to leave no stone unturned that
may be of service either to the case itself, or the spinning out of the
time as much as possibly may be.' No less than three letters were
written to Humphreys; money was remitted; but all hopes of defence were
futile. Before the letters arrived in London, a default had already been
recorded. That default could not be got off, and judgment was entered
the next year pronouncing the Charter void."[191]
The manner in which the questions at issue were put to a popular vote
in Massachusetts was unfair and misleading; the epithets applied to the
"Moderate" or loyal party were offensive and unjust; and the statements
of Palfrey, respecting the acts of the King immediately following the
vacation of the Charter, are very disingenuous, not to say untrue.
The King had expressly and repeatedly declared that he would not proceed
to vacate the Charter if they would submit to his decision on the six
grounds mentioned in his first letter to them, June 28, 1662, twenty
years before, as the conditions of continuing the Charter, and which
they had persistently evaded and resisted; that his decision should be
in the form of certain "Regulations" for the future administration of
the Charter, and not the vacation of it. Every reader knows the
difference between a Royal Charter of incorporation and the Royal
instructions issued twenty years afterwards to remedy irregularities and
abuses which had been shown to have crept in, and practised in the local
administration of the Charter. Yet the ruling party in Massachusetts Bay
did not put the question as accepting the King's offers, but as of
vacating the Charter. This was raising a false issue, and an avowed
imputation and contempt of the King. It is true that Dr. Palfrey and
other modern New England historians have said that Charles the Second
had from the beginning intended to abolish the Charter; that the
"vacation of the Charter was a foregone conclusion." In reply to which
it may be said that this is mere assumption, unsupported by facts; that
if Charles the Second had wished or intended to vacate the Charter, he
had the amplest opportunity and reasons to do so, in the zenith of his
popularity and power, when they refused to comply with the conditions on
which he proposed to pardon and obliterate the past and continue the
Charter, and when they resisted his Commissioners, and employed military
force to oppose the exercise of their powers, and set aside their
decisions; instead of which he remonstrated with them for more than
twenty years, and then gave them long notice and choice to retain the
Charter with his "Regulations" on the disputed points, or contest the
Charter, as to their observance of it, in a Court of law. Under the
impulse and guidance of violent counsels they chose the latter, and lost
their Charter. In their very last address to the King, they gratefully
acknowledged his kindness in all his despatches and treatment of them,
contrary to the statements and imputations of modern New England
historians; yet they denied him the authority universally acknowledged
and exercised by Queen Victoria and English Courts of law over the
legislative, judicial, and even administrative acts of every province of
the British Empire. Dr. Palfrey says: "In the Upper branch of the
Government there was found at length a _servile_ majority;" but "the
deputies were prepared for no such _suicide_, though there were not
wanting faint hearts and grovelling aims among them."[192] At the head
of what Dr. Palfrey terms the "servile majority" was the venerable
Governor Bradstreet, now more than ninety years of age, the only
survivor of the original founders of the colony, who had been a
magistrate more than fifty years, more than once Governor, always a
faithful and safe counsellor, the agent of the colony in England, and
obtaining in June, 1662, the King's letter of pardon--oblivion of the
past and promised continuance of the Charter on certain conditions--a
letter which the Colonial Court said filled them with inexpressible joy
and gratitude (see above, page 141), who then advised them to comply
with the King's requirements, and who, after twenty years' further
experience and knowledge of public affairs and parties, advises them to
pursue the same course for which he is now termed "servile," and ranked
with cowards and men of "grovelling aims," advising the colony to commit
political "suicide." The result showed who were the real authors of the
"suicide," and Dr. Palfrey forcibly states the result of their doings in
the following words:
"Massachusetts, as a body politic, was now no more. The elaborate
fabric, that had been fifty-four years in building, was levelled to the
dust. The hopes of the fathers were found to be mere dreams. It seemed
that their brave struggles had brought no result. The honoured ally
(Massachusetts) of the Protector (Cromwell) of England lay under the
feet of Charles the Second. It was on the Charter granted to Roswell and
his associates, Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, that the
structure of the cherished institutions of Massachusetts, religious and
civil, had been reared. The abrogation of that Charter swept the whole
away. Massachusetts, in English law, was again what it had been before
James the First made a grant of it to the Council of New England. It
belonged to the King of England, by virtue of the discovery of the
Cabots. No less than this was the import of the decree in Westminster
Hall. Having secured its great triumph, the Court had no thought of
losing anything by the weakness of compassion. The person selected by
the King to govern the people of his newly-acquired province was Colonel
Piercy Kirk. That campaign in the West of England had not yet taken
place which has made the name of Kirk immortal; but fame enough had gone
abroad of his brutal character, to make his advent an anticipation of
horror to those whom he was appointed to govern. It was settled that he
was to be called 'His Majesty's Lieutenant and Governor-General,' and
that his authority should be unrestricted."[193]
This quotation from Dr. Palfrey suggests one or two remarks, and
requires correction, as it is as disingenuous in statement as it is
eloquent in diction. He admits and assumes the validity of the judicial
act by which the Charter was declared forfeited; though the loyalty of
this decision was denied by the opposing party in Massachusetts, who
denied that any English Court, or that even the King himself, had any
authority in Massachusetts to disallow any of its acts or decisions,
much less to vacate its Charter, and professed to continue its elections
of deputies, etc., and to pass and administer laws as aforetime. Dr.
Palfrey's language presents all such pretensions and proceedings as
baseless and puerile.
Dr. Palfrey states what is true, that the Massachusetts Government had
been the "ally" of Cromwell; but this they had denied in their addresses
to Charles the Second. (See above, pp. 153-9.)
It is hardly ingenuous or correct in Dr. Palfrey speaking of Col. Kirk's
appointment of the "newly-acquired Province." The office extended over
New Hampshire, Maine, and Plymouth as well as Massachusetts; but Kirk
never was Governor of Massachusetts, for before his commission and
instructions were completed, all was annulled by the demise of King
Charles, which took place the 6th of February, 1685. Mr. Hutchinson
says: "Before any new Government was settled, King Charles died. Mr.
Blaithwait wrote to the Governor and recommended the proclaiming of King
James without delay. This was done with great ceremony in the high
street of Boston (April 20th)."[194]
Mr. Joseph Dudley, a native of the colony, and one of the two last
agents sent to England, was appointed the first Governor after the
annulling of the Charter. Mr. Hutchinson says: "The 15th of May (1686),
the _Rose_ frigate arrived from England, with a commission to Mr. Dudley
as President, and divers others, gentlemen of the Council, to take upon
them the administration of government." Mr. Dudley's short
administration was not very grievous. The House of Deputies, indeed, was
laid aside; but the people, the time being short, felt little or no
effect from the change. Mr. Stoughton was Mr. Dudley's chief confidant.
Mr. Dudley professed as great an attachment to the interest of the
colony as Mr. Stoughton, and was very desirous of retaining their
favour. A letter from Mr. Mather, then the minister of the greatest
influence, is a proof of it.[195] There was no molestation to the
Churches of the colony, but they continued both worship and discipline
as before. The affairs of the towns were likewise managed in the same
manner as formerly. Their Courts of justice were continued upon the
former plan, Mr. Stoughton being at the head of them. Trials were by
juries, as usual. Dudley considered himself as appointed to preserve the
affairs of the colony from confusion until a Governor arrived and a
rule of administration should be more fully settled.[196]
The administration of Dudley was only of seven months' duration. Dudley
was superseded by Sir Edmund Andros, who arrived at Boston on the 20th
of December (1686), with a commission from King James for the government
of New England.[197] He was instructed to appoint no one of the Council
to any offices but those of the least estates and characters, and to
displace none without sufficient cause; to continue the former laws of
the country, as far as they were not inconsistent with his commission or
instructions, until other regulations were established by the Governor
and Council; to allow no printing press; to give universal toleration in
religion, but encouragement to the Church of England; to execute the
laws of trade, and prevent frauds in Customs.[198] But Andros had other
instructions of a more despotic and stringent character; and being, like
King James himself, of an arbitrary disposition, he fulfilled his
instructions to the letter. And when his Royal master was dethroned for
his unconstitutional and tyrannical conduct, Andros was seized at Boston
and sent prisoner to England, to answer for his conduct; but he was
acquitted by the new Government, not for his policy in New England, but
because he had acted according to his instructions, which he pleaded as
his justification.[199]
It is singular that _toleration_ in Massachusetts should have been
proclaimed by the arbitrary James, in a declaration above and contrary
to the law for which he received the thanks of the ministers in that
colony, but which resulted in his loss of his Crown in England.
"James's Declaration of Indulgence was proclaimed (1687), and now, for
the first time, Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians enjoyed toleration
in Massachusetts. That system of religious tyranny, coeval with the
settlement of New England, thus unexpectedly received its death-blow
from a Catholic bigot, who professed a willingness to allow religious
freedom to others as a means of securing it for himself." ... "Mather,
who carried with him (1689) an address from the ministers, thanking
James, in behalf of themselves and their brethren, for his Declaration
of Indulgence arriving in England while King James was yet in power, had
been graciously received by that monarch. But, though repeatedly
admitted to an audience, his complaints against the Royal Governor
(Andros) had produced no effect. The Revolution intervening, he
hastened, with greater hopes of success, to address himself to the new
King, and his remonstrances prevented, as far as Massachusetts was
concerned, the despatch of a circular letter confirming the authority of
all Colonial officers holding commissions from James II. The letters
actually received at Boston authorized those in authority to retain
provisionally the administration, and directed that Andros and the other
prisoners should be sent to England."[200]
I have now traced the proceedings of the founders and rulers of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony during the fifty-four years of their first
Charter, with short notices of some occurrences during the three years'
reign of James the Second, their revenge not only in his own
dethronement, but also on his Governor Andros, for the tyranny which he
practised upon them by imprisoning him and his helpers, and by Royal
command sending them as prisoners to England, together with the removal
of the local officers appointed by Andros and the restoration of their
own elected authorities until further instruction from the new King.
There can be no question that the founders of that colony were not only
men of wealth, but men of education, of piety, of the highest
respectability, of great energy, enterprize, and industry, contributing
to the rapid progress of their settlements and increase of their wealth,
and stamping the character of their history; but after their emigration
to Massachusetts Bay, and during the progress of their settlements and
the organization and development of their undertakings, their views
became narrowed to the dimensions of their own Plantation in government
and trade, irrespective of the interests of England, or of the other
neighbour colonies, and their theology and religious spirit was of the
narrowest and most intolerant character. They assumed to be the chosen
Israel of God, subject to no King but Jehovah, above the rulers of the
land, planted there to cast out the heathen, to smite down every dagon
of false worship, whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, or
Quaker, and responsible to no other power on earth for either their
legislative or administrative acts. I will not here recapitulate those
acts, so fully stated in preceding pages, and established by evidence of
documents and testimony which cannot be successfully denied. But there
are two features of their pretensions and government which demand
further remark.
I. The first is the character and narrowness of the foundation on which
rested their legislation and government. None but members of the
Congregational Churches were eligible to legislate or fill any office in
the colony, or even to be an elector. A more narrow-minded and
corrupting test of qualification for civil or political office, or for
the elective franchise, can hardly be conceived.[201] However rich a man
might be, and whatever might be his education or social position, if he
were not a member of the Congregational Church he was an "alien in the
Commonwealth" of the Massachusetts Israel, was ineligible for office, or
to be an elector; while his own servant, if a member of the Church,
though not worth a shilling, or paying a penny to the public revenue,
was an elector, or eligible to be elected to any public office. The
non-members of the Congregational Church were subject to all military
and civil burdens and taxes of the State, without any voice in its
legislation or administration. Such was the free (?) Government of
Massachusetts Bay, eulogized by New England historians during half a
century, until abolished by judicial and royal authority. What would be
thought at this day of a Government, the eligibility to public office
and the elective franchise under which should be based on membership in
a particular Church?
II. But, secondly, this Government must be regarded as equally unjust
and odious when we consider not merely the sectarian basis of its
assumptions and acts against the Sovereign on the one hand, and the
rights of citizens of Massachusetts and of neighbouring colonies on the
other, but the small proportion of the population enfranchised in
comparison with the population which was disfranchised. Even at the
beginning it was not professed that the proportion of Congregational
Church members to the whole population was more than one to three; in
after years it was alleged, at most, not to have been more than one to
six.
This, however, is of little importance in comparison with the question,
what was the proportion of electors to non-electors in the colony? On
this point I take as my authority the latest and most able apologist
and defender of the Massachusetts Government, Dr. Palfrey. He says:
"Counting the lists of persons admitted to the franchise in
Massachusetts, and making what I judge to be reasonable allowance for
persons deceased, I come to the conclusion that the number of freemen in
Massachusetts in 1670 may have been between 1,000 and 1,200, or one
freeman to every four or five adult males."[202]
The whole population of the colony at this time is not definitely
stated, but there was one elector to every "four or five" of the adult
"_males_." This eleven hundred men, because they were Congregationalists,
influenced and controlled by their ministers, elected from themselves all
the legislators and rulers of Massachusetts Bay Colony in civil, judicial,
and military matters, who bearded the King and Parliament, persecuted all
who dissented from them in religious worship, encroached upon the property
and rights of neighbouring colonies, levied and imposed all the burdens
of the State upon four-fifths of their fellow (male) colonists who had
no voice in the legislation or administration of the Government. Yet
this sectarian Government is called by New England historians a free
Government; and these eleven hundred electors--electors not because
they have property, but because they are Congregationalists--are called
"the people of Massachusetts," while four-fifths of the male population
and more than four-fifths of the property are utterly ignored, except
to pay the taxes or bear the other burdens of the State, but without
a single elective voice, or a single free press to state their grievances
or express their wishes, much less to advocate their rights and those of
the King and Parliament.
III. Thirdly, from the facts and authorities given in the foregoing
pages, there cannot be a reasonable pretext for the statement that the
rulers of Massachusetts Bay had not violated both the objects and
provisions of the Royal Charter, variously and persistently, during the
fifty-four years of its existence; while there is not an instance of
either Charles the First or Second claiming a single prerogative
inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter, and which is not freely
recognized at this day in the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain, by
the free inhabitants of every Province of the British Empire. The fact
that neither of the Charleses asked for anything more than the
toleration of Episcopal worship, never objected to the perfect freedom
of worship claimed by the Congregationalists of Massachusetts; and the
fact that Charles the Second corresponded and remonstrated for twenty
years and more to induce the rulers of Massachusetts Bay to acknowledge
those rights of King and Parliament, and their duties as British
subjects, shows that there could have been no desire to interfere with
their freedom of worship or to abolish the Charter, except as a last
resort, after the failure of all other means to restrain the disloyal
and oppressive acts of the rulers of that one colony. In
contradistinction to the practice of other colonies of New England, and
of every British colony at this day, Charles the First and Second were
bad kings to England and Scotland, but were otherwise to New England;
and when New England historians narrate at great length, and paint in
the darkest colours, the persecutions and despotic acts of the Stuart
kings over England and Scotland, and then infer that they did or sought
to do the same in New England, they make groundless assumptions,
contrary to the express declarations and policy of the two Charleses and
the whole character and tenor of New England history. The demands of
Charles the Second, and the conditions on which he proposed to continue
the first Charter in 1662, were every one sanctioned and provided for in
the second Royal Charter issued by William and Mary in 1690, and under
which, for seventy years, the Government was milder and more liberal,
the legislation broader, the social state more happy, and the colony
more loyal and prosperous than it had ever been during the fifty-four
years of the first Charter. All this will be proved and illustrated in
the following chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 180: The Massachusetts Court had applied to Cromwell for
permission to use the word "Commonwealth" instead of the word
"Plantation," as expressed in their Charter, but were refused. They
afterwards adopted it of their own accord.]
[Footnote 181: Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
xiv., pp. 500, 506.
Their attempt to bribe the King was not the less bribery, whether
Cranfield, for his own amusement, or otherwise to test their virtue,
suggested it to them or not. But without any suggestion from Cranfield
they bribed the King's clerks from their fidelity in the Privy Council,
and bribed others "to obtain favour." The whole tenor of Scripture
injunction and morality is against offering as well as taking bribes.
After authorizing the employment of _bribery_ in England to promote
their objects, the Court closed their sittings by appointing "a day for
solemn humiliation throughout the colony, to implore the mercy and
favour of God in respect to their sacred, civil, and temporal concerns,
and more especially those in the hands of their agents abroad."
(Palfrey, Vol. III., B. iii, Chap. ix., pp. 374, 375.)]
[Footnote 182: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix., pp. 372, 373.
"The agents of the colony, Messrs. Dudley and Richards, upon their
arrival in England, found his Majesty greatly provoked at the neglect of
the colonists not sending before; and in their first letters home they
acquainted the Court with the feelings of the King, and desired to know
whether it was best to hazard all by refusing to comply with his
demands, intimating that they 'seriously intended to submit to the
substance.' At that time they had not been heard before the Council; but
soon after, on presenting the address which had been forwarded by their
hands, they were commanded to show their powers and instructions to Sir
Lionel Jenkins, Secretary of State; and on their perusal, finding these
powers wholly inadequate, they were informed by Lord Radnor that the
Council had agreed _nem. con._ to report to his Majesty, that unless
further powers were speedily obtained, a _quo warranto_ should proceed
in Hilary Term." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, First Period, Chap.
xvii, p. 471. Hutchinson, Vol. I., p. 335.)]
[Footnote 183: _Note_ by the historian Hutchinson.--"The clergy turned
the scale for the last time. The balance which they had held from the
beginning, they were allowed to retain no longer."]
[Footnote 184: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
336, 337.]
[Footnote 185: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 186: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix., p. 374. Mr. Palfrey, pp. 375, 376, in a note, gives the
following abstract of Randolph's charges presented to the Court: "1.
They assume powers that are not warranted by the Charter, which is
executed in another place than was intended. 2. They make laws repugnant
to those of England. 3. They levy money on subjects not inhabiting the
colony (and consequently not represented in the General Court). 4. They
impose an oath of fidelity to themselves, without regarding the oath of
allegiance to the King. 5. They refuse justice by withholding appeals to
the King. 6. They oppose the Acts of Navigation, and imprison the King's
officers for doing their duty. 7. They have established a Naval Office,
with a view to defraud the customs. 8. No verdicts are ever found for
the King in relation to customs, and the Courts impose costs on the
prosecutors, in order to discourage trials. 9. They levy customs on the
importation of goods from England. 10. They do not administer the oath
of supremacy, as required by the Charter. 11. They erected a Court of
Admiralty, though not empowered by Charter. 12. They discountenance the
Church of England. 13. They persist in coining money, though they had
asked forgiveness for that offence." (Chalmers' Annals, p. 462.)]
[Footnote 187: _Ib._, p. 377.]
[Footnote 188: "From this period (1683) one may date the origin of two
parties--the Patriots and Prerogative men--between whom controversy
scarcely intermitted, and was never ended until the separation of the
two countries." (Minot's History of Massachusetts, etc., Vol. I., p.
51.)]
[Footnote 189: In a Boston town meeting, held January 21, 1684, to
consider the King's declaration, the Rev. Increase Mather, who was then
President of Harvard College, and had for twenty years exerted more
influence upon the public affairs of Massachusetts than any other man
for the same length of time, delivered a speech against submission to
the King, which he miscalled "the surrender of the Charter." He said,
among other things: "I verily believe we shall sin against the God of
heaven if we vote in the affirmative to it. The Scripture teacheth us
otherwise. That which the Lord our God hath given us, shall we not
possess it? God forbid that we should give away the inheritance of our
fathers. Nor would it be wisdom for us to comply. If we make a full and
entire resignation to the King's pleasure, we fall into the hands of men
immediately; but if we do not, we still keep ourselves in the hands of
God; and who knows what God may do for us?" The historian says that "the
effect of such an appeal was wholly irresistible; that many of the
people fell into tears, and there was a general acclamation." (Barry's
Colonial History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., pp. 476, 477.)
It is not easy to squeeze as much extravagance and nonsense in the same
space as in the above quoted words of Increase Mather. Where was the
Scripture which taught them not to submit complaints of their
fellow-colonists to their King and his Council, the highest authority in
the empire? Both Scripture and profane history furnish us with examples
almost without number of usurpers professing that the usurpation and
conquest they had achieved was "that which the Lord our God had given"
them, and which they should "possess" at all hazards as if it were an
"inheritance of their fathers." The "inheritance" spoken of by Mr.
Mather was what had been usurped by the rulers of the colony over and
above the provisions of their Charter against the rights of the Crown,
the religious and political liberties of their fellow-colonists, and
encroaching upon the lands of their white and Indian neighbours. Then to
submit to the King and Council was to "fall into the hands of men
immediately," but to contest with the King in the Courts of Chancery or
King's Bench was to "keep themselves in the hands of God," who, it
seems, according to Increase Mather's own interpretation, judged him and
his adherents unworthy of retaining the "inheritance" of the Charter,
the powers and objects of which they had so greatly perverted and
abused. The King had expressly declared that the prosecution against the
Charter would be abandoned if they would submit to his decision in
regard to what had been matters of complaint and dispute between them
and their fellow-colonists and Sovereign for more than fifty years, and
which decision should be added to the Charter as explanatory
regulations, and should embrace nothing affecting their religious
liberties or local elective self-government. They refused, and lost
their Charter; Rhode Island and Connecticut submitted, and even resigned
their Charters, and were afterwards authorized to resume them, with the
privileges and powers conferred by them unimpaired, including the
election of their Governors as well as legislators, etc.]
[Footnote 190: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
338, 339.]
[Footnote 191: Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
xiv., p. 507. The notice to the Corporation and Company of Massachusetts
to answer to the writ of _quo warranto_ was received October, 1683; the
final judgment of the Court vacating the Charter was given July, 1685,
nearly two years afterwards. (Hutchinson, Vol. I., pp. 337-340.)]
[Footnote 192: History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii., Chap. ix.,
pp. 380, 381.]
[Footnote 193: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix., pp. 394, 395.]
[Footnote 194: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 340.
"The Charter fell. This was the last effective act of Charles the Second
relative to Massachusetts; for before a new Government could be settled,
the monarch was dead. His death and that of the Charter were nearly
contemporary." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, First Period, Chap.
xvii., p. 478).]
[Footnote 195: The conclusion of this letter is as follows: "Sir, for
the things of my soul, I have these many years hung upon your lips, and
ever shall; and in civil things am desirous you may know with all
plainness my reasons of procedure, and that they may be satisfactory to
you. I am, sir, your servant,
"J. DUDLEY.
From your own house,
May 17th, '86."]
[Footnote 196: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 350, 351, 352.
"Though eighteen months had elapsed since the Charter was vacated, the
Government was still going on as before. The General Court, though
attended thinly, was in session when the new commission arrived. Dudley
sent a copy of it to the Court, not as recognizing their authority, but
as an assembly of principal and influential inhabitants. They complained
of the commission as arbitrary, 'there not being the least mention of an
Assembly' in it, expressed doubts whether it were safe for him or them,
and thus gloomily dissolved, leaving the government in Dudley's hands."
(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., p.
80.)]
[Footnote 197: Andros was appointed Captain-General and Vice-Admiral of
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Plymouth, Pemaquid, and
Narragansett during pleasure.]
[Footnote 198: (Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. I., p. 419). Holmes adds: "To
support a Government that could not be submitted to from choice, a small
military establishment, consisting of two companies of soldiers, was
formed, and military stores were transported. The tyrannical conduct of
James towards the colonies did not escape the notice and censure of
English historians." "At the same time that the Commons of England were
deprived of their privileges, a like attempt was made on the colonies.
King James recalled their Charters, by which their liberties were
secured; and he sent over Governors with absolute power. The arbitrary
principles of that monarch appear in every part of his administration."
(Hume's History of England, _Act_ James II.)--_Ib._, pp. 419, 490.
Hutchinson says: "The beginning of Andros' administration gave great
satisfaction. He made high professions as to the public good and the
welfare of the people, both of merchants and planters; directed the
judges to administer justice according to the custom of the place;
ordered the former established rules to be observed as to rates and
taxes, and that all the colony laws not inconsistent with his commission
should be in force." (History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 353).]
[Footnote 199: "The complaints against Andros, coolly received by the
Privy Council, were dismissed by order of the new King, on the ground
that nothing was charged against the late Governor which his
instructions would not fully justify." (Hildreth's History of the United
States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., p. 94.)]
[Footnote 200: Hildreth's History, etc., Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp. 83,
93, 94.]
[Footnote 201: "As a matter of course, this Church test of citizenship
did not work well. The more unscrupulous the conscience, the easier it
was to join the Church; and abandoned men who wanted public preferment
could join the Church with loud professions and gain their ends, and
make Church membership a byeword. Under the Charter by William and Mary,
in 1691, the qualification of electors was then fixed at a 'freehold of
forty shillings per annum, or other property of the value of £40
sterling.'" (Elliott's New England History, Vol. I., p. 113.)]
[Footnote 202: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ii., p. 41, in a note.]
CHAPTER VII.
THE SECOND ROYAL CHARTER; HOW OBTAINED--MASSACHUSETTS NEARLY SIXTY YEARS
UNDER THE SECOND CHARTER, FROM 1691 TO 1748; TO THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST
WAR BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, AND THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.
I have traced the characteristics of the Government of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony during fifty-four years under its first Charter, in its
relations to the Crown, to the citizens of its own jurisdiction, to the
inhabitants of the neighbouring colonies, and to the Indians; its denial
of Royal authority; its renunciation of one form of worship and Church
polity, and adoption of another; its denial of toleration to any but
Congregationalists, and of the elective franchise, to four-fifths of the
male population; its taxing without representation; its denial of the
right of appeal to the King, or any right on the part of the King or
Parliament to receive appeals, or to the exercise of any supervision or
means of seeing that "the laws of England were not contravened" by their
acts of legislation or government, while they were sheltered by the
British navy from the actual and threatened invasion of the Dutch,
Spaniards, and French, not to say the Indians, always prompted and
backed by the French, thus claiming all the attributes of an independent
Government, but resting under the ægis of an Imperial protection to
maintain an independence which they asserted, but could not themselves
maintain against foreign enemies.
I will now proceed to note the subsequent corresponding facts of their
history during seventy years under the second Royal Charter.
They averred, and no doubt brought themselves to believe, that with
their first Charter, as interpreted by themselves, was bound up their
_political life_, or what they alleged to be dearer to them than life,
and that in its loss was involved their _political death_; but they made
no martial effort to prolong that life, or to save themselves from that
premature death.
Mr. Palfrey assigns various reasons for this non-resistance to the
cancelling of their Charter; but he omits or obscurely alludes to the
real ones.
Dr. Palfrey says: "The reader asks how it could be that the decree by
which Massachusetts fell should fail to provoke resistance. He inquires
whether nothing was left of the spirit which, when the colony was much
poorer, had often defied and baffled the designs of the father of the
reigning King. He must remember how times were changed. There was no
longer a great patriot party in England, to which the colonists might
look for sympathy and help, and which it had even hoped might reinforce
them by a new emigration. There was no longer even a Presbyterian party
which, little as it had loved them, a sense of common insecurity and
common interest might enlist in their behalf.... Relatively to her
population and wealth, Massachusetts had large capacities for becoming a
naval power--capacities which might have been vigorously developed if an
alliance with the great naval powers of Continental Europe had been
possible. But Holland was now at peace with England; not to say that
such an arrangement was out of the question for Massachusetts, while
_the rest of New England was more or less inclined to the adverse
interest_. Unembarrassed by any foreign war, England was armed with that
efficient navy which the Duke of York had organized, and which had
lately distressed the rich and energetic Netherlanders; and the
dwellings of two-thirds of the inhabitants of Massachusetts stood where
they could be battered from the water. They had a commerce which might
be molested in every sea by English cruisers. Neither befriended nor
interfered with, they might have been able to defend themselves against
the corsairs of Barbary in the resorts of their most gainful trade; but
England had given them notice, that if they were stubborn that commerce
would be dismissed from her protection, and in the circumstances such a
notice threatened more than a mere abstinence from aid. The Indian war
had emptied the colonial exchequer. On the other hand, a generation
earlier the colonists might have retreated to the woods, but now they
had valuable stationary property to be kept or sacrificed. To say no
more, the ancient unanimity was broken in upon. Jealousy had risen and
grown.... Nor was even public morality altogether of its pristine tone.
The prospect of material prosperity had introduced a degree of luxury;
and luxury had brought ambition and mean longings. Venality had become
possible; and clever and venal men had a motive for enlisting the
selfish and the stupid, and decrying the generous and wise."[203]
These eloquent words of Dr. Palfrey are very suggestive, and deserve to
be carefully pondered by the reader.
I. In the concluding sentences he tacitly admits that the Government of
Massachusetts Bay had become, at the end of fifty-four years, partially
at least, a failure in "public morality" and patriotism; yet during that
period the Government had been exclusively, in both its legislation and
administration, in the hands of one religious denomination, under the
influence of its ministers, who were supported by taxation on the whole
population, controlled the elections, and whose counsels ruled in all
conflicts with the King and Parliament of England. None but a
Congregationalist could be a governor, or assistant, or deputy, or
judge, or magistrate, or juror, or officer of the army, or constable, or
elector, or have liberty of worship. The union of Church and State in
Massachusetts was more intimate and intolerant than it had or ever has
been in England; and their contests with England in claiming absolute
and irresponsible powers under the Charter were at bottom, and in
substance, contests for Congregational supremacy and exclusive and
proscriptive rule in Church and State--facts so overlooked and
misrepresented by New England historians. Yet under this denominational
and virtually hierarchical government, while wealth was largely
accumulated, the "pristine tone of public morality" declined, and
patriotism degenerated into "ambition and venality."
II. It is also worthy of remark, that, according to Dr. Palfrey, had not
the spirit of the first generation of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay
departed, the war of the American Revolution would have been anticipated
by a century, and the sword would have been unsheathed, not to maintain
the right of representation co-extensive with subjection to taxation,
but to maintain a Government which for half a century had taxed
four-fifths of its citizens without allowing them any representation,
supported the ministers of one Church by taxes on the whole population,
and denied liberty of worship to any but the members of that one
denomination.
III. I remark further, that Mr. Palfrey hints at the two real causes why
the disloyal party (calling itself the "patriotic party") did not take
up arms of rebellion against the mother country. The one was _disunion_
in the colony--"the ancient unanimity was broken in upon." It has been
seen that a majority of the "Upper branch" of even this denominational
Government, and a large minority of the assembly of deputies, were in
favour of submitting to the conditions which the King had twenty years
before prescribed as the terms of continuing the Charter. If the
defection from disloyalty was so great within the limits of the
denomination, it is natural to infer that it must have been universal
among the four-fifths of the male population who were denied the rights
and privileges of "freemen," yet subject to all the burdens of the
State. Deprived also of all freedom of the press, and punished by fine
and imprisonment if, even in petitions to the local Legislature for
redress of grievances, they complained of the acts of local legislation
or government, they could only look to the mother country for
deliverance from local oppression, for liberty of worship and freedom of
citizens. The "ministers" had lost their ascendency even within the
enfranchised circle of their own established churches, while the great
body of the disfranchised Nonconformists could only regard them as had
the Nonconformists in England regarded Bancroft and Laud. They could
assume high prerogatives, arrogate to themselves divine favour and
protection, threaten divine judgments on their adversaries, boast of
courage and power; but they knew that in a trial of strength on the
battlefield their strength would prove weakness, and that they would be
swept from power, and perhaps proscribed and oppressed by the very
victims of their intolerance. The "breaking in upon ancient unanimity"
was but the declining power of a disloyal Church and State Government
of one denomination. A second cause hinted at by Dr. Palfrey why the
rulers of Massachusetts Bay did not resort to arms at this time was,
that "_the rest of New England was more or less inclined to the adverse
interest_." They could command no rallying watchword to combine the
other New England colonies against the King, such as they were enabled
to employ the following century to combine all the American colonies.
"The rest of New England" had found that in the King and Council was
their only effectual protection against the aggressions and domination
of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay, who denied all right of appeal to
the Crown, and denied the right of the Crown to receive and decide upon
such appeals. These rulers not only encroached upon the lands of
neighbouring colonies, but interfered with their exercise of religious
toleration.[204] The extinction of the pretensions to supremacy and
monopoly of power and trade by the rulers of Massachusetts Bay, was the
enfranchisement of the other New England Colonies to protection against
aggression, and of four-fifths of the male inhabitants of Massachusetts
itself to the enjoyment of equal civil and religious liberty.
I think therefore that "ambitions and mean longings," and even
"venality," had quite as much to do on the part of those who wished to
perpetuate the government of disloyalty, proscription, and persecution
as on the part of those who desired to "render unto Cæsar the things
that are Cæsar's," and to place the Government of Massachusetts, like
that of the other New England Colonies, upon the broad foundation of
equal and general franchise and religious liberty.
But to return from this digression. After "the fall of the Charter,"
November, 1684, the Congregationalists of Massachusetts Bay continued
their government for two years, as if nothing had happened to their
Charter; they promptly proclaimed and took the oath of allegiance to
James the Second; and two years afterwards sent the celebrated Increase
Mather as agent to England, to thank the King for the Proclamation of
Indulgence, which trampled on English laws, and cost the King his
throne, to pray for the restoration of the Charter, and to accuse and
pray for the removal of the King's obnoxious Governor-General of New
England, Sir Edmund Andros. The King received him very courteously, and
granted him several audiences. It would have been amusing to witness the
exchange of compliments between the potent minister of Massachusetts
Congregationalism and the bigoted Roman Catholic King of England; but
though James used flattering words, he bestowed no favours, did not
relax the rigour of his policy, and retained his Governor of New
England. On the dethronement of James, Dr. Mather paid his homage to the
rising sun of the new Sovereign--professed overflowing loyalty to
William and Mary,[205] and confirmed his professions by showing that his
constituents, on learning of the revolution in England, seized and sent
prisoner to England, Andros, the hated representative of the dethroned
King. But King William did not seem to estimate very highly that sort
of loyalty, much less to recognize the Massachusetts assumptions under
the old Charter, though he was ready to redress every just complaint and
secure to them all the privileges of British subjects.[207] Mr.
Hutchinson says: "Soon after the withdrawal of King James, Dr. Mather
was introduced to the Prince of Orange by Lord Wharton, and presented
the circular before mentioned, for confirming Governors being sent to
New England. The 14th of March, Lord Wharton introduced him again to the
King, when, after humbly congratulating his Majesty on his accession,
Dr. Mather implored his Majesty's favour to New England. The King
promised all the favour in his power, but hinted at what had been
irregular in their former government; whereupon Dr. Mather undertook
that upon the first word they would reform any irregularities they
should be advised of, and Lord Wharton offered to be their guarantee.
The King then said that he would give orders that Sir Edmund Andros
should be removed and called to an account for his maladministration,
and that the King and Queen should be proclaimed (in Massachusetts) by
the former magistrates. Dr. Mather was a faithful agent, and was
unwearied in securing friends for his country. Besides several of the
nobility and principal commoners, he had engaged the dissenting
ministers, whose weight at that time was far from inconsiderable."[208]
Dr. Mather's earnestness, ability, and appeals made a favourable
impression on the mind of the King, supported as they were by liberal
Churchmen as well as Nonconformists, and also by the entreaties of the
Queen. The King, on the eve of going to Holland, where he was long
detained--which delayed the issuing of the Massachusetts Charter for
twelve months--directed the Chief Justice, Attorney and
Solicitor-Generals to prepare the draft of a new Charter for
Massachusetts. They did so, embodying the provisions of the old Charter,
with additional provisions to give powers which had not been given but
had been usurped in the administration of the old Charter. The majority
of the King's Council disapproved of this draft of Charter, and directed
the preparation of a second draft. Both drafts were sent over to Holland
to the King, with the reasons for and against each; his Majesty agreed
with the majority of his Council in disapproving of the first, and
approving of the second draft of Charter.[209]
But even before the King and his Council decided upon the provisions of
the new Charter, he determined upon appointing a Governor for
Massachusetts, while meeting their wishes as far as possible in his
selection of the Governor; for, as Mr. Neal says, "Two days after he had
heard Dr. Mather against continuing the Governor and officers appointed
over Massachusetts by King James the Second, but restoring the old
officers, the King inquired of the Chief Justice and some other Lords of
the Council whether, without the breach of law, he might appoint a
Governor over New England? To which they answered that whatever might be
the merits of the cause, inasmuch as the Charter of New England stood
vacated by a judgment against them, it was in the King's power to put
them under that form of government he should think best for them. The
King replied, he believed then it would be for the advantage of the
people of that colony to be under a Governor appointed by himself;
nevertheless, because of what Dr. Mather had spoken to him, he would
consent that the agents of New England should nominate such a person as
would be agreeable to the inclinations of the people there; but,
notwithstanding this, he would have Charter privileges restored and
confirmed to them."[210]
It seems to me that King William was not actuated by any theoretical
notions of high prerogative, as attributed to him by Messrs. Bancroft
and Palfrey, in regard to Massachusetts, but was anxious to restore to
that colony every just privilege and power desired, with the exception
of the power of the Congregationalists of Massachusetts to prosecute and
persecute their fellow-religionists of other persuasions, and of
depriving them and other colonists of the right of appeal to the
protection of England.[211] This continued possession of usurped powers
by the Congregationalists of Massachusetts, of sole legislation and
government under the first Charter, and which they so mercilessly and
disloyally exercised for more than half a century, was manifestly the
real ground of their opposition to a new Charter, and especially to the
second and final draft of it. Their agent in England, Dr. Increase
Mather, who had inflamed and caused the citizens of Boston, and a
majority of the popular Assembly of the Legislature, to reject the
conditions insisted upon by Charles the Second, and contest in a Court
of law the continuance of the first Charter, with their pretensions
under it, said that he would rather die than consent to the provisions
of the second draft of Charter,[212] and sent his objections to it to
King William, who was in Holland. The King disapproved of Dr. Mather's
objections, and approved of the Charter as revised and as was finally
issued, and under which Massachusetts was governed and prospered for
three-fourths of a century, notwithstanding the continued opposition of
a set of separationists and smugglers in Boston, who had always been the
enemies of loyal and liberal government under the first Charter.[213]
But when the new Charter passed the Seals, and the nomination of the
first Governor was left to the agent of Massachusetts, Dr. Mather
changed his language of protest into that of gratitude. He nominated Sir
William Phips; and on being introduced to the King, at parting, by the
Earl of Nottingham, made the following speech:
"Sir, I do, in behalf of New England, most humbly thank your Majesty, in
that you have been pleased by a Charter to restore English liberties
unto them, to confirm them in their properties, and to grant them some
peculiar privileges. I doubt not but your subjects will demean
themselves with that dutiful affection and loyalty to your Majesty, as
that you will see cause to enlarge your Royal favour towards them; and I
do most humbly thank your Majesty that you have been pleased to leave to
those that are concerned for New England to nominate their Governor."
"Sir William Phips has been accordingly nominated by us at the Council
Board. He has done good service to the Crown, by enlarging your
dominions and reducing Nova Scotia to your obedience; I know that he
will faithfully serve your Majesty to the utmost of his capacity; and if
your Majesty shall think fit to confirm him in that place, it will be a
further obligation to your subjects there."
"Hereupon Sir William Phips was admitted to kiss his Majesty's hand; and
was, by commission under the Broad Seal, appointed Captain-General over
the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England."[214]
In the preamble of the Charter, the dates, objects and provisions of
previous Charters are recited, and titles to property, etc., acquired
under them confirmed; after which it was provided--
1. That there should be "one Governor, one Lieutenant or Deputy
Governor, one Secretary of the Province, twenty-eight councillors or
members of assembly, to be chosen by popular election, and to possess
and exercise the general powers of legislation and government."
2. That there should be "liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of
God to all Christians (except Papists) inhabiting, or which shall
inhabit or be resident within our said province or territory."
3. That "all our subjects should have liberty to appeal to us, our heirs
and successors, in case either party shall not rest satisfied with the
judgment or sentence of any judicatories or courts within our said
province or territory, in any personal action wherein the matter of
difference doth exceed the value of three hundred pounds sterling,
provided such appeals be made within fourteen days after the sentence or
judgment given."
4. That the Governor and General Assembly should have "full power and
authority, from time to time, to make, ordain and establish all manner
of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes or ordinances,
directions, and instructions, either with penalties or without (so as
the same be not repugnant or contrary to the laws of this our realm of
England), as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of our said
province or territory."
5. That in the framing and passing of all orders, laws, etc., the
Governor should have "a negative voice, subject also to the approbation
or disallowance of the King within three years after the passing
thereof."
6. That "every freeholder or person holding land within the province or
territory, to the annual value of forty shillings, or other estate of
fifty pounds sterling, should have a vote in the election of members to
serve in the General Court or Assembly."
7. That "the King should appoint, from time to time, the Governor,
Lieutenant-Governor, and Secretary of the Province; but that the
Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council or Assistants, from
time to time should nominate and appoint Judges, Commissioners of Oyer
and Terminer, Sheriffs, Provosts, Marshals, Justices of the Peace," etc.
8. The usual oath of allegiance and supremacy was required to be taken
by all persons appointed to office, free from the restrictions and
neutralising mutilations introduced into the oath of allegiance by the
ecclesiastico-political oligarchy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under
the first Charter.
9. The new Charter also incorporated "_Plymouth_ and _Maine, and a tract
further east_ in the province of Massachusetts." The Plymouth Colony of
the Pilgrim Fathers had existed from 1620 to 1690 as a separate Colonial
Government, first established by common consent, under seven successive
Governors. It now ceased to exist as a distinct Government, to the great
regret of its inhabitants, after having been administered tolerantly and
loyally for a period of seventy years, as has been narrated above, in
Chap. II.
Such is an abstract of the provisions of the second Massachusetts
Charter--provisions similar to those which have been incorporated into
the constitution and government of every British North American Province
for the last hundred years.[215]
It remains to note how the new Charter was received, and what was the
effect of its operation. A faction in Boston opposed its reception, and
desired to resume the old contests; but a large majority of the deputies
and the great body of the colony cordially and thankfully accepted the
new Charter as a great improvement upon the first Charter in terminating
their disputes and defining their relations with England, in putting an
end to a denominational franchise and tyranny inconsistent with
religious or civil liberty, and in placing the elective franchise,
eligibility to office, legislation and government upon the broad
foundation of public freedom and equal rights to all classes of
citizens.[216]
The influence of the new Charter upon the social state of Massachusetts,
as well as upon its legislation and government, was manifestly
beneficial. Judge Story observes: "After the grant of the provincial
Charter, in 1691, the legislation of the colony took a wider scope, and
became more liberal as well as more exact."[217]
The improved spirit of loyalty was not less conspicuous. Mr. Neal,
writing more than twenty years (1720) after the granting of the new
Charter, says: "The people of New England are a dutiful and loyal
people.... King George is not known to have a single enemy to his
person, family, or government in New England."[218]
The influence of the new state of things upon the spirit of toleration
and of Christian charity among Christians of different denominations,
and on society at large, was most remarkable. In a sermon preached on a
public Fast Day, March 22, 1716 (and afterwards published), by the Rev.
Mr. Coleman, one of the ministers of Boston, we have the following
words:
"If there be any customs in our Churches, derived from our ancestors,
wherein those terms of Church communion are imposed which Christ has not
imposed in the New Testament, they ought to be laid aside, for they are
justly to be condemned by us, because we complain of imposing in other
communions, and our fathers fled for the same. If there ever was a
custom among us, whereby communion in our Churches was made a test for
the enjoyment of civil privileges in the State, we have done well long
since to abolish such corrupt and persecuting maxims, which are a
mischief to any free people, and a scandal to any communion to retain.
If there were of old among our fathers any laws enacted or judgments
given or executions done according to those laws which have carried too
much the face of cruelty and persecution, we ought to be humbled greatly
for such errors of our fathers, and confess them to have been sinful;
and blessed be God for the more catholic spirit of charity which now
distinguishes us. Or if any of our fathers have dealt proudly in
censuring and judging others who differed from them in modes of worship,
let us their posterity the rather be clothed with humility, meekness,
and charity, preserving truth and holiness with the laudable zeal of our
predecessors" (pp. 20, 21, 22).
The Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, the distinguished son of the famous Rev. Dr.
Increase Mather, but more tolerant than his father, has a passage
equally significant and suggestive with that just quoted from Mr.
Coleman:
"In this capital city of Boston," says Dr. Cotton Mather, "there are ten
assemblies of Christians of different persuasions, who live lovingly and
peaceably together, doing all the offices of good neighbourhood for one
another in such manner as may give a sensible rebuke to all the bigots
of uniformity, and show them how consistent a variety of rites in
religion may be with the tranquillity of human society, and may
demonstrate to the world that such persecution for conscientious
dissents in religion is an _abomination of desolation_--a thing whereof
all wise and just men will say, _cursed be its anger, for it is fierce,
and its wrath, for it is cruel_."[219]
It is not needful that I should trace the legislation and government of
the Province of Massachusetts under the second Charter with the same
minuteness with which I have narrated that of Massachusetts Bay under
the first Charter. The successive Governors appointed by England over
the province were, upon the whole, men of good sense, and were
successful in their administration, notwithstanding the active
opposition of a Boston disaffected party that prevented any salary being
granted to the Judges or Governor for more than one year at a time. Yet,
upon the whole, the new system of government in the Province of
Massachusetts was considered preferable to that of the neighbouring
colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which retained their old
Charters and elected their Governors. Mr. Hutchinson says:
"Seventy years' practice under a new Charter, in many respects to be
preferred to the old, has taken away not only all expectation, but all
desire, of ever returning to the old Charter. We do not envy the
neighbouring Governments which retained and have ever since practised
upon their ancient Charters. Many of the most sensible in those
Governments would be glad to be under the same Constitution that the
Massachusetts Province happily enjoys."[220]
But Massachusetts and other New England colonies had incurred
considerable debts in their wars with the Indians, prompted and aided by
the French, who sought the destruction of the English colonies. But most
of these debts were incurred by loans to individual inhabitants and by
the issue of paper money, which became greatly depreciated and caused
much confusion and embarrassment in the local and Transatlantic
trade.[221]
At the close of the war between England and France by the peace and
treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1749, Mr. Hutchinson thus describes the state
of Massachusetts:
"The people of Massachusetts Bay were never in a more easy and happy
situation than at the conclusion of the war with France (1749). By the
generous reimbursement of the whole charge (£183,000) incurred by the
expedition against Cape Breton, the province was set free from a heavy
debt in which it must otherwise have remained involved, and was enabled
to exchange a depreciating paper medium, which had long been the sole
instrument of trade, for a stable medium of silver and gold; the
advantages whereof to all branches of their commerce was evident, and
excited the envy of other colonies; in each of which paper was the
principal currency."[222]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 203: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix, pp. 396-398.]
[Footnote 204: The Plymouth Colony tolerating the proscribed Baptists of
Massachusetts Bay, the Court of Massachusetts Bay admonished them in a
letter, in 1649, saying "that it had come to its knowledge that divers
Anabaptists had been connived at within the Plymouth jurisdiction, and
it appeared that the 'patient bearing' of the Plymouth authorities had
'encreased' the same errors; that thirteen or fourteen persons (it was
reported) had been re-baptized at Sea Cunke, under which circumstances
'effectual restriction' was desired, 'the more as the interests of
Massachusetts were concerned therein.' The infection of such diseases
being so near us, are likely to spread into our jurisdiction, and God
equally requires the suppression of error as the maintenance of truth at
the hands of Christian magistrates."--_British_ (Congregational)
_Quarterly Review_ for January, 1876, pp. 150, 151.
"The Massachusetts did maintain Punham (a petty Sachem in this province
of Rhode Island) twenty years against this colony, and his chief Sachem,
and did by armed soldiers besiege and take prisoners Gorton, Hamden,
Weeks, Green, and others in this province, and carried them away to
Boston, put them in irons, and took eighty head of cattle from them, for
all of which they could never obtain any satisfaction. This colony (of
Rhode Island) could never be acknowledged (by Massachusetts) for a
colony till his Majesty's Charter was published (in 1663), though in the
year 1643 they sent over some in England to procure the King's Charter;
but finding that unnatural war begun, and the King gone from London,
they took a Charter from the Lords and Commons." (Report of the King's
Commissioners, in Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers relative to
the History of Massachusetts Bay, pp. 415, 416.)]
[Footnote 205: In an audience of King William, obtained by the Duke of
Devonshire, April 28, 1691, Mr. Mather humbly prayed his Majesty's
favour to New England in restoring the old Charter privileges; adding at
the same time these words: "Sir,--Your subjects there have been willing
to venture their lives to enlarge your dominions; the expedition to
Canada was a great and noble undertaking. May it please your Majesty
also to consider the circumstances of that people, as in your wisdom you
have considered the circumstances of England and Scotland. In New
England they differ from other Plantations; they are called
Congregationalists and Presbyterians[206], so that such a Governor as
will not suit with the people of New England, may be very proper for
other English Plantations." (Neal's History of New England, Vol. II.,
Chap. xi., pp. 475, 476.)]
[Footnote 206: This was very ingenious on the part of Dr. Increase
Mather to say that the people of New England were called "Presbyterians"
as well as "Congregationalists," as the Church of Holland, of which King
William as Prince of Orange was Stadtholder, was "Presbyterian." But Dr.
Mather did not inform the King that the Presbyterian worship was no more
tolerated in Massachusetts than was the Baptist or Episcopalian
worship.]
[Footnote 207: "The Rev. Mr. Increase Mather, Rector of Harvard College,
had been at Court in the year 1688, and laid before the King a
representation of their grievances, which the King promised in part to
redress, but was prevented by the revolution. When the Prince and
Princess of Orange were settled on the throne, he, with the rest of the
New England agents, addressed their Majesties for the restoring of their
Charter, and applied to the Convention Parliament, who received a Bill
for this purpose and passed it in the Lower House; but that Parliament
being soon dissolved, the Bill was lost." (Neal's History of New
England, Vol. II., Chap. xi., p. 474.)
Mr. J.G. Barry says: "Anxious for the restoration of the old Charter and
its privileges, under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent
applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the wisest
statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent judgment of all
that the best course would be to obtain a reversion of the judgment
against the Charter by Act of Parliament, and then apply to the King for
such additional privileges as were necessary. Accordingly in the
(Convention) House of Commons, _where the whole subject of seizing
Charters in the reign of Charles the Second was up, the Charters of New
England were inserted with the rest_, and though enemies opposed the
measure, it was voted with the rest as a grievance, and that they should
be forthwith restored. Thus the popular branch of the Parliament acted
favourably towards the colonies; but as the Bill was yet to be submitted
to the House of Lords, great pains were taken to interest that branch of
the Parliament in the measure; and at the same time letters having
arrived giving an account of the proceedings in Boston, another
interview was held with the King, before whom, in 'a most excellent
speech,' Mr. Mather 'laid the state of the people,' and his Majesty was
pleased to signify his acceptance of what had been done in New England,
and his intention to restore the inhabitants to their ancient
privileges; but 'behold,' adds the narrative, 'while the Charter Bill
was depending, the Convention Parliament was unexpectedly prorogued and
afterwards dissolved, and the Sisyphæan labour of the whole year came to
nothing.' All that was obtained was an order that the Government of the
colony should be continued under the old Charter until a new one was
settled; and a letter from the King was forwarded to that effect, signed
by the Earl of Nottingham, for the delivery of Sir Edmund Andros and the
others detained with him, who were to be sent to England for trial."
(Barry's History of Massachusetts, First Period, Chap. xviii., pp.
508-510.)]
[Footnote 208: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
388, 389. But, in addition, Mr. Mather had the countenance of Archbishop
Tillotson and Bishop Burnet, who had not only received him kindly, but
recommended his applications to the favourable consideration of the
King.]
[Footnote 209: The King, on starting for Holland, "left orders with his
Attorney-General to draw up a draft of Charter, according as his Majesty
expressed in Council, to be ready for him to sign at his return. The
Attorney-General presented his draft to the Council Board, June the 8th
(1691), which was rejected, and a new one ordered to be drawn up, which
deprived the people of New England of several essential privileges
contained in their former Charter. Mr. Mather in his great zeal
protested against it; but was told that the agents of New England were
not plenipotentiaries from a foreign State, and therefore must submit to
the King's pleasure. The agents, having obtained a copy of this Charter,
sent over their objections against it to the King, in Flanders, praying
that certain clauses which they pointed out to his Majesty in their
petition might be altered. And the Queen herself, with her own royal
hand, wrote to the King that the Charter of New England might pass as it
was drawn up by the Attorney-General at first, or be deferred till his
return. But, after all, it was his Majesty's pleasure that the Charter
of New England should run in the main points according to the second
draft; and all that the agents could do was to get two or three articles
which they apprehended to be for the good of the country added to it.
The expectations of the people (of the Congregationalists) of New
England were very much disappointed, and their agents were censured as
men not very well skilled in the intrigues of a Court. It was thought
that if they had applied themselves to the proper persons, and in a
right way, they might have made better terms for their country; but they
acted in the uprightness of their hearts, though the success did not
answer their expectations. It was debated among them whether they should
accept of the new Charter or stand a trial at law for reversing the
judgment against the old one; but, upon the advice of some of the best
politicians and lawyers, the majority resolved to acquiesce in the
King's pleasure and accept what was now offered them." (Neal's History
of New England, Vol. II., Chap, xi., pp. 476, 477.)]
[Footnote 210: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap, xi., p.
476.
Massachusetts would doubtless have retained the election of their
Governor and their first Charter, as did the colonies of Rhode Island
and Connecticut, had her rulers submitted to the conditions on which
Charles the Second proposed to continue their Charter. Mr. Hildreth
says: "The Charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island never having been
formally annulled, and having already been resumed, were pronounced by
the English lawyers to be in full force.... The English lawyers held
that the judgment which Massachusetts had persisted in braving was
binding and valid in law, until renewed by a writ of error, of which
there was little or no hope." (History of the United States, Chap,
xviii., pp. 94, 95.)]
[Footnote 211: The platform of Church government which they settled was
of the Congregational mode, connecting the several Churches together to
a certain degree, and yet exempting each of them from any jurisdiction,
by way of censure or any power extensive to their own.... No man could
be qualified to elect or be elected to office who was not a Church
member, and no Church could be formed but by a license from a
magistrate; so that the civil and ecclesiastical powers were intimately
combined. The clergy were consulted about the laws, were frequently
present at the passing of them, and by the necessity of their influence
in the origination, demonstrated how much the due execution of them
depended on their power.
"But the error of establishing one rule for all men in ecclesiastical
policy and discipline (which experience has proved cannot be maintained,
even in matters of indifference) could not fail of discovering itself in
very serious instances as the Society increased. The great body of the
English nation being of a different persuasion in this respect, numbers
belonging to their Church, who came into the country, necessarily formed
an opposition which, as they had the countenance of the King, could not
be crushed like those other sectaries. It became a constant subject of
royal attention, to allow freedom and liberty of conscience, especially
in the use of the Common Prayer, and the rights of sacrament and baptism
as thereby prescribed. The law confining the rights of freemen to Church
members was at length repealed (in pretence); and pecuniary
qualifications for those who were not Church members, with good morals
and the absurd requisite of orthodoxy of opinion, certified by a
clergyman, were substituted in its place. But the great ascendency which
the Congregationalists had gained over every other sect made the chance
of promotion to office, and the share of influence in general, very
unequal, and was, without doubt, one of the most important causes which
conspired to the loss of the Charter." (Minot's Continuation of the
History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, etc., Vol. I., Chap. i,
pp. 29-31.)]
[Footnote 212: "Mr. Mather was so dissatisfied that he declared that he
would sooner part with his life than consent to them. He was told 'the
agents of Massachusetts were not plenipotentiaries from a sovereign
State; if they declared they would not submit to the King's pleasure,
his Majesty would settle the country, and they might take what would
follow.' Sir Henry Ashurst with Mr. Mather withdrew, notwithstanding,
their objections against the minutes of Council. The objections were
presented to the Attorney-General (Treby), and laid before the Council,
and a copy sent to the King in Flanders; but all had no effect. The King
approved of the minutes and disliked the objections to them, and the
Charter was drawn up by Mr. Blaithwait according to them." (Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 409-411.).]
[Footnote 213: "A people who were of opinion that their Commonwealth was
established by free consent (_a_); that the place of their habitation
was their own; that no man had a right to enter into their society
without their permission; that they had the full and absolute power of
governing all the people by men chosen from among themselves, and
according to such laws as they should see fit to establish, not
repugnant to those of England (a restriction and limitation which they
wholly ignored and violated), they paying only the fifth part of the ore
of gold and silver that should be there found for all duties, demands,
exactions, and services whatsoever; of course, that they held the keys
of their territory, and had a right to prescribe the terms of
naturalization to all noviciates; such a people, I say, whatever
alterations they might make in their polity, from reason and conviction
of their own motion, would not be easily led to comply with the same
changes, when required by a king to whom they held themselves subject,
and upon whose authority they were dependent only according to their
Charter; and we shall find that their compliance was accordingly slow
and occasional, as necessity compelled them to make it." (Minot's
Continuation of the History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 42, 43.)
(_a_) _Note_ by the Author.--The Colony of Plymouth was established in
1620, by free consent, by the Pilgrim Fathers on board of the
_Mayflower_, without a Charter; yet that colony was always tolerant and
loyal. But the Colony of Massachusetts Bay was established by the
Puritan Fathers in 1629, under the authority of a Royal Charter; and it
was the pretension to and assumption of independent power and absolute
government, though a chartered colony, that resulted in their disloyalty
to England and intolerance towards all classes of their fellow-colonists
not Congregationalists.]
[Footnote 214: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 480, 481.
"Sir William Phips was born, of mean and obscure parents, at a small
plantation in the eastern part of New England, on the banks of the River
Kennebeck, February 2, 1620; his father was a gunsmith, and left his
mother a widow, with a large family of small children. William, being
one of the youngest, kept sheep in the wilderness until he was eighteen
years of age, and was then bound apprentice to a ship carpenter. When he
was out of his time he took to the sea, and after several adventures, at
last made his fortune by finding a Spanish wreck near Port de la Plata,
which got him a great deal of reputation at the English Court, and
introduced him into the acquaintance of the greatest men of the nation.
Though King James II. gave him the honour of knighthood, yet he always
opposed his arbitrary measures, as appears by his refusing the
Government of New England when offered to him by a messenger of the
abdicated King. Sir William joined heartily in the Revolution, and used
his interest at the Court of King William and Queen Mary for obtaining a
Charter for his country, in conjunction with the rest of the agents, for
which, and his other great services, they nominated him to the King as
the most acceptable and deserving person they could think of for
Governor."--_Ib._, pp. 544, 545.]
[Footnote 215: Modern historians of New England generally speak of the
Massachusetts Colony as having been unjustly deprived of its first
Charter, after having faithfully observed it for more than half a
century, and of having been treated harshly in not having the Charter
restored. While Dr. Mather was earnestly seeking the restoration of the
Charter at the hands of King William, Mr. Hampden (grandson of the
famous John Hampden) consulted Mr. Hooke, a counsellor of note of the
Puritan party, and friend of New England. Mr. Hooke stated that "a bare
restoration of the Charter of Massachusetts would be of no service at
all," as appears both from the Charter itself and the practice of that
colony, who have hardly pursued the terms thereof in any one instance,
which has given colour to evil-minded men to give them disturbance.
"I. As to the Charter itself, that colony, should they have their
Charter, would want--
"1. Power to call a Parliament, or select assembly; for their many
thousand freemen have, thereby, an equal right to sit in their General
Assembly.
"2. Power to levy taxes and raise money, especially on inhabitants not
being of the company, and strangers coming to or trading thither.
"3. They have not any Admiralty.
"4. Nor have they power to keep a Prerogative Court, prove wills, etc.
"5. Nor to erect Courts of Judicature, especially Chancery Courts.
"II. The deficiency of their Charter appears from their practice,
wherein they have not had respect thereto; but having used the aforesaid
powers without any grant, they have exercised their Charter powers,
also, otherwise than the Charter directed:
"1. They have made laws contrary to the laws of England.
"2. Their laws have not been under their seal.
"3. They have not used their name of corporation.
"4. They have not used their seal in their grants.
"5. They have not kept their General Courts, nor
"6. Have they observed the number of assistants appointed by the
Charter." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 410,
411, in a note.)
It is clear from the legal opinion, as has been shown in the foregoing
pages, that the first Puritans of Massachusetts, though only a chartered
company, set up an independent government, paid no attention whatever to
the provisions of the Charter under which they held their land and had
settled the colony, but acted in entire disregard and defiance of the
authority, which had granted their Charter. Mr. Neal very candidly says:
"The old Charter was, in the opinion of persons learned in the law,
defective as to several powers which are absolutely necessary to the
subsistence of the Plantation: for example, it gave the Government no
more power than every corporation in England has; power in capital cases
was not expressed in it; it mentioned no House of Deputies, or Assembly
of Representatives; the Government had thereby no legal power to impose
taxes on the inhabitants that were not freemen (that is, on
_four-fifths_ of the male population), nor to erect Courts of Admiralty,
so that if the judgment against this Charter should be reversed, yet if
the Government of New England should exercise the same powers as they
had done before the _quo warranto_, a new writ of _scire facias_ might
undoubtedly be issued out against them. Besides, if the old Charter
should have been restored without a grant of some other advantages, the
country would have been very much incommoded, because the provinces of
_Maine_ and _New Hampshire_ would have been taken from Massachusetts,
and _Plymouth_ would have been annexed to New York, whereby the
Massachusetts Colony would have been very much straitened and have made
a mean figure both as to its trade and influence.
"The new Charter grants a great many privileges to New England which it
had not before. The colony is now made a province, and the General Court
has, with the King's approbation, as much power in New England as the
King and Parliament have in England. They have all English liberties,
and can be touched by no law, by no tax, but of their own making. All
the liberties of their religion are for ever secured, and their titles
to their lands, once, for want of some form of conveyance, contested,
are now confirmed for ever." (History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 478,
479.)]
[Footnote 216: Although a party was formed which opposed submission to
the Charter, yet the majority of the Court wisely and thankfully
accepted it, and appointed a day of solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God
for "granting a safe arrival to His Excellency the Governor and the Rev.
Mr. Increase Mather, who have industriously endeavoured the service of
the people, and have brought over with them 'a settlement of government,
in which their Majesties have graciously given us distinguishing marks
of their Royal favour and goodness.'" (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 416.)
Judge Story remarks: "With a view to advance the growth of the province
by encouraging new settlements, it was expressly provided 'that there
should be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all
Christians, except Papists;' and that all subjects inhabiting in the
province, and their children born there, or on the seas going and
returning, should have all the liberties and immunities of free and
natural subjects, as if they were born within the realm of England. And
in all cases an appeal was allowed from the judgments of any Courts of
the province to the King in the Privy Council in England, where the
matter of difference exceeded three hundred pounds sterling. And finally
there was a reservation of the whole Admiralty jurisdiction to the
Crown, and of the right to all subjects to fish on the coasts.
Considering the spirit of the times, it must be acknowledged that, on
the whole, the Charter contains a liberal grant of authority to the
province and a reasonable reservation of royal prerogative. It was
hailed with sincere satisfaction by the colony after the dangers which
had so long a time menaced its liberties and peace." (Story's
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. I., Book i.,
Chap. iv., p. 41.)]
[Footnote 217: _Ib._, Vol. I., Book i., Chap. iv., p. 45.]
[Footnote 218: History of New England, Vol. II., p. 616.]
[Footnote 219: Fellowship of the Churches: Annexed to the Sermon
preached on the Ordination of Mr. Prince, p. 76; Boston, 1718; quoted in
Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 610, 611.
But the spirit of the old leaven of bigotry and persecution remained
with not a few of the old Congregational clergy, who were jealous for
the honour of those days when they ruled both Church and State, silenced
and proscribed all dissenters from their own opinions and forms of
worship. They could not endure any statements which reflected upon the
justice and policy of those palmy days of ecclesiastical oligarchy, and
were very much stung by some passages in Neal's History of New England.
The celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts seems to have been written to on the
subject. His letter, apparently in reply, addressed to the Rev. Dr.
Cotton Mather, dated February 19, 1720, is very suggestive. The sweet
poet and learned divine says:
"Another thing I take occasion to mention to you at this time is my good
friend Mr. Neal's History of New England. He has been for many years
pastor of a Congregational Church in London--a man of valuable talents
in the ministry. I could wish indeed that he had communicated his design
to you, but I knew nothing of it till it was almost out of the press....
He has taken merely the task of an historian upon him. Considered as
such (as far as I can judge), most of the chapters are well written, and
in such a way as to be very acceptable to the present age.
"But the freedom he has taken to expose the persecuting principles and
practices of the first Planters, both in the body of his history and his
abridgment of their laws, has displeased some persons here, and perhaps
will be offensive there. I must confess I sent for him this week, and
gave him my sense freely on this subject. I could wish he had more
modified some of his relations, and had rather left out those laws, or
in some page had annexed something to prevent our enemies from insulting
both us and you on that subject. His answer was, that 'the fidelity of
an historian required him to do what he had done;' and he has, at the
end of the first and second volumes, given such a character of the
present ministers and inhabitants of the country as may justly secure
this generation from all scandal; and that it is a nobler thing to tell
the world that you have rectified the errors of your fathers, than if
mere education had taught you so large a charity. He told me likewise
that he had shown in the preface that all such laws as are inconsistent
with the laws of England are, _ipso facto_, repealed by your new
Charter. But methinks it would be better to have such cruel and
sanguinary statutes as those under the title of 'Heresy' repealed in
form, and by the public authority of the nation; and if the appearance
of this book in your country shall awaken your General Assembly to
attempt to fulfil such a noble piece of service to your country, there
will be a happy effect of that part of the history which now makes us
blush and be ashamed.
"I have taken the freedom to write a line or two to your most excellent
Governor on this subject, which I entreat you to deliver, with my
salutation; and I assure myself that Dr. Mather will have a zealous hand
in promoting so gracious a work if it may be thought expedient to
attempt it." (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, First
Series, Vol. V., pp. 200, 201.)
The "glorious work" advised by Dr. Watts was not "attempted," and the
"cruel and persecuting statutes passed by the Congregational Court of
Massachusetts Bay were never repealed by any "public authority" of that
colony, but were tacitly annulled and superseded by the provisions of
the "new Charter" of King William and Mary in favour of toleration and
civil liberty."]
[Footnote 220: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 415.]
[Footnote 221: The effect of so much paper was to drive all gold and
silver out of circulation, to raise the nominal prices of all
commodities, and to increase the rate of exchange on England. Great
confusion and perplexity ensued, and the community was divided in
opinion, the most being urgent for the issue of more paper money. For
this purpose a project was started for a Land-Bank, which was
established in Massachusetts, the plan of which was to issue bills upon
the pledge of lands. All who were in difficulty advocated this, because
they hoped that in the present case they might shift their burdens on to
some one else. It was then resisted, and another plan was devised and
carried (1714), namely, the issuing of £50,000 of bills of credit by
Government, to be loaned to individuals at 5 per cent. interest, to be
secured by estates, and to be repaid one-fifth part yearly. This quieted
the Land-Bank party for a while. But the habit of issuing bills of
credit continued, and was very seductive.
"In 1741, Rhode Island issued £40,000 in paper money, to be loaned to
the inhabitants. In 1717, New Hampshire issued £15,000 paper money. In
1733, Connecticut issued £20,000 on the loan system for the first time,
Rhode Island made another issue of £100,000." (Elliott's New England
History, Vol. II., Chap, xii., p. 230.)]
[Footnote 222: History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay from 1749 to
1774, p. 1.]
CHAPTER VIII.
MASSACHUSETTS AND OTHER COLONIES DURING THE SECOND WAR BETWEEN GREAT
BRITAIN AND FRANCE, FROM THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 1748, TO THE
PEACE OF PARIS IN 1763.
By the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, France and England retained their
respective possessions as they existed before the war. Louisburg, which
had been captured from the French in 1745 by the skill of the British
Admiral Warren, aided most courageously by the Massachusetts volunteers,
was therefore restored to the French, much to the regret and
mortification of the New England colonies, by whom the enterprise
against that powerful and troublesome fortress had first been devised
and undertaken. By the treaty between France and England, the boundaries
of their possessions in America were left undefined, and were to be
settled by Commissioners appointed by the two countries. But the
Commissioners, when they met at Paris, could not agree; the questions of
these boundaries remained unsettled; and the French in Canada, with the
Indians, nearly all of whom were in alliance with them, were constantly
making aggressions and committing cruel outrages upon the English
colonists in the back parts of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia, who felt that their only security for life, property, and
liberty was the extinction of French power in America, and the
subjection of the Indians by conquest or conciliation. The six years
which followed the peace of 1748 witnessed frequent and bloody
collisions between the English colonists and their French and Indian
Canadian neighbours, until, in 1756, England formally declared war
against France--a war which continued seven years, and terminated in the
extinction of French power in Canada, and in the enlargement of the
British possessions from Labrador to Florida and Louisiana, and from the
Atlantic to the Pacific. This war, in its origin and many scenes of its
conflicts and conquests, was an American-Colonial war, and the American
colonies were the gainers by its results, for which British blood and
treasure had been lavishly expended. In this protracted and eventful
conflict, the British Government were first prompted and committed, and
then nobly seconded by the colonies, Massachusetts acting the most
prominent part.
The last act of the British Government, pursuant to the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, was to restore to the French Government Louisburg,
in return for the strongly fortified fort of Madras, which had been
wrested from the French by the colonists, assisted by Admiral Warren
with a few English ships in 1745; and the first act of the French
Government, after the restoration to them of Louisburg, was to prepare
for wresting from Great Britain all her American colonies.[223] They
dispatched soldiers and all kinds of military stores; encroached upon
and built fortresses in the British province of Nova Scotia, and in the
provinces of Pennsylvania and Virginia,[224] and erected a chain of
forts, and planted garrisons along the line of the British provinces,
from the St. Lawrence to the Ohio river, and thence to the
Mississippi.[225]
The only means at the command of Great Britain to counteract and defeat
these designs of France to extinguish the English colonies in America
was to prevent them from carrying men, cannon, and other munitions of
war hither, by capturing their ships thus laden and employed; but the
French Government thought that the British Government would not proceed
to such extremities, for fear that the former would make war upon the
German possessions of the latter, the King of England being the Elector
of Hanover. Besides, the proceedings of the French in America were
remote and concealed under various pretexts; the French Government could
oppose a general denial to the complaints made as to its encroachments
on British territory and settlements in the distant wilderness of
America; while any attack by England upon French ships at sea would be
known at once to all Europe, and excite prejudice against England for
such an act in time of peace against a neighbouring nation. The designs
and dishonesty of the French Government in these proceedings are thus
stated by Rapin:
"Though the French in all their seaports were making the greatest
preparations for supporting their encroachments in America, yet the
strongest assurances came to England from that Ministry that no such
preparations were making, and that no hostility was intended by France
against Great Britain or her dependencies. These assurances were
generally communicated to the British Ministry by the Duke of Mirepoix,
the French Ambassador to London, who was himself so far imposed upon
that he believed them to be sincere, and did all in his power to prevent
a rupture between the two nations. The preparations, however, were so
notorious that they could be no longer concealed, and Mirepoix was
upbraided at St. James's with being insincere, and the proofs of his
Court's double-dealing were laid before him. He appeared to be struck
with them; and complaining bitterly of his being imposed upon, he went
in person over to France, where he reproached the Ministry for having
made him their tool. They referred him to their King, who ordered him to
return to England with fresh assurances of friendship; but he had
scarcely delivered them when undoubted intelligence came that a French
fleet from Brest and Rochefort was ready to sail, with a great number of
land forces on board. The French fleet, which consisted of twenty-five
ships of the line, besides frigates and transports, with a vast number
of warlike stores, and between three and four thousand land forces,
under Baron Dieskau, were ready to sail from Brest, under Admiral
Macnamara. Upon this intelligence, Admiral Holbourne was ordered to
reinforce Boscawen with six ships of the line and one frigate; and a
great number of capital ships were put into commission. It was the 6th
May (1755) before Macnamara sailed; but he soon returned with nine of
his capital ships, and ordered the rest to proceed under the command of
M. Bois de la Mothe.
"When news of so strong a squadron sailing from Brest was confirmed, the
people of England grew extremely uneasy for the fate of the squadron
under Boscawen and Holbourne; and it was undoubtedly owing to the bad
management of the French that one or both of those squadrons were not
destroyed."[226]
The King, in proroguing Parliament, the 27th of May, 1755, among other
things said:
"That he had religiously adhered to the stipulations of the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, and made it his care not to injure or offend any Power
whatsoever; but never could he entertain the thoughts of purchasing the
name of peace at the expense of suffering encroachments upon, or
yielding up, what justly belongs to Great Britain, either by ancient
possession or solemn treaties. That the vigour and firmness of his
Parliament on this important occasion have enabled him to be prepared
for such contingencies as may happen. That, if reasonable and honourable
terms of accommodation can be agreed upon, he will be satisfied, and in
all events rely on the justice of his cause, the effectual support of
his people, and the protection of Divine Providence."[227]
This speech to Parliament was delivered a year before war was formally
declared between England and France; and a year before that, in 1754, by
royal instructions, a convention of delegates from the Assemblies of the
several Colonies was held at Albany, in the Province of New York. Among
other things relative to the union and defence of the Colonies which
engaged the attention of this Convention, "a representation was agreed
upon in which were set forth the unquestionable designs of the French to
prevent the colonies from extending their settlements, a line of forts
having been erected for this purpose, and many troops transported from
France; and the danger the colonies were in of being driven by the
French into the sea, was urged." The representation of the imminent
danger to the colonies from the French encroachments probably
accelerated the measures in England which brought on the war with
France.[228]
Mr. Bancroft endeavours again and again to convey the impression that
this seven years' war between England and France was a European war, and
that the American colonies were called upon, controlled, and attempted
to be taxed to aid Great Britain in the contest; yet he himself, in one
place, admits the very reverse, and that Great Britain became involved
in the war in defence of the American Colonies, as the facts above
stated show, and as will appear more fully hereafter. Mr. Bancroft
states the whole character and objects of the war, in both America and
Europe, in the following words:
"The contest, which had now (1757) spread into both hemispheres, _began
in America. The English Colonies, dragging England into their strife_,
claimed to advance their frontier, and to include the great central
valley of the continent in their system. The _American_ question
therefore was, shall the continued colonization of North America be made
under the auspices of English Protestantism and popular liberty, or
shall the tottering legitimacy of France, in its connection with Roman
Catholic Christianity, win for itself a new empire in that hemisphere?
The question of the _European_ continent was, shall a Protestant
revolutionary kingdom, like Prussia, be permitted to rise up and grow
strong within its heart? Considered in its unity as interesting
_mankind_, the question was, shall the Reformation, developed to the
fulness of Free Inquiry, succeed in its protest against the Middle Age?
"The war that closed in 1748 had been a mere scramble for advantages,
and was sterile of results; the present conflict, which was to prove a
seven years' war, was against the unreformed; and this was so profoundly
true, that all the predictions or personal antipathies of Sovereign and
Ministers could not prevent the alliances, collisions, and results
necessary to make it so."[229]
The object and character of such a war for Protestantism and liberty, as
forcibly stated by Mr. Bancroft himself, was as honourable to England,
as the results of it have been beneficial to posterity and to the
civilization of mankind; yet Mr. Bancroft's sympathies throughout his
brilliant but often inconsistent pages are clearly with France against
England, the policy and character of whose statesmen he taxes his utmost
ingenuity and researches to depreciate and traduce, while he admits they
are engaged in the noblest struggle recorded in history.
From 1748 to 1754, the contests in America were chiefly between the
colonists and the French and their Indian allies (except at sea), and
were for the most part unsuccessful on the part of the colonists, who
lost their forts at Oswego and Niagara, and suffered other defeats and
losses. "But in the year 1755," says Dr. Minot, "the war in America
being now no longer left to colonial efforts alone, the plan of
operations consisted of three parts. The first was an attack on Fort du
Quesne, conducted by troops from England under General Braddock; the
second was upon the fort at Niagara, which was carried on by American
regulars and Indians (of the Six Nations); and the third was an
expedition against Crown Point, which was supported by militia from the
northern colonies, enlisted merely for that service."[230]
The expedition against Fort du Quesne ended in the disgraceful defeat
and death of Braddock and one-third of his men, hundreds of whom were
shot down by ambushed foes whom they never saw. The contemplated attack
upon Niagara was never prosecuted; the expedition against Crown Point
was a failure, and exhaustive of the resources of Massachusetts; but,
as a compensation, Colonel Johnson defeated and took prisoner the French
general, Baron Dieskau, for which the King made him a baronet, and the
House of Commons voted him a grant of £5,000 sterling.[231]
The most was made in England as well as the colonies of this decisive
victory over a famous French general and his troops, as the year
otherwise was disastrous to the English, and "the French, with the
assistance of their Indian allies, continued their murders, scalping,
capturing, and laying waste the western frontiers of Virginia and
Pennsylvania during the whole winter."[232]
Nor were the years 1756 and 1757 more successful on the part of the
English than the year 1755. Some of the principal events are as follows:
War was formally declared by England against France in May, and declared
by France against England in August. The expenses incurred by
Massachusetts and other colonies in the unfortunate Crown Point
expedition were compensated by a parliamentary grant of £115,000
sterling.[233]
The Earl of Loudoun arrived from England as Governor of Virginia, to
take command of the British troops in America; but did little more than
consult with the Governors of the several provinces as to military
operations for the ensuing year, the relations of provincial and regular
officers, the amount of men and means to be contributed by each province
for common defence. He gave much offence by his haughty and imperious
demands for the quartering of the troops in New York and in
Massachusetts. Additional troops were sent from England, under
Major-General Abercrombie, who superseded the Earl of Loudoun as
Commander-in-Chief. The fortress at Oswego was taken and destroyed by
the French.[234]
The French, led by Montcalm, took Fort William Henry.[235]
The Massachusetts Assembly refused to allow British troops to be
quartered upon the inhabitants.[236]
At the close of the year 1757, the situation of the colonies was
alarming and the prospects of the war gloomy. The strong statements of
Mr. Bancroft are justified by the facts. He says: "The English had been
driven from every cabin in the basin of the Ohio; Montcalm had destroyed
every vestige of their power within the St. Lawrence. France had her
forts on each side of the lakes, and at Detroit, at Mackinaw, at
Kaskaskia, and at New Orleans. The two great valleys of the Mississippi
and the St. Lawrence were connected chiefly by three well-known
routes--by way of Waterford to Fort du Quesne, by way of Maumee to the
Wabash, and by way of Chicago to the Illinois. Of the North American
continent, the French claimed and seemed to possess twenty parts in
twenty-five, leaving four only to Spain, and but one to Britain. Their
territory exceeded that of the English twenty-fold. As the men composing
the garrison at Fort Loudoun, in Tennessee, were but so many hostages in
the hands of the Cherokees, the claims of France to the valleys of the
Mississippi and the St. Lawrence seemed established by possession.
America and England were humiliated."[237]
The colonies had shown, by their divided and often antagonistic
counsels, their divided resources and isolated efforts, how unable they
were to defend themselves even when assisted at some points by English
soldiers, commanded by unskilful generals, against a strong and united
enemy, directed by generals of consummate skill and courage. The
colonies despaired of future success, if not of their own existence,
after incurring so heavy expenditures of men and money, and wished
England to assume the whole management and expenses of the war.[238]
The colonies had done much for their own defence, but they acted as so
many petty independent Governments, and could not be brought to combine
their resources of men and money in any systematical method, under some
central authority as the same colonies did twenty years later in the
American Revolution; and the first proceedings of Abercrombie and
Loudoun rendered them powerless to command the confidence and united
action of the colonies. General Abercrombie was appointed
Commander-in-Chief, to supersede General Shirley, until the arrival of
the Earl of Loudoun. Abercrombie landed in New York the 12th of June,
with two regiments, and forty German officers, who were to raise and
train recruits for Loudoun's Royal American regiment of four thousand--a
most impolitic proceeding, which offended and discouraged the colonists.
On his arrival at New York he received letters from the shrewd and able
Governor of Virginia, Dinwiddie, recommending Washington as "a very able
and deserving gentleman," who "has from the beginning commanded the
forces of this Dominion. He is much beloved, has gone through many
hardships in the service, has great merit, and can raise more men here
than any one," and urged his promotion in the British army. But
Washington's services and rank were never recognized in the British
army. A week after Abercrombie's arrival in New York, he wrote (June 19,
1756) a letter to Governor Colden: "I find you never will be able to
carry on anything to any purpose in America, till you have a viceroy or
superintendent over all the provinces." He stated that Lord Loudoun's
arrival would produce "a great change in affairs."
The 25th of June Abercrombie arrived at Albany, and forthwith insisted
that the regular officers should take precedence of the provincial
officers, and that the troops should be quartered in private houses,
which he accomplished two days afterwards; for on the 27th, "in spite
of every subterfuge, the soldiers were at last billeted upon the town,"
to the great indignation of the Mayor, who wished all the soldiers back
again, "for" said he, "we can defend our frontiers ourselves."
The next day after Abercrombie's arrival, Shirley (now relinquishing the
office of Commander-in-Chief) informed General Abercrombie of the
exposed and unsafe state of Oswego, advising that two battalions be sent
forward for its protection; that 200 boats were ready, and every
magazine along the passage plentifully supplied. But Abercrombie decided
to wait the arrival of Loudoun, who at length reached Albany the 29th of
July, and joined Abercrombie in the policy of hesitation and delay,
though having 10,000 men at his disposal--the New England regiments,
with the provincials from New York and New Jersey, amounting to more
than 7,000 men, besides 3,000 soldiers of British regular regiments.
In the meantime the French generals were more active and energetic,
taking places of defence between Albany and Oswego, strengthening the
defences and garrison of Ticonderaga (then in possession of the French,
and called by them Fort Carillon), making a palisaded camp near the
mouth of Sandy Creek, close to Oswego, and at length attacking Oswego
itself, the enterprising Montcalm making forced marches day and night,
marching on foot, living and sleeping like his soldiers, and taking the
fort the 9th of August, after a week's siege, capturing 1,600 prisoners,
120 cannon, six vessels of war, 300 boats, stores of ammunition and
provisions, and three chests of money.
Loudoun had sufficient forces and time to penetrate to the heart of
Canada, had he possessed the qualities of Montcalm; but he preferred to
place obstacles to prevent the enemy from attacking him; and after
having spent some weeks in busy inactivity at Albany, he dismissed the
provincials to their homes, and the regulars to winter quarters.[239]
Loudoun never fought a battle in America; and the only battle in which
Abercrombie commanded he kept out of reach of personal danger, was
defeated, and retreated[240] after losing 1,942 men, among whom was
General Lord Howe, who had been selected by Pitt to be Commander-in-Chief
in America, had not succeeded to it, but had become a favourite with the
army and colonists of all classes.
The General Assembly of Massachusetts appropriated out of the public
treasury the sum of £250 for erecting a monument to his memory in
Westminster Abbey, as a testimony to the sense which the Province had of
the services and military virtues of the late Lord Viscount Howe, who
fell in the last campaign fighting in the cause of the colonies, and
also to express the affection which their officers and soldiers have to
his command.
After the disgraceful defeat and still more disgraceful retreat of
Abercrombie, the last of the incompetent English generals, General
Amherst was appointed Commander-in-Chief, assisted by General Wolfe, and
the fortunes of war turned in favour of England and her colonies, and
the French power began to wane in America.
This change in the colonies from defeat to victory, from disgrace to
honour, from distrust to confidence, from fear to triumph, was owing to
a change of councillors and councils in England, and the rousing of the
colonies from the shame and defeat of the past to a supreme and combined
effort with the English armies for the expulsion of the French from
America, and the consequent subjugation and alliance of the Indian
tribes, whose hostilities had been all along and everywhere prompted and
aided by the French, who paid the Indians large bounties for English
scalps.[241]
"But," says Hutchinson, "in the interval between the repulse at
Ticonderaga and the arrival of General Amherst, Colonel Bradstreet (a
provincial officer of New York), with 3,000 provincials and 150
regulars, stole a march upon Montcalm, and before he could send a
detachment from his army to Lake Ontario by way of the St. Lawrence,
went up the Mohawk river. About the 25th of August they arrived at Fort
Frontenac; surprised the garrison, who were made prisoners of war; took
and destroyed nine small vessels and much merchandise; but having
intelligence of a large body of the enemy near, they made haste back to
Albany. The men complained of undergoing greater hardship than they had
ever undergone before, and many sickened and died from the fatigue of
the march."[242]
After the arrival of Lord Amherst, three expeditions were proposed for
the year 1758--the first against Louisburg, the second against
Ticonderaga, and the third against Fort du Quesne--all of which were
successful.
On the first expedition against Louisburg, Admiral Boscawen sailed from
Halifax the 28th of May, with a fleet of 20 ships of the line and 18
frigates, and an army of 14,000 men, under the command of General
Amherst, assisted by General Wolfe, and arrived before Louisburg the 2nd
of June. The garrison was composed of 2,500 regulars, aided by 600
militia, commanded by the Chevalier de Drucourt, an officer of courage
and experience. The harbour was secured by five ships of the line, one
50-gun ship, and five frigates; three of which were sunk across the
mouth of the basin. The landing of the troops, artillery, and stores had
therefore to be effected some distance from the town, and was extremely
difficult and hazardous; but General Wolfe, who led the 2,000 men
detached for that purpose, was equal to the occasion, and displayed
qualities which designated him as the future conqueror of Quebec. After
an obstinate siege from the 8th of June to the 26th of July, the
fortress was surrendered at discretion, and the whole of Cape Breton,
including St. John Island (since Prince Edward Island), came into
possession of Great Britain. The loss on the part of the English was
about 400 killed and wounded; the garrison lost upwards of 1,500 men,
and the town was reduced to a heap of ruins. The conquerors took 221
pieces of cannon, 16 mortars, and an immense quantity of stores and
ammunition, and 5,637 prisoners, including naval officers, sailors, and
marines.[243]
Admiral Boscawen, after taking possession of the Island of St. John,
included in the capitulation of Louisburg, sailed with the fleet for
England, with General Wolfe, conveying the French prisoners to England,
and the trophies of victory. General Amherst embarked, with about
thirty transports filled with the victorious troops, and encamped on the
common at Boston near the end of August, on his march, which he pursued
after three days' rest, to the western forts; for a part of the plan of
operations was, after the conquest of Cape Breton, for General Amherst,
with 12,000 men, to destroy the enemy's fort at Ticonderaga (so
unsuccessfully attacked by Abercrombie the year before), in order to
open a way into Canada by the Lakes George and Champlain, and the River
Sorell down to Quebec, the capture of which, by advancing up the St.
Lawrence, was assigned to the fleet under Admiral Saunders, and to
General Wolfe, in command of 9,000 men. It was intended that the armies
under Generals Amherst and Wolfe should meet and join in the taking of
Quebec; but the junction was not effected, and the two armies operated
separately and successfully. The taking of the fortress of Niagara,
which was regarded as "the throat of the north-western division of the
American continent," was assigned to Brigadier-General Prideaux, aided
by Sir William Johnson, who commanded the Provincials and Indians.
General Prideaux conducted the expedition and planned the mode of
attack; but on the 19th of July, while walking in his trenches, he was
killed by the carelessness of his own gunner in firing a cannon.
"Luckily," says Hutchinson, "for Sir William Johnson, who, as next
officer, took the command on Prideaux's death, a body of 1,200 men from
Detroit, etc., making an attempt, on the 24th of July, to throw
themselves into the fort as a reinforcement, were intercepted and
killed, taken, or dispersed, and the next day the garrison capitulated."
(History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p. 77.)
The expedition against the French Fort du Quesne, on the Ohio river, so
fatal to General Braddock, was entrusted to General Forbes, with
Washington, colonel of the Virginia regulars, as second in command.
Forbes, though wasting under the disease of consumption, heroically
superintended and endured for three months the difficulties and fatigues
of the same line of march pursued by Braddock three years before,
leaving Philadelphia in command of 8,000 men early in July, but not
reaching Fort du Quesne until late in November. On the evening preceding
his arrival, the French garrison, deserted by their Indians, abandoned
the fort, and escaped in boats down the Ohio. Hutchinson says: "The
expedition for dispossessing the French of Fort du Quesne, near the
Ohio, had at first a very unfavourable prospect. The English forces met
with a variety of obstructions and discouragements; and when they had
advanced to within thirty or forty miles of the fort, they were at a
stand deliberating whether they should go forward or not. Receiving
intelligence that the garrison was in a weak condition, they pushed on.
Upon their arrival at the fort they met with no opposition. The enemy
had deserted it, for want of provisions, as was generally believed; and
it was added that the provisions intended to supply that fort were
destroyed by Bradstreet at Fort Frontenac.[244] Thus the gallant and
laborious exploit of Bradstreet in demolishing Fort Frontenac
contributed to the reduction of Fort du Quesne without firing a shot."
"The English now took possession of that important fortress, and, in
compliment to the popular Minister, called it Pittsburg. No sooner was
the English flag erected on it, than the numerous tribes of the Ohio
Indians came in and made their submission to the English. General Forbes
having concluded treaties with the natives, left a garrison of
provincials in the fort and built a block-house near Loyal Hannah, but,
worn out with fatigue, he died before he could reach Philadelphia."[245]
In the same month of July that Sir William Johnson dispossessed the
French of Niagara, General Amherst took possession of the enemy's lines
at Ticonderaga, which the French abandoned after having set fire to the
fort. A few days afterwards, in the beginning of August, General Amherst
obtained possession of the fort at Crown Point, it having also been
abandoned by the French. About the middle of the month General Amherst
received information at Crown Point that General Bourlamarque was
encamped at Isle aux Noix with 3,500 men and 100 cannon, and that the
French had four vessels on the lake under the command of the captain of
a man-of-war. He therefore judged it necessary to build a brigantine, a
radeau, and a sloop of 16 guns. Such a fleet could not be got ready
before the beginning of October; on the 11th of which month General
Amherst embarked in batteaux, under the convoy of armed vessels, and
proceeded down the lake; but encountering cold and stormy weather and
contrary winds, he resolved, on the 19th, to return to Crown Point and
go into winter quarters. No communications could be opened between the
armies of Amherst and Wolfe; but the withdrawal of a great part of the
French force from Quebec, to watch and counteract the movements of
General Amherst, doubtless contributed to General Wolfe's success. The
fleet under Sir Charles Saunders, and the army of five thousand men
under General Wolfe, arrived before Quebec the latter part of June, and
from that time to the 13th of September a series of daring but
unsuccessful attempts were made to get possession of the city. How
unyielding perseverance and heroic courage, against apparently
insurmountable obstacles, effected the capture of that Gibraltar of
America, with the fall of the leaders of both armies in the bloody
struggle, has often been vividly described and variously illustrated,
which I need not here repeat.
The British and colonial arms were completely successful this year.[246]
Bradstreet destroyed Fort Frontenac; Sir William Johnson captured
Niagara; Forbes, aided by Washington, retook Fort du Quesne, and named
it Pittsburg; Lord Amherst took possession of Ticonderaga and Crown
Point; and Wolfe became the conqueror of Quebec. In each of these
expeditions the provincial troops rendered essential service. The
several provinces were prompted to put forth their utmost efforts from
their impending perils by the successive victories of the French and
Indians the previous year, and encouraged by the appeal of the Prime
Minister, Pitt, who assured them of the strong forces by sea and land
from England, and that they would be compensated for the expense they
might incur.
The heart of Massachusetts had for many years been set upon the conquest
of Canada, both for her own security and for the extension of her
northern limits, and she had sacrificed much treasure and many lives
for that purpose, but had failed in each attempt. The taking of Quebec
did not complete the conquest of Canada. On the fall of that city,
Montreal became the seat of the French Government; the inhabitants of
Canada remained subjects of the King of France; the French military
forces within the province, were still very considerable;[247] and M. de
Levi, who succeeded Montcalm as Commander-in-Chief of the army, made a
very formidable attempt to recover Quebec.[248] On the reduction of that
city, the fleet under Sir Charles Saunders returned to England, and
General Murray was left in command at Quebec with a garrison of 5,000
men, which, during the ensuing winter, owing to the extreme cold, and
the want of vegetables and fresh provisions, was reduced to 3,000 men
fit for service, when in April M. de Levi, with a superior force,
attacked the city, drove General Murray's little army from the Plains of
Abraham within the walls, and closely besieged the city, which was
relieved, and M. de Levi compelled to raise the siege, by the opportune
arrival of the English fleet.
In the meantime, General Amherst was energetically pursuing the most
effective measures for the complete extinction of French power in
Canada. At the commencement of the year 1760, he applied to the northern
colonies for men and means equal to what they had provided for
1759,[249] and during the winter he made arrangements to bring the
armies from Quebec, Lake Champlain, and Lake Ontario, to act against
Montreal. Colonel Haviland, by his orders, sailed early in the spring
with a detachment from Crown Point, took possession of the Isle aux
Noix, which he found abandoned by the enemy, and proceeded thence to
Montreal; while Lord Amherst, with his own division, consisting of about
10,000 regulars and provincials, left the frontier of New York and
advanced to Oswego, where he was joined by 1,000 Indians of the Six
Nations, under Sir William Johnson. Embarking with his entire army on
Lake Ontario, and taking the fort of Isle Royale in his way, he arrived
at Montreal, after a difficult and dangerous passage, on the same day
that General Murray landed near the place from Quebec. The two generals
met with no opposition in disembarking their troops; and by a happy
concurrence in the execution of a well-concerted plan, Colonel Haviland
joined them with his detachment the next day. The strength of these
combined armies, and the masterly disposition made by the commanders,
convinced M. de Vaudreuil that resistance would be ineffectual, and he
demanded a capitulation; and on the 8th of September, 1760, Montreal,
Detroit, Michili-Mackinac, and all other places within the government of
Canada, were surrendered to his Britannic Majesty. The destruction of an
armament ordered out from France in aid of Canada completed the
annihilation of French power on the continent of America.[250]
But though the conquest of Canada was thus completed, and the American
colonies thus secured from the encroachments and dangers which had
disturbed their peace and caused much sacrifice of life for one hundred
and thirty years, yet the war between England and France was not ended,
and in 1762 Spain joined France in the war against the former; but the
actual scene of the war was chiefly the West Indies, and the series of
naval and other battles fought there were successive victories on the
part of England. "The progress of the British conquests, which
threatened all the distant possessions of the enemy, was arrested by
preliminary articles of peace, which were signed and interchanged at
Fontainebleau between the Ministers of Great Britain, France, Spain, and
Portugal, on the 3rd day of November. On the 10th of February, 1763, a
definite treaty was signed at Paris, and soon after ratified."[251]
The joy was general and intense throughout England and North America at
such a conclusion of a seven years' open war, preceded by several years
of hostile and bloody encroachments on the settlements of the English
provinces by the French and Indians. It was a war prompted and commenced
by the colonies, and in which their very existence as well as liberties
were involved. No one of the American colonies had a deeper, if as deep
a stake in the results of this protracted struggle as the province of
Massachusetts; no one had more suppliantly and importunately solicited
the aid of money and men from England; and no colony had benefitted so
largely in its commerce and resources during the successive years of the
contest, as Massachusetts. As early as 1755 (the year before war was
formally declared between England and France), the Legislature of
Massachusetts adopted an address to the King, in which, after referring
to their large expenditure in their unsuccessful expedition against
Crown Point, they stated their services and prayed to be relieved from
the burden incurred by means of them. They pleaded the precedent of the
Cape Breton invasion (for expenses incurred in which, in 1745, the
British Parliament had granted them compensation), and prayed that his
Majesty would give orders for the support of such forts and garrisons as
they hoped to establish, and aid them in the further execution of their
designs. And in another address, adopted in October of the same year,
the Massachusetts Court said that the design of securing his Majesty's
territories against the invasions of the French was what his Majesty
alone was equal to project and execute, and the nation to support; and
that unless they could obtain the relief which they were soliciting from
the royal bounty, they should be so far from being able to remove
encroachments that they would be unable to defend themselves.[252]
Massachusetts having succeeded, with the other colonies, to "drag," as
Mr. Bancroft expresses it, "England into a war with France," was thus
importunate in soliciting aid and compensation from England for her
self-originated expenses, and was so successful in her applications as
to make the war a pecuniary benefit as well as a means of securing and
enlarging her boundaries; for, in the words of the historian quoted
above, in a previous page, "The generous compensations which had been
made every year by Parliament not only alleviated the burden of taxes,
which otherwise would have been heavy, but, by the importation of such
large sums of specie, increased commerce; and it was the opinion of some
that the war added to the wealth of the province, though the
compensation did not amount to half the charges of the government."[253]
The monies raised by the colonies were expended in them and upon their
own citizens--monies passing from hand to hand, and for provisions
provided and works done in the colonies; but the large sums appropriated
by Parliament for the war in the colonies was so much money abstracted
from England, sent across the Atlantic, and added to the resources and
wealth of the colonies.
After the close of the war, in 1763, Massachusetts acknowledged her
obligations to England for her protection and safety. In an address of
both Houses of her Legislature to the Governor that year, they
acknowledge that "the evident design of the French to surround the
colonies was the immediate and just cause of the war; that without the
protection afforded them during the war, they must have been a prey to
the power of France; that without the compensation made them by
Parliament, the burden of the expense of the war must have been
insupportable." In their address to the King they make the same
acknowledgments, and at the conclusion promise to evidence their
gratitude by every expression of duty and loyalty in their power.[254]
Mr. Otis, afterwards the most eloquent agitator against England, and
advocate of independence, at the first town meeting of Boston after the
peace, having been chosen chairman, addressed the inhabitants in the
following words, which he caused to be printed in the newspapers:
"We in America have certainly abundant reasons to rejoice. The heathen
are not only driven out, but the Canadians, much more formidable
enemies, are conquered and become our fellow-subjects. The British
dominion and power may be said literally to extend from sea to sea, and
from the great river to the ends of the earth. And we may safely
conclude, from his Majesty's wise administration hitherto, that liberty
and knowledge, civil and religious, will be co-extended, improved, and
preserved to the latest posterity. No other constitution of civil
government has yet appeared in the world so admirably adapted to these
great purposes as that of Great Britain. Every British subject in
America is of common right, by Act of Parliament, and by the laws of God
and nature, entitled to all the essential privileges of Britons. By
particular Charters, there are peculiar privileges granted, as in
justice they might and ought, in consideration of the arduous
undertaking to begin so glorious an empire as British America is rising
to. Those jealousies that some weak and wicked minds have endeavoured to
infuse with regard to the colonies, had their birth in the blackness of
darkness, and it is a great pity they had not remained there for ever.
The true interests of Great Britain and her plantations are mutual; and
what God in His providence has united, let no man dare attempt to pull
asunder."[255]
Such were the official acknowledgments and professed feelings of
Massachusetts herself in regard to the conduct of England towards her at
the close of the seven years' war with France, which was ratified by the
Peace of Paris, 1763, and which secured the American colonies from the
hostilities of the French and their Indian allies for more than a
hundred years. The language of Massachusetts was but the language of all
the American colonies in regard to Great Britain at this period--the
language of gratitude and affection.
Down, therefore, to within thirteen years of the American Declaration of
Independence, the conduct of England to her American colonies is
acknowledged upon the highest authority to have been just and generous.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 223: "The French, upon recovering Louisburg, had laid the
scheme (the particulars of which shall be exhibited in their due place)
for engrossing the whole empire of North America, and in a manner for
extirpating the English interest there. Notice of this was, soon after
the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, given to the English Government by their
Governors in America, and proper instructions were dispatched to them to
resist all encroachments attempted to be made upon the English
territories. The Earl of Albemarle (British Ambassador in Paris) had
orders from his Court to remonstrate on this occasion; but his
remonstrances had so little effect that the French seemed rather
encouraged in than deterred from their usurpations. The English
Governors in America daily sent over complaints of the French
encroachments there, which were too little regarded, in hopes of matters
being compromised." (Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., p. 418.)]
[Footnote 224: "But their encroachments went further (than Nova Scotia),
and this year (1754) they began to make settlements upon the River Ohio,
within the limits of the British possessions in the western parts of
Virginia. They had likewise committed many hostilities against British
subjects in other parts of America."
"All the while the French were multiplying their hostilities and
strengthening their usurpations by new recruits of men, money,
provisions of all kinds, and ammunition, and some of the best officers
in France."
"When the Government of England complained to the French Court of those
encroachments, the Ministry gave evasive answers, and promised that
everything should be amicably adjusted; but without desisting from their
usurpations, which became every day more and more intolerable. The
English, perceiving this, sent general orders to all their Governors in
America to repel force by force, and to drive them from all the
settlements which they had made contrary to the faith of treaties, and
especially along the Ohio." (Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., pp.
478-491.)]
[Footnote 225: "They had been incessantly making settlements upon the
English property since the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and at last they
made a settlement on the western part of Virginia, upon the River Ohio.
Mr. Dinwiddie (Governor of Virginia) having intelligence of this, sent
an officer, Major Washington, with a letter to the French commandant
there, requiring him to desist, and with orders, if possible, to bring
the Indians over to the British interest. Washington had but indifferent
success with the Indians; and when he arrived with some of the Indians
at the French settlements, he found the French by no means inclined to
give over their undertaking, and that the Indians, notwithstanding all
their fair promises, were much more in their interest than in that of
England. Upon further inquiry it was found that the Indians called the
Six Nations, who, by the treaty of Utrecht, were acknowledged to be
subject to Great Britain, had been entirely debauched by the French, who
had likewise found means to bring over to their interest those vast
tracts that lie along the great lakes and rivers to the west of the
Apalachian (or Allegany) mountains.
"Having thus got the friendship of those Indians, they next contrived
how they could cut them off from all communication with the English, and
for that purpose they seized the persons and effects of all the English
whom they found trading with the Indians; and they erected a chain of
forts from Canada to Mississippi, to prevent all future communication
between the English and those Indians; at the same time destroying such
of the Indians as discovered any affection or regard for the British
subjects: so that in a very few years all the eastern as well as the
western colonies of Great Britain were in danger of being
ruined."--_Ib._, pp. 290, 291.
"Though the several provinces belonging to Great Britain, in the
neighbourhood of the French encroachments, raised both men and money
against them, yet the forms of their legal proceedings in their
assemblies were so dilatory that the French always had the start of
them, and they surprised a place called Log's Town, belonging to the
Virginians, on the Ohio. This was a place of great importance, and the
French made themselves masters of the block-house and the truck-house,
with skins and other commodities to the amount of £20,000, besides
cutting off all the English traders in those parts but two, who found
means to escape. About the same time, near 1,000 French, under the
command of Monsieur de Carstrecoeur, and 18 pieces of cannon, came in
300 canoes from Venango, a fort that they had usurped upon the banks of
the Ohio, and surprised an English fort on the forks of the
Monongahella. After this, a great many skirmishes happened between the
English and the French with various success.
"In the meanwhile, orders came from England to the Governors of the
British settlements in America to form a kind of political confederacy,
to which every province was to contribute a quota. Though the scheme of
political confederacy was the best measure that could be pursued in the
situation of the British settlements, yet it had not all the effect that
was expected from it." (Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., pp. 491,
492.)]
[Footnote 226: Rapin's History of England, Vol. XXI., pp. 520, 521.
Rapin adds:--"While all Europe was in suspense about the fate of the
English and French squadrons, the preparations for a vigorous sea war
were going on in England with unparalleled spirit and success.
Notwithstanding, the French Court still flattered itself that Great
Britain, out of tenderness to his Majesty's German dominions, would
abstain from hostilities. Mirepoix (the French Ambassador at London)
continued to have frequent conferences with the British Ministry, who
made no secret that their admirals, particularly Boscawen, had orders to
attack the French ships wherever they should meet them; on the other
hand, Mons. de Mirepoix declared that his master would consider the
first gun fired at sea, in a hostile manner, as a declaration of war.
This menace, far from intimidating the English, animated them to
redouble their preparations for war."--_Ib._, p. 521.]
[Footnote 227: Rapin, Vol. XXI., p. 521. It was during this interval
that the unfortunate expedition, death, and defeat of General Braddock
took place, on the banks of the Ohio river, at Fort du Quesne,
afterwards called Pittsburg. "The naval expedition, under Admiral
Boscawen, was somewhat more fortunate (than that of Braddock), though
far from answering the expectations of the public. He made a prosperous
voyage till he came to the banks of Newfoundland, where his rendezvous
was; and in a few days the French fleet, under De la Mothe, came to the
same station. But the thick fogs which prevail on those coasts,
especially at that time of the year, kept the two squadrons from seeing
one another; and part of the French squadron escaped up the River St.
Lawrence, while some of them went round and got into the same river by
the Straits of Belleisle, by a way which had never been attempted before
by ships of war. While Boscawen's fleet, however, lay before Cape Race,
on the banks of Newfoundland, which was thought to be the proper station
for intercepting the enemy, two French ships--the _Alcide_, of 60 guns
and 480 men; and the _Lys_, pierced for 64 guns, but mounting only 22,
and having eight companies of land forces on board--fell in with the
_Dunkirk_, Captain Howe, and the _Defiance_, Captain Andrews, two 60-gun
ships of the English squadron, and were, both of them, after a smart
engagement, in which Captain (afterwards Lord) Howe behaved with the
greatest skill and intrepidity, taken, with about £8,000 on board.
Though this action was far from answering the grand destination of the
fleet, yet when the news reached England it was of infinite service to
the public credit of every kind; as the manner in which it was conducted
was a plain proof that the English Government was resolved to observe no
further measures with the French, but to take or destroy their ships
wherever they could be met with."--_Ib._, pp. 525, 526.
Yet, in the face of these facts, that the French Government had been
encroaching upon the colonies for six years--ever since the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle; had been transporting soldiers and all the munitions of
war to America to exterminate the English colonies; had put to death
British subjects; and that complaints of these outrages had been made to
England year after year by the Governors and representatives of the
Colonies, and that the French Government had at this time, by fair words
and false pretences, deceived the Government of England, which had
warned the French Government that the English admirals had orders to
attack and take all the French ships, public and private, that should be
met with at sea; yet, in the face of such facts, Mr. Bancroft, with his
habitual hostility to England and endless perversions of historical
facts, says in 1755: "France and England were still at peace, and their
commerce was mutually protected by the sanctity of treaties. _Of a
sudden_, hostile orders were issued to all British vessels of war to
take all French vessels, private as well as public," and "eight thousand
French seamen were held in captivity. All France resented the perfidy.
'Never,' said Louis the Fifteenth, 'will I forgive the piracies of this
insolent nation.' And in a letter to George the Second he demanded ample
reparation for the insult to the flag of France by Boscawen, and for the
piracies of the English men-of-war, committed in defiance of
international law, the faith of treaties, the usages of civilized
nations, and the reciprocal duties of kings." (History of the United
States, Vol. IV., pp. 217, 218.)
Among the eight thousand French seamen held in captivity were the
soldiers destined for America, to invade the British colonies in time of
protracted peace and against "the faith of treaties." Mr. Bancroft also
ignores the fact that a year before this the Commissioners from the
Legislative Assemblies of the several colonies, assembled at Albany, had
represented to the British Government the alarming encroachments of the
French, and imploring aid, and that the French authorities in America
had offered the Indians bounties on English scalps.]
[Footnote 228: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp.
21-23.
"While the Convention was sitting, and attending principally to the
frontiers of the colonies, in the western parts, Mr. Shirly (Governor of
Massachusetts) was diligently employed in the east, prosecuting a plan
for securing the frontiers of Massachusetts Bay."--_Ib._, p. 25.
"In the beginning of this year (1755) the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay,
in New England, passed an Act prohibiting all correspondence with the
French at Louisburg; and early in the spring they raised a body of
troops, which was transported to Nova Scotia, to assist
Lieutenant-Governor Lawrence in driving the French from the
encroachments they had made upon that province." (Hume and Smollett's
History of England, Vol. VII., p. 7.)]
[Footnote 229: History of the United States, Vol. IV., pp. 276, 277.]
[Footnote 230: Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 228.
Dr. Minot adds: "The whole number assigned for this expedition against
Crown Point was 3,700, of which Massachusetts voted to raise 1,560,
besides 500 by way of reinforcement, if judged necessary by the
Commander-in-Chief, with the advice of the Council; and to these 300
more were added after the defeat of General Braddock. The General Court
also voted £600 to be applied towards engaging the Indians of the Six
Nations in the enterprise, and supporting their families. In short, this
became a favourite enterprise both with the General Court and the people
of Massachusetts Bay, not only because it originated with them, but
because it was directed against a quarter (considering the French in
Nova Scotia were subdued and dispersed) whence they had the most to
fear."--_Ib._, pp. 229, 230.]
[Footnote 231: Before Johnson could attack Crown Point, he was himself
attacked in his own quarters, at what was called Carrying Place, near
Lake George, by Dieskau, at the head of 200 regular troops, 600
Canadians, and 600 savages. Johnson's force consisted of 3,400
provincial soldiers and 300 Indians, "regularly enlisted under the
English flag and paid from the English treasury." Among the New England
men was Israel Putman, of Connecticut, then a private soldier,
afterwards famous. Mr. Bancroft, as might be expected, depreciates the
services of Sir William Johnson in this important and successful battle.
But he cannot deny that Johnson selected the most advantageous position
for his camp; sent out scouts on all sides, and obtained timely
information of the approach of the enemy, and was fully prepared for it;
directed the order of battle, in the early part of which he was wounded,
causing his removal from the field, when for five hours the provincial
soldiers, good marksmen, under their own officers, "kept up the most
violent fire that had yet been known in America." The House of Lords, in
an address to the King, praised the colonists as "brave and faithful,"
and Johnson was honoured with a title and money. "But," says Mr.
Bancroft, "he did little to gain the victory, which was due to the
enthusiasm of the New England men. 'Our all,' they cried, 'depends on
the success of this expedition.' 'Come,' said Pomeroy, of Massachusetts,
to his friends at home, 'Come to the help of the Lord against the
mighty; you that value our holy religion and our liberties will spare
nothing, even to the one-half of your estate.' And in all the villages
'the prayers of God's people' went up that 'they might be crowned with
victory, to the glory of God;' _for the war with France seemed a war for
Protestantism and freedom_." (History of the United States, Vol. IV., p.
212.) Dr. Minot justly observes: "Such a successful defence made by the
forces of the British colonists against a respectable army, with which
the regular troops of France were incorporated, was an honourable
instance of firmness, deliberation, and spirit." (History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 254.)]
[Footnote 232: Hume and Smollett's History of England, Vol. XII., p. 25.
"Thus," says Minot, "ended the transactions of the year 1755--'a year,'
says a well-informed writer of that time, 'never to be forgotten in
America.' It opened with the fairest prospects to these distant
possessions of the British empire. Four armies were on foot to remove
the encroachments of a perfidious neighbour, and our coasts honoured
with a fleet for their security, under the command of the brave and
vigilant Boscawen. We had everything to hope--nothing to fear. The enemy
was dispersed; and we only desired a proclamation of war for the final
destruction of the whole country of New France. But how unlooked-for was
the event! General Winslow (great-grandson of Edward Winslow, one of the
patriarchs of the Plymouth Colony), indeed succeeded in Nova Scotia; but
Braddock was defeated; Niagara and Crown Point remained unreduced; the
savages were let loose from the wilderness; many thousand farms were
abandoned; the King's subjects inhumanly butchered or reduced to
beggary. To all which might be added an impoverishment of finances to a
desperate state, the Crown Point expedition having cost, on the part of
Massachusetts Bay alone, £76,618 8s. 9-1/2d., besides unliquidated
accounts to a large amount for the charge of the sick and wounded, the
garrisons at the two forts of William Henry and Edward, and the great
stock of provisions laid in for their support." (History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 259-261.)]
[Footnote 233: "Mr. Fox, on the 28th of January, presented to the House
of Commons a message from the King, desiring them to take into
consideration the faithful services of the people of New England and
some other parts of North America; upon which £115,000 were voted, and
£5,000 as a reward to Sir William Johnson in particular." (Hume and
Smollett's History of England, Vol. XII., p. 42.)
"The sum granted by Parliament was £115,000 sterling, which was
apportioned in the following manner: Massachusetts Bay,£54,000;
Connecticut, £26,000; New York, £15,000; New Hampshire, £8,000; Rhode
Island, £7,000; New Jersey, £5,000. This money arriving in New York with
the troops from England, enabled the Government (of Massachusetts) to
pay off by anticipation the sums borrowed of the Commander-in-Chief, and
to replenish the public treasury. They had also the satisfaction to find
that the Province had not only anticipated the King's expectations in
raising men, but had furnished them with provisions, which he had
ordered to be found at the national expense." (Minot's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 288.)]
[Footnote 234: "The loss of the two small forts, called Ontario and
Oswego, was a considerable national misfortune. They were erected on the
south side of the great Lake Ontario, standing on the opposite sides, at
the mouth of Onondaga river, that discharges itself into the lake, and
constituted a port of great importance, where vessels had been built to
cruise upon the lake, which is a kind of inland sea, and interrupt the
commerce as well as the motions and designs of the enemy. The garrison
consisted of 1,400 men, chiefly militia and new-raised recruits, under
the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Mercer, an officer of courage and
experience; but the situation of the forts was very ill-chosen; the
materials mostly timber or logs of wood; the defences wretchedly
contrived and unfurnished; and, in a word, the place altogether
untenable against any regular approach. Such were the forts which the
enemy wisely resolved to reduce. They assembled a body of troops,
consisting of 1,300 regulars, 1,700 Canadians, and a considerable number
of Indian auxiliaries, under the command of the Marquis de Montcalm, a
vigilant and enterprising officer, to whom the conduct of the siege had
been entrusted by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, Governor and
Lieutenant-General of New France. The garrison having fired away all
their shells and ammunition from Fort Ontario, spiked up the cannon,
and, deserting the fort, retired next day across the river into Fort
Oswego, which was even more exposed than the other, especially when the
enemy had taken possession of Fort Ontario, from whence they immediately
began to fire without intermission. Colonel Mercer being on the 13th
killed by a cannon ball, the fort destitute of all cover, the officers
divided in opinion and the garrison in confusion, they next day demanded
capitulation, and surrendered themselves prisoners of war, on condition
that they should be exempted from plunder, conducted to Montreal, and
treated with humanity. These conditions, however, the Marquis did not
punctually observe. The British officers were insulted by the savage
Indians, who robbed them of their clothes and baggage, massacred several
of them as they stood defenceless on parade, and barbarously scalped all
the sick people in the hospital. Finally, Montcalm, in direct violation
of the articles as well as in contempt of common humanity, delivered up
above twenty men of the garrison to the Indians in lieu of the same
number they had lost during the siege; and in all probability these
miserable captives were put to death by those barbarians, with the most
excruciating tortures, according to the execrable custom of the country.
"The prisoners taken at Oswego, after having been thus barbarously
treated, were conveyed in batteaux to Montreal, where they had no reason
to complain of their reception; and before the end of the year they were
exchanged. The victors immediately demolished the two forts (if they
deserved that denomination), in which they found one hundred and
twenty-one pieces of artillery, fourteen mortars, with a great quantity
of ammunition, warlike stores and provisions, besides two ships and two
hundred batteaux, which likewise fell into their hands." (Hume and
Smollett's History of England, Vol. XII., pp. 92-94.)
"The policy of the French was no less conspicuous than the superiority
of their arms. Instead of continuing the fort at Oswego, they demolished
it in presence of the Indians of the Five Nations, to whom they
represented that the French aimed only at enabling them to preserve
their neutrality, and therefore destroyed the fortress which the English
had erected in their country to overawe them, disdaining themselves to
take the same advantage, although put in their hands by the right of
conquest." (Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 285,
286.)]
[Footnote 235: Fort William Henry was situated on the southern coast of
Lake George, and was built with a view to protect the frontiers of the
English colonies--especially New York and Massachusetts. The
fortifications were good, defended by a garrison of three thousand men,
and covered by an army of four thousand, under the command of General
Webb, posted at no great distance at Fort Edward. The Marquis de
Montcalm had, early in the season, made three different attacks upon
Fort William Henry, in each of which he was repulsed by the resolute and
courageous garrison. But Montcalm at length assembled all his forces
from Crown Point, Ticonderaga, and other parts, amounting to nearly
10,000, including a considerable body of Canadians and Indians; attacked
and invested the fort, which sustained the siege from the 3rd to the 9th
of August, when, having burst most of their cannon, and expended their
own ammunition, and receiving no relief or assistance from General Webb,
at Fort Edward, fourteen miles distant, with 4,000 men, Col. Monro
surrendered upon the conditions that the garrison should march out with
arms, the baggage of the officers and men, and all the usual necessaries
of war, escorted by a detachment of French troops to Fort Edward, and
interpreters attached to the savages. But, as in the case of the
surrender of Oswego, the articles of capitulation were not observed, but
were perfidiously broken; the savages fell upon the British troops as
they were marched out, despoiled them of their few remaining effects,
dragged the Indians in the English service out of their ranks, and
assassinated them under circumstances of unheard-of barbarity. Some
soldiers with their wives and children are said to have been savagely
murdered by these brutal Indians. The greater part of the garrison,
however, arrived at Fort Edward under the protection of the French
escort. The enemy demolished the fort, carried off the effects,
provisions, and everything else left by the garrison, together with the
vessels preserved in the lake, and departed without pursuing their
success by any other attempt. "Thus ended," continues the historian,
"the third campaign in America (1757), where, with an evident
superiority over the enemy, an army of 20,000 regular troops, a great
number of provincial forces, and a prodigious naval power--not less than
twenty ships of the line--we abandoned our allies, exposed our people,
suffered them to be cruelly massacred in sight of our troops, and
relinquished a large and valuable tract of country, to the eternal
reproach and disgrace of the British name." (Hume and Smollett's History
of England, Vol. XII., pp. 207-211.)
Mr. Hildreth remarks: "In America, after three campaigns, and
extraordinary efforts on the part of the English, the French still held
possession of almost all the territory in dispute. They had been
expelled indeed from the Bay of Fundy, but they held Louisburg,
commanding the entrance to the St. Lawrence, Crown Point, and
Ticonderaga, on Lake Champlain; Frontenac and Niagara, on Lake Ontario;
Presque Isle, on Lake Erie; and the chains of forts thence to the head
of the Ohio were still in their hands. They had expelled the English
from their ancient fort at Oswego, had driven them from Lake George, and
compelled the Six Nations to a treaty of neutrality. A devastating
Indian war was raging along the whole north-western frontier of the
British colonies, and Indian scalping parties penetrated into the very
centre of Massachusetts, approached within a short distance of
Philadelphia, and kept Maryland and Virginia in constant alarm."
(History of the United States, Vol. II., p. 479.)]
[Footnote 236: "The Massachusetts General Court had provided barracks at
the castle for such British troops as might be sent to the province. But
some officers (from Nova Scotia) on a recruiting service, finding the
distance (three miles) inconvenient, demanded to be quartered in the
town. They insisted on the provisions of the Mutiny Act; but the
magistrates to whom they applied denied that Act to be in force in the
colonies. Loudoun warmly espoused the cause of his officers; he declared
'that in time of war the rules and customs must go, and threatened to
send troops to Boston to enforce the demand if not granted within 48
hours. To avoid this extremity, the General Court passed a law of their
own, enacting some of the principal provisions of the Mutiny Act; and
Loudoun, through Governor Pownall's persuasions, consented to accept
this partial concession. The General Court did not deny the power of
Parliament to quarter troops in America. Their ground was, that the Act,
in its terms, did not extend to the colonies. A similar dispute occurred
in South Carolina, where great difficulty was encountered in finding
winter quarters for the Royal Americans." (Hildreth's History of the
United States, Vol. II., pp. 476, 477.)]
[Footnote 237: Bancroft's History, Vol. IV., p. 267.]
[Footnote 238: "As the General Court of Massachusetts Bay had been
foremost in promoting the Crown Point expedition, and become
proportionally exhausted of money, so they lost no time in making such
use of the success of the troops in beating off the French as their
necessities dictated. They drew up an address to his Majesty, in which
they stated their services, and prayed to be relieved from the burden
incurred by means of them. They pleaded the precedent of the Cape Breton
expedition (for the expenses of which Parliament had compensated them),
and prayed that his Majesty would give orders for the support of such
forts and garrisons as they hoped to establish, and aid them in the
further execution of their designs.
"When the Commander-in-Chief urged upon them to join in the plan of the
Assembly of New Jersey, who proposed a meeting of Commissioners from all
his Majesty's colonies at New York, to consult what might further be
done for the security of his Majesty's territories against the invasion
of the French, the same impoverishment constrained the General Court to
reply, that the design of securing those territories was what his
Majesty alone was equal to project and execute and the nation to
support, and that unless they could obtain the relief which they were
soliciting of the royal bounty, they should be as far from being able to
remove encroachments as to be unable to defend themselves." (Minot's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 256, 257.)]
[Footnote 239: A thousand of the regulars were sent to New York, where
free quarters for the officers were demanded of the city. Upon its being
objected to by the authorities of the city, as contrary to the laws of
England and the liberties of America, the Viceroy, Loudoun, replied to
the Mayor with an oath, "If you do not billet my officers upon free
quarters this day, I'll order here all the troops in North America under
my command, and billet them myself upon the city." "So," says Bancroft,
"the magistrates got up a subscription, and the officers, who had done
nothing for the country but waste its resources, were supported at free
quarters during the winter."
The same threats were used, with the same results, to the magistrates of
Boston and Philadelphia, to obtain free quarters for the officers.
Bancroft remarks somewhat bitterly: "The arbitrary invasion of private
rights and the sanctity of domestic life by the illegal and usurped
authority of a military chief, was the great result of the campaign. The
frontiers had been left open to the French; but the tempting example had
been given, so dangerous in times of peace, of quartering troops in the
principal towns, at the expense of the inhabitants," (History of United
States, Vol. IV., pp. 240, 241.)]
[Footnote 240: The army consisted of between nine and ten thousand
provincials--seven thousand raised by Massachusetts--and between six and
seven thousand regulars and rangers in the King's pay, where Abercrombie
in person was in command. Lord Howe arrived in Boston from England after
the forces had left the Province, and immediately upon his landing began
his journey, and joined the army before any action took place.
"This body, the greatest which had ever assembled in arms in America
since it was settled by the English, embarked on Lake George the 5th of
July, for the French fortress at Ticonderaga (called Carillon by the
French), and arrived next day at a cove and landing-place, from whence a
way led to the advance guard of the enemy. Seven thousand men, in four
columns, then began a march through a thick wood. The columns were
necessarily broken; their guides were unskilful; the men were bewildered
and lost; and parties fell in one upon another. Lord Howe, the life of
the army, at the head of a column, which was supported by light
infantry, being advanced, fell in with a party of the enemy, consisting
of about four hundred regulars and some Indians. Many of them were
killed, and one hundred and forty-eight taken prisoners. This, however,
was a dearly purchased victory, for Lord Howe was the first who fell on
the English side. The report of his death caused consternation as well
as grief through the army, which had placed much confidence in him.
"About five hundred regulars were killed upon the spot, and about one
thousand two hundred wounded. Of the provincials, one hundred were
killed, and two hundred and fifty wounded.
"The army still consisted of thirteen or fourteen thousand. The enemy
was much inferior in number. The retreat, nevertheless, was precipitate.
Early in the morning of the 9th the whole army embarked in their boats,
and arrived at the other end of the lake in the evening (no enemy
pursuing). Provisions, entrenching tools, and many stores of various
kinds, fell into the hands of the enemy. The English arms have rarely
suffered greater disgrace.
"The ill success of General Abercrombie at Ticonderaga caused his
recall. He seemed to expect and desire it. He was succeeded by General
Amherst." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp.
70-75.)]
[Footnote 241: "The successes of the French the last year (1757) left
the colonies in a gloomy state. By the acquisition of Fort William
Henry, they obtained full possession of the Lakes Champlain and George;
and by the destruction of Oswego, they had acquired the dominion of
those other lakes which connect the St. Lawrence with the Mississippi.
The first afforded the easiest admission from the northern colonies into
Canada, or from Canada into those colonies; the last united Canada to
Louisiana. By the continual possession of Fort du Quesne, they preserved
their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed possession of
all the country west of the Allegany mountains.
"In this adverse state of things, the spirit of Britain rose in full
proportion to the occasion; and her colonies, instead of yielding to
despondency, resumed fresh courage, and cheerfully made the preparations
for the coming campaign. Mr. Pitt had, the last autumn, been placed at
the head of a new Administration, which conciliated the contending
interests in Parliament; and while the wisdom of that extraordinary
statesman devised great and judicious plans, his active spirit infused
new life into all, whether at home or abroad, whose province it was to
execute them. In a circular to the Colonial Governors, he assured them
of the determination to send a large force to America, to operate by sea
and land against the French; and called upon them to raise as large
bodies of men as the number of the inhabitants would allow. The northern
colonies were prompt and liberal in furnishing requisite supplies. The
Legislature of Massachusetts voted to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut,
5,000; New Hampshire, 3,000. These troops were ready to take the field
very early in May, previous to which time Admiral Boscawen had arrived
in Halifax with a formidable fleet, and about 12,000 British troops
under the command of General Amherst. The Earl of Loudoun had returned
to England, and General Abercrombie, on whom the chief command of the
entire forces of the American war had devolved (until the arrival of
Lord Amherst), was now at the head of 50,000 men, the most powerful army
ever seen in America." (Holmes' Annals of America, Vol. II., pp. 79,
80.)]
[Footnote 242: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 74. Holmes
gives the following account of this brilliant achievement: "On the
proposition of Col. Bradstreet, for an expedition against Fort
Frontenac, relinquishing for the present his designs against Ticonderaga
and Crown Point, Abercrombie sent that able and gallant officer on this
service, with a detachment of 3,000 men, chiefly provincials, and two
mortars. Bradstreet having marched to Oswego, embarked on Lake Ontario,
and on the evening of the 25th of August landed within a mile of the
fort. Within two days his batteries were opened within so short a
distance that almost every shell took effect; and the French commandant,
finding the place untenable, surrendered at discretion. The Indians
having previously deserted, the prisoners were but 110. The captors
found in the fort 60 pieces of cannon, 16 small mortars, a large number
of small arms, a vast quantity of provisions, military stores and
merchandise; and nine armed vessels fell into their hands. Col.
Bradstreet having destroyed the fort and vessels, and such stores as
could not be brought off, returned to the main army." (Annals, Vol. II.,
p. 83.)]
[Footnote 243: "The extraordinary rejoicings in England at this victory
seemed to revive the honour of the northern British colonies as the
former conquerors of Cape Breton. The trophies taken were brought in
procession from Kensington to St. Paul's, and a form of thanksgiving was
ordered to be used in all the churches." (Minot's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 38.)]
[Footnote 244: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p. 75.]
[Footnote 245: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 84.]
[Footnote 246: "The distant and important operations in Canada almost
wholly relieved the suffering inhabitants of the frontiers of the
Province; and, indeed, by a train of successes, gave a pledge of the
future ease and security which was about to spread over all the British
colonies. The fall of Crown Point, Ticonderaga, Niagara, and, above all,
the capture of Quebec, closed the year with universal rejoicing and
well-founded hope that the toils of war would shortly cease throughout
the land." (Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II., p. 55.)]
[Footnote 247: "The main body of the French army, which, after the
battle of the Plains of Abraham, retired to Montreal, and which still
consisted of ten battalions of regulars, had been reinforced by 6,000
Canadian militia and a body of Indians. Here the Marquis de Vaudreuil,
Governor-General of Canada, had fixed his head-quarters and determined
to make his last stand. For this purpose (after the unsuccessful attempt
of M. de Levi to retake Quebec) he called in all his detachments, and
collected around him the whole force of the colony." (Holmes' Annals,
Vol. II., pp. 98, 99.)]
[Footnote 248: "In the month of April, when the Upper St. Lawrence was
so open as to admit of transportation by water, his artillery, military
stores and heavy baggage were embarked at Montreal and fell down the
river, under convoy of six frigates; and M. de Levi, after a march of
ten days, arrived with his army at Point aux Tremble, within a few miles
of Quebec. General Murray, to whom the care of maintaining the English
conquest had been entrusted, had taken every precaution to preserve it,
but his soldiers had suffered so by the extreme cold of winter, and by
the want of vegetables and fresh provisions, that instead of 5,000, the
original number of the garrison, there were not at this time above 3,000
men fit for service. With this small but valiant body he resolved to
meet him in the field; and on the 28th of April marched out to the
Heights of Abraham, where, near Sillery, he attacked the French under M.
de Levi with great impetuosity. He was received with firmness; and after
a fierce encounter, finding himself outflanked and in danger of being
surrounded by superior numbers, he called off his troops and retired
into the city. In this action the loss of the English was near 1,000
men, and that of the French still greater. The French general lost no
time in improving his victory. On the very evening of the battle he
opened trenches before the town; but it was the 11th of May before he
could mount his batteries and bring his guns to bear upon the
fortifications. By that time General Murray, who had been indefatigable,
had completed some outworks, and planted so immense an artillery on its
ramparts, that the fire was very superior to that of the besiegers, and
in a manner silenced their batteries. A British fleet most opportunely
arriving a few days after, M. de Levi immediately raised the siege and
precipitately retired to Montreal." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., pp. 98,
99.)]
[Footnote 249: "General Amherst made application to Massachusetts for
the same number of men for the service of the next year as they had
raised the last (1759). _The reduction of Canada was still the object.
This alone was found to be a sufficient stimulus to the Assembly, and
they needed no other arguments from the Governor. The generous
compensations which had been every year made by Parliament not only
alleviated the burden of taxes, which otherwise would have been heavy,
but by the importation of such large sums of specie increased commerce_,
and it was the opinion of some _that the war added to the wealth of the
province_, though the compensation did not amount to one-half the
charges of government.
"The Assembly, at the session in January, 1760, first granted a large
bounty to the men in garrison at Louisburg and Nova Scotia, to encourage
them to continue in the service. A vote was then passed for raising
5,000 men more, upon the same encouragement as those of the last year
had received. Soon after the Governor received letters from Mr. Pitt
making the like requests as had been made by him the last year, and
giving the same assurance of compensation. At the beginning of the year
the English interest in Canada was in a precarious state. Quebec had
been besieged in the spring, after a battle in which General Murray had
lost a considerable part of his garrison. Fortunately, Lord Colville
(with the English fleet) arrived at a critical time and caused the siege
to be raised.
"The danger being over, and there being no probability of any French
force from Europe, it seemed agreed that all Canada must fall in the
course of the summer. The Massachusetts enlistments went on but slowly.
Only 3,300 of the proposed 5,000 men enlisted, and 700 only remained in
garrison at Louisburg and Nova Scotia." (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp. 79, 80.)]
[Footnote 250: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., pp. 99, 100. Russell's Europe,
Vol. V., Letter 34.
General Amherst, in his orders to the army, dated "Camp before Montreal,
8th September, 1760," announces this great event in the following words:
"The general sees with infinite pleasure the successes which have
crowned the indefatigable efforts of his Majesty's troops and faithful
subjects in North America. The Marquis Vandreuil has capitulated the
troops of France in Canada; they have laid down their arms, and are to
serve no more during the war. The whole country submits to the dominion
of Great Britain. The three armies are entitled to the general's thanks
on this occasion, and he assures them that he will take the first
opportunity of acquainting his Majesty with the zeal and bravery which
have always been exerted by the officers and soldiers of the regular and
provincial troops, and also by his faithful Indian allies. The general
is confident that when the troops are informed that the country is the
King's, they will not disgrace themselves by the least appearance of
inhumanity or unsoldierlike behaviour by taking any plunder; but that
the Canadians, now become British subjects, may feel the good effects of
his Majesty's protection."]
[Footnote 251: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 113.
There were still troubles on the borders of some of the provinces with
tribes of Indians, but none to excite serious alarm, and hostile Indians
were soon brought to submission. The majority of the high-spirited and
powerful Cherokee nation spurned every offer of peace; but
Lieutenant-Colonel James Grant, in command of the Highlanders and a
provincial regiment raised in South Carolina, to act in conjunction with
the regular forces, with the addition of some Indian allies--in all
about 2,600 men--defeated them, destroyed their towns, magazines and
cornfields, and drove them for shelter and subsistence to the mountains,
when their chieftains solicited peace.
"This reduction of the Cherokees was among the last humbling strokes
given to the power of France in North America." (Heevatt, II., 244-254;
quoted in Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 108).]
[Footnote 252: Minot's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 256,
257.]
[Footnote 253: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p.
79.]
[Footnote 254: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., p.
101.]
[Footnote 255: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III., pp.
101, 102.]
CHAPTER IX.
RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.
I. The position of England in respect to the other European Powers after
the Peace of Paris, 1763.
Mr. Bancroft remarks: "At the peace of 1763, the fame of England was
exalted throughout Europe above that of all other nations. She had
triumphed over those whom she called her hereditary enemies, and
retained half a continent as the monument of her victories. Her American
dominions stretched without dispute from the Atlantic to the
Mississippi, from the Gulf of Mexico to Hudson's Bay; and in her older
possessions that dominion was rooted firmly in the affections of the
colonists as in their institutions and laws."[256]
The envy and fears of Europe were excited at this vast extension of
British territory and power, which they regarded as the foundation of
her still more formidable future greatness. "Her navy, her commerce, and
her manufactures had greatly increased when she held but a part of the
continent, and when she was bounded by the formidable powers of France
and Spain. Her probable future greatness, when without a rival, with a
growing vent for her manufactures and increasing employment for her
marine, threatened to destroy that balance of power which European
sovereigns have for a long time endeavoured to preserve. Kings are
republicans with respect to each other, and behold with democratic
jealousy any one of their order towering above the rest. The
aggrandizement of one tends to excite a combination, or at least the
wishes of many, to reduce him to the common level. From motives of this
kind, the naval superiority of Great Britain was received with jealousy
by her neighbours. They were in general disposed to favour any
convulsion which promised a diminution of her overgrown power."[257]
This great increase of the naval and territorial power of Great Britain
excited apprehension at home as well as jealousies abroad. Some of her
own statesmen and philanthropists entertained doubts as to whether the
extent and diversity of her vast territorial acquisitions would add to
the strength or happiness of the mother country; and the policy of
centralization and uniformity decided upon, created the discord and
hastened the disintegration which reflective minds had apprehended.
II. The position of the American Colonies in regard to England and other
nations clearly signalized a system of government which the English
statesmen of the times failed to appreciate. The maxim of the King was
not merely to reign, but to rule; and the policy of his Ministers, of
successive Administrations, was to enfeeble what was colonial and to
strengthen what was imperial; whereas the extension of colonial
territory had brought a large accession of colonial experience and
intelligence, which required to be entwined around the throne by the
silken cords of kindness and interest, instead of being bandaged to
England by 29 Acts of Parliament, every one of which indicated the loss
of some sacred birthright or privilege of Englishmen and their posterity
as soon as they emigrated from the eastern to the western shores of the
Atlantic. Those who emigrated to or were born in America were no less
Englishmen than those who remained or were born in England, and were
entitled to all the rights and privileges of Englishmen; among which is
the election of representatives who make laws and provide means for
their government. The original design of colonization by the British
Government was doubtless the extension of its power; the design of
English merchants and manufacturers in promoting colonization was
obviously the extension of their trade, and therefore their own
enrichment; while the design of the colonists themselves, in leaving
their native land and becoming adventurers and settlers in new
countries, was as manifestly the improvement of their own condition and
that of their posterity. As long as the threefold design of these three
parties to colonization harmonized, there could be no cause or occasion
of collision between them, and they would cordially co-operate in
advancing the one great object of growing national greatness by
enlarging the commerce and dominions of Great Britain. This was the case
in the earlier stages of American colonization. The colonists needed the
naval and diplomatic protection of England against foreign invasion, and
the manufactures of England for their own wants and conveniences, while
England needed the productions of the colonial forests and waters. The
colonial trade became a monopoly of England, and its transportation to
and from the colonies was confined to English ships and sailors. Even
manufactures in the colonies were forbidden, or restricted, as well as
their trade with foreign countries, except by way of England; so that
the colonies became so many trading ports for English merchandise, and
the American traders were little other than factors of English
merchants.
However this system of monopoly and restriction might answer the
purposes of English merchants and manufacturers, might contribute to
build up the mercantile navy of England, and even be politic on the part
of Government in colonial infancy, it could not fail ere long to cause
friction with the colonies, and was utterly unsuitable to their
circumstances as they advanced to manhood.[258] As the colonies
increased in wealth and population, their commerce increased with each
other and with the mother country, and overflowed to the French and
Spanish colonies in the West Indies. Even before the termination of the
war of 1755, a considerable commerce had been carried on between the
British and Spanish colonies; the latter needed many of the productions
and importations of the former, and the former needed the gold and
silver, molasses and sugar, of the latter. The British colonies sent
lumber, fish, and large quantities of goods imported from England, to
the Spanish colonies, and received chiefly in payment gold and silver,
with which they made remittances to England for the goods purchased
there.[259] Such was the position of the colonies in respect to Great
Britain and other European Powers at the peace of Paris in 1763; and
such the friendly and affectionate feelings of the colonies towards the
mother country down to that period.
III. The treaty of Paris was ratified in February, 1763; and on the 17th
of March following, the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted among the
estimates the following item, which was adopted by the Commons:
"Upon account, to enable his Majesty to give a proper compensation to
the respective provinces in North America, for the expenses incurred by
them in the levying, clothing, and paying of the troops raised by the
same, according to the active vigour and strenuous efforts of the
respective provinces shall be thought by his Majesty to merit, £133,333
6s. 8d."
The several provinces gratefully acknowledged the compensation granted
them; of which Massachusetts received the largest share.
This was the last practical recognition on the part of the British
Government of the loyal co-operation of the colonies in the war which
established the supremacy of Great Britain in North America. From that
time forward the instructions, regulations, and measures of the British
Government seem to have been dictated by a jealousy of the growing
wealth and power of the colonies, and to have been designed to weaken
the colonies in order to strengthen the parent state. The policy of the
British Administration was undoubtedly to extinguish all military spirit
in the colonies, by creating a standing army which the colonies were to
support, but wholly independent of them; to discountenance and forbid
colonial manufactures, so as to render the colonies entirely dependent
upon Great Britain for manufactured goods, hardware, and tools of every
description; to destroy their trade with foreign countries by virtually
prohibitory duties, so as to compel the colonies to go to the English
market for every article of grocery or luxury, in whatever climate or
country produced; to restrict the colonial shipping, as well as
productions, to British ports alone, and even to tax the trade of the
colonies with each other. All the monies arising from the various duties
thus imposed were to be paid, not into the provincial treasuries, as
heretofore, but into the English exchequer, and to be at the disposal of
the British Parliament.
Had the British Government regarded the colonists as Englishmen in their
rights and privileges as well as in their duties and obligations; had
the British policy been to develop the manufactures and resources of the
American colonies equally with those of England, and to leave to their
local Legislatures (the only Parliaments in which the colonists had
representation by their own election) to legislate on all purely
domestic matters, to dispose of all colonial revenues, and to provide
for their own protection, as before the war with France, and as is done
in the provinces and Dominion of Canada, I doubt not but the American
colonies would have remained in heart and policy an integral portion of
the British empire, and become the strong right arm of Great Britain in
regard to both national resources and national strength. I cannot,
therefore, but regard the mistaken policy of the King and his Ministers
as the primary cause of the alienation and severance of the American
colonies from the mother country.
IV. The proceedings after the peace of Paris, 1763, which caused the
alienation of the colonies from Great Britain, commenced on the part of
the mother country, towards which, at that time, the language of the
colonies was most affectionate and grateful. The first act of the
British Government which caused disquiet in the colonies was the
rigorous enforcement of the Navigation Act--an Act first passed by the
Commonwealth Parliament more than a century before, which had been
amended and extended by successive Acts under Charles the Second, which
had been beneficial both to the mother country and the colonies, which
had given to the naval and mercantile marine of Great Britain their
superiority, but which had, in the application of its provisions to the
trade between the English, Spanish, and French colonies of America,
become almost obsolete by the common consent and practice of colonial
governors, custom-house officers, and merchants. But shortly after the
treaty of Paris instructions were sent to the colonies, directing the
strict enforcement of the Navigation Act. "On the 10th of March, 1764,
the House of Commons agreed to a number of resolutions respecting the
American trade; upon which a Bill was brought in, and passed into a law,
laying heavy duties on the articles imported into the colonies from the
French and other islands of the West Indies, and ordered these duties to
be paid in specie into the exchequer of Great Britain. The Americans
complained much of this new law, and of the unexampled hardship of being
first deprived of obtaining specie, and next being ordered to pay the
new duties in specie into the treasury at London, which they said must
speedily drain them of all the specie they had. But what seemed
particularly hard upon them was a Bill brought in the same session, and
passed into a law, 'to _restrain_ the currency of paper money in the
colonies.'
"At the end of the session the King thanked the House of Commons for the
'wise regulations which had been established to augment the public
revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of his
Crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great
Britain.'"[262]
Though the Bill and regulations referred to legalized in a manner the
heretofore illicit trade between the colonies and the French and Spanish
West India islands, they practically ruined the trade by the burden of
duties imposed, and thus distressed and ruined many who were engaged in
it.[263] It is not surprising that such a policy of restricting both
the import and export trade of the colonies to England, apart from the
methods of enforcing it, should produce general dissatisfaction in the
colonies, and prompt to combinations against such extortion, and for the
supply of their own wants, as far as possible independent of English
manufactures. Popular meetings were held, and associations were formed
in several provinces, pledging their members against purchasing or
wearing clothing of English manufacture, and to set about manufacturing
woollens, cottons, etc., for themselves, the materials for which they
had in great abundance of their own production. Ladies and gentlemen of
the wealthiest and most fashionable classes of society appeared in
homespun; and merchants pledged themselves to order no more goods from
England, and to countermand the orders they had previously given.[264]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 256: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap. v., p. 78.
"The Spaniards having taken part in the war, were, at the termination of
it, induced to relinquish to the same Power both East and West Florida
(in exchange for Cuba). This peace gave Great Britain possession of an
extent of country equal in dimensions to several of the kingdoms of
Europe." (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 391.)]
[Footnote 257: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap.
v., pp. 321, 322.]
[Footnote 258: "From the first settlement of English America till the
close of the war of 1755, the general conduct of Great Britain towards
her colonies affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to
colonization. From that era, it is equally worthy of the attention of
those who wish for the reduction of great empires to small ones. In the
first period, Great Britain regarded the provinces as instruments of
commerce. Without the care of their internal police, or seeking a
revenue from them, she contented herself with the monopoly of their
trade. She treated them as a judicious mother does her dutiful children.
They shared in every privilege belonging to her native sons, and but
slightly felt the inconveniences of subordination. Small was the
catalogue of grievances with which even democratic jealousy charged the
parent state, antecedent to the period before mentioned. Till the year
1764, the colonial regulations seemed to have no other object but the
common good of the whole empire. Exceptions to the contrary were few,
and had no appearance of system. When the approach of the colonies to
manhood made them more capable of resisting impositions, Great Britain
changed her ancient system, under which her colonies had long
flourished. When policy would rather have dictated a relaxation of
authority, she rose in her demands and multiplied her restraints."
(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., page 323).]
[Footnote 259: "This trade, though it did not clash with the spirit of
the British navigation laws, was forbidden by their letter. On account
of the advantages which all parties, and particularly Great Britain,
reaped from this intercourse, it had long been winked at by persons in
power[260]; but at the period before mentioned (1764), some new
regulations were adopted by which it was almost destroyed.[261] This was
effected by cutters whose commanders were enjoined to take the usual
custom-house oaths, and to act in the capacity of revenue officers. So
sudden a stoppage of an accustomed and beneficial commerce, by an
unusually rigid execution of old laws, was a serious blow to the
northern colonies. It was their misfortune that, though they stood in
need of vast quantities of British manufactures, their country produced
very little that afforded a direct remittance to pay for them. They were
therefore under the necessity of seeking elsewhere a market for their
produce, and, by a circuitous route, acquiring the means of supporting
their credit with the mother country. This they had found by trading
with the Spanish and French colonies in their neighbourhood. From them
they acquired gold, silver, and valuable commodities, the ultimate
profits of which centred in Great Britain. This intercourse gave life to
business of every denomination, and established a reciprocal circulation
of money and merchandise, to the benefit of all parties concerned. Why a
trade essential to the colonies, and which, so far from being
detrimental, was indirectly advantageous to Great Britain, should be so
narrowly watched, so severely restrained, was not obvious to the
Americans. Instead of viewing the parent state, as formerly, in the
light of an affectionate mother, they conceived her as beginning to be
influenced by the narrow views of an illiberal stepdame."--_Ib._, pp.
324, 325.]
[Footnote 260: Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, in a letter to Richard
Jackson, Grenville's Secretary in the Exchequer, September, 1763, says,
"The real cause of the illicit trade in this Province (Massachusetts)
has been _the indulgence of the officers of the Customs_; and we are
told that the cause of this indulgence has been that they are quartered
upon for more than their legal fees, and that without bribery and
corruption they must starve."
As a specimen of this "bribery and corruption," the deposition on oath
of the Deputy Collector of his Majesty's Customs at the port of Salem is
given, to the effect that every time he had been in the office it had
been customary for the Collector to receive of the masters of the
vessels entering from Lisbon casks of wine, boxes of fruit, etc., which
was a gratuity for suffering their vessels to be entered with salt or
ballast only, and passing over unnoticed such cargoes of wine, fruit,
etc., which were prohibited to be imported into his Majesty's
plantations; part of which wine, fruit, etc., the Collector used to
share with Governor Barnard. (Bancroft's History of the United States,
Vol. V., Chap, ix., p. 158, in a note.)]
[Footnote 261: "The sad story of colonial oppression commenced in 1764.
Great Britain then adopted regulations respecting her colonies which,
after disturbing the ancient harmony of the two countries for about
twelve years, terminated in the dismemberment of the empire. These
consisted in restricting their former commerce, but more especially in
subjecting them to taxation by the British Parliament. By adhering to
the spirit of her Navigation Act, in the course of a century the trade
of Great Britain had increased far beyond the expectation of her most
sanguine sons; but by rigidly enforcing the strict letter of the same in
a different situation of public affairs, effects directly the reverse
were produced."--_Ib._, p. 324.]
[Footnote 262: Prior Documents; or a Collection of Interesting Authentic
Papers relating to the Dispute between Great Britain and America,
showing the causes and progress of that misunderstanding from 1764 to
1775, pp. 1, 2; London, 1777.
"Four great wars within seventy years had overwhelmed Great Britain with
heavy debts and excessive taxation. Her recent conquests, so far from
relieving her embarrassments, had greatly increased that debt, which
amounted now to £140,000,000, near $700,000,000. Even in the midst of
the struggle, in the success of which they had so direct an interest,
the military contributions of the colonial assemblies had been sometimes
reluctant and capricious, and always irregular and unequal. They might,
perhaps, refuse to contribute at all towards a standing army in time of
peace, of which they would naturally soon become jealous. It seemed
necessary, therefore, by some exertion of metropolitan authority, to
extract from the colonies for this purpose a regular and certain
revenue." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II. Chap.
xxviii., p. 516.)
This was avowed by the great commoner, Pitt himself, the special friend
of America. "In the course of the war between France and England, some
of the colonies made exertions so far beyond their equitable quota as to
merit a reimbursement from the national treasury; but this was not
universally the case. In consequence of internal discord, together with
their greater domestic security, the necessary supplies had not been
raised in due time by others of the provincial assemblies. That a
British Minister should depend on the colonial assemblies for the
execution of his plans, did not well accord with the decisive genius of
Pitt; but it was not prudent, by any innovation, to irritate the
colonies during a war in which, from local circumstances, their
exertions were peculiarly beneficial. The advantages that would result
from an ability to draw forth the resources of the colonies, by the same
authority which commanded the wealth of the mother country, might, in
these circumstances, have suggested the idea of taxing the colonies by
authority of the British Parliament. Mr. Pitt is said to have told Dr.
Franklin that 'when the war closed, if he should be in the Ministry, he
would take measures to prevent the colonies from having a power to
refuse or delay the supplies that might be wanted for national
purposes,' but he did not mention what those measures should be."
(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 320, 321.)]
[Footnote 263: In the work mentioned in last note, "Prior Documents,"
etc., extracts of letters are given, showing the effects of the acts and
regulations of commerce, even in the West Indies. I give one of these
extracts as a specimen:
_Extract of a letter from Kingston, in Jamaica, to a merchant in London,
dated January 27th, 1765._
"Kingston, which used to be a place of great trade and hurry, is become
as still as a desert since we were so wise as to banish our best
friends, the Spaniards; and now the current of that valuable commerce is
turned in favour of the French and the Dutch, who have made their ports
free, and, taking the advantage of our misconduct, have promised them
safety, and so deal with them for all the European goods, upon the same
terms as the English did. Were I to depend upon the sale of goods I had
from you, I should not be able to remit the money these two or three
years."
_Extract of a letter from Jamaica, to a friend in London, dated May
12th, 1763:_
"We are in the most deplorable state ever known in the island; the
channel through which all the money we had came among us, is entirely
stopped up."--_Ib._, p. 4.]
[Footnote 264: Prior Documents, etc., pp. 4, 5. Annual Register, Vol
VII., Chap. vi.
"The Act which gave rise to these movements and combinations against
importing goods from England, passed in the spring of 1764, was known as
the 'Sugar Act,' reducing by one-half the duties imposed by the old
'Molasses Act' on foreign sugar and molasses imported into the colonies;
levying duties on coffee, pimento, French and East India goods, and
wines from Madeira and the Azores, which hitherto had been free; and
adding iron and lumber to the 'enumerated articles' which could not be
exported except to England. This Act was the first Act ever passed by
Parliament which avowed the purpose, as it did in its preamble, of
'raising a _revenue_ for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting
and securing his Majesty's dominions in America.' This Act gave
increased jurisdiction to the Admiralty Courts, and provided new and
more efficient means for enforcing the collection of the revenue."
(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxviii., pp.
520, 521.)
"In order to remedy the deficiency of British goods, the colonists
betook themselves to a variety of domestic manufactures. In a little
time large quantities of common cloths were brought to market; and
these, though dearer and of worse quality, were cheerfully preferred to
similar articles imported from Britain. That wool might not be wanting,
they entered into resolutions to abstain from eating lambs. Foreign
elegancies were laid aside. The women were as exemplary as the men in
various instances of self-denial. With great readiness they refused
every article of decoration for their persons, and of luxury for their
tables. These restrictions, which the colonists had voluntarily imposed
on themselves, were so well observed, that multitudes of artificers in
England were reduced to great distress, and some of their most
flourishing manufactories were in a great measure at a standstill."
(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., p. 346.)
"This economy became so general at Boston, that the consumption of
British merchandise was diminished this year (1764) upwards of £10,000
sterling." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 128.)]
CHAPTER X.
STAMP ACT--ITS EFFECTS IN AMERICA--VIRGINIA LEADS THE OPPOSITION TO
IT--RIOTS AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN BOSTON--PETITIONS AGAINST THE
STAMP ACT IN ENGLAND--REJOICINGS AT ITS REPEAL IN ENGLAND AND
AMERICA--THE DECLARATORY ACT.
The intensity of the flame of colonial dissatisfaction, and which caused
it to burst forth into a conflagration of complaint and resistance in
all the colonies, was the announcement of a measure to raise a _revenue_
in the colonies, by Act of Parliament, on the very day, March 10th,
1764, that the Bills which bore so hard on the trade currency of the
colonies were passed. Mr. Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
introduced sundry resolutions relative to the imposition of _stamp duty_
in America. These resolutions affirmed the right, the equity, the
policy, and even the necessity of taxing the colonies.[265]
"The resolutions were not followed this year by any Bill, being only to
be held out as an _intention_ for next year. They were proposed and
agreed to, in a thin House, late at night, and just at the rising,
without any debate."[266] A year from that date, March 10th, 1765, Mr.
Grenville introduced his long-expected measure for raising a revenue in
the colonies by a duty on stamps--a measure prepared by fifty-five
resolutions (in Committee of Ways and Means), on which were based the
provisions of the _Stamp Act_, which provided among other things that a
tax should be paid on all newspapers, all law papers, all ships' papers,
property transfers, college diplomas, and marriage licenses. A fine of
£10 was imposed for each non-compliance with the Act, the enforcement of
which was not left to the ordinary courts and juries, but to Courts of
Admiralty without juries, the officers of which were appointed by the
Crown, and paid fees out of the fines which they imposed--the informer
receiving one-half. The year's notice[267] of this Bill had given the
opportunity of discussing the merits of it on both sides of the
Atlantic. The King, at the opening of the session, had presented the
colonial question as one of "obedience to the laws and respect for the
legislative authority of the kingdom;" and the Lords and Commons, in
reply, declared their intention to pursue every plan calculated for the
public advantage, and to proceed therein "with that temper and firmness
which will best conciliate and ensure due submission to the laws and
reverence for the legislative authority of Great Britain." As it was a
money Bill, no petitions were allowed to be presented to the Commons
against it. Several members spoke against it, of whom General Conway and
Colonel Barré were the principal, both of whom had served in
America;[268] but the Bill was passed by a majority of five to one. In
America, the old, loyal Church of England colony of Virginia led the way
in opposition to the Bill, the General Assembly of Burgesses being in
session when the news of its having been passed by the British
Parliament reached America; and the resolutions which that Assembly
passed covered the whole ground of colonial opposition to the Stamp
Act.[269] The Assembly of Virginia sent copies of its resolutions to the
other colonies, and several of their Legislatures adopted the same or
similar resolutions. Two days after adopting the resolutions, the
Governor dismissed the Legislature and ordered new elections; but at the
new elections all who voted for the resolutions were re-elected, and all
who opposed them were rejected; so that the newly-elected Assembly was
even more unanimous against the Stamp Act than the Assembly which had
been dismissed. It was said "the fire began in Virginia;" "Virginia
rang the alarm bell;" "Virginia gave the signal for the continent." The
petition from the Assembly of New York was stronger than that from
Virginia--"so bold that when it reached London no one would present it
to Parliament." The remonstrance of Massachusetts was feebler, it having
been modified by the Lieutenant-Governor, Hutchinson, and the Governor,
Barnard. Rhode Island followed New York and Virginia. The Legislature of
Connecticut protested at once against the stamp tax, and sent decided
instructions to their agent in London to insist firmly upon their rights
of taxation and trial by jury. When the news of these things reached
England, and the colonial agents made their remonstrances, it was asked,
"Will the colonies resist?" That was not believed to be possible even by
Franklin; but though no physical resistance was thought of in any part
of America, yet the opposition to the Stamp Act became increasingly
intense among all classes, from the first announcement of it in May to
the prescribed time of its going into operation, the 1st of November;
and armed resistance seems to have been viewed as a possible alternative
in the future. It was as yet looked upon as a contest between the
colonists and the Parliament and advisers of the King, and not with the
King himself, to whom ardent loyalty was professed and no doubt felt. It
was at length proposed that a general Congress of representatives of all
the colonies should be held to confer on the measures necessary to be
taken.
The Massachusetts Legislature met the latter part of May, and
recommended, on the 6th of June, the calling of a Congress, to be
composed of "Committees from the Houses of Representatives or Burgesses
in the several colonies," to meet at New York on the first Tuesday of
October following, there to consult "on the difficulties in which the
colonies were and must be placed by the late Acts of Parliament levying
duties and taxes upon them, and to consider of a general and humble
address to his Majesty and the Parliament to implore relief." A circular
letter was prepared and sent to the Speakers of the Legislative
Assemblies of other colonies; and a Committee was chosen for
Massachusetts. On the 7th of October a Congress met at New York,
consisting of 28 delegates from the Assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, the Delaware counties, Maryland, and South Carolina. The
session of this convention or congress lasted three weeks; the members
were found to be of one opinion on the principal subjects discussed. A
declaration of the rights and grievances of the colonies was agreed to,
in which all the privileges of Englishmen were claimed as the birthright
of the colonists, including the right of being taxed only by their own
consent. A petition to the King and memorials to each House of
Parliament were prepared and adopted. The Assemblies of Virginia, North
Carolina, and Georgia were prevented by their Governors from sending
representatives to the Congress; but they forwarded petitions to England
similar to those adopted by the Congress.[270] It is worthy of remark,
that, with the exception of Boston, the proceedings of the populace, as
well as of the Conventions and Legislative Assemblies, against the Stamp
Act, were conducted in a legal and orderly manner, such as to command
respect in England as well as in America. But in Boston there had always
been a mob, which, under the direction and auspices of men behind the
scenes, and opposed to British rule in any form, was ready to come forth
as opportunity offered in lawless violence against the authority of the
Crown and its officers. In England, eighty years before, mobs were
employed to intimidate the Court, Lords, and Commons in passing the Bill
of Attainder against Strafford, and against Bishops and Episcopacy. The
Rev. Dr. Burgess, the most popular Puritan minister in London at that
time, called them his "band-dogs," to be let loose or restrained as
occasion required.[271] Such men as the "band-dogs" of Boston, who
found a good opportunity for the exercise of their vocation during the
discussions of the local Legislature and public meetings against the
Stamp Act, not content with the harmless acts of patriotism of hanging
Lord Bute and Mr. Andrew Oliver (the proposed distributors of the
stamps) in effigy and then making bonfires of them, they levelled Mr.
Oliver's office buildings to the ground, and broke the windows and
destroyed most of the furniture of his house. Some days afterwards they
proceeded to the house of William Story, Deputy Registrar of the Court
of Admiralty, and destroyed his private papers, as well as the records
and files of the Court. They next entered and purloined the house of
Benjamin Hallowell, jr., Comptroller of the Customs, and regaled
themselves to intoxication with the liquors which they found in his
cellar. They then, as Mr. Hildreth says, "proceeded to the mansion of
Governor Hutchinson, in North Square. The Lieutenant-Governor and his
family fled for their lives.[272] The house was completely gutted, and
the contents burned in bonfires kindled in the square. Along with
Hutchinson's public and private papers perished many invaluable
manuscripts relating to the history of the province, which Hutchinson
had been thirty years in collecting, and which it was impossible to
replace."[273] The universal and intense opposition of all ranks in all
the colonies (except a few of the office-holders) was re-echoed and
strengthened by opposition and remonstrances from the merchants and
manufacturers in England and Scotland connected with the American
trade.[274] Parliament met the 17th December, 1765, when one reason
assigned in the Royal speech for calling Parliament together earlier
than usual was the importance of matters which had occurred in America,
all papers connected with which would be laid before them. After the
Christmas recess, the Parliament met the 17th of January, 1766, when
American affairs were again commended in a speech from the Throne as a
principal object of parliamentary deliberations. Both Houses, in their
replies to the King, showed that they regarded American affairs in the
same important light as his Majesty; and for more than two months those
affairs constituted the principal subject of parliamentary debate, and
the leading topics of conversation among all classes. The application of
the Commons was unwearied; their sittings continued until after
midnight, and sometimes even until morning; the number of petitions they
received, the multitude of papers and the witnesses they had to examine,
occupied much time, accompanied by continual debates. The authors of the
Stamp Act were now in opposition, and made most strenuous efforts in its
justification. The debates turned chiefly on two questions: 1. Whether
the Legislature of Great Britain had, or had not, a right of taxation
over the colonies; 2. Whether the late laws, especially the Stamp Act,
were just and expedient. In the ultimate decision of the first question
both parties agreed, and the House affirmed, without a division, "That
the Parliament of Great Britain had a right to bind the colonies in all
cases whatsoever," without any distinction in regard to taxation. As to
the second question, Parliament decided, after very warm and protracted
debates, in favour of the total repeal of the Stamp Act. Accordingly two
Bills were brought in, pursuant to these resolutions: the one, a
declaratory Bill, entitled "An Act for securing the defence of the
American colonies of Great Britain," and asserting the right of
Parliament to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever; the other, for
the total repeal of the Stamp Act.
[Colonel Barré's celebrated reply to Charles Townsend, and review of it,
on the passing of the Stamp Act, will be found in Appendix A. to this
chapter; and Lord Chancellor Camden's opinion, and the great commoner
Pitt's memorable sayings in the discussion on the _repeal_ of the Stamp
Act, will be found in Appendix B.]
The Declaratory Act, though avowing the absolute power of Parliament to
bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and rescinding, as far as an
Act of Parliament could, all the declarations and resolutions which had
been adopted by the Colonial Assemblies and public meetings against the
authority of Parliament, attracted very little attention amid the
absorbing interest centred in the Stamp Act, and the universal
rejoicings on both sides of the Atlantic at its repeal. The Declaratory
Act, as it was called, passed the Commons the beginning of February; and
on the 18th of the month, after a vehement discussion, closed by the
speeches of Messrs. Grenville and Pitt, the House of Commons, at three
o'clock in the morning, repealed the Stamp Act by a majority of 275 to
167. The House of Lords, after warm and protracted discussions, voted
for its repeal by a majority of 100 to 71; and three days afterwards,
the 18th of March, the royal assent was given to the Act--"An event,"
says the Annual Register for 1766, "that caused more universal joy
throughout the British dominions than perhaps any other that can be
remembered."
"Ships in the River Thames displayed their colours, and houses were
illuminated all over the city. It was no sooner known in America, than
the colonists rescinded their resolutions, and recommenced their
mercantile intercourse with the mother country. They presented their
homespun clothes to the poor, and imported more largely than ever. The
churches resounded with thanksgivings; and their public and private
rejoicings knew no bounds. By letters, addresses, and other means,
almost all the colonies showed unequivocal marks of acknowledgment and
gratitude. So sudden a calm after so violent a storm is without a
parallel in history. By the judicious sacrifice of one law, Great
Britain procured an acquiescence in all that remained."[275]
APPENDIX A. TO CHAPTER X.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN CHARLES TOWNSEND AND COLONEL BARRÉ IN THE DEBATE ON
PASSING THE STAMP ACT, REFERRED TO ON PAGE 293.
It was during the discussion on this Bill that Colonel Barré made the
famous retort to Mr. Charles Townsend, head of the Board of Trade. Mr.
Townsend made an able speech in support of the Bill and the equity of
the taxation, and insisted that the colonies had borne but a small
proportion of the expenses of the last war, and had yet obtained by it
immense advantages at a vast expense to the mother country. He concluded
in the following words:
"And now will these American children, planted by our care, nourished
by our indulgence to a degree of strength and opulence, and protected by
our arms, grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy
burden under which we lie?"
As he sat down, Colonel Barré rose and replied with great energy, and,
under the influence of intense excitement, uttered the following
impassioned retort to the concluding words of Charles Townsend's speech:
"_They planted by your care!_ No; your oppressions planted them in
America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated,
inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the
hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others to the
cruelties of a savage foe--the most subtle, and I will take upon me to
say the most formidable of any people upon the face of God's earth; and
yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all
hardships with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own
country from the hands of those who should have been their friends.
"_They nourished by your indulgence!_ They grew by your neglect of them.
As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in
sending persons to rule over them, in one department and another, who
were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some members of this House,
sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to
prey upon them; men whose behaviour, on many occasions, has caused the
blood of those _sons of liberty_ to recoil within them; men promoted to
the highest seats of justice--some who, to my knowledge, were glad, by
going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to the bar of a
Court of justice in their own.
"_They protected by your arms!_ They have nobly taken up arms in your
defence; have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious
industry, for the defence of a country whose frontier was drenched in
blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your
emolument. And, believe me--remember, I this day told you so--the same
spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany
them still. But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God
knows, I do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I
deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However superior to me
in general knowledge and experience the respectable body of this House
may be, yet I claim to know more of America than most of you, having
seen and been conversant in that country. The people, I believe, are as
truly loyal as any subjects the King has; but a people jealous of their
liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated.
But the subject is too delicate; I will say no more."
_Remarks on the Speeches of Mr. Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré._
Perhaps the English language does not present a more eloquent and
touching appeal than these words of Colonel Barré, the utterances of a
sincere and patriotic heart. They were taken down by a friend at the
time of delivery, sent across the Atlantic, published and circulated in
every form throughout America, and probably produced more effect upon
the minds of the colonists than anything ever uttered or written. Very
likely not one out of a thousand of those who have read them, carried
away by their eloquence and fervour, has ever thought of analysing them
to ascertain how far they are just or true; yet I am bound to say that
their misstatements are such as to render their argument fallacious from
beginning to end, with the exception of their just tribute to the
character of the American colonists.
The words of Charles Townsend were insulting to the colonists to the
last degree, and were open to the severest rebuke. He assumed that
because the settlements in America were infant settlements, in
comparison with those of the mother country, the settlers themselves
were but children, and should be treated as such; whereas the fathers of
new settlements and their commerce, the guiding spirits in their
advancement, are the most advanced men of their nation and age, the
pioneers of enterprise and civilization; and as such they are entitled
to peculiar respect and consideration, instead of their being referred
to as children, and taxed without their consent by men who, whatever
their rank in the society and public affairs of England, could not
compare with them in what constituted real manhood greatness. But though
Charles Townsend's insulting haughtiness to the American colonists, and
his proposal to treat them as minors, destitute of the feelings and
rights of grown-up Englishmen, merited the severest rebuke, yet that did
not justify the statements and counter-pretensions on which Colonel
Barré founded that rebuke. Let us briefly examine some of his
statements.
1. He says that the oppressions of England planted the settlers in
America, who fled from English tyranny to a then uncultivated,
inhospitable country.
In reply it may be affirmed, as a notorious fact, that the southern and
middle colonies, even to Pennsylvania, were nationalized by the kings of
England from their commencement, and were frequently assisted by both
King and Parliament. The Dutch and the Swedes were the fathers of the
settlements of New York and New Jersey. The "Pilgrim Fathers," the
founders of the Plymouth colony, did, however, flee from persecution in
England in the first years of King James, but found their eleven years'
residence in Holland less agreeable than settlement under English rule,
or rather English indulgence, in America. The founders of the
Massachusetts Bay settlement were a Puritan section of the Church of
England, of which they professed to be devoted members after they
embarked for America. A wealthy company of them determined to found a
settlement in America, where they could enjoy the pure worship of the
Church of England without the ceremonies enjoined by Archbishop
Laud--where they could convert the savage Indians, and pursue the fur
and fish trade, and agriculture; but they were no more driven to America
by the "tyranny" of England, than the hundreds of thousands of Puritans
who remained in England, overthrew the monarchy, beheaded the king,
abolished the Church of England, first established Presbyterianism and
then abolished it, and determined upon the establishment of
Congregationalism at the moment of Cromwell's death. But those "Puritan
Fathers" who came to Massachusetts Bay, actually came under the auspices
of a "Royal Charter," which they cherished as the greatest boon
conferred upon any people. But among their first acts after their
arrival at Massachusetts Bay was that to abolish the Church of England
worship itself, and set up the Congregational worship in its place; to
proscribe the Common Prayer Book, and forbid its use even in private
families, and to banish those who persisted in its use. And instead of
converting and christianizing the savage heathen--the chief professed
object of their emigration, and so expressed in their Royal Charter of
incorporation--they never sent a missionary or established a school
among them for more than twelve years; and then the first and long the
only missionary among the Indians was John Elliott, self-appointed, and
supported by contributions from England. But during those twelve years,
and afterwards, they slew the Indians by thousands, as the Canaanites
and Amalekites, to be rooted out of the land which God had given to "the
saints" (that is, to themselves), to be possessed and enjoyed by them.
The savage foe, whose arms were bows and arrows,[276] were made
"formidable" in defence of their homes, which they had inherited from
their forefathers; and if, in defence and attempted recovery of their
homes when driven from them, they inflicted, after their own mode of
warfare, "cruelties" upon their invaders, yet they themselves were the
greatest sufferers, almost to annihilation.[277]
2. "The colonies being nourished by the indulgence" of England, assumed
by Charles Townsend, is the second ground of Colonel Barré's retort, who
affirmed that the colonies grew by England's neglect of them, and that
as soon as she began to care for them, that care was exercised in
sending persons to rule over them in one department or another, etc.
In reply, let it be remembered that three out of the four New England
colonies--Plymouth, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--elected their own
governors and officers from the beginning to the end of their colonial
existence, as did Massachusetts during the first half century of her
first Charter, which she forfeited by her usurpations, persecutions, and
encroachments upon the rights of others, as I have shown in Chapter VI.
of this history; and it has been shown in Chapter VII., on the authority
of Puritan ministers, jurists, and historians, that during the seventy
years that Massachusetts was ruled under the second Royal Charter, her
governors being appointed by the Crown, she advanced in social unity, in
breadth and dignity of legislation, and in equity of government,
commerce, and prosperity, beyond anything she had enjoyed and manifested
under the first Charter--so much so, that the neighbouring colonies
would have gladly been favoured with her system of government. It is
possible there may have been individual instances of inefficiency, and
even failure of character, in some officers of the Government during a
period of seventy years, as is the case in all Governments, but such
instances were few, if they occurred at all, and such as to afford no
just pretext for the rhapsody and insinuations of Colonel Barré on the
subject.
3. In the third place, Colonel Barré denied that the colonies had been
defended by the arms of England, and said, on the contrary, "they have
nobly taken arms in your defence." It is true the colonists carried on
their own local contests with the Indians. The northern colonies
conceived the idea of driving the French out of America, and twice
attacked Quebec for that purpose, but they failed; and the French and
Indians made such encroachments upon them that they implored aid from
England "to prevent their being driven into the sea." It was not until
England "nobly took up arms" in their behalf, and sent navies and armies
for their "defence," that the progress of French arms and Indian
depredations were arrested in America, and the colonists were delivered
from enemies who had disturbed their peace and endangered their safety
for more than a century. At the close of the last French war, the
colonies themselves, through their Legislatures, gratefully acknowledged
their indebtedness to the mother country for their deliverance and
safety, which, without her aid, they said they never could have secured.
APPENDIX B.
OPINIONS OF MR. GRENVILLE, MR. PITT, AND LORD CAMDEN (FORMERLY CHIEF
JUSTICE PRATT) ON THE STAMP ACT AND ITS REPEAL.
The great commoner, Pitt, was not present in the Commons when the
Declaratory and Stamp Acts were passed in 1765; but he was present at
one sitting when an address to the King, in reply to a speech from the
Throne, relating to opposition in America to the Stamp Act, was
discussed, and in which the propriety of repealing that Act was mooted
and partially argued. Mr. Pitt held the right of Parliament to impose
external taxes on the colonies by imposing duties on goods imported into
them, but not to impose internal taxes, such as the Stamp Act imposed.
In the course of his speech Mr. Pitt said:
"It is a long time since I have attended in Parliament. When the
resolution was taken in the House to tax America, I was ill in bed. If I
could have endured to have been carried in my bed, so great was the
agitation of my mind for the consequences, I would have solicited some
kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony
against it. It is now an Act that has been passed. I would speak with
decency of every act of this House; but I must beg the indulgence to
speak of it with freedom.
"As my health and life are so very infirm and precarious, that I may not
be able to attend on the day that may be fixed by this House for the
consideration of America, I must now, though somewhat unseasonably,
leaving the expediency of the Stamp Act to some other time, speak to a
point of infinite moment--I mean the right. On a question that may
mortally wound the freedom of three millions of virtuous and brave
subjects beyond the Atlantic Ocean, I cannot be silent. America being
neither really nor virtually represented in Westminster, cannot be held
legally, or constitutionally, or reasonably subject to obedience to any
money bill of this kingdom. The colonies are, equally with yourselves,
entitled to all the natural rights of mankind, and the peculiar
privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by the laws, and equally
participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans
are the sons, not the bastards, of England. As subjects, they are
entitled to the common right of representation, and cannot be bound to
pay taxes without their consent....
"The Commons of America, represented in their several Assemblies, have
ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional
right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been
slaves if they had not enjoyed it....
"If this House suffers the Stamp Act to continue in force, France will
gain more by your colonies than she ever could have done if her arms in
the last war had been victorious.
"I never shall own the justice of taxing America internally until she
enjoys the right of representation. In every other point of legislation
the authority of Parliament is like the north star, fixed for the
reciprocal benefit of the parent country and her colonies. The British
Parliament, as the supreme gathering and legislative power, has always
bound them by her laws, by her regulations of their trade and
manufactures, and even in the more absolute interdiction of both. The
power of Parliament, like the circulation from the human heart, active,
vigorous, and perfect in the smallest fibre of the arterial system, may
be known in the colonies by the prohibition of their carrying a hat to
market over the line of one province into another; or by breaking down
the loom in the most distant corner of the British empire in America;
and if this power were denied, I would not permit them to manufacture a
lock of wool, or form a horse-shoe or hob-nail. But I repeat the House
has no right to lay an internal tax upon America, that country not being
represented."
After Pitt ceased, a pause ensued, when General Conway rose and said:
"I not only adopt all that has just been said, but believe it expresses
the sentiments of most if not all the King's servants and wish it may be
the unanimous opinion of this House."
Mr. Grenville, author of the Stamp Act, now leader of the opposition,
recovering by this time his self-possession, replied at length to Mr.
Pitt. Among other things he said:
"The disturbances in America began in July, and now we are in the middle
of January; lately they were only occurrences; they are now grown to
tumults and riots; they border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I
have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to
produce revolution. The government over them being dissolved, a
revolution will take place in America.
"External and internal taxation are the same in effect, and only differ
in name. That the sovereign has the supreme legislative power over
America cannot be denied; and taxation is a part of sovereign power. It
is one branch of the legislation. It has been and it is exercised over
those who are not and were never represented. It is exercised over the
India Company, the merchants of London, the proprietors of the stocks,
and over many great manufacturing towns." ...
"To hold that the King, by the concession of a Charter, can exempt a
family or a colony from taxation by Parliament, degrades the
constitution of England. If the colonies, instead of throwing off
entirely the authority of Parliament, had presented a petition to send
to it deputies elected among themselves, this step would have evoked
their attachment to the Crown and their affection for the mother
country, and would have merited attention.
"The Stamp Act is but a pretext of which they make use to arrive at
independence. (French report.) It was thoroughly considered, and not
hurried at the end of the session. It passed through the different
stages in full Houses, with only one division. When I proposed to tax
America, I asked the House if any gentleman would object to the right; I
repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. Protection and
obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is
bound to yield obedience. If not, tell us when they were emancipated?
When they wanted the protection of this kingdom, they were always ready
to ask it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most
full and ample manner. The nation has run itself into an immense debt to
give it to them; and now that they are called upon to contribute a small
share towards an expense arising from themselves, they renounce your
authority, insult your officers, and break out, I might almost say, into
open rebellion.
"The seditious spirit of the colonists owes its birth to the factions in
this House. We were told we tread on tender ground; we were told to
expect disobedience. What was this but telling the Americans to stand
out against the law, to encourage their obstinacy, with the expectation
of support from hence? Let us only hold back a little, they would say;
our friends will soon be in power.
"Ungrateful people of America! When I had the honour to serve the Crown,
while you yourselves were loaded with an enormous debt of one hundred
and forty millions sterling, and paid a revenue of ten millions
sterling, you have given bounties on their timber, on their iron, their
hemp, and many other articles. You have restored in their favour the Act
of Navigation, that palladium of British commerce. I offered to do
everything in my power to advance the trade of America. I discouraged no
trade but what was prohibited by Act of Parliament. I was above giving
an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place it becomes me to
wipe off the aspersion."
When Grenville sat down, several members got up; but the House clamoured
for Pitt, who seemed to rise. A point of order was decided in favour of
his speaking, and the cry of "Go on, go on!" resounded from all parts of
the House. Pitt, addressing the Speaker, said:
"Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They
have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy Act, and
that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of
speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not
discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise; no gentleman ought to
be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who
calumniates it might and ought to have profited. He ought to have
desisted from his project. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate;
America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has
resisted." (At this word the members of the House were startled as
though an electric spark had darted through them all.) "I rejoice that
America has resisted. If its millions of inhabitants had submitted,
taxes would soon have been laid on Ireland; and if ever this nation
should have a tyrant for its king, six millions of freemen, so dead to
all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would
be fit instruments to make slaves of the rest." ...
"The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed and are not
represented--the East India Company, merchants, stockholders,
manufacturers. Surely many of these are represented in other capacities.
It is a misfortune that more are not actually represented. But they are
all inhabitants of Great Britain, and as such are virtually represented.
They have connection with those that elect, and they have influence over
them.
"Not one of the Ministers who have taken the lead of government since
the accession of King William ever recommended a tax like this of the
Stamp Act. Lord Halifax, educated in the House of Commons; Lord Oxford,
Lord Orford, a great revenue minister (Walpole), never thought of this.
None of these ever dreamed of robbing the colonies of their
constitutional rights. This was reserved to mark the era of the late
Administration.
"The gentleman boasts of his bounties to America. Are not these bounties
intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If so, where is the
peculiar merit to America? If they are not, he has misapplied the
national treasures.
"If the gentleman cannot understand the difference between internal and
external taxes, I cannot help it. But there is a plain distinction
between taxes levied for purposes of _raising revenue_ and duties
imposed for the _regulation of trade_, for the accommodation of the
subject, although in the consequences some revenue may incidentally
arise for the latter.
"The gentleman asks when were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know
when they were made slaves? But I do not dwell upon words. The profits
to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies through all its branches
is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly
through the last war. The estates that were rented at two thousand
pounds a year threescore years ago, are at three thousand pounds at
present. You owe this to America. This is the price that America pays
for your protection;[278] and shall a miserable financier come with a
boast that he can fetch a peppercorn into the exchequer to the loss of
millions to the nation?[279] I dare not say how much higher these
profits may be augmented. Omitting the immense increase of people in the
northern colonies by natural population, and the emigration from every
part of Europe, I am convinced the whole commercial system may be
altered to advantage." ...
"Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my
opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and
immediately; that the reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was
founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong
terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of
legislation, that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures,
and exercise every power whatsoever except that of taking their money
out of their pockets without their consent.
"Let us be content with the advantage which Providence has bestowed upon
us. We have attained the highest glory and greatness. Let us strive long
to preserve them for our own happiness and that of our posterity."[280]
The effect of Pitt's speech was prodigious, combining cogency of
argument with fervour of feeling, splendour of eloquence, and matchless
oratorical power. The very next day the Duke of Grafton advised the King
to send for Pitt; but the King declined, though in a state of "extreme
agitation." Nevertheless, the Duke of Grafton himself sought an
interview with Pitt, who showed every disposition to unite with certain
members and friends of the liberal Rockingham Administration to promote
the repeal of the Stamp Act and the pacification of America; but it was
found that many of the friends and advocates of America did not agree
with Pitt in denying the right of Parliament to tax America, though they
deemed it inexpedient and unjust. Pitt could not therefore accept
office. Mr. Bancroft remarks: "The principle of giving up all taxation
over the colonies, on which the union was to have rested, had implacable
opponents in the family of Hardwicke, and in the person of Rockingham's
own private secretary (Edmund Burke). 'If ever one man lived more
zealous than another for the supremacy of Parliament, and the rights of
the imperial crown, it was Edmund Burke.' He was the advocate of 'an
unlimited legislative power over the colonies.' 'He saw not how the
power of taxation could be given up, without giving up the rest.' 'If
Pitt was able to see it, Pitt saw further than he could.' His wishes
were very earnest 'to keep the whole body of this authority perfect and
entire.' He was jealous of it; he was honestly of that opinion; and
Rockingham, after proceeding so far, and finding in Pitt all the
encouragement that he expected, let the negotiation drop. Conway and
Grafton were compelled to disregard their own avowals on the question of
the right of taxation; the Ministry conformed to the opinion, which was
that of Charles Yorke, the Attorney-General, and still more of Edmund
Burke."[281]
While the repeal of the Stamp Act was under discussion in the Commons,
Dr. Franklin--then Deputy Postmaster-General for America--was summoned
to give evidence at the bar of the House. His examination was long and
minute. His thorough knowledge of all the subjects, his independence and
candour made a deep impression, but he was dismissed from office the day
after giving his evidence. Some of the questions and answers are as
follows:
Question.--What is your name and place of abode?
Answer.--Franklin, of Philadelphia.
Q.--Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves?
A.--Certainly; many and very heavy taxes.
Q.--What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania levied by the laws
of the colony?
A.--There are taxes on all estates, real and personal; a poll-tax;
a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and businesses,
according to their profits; an excise on all wine, rum, and other
spirits; and a duty of £10 per head on all negroes imported; with
some other duties.
Q.--For what purpose are those taxes levied?
A.--For the support of the civil and military establishment of the
country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last
war.
Q.--Are not you concerned in the management of the post-office in
America?
A.--Yes. I am Deputy Postmaster-General of North America.
Q.--Don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all the
inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?
A.--The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except in
a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did, sending
for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage amounting,
in many cases, to much more than that of the stamps themselves.
Q.--Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to
pay the stamp duty?
A.--In my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the
colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.
Q.--Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all
to be laid out in America?
A.--I know it is appropriated by the Act to the American service;
but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers
are, not in the colonies that pay it.
Q.--Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where the
troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the old
colonies?
A.--I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know of
no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come from the
colonies where it was spent, directly to England; for I have always
observed that in every colony the more plenty the means of
remittance to England, the more goods are sent for, and the more
trade with England carried on.
Q.--What may be the amount of one year's imports into Pennsylvania
from Britain?
A.--I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports
from Britain to be above £500,000.
Q.--What may be the amount of the produce of your province exported
to Britain?
A.--It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted in
Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed £40,000.
Q.--How then do you pay the balance?
A.--The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West Indies,
and sold in our own island, or to the French, Spaniards, Danes and
Dutch; by the same carried to other colonies in North America, as
to New England, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Carolina and Georgia; by
the same carried to different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal
and Italy. In all which places we receive either money, bills of
exchange, or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which
together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants and
mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the freights
made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to discharge the
balance, and pay for British manufactures continually used in the
province, or sold to foreigners by our traders.
Q.--Do you think it right that America should be protected by this
country and pay no part of the expense?
A.--That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed, and paid,
during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many millions.
Q.--Were not you reimbursed by Parliament?
A.--We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced
beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected
from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.
Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about £500,000, and the
reimbursements in the whole did not exceed £60,000.
Q.--You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania; what do
they amount to in the pound?
A.--The tax on all estates, real and personal, to eighteen-pence in
the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of trades and
professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make full
half-a-crown in the pound.
Q.--Do you not think the people of America would submit to pay the
stamp duty if it were moderated?
A.--No, never, unless compelled by the force of arms.
Q.--What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before the
year 1763?
A.--The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the
government of the Crown, and paid, in all their courts, obedience
to Acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are in the several
old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons,
or armies, to keep them in subjection. They were governed by this
country at the expense only of a little pen, ink and paper. They
were led by a thread. They had not only a respect, but an affection
for Great Britain, for its laws, its customs and manners, and even
a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce.
Natives of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to
be an Old-Englandman was of itself a character of some respect, and
gave a kind of rank among us.
Q.--And what is their temper now?
A.--Oh! very much altered.
Q.--Did you ever hear the authority of Parliament to make laws for
America questioned till lately?
A.--The authority of Parliament was allowed to be valid in all
laws, except such as should levy internal taxes. It was never
disputed in levying duties to regulate commerce.
Q.--In what light did the people of America use to consider the
Parliament of Great Britain?
A.--They considered the Parliament as the great bulwark and
security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it
with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they
thought, might possibly at times attempt to oppress them; but they
relied on it, that the Parliament on application would always give
redress. They remembered with gratitude a strong instance of this,
when a Bill was brought into Parliament, with a clause to make
royal instructions laws in the colonies, which the House of Commons
would not pass, and it was thrown out.
Q.--And have they not still the same respect for Parliament?
A.--No; it is greatly lessened.
Q.--To what causes is that owing?
A.--To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their
trade by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the
colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among
themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps;
taking away at the same time trial by juries, and refusing to see
and hear their humble petitions.
Q.--Don't you think they would submit to the Stamp Act if it was
modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to
some particulars of small moment?
A.--No; they will never submit to it.
Q.--What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same
principle of that of the Stamp Act; how would the Americans receive
it?
A.--Just as they do this. They would not pay it.
Q.--Have not you heard of the resolutions of this House, and of the
House of Lords, asserting the right of Parliament relating to
America, including a power to tax the people there?
A.--Yes; I have heard of such resolutions.
Q.--What will be the opinion of the Americans on those resolutions?
A.--They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.
Q.--Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the Parliament
had no right to levy taxes and duties there?
A.--I never heard any objection to the right of levying duties to
regulate commerce; but a right to levy internal taxes was never
supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there.
Q.--You say the colonies have always submitted to external taxes,
and object to the right of Parliament only in levying internal
taxes; now, can you show that there is any kind of difference
between the two taxes to the colony on which they may be laid?
A.--I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a duty
levied on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first
cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is offered
for sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do not like it
at that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. But
an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent, if
not levied by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we
shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each
other, neither purchase, nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall
neither marry nor make our wills unless we pay such and such sums,
and thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by
the consequences of refusing to pay it.
Q.--But supposing the internal tax or duty to be levied on the
necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that be the
same thing in its effects as an internal tax?
A.--I do not know a single article imported into the northern
colonies, but what they can either do without or make themselves.
Q.--Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to
them?
A.--No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and good
management, they may very well supply themselves with all they
want.
Q.--Considering the resolution of Parliament as to the right, do
you think, if the Stamp Act is repealed, that the North Americans
will be satisfied?
A.--I believe they will.
Q.--Why do you think so?
A.--I think the resolutions of right will give them very little
concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into practice.
The colonies will probably consider themselves in the same
situation in that respect with Ireland; they know you claim the
same right with regard to Ireland, but you never exercise it. And
they may believe you never will exercise it in the colonies, any
more than in Ireland, unless on some very extraordinary occasion.
Q.--But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary occasion? Is
not the Parliament?
A.--Though the Parliament may judge of the occasion, the people
will think it can never exercise such right till representatives
from the colonies are admitted into Parliament, and that, whenever
the occasion arises, representatives will be ordered.
Q.--Did the Americans ever dispute the controlling power of
Parliament to regulate the commerce?
A.--No.
Q.--Can anything less than a military force carry the Stamp Act
into execution??
A.--I do not see how a military force can be applied to that
purpose.
Q.--Why may it not?
A.--Suppose a military force sent into America, they will find
nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man
to take stamps, who refuses to do without them. They will not find
a rebellion; they may indeed make one.
Q.--If the Act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
consequences?
A.--A total loss of the respect and affection the people of America
bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that
respect and affection.
Q.--How can the commerce be affected?
A.--You will find that, if the Act is not repealed, they will take
very little of your manufactures in a short time.
Q.--Is it in their power to do without them?
A.--I think they may very well do without them.
Q.--Is it their interest not to take them?
A.--The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere
conveniences, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, etc., with a
little industry they can make at home; the second they can do
without, till they are able to provide them among themselves; and
the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike off
immediately. They are mere articles of fashion, purchased and
consumed because the fashion in a respected country, but will now
be detested and rejected. The people have already struck off, by
general agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mournings,
and many thousand pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.
Q.--Suppose an Act of internal regulations connected with a tax,
how would they receive it?
A.--I think it would be objected to.
Q.--Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?
A.--Their opinion is, that when aids to the Crown are wanted, they
are to be asked of the several Assemblies, according to the
old-established usage, who will, as they always have done, grant
them freely; and that their money ought not to be given away
without their consent by persons at a distance, unacquainted with
their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the Crown
is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their
Sovereign, and they think it extremely hard and unjust that a body
of men, in which they have no representation, should make a merit
to itself of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs,
and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and
importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.
Q.--But is not the post-office, which they have long received, a
tax as well as a regulation?
A.--No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of the
nature of a tax; it is merely a _quantum meruit_ for a service
done; no person is compellable to pay the money if he does not
choose to receive the service. A man may still, as before the Act,
send his letter by a servant, a special messenger, or a friend, if
he thinks it cheaper and safer.
Q.--But do they not consider the regulations of the post-office, by
the Act of last year, as a tax?
A.--By the regulations of last year, the rate of postage was
generally abated near thirty per cent. through all America; they
certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.
Q.--If an excise was laid by Parliament, which they might likewise
avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised, would they
then object to it?
A.--They would certainly object to it, as an excise is unconnected
with any service done, and is merely an aid which they think ought
to be asked of them, and granted by them if they are to pay it, and
can be granted for them by no others whatsoever, whom they have not
empowered for that purpose.
Q.--You say they do not object to the right of Parliament in
levying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now, is
there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of
goods and an excise on their consumption?
A.--Yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have
just mentioned, they think you can have no right to levy within
their country. 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 on merchandise carried through that part of your dominions,
towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the
safety of that carriage.
Q.--Supposing the Stamp Act continued and was enforced, do you
imagine that ill-humour will induce the Americans to give as much
for worse manufactures of their own, and use them preferably to
better ones of yours?
A.--Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one
passion as another--their resentment as their pride.
Q.--What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the
distribution of the stamps in every part of America?
A.--A very great force; I can't say what, if the disposition of
America is for a general resistance.
Q.--If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the Americans
think they could oblige the Parliament to repeal every external tax
law now in force?
A.--It is hard to answer questions of what people at such a
distance will think.
Q.--But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of
repealing the Act?
A.--I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a
conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it that,
while the same expediency subsists, you will never attempt to make
such another.
Q--What do you mean by its inexpediency?
A.--I mean its inexpediency on several accounts: the poverty and
inability of those who were to pay the tax, the general discontent
it has occasioned, and the impracticability of enforcing it.
Q.--If the Act should be repealed, and the Legislature should show
its resentment to the opposers of the Stamp Act, would the colonies
acquiesce in the authority of the Legislature? What is your opinion
they would do?
A.--I don't doubt at all that if the Legislature repeal the Stamp
Act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.
Q.--But if the Legislature should think fit to ascertain its right
to levy taxes, by any Act levying a small tax, contrary to their
opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
A.--The proceedings of the people in America have been considered
too much together. The proceedings of the Assemblies have been very
different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as
having no connection with each other. The Assemblies have only
peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have
taken no measures for opposition by force; they have not built a
fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition in order to
such opposition. The ringleaders of riots they think ought to be
punished; they would punish them themselves if they could. Every
sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as
otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or estate.
But as to an internal tax, how small soever, levied by the
Legislature here on the people there, while they have no
representatives in this Legislature, I think it will never be
submitted to. They will oppose it to the last. They do not consider
it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your
taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money
by taxes among themselves, and to grant large sums, equal to their
abilities, upon requisition from the Crown. They have not only
granted equal to their abilities, but during all the last war they
granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion
with this country, you yourselves being judges, to the amount of
many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and readily,
only on a sort of promise from the Secretary of State that it
should be recommended to Parliament to make them compensation. It
was accordingly recommended to Parliament, in the most honourable
manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and
abused here, in papers and pamphlets and speeches, as ungrateful,
unreasonable, and unjust in having put this nation to immense
expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that
expense. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed near 25,000 men
during the last war--a number equal to those sent from Britain, and
far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing
this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for many years
to come, for discharging that debt. The Government here was at that
time very sensible of this. The colonies were recommended to
Parliament. Every year the King sent down to the House a written
message to this purport: That his Majesty, being highly sensible of
the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North
America had exerted themselves in defence of his Majesty's just
rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to take the
same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper
compensation. You will find those messages on your journals every
year of the war to the very last, and you did accordingly give
£200,000 annually to the Crown, to be distributed in such
compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs
that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the
burden, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or
had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room
or reason for compensation. Indeed, the sums reimbursed them were
by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their
proportion; but they never murmured at that: they esteemed their
Sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the
approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of
compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this Act to force
money from an unwilling people. They had not refused giving money
for the purposes of the Act; no requisition had been made; they
were always willing and ready to do what could reasonably be
expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered.
Q.--But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in Europe,
would North America contribute to the support of it?
A.--I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would
permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British empire,
and as having one common interest with it; they may be looked on
here as foreigners, but they do not consider themselves as such.
They are zealous for the honour and prosperity of this nation, and,
while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as
far as their little power goes.
Q.--Do you think the Assemblies have a right to levy money on the
subject there, to grant to the Crown?
A.--I certainly think so; they have always done it.
Q.--Would they do this for a British concern; as, suppose, a war in
some part of Europe that did not affect them?
A.--Yes, for anything that concerned the general interest. They
consider themselves as a part of the whole.
Q.--What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
colonies for aids?
A.--A letter from the Secretary of State.
Q.--Is this all you mean--a letter from the Secretary of State?
A.--I mean the usual way of requisition--in a circular letter from
the Secretary of State, by his Majesty's command, reciting the
occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to grant such aids as
became their royalty and were suitable to their abilities.
Q.--Did the Secretary of State ever write for money for the Crown?
A.--The requisitions have been to raise, clothe, and pay men, which
cannot be done without money.
Q.--Would they grant money alone if called on?
A.--In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they have
money or can make it.
Q.--What used to be the pride of the Americans?
A.--To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.
Q.--What is now their pride?
A.--To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new
ones.[282]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 265: "An American revenue was, in England, a very popular
measure. The cry in favour of it was so strong as to silence the voice
of petitions to the contrary. The equity of compelling the Americans to
contribute to the common expenses of the empire satisfied many, who,
without inquiring into the policy or justice of taxing their
unrepresented fellow-subjects, readily assented to the measures adopted
by Parliament for that purpose. The prospect of easing their own burdens
at the expense of the colonists, dazzled the eyes of gentlemen of landed
interest, so as to keep out of their view the probable consequences of
the innovation."
"The disposition to tax the colonies was also strengthened by
exaggerated accounts of their wealth. It was said that the American
planters lived in affluence and with inconsiderable taxes; while the
inhabitants of Great Britain were borne down by such aggressive burdens
as to make a bare existence a matter of extreme difficulty. The officers
who had served in America during the late war contributed to this
delusion. Their observations were founded on what they had seen in the
cities, and at a time when large sums were spent by Government in
support of fleets and armies, and when American commodities were in
great demand. To treat with attention those who came to fight for them,
and also to gratify their own pride, the colonists had made a parade of
their riches, by frequently and sumptuously entertaining the gentlemen
of the British army. These, judging from what they saw, without
considering the general state of the country, concurred in representing
the colonists as very able to contribute largely towards defraying the
common expenses of the empire." (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I.,
Chap. iii., pp. 332-335.)]
[Footnote 266: Prior Documents, etc., p. 5.
"The taxes of Great Britain exceeded by £3,000,000 what they were in
1754, before the war; yet the present object was only to make the
colonies maintain their own army. Besides the taxes on trade, which were
immediately to be imposed, Mr. Grenville gave notice in the House that
it was his intention, in the next session, to bring in a Bill imposing
_stamp duties_ in America; and the reasons for giving such notice were,
because he understood some people entertained doubts of the power of
Parliament to impose internal taxes on the colonies, and because that,
of all the schemes which had fallen under his consideration, he thought
a Stamp Act was the best. But he was not so wedded to it as to be
unwilling to give it up for any one that might appear more eligible; or
if the colonies themselves thought any other mode would be more
expedient, he should have no objection to come to it by Act of
Parliament. At that time the merits of the question were opened at
large. The opponents of the Government were publicly called upon to
deny, if they thought it fitting, the right of the Legislature to impose
any tax, internal or external, on the colonies; and not a single member
ventured to controvert the right. Upon a solemn question asked in a full
House, there was not one negative." (Bancroft's History of the United
States, Vol. V., Chap. ix., pp. 186, 187.)]
[Footnote 267: Mr. Grenville gave the year's notice apparently from
motives of kindness and courtesy to the colonies, "in order that the
colonies might have time to offer a compensation for the revenues which
such a tax might produce. Accordingly, when the agents of these colonies
waited upon him to thank him for this mark of his consideration, he told
them that he was ready to receive proposals from the colonies for any
other tax that might be equivalent in its produce to the stamp tax,
hinting withal that their principals would now have it in their power,
by agreeing to this tax, to establish a precedent for their being
consulted (by the Ministry, we suppose) before any tax was imposed upon
them by Parliament.
"Many persons at this side of the water, and perhaps the agents
themselves, looked upon this as a humane and generous proceeding. But
the colonies seemed to consider it as an affront rather than a
compliment. At least not one of them authorized its agent to consent to
the stamp duty, or to offer any compensation for it; and some of them
went so far as to send over petitions, to be presented to the King,
Lords, and Commons, positively and directly questioning the authority
and jurisdiction of Parliament over their properties." (Annual Register,
Vol. VIII., Chap. ix., p. 33.)]
[Footnote 268: See Appendix to this chapter for a summary and review of
the speeches of Mr. Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré.]
[Footnote 269: "The province of Virginia took the lead. On the 29th May,
1765, the House of Burgesses of Virginia adopted the following
resolutions:
"Whereas the honourable House of Commons in England have of late drawn
into question how far the General Assembly of this province hath power
to enact laws for levying taxes and imposing duties payable by the
people of this his Majesty's most ancient colony; for settling and
ascertaining the same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of
this present General Assembly have come to the following resolutions:
1. "_Resolved_,--That the first adventurers and settlers of this his
Majesty's colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them, and
transmitted to their posterity, and all other his Majesty's subjects
since inhabiting his Majesty's colony, all the privileges and immunities
that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of
Great Britain.
2. "_Resolved_,--That by the two Royal Charters granted by King James
the First, the colonies aforesaid are declared entitled to all
privileges of faithful liege and natural-born subjects, to all intents
and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of
England.
3. "_Resolved_,--That his Majesty's liege people of this most ancient
colony have enjoyed the right of having been thus far governed by their
own Assembly in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the
same have never been forfeited, or in any other way yielded up, but have
been constantly recognized by the King and people of Great Britain.
4. "_Resolved_, therefore,--That the General Assembly of this colony,
together with his Majesty or his substitute, have, in their
representative capacity, the only exclusive right and power to levy
taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that
every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever
other than the General Assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional,
and unjust, and has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as
American freedom." (Prior Documents, etc., pp. 6, 7.)
These resolutions were introduced by Patrick Henry, in an eloquent and
animated speech, in the course of which the following extraordinary
scene occurred: In an exciting tone he exclaimed, "Cæsar had his Brutus!
Charles the First had his Cromwell! and George the Third----" The
Speaker, greatly excited, cried out "Treason! treason!" which was
re-echoed from all sides. Then Henry, fixing his eye on the Speaker, and
pointing his finger towards him, raised his voice above the confusion
and concluded, "And George the Third may profit by their example. If
this be treason, make the most of it." (Elliott's History, etc., Vol.
II., p. 252.)
Mr Bancroft says: "The resolutions were published in the newspapers
throughout America, and by _men of all parties_--_by Royalists_ in
office not less than by the public bodies in the colonies--were received
without dispute as the avowed sentiments of the 'Old Dominion.'"
(History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap, xiii., p. 278.)]
[Footnote 270: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., page 135. Hildreth's History of
the United States, Vol. II., pp. 530, 531.]
[Footnote 271: Cornelius Burgess, a Puritan minister, used to say of the
rabble:
"These are my band-dogs. I can set them on; I can fetch them off again."
(Rapin's History of England, Vol. IX., p. 410, in a note.)]
[Footnote 272: "On Sunday, 25th August (the day before these riots were
renewed), Dr. Mayhew preached in the west meeting house, from the text,
Galatians, chap. v. verse 12: 'I would they were even cut off which
trouble you.' Although the sermon was regular enough, the text then
seemed significant, and Hutchinson (History) states that some were
excited by it. (Doubtless the 'Band-dogs' of Dr. Mayhew.) At any rate,
in the night the bonfires brought together their crowds, who, grown bold
by success, proceeded to express their hatred against the Admiralty
Courts and the Custom-houses by attacking and damaging the houses of two
officers, Story and Hallowell. In these they found good wines, which
served to inflame their blood; and then their shout was, 'Hutchinson!
Hutchinson!' A friend hastened to his house to warn him of his danger.
He barred his windows, determined to resist their fury; but his family
dragged him away with them in their flight. The mob rushed on, and
beating down his windows, sacked the house (one of the finest in Boston)
and destroyed everything, even a valuable collection of books and
manuscripts.
"This excess shocked the wise friends of liberty, and in a public
meeting the citizens discovered the destruction, and set their faces
against any further demonstrations of the sort. Rewards were offered for
the rioters, and Mackintosh and some others were apprehended, but were
rescued by their friends; and it was found impossible to proceed against
them." (Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., pp. 254, 255.)
"Mayhew sent the next day a special apology and disclaimer to
Hutchinson. The inhabitants of Boston, at a town meeting, unanimously
expressed their abhorrence of these proceedings, and a civil guard was
organized to prevent their repetition. Yet the rioters, though well
known, went unpunished--a sure sign of the secret concurrence of the
mass of the community. Those now committed were revolutionary acts,
designed to intimidate--melancholy forerunners of civil war."
(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xxviii., p.
528.)]
[Footnote 273: _Ib._, p. 527.
1. Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, whose house was thus sacked and his
valuable papers destroyed, was the historian of his native province of
Massachusetts Bay, whom I have quoted so frequently in the present
volume of this history. Of his history, Mr. Bancroft, a bitter enemy of
Hutchinson's, says:
"At the opening of the year 1765, the people of New England were reading
the history of the first sixty years of the Colony of Massachusetts, by
Hutchinson. This work is so ably executed that as yet it remains without
a rival; and his knowledge was so extensive that, with the exception of
a few concealments, it exhausts the subject. Nothing so much revived the
ancestral spirit which a weaving of the gloomy superstitions, mixed with
Puritanism, had for a long time overshadowed." (History of the United
States, Vol. V., Chap, xi., p. 228.)
2. But though mob violence distinguished Boston on this as well as on
other occasions, the opposition was such throughout the colonies, from
New Hampshire to Georgia, that all those who had been appointed to
receive and distribute the stamps were compelled, by the remonstrances
and often threats of their fellow-colonists, to resign the office; and
the stamped paper sent from England to the ports of the various
provinces was either returned back by the vessel that brought it, or put
into a place of sate keeping. "Though the Stamp Act was to have operated
from the 1st of November, yet the legal proceedings in Courts were
carried on as before. Vessels entered and departed without stamped
papers. The printers boldly printed and circulated their newspapers, and
found a sufficient number of readers, though they used common paper, in
defiance of the Act of Parliament. In most departments, by common
consent, business was carried on as though no stamp law existed. This
was accompanied by spirited resolutions to risk all consequences rather
than submit to use the paper required by the Stamp Act. While these
matters were in agitation, the colonists entered into associations
against importing British manufactures till the Stamp Act should be
repealed. Agreeably to the free constitution of Great Britain, the
subject was at liberty to buy, or not to buy, as he pleased. By
suspending their future purchases until the repeal of the Stamp Act, the
colonists made it the interest of merchants and manufacturers in England
to solicit its repeal. They had usually taken so great a proportion of
British manufactures, amounting annually to two or three millions
sterling, that they threw some thousands in the mother country out of
employment, and induced them, from a regard to their own interest, to
advocate the measures wished for by America." (Ramsay's Colonial
History, Vol. I., pp. 345, 346).]
[Footnote 274: "Petitions were received by Parliament from the merchants
of London, Bristol, Lancaster, Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, etc., and
indeed from most of the trading and manufacturing towns and boroughs in
the kingdom. In these petitions they set forth the great decay of their
trade, owing to the laws and regulations made for America; the vast
quantities of our manufactures (besides those articles imported from
abroad, which were enclosed either with our own manufactures or with the
produce of our colonies) which the American trade formerly took off our
hands; by all which many thousand manufacturers, seamen, and labourers
had been employed, to the very great and increasing benefit of the
nation. That in return for these exports the petitioners had received
from the colonies rice, indigo, tobacco, naval stores, oil, whale-fins,
furs, and lately potash, with other staple commodities, besides a large
balance of remittances by bills of exchange and bullion obtained by the
colonists for articles of their produce, not required for the British
market, and therefore exported to other places.
"That from the nature of this trade, consisting of British manufactures
exported, and of the import of raw material from America, many of them
used in our manufactures, and all of them tending to lessen our
dependence on neighbouring states, it must be deemed of the highest
importance in the commercial system of this nation. That this commerce,
so beneficial to the state, and so necessary to the support of
multitudes, then lay under such difficulties and discouragements, that
nothing less than its utter ruin was apprehended without the immediate
interposition of Parliament.
"That the colonies were then indebted to the merchants of Great Britain
to the sum of several millions sterling; and that when pressed for
payment, they appeal to past experience in proof of their willingness;
but declare it is not in their power at present to make good their
engagements, alleging that the taxes and restrictions laid upon them,
and the extension of the jurisdiction of the Vice-Admiralty Courts,
established by some late Acts of Parliament, particularly by an Act
passed in the 4th year of his present Majesty, for granting certain
duties in the British Colonies and Plantations in America, and by an Act
passed in the 5th year of his Majesty, for granting and applying certain
stamp duties, etc., in said colonies, etc., with several regulations and
restraints, which, if founded in Acts of Parliament for defined
purposes, they represent to have been extended in such a manner as to
disturb legal commerce and harass the fair trader, and to have so far
interrupted the usual, former and most useful branches of their
commerce, restrained the sale of their produce, thrown the state of the
several provinces into confusion, and brought on so great a number of
actual bankruptcies that the former opportunities and means of
remittances and payments were utterly lost and taken from them.
"That the petitioners were, by these unhappy events, reduced to the
necessity of applying to the House, in order to secure themselves and
their families from impending ruin; to prevent a multitude of
manufacturers from becoming a burden to the community, or else seeking
their bread in other countries, to the irretrievable loss of the
kingdom; and to preserve the strength of this nation entire, its
commerce flourishing, the revenues increasing, our navigation the
bulwark of the kingdom, in a state of growth and extension, and the
colonies, from inclination, duty, and interest, attached to the mother
country."
"Such a number of petitions from every part of the kingdom, pregnant
with so many interesting facts, stated and attested by such numbers of
people, whose lives had been entirely devoted to trade, and who must be
naturally supposed to be competent judges of a subject which they had so
long and so closely attended to (besides that it showed the general
sense of the nation), could not fail of having great weight with the
House." (Annual Register for 1766, Vol. IX., Chap, vii., pp. 35, 36.)]
[Footnote 275: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., p. 348.
"At the same time that the Stamp Act was repealed, the absolute and
unlimited supremacy of Parliament was, in words, asserted. The opposers
of repeal contended for this as essential. The friends of that measure
acquiesced in it, to strengthen their party and make sure of their
object. Many of both sides thought that the dignity of Great Britain
required something of the kind to counterbalance the loss of authority
that might result from her yielding to the clamours of the colonists.
The Act for this purpose was called the Declaratory Act, and was, in
principle, more hostile to America's rights than the Stamp Act; for it
annulled those resolutions and acts of the Provincial Assemblies in
which they had asserted their right to exemption from all taxes not
imposed by their own representatives; and also enacted that the King and
Parliament had, and of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies
in all cases whatsoever."--_Ib._, p. 349.]
[Footnote 276: "The aborigines were never formidable in battle until
they became supplied with the weapons of European invention."
(Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 401.)]
[Footnote 277: The treatment of the Indians by the early New England
Puritans is one of the darkest pages in English colonial history. I have
slightly alluded to it in the preceding pages of this volume. Many
passages might be selected from the early divines of New England,
referring to the Indians as the heathen whom they were to drive out of
the land which God had given to this Israel. I will confine myself to
the quotation of a few words from the late Rev. J.B. Marsden, A.M.,
noted for his Puritan partialities, in the two volumes of his _History
of the Early and Later Puritans_. But his sense of Christian justice,
tolerance, and humanity revolted at the New England Puritans'
intolerance to each other, and their cruel treatment of the Indians. Mr.
Marsden says:
"The New England Puritans were revered beyond the Atlantic as the
Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of great cities, and of States renowned
through the wide world for wealth, intelligence, and liberty. Their
memory is cherished in England with feelings of silent respect rather
than of unmixed admiration; for their inconsistencies were almost equal
to their virtues; and here, while we respect their integrity, we are not
blinded to their faults. A persecuted band themselves, they soon learned
to persecute each other. The disciples of liberty, they confined its
blessings to themselves. The loud champions of the freedom of
conscience, they allowed no freedom which interfered with their narrow
views. Professing a mission of Gospel holiness, they fulfilled it but in
part. When opposed, they were revengeful; when irritated, fanatical and
cruel. In them a great experiment was to be tried, under conditions the
most favourable to its success; and it failed in its most important
point. The question to be solved was this: How would the Puritans, the
hunted, persecuted Puritans behave, were they but once free, once at
liberty to carry their principles into full effect? The answer was
returned from the shores of another world. It was distinct and
unequivocal. And it was this: they were prepared to copy the worst vices
of their English persecutors, and, untaught by experience, to imitate
their worst mistakes. The severities of Whitgift seemed to be justified
when it was made apparent on the plains of North America, that they had
been inflicted upon men who wanted only the opportunity to inflict them
again, and inflict them on one another." (Marsden's History of the Early
Puritans, Chap, xi., pp. 305, 306.)
After referring to early conflicts between the Puritans and Indians, Mr.
Marsden remarks as follows in regard to the manner in which the Puritans
destroyed the Pequod nation:
"If there be a justifiable cause of war, it surely must be this, when
our territory is invaded and our means of existence threatened. That the
Indians fell upon their enemies by the most nefarious stratagems, or
exposed them, when taken in war, to cruel torments (though such ferocity
is not alleged in this instance), does not much affect the question.
They were savages, and fought white men as they and their fathers had
always fought each other. How then should a community of Christian men
have dealt with them? Were they to contend as savages or civilized men?
As civilized men, or rather as men who had forsaken a land of
civilization for purer abodes of piety and peace? The Pequod war shows
how little their piety could be trusted when their passions were
aroused."
"After a week's marching, they came at day-break on the Indian wigwams
and immediately assaulted them. The 'massacre' (so their own chronicler,
Mr. Bancroft, has termed it) spread from one hut to another; for the
Indians were asleep and unarmed. But the work of slaughter was too slow.
'We must burn them,' exclaimed the fanatic chieftain of the Puritans;
and he cast the first firebrand to windward among their wigwams. In an
instant the encampment was in a blaze. Not a soul escaped. Six hundred
Indians, men, women, and children, perished by the steady hand of the
marksman, by the unresisted broadsword, and by the hideous
conflagration.
"The work of revenge was not yet accomplished. In a few days a fresh
body of troops arrived from Massachusetts, accompanied by their
minister, Wilson. The remnants of the proscribed race were now hunted
down in their hiding places; every wigwam was burned; every settlement
broken up; every cornfield laid waste. There remained, says their
exulting historian, not a man or a woman, not a warrior or child of the
Pequod name. A nation had disappeared from the family of men." "History
records many deeds of blood equal in ferocity to this; but we shall seek
in vain for a parallel to the massacre of the Pequod Indians. It brought
out the worst points in the Puritan character, and displayed it in the
strongest light. When their passions were once inflamed, their religion
itself was cruelty. A dark, fanatical spirit of revenge took possession,
not, as in other men, by first expelling every religious and every human
consideration, but, what was infinitely more terrible, by calling to its
aid every stimulant, every motive that religion, jaundiced and
perverted, could supply. It is terrible to read, when cities are
stormed, of children thrown into the flames, and shrieking women
butchered by infuriated men who have burst the restraints of discipline.
It is a dreadful licence; and true and gallant soldiers, occur when it
may, feel that their profession is disgraced. But this was worse. Here
all was deliberately calm; all was sanctioned by religion. It was no
outbreak of mere brutality. The fast was kept; the Sabbath was observed;
the staff of office, as a sacred ensign, was consecrated by one
Christian minister, while another attended upon the marching of
soldiery, and cheered them in the murderous design with his presence and
his prayers. Piety was supposed not to abhor, but to exult in the
exploit. This was true fanaticism. God's word and ordinances were made
subservient to the greatest crimes. They were rudely forced and
violated, and made the ministers of sin. When the assailants, reeking
from the slaughter and blackened with the smoke, returned home, they
were everywhere received with a pious ovation. God was devoutly praised,
because the first principles of justice, nay, the stinted humanities of
war, had been outraged, and unresisting savages, with their wives and
children, had been ferociously destroyed." (Marsden's History of the
Early Puritans, Chap, xi., pp. 305-311.)
Such was the early Puritan method of fulfilling the Royal Charter to the
Massachusetts Company of "Christianizing and civilizing the idolatrous
Indians;" and such is a practical comment upon Colonel Barré's statement
as to Indian cruelties.
But the intolerance of the Puritans to each other was as conspicuous as
their cruel treatment of the Indians. On this point Mr. Marsden adds:
"The intolerance with which the Puritans had been treated at home might
at least have taught them a lesson of forbearance to each other. But it
had no such effect. It would almost seem as if, true disciples in the
school of the High Commission and Star Chamber, their ambition was to
excel their former tyrants in the art of persecution. They imitated,
with a pertinacious accuracy, the bad examples of their worst
oppressors; and with far less to excuse them, repeated in America the
self-same crimes from which they and their fathers had suffered so much
in England. No political considerations of real importance, no ancient
prejudices interwoven with the framework of society, could be pleaded
here. Their institutions were new, their course was hampered by no
precedents. Imagination cannot suggest a state of things more favourable
to the easy, safe, and sure development of their views. Had they
cherished a catholic spirit, there was nothing to prevent the exercise
of the most enlarged beneficence. Their choice was made freely, and they
decided in favour of intolerance; and their fault was aggravated by the
consideration that the experiment had been tried, and that they
themselves were the living witnesses of its folly." (Marsden's History
of the Early Puritans, p. 311.)]
[Footnote 278: It was but just to have added that the trade between
England and America was as profitable to America as it was to England,
and that the value of property and rents advanced more rapidly in
America than in England.]
[Footnote 279: This is a withering rebuke to a conceited though clever
young statesman, Lord Nugent, who, in a previous part of the debate,
insisted that the honour and dignity of the kingdom obligated them to
compel the execution of the Stamp Act, "unless the right was
acknowledged and the repeal solicited as a favour," concluding with the
remark that "a peppercorn, in acknowledgment of the right, is of more
value than millions without."]
[Footnote 280: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap.
xxi.]
[Footnote 281: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap. xxi., pp.
397, 398.]
[Footnote 282: Prior Documents, pp. 64-81.]
CHAPTER XI.
AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT OVER THE BRITISH COLONIES.
Before proceeding with a summary statement of events which followed the
repeal of the Stamp Act, I think it proper to state the nature and
extent of the authority of Parliament over the colonies, as interpreted
by legislative bodies and statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr.
Bancroft well remarks:
"It is the glory of England that the rightfulness of the Stamp Act was
in England itself a subject of dispute. It could have been so nowhere
else. The King of France taxed the French colonies as a matter of
course; the King of Spain collected a revenue by his own will in Mexico
and Peru, in Cuba and Porto Rico, and wherever he ruled. The
States-General of the Netherlands had no constitutional doubt about
imposing duties on their outlying colonies. To England exclusively
belongs the honour that between her and her colonies the question of
right could arise; it is still more to her glory, as well as to her
happiness and freedom, that in that contest her success was not
possible. Her principles, her traditions, her liberty, her constitution,
all forbade that arbitrary rule should become her characteristic. The
shaft aimed at her new colonial policy was tipped with a feather from
her own wing."[283]
In the dispute which took place in 1757 between the Legislative Assembly
of Massachusetts and the Earl of Loudoun as to the extension of the
Mutiny Act to the colonies, and the passing of an Act by the local
Legislature for the billeting of the troops, as similar in its
provisions as possible to those of the Mutiny Act--so that it was
accepted by the Earl of Loudoun--the Massachusetts Assembly vindicated
their motives for denying the application of the Mutiny Act to the
colonies, and for providing quarters for the military by an Act of their
own, yet recognizing the legitimate authority of Parliament, in a
message to Governor Barnard containing the following words:
"We wish to stand perfectly right with his lordship (the Earl of
Loudoun), and it will be a great satisfaction to us if we may be able to
remove his misapprehension of the spring and motives of our proceedings.
His lordship is pleased to say that we seem willing to enter into a
dispute upon the necessity of a provincial law to enforce a British Act
of Parliament.
"We are utterly ignorant as to what part of our conduct could give
occasion for this expression. The point in which we were obliged to
differ from his lordship was the extent of the provision made by Act of
Parliament for regulating quarters. We thought it did not reach the
colonies. _Had we thought it did reach us, and yet made an Act of our
own to enforce it, there would have been good grounds for his lordships
exception_; but being fully persuaded that the provision was never
intended for us, what better step could we take than, agreeable to the
twentieth section of the Articles of War, to regulate quarters as the
circumstances of the province require, but still as similar to the
provisions made in England as possible? And how can it be inferred from
thence that we suppose a provincial Act necessary to enforce an Act of
Parliament?
"We are willing, by a due exercise of the powers of civil government
(and we have the pleasure of seeing your Excellency concur with us), to
remove, as much as may be, all pretence of necessity of military
government. Such measures, we are sure, will never be disapproved by the
Parliament of Great Britain, _our dependence upon which, we never had a
desire or thought of lessening_. From the knowledge your Excellency has
acquired of us, you will be able to do us justice in this regard.
"In our message to your Excellency, which you transmitted to his
lordship, we declared that the Act of Parliament, the extent of which
was then in dispute, as far as it related to the Plantations, had always
been observed by us.
"_The authority of all Acts of Parliament which concern the colonies,
and extend to them, is ever acknowledged in all the Courts of law, and
made the rule in all judicial proceedings in the province. There is not
a member of the General Court, we know no inhabitant within the bounds
of the Government, that ever questioned this authority._
"_To prevent any ill consequences which may arise from an opinion of our
holding such principles, we now utterly disavow them, as we should
readily have done at any time past if there had been occasion for it_;
and we pray that his lordship may be acquainted therewith, that we may
appear in a true light, and that no impressions may remain to our
disadvantage."[284]
This is a full and indefinite recognition of the supreme authority of
Parliament, even to the providing of accommodation for the soldiers; and
such was the recognition of the authority of Parliament throughout the
colonies. "It was generally allowed," says Dr. Ramsay, "that as the
planting of colonies was not designed to erect an independent
Government, but to extend an old one, the parent state had a right to
restrain their trade in every way which conduced to the common
emolument. They for the most part considered the mother country as
authorized to name ports and nations to which alone their merchandise
should be carried, and with which alone they should trade; but the novel
claim of taxing them without their consent was universally reprobated as
contrary to their natural, chartered, and constitutional rights. In
opposition to it, they not only alleged the general principles of
liberty, but ancient usage. During the first hundred and fifty years of
their existence they had been left to tax themselves and in their own
way." "In the war of 1755, the events of which were fresh in the
recollection of every one, the Parliament had in no instance attempted
to raise either men or money in the colonies by its own authority. As
the claim of taxation on one side and the refusal on the other were the
very hinges on which the revolution turned they merit a particular
discussion."[285]
The only exception to the authority of Parliament over the colonies was
levying _internal_ taxes. A marked distinction was made between
_external_ and _internal_ taxes. It was admitted upon all hands that the
Parliament had the constitutional right to impose the former, but not
the latter. The Tory opposition in the British Parliament denied the
distinction between _external_ and _internal_ taxes, and maintained that
if Parliament had the right to impose the one they had equally the right
to impose the other; but the advocates of American rights maintained the
distinction between _external_ and _internal_ taxation; and also Dr.
Franklin, in his evidence at the bar of the House of Commons, in
February, 1766, which I have quoted at length above, as the best
exposition of the colonial side of the questions at issue between
England and America. I will here reproduce two questions and answers on
the subject now under consideration:
Q.--"You say they do not object to the right of Parliament, in levying
duties on goods, to be paid on their importation; now, is there any kind
of difference between a duty on the importation of goods and an excise
on their consumption?"
A.--"Yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have just
mentioned, they think you can have no right to levy within their
country. 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 on merchandise carried
through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you
are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage."
Q.--"Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the produce
of their lands exported? And would they not then object to make a duty?"
A.--"If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad as to lessen
the demand for it, to be sure they would object to such a duty; _not to
your right of levying it_, but they would complain of it as a burden,
and petition you to lighten it."
It will be observed that in these words of Dr. Franklin there is the
fullest recognition of the right of Parliament to impose duties on all
articles imported into, or exported from, the colonies; the only
exception was the levying direct or _internal_ taxes for the purposes of
revenue, the right to impose which was held, and we think justly held,
to belong to the representative Legislatures elected by the colonists
themselves. Such also were the views of the two great statesmen, Pitt
and Burke, who with such matchless eloquence advocated the rights of
the colonies--whose speeches have become household words in America, and
are found in all their school books. Mr. Pitt, in a speech which I have
quoted at length in a previous chapter, said expressly:
"Let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be
asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to
every point of legislation whatsoever, that we may bind their trade,
confine their manufactures, and exercise every power except that of
taking their money out of their pockets without their consent."
Mr. Pitt therefore advocated the repeal of the Stamp Act with all his
fiery eloquence and energy, saying that he rejoiced that the colonists
had resisted that Act--not by riots or force of arms, but by every
constitutional mode of resistance, in the expression of public opinion
against an unjust and oppressive measure. Mr. Pitt's speech has been
quoted by American writers, and inserted in American school books, to
justify the resistance of America to England in the revolution which was
declared in 1776; but his speech was delivered, and the Act against
which it was delivered was repealed, ten years before. The United Empire
Loyalists were as much opposed to the Stamp Act as any other colonists,
and rejoiced as heartily at its repeal.
Edmund Burke was the appointed agent of the province of New York, and no
member of the House of Commons equalled him in the eloquent and
elaborate advocacy of the popular rights of the colonies. Extracts from
his speeches have been circulated in every form, and in unnumbered
repetition in American periodicals and school books; but what he said as
to the authority of Parliament over the colonies has not found so wide a
circulation in America. In advocating the repeal of the Stamp Act, in
his celebrated speech on _American taxation_, Mr. Burke said:
"What is to become of the Declaratory Act, asserting the entireness of
British legislative authority, if we abandon the practice of taxation?
For my part, I look upon the rights stated in that Act exactly in the
manner in which I viewed them on its very first proposition, and which I
have often taken the liberty, with great humility, to lay before you. I
look, I say, on the imperial rights of Great Britain, and the privileges
which the colonists ought to enjoy under those rights, to be just the
most reconcilable things in the world. The Parliament of Great Britain
sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities: one, as the
local Legislature of this island, providing for all things at home,
immediately, and by no other instrument than the executive power; the
other, and I think her nobler capacity, is what I call her _imperial
character_, in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends all
the several inferior Legislatures, and guides and controls them all,
without annihilating any. As all these Provincial Legislatures are only
co-ordinate with each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her,
else they can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual
justice, nor effectually afford mutual assistance. It is necessary to
coerce the negligent, to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak and
deficient, by the overruling plenitude of its power. She is never to
intrude into the place of the others while they are equal to the common
ends of their institution. But in order to enable Parliament to answer
all these ends of provident and beneficent superintendence, her powers
must be boundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament
limited, may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the
requisitions are not obeyed? What! Shall there be no reserved power in
the empire to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and
dissipate the whole? We are engaged in war; the Secretary of State calls
upon the colonies to contribute; some would do it; I think most would
cheerfully furnish whatever is demanded. One or two, suppose, hang back,
and, easing themselves, let the stress of the draft be on the
others--surely it is proper that some authority might legally say, 'Tax
yourselves for the common supply, or Parliament will do it for you.'
This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania,
for some short time towards the beginning of the last war, owing to some
internal dissensions in the colony. But whether the act were so, or
otherwise, the case is equally to be provided for by a competent
sovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power, nor ever
used in the first instance. This is what I meant when I have said at
various times that I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an
instrument of empire, and not as a means of supply."[286]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 283: History of the United States, Vol. V., Chap, xx., pp.
366, 367.]
[Footnote 284: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. III.,
Chap. i, pp. 65, 66.]
[Footnote 285: Colonial History, Vol. I., pp. 327, 328.]
[Footnote 286: Speech on American taxation.]
CHAPTER XII.
SUMMARY OF EVENTS FROM THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT, MARCH, 1766, TO THE
END OF THE YEAR.
The universal joy caused in both Great Britain and America by the repeal
of the Stamp Act foreshadowed a new era of unity and co-operation
between the mother country and the colonies. But though trade and
commerce resumed their activity, and mutual expressions of respect and
affection characterized the correspondence, private and official,
between England and America, the rejoicings of re-union were soon
silenced, and mutual confidence, if restored at all, soon yielded to
mutual suspicion. The King regretted the repeal of the Stamp Act as "a
fatal compliance" which had "wounded the majesty" of England, and
planted "thorns under his own pillow." He soon found a pretext for
ridding himself of the Ministers who had influenced the Parliament, and
compelled himself to adopt and sanction that measure, and to surround
himself with Ministers, some of whom sympathized with the King in his
regrets, and all of whom were prepared to compensate for the humiliation
to America in the repeal of the Stamp Act, by imposing obligations and
taxes on the colonies in other forms, under the absolute authority of
Parliament affirmed in the Declaratory Act, and which the Americans had
fondly regarded as a mere salve to English pride, and not intended for
any practical purpose. Mr. Pitt had rested his opposition to the Stamp
Act upon the distinction between _external_ and _internal_ taxes, as did
Dr. Franklin in his evidence at the bar of the House of Commons; the
opposition and the protesting Lords denied the distinction; and when Dr.
Franklin was asked--
"Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the
Charter?" he answered: "No, I believe not;" and being asked, "Then may
they not, by the same interpretation, object to the Parliament's right
of external taxation?" he answered: "They never have hitherto. Many
arguments have been lately used here to show them that there is no
difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you
have no right to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind
them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be
convinced by these arguments."[287]
I now proceed to give a summary statement of the events between Great
Britain and the colonies which followed the repeal of the Stamp Act,
March 19th, 1766.
Within ten days of its passing, the Act repealing the Stamp Act was
officially transmitted to America by General Conway,[288] then
Secretary of State for America, who accompanied them with a circular to
the several Governors, in which, while he firmly insisted upon a proper
reverence for the King's Government, endeavoured affectionately to allay
the discontents of the colonists. When the Governor of Virginia
communicated this letter to the House of Burgesses, they unanimously
voted a statue to the King, and the Assembly of Massachusetts voted a
letter of thanks to Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Grafton.
But in addition to the circular letter to the several Governors,
counselling forgetfulness and oblivion as to the disorders and
contentions of the past, General Conway wrote a separate letter to
Governor Barnard, of Massachusetts, in which he said: "Nothing will tend
more effectually to every conciliating purpose, and there is nothing,
therefore, I have in command more earnestly to require of you, than that
you should exert yourself in _recommending_ it strongly to the Assembly,
that full and ample compensation be made to those who, from the madness
of the people, have suffered for their acts in deference to the British
Legislature." This letter was but a _recommendation_, not a _command_ or
_requisition_, to the Legislature, and seems to have been intended as an
instruction to Governor Barnard alone; but he, now indulging his
personal resentments as well as haughty spirit, represented the letter
of General Conway as a _command_ and _requisition_ founded on "justice
and humanity," and that the authority from which it came ought to
preclude all doubts about complying with it, adding, "Both the business
and the time are most critical--let me entreat you to recollect
yourselves, and to consider well what you are about. Shall the private
interests, passions, or resentments of a few men deprive the whole
people of the great and manifold advantages which the favour and
indulgence of their King and his Parliament are now preparing for them?
Surely after _his Majesty's commands_ are known, the very persons who
have created the prejudices and prepossessions I now endeavour to combat
will be the first to remove them."
The opposition to the Stamp Act, which the Governor interpreted as
"prejudices and prepossessions which he now endeavoured to combat," had
been justified by the King and Parliament themselves in rejecting it;
and he thus continued to make enemies of those whom he might have easily
conciliated and made friends. The Assembly answered him in an indignant
and sarcastic tone, and charged him with having exceeded the authority
given in Secretary Conway's letter; concluding in the following words:
"If this _recommendation_, which your Excellency terms a _requisition_,
be founded on so much justice and humanity that it cannot be
controverted--if the _authority_ with which it is introduced should
preclude all disputation about complying with it, we should be glad to
know what freedom we have in the case?
"In answer to the questions which your Excellency has proposed with
seeming emotion, we beg leave to declare, that we will not suffer
ourselves to be in the least influenced by party animosities or domestic
feuds, let them exist where they may; that if we can possibly prevent
it, this fine country shall never be ruined by any person; that it shall
be through no default of ours should this people be deprived of the
great and manifest advantages which the favour and indulgence of our
most gracious Sovereign and his Parliament are even now providing for
them. On the contrary, that it shall ever be our highest ambition, as it
is our duty, so to demean ourselves in public and in private life as
shall most clearly demonstrate our loyalty and gratitude to the best of
kings, and thereby recommend his people to further gracious marks of the
royal clemency and favour.
"With regard to the rest of your Excellency's speech, we are constrained
to observe, that the general air and style of it savours more of an act
of grace and pardon than of a parliamentary address to the two Houses of
Assembly; and we most sincerely wish your Excellency had been pleased to
reserve it, _if needful_, for a proclamation."
It was thus that fresh seed of animosity and hostility was sown between
Governor Barnard and the Massachusetts Assembly, and sown by the
Governor himself, and the growth of which he further promoted by
refusing to confirm the choice of Mr. Hancock, whom the Assembly had
elected as their Speaker, and refused to sanction six of their
twenty-eight nominations to the Council, because they had not nominated
the four judges of the Supreme Court and the Crown officers. Hence the
animosity of their reply to his speech above quoted. But as the Governor
had, by the Charter, a veto on the election of Speaker and Councillors,
the Legislature submitted without a murmur.
But in the course of the session (six months after the Governor's speech
upon the subject), the Assembly passed an Act granting compensation to
the sufferers by the late riots, the principal of whom were the
Lieutenant-Governor, the Collector of Customs, and the appointed
Distributor of Stamps. The Act was accompanied by a declaration that it
was a free gift of the Province, and not an acknowledgment of the
justice of their claim; it also contained a provision of amnesty to the
rioters. The Act was agreed to by the Council and assented to by the
Governor; but it was disallowed by the King on the advice of the English
Attorney and Solicitor General, because, as alleged, it assumed an act
of grace which it belonged to the King to bestow, through an act of
oblivion of the evils of those who had acted unlawfully in endeavouring
to enforce the Stamp Act, which had been passed by the British
Parliament the same year. The Massachusetts Assembly ordered that their
debates should henceforth be open to the public.
The Legislature of New York also passed an Act granting compensation to
those who had suffered a loss of property for their adherence to the
Stamp Act, but stated it to be a free gift.
Before the close of 1766, dissatisfaction and distrust were manifest in
several colonies, and apprehensions of other encroachments by the
British Parliament upon what they held to be their constitutional
rights. Even the General Assembly of Virginia, which had in the spring
session voted a statue to the King, and an obelisk to Mr. Pitt and
several other members of Parliament, postponed, in the December
following, the final consideration of the resolution until the next
session. The Virginia press said: "The Americans are hasty in
expressing their gratitude, if the repeal of the Stamp Act is not, at
least, a tacit compact that Great Britain will never again tax us;" and
advised the different Assemblies, without mentioning the proceedings of
Parliament, to enter upon their journals as strong declarations of their
own rights as words could express.[289]
The Assembly of New York met early in 1766, in the best spirit; voted to
raise on Bowling Green an equestrian statue to the King, and a statue of
William Pitt--"twice the preserver of his country."
"But the clause of the Mutiny or Billeting Act (passed in 1765, in the
same session in which the Stamp Act was passed), directing Colonial
Legislatures to make specific contributions towards the support of the
army, placed New York, where the head-quarters were established, in the
dilemma of submitting immediately and unconditionally to the authority
of Parliament, or taking the lead in a new career of resistance. The
rescript was in theory worse than the Stamp Act. For how could one
legislative body command what another legislative body should enact? And
viewed as a tax it was unjust, for it threw all the burden of the colony
where the troops chanced to be collected. The requisition of the
General, made through the Governor, 'agreeably to the Act of
Parliament,' was therefore declared to be unprecedented in its character
and unreasonable in its amount; yet in the exercise of the right of free
deliberation, everything asked for was voted, except such articles as
were not provided in Europe for British troops which were in
barracks."[290]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 287: In the House of Lords, Lord Mansfield, replying to Lord
Camden, said: "The noble lord who quoted so much law, and denied the
right of the Parliament of Great Britain to levy _internal_ taxes upon
the colonies, allowed at the same time that _restrictions upon trade and
duties upon the ports were legal_. But I cannot see any real difference
in this distinction; for I hold it to be true, that a tax laid in any
place is like a pebble falling into and making a circle in a lake, till
one circle produces and gives motion to another, and the whole
circumference is agitated from the centre. A tax on tobacco, either in
the ports of Virginia or London, is a duty laid upon the inland
Plantations of Virginia, a hundred miles from the sea, wherever the
tobacco grows." (Quoted in Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol.
V., p. 411.)
Mr. Grenville argued in the same strain in the House of Commons; and the
Americans, as apt pupils, soon learned by such arguments to resist
_external_ as they had successfully resisted _internal_ taxes.]
[Footnote 288: General Conway, as leader of the House of Commons, moved
the resolution for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and also moved the
resolution for the Declaratory Bill. Colonel Barré moved an amendment to
strike out from the resolution the words "in all cases whatsoever." He
was seconded by Pitt, and sustained by Beckford. "Only three men, or
rather Pitt alone, 'debated strenuously the rights of America' against
more than as many hundred; and yet the House of Commons, half-conscious
of the fatality of its decision, was so awed by the overhanging shadow
of coming events that it seemed to shrink from pronouncing its opinion.
Edmund Burke, eager to add glory as an orator to his just renown as an
author, argued for England's right in such a manner that the strongest
friends of power declared his speech to have been 'far superior to that
of every other speaker;' while Grenville, Yorke, and all the lawyers;
the temperate Richard Hussey, who yet was practically for humanity and
justice; Blackstone, the commentator on the laws of England, who still
disliked internal taxation of America by Parliament, filled many hours
with solemn arguments for England's unlimited supremacy. They persuaded
one another, and the House, that the Charters which kings had granted
were, by the unbroken opinions of lawyers, from 1689, subordinate to the
good-will of the Houses of Parliament; that Parliament, for a stronger
reason, had power to tax--a power which it had been proposed to exert in
1713, while Harley was at the head of the Treasury, and again at the
opening of the Seven Years' War." ...
"So the watches of the long winter's night wore away, and at about four
o'clock in the morning, when the question was called, less than ten
voices, some say five, or four, some said but three, spoke out in the
minority; and the resolution passed for England's right to do what the
Treasury pleased with three millions of freemen in America." (Bancroft's
History of the United States., Vol. V., pp. 415-417.)]
[Footnote 289: Allen's History of the American Revolution, Vol. I.,
Chap. v., p. 101. Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI.,
Chap. xxv., p. 6.]
[Footnote 290: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap.
xxv., pp. 15, 16.
"The colonies were required, at their own expense, to furnish the troops
quartered upon them by Parliament with fuel, bedding, utensils for
cooking, and various articles of food and drink. To take off the edge
from this bill, bounties were granted on the importation of lumber and
timber from the plantations; coffee of domestic growth was exempted from
additional duty; and iron was permitted to be carried to Ireland."
(Barry's History of Massachusetts, Second Period, Chap. x., p. 295.)]
CHAPTER XIII.
EVENTS OF 1767--A NEW PARLIAMENT--FIRST ACT AGAINST THE PROVINCE OF NEW
YORK--BILLETING SOLDIERS ON THE COLONIES.
A new House of Commons was elected in 1766, less favourable to the
colonies than the preceding one; and one of the first acts of the new
Parliament was founded on the intelligence received from New York, that
the Assembly had refused to comply with all the requirements of the
Billeting Act in providing for his Majesty's troops which had been
quartered upon that province.[291]
A Bill was introduced by Mr. Grenville, the object of which was to
restrain the Assembly and Council of New York from passing any Act until
they had complied with the requisitions of the Billeting Act. Though the
Bill was introduced by the leader of the opposition, it received the
countenance and support of Ministers (Pitt being Premier, though absent
through illness), "who regarded it as a measure at once dignified and
forbearing." The Bill passed with little opposition; the Legislature of
New York was at once frightened into immediate compliance, though the
feeling with which it was done may be easily conceived. The effect,
however, in other colonies, was not only to excite fears and
dissatisfaction, but to call forth public expressions of hostile
sentiment, regarding the Act as an infringement of their chartered
privileges; and they argued that if the legislative powers of so loyal a
colony as New York could be thus suspended, they had little security for
their own privileges guaranteed to them by Charter.[292]
On the 26th of January, while the House of Commons, in Committee of
Supply, was considering the estimate for the garrison and land forces in
the colonies, Mr. Grenville took the opportunity of expressing his
dissatisfaction with the repeal of the Stamp Act, and insisted upon the
necessity of relieving England from the burden, which should be borne by
the colonies, and which, with contingencies, exceeded £400,000. Mr.
Charles Townshend, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, replied that "the
Administration has given its attention to give relief to Great Britain
from bearing the whole expense of securing, defending, and protecting
America and the West India islands. I shall bring into the House some
propositions that I hope may tend, in time, to ease the people of
England upon this head, and yet not be heavy in any manner upon the
people in the colonies. _I know the mode by which a revenue may be drawn
from America without offence._" He was applauded from all sides of the
House, and continued: "I am still a firm advocate for the Stamp Act, for
its principle, and for the duty itself; only the heats which prevailed
made it an improper time to press it. I laugh at the absurd distinction
between internal and external taxes. I know of no such distinction. It
is a distinction without a difference. It is perfect nonsense. If we
have a right to impose the one, we have a right to impose the other. The
distinction is ridiculous in the opinion of everybody except the
Americans."[293] In conclusion, laying his hand on the table in front of
him, he declared to the House, "England is undone if this taxation of
America is given up."[294] Grenville demanded Townsend to pledge himself
to his declaration of obtaining a revenue from the colonies; and did so
promptly amid the applause of the House. In June, Townshend proceeded to
redeem his pledge, and for that purpose brought successively three Bills
into the House, all of which were passed by nearly unanimous votes.
"The first of these Bills, in the preamble, declared an American revenue
expedient, and promised to raise it by granting duties on glass, red
and white lead, painters' oil and paper, and threepence a pound on
tea--all English productions except the last--all objects of taxation in
the colonies. The exportation of tea to America was encouraged by
another Act which allowed a drawback for five years of the whole duty
payable on importation into England."[295] The preamble of the Bill
stated that the duties are laid for the better support of the government
and the administration of the colonies. One clause of the Act enabled
the King, by sign manual, to establish a general civil list for each
province of North America, with any salaries, pensions, or appointments
his Majesty might think proper. The Act also provided, after all such
ministerial warrants under the sign manual "as are thought proper and
necessary" shall be satisfied, the residue of the revenue shall be at
the disposal of the Parliament.[296]
2. The second Bill, intended to ensure the execution of the first,
authorized his Majesty to appoint a Board of Commissioners of Customs to
reside in the colonies, to give them such orders and instructions from
time to time as his Majesty might think proper. This Board of Customs
had its seat at Boston; its duty was to see to the strict enforcement of
the revenue laws in America, and it was authorized to make as many
appointments as the Commissioners might think fit, and to pay the
appointees what sums they pleased, and were not accountable for their
malconduct, though they were authorized to seize vessels suspected of
having goods which had not been duly entered.[297]
3. A third Bill, in Mr. Charles Townshend's scheme for the taxation of
the colonies, was for the establishment in America of _Courts of
Vice-Admiralty_--at Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston--Courts
in which the colonists were deprived of the right of trial by jury,
which were invested with authority to seize and transport accused persons
to England to be tried there--Courts of which the officers and informers
were paid out of the proceeds of sales of confiscated goods, and in
proportion to their amounts, and were therefore personally interested
in confiscating as many goods as possible, and from their decisions
there was no appeal except to England--a process not only tedious,
but ruinously expensive, even if successful, of which there could
be little hope.
In connection with these three Acts (the operations and effects of which
Charles Townshend did not live to see),[298] the navy and military in
America were commanded, not as a defence against foreign or even Indian
invasions, but as Custom-house guards and officers, to enforce the
payment of taxes on the colonists. The very next day after the King had
given the royal sanction to the system of Courts of Admiralty in
America, "orders were issued directly to the Commander-in-Chief in
America, that the troops under his command should give their assistance
to the officers of the revenue for the effectual suppression of the
contraband trade. Nor was there delay in following up the new law, to
employ the navy to enforce the Navigation Acts. To this end Admiral
Colville, the naval Commander-in-Chief on the coasts of North America,
from the River St. Lawrence to Cape Florida and the Bahama Islands,
became the head of a new corps of revenue officers. Each captain of his
squadron had Custom-house commissions, and a set of instructions from
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for his guidance; and other
instructions were given them by the Admiral, to enter into the harbours
or lie off the coasts of America; to qualify themselves, by taking the
usual Custom-house oaths, to do the office of Custom-house officers; to
seize such persons as were suspected by them to be engaged in illicit
trade."[299]
The effect of these acts and measures was to create universal
dissatisfaction throughout the colonies, as they were not even in
pretence for the regulation of trade, but for the purpose of raising a
parliamentary revenue in America, and therefore differed not in
principle from the tax imposed by the Stamp Act. "The colonists
contended that there was no real difference between the principle of
these new duties and the Stamp Act. They were both designed to raise a
revenue in America, and in the same manner. The payment of the duties
imposed by the Stamp Act might have been evaded by the total disuse of
stamped paper, and so might the payment of these duties by the total
disuse of those articles on which they were laid; but in neither case
without great difficulty. The Revenue Act of 1767 produced resolves,
petitions, addresses, remonstrances, similar to those with which the
colonists opposed the Stamp Act. It also gave rise to a second
association for suspending further importations of British manufactures
till those offensive duties should be taken off."[300]
The year 1767 closed with enlarging and multiplying associations to
dispense with the use of goods of British manufacture, the appointment
of Lord North to succeed Charles Townshend as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and of the Earl of Hillsborough to succeed the Earl of
Shelburne as Secretary of State for the Colonies. Lord North had voted
for the Stamp Act and against its repeal; and Lord Hillsborough was less
indulgent to the colonies than Lord Shelburne.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 291: "This affair being brought before the House occasioned
many debates, and some vigorous measures were proposed. June 15th, a
Bill was passed by which the Governor, Council, and Assembly of New York
were prohibited from passing or assenting to any Act of Assembly for any
purpose whatsoever, till they had in every respect complied with all the
terms of the Act of Parliament. This restriction, though limited to one
colony, was a lesson to them all, and showed their comparative
inferiority, when brought in question with the supreme legislative
power." (Annual Register for 1767, Vol. X., p. 48.)]
[Footnote 292: The carrying into effect of the Billeting Act in Boston
is thus stated by Mr. Holmes:
"An Act had been passed by Parliament, the same session in which the
Stamp Act was passed, that obliged the Colonial Assemblies to provide
quarters for the soldiers, and furnish them with fire, beds, candles,
and other articles at the expense of the colonies. The jealousy of
Massachusetts was awakened by the attempt of the Governor to execute
this law. In June an addition was made to the British troops at the
castle, in the harbour of Boston, and the Governor requested that
provision be made by the Assembly for their support. After due
deliberation, the House resolved that such provision be made for them
while they remain here, as has been heretofore usually made for his
Majesty's regular troops when occasionally in the province. The caution
with which this resolution was drawn shows how reluctant the Assembly
were to have a military force placed in the province; and how careful
neither to yield any portion of their legislative rights, nor to furnish
a precedent for the repetition of a measure equally obnoxious and
dangerous to the colonists. The suspension of the power of legislation
in New York justly excited alarm throughout all the colonies; for it was
perceived that every Colonial Assembly would, by parity of reasoning, be
put on their trial for good behaviour, of which the British Ministry
would be the judge. Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, said, 'An Act for
suspending the Legislature of that province hangs, like a flaming sword,
over all our heads, and requires by all means to be removed.'" (Annals,
etc., Vol. II., p. 149.)]
[Footnote 293: The Americans took the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his
word, the plain and logical inference from which was, that if it was
unlawful to impose _internal_ taxes, it was equally unlawful to impose
_external_ taxes. The colonies had unanimously denied the lawfulness of
_internal_ taxes imposed by Parliament, and in that denial had been
sustained by the opinions of Lord Camden, Pitt, and other English
statesmen, and virtually by the repeal of the Stamp Act itself.
Henceforth they resisted the imposition by Parliament of external as
well as internal taxes.]
[Footnote 294: Referring to the applause of the Commons which greeted
Townshend's utterances of his intention to draw a revenue from the
colonies, Mr. Bancroft says: "The loud burst of rapture dismayed Conway,
who sat in silent astonishment at the unauthorized but premeditated
rashness of his presumptuous colleague. The next night the Cabinet
questioned the insubordinate Minister 'how he had ventured to depart on
so essential a point from the profession of the whole Ministry;' and he
browbeat them all. 'I appeal to you,' said he, turning to Conway,
'whether the House is not bent on obtaining a revenue of some sort from
the colonies?' Not one of the Ministry then in London (Pitt being absent
and ill) had sufficient authority to advise his dismission, and nothing
less could have stopped his measures." (History of the United States,
Vol. VI., Chap. xxvii., pp. 47-49.)]
[Footnote 295: "The colonists had been previously restrained from
manufacturing certain articles for their own consumption. Other Acts
confined them to the exclusive use of British merchandise. The addition
of duties put them wholly in the power and discretion of Great Britain.
'We are not,' said they, 'permitted to import from any nation other than
our own parent state, and have been, in some cases, restrained by her
from manufacturing for ourselves; and she claims a right to do so in
every instance which is incompatible with her interest. To these
restrictions we have hitherto submitted; but she now rises in her
demands, and imposes duties on those commodities, the purchasing of
which elsewhere than in her own market her laws forbid, and the
manufacturing of which for her own use she may, at any moment she
pleases, restrain. Nothing is left for us to do but to complain and
pay.'" (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 351, 352.)]
[Footnote 296: "Townshend opened the debate with professions of candour,
and the air of a man of business. Exculpating alike Pennsylvania and
Connecticut, he named as the delinquent colonies--Massachusetts, which
had invaded the King's prerogative by a general amnesty, and in a
message to its Governor had used expressions derogatory to the authority
of Parliament; Rhode Island, which had postponed but not refused to
indemnify the sufferers by the Stamp Act; and New Jersey, which had
evaded the Billeting Act, but had yet furnished the King's troops with
every essential thing to their perfect satisfaction. Against these
colonies it was not necessary to institute severe proceedings. But New
York, in the month of June last, besides appointing its own Commissary,
had limited its supplies to two regiments, and to those articles only
which were provided in the rest of the King's dominions, and in December
had refused to do more.
"It became Parliament not to engage in controversy with its colonies,
but to assert its sovereignty without uniting them in a common cause.
For this end he proposed to proceed against New York, and against New
York alone. To levy a local tax would be to accept a penalty in lieu of
obedience. He should, therefore, move that New York, having disobeyed
Parliament, should be restrained from any legislative act of its own
till it should comply.
"He then proceeded to advocate the establishment of a Board of
Commissioners of the Customs, to be stationed in America.
"'Our right of taxation,' he continued, 'is indubitable; yet, to prevent
mischief, I was myself in favour of repealing the Stamp Act. But there
can be no objection to port duties on wine, oil, and fruits, if allowed
to be carried to America directly from Spain and Portugal; on glass,
paper, lead, and colours; and especially on tea. Owing to the high
charges in England, America has supplied itself with tea by smuggling it
from the Dutch possessions; to remedy this, duties hitherto levied upon
it in England are to be given up, and a specific duty collected in
America itself.'"
"The American revenue, it was further explained, was to be placed at the
disposal of the King for the payment of his civil officers.
"This speech, pronounced with gravity and an air of moderation by an
orator who was the delight of the House, implied a revolution in favour
of authority. The Minister was to have the irresponsible power of
establishing, by sign manual, a general civil list in every American
province, and at his pleasure to grant salaries and pensions, limited
only by the amount of the American revenue. The proposition bore on its
face the mark of owing its parentage to the holders and patrons of
American offices; and yet it was received in the House with general
favour. Richard Jackson was not regarded when he spoke against the
duties themselves, and foretold the mischief that would ensue."
(Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xxix., pp.
75-77.)]
[Footnote 297: The Commissioners, from the first moment of their
institution, had been an eyesore to the people of Boston. This, though
partly owing to their active zeal in detecting smugglers, principally
arose from the association which existed in the minds of the inhabitants
between the Board of Customs and an American revenue. The Declaratory
Act of 1766, the Revenue Act of 1767, together with the pomp and expense
of this Board, so disproportionate to the small income of the present
duties, conspired to convince not only the few who were benefitted by
smuggling, but the great body of enlightened freemen, that further and
greater impositions of parliamentary taxes were intended. In proportion
as this opinion gained ground, the inhabitants became more disrespectful
to the executive officers of the revenue, and more disposed, in the
frenzy of patriotism, to commit outrages on their persons and property.
The constant bickering that existed between them and the inhabitants,
together with the steady opposition given by the latter to the discharge
of the official duties of the former, induced the Commissioners and
friends of an American revenue to solicit the protection of a regular
force at Boston. In compliance with their wishes, his Majesty ordered
two regiments and some armed vessels to repair thither for supporting
and assisting the officers of Customs in the execution of their duty.
(Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp. 355, 356.)]
[Footnote 298: His Revenue Act, and the two subsequent Acts to give it
effect, produced an excitement throughout the American colonies that
will be noticed hereafter. Mr. Bancroft remarks: "They would nullify
Townshend's Revenue Act by consuming nothing on which he had laid a
duty, and avenge themselves on England by importing no more British
goods. At the beginning of this excitement (September, 1767), Charles
Townshend was seized with fever, and after a short illness, during which
he met danger with the unconcerned levity that had marked his conduct of
the most serious affairs, he died at the age of forty-one, famed alike
for incomparable talents and extreme instability." (History of the
United States, Vol. VI., p. 98.)]
[Footnote 299: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. V., Chapter
ix., pp. 161, 162. Mr. Bancroft adds:
"The promise of large emoluments in case of forfeiture stimulated their
natural and irregular vivacity to enforce laws which had become
obsolete, and they pounced upon American property as they would have
gone to war in quest of prize-money. Even at first their acts were
equivocal, and they soon came to be as illegal as they were oppressive.
There was no redress. An appeal to the Privy Council was costly and
difficult; and besides, when it so happened, before the end of the year,
that an officer had to defend himself on an appeal, the suffering
colonists were exhausted by the delay and expense, while the Treasury
took care to indemnify their agent."--_Ib._, p. 162.]
[Footnote 300: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol I., Chapter iii., pp. 352,
353.
"Towards the last of October, the inhabitants of Boston, 'ever sensitive
to the sound of liberty,' assembled in a town meeting, and voted to
dispense with a large number of articles of British manufacture, which,
were particularly specified; to adhere to former agreements respecting
funerals; and to purchase no new clothing for mourning. Committees were
appointed to obtain subscribers to this agreement, and the resolves were
sent in to all the towns of the province and abroad to other colonies.
The 20th of the ensuing month (20th of November, the time when the Acts
went into operation) passed without tumult. Placards were exhibited and
effigies were set up, but the people in general were quiet. Otis (the
most popular man in Boston), at a town meeting _held to discountenance
riot_, delivered a speech in which he recommended caution, and advised
that no opposition should be made to the new duties. 'The King has a
right,' said he, 'to appoint officers of the Customs in what manner he
pleases and by what denominations; and to resist his authority will but
provoke his displeasure.' Such counsel was displeasing to the zealous,
but it was followed." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, Vol. II.,
Chapter xi., pp. 340, 341.)]
CHAPTER XIV.
EVENTS OF 1768--PROTESTS AND LOYAL PETITIONS OF THE COLONISTS AGAINST
THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY ACTS FOR RAISING REVENUE IN THE COLONIES.
The meetings and protests against the Revenue Acts and petitions for
their repeal, which began in the autumn of 1767, increased throughout
the colonies in 1768. In January, the General Assembly of Massachusetts
voted a temperate and loyal petition to the King,[301] and letters
urging the rights of the province, addressed to Lord Shelburne, General
Conway, the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord Camden, and the Earl of Chatham.
The petition and these letters were all to the same effect. The petition
to the King was enclosed to Denis de Berdt, a London merchant (who was
appointed agent for the colony), with a long letter of instructions. All
these papers are pervaded with a spirit of loyalty, and ask for nothing
more than the enjoyment of the rights and privileges which they had ever
possessed and enjoyed down to the year after the peace of Paris in
1763.
In addition to these representations and letters sent to England, the
Massachusetts General Assembly adopted, on the 11th of February, and
sent a circular letter to the Speakers of the respective Houses of
Burgesses of the other American provinces. In this ably-written letter
there is no dictation or assumption of authority, but a statement of
their representations to England, and a desire for mutual consultation
and harmonious action. They say: "This House hope that this letter will
be candidly considered in no other light than as expressing a
disposition freely to communicate their mind to a sister colony, upon a
common concern, in the same manner as they would be glad to receive the
sentiments of your or any other House of Assembly on the continent."
As this letter was the first step to the union of the American colonies,
and was followed by results that culminated in the War of Independence,
it may be proper to give such extracts from it as will show its
character and design; in neither of which do I find anything which I
think is inconsistent with the principles and spirit of a loyal subject.
The general principles on which they rested their claims to the rights
and privileges of British subjects are stated as follows:
"The House have humbly represented to the Ministry their own sentiments:
That his Majesty's High Court of Parliament is the supreme legislative
power over the whole empire. That in all free States the constitution is
fixed; and as the supreme legislative derives its power and authority
from the constitution, it cannot overleap the bounds of it without
destroying its foundation. That the constitution ascertains and limits
both sovereignty and allegiance; and therefore his Majesty's American
subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the ties of allegiance,
have an equitable claim to the full enjoyment of the fundamental rules
of the British constitution. That it is an essential, unalterable right
in nature, ingrafted into the British constitution as a fundamental law,
and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm,
that what a man hath honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he
may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent. That
the American subjects may, therefore, exclusive of any consideration of
Charter rights, with a decent firmness adapted to the character of
freemen and subjects, assert this natural constitutional right.
"It is moreover their humble opinion, which they express with the
greatest deference to the wisdom of the Parliament, that the Acts made
there, imposing duties on the people of this Province, _with the sole
and express purpose of raising a revenue_, are infringements of their
natural and constitutional rights; because, as they are not represented
in the British Parliament, his Majesty's Commons in Great Britain by
those Acts grant their property without their consent."
Then, after showing the impracticability, on various grounds, of the
representation of the colonies in the British Parliament, on which
account local subordinate Legislatures were established, that the
colonists might enjoy the inalienable right of representation, the
circular letter proceeds:
"Upon these principles, and also considering that were the right in the
Parliament ever so clear, yet for obvious reasons it would be beyond the
rule of equity, that their constituents should be taxed on the
manufactures of Great Britain here, in addition to the duties they pay
for them in England, and other advantages arising to Great Britain from
the Acts of Trade, this House have preferred a humble, dutiful, and
loyal petition to our most gracious Sovereign, and made such
representation to his Majesty's Ministers as they apprehend would tend
to obtain redress.
"They have also submitted to consideration, whether any people can be
said to enjoy any degree of freedom if the Crown, in addition to its
undoubted authority of constituting a Governor, should appoint him such
a stipend as it shall judge proper, without the consent of the people,
and at their expense; and whether, while the judges of the land and
other civil officers hold not their commissions during good behaviour,
their having salaries appointed for them by the Crown, independent of
the people, hath not a tendency to subvert the principles of equity and
endanger the happiness and security of the subjects.
"In addition to these measures, the House have wrote a letter to their
agent, Mr. De Berdt, the sentiments of which he is directed to lay
before the Ministry, wherein they take notice of the hardship of the Act
for Preventing Mutiny and Desertion, which requires the Governor and
Council to provide enumerated articles for the King's marching troops,
and the people to pay the expense; and also the commission of the
gentlemen appointed Commissioners of Customs to reside in America, which
authorizes them to make as many appointments as they think fit, and to
pay the appointees what sums they please, for whose malconduct they are
not accountable." ...
"These are the sentiments and proceedings of this House; and as they
have too much reason to believe that the enemies of the colonies have
represented them to his Majesty's Ministers and the Parliament as
factious, disloyal, and having a disposition to make themselves
independent of the mother country, they have taken occasion, in the most
humble terms, to assure his Majesty and his Ministers that, with regard
to the people of this province, and, as they doubt not, of all the
colonies, the charge is unjust.
"The House is fully satisfied that your Assembly is too generous and
enlarged in sentiment to believe that this letter proceeds from an
ambition of taking the lead, or dictating to other Assemblies; they
freely submit their opinion to the judgment of others, and shall take it
kind in your House to point out to them anything further that may be
thought necessary.
"This House cannot conclude without expressing their firm confidence in
the King, our common Head and Father, that the united and dutiful
supplications of his distressed American subjects will meet with his
Royal and favourable acceptance.
"SIGNED BY THE SPEAKER."
This circular letter of the Massachusetts Assembly was exceedingly
displeasing to the British Ministry, and called forth two letters from
the Earl of Hillsborough, who had succeeded the Earl of Shelburne as
Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies.
One of these letters was a circular addressed through the Governor to
the General Assemblies of each of the several colonies. This letter is
dated "Whitehall, April 21, 1768." The first paragraph is as follows:
"GENTLEMEN,--I have his Majesty's commands to transmit to you the
enclosed copy of a letter from the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, addressed by order
of that House to the Speaker of the Assembly of each colony upon the
continent of North America; as his Majesty considers this measure to be
of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the
minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable
combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and
denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true
principles of the constitution, it is his Majesty's pleasure that you
should, immediately upon the receipt hereof, exert your utmost influence
to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace, by
prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it,
which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves."
This most ill-advised letter of Lord Hillsborough had the very opposite
effect from that which he had hoped and intended. It increased the
importance of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in the
estimation of other colonies, and produced responses of approval from
most of their General Assemblies.
The Speaker of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, in a letter to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, dated
Virginia, May 9, 1768, says:
"The House of Burgesses of this colony proceeded, very soon after they
met, to the consideration of your important letter of the 11th of
February, 1768, written in the name and by the order of the House of
Representatives of your province; and I have received their particular
direction to desire you to inform that honourable House that they
applaud them for their attention to American liberty, and that the steps
they have taken thereon will convince them of their opinion of the fatal
tendency of the Acts of Parliament complained of, and of their fixed
resolution to concur with the other colonies in their application for
redress.
"After the most deliberate consultation, they thought it their duty to
represent to the Parliament of Great Britain that they are truly
sensible of the happiness and security they derive from their connection
with and dependence upon Great Britain, and are under the greatest
concern that any unlucky incident should interrupt that salutary harmony
which they wish ever to subsist. They lament that the remoteness of
their situation often exposes them to such misrepresentations as are apt
to involve them in censures of disloyalty to their Sovereign, and the
want of proper respect to the British Parliament; whereas they have
indulged themselves in the agreeable persuasion, that they ought to be
considered as inferior to none of their fellow-subjects in loyalty and
affection.
"They do not affect an independency of their parent kingdom, the
prosperity of which they are bound to the utmost of their abilities to
promote, but cheerfully acquiesce in the authority of Parliament to make
laws for preserving a necessary dependence and for regulating the trade
of the colonies. Yet they cannot conceive, and humbly insist it is not
essential to support a proper relation between the mother country and
colonies transplanted from her, that she should have a right to raise
money from them without their consent, and presume they do not aspire to
more than the natural rights of British subjects when they assert that
no power on earth has a right to impose taxes on the people, or take the
smallest portion of their property, without their consent given by their
representatives in Parliament. This has ever been considered as the
chief pillar of the constitution. Without this support no man can be
said to have the least shadow of liberty, since they can have no
property in that which another can by right take from them when he
pleases, without their consent."
After referring to the antiquity and grounds of their rights as British
subjects, and to the fact of their not being represented in Parliament,
of the impracticability of being so, and "the oppressive Stamp Act,
confessedly imposing internal taxes, and the late Acts of Parliament
giving and granting certain duties in the British colonies, mainly
tending to the same end," the Virginia House of Burgesses proceed as
follows:
"The Act suspending the legislative power of New York, they consider as
still more alarming to the colonists, though it has that single province
in view. If the Parliament can compel them to furnish a single article
to the troops sent over, they may by the same rule oblige them to
furnish clothes, arms, and every other necessary, even the pay of the
officers and soldiers--a doctrine replete with every mischief, and
utterly subversive of all that is dear and valuable. For what advantage
can the people of the colonies derive from their right of choosing their
own representatives, if those representatives, when chosen, were not
permitted to exercise their own judgments--were under a necessity (on
pain of being deprived of their legislative authority) of enforcing the
mandates of the British Parliament?
"They trust they have expressed themselves with a firmness that becomes
freemen pleading for essential rights, and with a decency that will take
off every imputation of faction or disloyalty. They repose entire
confidence in his Majesty, who is ever attentive to the complaints of
his subjects, and is ever ready to relieve their distress; and they are
not without hopes that the colonies, united in a decent and regular
opposition, may prevail on the new House of Commons to put a stop to
measures so directly repugnant to the interests both of the mother
country and her colonies."
The day after these proceedings by the House of Burgesses, the Governor
of Virginia dissolved them.
The House of Representatives of New Jersey, after gratefully
acknowledging the receipt of the Massachusetts circular, observe:
"The freedom with which the House of Representatives of the
Massachusetts Bay have communicated their sentiments upon a matter of so
great concern to all the colonies, hath been received by this House with
that candour the spirit and design of your letter merits. And at the
same time that they acknowledge themselves obliged to you for
communicating your sentiments to them, they have directed me to assure
you that they are desirous to keep up a correspondence with you, and to
unite with the colonies, if necessary, in further supplications to his
Majesty to relieve his distressed American subjects."
Answers to the Massachusetts circular from the Houses of Representatives
of Connecticut, of Georgia, and of Maryland, were given to the same
effect. The Maryland House of Representatives, in addition to the answer
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, presented an address to
Governor Sharpe, of Maryland, in reply to the letter of Lord
Hillsborough. Their address is dated June 23rd, 1768, and contains the
following words:
"In answer to your Excellency's message of the 20th, we must observe,
that if the letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives of
the colony of Massachusetts Bay, addressed to and communicated by our
Speaker to this House, be the same with the letter, a copy of which you
are pleased to intimate hath been communicated to the King's Ministers,
it is very alarming to find, at a time when the people of America think
themselves aggrieved by the late Acts of Parliament imposing taxes on
them for the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, and in the
most dutiful manner are seeking redress from the Throne, any endeavours
to unite in laying before their Sovereign what is apprehended to be
their just complaint, should be looked upon 'as a measure of most
dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his
Majesty's good subjects in the colonies, and to promote an unwarrantable
combination, to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of
the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the
constitution.'
"We cannot but view this as an attempt in some of his Majesty's
Ministers to suppress all communication of sentiments between the
colonies, and to prevent the united supplications of America from
reaching the royal ear. We hope the conduct of this House will ever
evince their reverence and respect for the laws, and faithful
attachment to the constitution; but we cannot be brought to resent an
exertion of the most undoubted constitutional right of petitioning the
Throne, or any endeavours to procure and preserve a union of the
colonies, as an unjustifiable attempt to revive those distractions which
it is said have operated so fatally to the prejudice of both the
colonies and the mother country. We have the warmest and most
affectionate attachment to our most gracious Sovereign, and shall ever
pay the readiest and most respectful regard to the just and
constitutional power of the British Parliament; but we shall not be
intimidated by a few sounding expressions from doing what we think is
right."[302]
Thus the unconstitutional assumptions and despotic instructions of Lord
Hillsborough to the Legislative Assemblies of the several colonies were
manfully and in a moderate and loyal spirit repelled by them, in the
clear knowledge of the constitutional rights of Englishmen, whether
resident in America or England. But while Lord Hillsborough foolishly
and vainly dictated to the several colonies to treat the colony of
Massachusetts with contempt, he advanced a step further in his would-be
domination over Massachusetts itself by directing Governor Barnard to
order the House of Representatives, under a threat of dissolution, to
rescind the resolution which they had adopted to send the circular to
the representative Assemblies of other colonies. Lord Hillsborough, in a
letter to the Governor of Massachusetts Bay, dated April 22nd, 1768,
said:
"It is the King's pleasure, that so soon as the General Court is again
assembled, at the time prescribed by the Charter, you should require of
the House of Representatives, in his Majesty's name, to rescind the
resolution which gave birth to the circular letter from the Speaker, and
to declare their disapprobation thereof, and dissent to that rash and
hasty proceeding." "But if, notwithstanding the apprehensions which may
justly be entertained of the ill-consequences of a continuance of this
factious spirit, which seems to have influenced the resolutions of the
Assembly at the conclusion of the last session, the new Assembly should
refuse to comply with his Majesty's reasonable expectation, it is the
King's pleasure that you should immediately dissolve them, and transmit
to me, to be laid before his Majesty, an account of their proceedings
thereupon, to the end that his Majesty may, if he thinks fit, lay the
whole matter before his Parliament, that such provisions as shall be
found necessary may be made to prevent for the future a conduct of so
extraordinary and unconstitutional a nature."[303]
If it was unwise for Lord Hillsborough to write letters to the Governors
of the several colonies to induce their Assemblies to treat with silent
contempt the circular letter of the Massachusetts Assembly, it was
absurd for him to order that Assembly to rescind its resolution to send
a letter which had been sent, and acted upon, and answered--a resolution
and letter, indeed, of a preceding House of Assembly. But the new House
of Assembly, after long deliberation and discussion, refused, by a
majority of 92 to 17, to rescind the obnoxious resolution of the late
House of Assembly, and at the same time prepared and addressed to Lord
Hillsborough an elaborate letter in vindication of their proceedings.
The House was, of course, forthwith _dissolved_.
Lord Hillsborough's letter produced discontent not only in
Massachusetts, but in all the American provinces. It, in effect, denied
the right of consultation and petition to the colonists; for, as was
said by Dr. Franklin, "a demand attended with a penalty of dissolution
seemed a command, not a requisition, leaving no deliberative or
discretionary power in the Assembly; and the ground of its being a
petition to the King, guarded with a most explicit declaration of the
supreme legislative power of Parliament, it wore the severe and dreadful
appearance of a penal prohibition against petitioning. It was, in
effect, saying you shall not even presume to complain, and reducing them
below the common state of slavery, in which, if men complain with
decency, they are heard unless their masters happen to be monsters. It
warmed moderation into zeal, and inflamed zeal into rage. Yet still
there appeared a disposition to express their grievances in humble
petitions. All the Assemblies on the continent, in answer to a
requisition of similar import to that already mentioned, asserted the
right of the subject to petition for redress of grievances. They joined
in petitions stating the imposition of taxes upon them without their
consent, and the abolition of juries in revenue cases, as intolerable
grievances, from which they prayed relief."[304]
It is singular and proper to observe that the Massachusetts Assembly
were now complaining, and justly complaining, of the denial of their
right of petition, and of being taxed without their own consent, when
more than a century before their forefathers had not only denied the
right of religious worship according to their conscience to Baptists,
Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, but the right of petition for the
redress of grievances to both the local Legislature and the King and
Parliament, and seized their private papers and fined and imprisoned
them for attempting thus to petition; denied to four-fifths of the
inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay the right of franchise itself, because
they were not certified members of the Congregational Church; taxed them
for half a century without allowing them any representation in the
Legislature that taxed them, and then fined and imprisoned those of them
who complained by petition of thus being taxed without representation,
as well as being denied the freedom of religious worship.
But though the General Assembly of Massachusetts Bay were now receiving
a part of the measure which their preceding General Assemblies had meted
out in full measure to four-fifths of their own fellow-citizens during
more than half of the previous century, yet that does not make Lord
Hillsborough's letter the less unconstitutional and tyrannical, nor the
conduct and vindication of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts
Bay less manly and justifiable. The Governor of the colony and his
abettors had represented constitutional opposition and remonstrances
against single Acts of Parliament, and of the Ministers of the day, as
disloyalty to the King and treasonable resistance to lawful authority,
and had already pursued such a course of action as to create a pretext
for bringing soldiers and ships of war to the city, and consequent
hostility and collisions between citizens and the soldiery, so as
apparently to justify the suspension of the constituted legislative
authorities in Massachusetts Bay, and enable the governors, judges, and
executive officers to obtain large salaries and perquisites out of the
colonists for present gratification and future residence and expenditure
in England.
Massachusetts was at that time the most populous and the most wealthy
colony in America, and Boston was the port of the largest trade; and
though the House of Representatives there had not used stronger language
in its remonstrances to Parliament and petitions to the King than the
House of Representatives of Virginia (the next most populous colony), or
Pennsylvania, or New York, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Connecticut,
or Rhode Island, yet the British Ministry determined to establish the
newly-asserted parliamentary power in America by making an example of
Massachusetts and of the port of Boston. There was the appointed seat of
the English Board of Commissioners of Customs, attended by a _posse_ of
officers whose haughtiness and taunts and threats contributed not a
little to irritate those with whom they had intercourse.
Three circumstances occurred which tended to increase the popular
irritation, and hasten the approaching crisis--the seizure and detention
of a sloop, the stationing of soldiers in the city, and pressing of
seamen contrary to law.
As to the seizure of the vessel, accounts differ. Dr. Holmes, in his
Annals, says:
"The laws of trade had been hitherto greatly eluded, but the
Commissioners of the Customs were now determined that they should be
executed. On the arrival of the sloop _Liberty_, laden with wines from
Madeira, belonging to Mr. John Hancock, an eminent merchant of Boston,
the tidesman, Thomas Kirk, went on board, and was followed by Captain
Marshall, who was in Mr. Hancock's employ. On Kirk's refusing several
proposals made to him, Marshall with five or six others confined him
below three hours, during which time the wine was taken out. The master
entered some pipes next morning; but the sloop was seized for a false
entry, and removed from the wharf under the guns of the _Romney_
man-of-war. The removal of the sloop was highly resented, as implying
apprehension of a rescue, and every method was taken to interrupt the
officers in the execution of their business; and many persons determined
to be revenged. A mob was soon collected; and Mr. Harrison, the
collector, Mr. Hallowell, the comptroller, Mr. Irving, the inspector of
imports and exports, and a son of the collector, very narrowly escaped
with their lives. The mob proceeded to the houses of the collector and
comptroller, and having broken their windows, and those of the
inspector-general, they next took and dragged the collector's (pleasure)
boat through the town and burned it on the common. These outrages
induced the Custom-house officers to take refuge, first on board the
_Romney_ man-of-war and afterwards in Castle William."[305]
On the other hand, Dr. Franklin states the affair as follows:
"On the 10th of June a seizure was made of a sloop fastened to the
wharf, by an armed force, and the seizure carried by violence to the
man-of-war. That this seizure was made with every circumstance of
violence and insult which could irritate a mob, is proved by the oaths
of thirteen eye-witnesses whose credibility has never been impeached.
Unhappily, the irritation succeeded but too well. The collector and
comptroller who made the seizure in that manner were treated with great
indignity and personal injury by the mob."[306]
Another circumstance, productive of more intense and general excitement,
if possible, and which transpired very shortly after the seizure and
detention of the sloop _Liberty_, was the impressment of some seamen
belonging to the town by the captain of the man-of-war _Romney_. This
was done, as alleged, in violation of an Act of Parliament for the
encouragement of trade to America--6 Anne, chap. xxvii., section
9--which says:
"No mariner or other person who shall serve on board, or be retained to
serve on board, any privateer or trading ship or vessel that shall be
employed in any port of America, nor any mariner or person being on
shore in any port thereof, shall be liable to be impressed or taken
away by any officer or officers belonging to her Majesty's ships of
war." To prevent the tumults which were feared from such a flagrant and
dangerous infraction of the law, a legal town-meeting was called, in
which the inhabitants assembled petitioned the Governor to interpose and
prevent such outrages upon the rights and liberties of the people; but
the Governor declined to interfere--stated that he had no control over
his Majesty's ships of war--that he would, however, use his utmost
endeavours to get the impressing of men for the King's ships of war so
regulated as to avoid all the inconveniences to the town which the
petitioners apprehended.
In the midst of these excitements and discontents, so threatening and
dangerous without some form of expression, many of the peace-loving and
respectable inhabitants of Boston urged the Governor to convene the
Legislature, but he refused without a command from the King. The select
men of Boston then proposed to the several towns and townships of the
colony the election of a Convention, to meet in Boston the 22nd of
September, "to deliberate on constitutional measures to obtain redress
of their grievances." Ninety-six towns and eight districts elected
delegates to the Convention, which sat four days; "disclaimed any
legislative authority, petitioned the Governor, made loyal professions,
expressed their aversion to standing armies, to tumults and disorders,
their readiness to assist in suppressing riots and preserving the peace;
recommended patience and good order; and after a short session
dissolved."[307]
The day before the close of this Convention, it was announced that three
men-of-war and transports had arrived at Boston harbour with about 900
troops, and the fleet next day came to anchor near Castle William. The
Commissioners of Customs and their friends had solicited the stationing
of a regular force in the town.
"The ships having taken a station which commanded the town, the troops,
under cover of the cannon of the ships, landed without molestation, and
to the number of 700 men marched, with muskets charged and bayonets
fixed, martial music, and the usual military parade, into the common.
In the evening the Select Men of Boston were required to quarter the
regiments in the town; but they absolutely refused. A temporary shelter,
however, in Faneuil Hall was permitted to one regiment that was without
camp equipage. The next day the State House, by the order of the
Governor, was opened for the reception of the soldiers; and after the
quarters were settled, two field pieces with the main guard were
stationed just in its front. Everything was calculated to excite the
indignation of the inhabitants. The lower floor of the State House,
which had been used by gentlemen and merchants as an exchange; the
representatives' chamber, the Court-house, Faneuil Hall--places with
which were associated ideas of justice and freedom, as well as of
convenience and utility--were now filled with regular soldiers. Guards
were placed at the doors of the State House, through which the Council
must pass in going to their own chamber. The common was covered with
tents. The soldiers were constantly marching and countermarching to
relieve the guards. The sentinels challenged the inhabitants as they
passed. The Lord's day was profaned, and the devotion of the sanctuary
was disturbed by the sound of drums and other military music. There was
every appearance of a garrisoned town. The colonists felt disgusted and
injured, but not overawed, by the obtruded soldiery. After the troops
had obtained quarters, the Council were required to provide barracks for
them, agreeably to Act of Parliament, but they resolutely declined any
measure which might be construed into submission to that Act. Several
large transports arrived at Boston from Cork, having on board part of
the 64th and 65th British regiments, under Colonels MacKay and Pomeroy;
the object of which was to protect the revenue officers in the
collection of duties."[308]
Such was the state of things in Massachusetts and in other colonies at
the close of the year 1768.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 301: The following are the concluding paragraphs of this
petition to the King, dated 20th January, 1768:
"With great sincerity permit us to assure your Majesty, that your
subjects of this province ever have and will continue to acknowledge
your Majesty's High Court of Parliament as the supreme legislative power
of the whole empire, the superintending authority of which is clearly
admitted in all cases that can consist with the fundamental rights of
nature and the constitution, to which your Majesty's happy subjects in
all parts of your empire conceive they have a just and equitable claim.
"It is with the deepest concern that your humble suppliants would
represent to your Majesty, that your Parliament, the rectitude of whose
intentions is never to be questioned, has thought proper to pass divers
Acts imposing taxes on your Majesty's subjects in America, with the sole
and express purpose of raising a revenue. If your Majesty's subjects
here shall be deprived of the honour and privilege of voluntarily
contributing their aid to your Majesty in supporting your government and
authority in the province, and defending and securing your rights and
territories in America, which they have always hitherto done with the
utmost cheerfulness: if these Acts of Parliament shall remain in force,
and your Majesty's Commons in Great Britain shall continue to exercise
the power of granting the property of their fellow-subjects in this
province, your people must then regret their unhappy fate in having only
the name left of free subjects.
"With all humility we conceive that a representation of your Majesty's
subjects of this province in the Parliament, considering their local
circumstances, is utterly impracticable. Your Majesty has heretofore
been graciously pleased to order your requisitions to be laid before the
representatives of your people in the General Assembly, who have never
failed to afford the necessary aid to the extent of their ability, and
sometimes beyond it; and it would be ever grievous to your Majesty's
faithful subjects to be called upon in a way that should appear to them
to imply a distrust of their most ready and willing compliance.
"Under the most sensible impressions of your Majesty's wise and paternal
care for the remotest of your faithful subjects, and in full dependence
on the royal declarations in the Charter of this province, we most
humbly beseech your Majesty to take our present unhappy circumstances
under your Royal consideration, and afford us relief in such manner as
in your Majesty's great wisdom and clemency shall seem meet." (Prior
Documents, etc., pp. 175-7.)]
[Footnote 302: Prior Documents, etc., p. 219.]
[Footnote 303: Prior Documents, etc.]
[Footnote 304: Prior Documents, etc., p. 262.]
[Footnote 305: American Annals, etc., Vol II., pp. 157, 158; the
authority given is Gordon, Vol. I., pp. 168-172. Dr. Ramsay gives a
similar account of the affair in his Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap.
iii., p. 355.]
[Footnote 306: Prior Documents, pp. 262, 263.
Dr. Franklin adds in a note: "That the seizure was unjust, is plain from
this, that they were obliged to restore the vessel, after detaining her
a long time, not being able to find any evidence to support a
prosecution. The suits for enormous sums against a number of persons,
brought in the Court of Admiralty, being found insupportable, were,
after long continuance, to the great expense and trouble of these
persons, dropt by a declaration of the King's advocate that his Majesty
would prosecute no further; but the prosecuted could obtain no costs or
damages, for so is the law."--_Ib_., p. 263.]
[Footnote 307: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., p. 158.]
[Footnote 308: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 158, 159.
The Boston _American Gazette_, under the head of "A Journal of
Transactions in Boston," says, September 30th, 1768: "Early this morning
a number of boats were observed round the town, making soundings, etc.
At three o'clock in the afternoon, the _Launceston_, of 40 guns; the
_Mermaid_, of 28; the _Glasgow_, 20; the _Beaver_, 14; _Senegal_, 14;
_Bonetta_, 10, and several armed schooners, which, together with the
_Romney_, of 60 guns, and the other ships of war before in the harbour,
all commanded by Captain Smith, came up to town, bringing with them the
14th Regiment, Colonel Dalrymple, and the 29th Regiment, Colonel Carr,
none having been disembarked at Castle Island; so that we now behold
Boston surrounded, in a time of profound peace, with about fourteen
ships of war, with springs on their cables, and their broadsides to the
town. It the people of England could but look into the town, they would
smile to see the utmost good order and observance of the laws, and that
this mighty armament has no other rebellion to subdue than what has
existed in the brain and letters of the inveterate G------r B-----d
(Governor Barnard), and the detested Commiss (Commissioners) of the
Board of Cust--s (Customs). What advantage the Court of Versailles may
take of the present policy of the British Ministry can be better
determined hereafter." (pp. 177, 178.)]
CHAPTER XV.
EVENTS OF 1769--UNJUST IMPUTATIONS OF PARLIAMENT ON THE LOYALTY OF THE
COLONISTS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THEIR JUST AND LOYAL PETITIONS.
The earliest proceedings of this year in regard to the American colonies
took place in the British Parliament. In all the resolutions, protests,
addresses, and petitions which had been adopted by American Assemblies
and at town meetings, asserting the exclusive right of the colonists to
tax themselves, and against taxation without representation by the
British Parliament, they professed heartfelt loyalty to the King, and
disclaimed all views of independence; while in England the Parliament
asserted unlimited supremacy in and over the colonies, and the Royal
speeches, as well as the resolutions and addresses adopted by the Lords
and Commons, represented the colonies as being in a state of
disobedience to law and government, adopting measures subversive of the
constitution, and manifesting a disposition to throw off all allegiance
to the mother country. The House of Lords passed resolutions censuring
the resolutions and proceedings of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives, pronouncing the election of deputies to sit in
Convention, and the meeting of that Convention at Boston, daring insults
to his Majesty's authority, and audacious usurpations of the powers of
Government; yet, as has been seen, that Convention expressly disclaimed
any assumption of government, and simply expressed the grievances
complained of, prayed for their redress, declared their loyalty to the
King, and recognition of the supreme authority of Parliament according
to the constitution, and quietly dissolved. But the House of Commons
declared concurrence in the resolutions of the Lords; and both Houses,
in their address to the King, endorsed the measures of his Ministers,
declared their readiness to give effectual support to such further
measures as might be found necessary to execute the laws in
Massachusetts Bay, and prayed his Majesty "to direct the Governor
(Barnard) to take the most effectual methods for procuring the fullest
information touching all treason or misprision of treason within the
Government since the 30th day of December, 1767, and to transmit the
same, together with the names of the persons who were most active in the
commission of such offences, to one of the Secretaries of State, in
order that his Majesty might issue a special commission for inquiring,
hearing and determining the said offences, _within the realm of Great
Britain_, pursuant to the provision of the statute of the 35th of Henry
the Eighth."
The holding of town-meetings and their election of deputies, etc., were
as much provided for in the provincial laws as the meeting and
proceedings of the House of Representatives, or as are the meetings and
proceedings of town, and township, and county municipal councils in
Canada. The wholesale denunciations of disloyalty and treason against
the people of a country was calculated to exasperate and produce the
very feelings imputed; and the proposal of the two Houses of Parliament
to make the Governor of Massachusetts Bay a detective and
informer-general against persons opposed to his administration and the
measures of the British Ministry, and the proposition to have them
arrested and brought 3,000 miles over the ocean to England, for trial
before a special commission, for treason or misprision of treason, show
what unjust, unconstitutional, and foolish things Parliaments as well as
individuals may sometimes perpetrate. Nothing has more impressed the
writer, in going through this protracted war of words, preliminary to
the unhappy war of swords, than the great superiority, even as literary
compositions, much more as State documents, of the addresses and
petitions of the Colonial Assemblies, and even public meetings, and the
letters of their representatives, when compared with the dispatches of
the British Ministry of that day and the writings of their partizans.
The resolutions and joint address of the Houses of Parliament, which
were adopted in February, reached America in April, and gave great
offence to the colonists generally instead of exciting terror,
especially the part of the address which proposed bringing alleged
offenders from Massachusetts to be tried at a tribunal in Great Britain.
Massachusetts had no General Assembly at that time, as Governor Barnard
had dissolved the last Assembly, and the time prescribed by the Charter
for calling one had not arrived; but the House of Burgesses of the old,
loyal Church of England colony of Virginia took the state of all the
colonies into serious consideration, passed several resolutions, and
directed their Speaker to transmit them without delay to the Speakers of
the Assemblies of all the colonies on the continent for their
concurrence. In these resolutions the House of Burgesses declare--"That
the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants of this colony is
now, and ever hath been, legally and constitutionally vested in the
House of Burgesses, with consent of the Council, and of the King or his
Governor for the time being; that it is the privilege of the inhabitants
to petition their Sovereign for redress of grievances, and that it is
lawful to procure the concurrence of his Majesty's other colonies in
dutiful addresses, praying the Royal interposition in favour of the
violated rights of America; that all trials for treason, misprision of
treason, or for any felony or crime whatsoever, committed by any persons
residing in any colony, ought to be in his Majesty's courts within said
colony, and that the seizing of any person residing in the colony,
suspected of any crime whatsoever committed therein, and sending such
person to places beyond the sea to be tried, is highly derogatory of the
rights of British subjects, as thereby the inestimable privilege of
being tried by jury from the vicinage, as well as the liberty of
producing witnesses on such trial, will be taken away from the accused."
The House agreed also to an address to his Majesty, which stated, in the
style of loyalty and real attachment to the Crown, a deep conviction
that the complaints of the colonists were well founded. The next day
Lord Botetourt, the Governor of Virginia, dissolved the House in the
following words: "Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the House of Burgesses, I
have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects. You have
made it my duty to dissolve you; and you are dissolved accordingly."
The Assembly of South Carolina adopted resolutions similar to those of
Virginia, as did the Lower House of Maryland and the Delaware counties,
and the Assembly of North Carolina, and was on that account dissolved by
Governor Tyron. Towards the close of the year, the Assembly of New York
passed resolutions in concurrence with those of Virginia. The members of
the House of Burgesses of Virginia, and of the Assembly of North
Carolina, after their dissolution, met as private gentlemen, chose for
moderators their late Speakers, and adopted resolutions against
importing British goods. This was followed by other colonies, and the
non-importation agreement became general. Boston had entered into the
non-importation agreement as early as August, 1768, which was soon after
adopted in Salem, the city of New York, and the province of Connecticut;
but the agreement was not generally entered into until after the
Virginia resolutions. "The meetings of non-importation associations were
regularly held in the various provinces. Committees were appointed to
examine all vessels arriving from Britain. Censures were freely passed
on such as refused to concur in these associations, and their names were
published in the newspapers as enemies of their country. The regular
Acts of the Provincial Assemblies were not so much respected and obeyed
as the decrees of these Committees."[309]
Governor Barnard could not delay calling the General Assembly of
Massachusetts beyond the time prescribed by the Charter for its meeting
in May; and when it met, its first act was to appoint a Committee to
wait on the Governor, and represent to him "that an armament by sea and
land investing this metropolis, and a military guard with cannon pointed
at the door of the State House, where the Assembly is held, are
inconsistent with the dignity and freedom with which they have a right
to deliberate, consult, and determine," and added, "They expect that
your Excellency will, as his Majesty's representative, give effectual
orders for the removal of the above-mentioned forces by sea and land out
of this port, and the gates of this city, during the session of the said
Assembly." The Governor answered: "Gentlemen, I have no authority over
his Majesty's ships in this port, or his troops within this town, nor
can I give any orders for the removal of the same." The House persisted
in declining to do business while surrounded with an armed force, and
the Governor at length adjourned it to Cambridge.
On the 6th of July the Governor sent a message to the House with
accounts of expenditures already incurred in quartering his Majesty's
troops, desiring funds for their payment, and requiring a provision for
the quartering of the troops in the town and on Castle Island,
"according to Act of Parliament." The next day, among other things, the
House passed the following resolutions:
"That a general discontent on account of the Revenue Acts, an
expectation of the sudden arrival of a military power to enforce said
Acts, an apprehension of the troops being quartered upon the
inhabitants, the General Court (or Assembly) dissolved, the Governor
refusing to call a new one, and the people almost reduced to a state of
despair, rendered it highly expedient and necessary for the people to
convene their (town) committees to associate (in convention), consult,
and advise the best means to promote peace and good order; to present
their united complaints to the Throne, and jointly to pray for the Royal
interposition in favour of their violated rights; nor can this procedure
possibly be illegal, as they expressly disclaim all governmental acts.
"That the establishment of a standing army in this colony, in time of
peace, is an invasion of national rights.
"That a standing army is not known as a part of the British
constitution.
"That sending an armed force into the colony, under pretence of
assisting the civil authority, is highly dangerous to the people,
unprecedented and unconstitutional."
On the 12th of July the Governor sent a message to the House requesting
an explicit answer to his message of the 6th, as to whether the House
would or would not make provision for quartering the troops. After
anxious deliberation, the unusually full House of 107 members present
unanimously answered:
"As representatives, by the Royal Charter and the nature of our trust,
we are only empowered to grant such aids as are reasonable, of which we
are free and independent judges, at liberty to follow the dictates of
our own understanding, without regard to the mandates of another. Your
Excellency must, therefore, excuse us in this express declaration that
as we cannot, consistently with our honour or interest, and much less
with the duty we owe to our constituents, so we shall never make
provision for the purposes mentioned in your messages."
Governor Barnard rejoined, in his last words to the Assembly, "To his
Majesty, and if he pleases to his Parliament, must be referred your
invasion of the rights of the Imperial sovereignty. By your own acts you
will be judged. Your publications are plain and explicit, and need no
comment." And he prorogued the Assembly until the 10th day of January,
1770. He wrote to Lord Hillsborough: "Their last message exceeds
everything." Three weeks afterwards, the 1st of August, unexpectedly to
himself, Barnard was recalled. He had expected to be appointed Governor
of Virginia; but on his arrival in England he found that the British
Ministers had promised the London-American merchants that they would
never employ him again in America.[310] He answered the purposes of the
corrupt Ministerial oligarchy in England, to mislead the Sovereign on
one hand and oppress the colonists on the other. But for him there would
have been no ships of war or military sent to Boston; no conflicts
between the citizens and soldiers; probably no revolutionary war.
Barnard's departure from Boston was signalized by the ringing of bells,
and firing of cannon, and bonfires at night. He was succeeded in the
government by Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, a man who had rendered
great service to his native country by his History, and his labours in
the Legislature for ten years, but who had become extremely unpopular by
his secret support of the English Revenue Acts and duplicate policy of
Barnard, whom he at length equalled in avarice and deception, and
greatly excelled in ability.
One of the most effective and least objectionable means of obtaining the
repeal of the Revenue Acts was the agreement not to purchase or import
goods of British manufacture or goods imported from British ports. At
best the revenues arising from the operation of these Acts would not
amount to £20,000 a year. They were maintained in England as a badge of
the absolute authority of Parliament; they were resisted in America as a
badge of colonial independence of taxation--without representation.
There was no crime, political or moral, in refusing to buy goods of any
kind, much less goods burdened with what they considered unlawful
duties. Mr. Bancroft remarks:
"The agreement of non-importation originated in New York, where it was
rigidly carried into effect. No acrimony appeared; every one, without so
much as a single dissentient, approved of the combination as wise and
legal; persons in the highest stations declared against the Revenue
Acts, and the Governor wished their repeal. His acquiescence in the
association for coercing that repeal led the moderate men among the
patriots of New York to plan a union of the colonies in an American
Parliament (similar to that which now exists in the Dominion of Canada),
preserving the Governments of the several colonies, and having the
members of the General Parliament chosen by their respective
Legislatures. They were preparing the greatest work of their generation,
to be matured at a later day. Their confidence of immediate success
assisted to make them alike disinclined to independence and firm in
their expectation of bringing England to reason by suspending their
mutual trade.
"The people of Boston, stimulated by the unanimity and scrupulous
fidelity of New York, were impatient that a son of Barnard, two sons of
Hutchinson, and about five others, would not accede to the agreement. At
a great meeting of merchants in Faneuil Hall, Hancock proposed to send
for Hutchinson's two sons, hinting, what was true, that the
Lieutenant-Governor was himself a partner with them in their late
extraordinary importations of tea. As the best means of coercion, it was
voted not to purchase anything of the recusants. Subscription papers to
that effect were carried around from house to house, and everybody
complied."
"A letter from New York next invited Boston to extend the agreement
against importing indefinitely, until every Act imposing duties should
be repealed; and on the 17th (of October), by the great influence of
Molineux, Otis, Samuel Adams, and William Cooper, this new form was
adopted."[311] The opposition in Boston to the reception of goods from
England became so general and determined, that even Governor Hutchinson
quailed before it, and the soldiers stood silent and inactive witnesses
of it. Mr. Bancroft says:
"Early in October (1769), a vessel laden with goods, shipped by English
houses themselves, arrived in Boston. The military officers had been
speculating on what would be done, and Colonel Dalrymple stood ready to
protect the factors. But his assistance was not demanded. Hutchinson
permitted the merchants to reduce the consignees to submission, and even
to compel an English adventurer to re-embark his goods. One and another
of the Boston recusants yielded; even the two sons of Hutchinson
himself, by their father's direction, gave up 18 chests of tea, and
entered fully into the (non-importation) agreement. Four still held out,
and their names, with those of the two sons of Hutchinson, whose
sincerity was questioned, stood recorded as infamous on the journals of
the town of Boston. On the 15th another ship arrived; again the troops
looked on as bystanders, and witnessed the complete victory of the
people."[312]
But in the following month, November, a new turn was given to public
thought, and new feelings of joy were inspired throughout America, by a
dispatch from Lord Hillsborough to the King's personal friend, Lord
Botetourt, Governor of Virginia, promising the repeal of the obnoxious
Revenue Acts, and to impose no further taxes on the colonies. Lord
Hillsborough says:
"I can take upon me to assure you, notwithstanding information to the
contrary from men with factious and seditious views, that his Majesty's
present Administration have at no time entertained a design to propose
to Parliament to lay any further taxes upon America for the purpose of
raising a revenue; and that it is at present their intention to propose,
the next session of Parliament, to take off the duties upon glass, paper
and colours, upon consideration of such duties having been laid contrary
to the true principles of commerce." Lord Hillsborough further informed
Lord Botetourt that "his Majesty relied upon his prudence and fidelity
to make such explanation of his Majesty's measures as would tend to
remove prejudices and to re-establish mutual confidence and affection
between the mother country and the colonies."
In Lord Botetourt's address to the Virginia Assembly, transmitting a
copy of the dispatch, he said:
"It may possibly be objected that as his Majesty's present
Administration are not immortal, their successors may be inclined to
attempt to undo what the present Ministers shall have attempted to
perform; and to that objection I can give but this answer: that it is my
firm opinion that the plan I have stated to you will certainly take
place, and that it will never be departed from; and so determined am I
for ever to abide by it, that I will be content to be declared infamous
if I do not, to the last hour of my life, at all times, in all places,
and upon all occasions, exert every power with which I either am, or
ever shall be, legally invested, in order to obtain and maintain for the
continent of America that satisfaction which I have been authorized to
promise this day by the confidential servants of our gracious Sovereign,
who, to my certain knowledge, rates his honour so high, that he would
rather part with his crown than preserve it by deceit."
These assurances were received by the Virginians with transports of joy,
viewing them as they did as abandoning, never to be resumed, the design
of raising a revenue in America by Act of Parliament. The General
Assembly of Virginia, in reply to Lord Botetourt's address, thus
expressed themselves:
"We are sure our most gracious Sovereign, under whatever changes may
happen in his confidential servants, will remain immutable in the ways
of truth and justice, and that he is incapable of deceiving his faithful
subjects; and we esteem your lordship's information not only as
warranted, but even sanctified by the Royal word."[313]
It was understood and expected on all sides that the unproductive tax on
tea would be repealed with the other articles enumerated in the Revenue
Acts. Such was the wish of Governor Botetourt; such was the advice of
Eden, the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Maryland; Golden, who
now administered the government of New York, on account of the death of
More, assured the Legislature of the greatest probability that the late
duties imposed by authority of Parliament, so much to the
dissatisfaction of the colonies, would be taken off the ensuing
session.[314]
"Thus," says Mr. Bancroft, "all America confined its issue with Great
Britain to the single question of the Act imposing a duty on tea." "Will
not a repeal of all other duties satisfy the colonists?" asked one of
the Ministerial party of Franklin in London. And he frankly answered, 'I
think not; it is not the sum paid in the duty on tea that is complained
of as a burden, but the principle of the Act expressed in the preamble.'
This faithful advice was communicated to the Ministry; but what effect
could it produce when Hillsborough administered the colonies, with
Barnard for his counsellor?[315]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 309: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chapter iii., p. 359.
The following are the resolutions subscribed by the merchants and
traders of New York, dated 27th August, 1768:
I. That we will not send for from Great Britain, either upon our own
account or on commission, this fall, any other goods than what we have
already ordered.
II. That we will not import any kind of merchandise from Great Britain,
either on our own account or on commission, or any otherwise, nor
purchase from any factor or others, any kind of goods imported from
Great Britain directly, or by way of any of the other colonies, or by
way of the West Indies, that shall be shipped from Great Britain after
the first day of November, until the forementioned Acts of Parliament,
imposing duties on paper, glass, etc., be repealed; except only the
articles of coals, salt, sailcloth, wool, card-wool, grindstones, chalk,
lead, tin, sheet-copper, and German steel.
III. We further agree not to import any kind of merchandise from Hamburg
and Holland, directly from thence, nor by any other way whatsoever, more
than we have already ordered, except tiles and bricks.
IV. We also promise to countermand all orders given from Great Britain,
or since the 16th instant, by the first conveyance; ordering those goods
not to be sent, unless the forementioned duties are taken off.
V. And we further agree, that if any person or persons subscribing
hereto shall take any advantage, by importing any kind of goods that are
herein restricted, directly or indirectly, contrary to the true intent
and meaning of this agreement, such person or persons shall by us be
deemed enemies to their country.
VI. Lastly, we agree, that if any goods shall be consigned or sent over
to us, contrary to our agreement in this subscription, such goods so
imported shall be lodged in some public warehouse, there to be kept
under confinement until the forementioned Acts be repealed.]
[Footnote 310: The following is the portrait which Mr. Bancroft has
drawn of the character of Barnard, and I cannot deny its accuracy:
"Trained as a wrangling proctor in an Ecclesiastical Court, he had been
a quarrelsome disputant rather than a statesman. His parsimony went to
the extreme of meanness; his avarice was insatiable and restless. So
long as he connived at smuggling, he reaped a harvest in that way; when
Grenville's sternness inspired alarm, it was his study to make the most
money out of forfeitures and penalties. Professing to respect the
Charter, he was unwearied in zeal for its subversion; declaring his
opposition to taxation by Parliament, he urged it with all his power.
Asserting most solemnly that he had never asked for troops, his letters
reveal his perpetual importunity for ships of war and an armed force.
His reports were often false--partly with design, partly from the
credulity of panic. He placed everything in the most unfavourable light,
and was ready to tell every tale and magnify trivial rumours into acts
of treason. He was despondent when conciliation prevailed in England.
The officers of the army and navy despised him for his cowardice and
duplicity, and did not conceal their contempt." (History of the United
States, Vol. VI., Chap. xli., p. 291.)]
[Footnote 311: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. xlii., pp.
308, 309, 311. For the first non-importation resolutions adopted by the
merchants of New York, see note on page 356.
"The trade between Great Britain and her colonies on the continent of
America, on an average of three years (from 1766 to 1769), employed
1,078 ships and 28,910 seamen. The value of goods exported from Great
Britain on the same average was £3,370,900; and of goods exported from
the colonies to Great Britain and elsewhere £3,924,606." (Holmes'
Annals, etc., Vol. II., p. 162.)]
[Footnote 312: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap, xlii., p.
311.
"To the military its inactivity was humiliating. Soldiers and officers
spoke of the people angrily as rebels. The men were rendered desperate
by the firmness with which the local magistrates put them on trial for
every transgression of the provincial laws. Arrests provoked resistance.
'If they touch you, run them through the bodies,' said a captain of the
29th Regiment to his soldiers, and he was indicted for the
speech."--_Ib._, p. 314.]
[Footnote 313: Quoted from Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap.
iii., pp. 363, 364.]
[Footnote 314: Bancroft's History, Vol. VI., Chap, xlii., pp. 315, 316.
"The general tendency to conciliation prevailed. Since the merchants of
Philadelphia chose to confine their agreement for non-importation to the
repeal of Townshend's Act, the merchants of Boston, for the sake of
union, gave up their more extensive covenant, and reverted to their
first stipulations. The dispute about the Billeting Act had ceased in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania; the Legislature of New York, pleased with
the permission to issue colonial bills of credit, disregarded the appeal
from Macdougall to the betrayed inhabitants of that city and colony, and
sanctioned a compromise by a majority of one. South Carolina was
commercially the most closely connected with England. The annual exports
from Charleston reached in value about two and a quarter millions of
dollars, of which three-fourths went directly or indirectly to England.
But however closely the ties of interest bound Carolina to England, the
people were high-spirited; and, notwithstanding the great inconvenience
to their trade, they persevered in the strict observance of their
(non-importation) association, looking with impatient anxiety for the
desired repeal of the Act complained of."--_Ib._, pp. 317, 318.]
[Footnote 315: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap, xlii., p.
318.]
CHAPTER XVI.
EVENTS OF 1770--AN EVENTFUL EPOCH--EXPECTATIONS OF RECONCILIATION AND
UNION DISAPPOINTED.
This was the year of bloody collision and parliamentary decision, which
determined the future relations between Great Britain and the American
colonies. Dr. Ramsay observes:
"From the Royal and Ministerial assurances given in favour of America in
1769, and the subsequent repeal in 1770 of five-sixths of the duties
which had been imposed in 1767, together with the consequent renewal of
the mercantile intercourse between Great Britain and her colonies, many
hoped that the contention between the two countries was finally closed.
In all the provinces, excepting Massachusetts, appearances seemed to
favour that opinion. Many incidents operated there to the prejudice of
that harmony which had begun elsewhere to return. Stationing a military
force among them was a fruitful source of uneasiness. The royal army had
been brought thither with the avowed design of enforcing submission to
the mother country. Speeches from the Throne and addresses from both
Houses of Parliament had taught them to look upon the inhabitants of
Massachusetts as a factious, turbulent people, who aimed at throwing off
all subordination to Great Britain. They, on the other hand, were
accustomed to look upon the soldiery as instruments of tyranny, sent on
purpose to dragoon them out of their liberties.
"Reciprocal insults soured the tempers, and mutual injuries embittered
the passions of the opposite parties. Some fiery spirits, who thought it
an indignity to have troops quartered among them, were constantly
exciting the townspeople to quarrel with the soldiers.
"On the 2nd of March, 1770, a fray took place near Mr. Gray's ropewalk,
between a private soldier of the 20th Regiment and an inhabitant. The
former was supported by his comrades, the latter by the ropemakers, till
several on both sides were involved in the consequences. On the 5th a
more dreadful scene was presented. The soldiers when under arms were
pressed upon, insulted and pelted by the mob, armed with clubs, sticks,
and snowballs covering stones. They were also dared to fire. In this
situation, one of the soldiers, who had received a blow, in resentment
fired at the supposed aggressors. This was followed by a single
discharge from six others. Three of the inhabitants were killed and five
were dangerously wounded. The town was immediately in commotion. Such
were the temper, force, and number of the inhabitants, that nothing but
an engagement to remove the troops out of the town, together with the
advice of moderate men, prevented the townsmen from falling on the
soldiers. Capt. Preston, who commanded, and the party who fired on the
inhabitants, were committed to jail, and afterwards tried. The captain
and six of the men were acquitted. Two were brought in guilty of
manslaughter (and were lightly punished). _It appeared on the trial that
the soldiers were abused, insulted, threatened, and pelted before they
fired._ It was also proved that only seven guns were fired by the eight
prisoners. These circumstances induced the jury to give a favourable
verdict. The result of the trial reflected great honour on John Adams
and Josiah Quincy, the counsel for the prisoners (promising young
lawyers and popular leaders), and also on the integrity of the jury, who
ventured to give an upright verdict in defiance of popular
opinion."[316]
A further hindrance to returning harmony in Massachusetts, as in the
other colonies, was another ill-judged act of the British Ministers in
making the Governor and judges wholly independent of the province in
regard to their salaries, which had always been paid by the local
Legislature in annual grants, but which were now, for the first time,
paid by the Crown. The House of Assembly remonstrated against this
innovation, which struck at the very heart of public liberty, by making
the administrator of the government, and the courts of law, wholly
independent of the people, and wholly dependent on the Crown, all
holding their offices during pleasure of the Crown, and depending upon
it alone for both the amount and payment of their salaries, and that
payment out of a revenue raised by taxing the people without their
consent.
The House addressed the Governor and judges to know whether they would
receive their salaries as heretofore, by grants of the Legislature, or
as stipends from the Crown. Three out of the four judges announced that
they would receive their salaries as heretofore, by grants from the
local Legislature; but Governor Hutchinson and Chief Justice Oliver
announced that they would receive their salaries from the Crown. They
therefore became more and more odious to the inhabitants, while the
discussion of the new question of the relations of the Executive and
Judiciary to the people, upon the grounds of public freedom and the
impartial administration of justice, greatly increased the strength of
the opposition and the importance of the local House of Representatives
as the counterpart of the House of Commons, and as guardians of the
rights of the people.
At an early period of Canadian history, the salaries of governors and
judges were determined and paid by the Crown, out of what was called a
casual and territorial revenue, independent of the representatives of
the people, and the judges held their places during pleasure; but after
much agitation, and a determined popular struggle of several years, a
civil list for both the governors and judges was agreed upon and voted
by the Legislature. The tenure of the offices of judges was made that of
good behaviour, instead of pleasure; and executive councillors and heads
of departments were made dependent upon the confidence of the
Legislature, with the control of revenues of every kind raised in the
country; since which time there have been peace, loyalty, and progress
throughout the provinces of the Canadian Dominion.
To turn now to the affairs of the colonies as discussed and decided upon
in the British Parliament, which met the 9th of January, 1770. The King,
in opening Parliament, expressed his regret that his endeavours to
tranquillize America had not been attended with the desired success, and
that combinations had been formed to destroy the commercial connection
between the colonies and the mother country. The opposition in both
Houses of Parliament dwelt strongly on the prevailing discontents, both
in England and in the colonies. Ministers, admitting these discontents,
imputed them to the spirit of faction, the speeches and writings of
agitators, and to petitions got up and circulated by their influence.
Lords Camden and Shelburne resigned, disapproving of the policy of the
Administration, as did soon after, on the 28th of January, 1770, the
Duke of Grafton, First Lord of the Treasury, and was succeeded by Lord
North as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Chatham, after an absence of
two years, recovered sufficiently to make his clarion voice once more
heard in the councils of the nation against official corruption, and in
defence of liberty and the rights of the colonies, the affairs of which
now occupied the attention of Parliament. The British manufacturers and
merchants who traded to America had sustained immense losses by the
rejection of their goods, through the non-importing associations in
America, and apprehended ruin from their continuance, and therefore
petitioned Parliament, stating their sufferings and imploring relief. On
the 5th of March Lord North introduced a Bill into the Commons for the
repeal of the whole of the Act of 1767, which imposed duties on glass,
red lead, paper, and painters' colours, but retaining the preamble,
which asserted the absolute authority of Parliament to bind the colonies
in all cases whatsoever, and retaining, as an illustration of that
authority, the clause of the Act which imposed a duty on tea. He
said:--"The articles taxed being chiefly British manufactures, ought to
have been encouraged instead of being burdened with assessments. The
duty on tea was continued, for maintaining the parliamentary right of
taxation. An impost of threepence in the pound could never be opposed by
the colonists, unless they were determined to rebel against Great
Britain. Besides, a duty on that article, payable in England, and
amounting to nearly one shilling in the pound, was taken off on its
exportation to America; so that the inhabitants of the colonies saved
ninepence in the pound. The members of the opposition, in both Houses,
advocated the repeal of the clause on tea, and predicted the
inefficiency of the Bill should that clause be retained, and repeated
the arguments on the injustice and inexpediency of taxing America by Act
of Parliament; but the Bill was carried by a large majority, and
assented to by the King on the 12th of April."
The repeal of the obnoxious port duties of 1767 left no pretence for
retaining the duty on _tea_ for raising a _revenue_, as the tea duty, at
the highest computation, would not exceed £16,000 a year; and when Lord
North was pressed to relinquish that remaining cause of contention, he
replied:
"Has the repeal of the Stamp Act taught the Americans obedience? Has our
lenity inspired them with moderation? Can it be proper, while they deny
our legal right to tax them, to acquiesce in the argument of illegality,
and by the repeal of the whole law to give up that honour? No; the most
proper time to exert our right of taxation is when the right is refused.
To temporize is to yield; and the authority of the mother country, if it
is now unsupported, will in reality be relinquished for ever. A total
repeal cannot be thought of till America is prostrate at our feet."
Governor Pownall, who had spent many years in America, and had preceded
Barnard as Governor of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, to include the
repeal of the duty on tea as well as on the articles included in the
original motion of Lord North. In the course of his speech in support of
the amendment he said:
"If it be asked whether it will remove the apprehensions excited by your
resolutions and address of the last year, for bringing to trial in
England persons accused of treason in America? I answer, no. If it be
asked, if this commercial concession would quiet the minds of the
Americans as to the political doubts and fears which have struck them to
the heart throughout the continent? I answer, no; so long as they are
left in doubt whether the Habeas Corpus Act, whether the Bill of Rights,
whether the Common Law as now existing in England, have any operation
and effect in America, they cannot be satisfied. At this hour they know
not whether the civil constitution be not suspended and superseded by
the establishment of a military force. The Americans think that they
have, in return to all their applications, experienced a temper and
disposition that is unfriendly--that the enjoyment and exercise of the
common rights of freemen have been refused to them. Never with these
views will they solicit the favour of this House; never more will they
wish to bring before Parliament the grievances under which they conceive
themselves to labour. Deeply as they feel, they suffer and endure with
alarming silence. For their liberty they are under no apprehensions. It
was first planted under the auspicious genius of the constitution, and
it has grown up into a verdant and flourishing tree; and should any
severe strokes be aimed at the branches, and fate reduce it to the bare
stock, it would only take deeper root, and spring out more hardy and
durable than before. They trust to Providence, and wait with firmness
and fortitude the issue."
The statements of Governor Pownall were the result of long observation
and experience in America, and practical knowledge of the colonists, and
were shown by results to be true to the letter, though treated with
scorn by Lord North, and with aversion by the House of Commons, which
rejected his amendment by a majority of 242 to 204.
The results of the combinations against the use of British manufactures
were illustrated this year by the candidates for the degree of Bachelor
of Arts at Harvard College appearing dressed in black cloth manufactured
wholly in New England. The general plan of non-importation of English
manufactured goods was now relinquished on the repeal of the duties
imposed upon them; but the sentiment of the principal commercial towns
was against the importation of any tea from England. An association was
formed not to drink tea until the Act imposing the duty should be
repealed. This was generally agreed to and observed throughout the
colonies.
But the retaining of threepence in the pound on tea did not excite so
much hostility in the colonies against the Parliament as might have been
expected. The Act of Parliament was virtually defeated, and the expected
revenue from tea failed because of the resolution of the colonial
associations of the people to use no tea, and of the merchants to
import none on which the duty was charged. The merchants found means to
smuggle, from countries to which the authority of Great Britain did not
extend, a sufficient supply of tea for the tea-drinking colonists. Thus
the tea-dealers and tea-drinkers of America exercised their patriotism
and indulged their taste--the one class making an additional threepence
a pound on tea by evading the Act, and the other class enjoying the
luxury of tea as cheap as if no tea-duty Act of Parliament existed, and
with the additional relish of rendering such Act abortive. The
facilities for smuggling tea, arising from the great extent of the
American coasts, and the great number of harbours, and the universality
of the British anti-tea associations, and the unity of popular sentiment
on the subject, rendered the Act of Parliament imposing the duty a
matter of sport rather than a measure of oppression even to the most
scrupulous, as they regarded the Act unconstitutional, and every means
lawful and right by which the obnoxious Act could be evaded and
defeated. It is probable that, in the ordinary course of things, the Act
would have become practically obsolete, and the relations of the
colonies to the mother country have settled down into quietness and
friendliness, but for another event, which not only revived with
increased intensity the original question of dispute, but gave rise to
other occurrences that kindled the flame of the American revolution.
That event was the agreement between the Ministry and the East India
Company, which interfered with the natural and ordinary channels of
trade, and gave to that Company a monopoly of the tea trade of America.
From the diminished exportation of tea from England to the colonies,
there were, in warehouses of the British East India Company, seventeen
millions of pounds of tea for which there was no demand. Lord North and
his colleagues were not willing to lose the expected revenue, as small
as it must be at last from their American Tea Act, and the East India
Company were unwilling to lose the profits of their American tea trade.
An agreement was therefore entered into between the Ministry and the
Company, by which the Company, which was authorized by law to export
their tea free of duty to all places whatsoever, could send their tea
cheaper to the colonies than others who had to pay the exceptionable
duty, and even cheaper than before it had been made a source of
revenue; "for the duty taken off it when exported from Great Britain was
greater than that to be paid for it on its importation into the
colonies. Confident of success in finding a market for their tea, thus
reduced in its price, and also of collecting a duty on its importation
and sale in the colonies, the East India Company freighted several ships
with teas for the different colonies, and appointed agents (or
consignees) for its disposal." This measure united both the English and
American merchants in opposition to it upon selfish grounds of interest,
and the colonists generally upon patriotic grounds. "The merchants in
England were alarmed at the losses that must come to themselves from the
exportations of the East India Company, and from the sales going through
the hands of consignees. Letters were written to colonial patriots,
urging their opposition to the project. The (American merchants)
smugglers, who were both numerous and powerful, could not relish a
scheme which, by underselling them and taking a profitable branch of
business out of their hands, threatened a diminution of their gains. The
colonists were too suspicious of the designs of Great Britain to be
imposed upon.
"The cry of endangered liberty once more excited an alarm from New
Hampshire to Georgia. The first opposition to the execution of the
scheme adopted by the East India Company began with the American
merchants. They saw a profitable branch of their trade likely to be
lost, and the benefits of it transferred to a company in Great Britain.
They felt for the wound that would be inflicted on their country's claim
of exemption from parliamentary taxation; but they felt, with equal
sensibility, for the losses they would sustain by the diversion of the
streams of commerce into unusual channels. Though the opposition
originated in the selfishness of the merchants, it did not end there.
The great body of the people, from principles of the purest patriotism,
were brought over to second their wishes. They considered the whole
scheme as calculated to seduce them into an acquiescence with the views
of Parliament for raising an American revenue. Much pains were taken to
enlighten the colonists on this subject, and to convince them of the
eminent hazard to which their liberties were exposed.
"The provincial patriots insisted largely on the persevering
determination of the parent state to establish her claim of taxation by
compelling the sale of tea in the colonies against the solemn
resolutions and declared sense of the inhabitants, and that at a time
when the commercial intercourse of the two countries was renewed, and
their ancient harmony fast returning. The proposed vendors of the tea
were represented as revenue officers, employed in the collection of an
unconstitutional tax imposed by Great Britain. The colonists contended
that, as the duty and the price of the commodity were inseparably
blended, if the tea were sold every purchaser would pay a tax imposed by
the British Parliament as part of the purchase money."[317]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 316: Colonial History, Vol. I. Chap. iii., pp. 364, 365.
Several American historians have sought to represent the soldiers as the
first aggressors and offenders in this affair. The verdict of the jury
refutes such representations. The accuracy of Dr. Ramsay's statements
given above cannot be fairly questioned; he was a member of South
Carolina Legislature, an officer in the revolutionary army during the
whole war, and a personal friend of Washington. Mr. Hildreth says: "A
weekly paper, the 'Journal of the Times,' was filled with all sorts of
stories, some true, but the greater part false or exaggerated, _on
purpose to keep up prejudice against the soldiers. A mob of men and
boys_, encouraged by the sympathy of the inhabitants, _made a constant
practice to insult and provoke them_. The result to be expected soon
followed. After numerous fights with straggling soldiers, a serious
collision at length took place: a picket guard of eight men, _provoked
beyond endurance by words and blows_, fired into a crowd, killed three
persons and dangerously wounded five others." "The story of the 'Boston
massacre,' for so it was called, exaggerated into a ferocious and
unprovoked assault by brutal soldiers on a defenceless people, produced
everywhere intense excitement. The officer and soldiers of the picket
guard were indicted and tried for murder. They were defended, however,
by John Adams and Josiah Quincy, two young lawyers, the most zealous
among the popular leaders: and so clear a case was made in their behalf,
that they were all acquitted except two, who were found guilty of
manslaughter and slightly punished." (History of the United States,
Chap. xxix., pp. 554, 555, 556.)
Dr. Holmes states that "the soldiers were pressed upon, insulted by the
populace, and dared to fire; one of them, who had received a blow, fired
at the aggressors, and a single discharge from six others succeeded.
Three of the inhabitants were killed and five dangerously wounded. The
town was instantly thrown into the greatest commotion. The drums beat to
arms, and thousands of the inhabitants assembled in the adjacent
streets. The next morning Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson summoned a
Council; and while the subject was in discussion, a message was received
from the town, which had convened in full assembly, declaring it to be
their unanimous opinion 'that nothing can rationally be expected to
restore the peace of the town, and prevent blood and carnage, but the
immediate removal of the troops.' On an agreement to this measure, the
commotion subsided. Captain Preston, who commanded the party of
soldiers, was committed with them to jail, and all were afterwards
tried. The captain and six of the men were acquitted. Two were brought
in guilty of manslaughter. The result of the trial reflected great
honour on John Adams and Josiah Quincy, the counsel for the prisoners,
and on the integrity of the jury." (Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 166,
167.)
How much more honourable and reliable are these straightforward
statements of those American historians of the times, and the verdict of
even a Boston jury, than the sophistical, elaborate, and reiterated
efforts of Mr. Bancroft, in the 43rd and 44th chapters of his History,
to implicate the soldiers as the provoking and guilty causes of the
collision, and impugning the integrity of the counsel for the
prosecution, the court, and the jury.
In the Diary of J. Adams, Vol. II., p. 229, are the following words:
"Endeavours had been systematically pursued for many months by certain
busy characters to excite quarrels, rencounters, and combats, single or
compound, in the night, between the inhabitants of the lower class and
the soldiers, and at all risks to enkindle an immortal hatred between
them."--(Quoted by Mr. Hildreth, Vol. II., p. 409, in a note.)]
[Footnote 317: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iii., pp.
370-372.]
CHAPTER XVII.
EVENTS OF 1771, 1772, 1773--THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA REJECTED IN
EVERY PROVINCE OF AMERICA--RESOLUTIONS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN
PHILADELPHIA THE MODEL FOR THOSE OF OTHER COLONIES.
By this unprecedented and unjustifiable combination between the British
Ministry and East India Company to supersede the ordinary channels of
trade, and to force the sale of their tea in America, the returning
peace and confidence between Great Britain and the colonies was
arrested, the colonial merchants of both England and America were roused
and united in opposition to the scheme, meetings were held, associations
were formed, and hostility throughout all the colonies became so general
and intense, that not a chest of the East India Company's tea was sold
from New Hampshire to Georgia, and only landed in one instance, and then
to rot in locked warehouses. In all cases, except in Boston, the
consignees were prevailed upon to resign; and in all cases except two,
Boston and Charleston, the tea was sent back to England without having
been landed. At Charleston, South Carolina, they allowed the tea to be
landed, but not sold; and it rotted in the cellars of the store-houses.
At Philadelphia, the consignees were forced to resign and send the tea
back to England.[318] At New York they did the same. At Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, they sent the tea away to Halifax. At Boston the consignees
were the sons of Hutchinson, the Governor, and he determined that it
should be landed and sold; while the mass of the people, led by
committees of the "Sons of Liberty," were equally determined that the
tea should not be landed or sold.
As this Boston tea affair resulted in the passing of two Acts of
Parliament--the Bill for closing the port of Boston, and the Bill for
suspending the Charter and establishing a new constitution of government
for Massachusetts--and these were followed by an American Congress and a
civil war, I will state the transactions as narrated by three American
historians, agreeing in the main facts, but differing in regard to
incidental circumstances.
Dr. Ramsay narrates the general opposition to the scheme of the East
India Company, and that at Boston in particular, in the following words:
"As the time approached when the arrival of the tea ships might be soon
expected, such measures were adopted as seemed most likely to prevent
the landing of their cargoes. The tea consignees appointed by the East
India Company were in several places compelled to relinquish their
appointments, and no others could be found hardy enough to act in their
stead. The pilots in the River Delaware were warned not to conduct any
of the tea ships into their harbour. In New York, popular vengeance was
denounced against all who would contribute in any measure to forward the
views of the East India Company. The captains of the New York and
Philadelphia ships, being apprised of the resolution of the people, and
fearing the consequence of landing a commodity charged with an odious
duty, in violation of their declared public sentiments, concluded to
return directly to Great Britain without making any entry at the
Custom-house.
"It was otherwise in Massachusetts. The tea ships designed for the
supply of Boston were consigned to the sons, cousins, and particular
friends of Governor Hutchinson. When they were called upon to resign,
they answered that 'it was out of their power.' The Collector refused to
give a clearance unless the vessels were discharged of dutiable
articles. The Governor refused to give a pass for the vessels unless
properly qualified for the Custom-house. The Governor likewise requested
Admiral Montague to guard the passages out of the harbour, and gave
orders to suffer no vessels, coasters excepted, to pass the fortress
from the town without a pass signed by himself. From a combination of
these circumstances the return of the tea vessels from Boston was
rendered impossible. The inhabitants then had no option but to prevent
the landing of the tea, to suffer it to be landed and depend on the
unanimity of the people not to purchase it; to destroy the tea, or to
suffer a deep-laid scheme against their sacred liberties to take effect.
The first would have required incessant watching, by night as well as by
day, for a period of time the duration of which no one could compute.
The second would have been visionary to childishness, by suspending the
liberties of a growing country on the self-denial and discretion of
every tea-drinker in the province. They viewed the tea as the vehicle of
an unconstitutional tax, and as inseparably associated with it. To avoid
the one, they resolved to destroy the other. About seventeen persons,
dressed as Indians, repaired to the tea ships, broke open 342 chests of
tea, and, without doing any other damage, discharged their contents into
the water.
"Thus, by the inflexibility of the Governor, the issue of this business
was different at Boston from what it was elsewhere. The whole cargoes of
tea were returned from New York and Philadelphia; that which was sent to
Charleston was landed and stored, but not offered for sale. Mr.
Hutchinson had repeatedly urged Government to be firm and persevering.
He could not, therefore, consistently with his honour, depart from a
line of conduct he had so often and so strongly recommended to his
superiors. He also believed that the inhabitants would not dare to
perfect their engagements, and flattered himself that they would desist
when the critical moment arrived.
"Admitting the rectitude of the American claims of exemption from
parliamentary taxation, the destruction of the tea by the Bostonians was
warranted by the great law of self-preservation; for it was not possible
for them by any other means to discharge the duty they owed to their
country.
"The event of this business was very different from what had been
expected in England. The colonists acted with so much union and system,
that there was not a single chest of any of the cargoes sent out by the
East India Company sold for their benefit."[319]
The Rev. Dr. Holmes, in his Annals of America, says:
"The crisis now approached when the colonies were to decide whether they
would submit to be taxed by the British Parliament, or practically
support their own principles and meet the consequences. One sentiment
seems to have pervaded the entire continent. The new Ministerial plan
was universally considered as a direct attack on the liberties of the
colonists, which it was the duty of all to oppose. A violent ferment was
everywhere excited; the Corresponding Committees were extremely active;
and it was very generally declared that whoever should, directly or
indirectly, countenance this dangerous invasion of their rights, is an
enemy to his country. The East India Company, confident of finding a
market for their tea, reduced as it now was in its price, freighted
several ships to the colonies with that article, and appointed agents
for the disposal of it. Some cargoes were sent to New York, some to
Philadelphia, some to Charleston (South Carolina), and three to Boston.
The inhabitants of New York and Philadelphia sent the ships back to
London, 'and they sailed up the Thames to proclaim to all the nation
that New York and Pennsylvania would not be enslaved.' The inhabitants
of Charleston unloaded the tea and stored it in cellars, where it could
not be used, and where it finally perished.
"The inhabitants of Boston tried every measure to send back the three
tea ships which had arrived there, but without success. The captains of
the ships had consented, if permitted, to return with their cargoes to
England; but the consignees refused to discharge them from their
obligations, the Custom-house to give them a clearance for their return,
and the Governor refused to grant them a passport for clearing the fort.
It was easily seen that the tea would be gradually landed from the ships
lying so near the town, and that if landed it would be disposed of, and
the purpose of establishing the monopoly and raising a revenue effected.
To prevent this dreaded consequence, a number of armed men, disguised
like Indians, boarded the ships and threw their whole cargoes of tea
into the dock."[320]
A more circumstantial and graphic account of this affair is given by Mr.
J.S. Barry, in his History of Massachusetts, in the following words:
"On Sunday, November 28, 1773, one of the ships arrived, bringing one
hundred and fourteen chests of tea. Immediately the Select Men held a
meeting; and the Committee of Correspondence obtained from Rotch, the
owner of the vessel, a promise not to enter it until Tuesday. The towns
around Boston were summoned to meet on Monday; 'and every friend to his
country, to himself, and to posterity,' was desired to attend, 'to make
a united and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most
destructive measure of administration.'
"At an early hour (Monday, November 29) the people gathered, and by nine
o'clock the concourse was so great that Faneuil Hall was filled to
overflowing. A motion to adjourn to the Old South Meeting-house, the
'Sanctuary of Freedom,' was made and carried; and on reaching that
place, Jonathan Williams was chosen Moderator, and Hancock, Adams,
Young, Molineux, and Warren, fearlessly conducted the business of the
meeting. At least five thousand persons were in and around the building,
and but one spirit animated all. Samuel Adams offered a resolution,
which was unanimously adopted, 'That the tea should be sent back to the
place from whence it came, at all events, and that no duty should be
paid on it.' The consignees asked time for consideration, and 'out of
great tenderness' their request was granted. To prevent any surprise,
however, a watch of twenty-five persons, under Edward Proctor, was
appointed to guard the ship during the night.
"The answer of the consignees was given in the morning (November 30);
and after declaring that it was out of their power to send back the
teas, they expressed their readiness to store them until otherwise
advised. In the midst of the meeting the Sheriff of Suffolk entered,
with a proclamation from the Governor, warning the people to disperse;
but the message was received with derision and hisses, and a unanimous
vote not to disperse. The master and owner of the ship which had lately
arrived were then required to attend; and a promise was extorted from
them that the teas should be returned without landing or paying a duty.
The factors of two other vessels which were daily expected were next
summoned, and similar promises were given by them; upon which the
meeting, after voting to carry into effect, 'at the risk of their lives
and properties,' their former resolves, quietly dissolved.
"After this dissolution, the Committee of Correspondence of Boston and
its vicinity held meetings daily, and gave such directions as
circumstances required. The other ships, on their arrival, anchored
beside the _Dartmouth_ (Rotch's vessel), that one guard might serve for
all; and the inhabitants of a number of towns, at meetings convened for
the purpose, promised to aid Boston whenever their services should be
needed. At the end of twenty days the question must be decided, and if
the teas were landed all was lost. As the crisis drew near the
excitement increased. Hutchinson was confident that no violent measures
would be taken. The wealth of Hancock and others seemed sufficient
security against such measures. But the people had counted the cost,
and had determined to risk all rather than be slaves.
"The eventful day (December 16) at last dawned; and two thousand from
the country, besides the citizens of Boston, assembled in the Old South
Meeting-house at ten o'clock, to decide what should be done. It was
reported that Rotch, the owner of the _Dartmouth_, had been refused a
clearance; and he was immediately instructed to 'protest against the
Custom-house, and apply to the Governor for his pass.' But the Governor
had stolen to his residence at Milton, and at three o'clock in the
afternoon Rotch had not returned. What should be done? 'Shall we abide
by our resolutions?' it was asked. Adams and Young were in favour of
that course; Quincy, distinguished as a statesman and patriot, advised
discretion; but the people cried, 'Our hands have been put to the
plough; we must not look back;' and the whole assemblage of seven
thousand persons voted unanimously that the tea should not be landed.
"Darkness in the meantime had settled upon the town, and in the
dimly-lighted church the audience awaited the return of Rotch. At a
quarter before six he made his appearance, and reported that the
Governor had refused him his pass. 'We can do no more to save the
country,' said Samuel Adams; and a momentary silence ensued. The next
instant a shout was heard at the door; the war-whoop sounded; and forty
or fifty men, disguised as Indians, hurried along to Griffin's Wharf,
posted guards to prevent intrusion, boarded the ships, and in three
hours' time had broken and emptied into the sea three hundred and
forty-two chests of tea. So great was the stillness, that the blows of
the hatchets as the chests were split open were distinctly heard. When
the deed was done, every one retired, and the town was as quiet as if
nothing had occurred."[321]
The foregoing threefold narrative presents substantially the American
case of destroying the East India Company's tea by the inhabitants of
Boston. The account by Mr. Bancroft is more elaborate, digressive,
dramatic, and declamatory, but not so consecutive or concise as the
preceding. Governor Hutchinson, who had advised the very policy which
now recoiled upon himself, corroborates in all essential points the
narrative given above. He states, however, what is slightly intimated
above by Dr. Ramsay, that the opposition commenced by the merchants
against the monopoly of the East India Company, rather than against the
tax itself, which had been paid without murmuring for two years, and
that the parliamentary tax on tea was seized upon, at the suggestion of
merchants in England, to defeat the monopoly of the East India Company,
and to revive and perpetuate the excitement against the British
Parliament which had been created by the Stamp Act, and which was
rapidly subsiding. Governor Hutchinson says:
"When the intelligence first came to Boston it caused no alarm. The
threepenny duty had been paid the last two years without any stir, and
some of the great friends to liberty had been importers of tea. The body
of the people were pleased with the prospect of drinking tea at less
expense than ever. The only apparent discontent was among the importers
of tea, as well those who had been legal importers from England, as
others who had illegally imported from Holland; and the complaint was
against the East India Company for monopolizing a branch of commerce
which had been beneficial to a great number of individual merchants. And
the first suggestion of a design in the Ministry to enlarge the revenue,
and to habituate the colonies to parliamentary taxes, was made from
England; and opposition to the measure was recommended, with an
intimation that it was expected that the tea would not be suffered to be
landed."[322]
The Committees of Correspondence in the several colonies soon availed
themselves of so favourable an opportunity for promoting their great
purpose. It soon appeared to be their general determination, that at
all events the tea should be sent back to England in the same ships
which brought it. The first motions were at Philadelphia (Oct. 18th),
where, at a meeting of the people, every man who should be concerned in
unlading, receiving, or vending the tea, was pronounced an enemy to his
country. This was one of the eight resolves passed at the meeting. The
example was followed by Boston, November 3rd.[323]
Then follows Governor Hutchinson's account of the meetings and
gatherings in Boston: the messages and answers between their Committees
and the consignees, Custom-house officers, and the ultimate throwing of
the tea into the dock, substantially as narrated in the preceding pages,
together with his consultations with his Council, and his remarks upon
the motives and conduct of the parties opposed to him. He admits that
his Council was opposed to the measures which he proposed to suppress
the meetings of the people; he admits the universal hostility of the
people of Boston and of the neighbouring towns to the landing of the
tea; that "while the Governor and Council were sitting on the Monday, in
the Council Chamber, and known to be consulting upon means for
preserving the peace of the town, several thousands of inhabitants of
Boston and other towns were assembled in a public meeting-house at a
small distance, in direct opposition and defiance." He says he "sent the
Sheriff with a proclamation, to be read in the meeting, bearing
testimony against it as an unlawful assembly, and requiring the
Moderator and the people present forthwith to separate at their peril.
Being read, a general hiss followed, and then a question whether they
would surcease further proceedings, as the Governor required, which was
determined in the negative, _nemine contradicente_."
It may be asked upon what legal or even reasonable ground had Governor
Hutchinson the right to denounce a popular meeting which happened at the
same time that he was holding a council, or because such meeting might
entertain and express views differing from or in defiance of those
which he was proposing to his Council?
Or, what authority had Governor Hutchinson to issue a proclamation and
send a Sheriff to forbid a public meeting which the Charter and laws
authorized to be called and held, as much as the Governor was authorized
to call and hold his Council, or as any town or township council or
meeting may be called and held in any province of the Dominion of
Canada? It is not surprising that a public meeting "hissed" a command
which was as lawless as it was powerless. The King himself would not
have ventured to do what Governor Hutchinson did, in like circumstances;
and British subjects in Massachusetts had equal civil rights with
British subjects in England.
Governor Hutchinson admits that the public meeting was not only
numerous, but composed of all classes of inhabitants, and was held in
legal form; and his objection to the legality of the meeting merely
because persons from other towns were allowed to be present, while he
confesses that the inhabitants of Boston at the meeting were unanimous
in their votes, is the most trivial that can be conceived. He says:
"A more determined spirit was conspicuous in this body than in any
former assemblies of the people. It was composed of the lowest, as well,
and probably in as great proportion, as of the superior ranks and
orders, and all had an equal voice. No eccentric or irregular motions,
however, were suffered to take place--all seemed to have been the plan
of but a few--it may be, of a single person. The 'form' of town meeting
was assumed, the Select Men of Boston, town clerks, etc., taking their
usual places; but the inhabitants of any other town being admitted, it
could not assume the name of a 'legal meeting of any town.'" (A trivial
technical objection.)
Referring to another meeting--the last held before the day on which the
tea was thrown into the sea--Governor Hutchinson states:
"The people came into Boston from the adjacent towns within twenty
miles, from some more, from others less, as they were affected; and, as
soon as they were assembled (November 14th, 1773), enjoined the owner of
the ship, at his peril, to demand of the Collector of Customs a
clearance for the ship, and appointed ten of their number a committee to
accompany him, and adjourned for two days to receive the report. Being
reassembled (at the end of the two days), and informed by the owner that
a clearance was refused, he was enjoined immediately to apply to the
Governor for a pass by the Castle. He made an apology to the Governor
for coming upon such an errand, having been compelled to it, and
received an answer that no pass ever had been, or lawfully could be,
given to any vessel which had not first been cleared at the
Custom-house, and that upon his producing a clearance, such pass would
immediately be given by the naval officer."
Governor Hutchinson knew that the Custom-house could not give the
clearance without the landing of the tea and payment of the duty
provided for; he knew that the Custom-house had been applied to in vain
to obtain a clearance. His reference of the owner to the Custom-house
was a mere evasion and pretext to gain time and prevent any decisive
action on the part of the town meeting until the night of the 16th, when
the 20 days after the entry of the ships would have expired, and the
Collector could seize the cargoes for non-payment of duties, place it in
charge of the Admiral at the Castle, and sell it under pretence of
paying the duties. He says: "The body of the people remained in the
meeting-house until they had received the Governor's answer; and then,
after it had been observed to them that, everything else in their power
having been done, it now remained to proceed in the only way left, and
that the owner of the ship having behaved like a man of honour, no
injury ought to be offered to his person or property, the meeting was
declared to be dissolved, and the body of the people repaired to the
wharf and surrounded the immediate actors (who were 'covered with
blankets, and making the appearance of Indians') as a guard and security
until they had finished their work. In two or three hours they hoisted
out of the holds of the ships three hundred and forty-two chests of tea,
and emptied them into the sea. The Governor was unjustly censured by
many people in the province, and much abused by the pamphlet and
newspaper writers in England, for refusing his pass, which it is said
would have saved the property thus destroyed; but he would have been
justly censured if he had granted it. He was bound, as all the Governors
were, by oath, faithfully to observe the Acts of Trade, and to do his
endeavour that the statute of King William, which established a
Custom-house, and is particularly mentioned in the Act, be carried into
execution."
In Governor Hutchinson's own statement and vindication of his conduct,
he admits that the meetings of the people were lawfully called and
regularly conducted; that they were attended by the higher as well as
lower classes of the people; that they exhausted every means in their
power, deliberately and during successive days, to have the tea returned
to England without damage, as was done from the ports of New York and
Philadelphia; and that by his own acts, different from those of New
York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, whose Governors were subject to
the same oaths as himself, the opposers of taxation by the British
Parliament were reduced to the alternative of defeat, or of throwing the
tea in question into the sea, as the Governor had effectually blocked up
every possible way to their having the tea returned to England. Governor
Hutchinson does not pretend to the technical scrupulousness of his oath,
applicable to ordinary cases, binding him to write to the Admiral to
guard the tea by an increased number of armed vessels in the channel of
the harbour, and to prevent any vessel from passing out of the harbour
for sea, without his own permit; nor does he intimate that he himself
was the principal partner in the firm, nominally in the name of his
sons, to whom the East India Company had principally consigned as agents
the sale of the tea in question; much less does he say that in his
letters to England, which had been mysteriously obtained by Dr.
Franklin, and of the publication of which he so strongly and justly
complained, he had urged the virtual deprivation of his country of its
constitution of free government by having the Executive Councillors
appointed and the salaries of the governor, judges, secretary, and
attorney and solicitor-generals paid by the Crown out of the taxes of
the people of the colony, imposed by the Imperial Parliament. Governor
Hutchinson had rendered great service to his country by his History, and
as a public representative, for many years in its Legislature and
Councils, and was long regarded as its chief leader; but he had at
length yielded to the seductions of ambition and avarice, and became an
object of popular hatred instead of being, as he had many years been, a
popular idol. He had sown the seed of which he was now reaping the
fruits.
It is not surprising that, under such circumstances, Governor
Hutchinson's health should become impaired and his spirits depressed,
and that he should seek relief from his burdens and vexations by a visit
to England, for which he applied and obtained permission, and which
proved to be the end of his government of Massachusetts; for General
Gage was appointed to succeed him as Governor, as well as
Commander-in-Chief of the King's forces in America.
In reviewing the last few months of Mr. Hutchinson's government of
Massachusetts, it is obvious that his ill-advised policy and mode of
proceeding--arising, no doubt, in a great measure, from his personal and
family interest in speculation in the new system of tea trade--was the
primary and chief cause of those proceedings in which Boston differed
from New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston in preventing the landing of
the East India Company's tea. Had the authorities in the provinces of
New York and Pennsylvania acted in the same way as did the Governor of
Massachusetts, it cannot be doubted that the same scenes would have been
witnessed at Charleston, Philadelphia, and New York as transpired at
Boston. The eight resolutions which were adopted by the inhabitants of
Philadelphia, in a public town meeting, on the 8th of October, as the
basis of their proceedings against the taxation of the colonies by the
Imperial Parliament, and against the landing of the East India Company's
tea, were adopted by the inhabitants of Boston in a public town meeting
the 3rd of November. The tea was as effectually prevented from being
landed at the ports of New York and Philadelphia as it was at the port
of Boston, and was as completely destroyed in the damp cellars at
Charleston as in the sea water at Boston.[324]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 318: The resolutions adopted by a meeting of the inhabitants
of Philadelphia, on the 18th of October, 1773, afford a specimen of the
spirit of all the colonies, and the model of resolutions adopted in
several of them, even Boston. They were as follows:
"1. That the disposal of their own property is the inherent right of
freemen; that there can be no property in that which another can, of
right, take from us without our consent; that the claim of Parliament to
tax America is, in other words, a claim of right to levy contributions
on us at pleasure.
"2. That the duty imposed by Parliament upon tea landed in America is a
tax on the Americans, or levying contributions on them without their
consent.
"3. That the express purpose for which the tax is levied on the
Americans, namely, for the support of government, administration of
justice, and defence of his Majesty's dominions in America, has a direct
tendency to render Assemblies useless, and to introduce arbitrary
government and slavery.
"4. That a virtuous and steady opposition to this Ministerial plan of
governing America is absolutely necessary to preserve even the shadow of
liberty, and is a duty which every freeman in America owes to his
country, to himself, and to his posterity.
"5. That the resolution lately entered into by the East India Company,
to send out their tea to America, subject to the payment of duties on
its being landed here, is an open attempt to enforce this Ministerial
plan, and a violent attack upon the liberties of America.
"6. That it is the duty of every American to oppose this attempt.
"7. That whosoever shall, directly or indirectly, countenance this
attempt, or in anywise aid or abet in unloading, receiving, or vending
the tea sent or to be sent out by the East India Company, while it
remains subject to the payment of a duty here, is an enemy to his
country.
"8. That a Committee be immediately chosen to wait on those gentlemen
who it is reported are appointed by the East India Company to receive
and sell said tea, and request them, from a regard to their own
character, and the peace and good order of the city and province,
immediately to resign their appointments." (Ramsay's Colonial History,
Vol. I., pp. 372, 373.)]
[Footnote 319: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. 1., Chap. iii., pp.
373-375.]
[Footnote 320: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 181, 182.]
[Footnote 321: Barry's History of Massachusetts, Second Period, Chap.
xiv., pp. 470-473.
The historian adds: "The Governor was in a forlorn state, and was unable
to keep up even a show of authority. Every one was against him. The
Houses were against him. 'The superior judges were intimidated from
acting,' and 'there was not a justice of the peace, sheriff, constable,
or peace-officer in the province who would venture to take cognizance of
any breach of law against the general bent of the people.'"--_Ib._, 473,
474.]
[Footnote 322: Governor Hutchinson, in a note, referring to the
mercantile English letters which contained the suggestion not to allow
the landing of the tea of the East India Company, says:
"These letters were dated in England the beginning of August, and were
received in America the latter end of September and the beginning of
October."
Mr. Bancroft states as follows the causes and circumstances of this
disastrous tea agreement between the British Ministry and East India
Company:
"The continued refusal of North America to receive tea from England had
brought distress upon the East India Company, which had on hand, wanting
a market, great quantities imported in the faith that that agreement (in
the colonies, not to purchase tea imported from England) could not hold.
They were able to pay neither their dividends nor their debts; their
stock depreciated nearly one-half; and the Government must lose their
annual payment of four hundred thousand pounds.
"The bankruptcies, brought on partly by this means, gave such a shock to
credit as had not been experienced since the South Sea year, and the
great manufacturers were sufferers. The directors came to Parliament
with an ample confession of their humbled state, together with
entreaties for assistance and relief, and particularly praying that
leave might be given to export tea free of all duties to America and to
foreign ports. Had such leave been granted in respect of America, it
would have been an excellent commercial regulation, as well as have
restored a good understanding to every part of the empire. Instead of
this, Lord North proposed to give to the Company itself the right of
exporting its teas. The existing law granted on their exportation to
America a drawback of three-fifths only of the duties paid on
importation. Lord North now offered to the East India Company a drawback
of the whole. Trecothick, in the committee, also advised to take off the
import duty in America of threepence the pound, as it produced no income
to the revenue; but the Ministry would not listen to the thought of
relieving America from taxation. 'Then,' added Trecothick in behalf of
the East India Company, 'as much or more may be brought into revenue by
not allowing a full exemption from the duties paid here.' But Lord North
refused to discuss the right of Parliament to tax America, insisting
that no difficulty could arise; that under the new regulation America
would be able to buy tea from the Company at a lower price than from any
other European nation, and that men will always go to the cheapest
market.
"The Ministry was still in its halcyon days; no opposition was made even
by the Whigs; and the measure, which was the King's own, and was
designed to put America to the test, took effect as law from the 10th
day of May, 1773. It was immediately followed by a most carefully
prepared answer from the King to petitions from Massachusetts,
announcing that he 'considered his authority to make laws in Parliament
of sufficient force and validity to bind his subjects in America, in all
cases whatsoever, as essential to the dignity of the Crown, and a right
appertaining to the State, which it was his duty to preserve entire and
inviolate;' that he therefore 'could not but be greatly displeased with
the petitions and remonstrance in which that right was drawn into
question,' but that he 'imputed the unwarrantable doctrines held forth
in the said petitions and remonstrance to the artifices of a few.' All
this while Lord Dartmouth (the new Secretary of State for the Colonies,
successor to Lord Hillsborough) 'had a true desire to see lenient
measures adopted towards the colonies,' not being in the least aware
that he was drifting with the Cabinet towards the very system of
coercion against which he gave the most public and the most explicit
pledges." (History of the United States, Vol. VI., pp. 458-460.)]
[Footnote 323: See these resolutions, in a note on pp. 374, 375.]
[Footnote 324: "In South Carolina, some of the tea was thrown into the
river as at Boston." (English Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., p.
50.)]
CHAPTER XVIII.
EVENTS OF 1774--ALL CLASSES IN THE COLONIES DISCONTENTED--ALL CLASSES
AND ALL THE PROVINCES REJECT THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA.
The year 1774 commenced, among other legacies of 1773, with that of the
discontent of all the colonies,[325] their unanimous rejection of the
East India tea, stamped with the threepenny duty of parliamentary tax,
as the symbol of the absolutism of King and Parliament over the
colonies. The manner of its rejection, by being thrown into the sea at
Boston, was universally denounced by all parties in England. The
accounts of all the proceedings in America against the admission of the
East India tea to the colonial ports, were coloured by the mediums
through which they were transmitted--the royal governors and their
executive officers, who expected large advantages from being assigned
and paid their salaries by the Crown, independent of the local
Legislatures; and the consignees of the East India Company, who
anticipated large profits from their monopoly of its sale. Opposition to
the tea duty was represented as "rebellion"--the assertors of colonial
freedom from imperial taxation without representation were designated
"rebels" and "traitors," notwithstanding their professed loyalty to the
Throne and to the unity of the empire, and that their utmost wishes were
limited to be replaced in the position they occupied after the peace of
Paris, in 1763, and after their unanimous and admitted loyalty, and even
heroism, in defence and support of British supremacy in America.
"Intelligence," says Dr. Holmes, "of the destruction of the tea at
Boston was communicated on the 7th of March (1774), in a message from
the Throne, to both Houses of Parliament. In this communication the
conduct of the colonists was represented as not merely obstructing the
commerce of Great Britain, but as subversive of the British
Constitution. Although the papers accompanying the Royal message
rendered it evident that the opposition to the sale of the tea was
common to all the colonies; yet the Parliament, enraged at the violence
of Boston, selected that town as the object of its legislative
vengeance. Without giving the opportunity of a hearing, a Bill was
passed by which the port of Boston was legally precluded from the
privilege of landing and discharging, or of lading or shipping goods,
wares, and merchandise; and every vessel within the points Aldeston and
Nahant was required to depart within six hours, unless laden with food
or fuel.
"This Act, which shut up the harbour of Boston, was speedily followed by
another, entitled 'An Act for Better Regulating the Government of
Massachusetts,' which provided that the Council, heretofore elected by
the General Assembly, was to be appointed by the Crown; the Royal
Governor was invested with the power of appointing and removing all
Judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, Commissioners of Oyer and
Terminer, the Attorney-General, Provost-Marshal, Justices, Sheriffs,
etc.; town meetings, which were sanctioned by the Charter, were, with
few exceptions, expressly forbidden, without leave previously obtained
of the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, expressing the special business
of said meeting, and with a further restriction that no matters should
be treated of at these meetings except the electing of public officers
and the business expressed in the Governor's permission; jurymen, who
had been elected before by the freeholders and inhabitants of the
several towns, were to be all summoned and returned by the sheriffs of
the respective counties; the whole executive government was taken out
of the hands of the people, and the nomination of all important officers
invested in the King or his Governor.
"In the apprehension that in the execution of these Acts riots would
take place, and that trials or murders committed in suppressing them
would be partially decided by the colonists, it was provided by another
Act, that if any persons were indicted for murder, or any capital
offence, _committed in aiding the magistracy_, the Governor might send
the person so indicted to another county, or to Great Britain, to be
tried.
"These three Acts were passed in such quick succession as to produce the
most inflammatory effects in America, where they were considered as
forming a complete system of tyranny. 'By the first,' said the
colonists, 'the property of unoffending thousands is arbitrarily taken
away for the act of a few individuals; by the second, our chartered
liberties are annihilated; and by the third, our lives may be destroyed
with impunity.'"[326]
The passing of these three Bills through Parliament was attended in each
case with protracted and animated debates.
The first debate or discussion of American affairs took place on the 7th
of March, in proposing an address of thanks to the King for the message
and the communication of the American papers, with an assurance that the
House would not fail to exert every means in their power of effectually
providing for objects so important to the general welfare as maintaining
the due execution of the laws, and for securing the just dependence of
the colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.
In moving this address to pledge Parliament to the exertion of every
means in its power, Mr. Rice said: "The question now brought to issue
is, whether the colonies are or are not the colonies of Great Britain."
Lord North said, "Nothing can be done to re-establish peace, without
additional powers from Parliament." Nugent, now Lord Clare (who had
advocated the Stamp Act, if the revenue from it should not exceed a
peppercorn, as a symbol of parliamentary power), entreated that there
might be no divided counsels. Dowdeswill said: "On the repeal of the
Stamp Act, all America was quiet; but in the following year you would go
in pursuit of your peppercorn--you would collect from peppercorn to
peppercorn--you would establish taxes as tests of obedience. Unravel the
whole conduct of America; you will find out the fault is at home."
Pownall, former Governor of Massachusetts and earnest advocate of
American rights, said: "The dependence of the colonies is a part of the
British Constitution. I hope, for the sake of this country, for the sake
of America, for the sake of general liberty, that this address will pass
with a unanimous vote." Colonel Barré even applauded the good temper
with which the subject had been discussed, and refused to make any
opposition. William Burke, brother of Edmund Burke, said: "I speak as an
Englishman. We applaud ourselves for the struggles we have had for our
constitution; the colonists are our fellow-subjects; they will not lose
theirs without a struggle." Wedderburn, the Solicitor-General, who bore
the principal part in the debate, said: "The leading question is the
dependence or independence of America." The address was adopted without
a division.[327]
On the 14th of March, Lord North explained at large his American policy,
and opened the first part of his plan by asking leave to bring in a Bill
for the instant punishment of Boston. He stated, says the Annual
Register, "that the opposition to the authority of Parliament had always
originated in the colony of Massachusetts, and that colony had been
always instigated to such conduct by the irregular and seditious
proceedings of the town of Boston; that, therefore, for the purpose of
a thorough reformation, it became necessary to begin with that town,
which by a late unpardonable outrage had led the way to the destruction
of the freedom of commerce in all parts of America: that if a severe and
exemplary punishment were not inflicted on this heinous act, Great
Britain would be wanting in the protection she owed to her most
peaceable and meritorious subjects: that had such an insult been offered
to British property in a foreign port, the nation would have been called
upon to demand satisfaction for it.
"He would therefore propose that the town of Boston should be obliged to
pay for the tea which had been destroyed in their port: that the injury
was indeed offered by persons unknown and in disguise, but that the town
magistracy had taken no notice of it, had never made any search for the
offenders, and therefore, by a neglect of manifest duty, became
accomplices in the guilt: that the fining of communities for their
neglect in punishing offences committed within their limits was
justified by several examples. In King Charles the Second's time, the
city of London was fined when Dr. Lamb was killed by unknown persons.
The city of Edinburgh was fined and otherwise punished for the affair of
Captain Porteous. A part of the revenue of the town of Glasgow had been
sequestered until satisfaction was made for the pulling down of Mr.
Campbell's house. These examples were strong in point for such
punishments. The case of Boston was far worse. It was not a single act
of violence; it was a series of seditious practices of every kind, and
carried on for several years.
"He was of opinion, therefore, that it would not be sufficient to punish
the town of Boston by obliging her to make a pecuniary satisfaction for
the injury which, by not endeavouring to prevent or punish, she has, in
fact, encouraged; security must be given in future that trade may be
safely carried on, property protected, laws obeyed, and duties regularly
paid. Otherwise the punishment of a single illegal act is no
reformation. It would be therefore proper to take away from Boston the
privilege of a port until his Majesty should be satisfied in these
particulars, and publicly declare in Council, on a proper certificate of
the good behaviour of the town, that he was so satisfied. Until this
should happen, the Custom-house officers, who were now not safe in
Boston, or safe no longer than while they neglected their duty, should
be removed to Salem, where they might exercise their functions."[328]
The Bill passed the first reading without discussion. At the second
reading, Mr. Byng alone voted no, though there was considerable
discussion. "Mr. Bollan, the agent for the Council of Massachusetts Bay,
presented a petition, desiring to be heard in behalf of said Council and
other inhabitants of Boston; but the House refused to receive the
petition."[329]
At the third reading, the Lord Mayor of London presented a petition in
behalf of several natives and inhabitants of North America then in
London. "It was drawn," says the Annual Register, "with remarkable
ability." The petitioners alleged that "the proceedings were repugnant
to every principle of law and justice, and under such a precedent no
man in America could enjoy a moment's security; for if judgment be
immediately to follow on accusation against the people of America,
supported by persons notoriously at enmity with them, the accused
unacquainted with the charges, and from the nature of their situation
utterly incapable of answering and defending themselves, every fence
against false accusation will be pulled down.
"They asserted that law is executed with as much impartiality in America
as in any part of his Majesty's dominions. They appealed for proof of
this to the fair trial and favourable verdict in the case of Captain
Preston and his soldiers.
"That in such a case the interposition of parliamentary power was full
of danger and without precedent. The persons committing the injury were
unknown. If discovered, the law ought first to be tried. If unknown,
what rule of justice can punish the town for a civil injury committed by
persons not known to them?
"That the instances of the cities of London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow were
wholly dissimilar. All these towns were regularly heard in their own
defence. Their magistrates were of their own choosing (which was not the
case of Boston), and therefore they were more equitably responsible. But
in Boston the King's Governor has the power, and had been advised by his
Council to exert it; if it has been neglected, he alone is
answerable."[330] In conclusion, the petitioners strongly insisted on
the injustice of the Act, and its tendency to alienate the affections of
America from the mother country.
The petition was received, but no particular proceedings took place upon
it.
The Bill passed the House on the 25th of March, and was carried up to
the Lords, where it was likewise warmly debated; but, as in the Commons,
without a division. It received the Royal assent on the 31st of
March.[331]
Dr. Ramsay remarks: "By the operation of the Boston Port Act, the
preceding situation of its inhabitants and that of the East India
Company was reversed. The former had more reason to complain of the
disproportionate penalty to which they were indiscriminately subjected,
than the latter of that outrage on their property, for which punishment
had been inflicted. Hitherto the East India Company were the injured
party; but from the passing of this Act the balance of injury was on the
opposite side. If wrongs received entitled the former to reparation, the
latter had a much stronger title on the same ground. For the act of
seventeen or eighteen individuals, as many thousands were involved in
one general calamity."[332]
Shortly after the passing of the Boston Port Bill, the second Bill was
brought into Parliament, entitled "An Act for the Better Regulating of
the Government of the Province of Massachusetts Bay." This Bill was
brought in on the 28th of March, three days before the Royal assent was
given to the Boston Port Bill. As the town of Boston had received no
notice of the Bill which closed its port, and had therefore no
opportunity to vindicate its conduct or rights; so the Province received
no notice of the Bill which changed its system of government, which
abrogated so much of its Charter as gave to its Legislative Assembly the
choice of the Council; abolished town meetings, except for the choice of
town officers, or on the special permission of the Governor, which gave
to the Crown the appointment and removal of the sheriffs, and to the
sheriffs the selection of the juries, which had hitherto been elected by
the people. After an animated debate, led by Dunning in opposition, the
Bill passed the Commons by a vote of more than three to one.
The third penal Bill brought in and passed was said to have been
specially recommended by the King himself. It authorized, at the
discretion of the Governor, the removal for trial to Nova Scotia or
Great Britain of all magistrates, revenue officers, or soldiers indicted
for murder or other capital offence. Mr. Bancroft says: "As Lord North
brought forward this wholesale Bill of indemnity to the Governor and
soldiers, if they should trample upon the people of Boston and be
charged with murder, it was noticed that he trembled and faltered at
every word; showing that he was the vassal of a stronger will than his
own, and vainly struggled to wrestle down the feelings which his nature
refused to disavow."[333]
Colonel Barré, who had supported the Boston Port Bill, said: "I execrate
the present measure; you have had one meeting of the colonies in
Congress. You may soon have another. The Americans will not abandon
their principles; for if they submit they are slaves." The Bill passed
the Commons by a vote of more than four to one.
The fourth Bill legalized the quartering of troops within the town of
Boston.
The question now arises, What were the effects of these measures upon
the colonies? We answer, the effects of these measures were the very
reverse of what had been anticipated and predicted by their advocates in
England, both in and out of Parliament. The general expectation in
England was that they would not be resisted in America; that Boston and
Massachusetts would submit; that if they should not submit, they would
be isolated from the other provinces, who would not identify themselves
with or countenance the extreme proceedings of Boston and of
Massachusetts. These measures had been adopted by the Government and
Parliament of Great Britain in the months of March and April, and were
to take effect the 1st of June. In the two following months of May and
June, America spoke, and twelve colonies out of thirteen (Georgia alone
excepted) protested against the measures of the British Parliament, and
expressed their sympathy with Boston and Massachusetts. Boston itself
spoke first, and instead of submitting, as had been predicted by Lords
Mansfield and others, held a town meeting as soon as they received
intelligence of the passing of the Boston Port Bill, at which
resolutions were passed expressing their opinion of the impolicy,
injustice, inhumanity and cruelty of this Act, from which they appealed
to God and to the world; also inviting other colonies to join with them
in an agreement to stop all imports and exports to and from Great
Britain and Ireland and the West Indies until the Act should be
repealed.[334]
Mr. Bancroft, remarks:
"The merchants of Newburyport were the first who agreed to suspend all
commerce with Britain and Ireland. Salem, also, the place marked out as
the new seat of government, in a very full town meeting, and after
unimpassioned debates, decided almost unanimously to stop trade, not
with Britain only, but even with the West Indies. If in Boston a few
cravens proposed to purchase a relaxation of the blockade by quailing
before power, the majority were beset by no temptation so strong as that
of routing at once the insignificant number of troops who had come to
overawe them. But Samuel Adams, while he compared their spirit to that
of Sparta or Rome, was ever inculcating patience as the characteristic
of a true patriot; and the people having sent forth their cry to the
continent, waited self-possessed for voices of consolation."[335]
In the meantime, according to the provisions of the Charter, the
Legislature of Massachusetts, the last Wednesday in May, proceeded to
nominate the twenty-eight councillors. Of these, General Gage negatived
the unprecedented number of thirteen, including all the popular leaders
nominated. He laid nothing before the General Assembly but the ordinary
business of the province; but gave notice that the seat of government
would be removed to Salem the 1st of June, in pursuance of the Act for
Closing the Port of Boston.
The Legislature reassembled, according to adjournment, at Salem the 7th
day of June,[336] after ten days' prorogation, and on the 9th the
Council replied to the Governor's speech at the opening of the session.
Their answer was respectful, but firmly and loyally expressive of their
views and feelings. They declared their readiness "on all occasions
cheerfully to co-operate with his Excellency" in every step tending to
"restore harmony" and "extricate the province from their present
embarrassments," which, in their estimation, were attributable to the
conduct of his "two immediate predecessors." They at the same time
affirmed that "the inhabitants of the colony claimed no more than the
rights of Englishmen, without diminution or abridgment;" and that these,
"as it was their indispensable duty, so would it be their constant
endeavour to maintain to the utmost of their power, in perfect
consistence with the truest loyalty to the Crown, the just prerogatives
of which they should ever be zealous to support." To this address the
Governor replied in the following bitter words: "I cannot receive this
address, which contains indecent reflections on my predecessors, who
have been tried and honourably acquitted by the Lords of the Privy
Council, and their conduct approved by the King. I consider this address
as an insult upon his Majesty and the Lords of the Privy Council, and an
affront to myself."
The answer of the Assembly was very courteous, but equally decided with
that of the Council. They congratulated his Excellency on his safe
arrival, and declared that they "honoured him in the most exalted
station of the province, and confided in him to make the known
Constitution and Charter the rule of his administration;" they
"deprecated the removal of the Court to Salem," but expressed a hope
that "the true state of the province, and the character of his Majesty's
subjects in it, their loyalty to their Sovereign and their affection for
the parent country,[337] as well as their invincible attachment to their
just rights and liberties, would be laid before his Majesty, and that he
would be the happy instrument of removing his Majesty's displeasure, and
restoring harmony, which had been long interrupted by the artifices of
interested and designing men."
The House of Representatives, after much private consultation among its
leading members, proceeded with closed doors to the consideration and
adoption, by a majority of 92 to 12, of resolutions declaring the
necessity of a general meeting of all the colonies in Congress, "in
order to consult together upon the present state of the colonies, and
the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of
certain Acts of Parliament respecting America; and to deliberate and
determine upon wise and proper measures to be by them recommended to all
the colonies for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and
liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony
between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently to be desired by
all good men." They elected five gentlemen to represent Massachusetts
to the proposed Congress.
The House also proceeded with all expedition to draw up a declaration of
their sentiments, to be published as a rule for the conduct of the
people of Massachusetts. "This declaration," says Dr. Andrews,
"contained a repetition of grievances; the necessity they were now under
of struggling against lawless power; the disregard of their petitions,
though founded on the clearest and most equitable reasons; the evident
intention of Great Britain to destroy the Constitution transmitted to
them from their ancestors, and to erect upon its ruins a system of
absolute sway, incompatible with their disposition and subversive of the
rights they had uninterruptedly enjoyed during the space of more than a
century and a half. Impelled by these motives, they thought it their
duty to advise the inhabitants of Massachusetts to throw every
obstruction in their power in the way of such evil designs, and
recommended as one of the most effectual, a total disuse of all
importations from Great Britain until an entire redress had been
obtained of every grievance.
"Notwithstanding the secrecy with which this business was carried on,"
continues Dr. Andrews, "the Governor was apprized of it; and on the very
day it was completed, and the report of it made to the House (and
adopted), he dissolved the Assembly, which was the last that was held in
that colony agreeably to the tenor of the Charter."[338]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 325: "The discontents and disorders continue to prevail in a
greater or less degree through all the old colonies on the continent.
The same spirit pervades the whole. Even those colonies which depended
most upon the mother country for the consumption of their productions
entered into similar associations with the others; and nothing was to be
heard of but resolutions for the encouragement of their own
manufactures, the consumption of home products, the discouragement of
foreign articles, and the retrenchment of all superfluities." (English
Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., p. 45.)]
[Footnote 326: Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 185, 186. These three
Bills were followed by a fourth, legalizing the quartering of the troops
on the inhabitants in the town of Boston.]
[Footnote 327: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap.
lii, pp. 503-510. Mr. Bancroft says:
"The next day letters arrived from America, manifesting no change in the
conduct of the colonies. Calumny, with its hundred tongues, exaggerated
the turbulence of the people, and invented wild tales of violence. It
was said at the palace, and the King believed, that there was in Boston
a regular committee for tarring and feathering; and that they were next,
to use the King's expression, 'to pitch and feather' Governor Hutchinson
himself. The press was also employed to rouse the national pride, till
the zeal of the English people for maintaining English supremacy became
equal to the passions of the Ministry. Even the merchants and
manufacturers were made to believe that their command of the American
market depended on the enforcement of the British claim of
authority."--_Ib._, p. 511.]
[Footnote 328: Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., pp. 62, 63. "At the
first introduction, the Bill was received with very general applause.
The cry raised against the Americans, partly the natural effect of their
own acts, and partly of the operations of Government, was so strong as
nearly to overbear the most resolute and determined in the opposition.
Several of those who had been the most sanguine favourers of the
colonies now condemned their behaviour and applauded the measure as not
only just but lenient (even Colonel Barré). He said: 'After having
weighed the noble lord's proposition well, I cannot help giving it my
hearty and determined approval.' Others, indeed (as Dowdeswill and
Edmund Burke), stood firmly by their old ground. They contented
themselves, in that stage of the business, with deprecating the Bill;
predicting the most fatal consequences from it, and lamenting the spirit
of the House, which drove on or was driving on to the most violent
measures, by the mischiefs produced by injudicious counsels; one seeming
to render the other necessary. They declared that they would enter
little into a debate which they saw would be fruitless, and only spoke
to clear themselves from having any share in such fatal
proceedings."--_Ib._, pp. 164, 165.]
[Footnote 329: Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., p. 65, which adds:
"This vote of rejection was heavily censured. The opposition cried out
at the inconsistency of the House, who but a few days ago received a
petition from this very man, in this very character; and now, only
because they chose to exert their power in acts of injustice and
contradiction, totally refuse to receive anything from him, as not duly
qualified. But what, they asserted, made this conduct the more
unnecessary and outrageous was, that at that time the House of Lords
were actually hearing Mr. Bollan on his petition, as a person duly
qualified, at their bar. 'Thus,' said they, 'this House is at once in
contradiction to the other and to itself.' As to the reasons given
against his qualifications, they are equally applicable to all American
agents; none of whom are appointed as the Minister now requires they
should be, and thus this House cuts off communication between them and
the colonies whom they are assisting by their acts."]
[Footnote 330: Annual Register for 1774, Vol. XVII., pp. 65, 66.]
[Footnote 331: _Ib._, p. 67.
The Bill underwent a more full and fair discussion in the House of Lords
than in the House of Commons. The amiable Lord Dartmouth, then Secretary
of State for the Colonies, "a man that prayed," desired lenient
measures, called what passed in Boston "commotion," not open
"rebellion." But Lord Mansfield said, "What passed in Boston is the last
overt act of high treason, proceeding from our own lenity and want of
foresight. It is, however, the luckiest event that could befall this
country, for all may now be recovered. Compensation to the East India
Company I regard as no object of the Bill. The sword is drawn, and you
must throw away the scabbard. Pass this Act, and you will be past the
Rubicon. The Americans will then know that we shall not temporize any
longer; if it passes with a tolerable unanimity, Boston will submit, and
all will end in victory without carnage." The Marquis of Rockingham and
the Duke of Richmond warmly opposed the measure, as did Lords Camden and
Shelburne, the latter of whom proved the tranquil and loyal condition in
which he had left the colonies on giving up their administration.]
[Footnote 332: Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. iv., p. 379.
"The inhabitants of Boston, distinguished for politeness and hospitality
no less than for industry and opulence, were sentenced, on the short
notice of twenty days, to a deprivation of the means of subsistence. The
rents of landholders ceased, or were greatly diminished. The immense
property in stores and wharves was rendered in a great measure useless.
Labourers and artificers, and many others employed in the numerous
occupations created by an extensive trade, shared the general calamity.
Those of the people who depended on a regular income, and those who
earned their subsistence by daily labour, were equally deprived of the
means of support. Animated, however, by the spirit of freedom, they
endured their privations with inflexible fortitude. Their sufferings
were soon mitigated by the sympathy and relieved by the charity of the
other colonists. Contributions were everywhere raised for their relief.
Corporate bodies, town meetings, and provincial conventions sent them
letters and addresses applauding their conduct and exhorting them to
perseverance. The inhabitants of Marblehead (which was to be the seaport
instead of Boston) generously offered the Boston merchants the use of
their harbour, wharves, warehouses, and their personal attendance, on
the lading or unlading of their goods, free of all expense. The
inhabitants of Salem (the newly appointed capital) concluded an address
to Governor Gage in a manner that reflected great honour on their virtue
and patriotism. 'By shutting up the port of Boston,' they said, 'some
imagine that the course of trade might be turned hither, and to our
benefit; but nature, in the formation of our harbour, forbids our
becoming rivals in commerce with that convenient mart; and were it
otherwise, we must be dead to every idea of justice, lost to all
feelings of humanity, could we indulge one thought to seize on wealth
and raise our fortunes on the ruins of our suffering neighbours.'"
(Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. II., pp. 187, 188.)]
[Footnote 333: History of the United States, Vol. VI., Chap. lii., pp.
525, 526.]
[Footnote 334: Marshall's Colonial History, Chap. xiv., p. 405.
"As soon as the Act was received, the Boston Committee of
Correspondence, by the hand of Joseph Warren, invited eight neighbouring
towns to a conference 'on the critical state of public affairs.' On the
12th, at noon, Metcalf Bowler, the Speaker of the Assembly of Rhode
Island, came before them with the cheering news that, in answer to a
recent circular letter from the body over which he presided, all the
thirteen Governments were pledged to union. Punctually at the hour of
three in the afternoon of that day, the committees from the eight
villages joined them in Faneuil Hall, the cradle of American liberty,
where for ten years the freemen of the town had debated the great
question of justifiable resistance. Placing Samuel Adams at their head,
and guided by a report prepared by Joseph Warren of Boston, Gardener of
Cambridge, and others, they agreed unanimously on the injustice and
cruelty of the Act by which Parliament, without competent jurisdiction,
and contrary as well to natural right as to the laws of all civilized
states, had, without a hearing, set apart, accused, tried and condemmed
the town of Boston." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol.
VII., Chap, i., pp. 35, 36.)]
[Footnote 335: History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap, x., pp.
38, 39.
Referring to General Gage's arrival at Boston, as Commander-in-Chief of
the continent as well as successor to Hutchinson as Governor of
Massachusetts, Mr. Bancroft says:
"On the 17th of May, Gage, who had remained four days with Hutchinson at
Castle William, landed at Long Wharf amidst salutes from ships and
batteries. Received by the Council and civil officers, he was escorted
by the Boston cadets, under Hancock, to the State House, where the
Council presented a loyal address, and his commission was proclaimed
with three volleys of musketry and as many cheers. He then partook of a
public dinner in Faneuil Hall. A hope still lingered that relief might
come through his intercession. But Gage was neither fit to reconcile nor
to subdue. By his mild temper and love of society, he gained the
good-will of his boon companions, and escaped personal enmities; but in
earnest business he inspired neither confidence nor fear. Though his
disposition was far from being malignant, he was so poor in spirit and
so weak of will, so dull in his perceptions and so unsettled in his
opinions, that he was sure to follow the worst advice, and vacillate
between smooth words of concession and merciless severity. He had
promised the King that with four regiments he would play the lion, and
troops beyond his requisition were hourly expected. His instructions
enjoined upon him the seizure and condign punishment of Samuel Adams,
Hancock, Joseph Warren, and other leading patriots; but he stood in such
dread of them that he never so much as attempted their arrest."--_Ib._,
pp. 37, 38.]
[Footnote 336: But before the prorogation, which took place the 28th of
May, the Assembly desired the Governor to appoint the 1st day of June as
a day of fasting and prayer; but he refused, assigning as a reason, in a
letter to Lord Dartmouth, that "the request was only to give an
opportunity for sedition to flow from the pulpit."]
[Footnote 337: "The people of Massachusetts were almost exclusively of
English origin. Beyond any other colony they loved the land of their
ancestors; but their fond attachment made them only the more sensitive
to its tyranny. To subject them to taxation without their consent was
robbing them of their birthright; they scorned the British Parliament as
a 'Junta of the servants of the Crown rather than the representatives of
England.' Not disguising to themselves their danger, but confident of
victory, they were resolved to stand together as brothers for a life of
liberty." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap. i.,
p. 38).]
[Footnote 338: History of the War with America, France and Spain, and
Holland, commencing in 1775, and ending in 1783. By John Andrews, LL.D.,
in four volumes, with Maps and Charts. London: Published by his
Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority, 1788. Vol. I., pp. 137, 138.
A more minute and graphic account of the close of this session of the
Massachusetts Court or Legislature is as follows:
"On the appointed day the doors were closed and the subject was
broached; but before any action could be taken in the premises, a
loyalist member obtained leave of absence and immediately dispatched a
messenger to Gage, to inform him of what was passing. The Governor, in
great haste, sent the Secretary to dissolve the Court. Finding the door
locked, he knocked for admission, but was answered, that 'The House was
upon very important business, which when they had finished, they would
let him in.' Failing to obtain an entrance, he stood upon the steps and
read the proclamation in the hearing of several members and others, and
after reading it in the Council Chamber, returned. The House took no
notice of this message, but proceeded with their business; and, by a
vote of 117 to 12, having determined that a Committee should be
appointed to meet, as soon as may be, the Committees that are or shall
be appointed by the several colonies on this continent to consult
together upon the present state of the colonies, James Bowdoin, Thomas
Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine were selected
for that purpose, and funds were provided for defraying their expenses."
(Barry's History of Massachusetts, Second Period, Chap. xiv., pp. 484,
485.)]
CHAPTER XIX.
1774, UNTIL THE MEETING OF THE FIRST GENERAL CONGRESS IN SEPTEMBER.
The responses to the appeals of Boston and the proposals of the Assembly
of Massachusetts, for a meeting of Congress of all the colonies, were
prompt and general and sympathetic beyond what had been anticipated; and
in some colonies the expressions of approval and offers of co-operation
and assistance preceded any knowledge of what was doing, or had been
done, in Massachusetts.
In Virginia the House of Burgesses were in session when the news arrived
from England announcing the passing by the British Parliament of the
Boston Port Bill; and on the 26th of May the House resolved that the 1st
of June, the day on which that Bill was to go into effect, should be set
apart by the members as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer,
"devoutly to implore the Divine interposition for averting the heavy
calamities which threatened destruction to their civil rights, and the
evils of a civil war, and to give them one heart and one mind to oppose,
by all just and proper means, every injury to American rights." On the
publication of this resolution, the Governor (the Earl of Dunmore)
dissolved the House. But the members, before separating, entered into an
association and signed an agreement, to the number of 87, in which,
among other things, they declared "that an attack made on one of their
sister colonies, to compel submission to arbitrary taxes, was an attack
made on all British America, and threatened ruin to the civil rights of
all, unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied in prevention."
They therefore recommended to their Committee of Correspondence to
communicate with the several Committees of the other provinces, on the
expediency of appointing deputies from the different colonies, to meet
annually in Congress, and to deliberate on the common interests of
America. This measure had already been proposed in town meetings, both
in New York and Boston. The colonies, from New Hampshire to South
Carolina inclusive, adopted this measure; and where the Legislatures
were not in session, elections were made by the people.[339]
While there was a general agreement of sentiment throughout the colonies
in favour of a Congress or Convention of all the colonies to consult on
common rights and interests, and to devise the best means of securing
them, there was also a corresponding sympathy and liberality for the
relief of the inhabitants of Boston, who were considered as suffering
for the maintenance of rights sacred to the liberties of all the
colonies, as all had resisted successfully the landing of the tea, the
badge of their enslavement, though all had not been driven by the
Governor, as in the case of Massachusetts, to destroy it in order to
prevent its being landed. Yet even this had been done to some extent
both in South Carolina and New York.
The town of Boston became an object of interest, and its inhabitants
subjects of sympathy throughout the colonies of America. All the
histories of those times agree "that as soon as the true character of
the Boston Port Act became known in America, every colony, every city,
every village, and, as it were, the inmates of every farm-house, felt
it as a wound of their affections. The towns of Massachusetts abounded
in kind offices. The colonies vied with each other in liberality. The
record kept at Boston shows that 'the patriotic and generous people' of
South Carolina were the first to minister to the sufferers, sending
early in June two hundred barrels of rice, and promising eight hundred
more. At Wilmington, North Carolina, the sum of two thousand pounds
currency was raised in a few days; the women of the place gave
liberally. Throughout all New England the towns sent rye, flour, peas,
cattle, sheep, oil, fish; whatever the land or hook and line could
furnish, and sometimes gifts of money. The French inhabitants of Quebec,
joining with those of English origin, shipped a thousand and forty
bushels of wheat. Delaware was so much in earnest that it devised plans
for sending relief annually. All Maryland and all Virginia were
contributing liberally and cheerfully, being resolved that the men of
Boston, who were deprived of their daily labour, should not lose their
daily bread, nor be compelled to change their residence for want. In
Fairfax county, Washington presided at a spirited meeting, and headed a
subscription paper with his own gift of fifty pounds. A special
chronicle could hardly enumerate all the generous deeds. Cheered by the
universal sympathy, the inhabitants of Boston 'were determined to hold
out and appeal to the justice of the colonies and of the world;'
trusting in God that 'these things should be overruled for the
establishment of liberty, virtue and happiness in America.'"[340]
It is worthy of inquiry, as to how information could be so rapidly
circulated throughout colonies sparsely settled over a territory larger
than that of Europe, and expressions of sentiment and feeling elicited
from their remotest settlements? For, as Dr. Ramsay says, "in the three
first months which followed the shutting up of the port of Boston, the
inhabitants of the colonies, in hundreds of small circles as well as in
their Provincial Assemblies and Congresses, expressed their abhorrence
of the late proceedings of the British Parliament against Massachusetts;
their concurrence in the proposed measure of appointing deputies for a
_General_ Congress; and their willingness to do and suffer whatever
should be judged conducive to the establishment of their
liberties."[341] "In order to understand," says the same author, "the
mode by which this flame was spread with such rapidity over so great an
extent of country, it is necessary to observe that the several colonies
were divided into counties, and these again subdivided into districts,
distinguished by the names of towns, townships, precincts, hundreds, or
parishes. In New England, the subdivisions which are called towns were,
by law, bodies corporate; had their regular meetings, and might be
occasionally convened by their officers. The advantages derived from
these meetings, by uniting the whole body of the people in the measures
taken to oppose the Stamp Act, induced other provinces to follow the
example. Accordingly, under the Association which was formed to oppose
the Revenue Act of 1767, Committees were established, not only in the
capital of every province, but in most of the subordinate districts.
Great Britain, without designing it, had, by her two preceding attempts
at American revenue, taught her colonies not only the advantage but the
means of union. The system of Committees which prevailed in 1765, and
also in 1767, was revived in 1774. By them there was a quick
transmission of intelligence from the capital towns through the
subordinate districts to the whole body of the people; a union of
counsels and measures was effected, among widely disseminated
inhabitants."[342]
It will be observed that the three Acts passed by Parliament in respect
to Massachusetts, and the fourth, for quartering soldiers in towns,
changed the Charter of the province, and multiplied the causes of
difference between Great Britain and the colonies. To the causes of
dissatisfaction in the colonies arising from the taxing of them assumed
by Parliament (now only threepence a pound on tea), the arrangement with
the East India Company and the Courts of Admiralty, depriving the
colonists of the right of trial by jury, were now added the Boston Port
Bill, the Regulating Act, the Act which essentially changed the
chartered Constitution of Massachusetts, and the Act which transferred
Government officers accused of murder, to be removed to England. Mr.
Bancroft justly observes that "the Regulating Act complicated the
question between America and Great Britain. The country, under the
advice of Pennsylvania, might have indemnified the East India Company,
might have obtained by importunity the repeal of the tax on tea, or
might have borne the duty, as it had borne that on wine; but Parliament,
after ten years of premeditation, had exercised the power to abrogate
the laws and to change the Charter of a province without its consent;
and on this arose the conflict of the American Revolution."[343]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 339: Marshall's History of the American Colonies, Chap. xiv.,
pp. 406, 407.
"Resolutions were passed in every colony in which Legislatures were
convened, or delegates assembled in Convention, manifesting different
degrees of resentment, but concurring in the same great principles. All
declared that the cause of Boston was the cause of British America; that
the late Acts respecting that devoted town were tyrannical and
unconstitutional; that the opposition to this unministerial system of
oppression ought to be universally and perseveringly maintained; that
all intercourse with the parent country ought to be suspended, and
domestic manufactures encouraged; and that a General Congress should be
formed for the purpose of uniting and guiding the Councils and directing
the efforts of North America.
"The Committees of Correspondence selected Philadelphia for the place,
and the beginning of September as the time, for the meeting of this
important Council."--_Ib._, pp. 409, 410.]
[Footnote 340: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., pp.
72-75.]
[Footnote 341: Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. v., p. 398.]
[Footnote 342: _Ib._, pp. 395, 396.
"It is, perhaps, impossible for human wisdom to contrive any system more
subservient to these purposes than such a reciprocal exchange of
intelligence by Committees of Correspondence. From want of such a
communication with each other, and consequently of union among
themselves, many States have lost their liberties, and more have been
unsuccessful in their attempts to regain them after they were lost.
"What the eloquence and talents of Demosthenes could not effect among
the States of Greece, might have been effected by the simple device of
Committees of Correspondence. The few have been enabled to keep the many
in subjection in every age from the want of union among the latter.
Several of the provinces of Spain complained of oppression under Charles
the Fifth, and in transports of rage took arms against him; but they
never consulted or communicated with each other. They resisted
separately, and were, therefore, separately subdued."--_Ib._, p. 396.]
[Footnote 343: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
viii., p. 97.
The authority of this new Act was never acknowledged in Massachusetts.
Of the 36 Legislative Councillors nominated by the Crown, one-third of
them declined to accept the appointment, and nearly all who did accept
were soon compelled, by the remonstrances and threats of their
neighbours, to resign. So alarmed was Governor Gage, that after he had
summoned the new Legislature to meet him at Salem, he countermanded his
summons by proclamation; but which was considered unlawful, and the
Assembly met, organized itself, and passed resolutions on grievances,
and adopted other proceedings to further the opposition to the new Act
and other Acts complained of.
Even the Courts could not be held. At Boston the judges took their
seats, and the usual proclamations were made; when the men who had been
returned as jurors, one and all, refused to take the oath. Being asked
why they refused, Thomas Chase, one of the petit jury, gave as his
reason, "that the Chief Justice of the Court stood impeached by the late
representatives of the province." In a paper offered by the jury, the
judges found their authority disputed for further reasons, that the
Charter of the province had been changed with no warrant but an Act of
Parliament, and that three of the judges, in violation of the
Constitution, had accepted seats in the new Council. The Chief Justice
and his colleagues repairing in a body to the Governor represented the
impossibility of exercising their office in Boston or in any other part
of the province; the army was too small for their protection; and
besides, none would act as jurors. Thus the authority of the new
Government, as established by Act of Parliament, perished in the
presence of the Governor, the judges and the army.--_Ib._, pp. 111, 112.
The English historian, Dr. Andrews, remarks on this subject:
"The list of the new (Legislative) Council appointed by the Crown
consisted of thirty-six members. But twelve of the number declined their
commissions, and most of those who accepted were speedily obliged to
resign them in order to save their property and persons from the fury of
the multitude. The judges newly appointed experienced much the same
treatment. All the inferior officers of the Courts of Judicature, the
clerks, the juries, and all others concerned, explicitly refused to act
under the new laws. In some places the populace shut up the avenues to
the court-houses; and upon being required to make way for the judges and
officers of the court, they declared that they knew of no court nor
establishment in the province contrary to the ancient usages and forms,
and would recognize none.
"The former Constitution being thus destroyed by the British
Legislature, and the people refusing to acknowledge that which was
substituted in its room, a dissolution of all government necessarily
ensued. The resolution to oppose the designs of Great Britain produced
occasionally some commotions; but no other consequences followed this
defect of government. Peace and good order remained everywhere
throughout the province, and the people demeaned themselves with as much
regularity as if the laws still continued in their full and formal
rigour." (Andrews' History of the War, Vol. I., pp. 145, 146.)]
CHAPTER XX.
THE GENERAL CONGRESS OR CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA, SEPTEMBER AND
OCTOBER, 1774.
The word Congress, in relation to the United States, is synonymous with
the word Parliament in Great Britain, signifying the Legislature of the
nation at large; but before the revolution the word Congress was used,
for the most part, as synonymous with Convention--a voluntary meeting of
delegates elected by towns or counties for certain purposes. A meeting
of delegates from the several towns of a county was called a _Congress_,
or Convention of such county; a meeting of delegates of the several
towns of a province was called a Provincial Congress, or Convention; and
a meeting of _delegates_ of the several County Conventions in the
several provinces was called a _General_ or _Continental_ Congress,
though they possessed no _legal_ power, and their resolutions and
addresses were the mere expressions of opinion or advice.
Such was the Continental Congress that assembled in Philadelphia the 5th
of September, 1774--not a legislative or executive body possessing or
assuming any legislative or executive power--a body consisting of
fifty-five delegates elected by the representatives of twelve out of the
thirteen provinces--Georgia, the youngest and smallest province, not
having elected delegates. The sittings of this body, or Congress, as it
was called, continued about eight weeks, and its proceedings were
conducted with all the forms of a Legislative Assembly, but with closed
doors, and under the pledge of secrecy, until dissolved by the authority
of the Congress itself.
Each day's proceedings was commenced with prayer by some minister. Mr.
Peyton Randolph, Speaker of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, was
elected President, and Mr. Charles Thompson, of Pennsylvania, was chosen
Secretary.
After deciding upon the mode of conducting the business, it was
resolved, after lengthened discussion, that each colony should be equal
in voting--each colony having one vote, whatever might be the number of
its delegates.
This Congress consisted of the assembled representatives of the American
colonies, and truly expressed their grievances, opinions, and feelings.
As the proceedings were with closed doors, the utterances of individuals
were not reported; but in the reported results of their deliberations
there is not an opinion or wish expressed which does not savour of
affection to the mother country and loyalty to the British Constitution.
Down to this ninth or last year of the agitation which commenced with
the passing of the Stamp Act, before bloody conflicts took place between
British soldiers and inhabitants of Massachusetts, there was not a
resolution or petition or address adopted by any Congress, or
Convention, or public meeting in the colonies, that contained a
principle or sentiment which has not been professed by the loyal
inhabitants of British America, and which is not recognized at this day
by the British Government and enjoyed by the people in all the provinces
of the Dominion of Canada.
The correctness of these remarks will appear from a summary of the
proceedings of this Continental Congress, and extracts from its
addresses, which will show that the colonies, without exception, were as
loyal to their constitutional sovereign as they were to their
constitutional rights,[344] though in royal messages and ministerial
speeches in Parliament their petitions and remonstrances were called
treason, and the authors of them were termed rebels and traitors. The
principal acts of this Congress were a Declaration of Rights; an address
to the King; an address to the people of Great Britain; a memorial to
the Americans; a letter to the people of Canada. Non-importation and
non-exportation agreements were adopted and signed by all the members;
and Committees of Vigilance were appointed.
"Then on the 26th of October, the 'fifty-five' separated and returned to
their homes, determined, as they expressed it, 'that they were
themselves to stand or fall with the liberties of America.'"[345]
Among the first important acts of this Congress was the declaration of
colonial rights, grievances, and policy. As this part of their
proceedings contains the whole case of the colonies as stated by their
own representatives, I will give it, though long, in their own words, in
a note.[346] This elaborate and ably written paper does not appear to
contain a sentiment of treason, nor anything which the members of the
Congress had not a right to express and complain of as British subjects;
while they explicitly recognized in Parliament all the authority which
could be constitutionally claimed for it, and which was requisite for
British supremacy over the colonies, or which had ever been exercised
before 1764.
On the 1st of October, the Congress, after long consideration,
unanimously resolved--
"That a loyal address to his Majesty be prepared, dutifully requesting
the Royal attention to the grievances which alarm and distress his
Majesty's faithful subjects in North America, and entreating his
Majesty's gracious interposition to remove such grievances, and thereby
to restore to Great Britain and the colonies that harmony so necessary
to the happiness of the British empire, and so ardently desired by all
America."
This address or petition, like all the papers emanating from this
Congress, was written with consummate ability.[347] In this petition to
the King, the Congress begged leave to lay their grievances before the
Throne. After a particular enumeration of these, they observed that they
wholly arose from a destructive system of colony administration adopted
since the conclusion of the last war. They assured his Majesty that they
had made such provision for defraying the charges of the administration
of justice, and the support of civil government, as had been judged
just, and suitable to their respective circumstances; and that for the
defence, protection, and security of the colonies, their militia would
be fully sufficient in time of peace; and in case of war, they were
ready and willing, when constitutionally required, to exert their most
strenuous efforts in granting supplies and raising forces. They said,
"We ask but 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. Your royal authority over us, and our connection with Great
Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously endeavour to support
and maintain."[348] They concluded their masterly and touching address
in the following words:
"Permit us, then, most gracious Sovereign, in the name of all your
faithful people in America, with the utmost humility, to implore you,
for the honour of Almighty God, whose pure religion our enemies are
undermining; for your glory, which can be advanced only by rendering
your subjects happy and keeping them united; for the interest of your
family, depending on an adherence to the principles that enthroned it;
for the safety and welfare of your kingdom and dominions, threatened
with almost unavoidable dangers and distresses, that your Majesty, as
the loving Father of your whole people, connected by the same bonds of
law, loyalty, faith, and blood, though dwelling in various countries,
will not suffer the transcendent relation formed by these ties to be
farther violated in certain expectation of efforts that, if attained,
never can compensate for the calamities through which they must be
gained."[349]
Their address to the people of Great Britain is equally earnest and
statesmanlike. Two or three passages, as samples, must suffice. After
stating the serious condition of America, and the oppressions and
misrepresentations of their conduct, and their claim to be as free as
their fellow-subjects in Great Britain, they say:
"Are not the proprietors of the soil of Great Britain lords of their own
property? Can it be taken from them without their consent? Will they
yield it to the arbitrary disposal of any men or number of men
whatsoever? You know they will not.
"Why then are the proprietors of the soil of America less lords of their
property than you are of yours; or why should they submit it to the
disposal of your Parliament, or any other Parliament or Council in the
world, not of their election? Can the intervention of the sea that
divides us cause disparity of rights; or can any reason be given why
English subjects who live three thousand miles distant from the royal
palace should enjoy less liberty than those who are three hundred miles
distant from it? Reason looks with indignation on such distinctions, and
freemen can never perceive their propriety."
They conclude their address to their fellow-subjects in Great Britain in
the following words:
"We believe there is yet much virtue, much justice, and much public
spirit in the English nation. To that justice we now appeal. You have
been told that we are seditious, impatient of government, and desirous
of independence. Be assured that these are not facts, but calumnies.
Permit us to be as free as yourselves, and we shall ever esteem a union
with you to be our greatest glory and our greatest happiness; and we
shall ever be ready to contribute all in our power to the welfare of the
empire. We shall consider your enemies as our enemies, and your interest
as our own.
"But if you are determined that your Ministers shall wantonly sport with
the rights of mankind; if neither the voice of justice, the dictates of
law, the principles of the Constitution, nor the suggestions of humanity
can restrain your hands from shedding human blood in such an impious
cause, we must then tell you that we will never submit to be hewers of
wood and drawers of water to any Ministry or nation in the world.
"_Place us in the same situation that we were at the close of the late
war, and our former harmony will be restored._"
The address of the members of this Congress to their constituents is a
lucid exposition of the several causes which had led to the then
existing state of things, and is replete with earnest but temperate
argument to prove that their liberties must be destroyed, and the
security of their persons and property annihilated, by submission to the
pretensions of the British Ministry and Parliament. They state that the
first object of the Congress was to unite the people of America, by
demonstrating the sincerity and earnestness with which reconciliation
had been sought with Great Britain upon terms compatible with British
liberty. After expressing their confidence in the efficacy of the
passive commercial resistance which had been adopted, they conclude
their address thus:
"Your own salvation and that of your posterity now depend upon
yourselves. You have already shown that you entertain a proper sense of
the blessings you are striving to retain. Against the temporary
inconveniences you may suffer from a stoppage of trade, you will weigh
in the opposite balance the endless miseries you and your descendants
must endure from an established arbitrary power." ...
"Motives thus cogent, arising from the emergency of your unhappy
condition, must excite your utmost diligence and zeal to give all
possible strength and energy to pacific measures calculated for your
relief. But we think ourselves bound in duty to observe to you, that the
schemes agitated against the colonies have been so conducted as to
render it prudent that you should extend your views to mournful events,
and be in all respects prepared for every contingency. Above all things,
we earnestly entreat you, with devotion of spirit, penitence of heart,
and amendment of life, to humble yourselves, and implore the favour of
Almighty God; and we fervently beseech His Divine goodness to take you
into His gracious protection."
The letters addressed to the other colonies not represented in the
Congress require no special reference or remark.
After completing the business before them, this first General Congress
in America recommended that another Congress should be held in the same
place on the tenth day of the succeeding May, 1775, "unless redress of
their grievances should be previously obtained," and recommending to all
the colonies "to choose deputies as soon as possible, to be ready to
attend at that time and place, should events make their meeting
necessary."
I have presented an embodiment of the complaints, sentiments, and wishes
of the American colonies in the words of their elected representatives
in their first General Congress. I have done so for two reasons: First,
to correct as far as I can the erroneous impression of thousands of
English and Canadian readers, that during the ten years' conflict of
words, before the conflict of arms, between the British Ministry and
Parliament and Colonies, the colonists entertained opinions and views
incompatible with subordination to the mother country, and were
preparing the way for separation from it. Such an opinion is utterly
erroneous. Whatever solitary individuals may have thought or wished, the
petitions and resolutions adopted by the complaining colonists during
these ten years of agitation breathe as pure a spirit of loyalty as they
do of liberty; and in no instance did they ask for more, or as much, as
the inhabitants of the provinces of the Canadian Dominion this day
enjoy.
My second reason for thus quoting the very words of the declarations and
petitions of the colonists is to show the injustice with which they were
represented and treated by the British Ministry, Parliament, and press
in England.
It was hoped by the Congress that their address to the people of England
would have a happy influence in favour of the colonies upon the public
mind, and tell favourably on the English elections, which took place the
latter part of the year 1774; but the elections were suddenly ordered
before the proceedings of the Congress could be published in England.
The elections, of course, resulted adversely to the colonies; and the
new Parliament was more subservient to the Ministry against the colonies
than the preceding Parliament.[350]
This new Parliament met the 30th day of November, when the King was
advised to inform them, among other things, "that a most daring spirit
of resistance and disobedience to the laws unhappily prevailed in the
province of Massachusetts, and had broken forth in fresh violences of a
very criminal nature; that these proceedings had been countenanced and
encouraged in his other colonies; that unwarrantable attempts had been
made to obstruct the commerce of his kingdom by unlawful combinations;
and that he had taken such measures and given such orders as he judged
most proper and effectual for carrying into execution the laws which
were passed in the last session of the late Parliament relative to the
province of Massachusetts."[351]
Answers were adopted in both Houses of Parliament re-echoing the
sentiments of the Royal Speech, but not without vehement debates. There
was a considerable minority in both Lords and Commons that sympathised
with the colonies, and condemned the Ministerial policy and the Acts of
the previous Parliament complained of. In the Commons, the Minister was
reminded of the great effects he had predicted from the American acts.
"They were to humble that whole continent without further trouble; and
the punishment of Boston was to strike so universal a panic in all the
colonies that it would be totally abandoned, and instead of obtaining
relief, a dread of the same fate would awe the other provinces to a most
respectful submission."[352] But the address, re-echoing the Royal
Speech for coercion, was adopted by a majority of two to one.
In the Lords a similar address was passed by a large majority; but the
Lords Richmond, Portland, Rockingham, Stamford, Torrington, Ponsonby,
Wycombe, and Camden entered upon the journals a protest against it,
which concluded in the following memorable words:
"Whatever may be the mischievous designs or the inconsiderate temerity,
we wish to be known as persons who have disapproved of measures so
injurious in their past effects and future tendency, and who are not in
haste, without inquiry or information, to commit ourselves in
declarations which may precipitate our country into all the calamities
of civil war."[353]
Before the adjournment of the new Parliament for the Christmas holidays,
the papers containing the proceedings of the Continental Congress at
Philadelphia reached England. The first impression made by them is said
to have been in favour of America. The Ministry seemed staggered, and
their opposers triumphed in the fulfilment of their own predictions as
to the effects of Ministerial acts and policy in America. The Earl of
Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies, after a day's perusal of
these papers, said that the petition of the Congress to the King (of
which extracts have been given above) was a decent and proper one. He
cheerfully undertook to present it to the King; and reported afterwards
that his Majesty was pleased to receive it very graciously, and would
lay it before his two Houses of Parliament. From these favourable
circumstances, the friends of conciliation anticipated that the petition
of the Colonial Congress would be made the basis of a change of measures
and policy in regard to the colonies. But these hopes were of short
duration.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 344: The royal historian, Andrews, states:
"The delegates were enjoined, by the instructions they had received from
their constituents, solemnly to acknowledge the sovereignty of Great
Britain over them, and their willingness to pay her the fullest
obedience, as far _as_ the constitution authorized her to demand it;
they were to disclaim all notions of separating from her; and to declare
it was with the deepest regret they beheld a suspension of that
confidence and affection which had so long, and so happily for both,
subsisted between Great Britain and her colonies.
"But they were no less carefully directed at the same time to assert the
rights transmitted to them by their ancestors. These rights they would
never surrender, and would maintain them at all perils. They were
entitled to all the privileges of British subjects, and would not yield
to the unjust pretensions of Parliament, which, in the present treatment
of the colonies, had violated the principles of the constitution and
given them just occasion to be dissatisfied and to rise in opposition.
Parliament might depend this opposition would never cease until those
Acts were wholly repealed that had been the radical cause of the present
disturbances." (Andrews' History of the War with America, Spain and
Holland, from 1775 to 1783, pp. 156, 157.)]
[Footnote 345: Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., Chap. xvi., p.
289.
"Washington and Lee believed the non-importation and exportation
agreements would open the eyes of England; but Patrick Henry agreed with
John and Samuel Adams in believing that _force_ must decide it, and,
like them, was ready to meet any emergency."--_Ib._
"The New York Legislature at once repudiated the doings of the Congress;
but elsewhere it met with a hearty response."--_Ib._, p. 290.]
[Footnote 346: "Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British
Parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by
statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath in some Acts expressly imposed
taxes on them; and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for
the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable
in these colonies, established a Board of Commissioners with
unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of Courts of
Admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of
causes merely arising within the body of a county:
"And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges, who before held
only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependent on the
Crown alone for their salaries, and standing armies kept in times of
peace:
"And whereas it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of
a statute made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry
VIII., colonists may be transported to England and tried there upon
accusations for treasons, and misprisions and concealments of treasons
committed in the colonies, and by a late statute such trials have been
directed in cases therein mentioned:
"And whereas, in the last session of Parliament, three statutes were
made--one entitled, 'An Act to discontinue, in such manner and for such
time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or
shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the
harbour of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North
America;' another entitled, 'An Act for the better regulating the
Government of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England;' and
another Act entitled, 'An Act for the impartial administration of
justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any act done by them in
the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults,
in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England;' and another
statute was then made, 'for making more effectual provision for the
government of the province of Quebec,' etc.--all which statutes are
impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most
dangerous and destructive of American rights:
"And whereas assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the
rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances;
and their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable petitions to the Crown
for redress have been repeatedly treated with contempt by his Majesty's
Ministers of State; the good people of the several colonies of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Castle, Kent and
Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina, justly alarmed at the arbitrary proceedings of Parliament and
Administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed
deputies to meet and sit in General Congress, in the city of
Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment as that their
religion, laws, and liberties may not be subverted; whereupon the
deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free
representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious
consideration the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the
first place, as Englishmen, what their ancestors in like cases have
usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties,
DECLARE, that the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America,
by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English
Constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following
rights:
"Resolved, N. C. D. 1st, That they are entitled to life, liberty, and
property; and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a
right to dispose of either without their consent.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 2nd, That our ancestors, who first settled these
colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother country,
entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and
natural-born subjects within the realm of England.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 3rd, That by such emigration they by no means
forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were,
and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of
all such of them as their local and other circumstances enabled them to
exercise and enjoy.
"Resolved, 4th, That the foundation of English liberty and of all free
government is a right in their people to participate in their
Legislative Council; and as the English colonists are not represented,
and from their local and other circumstances cannot properly be
represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and
exclusive power of legislation in their several Provincial Legislatures,
where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases
of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their
Sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed.
But from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest
of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such Acts
of the British Parliament as are _bona fide_ restrained to the
regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the
commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the
commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of
taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in
America without their consent.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 5th, That the respective colonies are entitled to
the common law of England, and more especially to the great and
inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage,
according to the course of that law.
"Resolved, 6th, That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the
English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization; and which
they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their
several local and other circumstances.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 7th, That these his Majesty's colonies are likewise
entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to
them by Royal Charters, or secured by their several codes of Provincial
laws.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 8th, That they have a right peaceably to assemble,
consider of their grievances, and petition the King; and that all
prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same,
are illegal.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 9th, That the keeping a standing army in these
colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the Legislature of
the colony in which such army is kept, is against law.
"Resolved, N. C. D. 10th, It is indispensably necessary to good
government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the
constituent branches of the Legislature be independent of each other;
that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies,
by a Council appointed, during pleasure, by the Crown, is
unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American
legislation.
"All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves
and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their
indubitable rights and liberties; which cannot be legally taken from
them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own
consent, by their representatives in their several Provincial
Legislatures.
"In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations
of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire that harmony and
mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass
over for the present, and proceed to state such Acts and measures as
have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed
to enslave America.
"Resolved, N. C. D., That the following Acts of Parliament are
infringements and violations of the rights of the colonies; and that the
repeal of them is essentially necessary, in order to restore harmony
between Great Britain and the American colonies, viz.:
"The several Acts of 4 Geo. III. chaps. 15 and 34--5 Geo. III. chap.
25--6 Geo. III. chap. 52--7 Geo. III. chap. 41 and chap. 46--8 Geo. III.
chap. 22, which imposed duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in
America, extend the power of the Admiralty Courts beyond their ancient
limits; deprive the American subject of trial by jury; authorize the
judge's certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages that he
might otherwise be liable to; requiring oppressive security from a
claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend
his property, and are subversive of American rights.
"Also 12 Geo. III. chap. 24, intituled 'An Act for the better securing
his Majesty's dockyards, magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores,'
which declares a new offence in America, and deprives the American
subject of a constitutional trial by a jury of the vicinage, by
authorizing the trial of any person charged with the committing of any
offence described in the said Act, out of the realm, to be indicted and
tried for the same in any shire or county within the realm.
"Also the three Acts passed in the last session of Parliament, for
stopping the port and blocking up the harbour of Boston, for altering
the Charter and Government of Massachusetts Bay, and that which is
intituled 'An Act for the better administration of justice,' etc.
"Also, the Act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman
Catholic religion in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable
system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great
danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law, and government)
of the neighbouring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood
and treasure the said country was conquered from France.
"Also, the Act passed in the same session for the better providing
suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in his Majesty's service in
North America.
"Also, that the keeping a standing army in several of these colonies, in
time of peace, without the consent of the Legislature of that colony in
which such army is kept, is against law.
"To these grievous Acts and measures, Americans cannot submit; but in
hopes their fellow-subjects in Great Britain will, on a revision of
them, restore us to that state in which both countries found happiness
and prosperity, we have for the present only resolved to pursue the
following peaceable measures: 1. To enter into a non-importation,
non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement or association; 2. To
prepare an address to the people of Great Britain, and a memorial to the
inhabitants of British America; and 3. To prepare a loyal address to his
Majesty, agreeable to resolutions already entered into." (Marshall's
American Colonial History. Appendix IX., pp. 481-485.)]
[Footnote 347: See the Earl of Chatham's remarks on page 423.]
[Footnote 348: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., p. 418.]
[Footnote 349: "The Committee which brought in this admirably well-drawn
and truly conciliatory address were Mr. Lee, Mr. John Adams, Mr.
Johnston, Mr. Henry, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Dickenson. The original
composition has been generally attributed to Mr. Dickenson." (Marshall's
American Colonial History, Chap. xiv., p. 419, in a note.)]
[Footnote 350: "Some time before the proceedings of Congress reached
England, it was justly apprehended that the non-importation agreement
would be one of the measures they would adopt. The Ministry,
apprehending that this event, by distressing the trading and
manufacturing towns, might influence votes against the Court in the
election of a new Parliament, which was, of course, to come on in the
succeeding year, suddenly dissolved the Parliament and immediately
ordered a new one to be chosen. It was their design to have the whole
business of elections over before the inconveniences of non-importation
could be felt. The nation was thus surprised into an election. Without
knowing that the late American acts had driven the colonies into a firm
combination to support and make common cause with the people of
Massachusetts, a new Parliament was returned, which met thirty-four days
after the proceedings of Congress were first published in Philadelphia,
and before they were known in Great Britain. This, for the most part,
consisted either of the former members, or of those who held similar
sentiments." (Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. vi., p. 424.)]
[Footnote 351: Ramsay's Colonial History, Vol. I., Chap. vi., pp. 424,
425.]
[Footnote 352: _Ib._, p. 425.]
[Footnote 353: _Ib._, p. 425.]
CHAPTER XXI.
THE RE-ASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT--LETTERS FROM COLONIAL GOVERNORS,
REVENUE AND MILITARY OFFICERS, AGAINST THE COLONISTS OPPOSED TO THE
MINISTERIAL POLICY--THE MINISTRY, SUPPORTED BY PARLIAMENT, DETERMINE
UPON CONTINUING AND STRENGTHENING THE COERCIVE POLICY AGAINST THE
COLONIES.
On the re-assembling of Parliament in January, 1775, a number of papers
were produced from governors, and revenue and military officers in
America, which contained various statements adverse to the proceedings
and members of the Congress, and the opposition to the coercive Acts of
Parliament.
Ministers and their supporters were pleased with these papers, which
abetted their policy, lauded and caressed their authors, and decided to
concede nothing, and continue and strengthen the policy of coercion.
On the 20th of January, the first day of the re-assembling of the Lords,
Lord Dartmouth laid the papers received from America before the House.
The Earl of Chatham, after an absence of two years, appeared again in
the House with restored health, and with all his former energy and
eloquence. He moved:
"That a humble address be presented to his Majesty, most humbly to
advise and beseech him that, in order to open the way toward a happy
settlement of the dangerous troubles in America, by beginning to allay
ferments and soften animosities there, and above all for preventing, in
the meantime, any sudden catastrophe at Boston, now suffering under
daily irritation of an army before their eyes, posted in their town, it
may graciously please his Majesty that immediate orders may be
despatched to General Gage for removing his Majesty's forces from the
town of Boston as soon as the rigours of the season and other
circumstances indispensable to the safety and accommodation of said
troops may render the same practicable."
Lord Chatham advocated his motion in a very pathetic speech, and was
supported by speeches by the Marquis of Rockingham, Lords Shelburne and
Camden, and petitions from merchants and manufacturers throughout the
kingdom, and most prominently by those of London and Bristol. But the
motion was negatived by a majority of 63 to 13.
In the course of his speech Lord Chatham said:
"Resistance to your acts was as necessary as it was just; and your
imperious doctrine of the omnipotence of Parliament and the necessity of
submission will be found equally impotent to convince or to enslave.
"The means of enforcing the thraldom are as weak in practice as they are
unjust in principle. General Gage and the troops under his command are
penned up, pining in inglorious inactivity. You may call them an army of
safety and of guard, but they are in truth an army of impotence; and to
make the folly equal to the disgrace, they are an army of irritation.
"But this tameness, however contemptible, cannot be censured; for the
first drop of blood shed in civil and unnatural war will make a wound
that years, perhaps ages, may not heal.... The indiscriminate hand of
vengeance has lumped together innocent and guilty; with all the
formalities of hostility, has blocked up the town of Boston, and reduced
to beggary and famine thirty thousand inhabitants....
"When your lordships look at the papers transmitted to us from
America--when you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you
cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your own. For
myself, I must avow that in all my reading--and I have read Thucydides,
and have studied the master-states of the world--for solidity of reason,
force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion under a complication of
difficult circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in
preference to the General Congress of Philadelphia. The histories of
Greece and Rome give us nothing equal to it, and all attempts to impose
servitude upon such a mighty continental nation must be vain. We shall
be forced ultimately to retract; let us retract while we can, not when
we must. These violent Acts must be repealed; you will repeal them; I
pledge myself for it, I stake my reputation upon it, that you will in
the end repeal them. Avoid, then, this humiliating necessity. With a
dignity becoming your exalted station, make the first advance towards
concord, peace, and happiness; for that is your true dignity. Concession
comes with better grace from superior power, and establishes solid
confidence on the foundations of affection and gratitude. Be the first
to spare; throw down the weapons in your hand.
"Every motive of justice and policy, of dignity and of prudence, urges
you to allay the ferment in America by a removal of your troops from
Boston, by a repeal of your Acts of Parliament, and by demonstrating
amiable dispositions towards your colonies.... If the Ministers
persevere in thus misadvising and misleading the King, I will not say
that the King is betrayed, but I will pronounce that the kingdom is
undone; I will not say that they can alienate the affections of his
subjects from his Crown, but I will affirm that, the American jewel out
of it, they will make the Crown not worth his wearing."[354]
The Earl of Suffolk, with whining vehemence, assured the House that, in
spite of Lord Chatham's prophecy, the Government was resolved to repeal
not one of the Acts, but to use all possible means to bring the
Americans to obedience; and after declaiming violently against their
conduct, boasted as "having been one of the first to advise coercive
measures."
Ex-Lord Chancellor Camden excelled every other speaker, except Lord
Chatham, in the discussion; he declared in the course of his speech:
"This I will say, not only as a statesman, politician, and philosopher,
but as a common lawyer: My lords, you have no right to tax America; the
natural rights of man, and the immutable laws of nature, are all with
that people. King, Lords, and Commons are fine-sounding names, but King,
Lords, and Commons may become tyrants as well as others. It is as lawful
to resist the tyranny of many as of one. Somebody once asked the great
Selden in what book you might find the law for resisting tyranny. 'It
has always been the custom of England,' answered Selden, 'and the custom
of England is the law of the land.'"
After several other speeches and much recrimination, and a
characteristic reply from Lord Chatham, his motion was rejected by a
majority of sixty-eight to eighteen; but the Duke of Cumberland, the
King's own brother, was one of the minority. The King triumphed in what
he called "the very handsome majority," and said he was sure "nothing
could be more calculated to bring the Americans to submission." The
King's prediction of "submission" was followed by more united and
energetic resistance in the colonies.
But Lord Chatham, persevering in his efforts of conciliation,
notwithstanding the large majority against him, brought in, the 1st of
February, a Bill entitled "A Provisional Act for Settling the Troubles
in America, and for Asserting the Supreme Legislative Authority and
Superintending Power of Great Britain over the Colonies." The Bill,
however, was not allowed to be read the first time, or even to lie on
the table, but was rejected by a majority of sixty-four to thirty-two--a
contempt of the colonists and a discourtesy to the noble mover of the
Bill without example in the House of Lords.
In the meantime, petitions were presented to the Commons from various
towns in England, Scotland, and Ireland, by manufacturers and merchants
connected with the colonial trade. On the 23rd of January, Alderman
Hayley presented a petition from the merchants of the City of London
trading to America, stating at great length the nature and extent of the
trade, direct and indirect, between Great Britain and America, and the
immense injury to it by the recent Acts of Parliament, and praying for
relief; but this petition was conveyed to the "Committee of Oblivion,"
as were petitions from the merchants of Glasgow, Liverpool, Norwich and
other towns, on American affairs. These petitions, together with their
advocates in both Houses of Parliament, showed that the oppressive
policy and abuse of the Americans were the acts of the Ministry of the
day, and not properly of the English people.
On the 26th of January, Sir George Saville offered to present a petition
from Dr. Franklin, Mr. Bollan, and Mr. Lee, stating that they had been
authorized by the American Continental Congress to present a petition
from the Congress to the King, which his Majesty had referred to that
House, and that they were able to throw great light upon the subject;
they therefore prayed to be heard at the bar in support of the petition.
After a violent debate the petition was rejected by a majority of 218 to
68.[355]
Lord North on the 2nd of February, moved that the House resolve itself
into Committee on an address to his Majesty, thanking him for having
communicated to the House the several papers relating to the present
state of the British colonies, and from which "we find that a part of
his Majesty's subjects in the province of Massachusetts Bay have
proceeded so far as to resist the authority of the Supreme Legislature;
that a _rebellion_ at this time actually exists within the said
province; and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been
countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements
entered into by his Majesty's subjects in several other colonies, to the
injury and oppression of many of their innocent fellow-subjects resident
within the kingdom of Great Britain and the rest of his Majesty's
dominions. This conduct on their part appears to us the more inexcusable
when we consider with how much temper his Majesty and the two Houses of
Parliament have acted in support of the laws and constitution of Great
Britain; to declare that we can never so far desert the trust reposed in
us as to relinquish any part of the sovereign authority over all his
Majesty's dominions which by law is invested in his Majesty and the two
Houses of Parliament, and that the conduct of many persons, in several
of the colonies, during the late disturbances, is alone sufficient to
convince us how necessary this power is for the protection of the lives
and fortunes of all his Majesty's subjects; that we ever have been and
always shall be ready to pay attention and regard to any real grievances
of any of his Majesty's subjects, which shall, in a dutiful and
constitutional manner, be laid before us; and whenever any of the
colonies shall make proper application to us, we shall be ready to
afford them every just and reasonable indulgence; but that, at the same
time, we consider it our indispensable duty humbly to beseech his
Majesty to take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to
the laws and authority of the Supreme Legislature; and that we beg
leave, in the most solemn manner, to assure his Majesty that it is our
fixed resolution, at the hazard of our lives and properties, to stand by
his Majesty against all rebellious attempts, in the maintenance of the
just rights of his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament."[356]
I have given Lord North's proposed address to the King at length, in
order that the reader may understand fully the policy of the Government
at that eventful moment, and the statements on which that policy was
founded.
In relation to this address several things may be observed: 1. There is
not the slightest recognition in it that the American colonists have any
constitutional rights whatever; they are claimed as the absolute
property of King and Parliament, irrespective of local Charters or
Legislatures. 2. It is alleged that Parliament always had been and would
be "ready to pay attention to any _real_ grievances of any of his
Majesty's subjects which shall, _in a dutiful and constitutional
manner_, be laid before us," when "we shall be ready to afford them
every just and reasonable _indulgence_." Yet every one of the hundreds
of petitions which had been sent from the colonies to England for the
previous ten years, complaining of grievances, was rejected, under one
pretext or another, as not having been adopted or transmitted in "a
dutiful and constitutional manner." If a Legislative Assembly proceeded
to prepare a petition of grievances to the King, the King's Governor
immediately dissolved the Assembly; and when its members afterwards met
in their private capacity and embodied their complaints, their
proceedings were pronounced unlawful and seditious. When township,
county, and provincial conventions met and expressed their complaints
and grievances in resolutions and petitions, their proceedings were
denounced by the Royal representatives as unlawful and rebellious; and
when elected representatives from all the provinces (but Georgia)
assembled in Philadelphia to express the complaints and wishes of all
the provinces, their meeting was declared unlawful, and their petition
to the King a collection of fictitious statements and rebellious
sentiments, though more loyal sentiments to the King, and more full
recognition of his constitutional prerogatives were never expressed in
any document presented to his Majesty. When that petition of the
Continental congregation was presented to the Earl of Dartmouth, the
head of the Colonial Department, he said it was a decent and proper
document, and he would have pleasure in laying it before the King, who
referred it to the House of Commons; yet Lord North himself and a
majority of his colleagues, backed by a majority of the House of
Commons, rejected that petition, refused to consider its statements and
prayers, but instead thereof proposed an address which declared one of
the colonies in a state of rebellion, abetted by many in other colonies,
advised military force against the colonies, and assured the King that
they would stand by his Majesty "at the hazard of their lives and
properties, against all rebellious attempts" to maintain the assumed
rights of his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament over the
colonies. Yet not one of them ever afterwards risked a hair of his head
in the war which they advised to maintain such rights. 3. It was also as
insulting and provoking to the colonists as it was unjust, impolitic,
and untrue, to assert that a rebellion "existed in one province of
America, and was encouraged by many persons in other colonies;" when not
an act of rebellion existed in any colony, but dissatisfaction, meetings
to express sentiments and adopt petitions founded upon their declining
and agreeing not to buy or drink tea, or buy or wear clothes of English
manufacture, until English justice should be done to them--all which
they had a right as British subjects to do, and for doing which those
were responsible who compelled them to such self-denying acts in the
maintenance of constitutional rights which are now recognised as such,
at this day, throughout all the colonies of the British empire.
It is not surprising that Lord North's motion and statements were
severely canvassed in the House of Commons. Mr. Dunning, in reply to
Lord North, "insisted that America was not in rebellion, and that every
appearance of riot, disorder, tumult, and sedition the noble lord had so
carefully recounted arose not from disobedience, treason, or rebellion,
but was created by the conduct of those whose views were to establish
despotism." The Attorney-General (Thurlow) argued strongly against Mr.
Dunning's position that the Americans were not in rebellion, and
affirmed the contrary. General Grant said "he had served in America,
knew the Americans well, and was certain they would not fight; they
would never dare to fight an English army; they did not possess any of
the qualifications necessary to make good soldiers; and that a very
slight force would be more than sufficient for their complete reduction.
He repeated many of their commonplace expressions, ridiculed their
enthusiasm in religion, and drew a disagreeable picture of their manners
and ways of living."
Mr. Fox entered fully into the question; pointed out the injustice, the
inexpediency, the folly of the motion; prophesied defeat on one side of
the water, and ruin and punishment on the other. He said, among other
things, "The reason why the colonies objected to taxes by Parliament for
revenue was, that such revenue, in the hands of Government, took out of
the hands of the people that were to be governed that control which
every Englishman thinks he ought to have over the Government to which
his rights and interests are entrusted." He moved an amendment to omit
all the motion but the three first lines, and to substitute: "But
deploring that the information which they (the papers) had afforded
served only to convince the House that the measures taken by his
Majesty's servants tended rather to widen than to heal the unhappy
differences which had so long subsisted between Great Britain and
America, and praying a speedy alteration of the same."
A long debate ensued; after which the House divided on Mr. Fox's
amendment, which was lost by a majority of 304 to 105. Lord North's
motion was then adopted by a majority of 296 to 106.
Thus was war _virtually_ proclaimed by the British Ministry of the day
and the Parliament (not by the people) of Great Britain against the
colonies.
On the 6th of February the report of Lord North's address was made to
the House, when Lord John Cavendish moved to recommit the proposed
address agreed to in the Committee. He strongly recommended the
reconsideration of a measure which he deemed fraught with much mischief.
He commented on the proposed address; thought it improper to assert that
rebellion exists; mentioned the insecurity created by the Act changing
the Government of Massachusetts Bay; said the inhabitants knew not for a
moment under what Government they lived.
A long discussion ensued. On the side of absolute prerogative, and of
subduing the colonies to it by military force, spoke Mr. Grenville,
Captain Harvey, Sir William Mayne, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Adam, Mr. Scott, the
Solicitor-General (Wedderburn, who grossly insulted Dr. Franklin before
the Privy Council), Mr. Mackworth, and Mr. Sawbridge. For the
recommitting the address, and in favour of a conciliatory policy towards
the colonies, spoke, besides Lord John Cavendish, the mover, Mr. Lumley,
the Lord Mayor of London, Rt. Hon. T. Townshend, Mr. Jolyffe, Lord
Truham, Governor Johnstone, Mr. Burke, and Colonel Barré.
A conference was held between the Lords and Commons, and the address was
made the joint address of both Houses of Parliament and presented to the
King the 9th of February; to which the King replied as follows:
"My Lords and Gentlemen,--I thank you for this very dutiful address, and
for the affectionate and solemn assurances you give me of your support
in maintaining the just rights of my crown and of the two Houses of
Parliament; and you may depend on my taking the most speedy and
effectual measures for enforcing due obedience to the laws and authority
of the Supreme Legislature. When any of my colonies shall make a proper
and dutiful application, I shall be ready to concur with you in
affording them every just and reasonable indulgence; and it is my ardent
wish that this disposition on our part may have a happy effect on the
temper and conduct of my subjects in America."
The "disposition" of "indulgence," shown by Parliament was simply the
enforcement of its declaratory Act of absolute power to bind the
colonies in all cases whatsoever, and "the proper and dutiful
application of any colony" was simply a renunciation of all they had
claimed as their constitutional rights--a penitent prayer of forgiveness
for having avowed and maintained those rights, and of submitting all
their rights and interests to the absolute and merciful consideration of
the King and his Parliament, and that in the presence of the
parliamentary enactments and royal institutions of the previous ten
years. During those years, the Parliament, with royal consent, had
passed acts to tax the colonies without representation, ignoring their
own representative Legislatures; had imposed duties on goods imported to
be enforced by Courts which deprived the colonists of the privilege of
trial by jury; had made by Act of Parliament, without trial, the city of
Boston not only responsible for tea destroyed by seventeen individuals,
but blocked up its port not only until the money was paid, but until the
city authorities should give guarantee satisfactory to the King that the
tea and other revenue Acts should be enforced--a proceeding
unprecedented and unparalleled in the annals of British history. Even in
more arbitrary times, when the cities of London, Glasgow, and Edinburgh
were made responsible for property lawlessly destroyed within their
limit, it was only until after trial in each case, in which those
cities had an opportunity of defence, and in neither case was the trade
of the city prohibited and destroyed. But the British Ministry and
Parliament proceeded still further by superseding the most essential
provisions of the Charter of the Province of Massachusetts, and changing
its whole constitution of government--a high-handed act of arbitrary
government which had not been attempted by either Charles the First or
Charles the Second in regard to the same colony; for when charges were
brought, in 1632, against the Massachusetts authorities, for having
violated the Charter, Charles the First appointed a commission, gave the
accused a trial, which resulted in their acquittal and promised support
by the King; and when they were accused again in 1634, the King did not
forthwith cancel their Charter, but issued a second commission, which,
however, never reported, in consequence of the commencement of the civil
war in England, which resulted in the death of the King. Then, in the
restoration, when charges were preferred, by parties without as well as
within the province, against the Government of Massachusetts, King
Charles the Second appointed a commission to examine into the
complaints, and at length tested their acts by trial in the highest
courts of law, and by whose decision their first Charter was cancelled
for repeated and even habitual violations of it. But without a trial, or
even commission of inquiry, the King and Parliament changed the
constitution of the province as well as extinguished the trade of its
metropolis.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 354: When the words of Lord Chatham were reported to the King,
his Majesty was "stung to the heart," and was greatly enraged,
denouncing Lord Chatham as an "abandoned politician," "the trumpet of
sedition," and classified him with Temple and Grenville as "void of
gratitude." The King repelled and hated every statesman who advised him
to conciliate the colonists by recognising them as having the rights of
British subjects. He was the prompter of the most violent measures
against them, and seemed to think that their only rights and duties were
to obey whatever he might command and the Parliament declare.]
[Footnote 355: Dr. Franklin had been Postmaster-General for America.
When he assumed the office the expenditure exceeded the receipts by
£3,000 a year; under his administration the receipts gradually increased
so as to become a source of revenue. The day after his advocacy of the
American petitions before the Privy Council, he was dismissed from
office. Referring to the manner in which American petitions and their
agents were treated by the British Government, Dr. Franklin expressed
himself as follows, in a letter to the Hon. Thomas Cushing, Speaker of
the House of Representatives of Massachusetts:
"When I see that all petitions and complaints of grievances are so
odious to Government that even the mere pipe which conveys them becomes
obnoxious, I am at a loss to know how peace and union is to be
maintained or restored between the different parts of the empire.
Grievances cannot be redressed unless they are known; and they cannot be
known but through complaints and petitions. If these are deemed
affronts, and the messengers punished as offenders, who will henceforth
send petitions? and who will deliver them? It has been thought a
dangerous thing in any State to stop up the vent of griefs. Wise
governments have therefore generally received petitions with some
indulgence even when but slightly founded. Those who think themselves
injured by their rulers are sometimes, by a mild and prudent answer,
convinced of their error. But where complaining is a crime, hope becomes
despair." (Collections of Massachusetts Historical Society.)
(Yet the Government of Massachusetts, under the first Charter,
pronounced petitions a crime, and punished as criminals those who
petitioned against the governmental acts which denied them the right of
worship or elective franchise because they were non-Congregationalists.)]
[Footnote 356: Parliamentary Register for 1775, p. 134.]
CHAPTER XXII.
1775 CONTINUED--PARLIAMENT PROCEEDS TO PASS AN ACT TO PUNISH ALL THE NEW
ENGLAND COLONIES FOR SYMPATHISING WITH MASSACHUSETTS, BY RESTRICTING
THEIR TRADE TO ENGLAND AND DEPRIVING THEM OF THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
The British Ministry and both Houses of Parliament do not seem to have
been satisfied with having charged Massachusetts and its abettors with
rebellion, and determined to punish the recusant province and its
metropolis accordingly, but they proceeded, during the same session,
even to punish the other New England provinces for alleged sympathy with
the town of Boston and the province of Massachusetts. The very day after
the two Houses of Parliament had presented their joint address to the
King, declaring the existence of "rebellion" in the province of
Massachusetts, abetted by many persons in the other provinces, Lord
North introduced a Bill into the Commons to restrain the trade and
commerce of the provinces of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut, to Great Britain and Ireland and the British Islands in
the West Indies, and to prohibit those provinces from carrying on any
fishery on the banks of Newfoundland. Lord North assigned as the reason
for this Bill that the three other New England colonies "had aided and
abetted their offending neighbours, and were so near them that the
intentions of Parliament would be frustrated unless they were in like
manner comprehended in the proposed restraints." The Bill encountered
much opposition in both Houses, but was passed by large majorities.
Shortly after passing this Bill to restrain the trade of the New England
colonies and to prohibit them the fisheries of Newfoundland, as well as
from trading with foreign countries, intelligence reached England that
the middle and southern colonies were countenancing and encouraging the
opposition of their New England brethren, and a second Bill was brought
into Parliament and passed for imposing similar restraints on the
colonies of East and West Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
South Carolina, and the counties on the Delaware. It is singular to note
in this Bill the omission of New York, Delaware, and North Carolina. It
was probably thought that the omission of these colonies would cause
dissension among the colonies; but the three exempted provinces declined
the distinction, and submitted to the restraints imposed upon the other
colonies.
Much was expected by Lord North and his colleagues from the General
Assembly of New York, which had not endorsed the proceedings of the
first Continental Congress, held in Philadelphia the previous September
and October; but at the very time that the British Parliament was
passing the Act which exempted New York from the disabilities and
punishments inflicted on its neighbouring colonies, north and south, the
Legislative Assembly of New York was preparing a petition and
remonstrance to the British Parliament on the grievances of all the
colonies, not omitting the province of Massachusetts. This petition and
remonstrance of the General Assembly of New York was substantially a
United Empire document, and expressed the sentiments of all classes in
the colonies, except the Royal governors and some office-holders, as
late as May, 1775. The following extracts from this elaborate and
ably-written address will indicate its general character. The whole
document is given in the Parliamentary Register, Vol. I., pp. 473-478,
and is entitled "The Representation and Remonstrance of the General
Assembly of the Colony of New York, to the Honourable the Knights,
Citizens, and Burgesses of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled." It
commences as follows:
"Impressed with the warmest sentiments of loyalty and affection to our
most gracious Sovereign, and zealously attached to his person, family,
and government, we, his Majesty's faithful subjects, the representatives
of the ancient and loyal colony of New York, behold with the deepest
concern the unhappy disputes subsisting between the mother country and
her colonies. Convinced that the grandeur and strength of the British
empire, the protection and opulence of his Majesty's American dominions,
and the happiness and welfare of both, depend essentially on a
restoration of harmony and affection between them, we feel the most
ardent desire to promote a cordial reconciliation with the parent state,
which can be rendered permanent and solid only by ascertaining the line
of parliamentary authority and American freedom on just, equitable, and
constitutional grounds. To effect these salutary purposes, and to
represent the grievances under which we labour, by the innovations which
have been made in the constitutional mode of government since the close
of the last war, we shall proceed with that firmness which becomes the
descendants of Englishmen and a people accustomed to the blessings of
liberty, and at the same time with the deference and respect which is
due to your august Assembly to show--
"That from the year 1683 till the above-mentioned period the colony has
enjoyed a Legislature consisting of three distinct branches--a Governor,
Council, and General Assembly; under which political frame the
representatives of the people have uniformly exercised the right of
their civil government and the administration of justice in the colony.
"It is therefore with inexpressible grief that we have of late years
seen measures adopted by the British Parliament subversive of that
Constitution under which the people of this colony have always enjoyed
the same rights and privileges so highly and deservedly prized by their
fellow-subjects in Great Britain--a Constitution in its infancy modelled
after that of the parent state, in its growth more nearly assimilated to
it, and tacitly implied and undeniably recognised in the requisitions
made by the Crown, with the consent and approbation of Parliament.
"An exemption from internal taxation, and the exclusive right of
providing for the support of our own civil government and the
administration of justice in this colony, we esteem our undoubted and
inalienable rights as Englishmen; but while we claim these essential
rights, it is with equal pleasure and truth we can declare, that we ever
have been and ever will be ready to bear our full proportion of aids to
the Crown for the public service, and to make provision for the
necessary purposes, in as ample and adequate a manner as the
circumstances of the colony will admit. Actuated by these sentiments,
while we address ourselves to a British House of Commons, which has ever
been so sensible of the rights of the people, and so tenacious of
preserving them from violation, can it be a matter of surprise that we
should feel the most distressing apprehensions from the Act of the
British Parliament declaring their right to bind the colonies in all
cases whatsoever?--a principle which has been actually exercised by the
statutes made for the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue in
America, especially for the support of Government, and other usual and
ordinary services of the colonies.
"The trial by a jury of the vicinage, in causes civil and criminal
arising within the colony, we consider as essential to the security of
our lives and liberties, and one of the main pillars of the
Constitution, and therefore view with horror the construction of the
statute of the 35th of Henry the Eighth, as held up by the joint address
of both Houses of Parliament in 1769, advising his Majesty to send for
persons guilty of treasons and misprisions of treasons in the colony of
Massachusetts Bay, in order to be tried in England; and we are equally
alarmed at the late Act empowering his Majesty to send persons guilty of
offences in one colony to be tried in another, or within the realm of
England....
"We must also complain of the Act of the 7th of George the Third,
chapter 59th, requiring the Legislature of this colony to make provision
for the expense of supplying troops quartered amongst us, with the
necessaries prescribed by that law; and holding up by another Act a
suspension of our legislative powers till we should have complied, as it
would have included all the effects of a tax, and implied a distrust of
our readiness to contribute to the public service.
"Nor in claiming these essential rights do we entertain the most distant
desire of independence of the parent kingdom. We acknowledge the
Parliament of Great Britain necessarily entitled to a supreme direction
and government over the whole empire, for a wise, powerful, and lasting
preservation of the great bond of union and safety among all the
branches; their authority to regulate the trade of the colonies, so as
to make it subservient to the interest of the mother country, and to
prevent its being injurious to the other parts of his Majesty's
dominions....
"Interested as we must consider ourselves in whatever may affect our
sister colonies, we cannot help feeling for the distresses of our
brethren in the Massachusetts Bay, from the operation of the several
Acts of Parliament passed relative to that province, and of earnestly
remonstrating in their behalf. At the same time, we also must express
our disapprobation of the violent measures that have been pursued in
some of the colonies, which can only tend to increase our misfortunes
and to prevent our obtaining redress.
"We claim but a restoration of those rights which we enjoyed by general
consent before the close of the last war; we desire no more than a
continuation of that ancient government to which we are entitled by the
principles of the British Constitution, and by which alone can be
secured to us the rights of Englishmen. Attached by every tie of
interest and regard to the British nation, and accustomed to behold with
reverence and respect its excellent form of government, we harbour not
an idea of diminishing the power and grandeur of the mother country, or
lessening the lustre and dignity of Parliament. Our object is the
happiness which we are convinced can only arise from the union of both
countries. To render this union permanent and solid, we esteem it the
undoubted right of the colonies to participate in that Constitution
whose direct aim is the liberty of the subject; fully trusting that your
honourable House will listen with attention to our complaints, and
redress our grievances by adopting such measures as shall be found most
conducive to the general welfare of the whole empire, and most likely to
restore union and harmony amongst all its different branches.
"By order of the General Assembly,
"JOHN CRUGER, _Speaker_.
"Assembly Chamber, City of New York, the 25th day of
March, 1775."
This representation and remonstrance having been presented to the House
of Commons, Mr. Burke moved, the 15th of May, that it be brought up. He
said "he had in his hand a paper of importance from the General Assembly
of the Province of New York--a province which yielded to no part of his
Majesty's dominions in its zeal for the prosperity and unity of the
empire, and which had ever contributed as much as any, in its
proportion, to the defence and wealth of the whole." "They never had
before them so fair an opportunity of putting an end to the unhappy
disputes with the colonies as at present, and he conjured them in the
most earnest manner not to let it escape, as possibly the like might
never return. He thought this application from America so very desirable
to the House, that he could have made no sort of doubt of their entering
heartily into his ideas, if Lord North, some days before, in opening the
budget, had not gone out of his way to make a panegyric on the last
Parliament, and in particular to commend as acts of lenity and mercy
those very laws which the Remonstrance considers as intolerable
grievances."
"Lord North spoke greatly in favour of New York, and said he would
gladly do everything in his power to show his regard to the good
behaviour of that colony; but the honour of Parliament required that no
paper should be presented to that House which tended to call in question
the unlimited rights of Parliament."
"Mr. Fox said the right of Parliament to tax America was not simply
denied in the Remonstrance, but was coupled with the exercise of it. The
exercise was the thing complained of, not the right itself. When the
Declaratory Act was passed, asserting the right in the fullest extent,
there were no tumults in America, no opposition to Government in any
part of that country; but when the right came to be exercised in the
manner we have seen, the whole country was alarmed, and there was an
unanimous determination to oppose it. The right simply is not regarded;
it is the exercise of it that is the object of opposition. It is this
exercise that has irritated and made almost desperate several of the
colonies. But the noble lord (Lord North) chooses to be consistent, and
is determined to make them all alike. The only province that was
moderate, and in which England had some friends, he now treats with
contempt. What will be the consequence when the people of this moderate
province are informed of this treatment? That representation which the
cool and candid of this moderate province had framed with deliberation
and caution is rejected--is not suffered to be presented--is not even to
be read by the clerk. When they hear this they will be inflamed, and
hereafter be as distinguished by their violence as they have hitherto
been by their moderation. It is the only method they can take to regain
the esteem and confidence of their brethren in the other colonies who
have been offended at their moderation. Those who refused to send
deputies to the Congress (at Philadelphia), and trusted to Parliament,
will appear ridiculous in the eyes of all America. It will be proved
that those who distrusted and defied Parliament had made a right
judgment, and those who relied upon its moderation and clemency had been
mistaken and duped; and the consequence of this must be, that every
friend the Ministers have in America must either abandon them, or lose
all credit and means of serving them in future."
"Governor _Johnstone_ observed that when Mr. Wilkes had formerly
presented a petition full of matter which the House did not think to
enter into, they did not prevent the petition being brought up, but
separated the matter which they thought improper from that which they
thought ought to be heard. The House might make use of the same
selection here. Ministers have long declared they wished for a dutiful
application from one of the colonies, and now it is come they treat it
with scorn and indignity. Mr. Cornwall had said it came only from
twenty-six individuals. These twenty-six are the whole Assembly. When
the question to adopt the measures recommended by the Congress was
negatived by a majority of one only in this Assembly of twenty-six
individuals, the Ministers were in high spirits, and these individuals
were then represented as all America."
Lord North's amendment to reject the petition was adopted by a majority
of 186 to 67.[357]
"After having been foiled in the House of Commons," says the royal
historian, "it now remained to be decided whether that colony's
representations would meet with a more gracious reception in the House
of Lords. But here the difficulty was still greater than in the other
House. The dignity of the peerage was said to be insulted by the
appellation under which it had been presumed to usher those
representations into that Assembly. They were styled a Memorial; such a
title was only allowable in transactions between princes and states
independent of each other, but was insufferable on the part of subjects.
The answer was that the lowest officer in the service had a right to
present a memorial, even to his Majesty, should he think himself
aggrieved; with much more reason might a respectable body present one to
the House of Lords. But, exclusive of the general reason that entitled
so important a colony to lay such a paper before them, the particular
reason of its fidelity, in spite of so many examples of defection, was
alone a motive which ought to supersede all forms, and engage their most
serious attention to what it had to propose.
"After sundry arguments of the same nature, the question was determined
against hearing the Memorial by forty-five peers to twenty-five.
"When the rejection of these applications was announced to the public, a
great part of the nation expressed the highest discontent. They now
looked forward with dejection and sorrow at the prospect of mutual
destruction that lay before them, and utterly gave up all other
expectations."[358]
It might be supposed that such a rejection of the petition of the most
loyal colony in America would end the presentation of petitions on the
part of the colonies to the King and Parliament, and decide them at once
either to submit to the extinction of their constitutional rights as
British subjects, or defend them by force. But though they had, both
separately and unitedly, declared from the beginning that they would
defend their rights at all hazards, they persisted in exhausting every
possible means to persuade the King and Parliament to desist from such a
system of oppression, and to restore to them those rights which they
enjoyed for more than a century--down to the close of the French war in
1763.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 357: Parliamentary Register, Vol. I., pp. 467-473.]
[Footnote 358: Dr. Andrews' History of the War with America, Spain, and
Holland, Vol. I., pp. 275, 276.
"The Ministerial objections were that it was incompatible with the
dignity of the House to suffer any paper to be presented that questioned
its supreme authority. Particular notice was taken at the same time that
the title of Petition did not accompany this paper; it was called a
Representation and Remonstrance, which was not the usual nor the proper
manner of application to Parliament. This singularity alone was
sufficient to put a negative on its presentation.
"To this it was replied, that the times were so dangerous and critical
that words and forms were no longer deserving of attention. The question
was whether they thought the colony of New York was worthy of a hearing?
No colony had behaved with so much temperateness and discretion.
Notwithstanding the tempestuousness of the times, and the general wreck
of British authority, it had yet preserved a steady obedience to
Government. While every other colony was bidding defiance to Britain,
this alone submissively applied to her for redress of grievances. Was it
consistent with policy, after losing the good-will of all the other
colonies, to drive this, through a needless and punctilious severity,
into their confederacy against this country? Could we expect, after such
a treatment, that this colony could withstand the arguments that would
be drawn from our superciliousness to induce it to relinquish a conduct
which was so ill requited?"--_Ib._, p. 274.]
CHAPTER XXIII.
1775 CONTINUED--THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS IN AMERICA.
Six months after the General Assembly of New York adopted its Memorial,
and four months after its rejection by both Houses of Parliament, the
second Continental Congress met, in the month of September, at
Philadelphia.
This Assembly consisted of fifty-five members, chosen by twelve
colonies. The little colony of Georgia did not elect delegates, but
promised to concur with the sister colonies in the effort to maintain
their rights to the British Constitution. Many of the members of this
Assembly were men of fortune and learning, and represented not only the
general sentiments of the colonies, but their wealth and
respectability.[359] "The object, as stated in the credentials of the
delegates, and especially in those of the two most powerful colonies of
Massachusetts and Virginia, was to obtain the redress of grievances, and
to restore harmony between Great Britain and America, which, it was
said, was desired by all good men. It was the conviction that this might
be done through a Bill of Rights, in which the limits of the powers of
the colonies and the mother country might be defined."[360]
Some three weeks after the assembling of Congress, before the end of
September, a petition to the King was reported, considered, and adopted.
This petition was addressed to the King, in behalf of the colonists,
beseeching the interposition of the Royal authority and influence to
procure them relief from their afflicting fears and jealousies, excited
by the measures pursued by his Ministers, and submitting to his
Majesty's consideration whether it may not be expedient for him to be
pleased to direct some mode by which the united applications of his
faithful colonists to the Throne may be improved into a happy and
permanent reconciliation; and that in the meantime measures be taken for
preventing the further destruction of the lives of his Majesty's
subjects,[361] and that such statutes as more immediately distress any
of his Majesty's colonies be repealed. "Attached to your Majesty's
person, family, and government," concludes this address of the Congress,
"with all the devotion that principle and affection can inspire,
connected with Great Britain by the strongest ties that can unite
societies, and deploring every event that tends in any degree to weaken
them, we solemnly assure your Majesty that we not only most ardently
desire that the former harmony between her and these colonies may be
restored, but that a concord may be established between them upon so
firm a basis as to perpetuate its blessings, uninterrupted by any future
dissensions, to succeeding generations in both countries." This petition
was read in Parliament the 7th of December, 1775, at the request of Mr.
Hartley, with several other petitions for pacification; but they were
all rejected by the House of Commons.[362] The answer of the King to
the respectful and loyal constitutional petition of Congress was to
proclaim the petitioners "rebels," and all that supported them "abettors
of treason."[363]
The first day of November brought to the Continental Congress this
proclamation, together with the intelligence that the British army and
navy were to be largely increased, and that German mercenary soldiers
from Hanover and Hesse had been hired, as it was found impossible to
obtain soldiers in England to fight against their fellow-subjects in
America.[365] On the same day the intelligence was received from General
Washington, in Massachusetts, of the burning of Falmouth (now
Portland).[366] The simultaneous intelligence of the treatment of the
second petition of Congress, the Royal proclamation, the increase of the
army and navy, the employment of seventeen thousand Hanoverians and
Hessian mercenaries to subdue America, and the burning of Falmouth,
produced a great sensation in Congress and throughout the colonies.
Some of the New England members of the Congress, especially John and
Samuel Adams, had long given up the idea of reconciliation with England,
and had desired independence. This feeling was, however, cherished by
very few members of the Congress; but the startling intelligence caused
many members to abandon all hope of reconciliation with the mother
country, and to regard independence as the only means of preserving
their liberties. Yet a large majority of the Congress still refused to
entertain the proposition of independence, and awaited instructions from
their constituents as to what they should do in these novel and painful
circumstances. In the meantime the Congress adopted energetic measures
for the defence of the colonies, and the effectiveness of their union
and government. In answer to applications from South Carolina and New
Hampshire for advice on account of the practical suspension of their
local Government, Congress "recommended" each province "to call a full
and free representation of the people, and that the representatives, if
they think it necessary, establish such a form of government as in their
judgment will best promote the happiness of the people, and most
effectually secure peace and good-will in the province _during the
continuance of the present dispute between Great Britain and the
colonies_". The province of Massachusetts had refused to acknowledge any
other local Government than that which had been established by the Royal
Charter of William and Mary, and which had never been cancelled by any
legal proceedings; and they continued to elect their representatives,
and the representatives met and appointed the Council, and acted under
it, as far as possible, irrespective of General Gage and the officers of
his appointment.
The colonies were a unit as to their determination to defend by force
and at all hazards their constitutional rights and liberties as British
subjects; but they were yet far from being a unit as to renunciation of
all connection with England and the declaration of independence. The
Legislature of Pennsylvania was in session when the news of the
rejection of the second petition of Congress and the King's proclamation
arrived, and when fresh instructions were asked from constituents of the
members of Congress; and even under these circumstances, Mr. Dickenson,
"The Immortal Farmer," whose masterly letters had done so much to
enlighten the public mind of both England and America on the rights of
the colonies and the unconstitutional acts of the British Administration
and Parliament, repelled the idea of separation from England. The
Legislature of Pennsylvania continued to require all its members to
subscribe the old legal qualification which included the promise of
allegiance to George the Third; "so that Franklin," says Bancroft,
"though elected for Philadelphia, through the Irish and Presbyterians,
would never take his seat. Dickenson had been returned for the county by
an almost unanimous vote." The Legislature, on the 4th of November,
elected nine delegates to the Continental Congress. Of these, one was
too ill to serve; of the rest, "Franklin stood alone as the unhesitating
champion of independence; _the majority remained to the last its
opponents_. On the 9th, Dickenson reported and carried the following
instructions to the Pennsylvania delegates: 'We direct that you exert
your utmost endeavours to agree upon and recommend such measures as you
shall judge to afford the best prospect of obtaining redress of American
grievances, and restoring that union and harmony between Great Britain
and the colonies so essential to the welfare and happiness of both
countries. Though the oppressive measures of the British Parliament and
Administration have compelled us to resist their violence by force of
arms, yet we strictly enjoin you, that you, in behalf of this colony,
dissent from and utterly reject any propositions, should such be made,
that may cause or lead to a separation from our mother country, or a
change of the form of this government.' The influence of the measure was
wide. Delaware was naturally swayed by the example of its more powerful
neighbour; the party of the proprietary of Maryland took courage; in a
few weeks the Assembly of New Jersey, in like manner, held back the
delegates of that province by an equally stringent declaration."[367]
After stating that the Legislature of Pennsylvania, before its
adjournment, adopted rules for the volunteer battalions, and
appropriated eighty thousand pounds in provincial paper money to defray
the expenses of military preparation, Mr. Bancroft adds, that "extreme
discontent led the more determined to expose through the press the
trimming of the Assembly; and Franklin encouraged Thomas Paine, an
emigrant from England of the previous year, who was master of a
singularly lucid and attractive style, to write an appeal to the people
of America in favour of independence."[368] "Yet the men of that day had
been born and educated as subjects of a king; to them the House of
Hanover was a symbol of religious toleration, the British Constitution
another word for the security of liberty and property under a
representative government. They were not yet enemies of monarchy; they
had as yet turned away from considering whether well-organized civil
institutions could not be framed for wide territories without a king;
and in the very moment of resistance they longed to escape the necessity
of a revolution. Zubly, a delegate from Georgia, a Swiss by birth,
declared in his place 'a republic to be little better than a government
of devils;' shuddered at the idea of separation from Britain as fraught
with greater evils than had yet been suffered."[369]
The exact time when the minds of the leading men in the Colonies, and
the colonists, began to undergo a transition from the defence of their
constitutional liberties as British subjects to their security by
declaring independence of Great Britain, seems to have been the receipt
of the intelligence of the scornful rejection of the second petition of
Congress, and of the King's proclamation, putting the advocates of
colonial rights out of the protection of the law, by declaring them
rebels, and requiring all public officers, civil and military, to
apprehend them with a view to their punishment as such. Some individuals
of eminence in the colonies had previously despaired of reconciliation
with England, and had regarded Independency as the only hope of
preserving their liberties, but these were the exceptions: the leaders
and colonists generally still hoped for reconciliation with England by
having their liberties restored, as they were recognized and enjoyed at
the close of the French war in 1763. They had regarded the King as their
Father and Friend, and laid all the blame upon his Ministers and
Parliament, against whose acts they appealed to the King for the
protection of their rights and liberties. But it gradually transpired,
from year to year, that the King himself was the real prompter of these
oppressive acts and measures, and though long discredited,[370] yet when
the King ostentatiously announced himself as the champion of the
Parliament and its acts, his determination to enforce by the whole power
of the realm, the absolute submission of the colonies; and when all this
intelligence, so often repeated and doubted, was confirmed by the issue
of the Royal proclamation, which it was known and admitted that the King
himself had urged and hastened, the most sanguine advocates and friends
of reconciliation were astounded and began to despair; and the idea of
independence was now boldly advocated by the press.
In 1773, Dr. Franklin said to the Earl of Chatham, "I never heard from
any person the least expression of a wish for separation." In October,
1774, Washington wrote, "I am well satisfied that no such thing as
independence is desired by any thinking man in America; on the contrary,
that it is the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty that
peace and tranquillity, on constitutional grounds, may be restored, and
the horrors of civil discord prevented." Jefferson stated, "Before the
19th of April, 1775 (the day of General Gage's attack on Concord, and
the Lexington affair), I never heard a whisper of a disposition to
separate from Great Britain." And thirty-seven days before that wanton
aggression of General Gage,[371] John Adams, in Boston, published:
"That there are any who pant after independence is the greatest slander
on the Province." Sparks, in a note entitled "American Independence," in
the second volume of the Writings of Washington, remarks: "It is not
easy to determine at what precise date the idea of independence was
first entertained by the principal persons in America." Samuel Adams,
after the events of the 19th of April, 1775, was prepared to advocate
it. Members of the Provincial Congress of New Hampshire were of the same
opinion. President Dwight, of Yale College (Travels in New England and
New York, Vol. I., p. 159), says: "In the month of July, 1775, I urged
in conversation with several gentlemen of great respectability, firm
Whigs, and my intimate friends, the importance and even necessity of a
declaration of independence on the part of the colonies, but found them
disposed to give me and my arguments a hostile and contemptuous, instead
of a cordial reception. These gentlemen may be considered as the
representatives of the great body of thinking men of this country." In
the note of Sparks are embodied the recollections of Madison, Jay, and
others, and the contemporary statements of Franklin and Penn. They are
in harmony with the statements and quotations in the text, and sustain
the judgment of Dr. Ramsay (History of South Carolina, Vol. I., p. 164),
who says: "Till the rejection of the second petition of Congress, the
reconciliation with the mother country was the unanimous wish of the
Americans generally."[372]
When Washington heard of the affair of Concord and Lexington, April 19,
1775, he wrote, in his own quiet residence at Mount Vernon, "Unhappy is
it to reflect that a brother's sword should be sheathed in a brother's
breast, and that the once happy and peaceful plains of America are to be
either drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But,
can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?" Mr. Bancroft says: "The
reply to Bunker Hill from England reached Washington before the end of
September (1775); and the manifest determination of the Ministers to
push the war by sea and land, with the utmost vigour, removed from his
mind every doubt of the necessity of independence. Such also was the
conclusion of Greene; and the army was impatient when any of the
chaplains prayed for the King."[373]
It was thus that King George the Third, by his own acts, lost the
confidence and affection of his loyal subjects in America, and hastened
a catastrophe of which he had been repeatedly and faithfully warned, and
which none deprecated more generally and earnestly than the leaders and
inhabitants of the American colonies; but who determined, and openly
declared their determination in every petition to the King and
Parliament for ten years, that, if necessary, at all hazards, they would
maintain and defend their constitutional rights as Englishmen.
Now, at the close of the year 1775, and before entering upon the
eventful year of 1776, when the American colonies adopted the
Declaration of Independence, let us recapitulate the events which thus
brought the mother country and her colonial offspring face to face in
armed hostility.
1. No loyalty and affection could be more cordial than that of the
American colonies to England at the conquest of Canada from the French,
and the peace of Paris between Great Britain and France in 1763. Even
the ancient and traditional disaffection of Massachusetts to England had
dissolved into feelings of gratitude and respect and avowed loyalty.
Indeed, loyalty and attachment to England, and pride in the British
Constitution, was the universal feeling of the American colonies at the
close of the war which secured North America to England, and for the
triumphant termination of which the American colonies had raised and
equipped no less than twenty-five thousand men, without whose services
the war could not have been accomplished.
2. The first five years of the war with France in America had been
disastrous to Great Britain and the colonies, under a corrupt English
Administration and incompetent generals; but after the accession of the
Earl of Chatham to the Premiership the tide of war in America turned in
favour of Great Britain by the appointment of able generals--Amherst and
Wolfe--and Admiral Boscawen and others, and by adopting constitutional
methods to develop the resources of the colonies for the war; and in two
years the French power was crushed and ceased to exist in America. When
the Crown, through its Prime Minister, made requisition to the Colonial
Legislatures for money and men, as was the usage in England, the
Colonial Legislatures responded by granting large sums of money, and
sending into the field more than twenty thousand soldiers, who, by their
skill, courage, and knowledge of the country, and its modes of travel
and warfare, constituted the pioneers, skirmishers, and often the
strongest arm of the British army, and largely contributed in every
instance to its most splendid victories. Their loyalty, bravery, and
patriotism extracted grateful acknowledgments in both Houses of
Parliament, and even from the Throne; while the colonies as cordially
acknowledged the essential and successful assistance of the mother
country. At no period of colonial history was there so deep-felt,
enthusiastic loyalty to the British Constitution and British connection
as at the close of the war between France and England in 1763. But in
the meantime George the Third, after his accession to the throne in
1760, determined not only to _reign over_ but to _rule_ his kingdom,
both at home and abroad. He ignored party government or control in
Parliament; he resolved to be his own Prime Minister--in other words, to
be despotic; he dismissed the able and patriotic statesmen who had wiped
off the disgrace inflicted on British arms and prestige during the five
years of the French and Indian war in the American colonies, and had
given America to England, and called men one after another to succeed
them, who, though in some instances they were men of ability, and in one
or two instances were men of amiable and Christian character, were upon
the whole the most unscrupulous and corrupt statesmen that ever stood at
the head of public affairs in England, and the two Parliaments elected
under their auspices were the most venal ever known in British history.
The King regarded as a personal enemy any member of Parliament who
opposed his policy, and hated any Minister of State (and dismissed him
as soon as possible) who offered advice to, instead of receiving it
from, his Royal master and implicitly obeying it; and the Ministers whom
he selected were too subservient to the despotism and caprices of the
Royal will, at the frequent sacrifice of their own convictions and the
best interests of the empire.
For more than a hundred years the colonies had provided for and
controlled their own civil, judicial, and military administration of
government; and when the King required special appropriations of money
and raising of men during the Seven Years' War, requisitions were made
by his Ministers in his name, through the Governors, to the several
Provincial Legislatures, which responded with a liberality and
patriotism that excited surprise in England at the extent of their
resources in both money and men. But this very development of colonial
power excited jealousy and apprehensions in England, instead of sympathy
and respect; and within a twelvemonth after the treaty of Paris, in
1763, the King and his Ministers determined to discourage and crush all
military spirit and organization in the colonies, to denude the Colonial
Legislatures of all the attributes of British constitutional free
government, by the British Government not only appointing the Governors
of the colonies, but by appointing the members of one branch of the
Legislature, by appointing Judges as well as other public officers to
hold office during the pleasure of the Crown, and fixing and paying
their salaries out of moneys paid by colonists, but levied not by the
Colonial Legislatures, but by Acts of the British Parliament, contrary
to the usage of more than a century; and under the pretext of
_defending_ the colonies, but really for the purpose of ruling them;
proposing an army of 20 regiments of 500 men each, to be raised and
officered in England, from the penniless and often worse than penniless
of the scions and relatives of Ministers and members of Parliament, and
billeted upon the colonies at the estimated expense of £100,000 sterling
a year, to be paid by the colonies out of the proceeds of the Stamp and
other Acts of Parliament passed for the purpose of raising a revenue in
the colonies for the support of its civil and military government.
No government is more odious and oppressive than that which has the
mockery of the form of free government without its powers or attributes.
An individual despot may be reached, terrified, or persuaded, but a
despotic oligarchy has no restraint of individual responsibility, and is
as intangible in its individuality as it is grasping and heartless in
its acts and policy. For governors, all executive officers, judges, and
legislative councillors appointed from England, together with military
officers, 20 regiments all raised in England, the military commanders
taking precedence of the local civil authorities, all irresponsible to
the colonists, yet paid by them out of taxes imposed upon them without
their consent, is the worst and most mercenary despotism that can be
conceived. The colonists could indeed continue to elect representatives
to one branch of their Legislatures; but the Houses of Assembly thus
elected were powerless to protect the liberties or properties of their
constituents, subject to abuse and dissolution in case of their
remonstrating against unconstitutional acts of tyranny or advocating
rights.
Such was the system passionately insisted upon by King George the Third
to establish his absolute authority over his colonial subjects in
America, and such were the methods devised by his venal Ministers and
Parliament to provide places and emoluments for their sons, relatives,
and dependents, at the expense of the colonists, to say nothing of the
consequences to the virtue of colonial families from mercenary public
officers and an immoral soldiery.
The American colonies merited other treatment than that which they
received at the hands of the King and Parliament from 1763 to 1776; and
they would have been unworthy of the name of Englishmen, and of the
respect of mankind, had they yielded an iota of the constitutional
rights of British subjects, for which they so lawfully and manfully
contended. What the old colonies contended for during that eventful
period was substantially the same as that which has been demanded and
obtained during the present century by the colonies of the Canadian
Dominion, under the names of "local self-government" or "responsible
government," and which is now so fully enjoyed by them. Had Queen
Victoria reigned in England instead of George the Third, there would
have been no Declaration of Independence, no civil war in America, but
the thirteen American provinces would have remained as affectionately
united to the mother country, and as free as are the provinces of the
Canadian Dominion at this day.
George the Third seems to me to have been, before and during the
American Revolution, the worst Sovereign for the colonies that ever
occupied the throne of England; but after and since that revolution he
was the best of Sovereigns for the remaining British colonies of North
America. He learned lessons during that revolution which essentially
changed his character as the ruler of colonies, though I am not aware
that he ever formally confessed the change through which he had passed.
It is therefore quite reconcilable that he should be regarded by the old
American colonies, now the United States, as a tyrant, while his name is
revered and loved by the colonists of the Canadian Dominion as the
Father of his people.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 359: "Each of the three divisions by which the colonies were
usually designated--the New England, the Middle, and the Southern
Colonies--had on the floor of Congress men of a positive character. _New
England_ presented in John Sullivan, vigour; in Roger Sherman, sterling
sense and integrity; in Thomas Cushing, commercial knowledge; in John
Adams (afterwards President of the United States), large capacity for
public affairs; in Samuel Adams (no relation to John Adams), a great
character with influence and power to organize. The _Middle_ Colonies
presented in Philip Livingston, the merchant prince of enterprise and
liberality; in John Jay, rare public virtue, juridical learning, and
classic taste; in William Livingston, progressive ideas tempered by
conservatism; in John Dickenson, "The Immortal Farmer," erudition and
literary ability; in Cæsar Rodney and Thomas McKean, working power; in
James Duane, timid Whigism, halting, but keeping true to the cause; in
Joseph Galloway, downright Toryism, seeking control, and at length going
to the enemy. The _Southern_ Colonies presented in Thomas Johnson, the
grasp of a statesman; in Samuel Chase, activity and boldness; in the
Rutledges, wealth and accomplishment; in Christopher Gadsden, the
genuine American; and in the Virginia delegation--an illustrious
group--in Richard Bland, wisdom; in Edmund Pendleton, practical talent;
in Peyton Randolph, experience in legislation; in Richard Henry Lee,
statesmanship in union with high culture; in Patrick Henry, genius and
eloquence; in Washington, justice and patriotism. 'If,' said Patrick
Henry, 'you speak of solid information and sound judgment, Washington
unquestionably is the greatest man of them all.' Those others who might
be named were chosen on account of their fitness for the duties which
the cause required. Many had independent fortunes. They constituted a
noble representation of the ability, culture, political intelligence,
and wisdom of twelve of the colonies." (Frothingham's Rise of the
Republic of the Twelve States, pp. 360, 361.)]
[Footnote 360: _Ib._, pp. 363, 364.
After preliminary proceedings, Congress decided to appoint a Committee
to state the rights of the colonies, the instances in which those rights
had been violated, and the most proper means to obtain their
restoration; and another Committee to examine and report upon the
statutes affecting the trade and manufactures of the colonies. On the
same day, Samuel Adams, in answer to the objection to opening the
session with prayer, grounded on the diversity of religious sentiment
among the members, said he could hear prayer from any man of piety and
virtue, who was a friend of the country, and moved that Mr. Duché, an
Episcopalian, might be desired to read prayers for the Congress the
following morning. The motion prevailed. "The Congress sat with closed
doors. Nothing transpired of their proceedings except their organization
and the rule of voting (each province having an equal vote). The members
bound themselves to keep their doings secret until a majority should
direct their publication."--_Ib._, pp. 364, 365.]
[Footnote 361: The battles of Lexington and Bunker's Hill had occurred
some months before the adoption of this petition.]
[Footnote 362: Holmes' Annals, Vol. II., p. 232.
Richard Penn, late Governor of Pennsylvania, was chosen by Congress to
go to Great Britain, with directions to deliver their petition to the
King himself, and to endeavour, by his personal influence, to procure
its favourable reception; but Mr. Penn, though from the city whose
Congress had twice assembled, a man distinguished in the colony for
moderation and loyalty, and the appointed agent of the Congress, was not
asked a question, even when he presented the American petition to the
Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, and the King refused to
see him.--_Ib._, pp. 231, 232.
"Two days after the delivery of a copy of the petition of Congress, the
King sent out a proclamation for _suppressing rebellion and sedition_.
It set forth that many of his subjects in the colonies had proceeded to
open and avowed rebellion by arraying themselves to withstand the
execution of the law, and traitorously levying war against him. 'There
is reason,' so ran its words, 'to apprehend that such rebellion hath
been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence,
counsels, and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within our
realm.' Not only all the officers, civil and military, but all the
subjects of the realm were therefore called upon to disclose all
traitorous conspiracies, and to transmit to one of the Secretaries of
State 'full information of all persons who should be found carrying on
correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the
persons now in open arms and rebellion against the Government within any
of the colonies in North America, in order to bring to condign
punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abettors of such traitorous
designs.'
"The proclamation, aimed at Chatham, Camden, Barré, and their friends,
and the boldest of the Rockingham party, even more than against the
Americans, was read, but not with the customary ceremonies, at the Royal
Exchange, where it was received with a general hiss."
"The irrevocable publication having been made, Penn and Arthur Lee were
'permitted' on the 1st of September to present the original of the
American petition to Lord Dartmouth, who promised to deliver it to the
King; but on their pressing for an answer, 'they were informed that as
it was not received on the throne, no answer would be given.' Lee
expressed sorrow at the refusal, which would occasion so much bloodshed;
and the deluded Secretary answered: 'If I thought it would be the cause
of shedding one drop of blood, I should never have concurred in it."
(Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VIII., Chap, xlix., pp.
132, 133.)
Yet "on the 23rd of August Lord Dartmouth wrote to General Howe, who
(Aug. 2, 1775) superseded General Gage as the Commander of the British
army, that there was 'no room left for any other consideration but that
of proceeding against the twelve associated colonies in all respects
with the utmost rigour, as the open and avowed enemies of the State.'"
(Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, p. 446.)]
[Footnote 363: "In the meantime (beginning of October) Richard Penn
hastened to England with the second petition. The King was now
continually occupied with American affairs. He directed that General
Gage should be ordered 'instantly to come' over, on account of the
battle of Bunker Hill; thought Admiral Graves ought to be recalled from
Boston 'for doing nothing,' and completed the arrangements for the
employment of Hanoverians in America. Impatient at the delay of the
Cabinet in acting upon the proclamation agreed upon, he put this in
train by ordering one to be framed and submitted, August 18th, to Lord
North, and fixed the day for its promulgation. He was confirmed in his
extreme views by General Haldimand, fresh from America, who reported
that 'nothing but force could bring the colonies to reason,' and that it
would be dangerous to give ear to any proposition they might submit. The
King was convinced that it would be better 'totally to abandon the
colonies' than 'to admit a single shadow' of their doctrines [364]. Five
days after penning these words, he issued (August 23rd) a proclamation
for suppressing rebellion and sedition." (The purpose of this fatal
proclamation is given in the sub-note.)
This proclamation, unlike Lord North's plan, ignored the colonies as
political unities. It is levelled against individuals in rebellion, and
all within the realm who should aid them. (Frothingham's Rise of the
American Republic, pp. 444-446. Donne's Correspondence of Geo. III.)]
[Footnote 364: A private letter by Captain Collins, lately arrived from
London, says that "on the 19th of August General Haldimand was closeted
with his Majesty two hours, giving him a state of the American colonies;
and that in the course of the conversation his Majesty expressed his
resolution in these memorable words: 'I am unalterably determined, at
every hazard, and at the risk of every consequence, to compel the
colonies to absolute submission.'"]
[Footnote 365: "In the autumn of this year (1775), General Gage repaired
to England, and the command of the British army devolved on Sir William
Howe. The offer of this command had been first made to General
Oglethorpe, his senior officer, who agreed to accept the appointment on
the condition that the Ministry would authorize him to assure the
colonies that justice should be done to them. This veteran and patriotic
General declared at the same time that he knew the people of America
well; that they never would be subdued by arms, but that their obedience
would be ever secured by doing them justice." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. II.,
p. 235.)
"The Earl of Effingham, who in his youth had been prompted by military
genius to enter the army, and had lately served as a volunteer in the
war between Russia and Turkey, finding that his regiment was intended
for America, renounced the profession which he loved, as the only means
of escaping the obligation of fighting against the cause of freedom.
This resignation gave offence to the Court, and was a severe rebuke to
the officers who did not share his scruple; but at London the Common
Hall, in June, thanked him publicly as 'a true Englishman;' and the
guild of merchants in Dublin addressed him in the strongest terms of
approbation." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap,
xxxiii. pp. 343, 344.)]
[Footnote 366: "In compliance with a resolve of the Provincial Congress
to prevent Tories from conveying out their effects, the inhabitants of
Falmouth, in the north-eastern part of Massachusetts, had obstructed the
loading of a mast ship. The destruction of the town was determined on as
a vindictive punishment. Captain Mowat, detached for that purpose with
armed vessels by Admiral Graves, arrived off the place on the evening of
the 17th of October. He gave notice to the inhabitants that he would
give them two hours 'to remove the human species,' at the end of which
time a red pendant would be hoisted at the maintop-gallant mast-head;
and that on the least resistance, he should be freed from all humanity
dictated by his orders or his inclination. Upon being inquired of by
three gentlemen who went on board his ship for that purpose respecting
the reason of this extraordinary summons, he replied that he had orders
to set on fire all the seaport towns from Boston to Halifax, and that he
supposed New York was already in ashes. He could dispense with his
orders, he said, on no terms but the compliance of the inhabitants to
deliver up their arms and ammunition, and their sending on board a
supply of provisions, four carriage guns, and the same number of the
principal persons in the town as hostages; that they should engage not
to unite with their country in any opposition to Britain; and he assured
them that on a refusal of these conditions he would lay their town in
ashes within three hours. Unprepared for the attack, the inhabitants by
entreaty obtained the suspension of an answer until morning, and
employed this interval in removing their families and effects.
Considering opposition as unavailing, they made no resistance. The next
day, Captain Mowat commenced a furious cannonade and bombardment; and a
great number of people standing on the heights were spectators of the
conflagration, which reduced many of them to penury and despair; 139
dwelling-houses and 278 stores were burnt. Other seaports were
threatened with conflagration, but escaped; Newport, on Rhode Island,
was compelled to stipulate for a weekly supply, to avert it." (Holmes'
Annals, Vol. II., pp. 219, 220.)
Mr. Bancroft's account of this transaction is as follows: "In the
previous May, Mowat, a naval officer, had been held prisoner for a few
hours at Falmouth, now Portland; and we have seen Linzee, in a sloop of
war, driven with loss from Gloucester. It was one of the last acts of
Gage to plan with the Admiral how to wreak vengeance on the inhabitants
of both those ports. The design against Gloucester was never carried
out; but Mowat, in a ship of sixteen guns, attended by three other
vessels, went up the harbour of Portland, and after a short parley, at
half-past nine on the morning of the 16th of October, he began to fire
upon the town. In five minutes several houses were in a blaze; parties
of marines had landed, to spread the conflagration by hand. All
sea-going vessels were burned except two, which were carried away. The
cannonade was kept up till after dark. St. Paul's Church, the public
buildings, and about one hundred and thirty dwelling-houses,
three-fourths of the whole, were burned down; those that remained
standing were shattered by balls and shells. By the English account the
destruction was still greater. At the opening of a severe winter, the
inhabitants were turned adrift in poverty and misery. The wrath of
Washington was justly kindled as he heard of these 'savage cruelties,'
this new 'exertion of despotic barbarity.'" (History of the United
States, Vol. VIII., Chap. xlvii., p. 113.)]
[Footnote 367: Bancroft's History United States, Vol. VIII., Chap.
xlix., pp. 138, 139.]
[Footnote 368: In this appeal of Paine's, _monarchy_ was for the first
time attacked in America, except by the rulers of the Massachusetts
colony, under the first Charter. Some of Paine's words were, that "In
the early ages of the world, mankind were equals in the order of
creation; the heathen introduced the government of kings, which the will
of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly
disapproved. To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
succession; and as the first is a lessening of ourselves, so the second
might put posterity under the government of a rogue or a fool. Nature
disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into
ridicule. England since the Conquest hath known some few good monarchs,
but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones." "In short,
monarchy and succession have laid not England only, but the world, in
blood and ashes." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VIII.,
Chap. xlix., pp. 236, 237.)]
[Footnote 369: But though Mr. Dickenson had done more than any other man
in America to vindicate colonial rights and expose the unconstitutional
character of the acts of the British Ministry and Parliament, he was
opposed to a declaration of independence, like a majority of the
colonists; yet he advocated resistance by force against submission to
the Boston Port Bill, and the suspension of the Massachusetts Charter,
and both without a trial, as in similar cases even under the despotic
reigns of Charles the First and Second. Mr. Bancroft blames Mr.
Dickenson severely for the instructions of the Pennsylvania Legislature
to its nine delegates in the Continental Congress in October, 1775; but,
writing under the date of the previous May, Mr. Bancroft says: "Now that
the Charter of Massachusetts had been impaired, Dickenson did not ask
merely relief from parliamentary taxation; he required security against
the encroachments of Parliament on charters and laws. The distinctness
with which he spoke satisfied Samuel Adams himself, who has left on
record that the Farmer was a thorough Bostonian." (History of the United
States, Vol. VII., Chap. xxxvi., p. 377.)]
[Footnote 370: As late as May, 1775, after the bloody affair of Concord
and Lexington, Mr. Bancroft remarks:
"The delegates of New England, especially those from Massachusetts,
could bring no remedy to the prevailing indecision (in the Continental
Congress), for they suffered from insinuations that they represented a
people who were republican in their principles of government and
fanatics in religion, and they wisely avoided the appearance of
importunity or excess in their demands.
"As the delegates from South Carolina declined the responsibility of a
decision which would have implied an abandonment of every hope of peace,
there could be no efficient opposition to the policy of _again seeking
the restoration of American liberty through the mediation of the King_.
This plan had the great advantage over the suggestion of an immediate
separation from Britain, that it could be boldly promulgated, and was
_in harmony with the general wish; for the people of the continent_,
taken collectively, _had not as yet ceased to cling to their old
relations with their parent land_; and so far from scheming
independence, now that independence was become inevitable, they
postponed the irrevocable decree and still longed that the necessity for
it might pass by." (History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
xxxvi, pp. 376, 377.)]
[Footnote 371: Lord Dartmouth (the Secretary of State for the Colonies)
said: "The attempts of General Gage at Concord are fatal. By that
unfortunate event the happy moment of advantage is lost."
"The condemnation of Gage was universal. Many people in England were
from that moment convinced that the Americans could not be reduced, and
that England must concede their independence. The British force, if
drawn together, could occupy but a few insulated points, while all the
rest would be free; if distributed, would be continually harassed and
destroyed in detail.
"These views were frequently brought before Lord North. That statesman
was endowed with strong affections, and was happy in his family, in his
fortune and abilities; in his public conduct, he and he alone among
Ministers was sensible to the reproaches of remorse; and he cherished
the sweet feelings of human kindness. Appalled at the prospect, he
wished to resign. But the King would neither give him release, nor
relent towards the Americans. How to subdue the rebels was the subject
of consideration." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII.,
Chap, xxxiii, pp. 345, 346.)]
[Footnote 372: Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, p. 453, in a
note.]
[Footnote 373: History of the United States, Vol. VIII., Chap, xlvii, p.
108.
In November, 1775, Jefferson wrote to a refugee: "It is an immense
misfortune to the whole empire to have a king of such a disposition at
such a time. We are told, and everything proves it true, that he is the
bitterest enemy we have; his Minister is able, and that satisfies me
that ignorance or wickedness somewhere controls him. Our petitions told
him, that from our King there was but one appeal. After colonies have
drawn the sword, there is but one step more they can take. That step is
now pressed upon us by the measures adopted, as if they were afraid we
would not take it. There is not in the British Empire a man who more
cordially loves union with Great Britain than I do; but by the God that
made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such
terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this I speak the
sentiments of America."--_Ib._, p. 143.]
CHAPTER XXIV.
1775 AND BEGINNING OF 1776--PREPARATION IN ENGLAND TO REDUCE THE
COLONISTS TO ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION--SELF-ASSERTED AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT.
The eventful year of 1775--the year preceding that of the American
Declaration of Independence--opened with increased and formidable
preparations on the part of England to reduce the American colonies to
absolute submission. The ground of this assumption of absolute power
over the colonies had no sanction in the British Constitution, much less
in the history of the colonies; it was a simple declaration or
declaratory Bill by the Parliament itself, in 1764, of its right to bind
the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and no more a part of the British
Constitution than any declaration of Parliament in the previous century
of its authority over the monarchy and the constitution and existence of
the House of Lords. Assuming and declaring an authority over the
American colonies which Parliament had never before, and which it has
never since exercised, and which no statesman or political writer of
repute at this day regards as constitutional, Parliament proceeded to
tax the colonies without their consent, to suspend the legislative
powers of the New York Legislature, to close the port of Boston, to
annul and change all that was free in the Charter Government of
Massachusetts, to forbid the New England colonies the fisheries of
Newfoundland, and afterwards to prohibit to all the colonies commerce
with each other and with foreign countries; to denounce, as in the Royal
Speech to Parliament of the previous October, as "rebellion,"
remonstrances against and opposition to these arbitrary and cruel
enactments; to appeal to Holland and Russia (but in vain) for the aid
of foreign soldiers, and to hire of German blood-trading princes
seventeen thousand mercenary soldiers to butcher British subjects in the
colonies, even to liberate slaves for the murder of their masters, and
to employ savage Indians to slaughter men, women, and children.
All this was done by the King and his servants against the colonies
before the close of the year 1775, while they still disclaimed any
design or desire for independence, and asked for nothing more than they
enjoyed in 1763, after they had given the noblest proof of liberality
and courage, to establish and maintain British supremacy in America
during the seven years' war between England and France, and enjoyed much
less of that local self-government, immunity, and privilege which every
inhabitant of the Canadian Dominion enjoys at this day.
During that French war, and for a hundred years before, the colonists
had provided fortresses, artillery, arms, and ammunition for their own
defence; they were practised marksmen, far superior to the regular
soldiery of the British army, with the character and usages of which
they had become familiar. They offered to provide for their own defence
as well as for the support of their civil government, both of which the
British Government requires of the provinces of the Canadian Dominion,
but both of which were denied to the old provinces of America, after the
close of the seven years' war with France. The King and his Ministers
not only opposed the colonies providing for their own defence, but
ordered the seizure of their magazines, cannon, and arms. General Gage
commenced this kind of provocation and attack upon the colonists and
their property; seized the arms of the inhabitants of Boston; spiked
their cannon at night on Fort Hill; seized by night, also, 13 tons of
colonial powder stored at Charleston; sent by night an expedition of
eight hundred troops, twenty miles to Concord, to seize military
provisions, but they were driven back to Lexington with the loss of 65
killed and 180 wounded, and on the part of the colonists 50 killed and
34 wounded. This was the commencement of a bloody revolution, and was
soon followed by the battle of Bunker's Hill, in which, "on the part of
the British," says Holmes, "about 3,000 men were engaged in this action;
and their killed and wounded amounted to 1,054. The number of Americans
in this engagement was 1,500; and their killed, wounded, and missing
amounted to 453."[374]
In each of these conflicts the attack was made and the first shot was
fired on the part of the British troops. Of this, abundant evidence was
forthwith collected and sent to England. It was carefully inculcated
that in no instance should the colonists attack or fire the first shot
upon the British troops; that in all cases they should act upon the
defensive, as their cause was the defence of their rights and property;
but when attacked, they retaliated with a courage, skill, and deadly
effect that astonished their assailants, and completely refuted the
statements diligently made in England and circulated in the army, that
the colonists had no military qualities and would never face British
troops.[375]
About the same time that General Gage thus commenced war upon the
people of Massachusetts, who so nobly responded in defence of their
constitutional rights, Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, committed
similar outrages upon the traditionally loyal Virginians, who, as Mr.
Bancroft says, "were accustomed to associate all ideas of security in
their political rights with the dynasty of Hanover, and had never, even
in thought, desired to renounce their allegiance. They loved to consider
themselves an integral part of the British empire. The distant life of
landed proprietors, in solitary mansion-houses, favoured independence of
thought; but it also generated an aristocracy, which differed widely
from the simplicity and equality of New England. Educated in the
Anglican Church, no religious zeal had imbued them with a fixed hatred
of kingly power; no deep-seated antipathy to a distinction of ranks, no
theoretic zeal for the introduction of a republic, no speculative
fanaticism drove them to a restless love of change. They had, on the
contrary, the greatest aversion to a revolution, and abhorred the
dangerous experiment of changing their form of government without some
absolute necessity."[376]
But the Virginians, like all true loyalists, were "loyal to the people's
part of the Constitution as well as to that which pertains to the
Sovereign."[377] To intimidate them, Dunmore issued proclamations, and
threatened freeing the slaves against their masters. On the night of the
20th of April he sent a body of marines, in the night, to carry off a
quantity of gunpowder belonging to the colony, and stored in its
magazine at Williamsburg. As soon as this arbitrary seizure of the
colony's property became known, drums sounded alarm throughout the city
of Williamsburg, the volunteer company rallied under arms, and the
inhabitants assembled for consultation, and at their request the Mayor
and Corporation waited upon the Governor and asked him his motives for
carrying off their powder privately "by an armed force, particularly at
a time when they were apprehensive of an insurrection among their
slaves;" and they demanded that the powder should be forthwith restored.
Lord Dunmore first answered evasively; but learning that the citizens
had assembled under arms, he raged and threatened. He said: "The whole
country can easily be made a solitude; and by the living God, if any
insult is offered to me, or to those who have obeyed my orders, I will
declare freedom to the slaves, and lay the town in ashes."[378]
Lord Dunmore at the same time wrote to the English Secretary of State:
"With a small body of troops and arms, I could raise such a force among
_Indians, Negroes_, and other persons, as would soon reduce the
refractory people of this colony to obedience."
Yet, after all his boasting and threats, the value of the powder thus
unlawfully seized was restored to the colony. Lord Dunmore, agitated
with fears, as most tyrants are, left the Government House from fear of
the people excited by his own conduct towards them, and went on board of
the man-of-war ship _Tower_, at York (about 12 miles from Williamsburg,
the capital of the Province), thus leaving the colony in the absolute
possession of its own inhabitants, giving as a reason for his flight,
his apprehension of "falling a sacrifice to the daringness and
atrociousness, the blind and unmeasurable fury of great numbers of the
people;" and the assurance of the very people whom he feared as to his
personal safety and that of his family, and the repeated entreaties of
the Legislative Assembly that he would return to land, with assurance
of perfect safety from injury or insult, could not prevail upon Lord
Dunmore to return to the Government House, or prevent him from
attempting to govern the ancient Dominion of Virginia from ships of war.
He seized a private printing press, with two of its printers, at the
town of Norfolk, and was thus enabled to issue his proclamations and
other papers against the inhabitants whom he had so grossly insulted and
injured.[379]
"In October" (1775), says Bancroft, "Dunmore repeatedly landed
detachments to seize arms wherever he could find them. Thus far Virginia
had not resisted the British by force. The war began in that colony with
the defence of Hampton, a small village at the end of the isthmus
between York and James rivers. An armed sloop had been driven on its
shore in a very violent gale; its people took out of her six swivels and
other stores, made some of her men prisoners, and then set her on fire.
Dunmore blockaded the port; they called to their assistance a company of
"Shirtmen," as the British called the Virginia regulars, from the
hunting shirt which was their uniform, and another company of minute
men, besides a body of militia."
"On the 26th Dunmore sent some of the tenders close into Hampton Roads
to destroy the town. The guard marched out to repel them, and the moment
they came within gunshot, George Nicholas, who commanded the Virginians,
fired his musket at one of the tenders; it was the first gun fired in
Virginia against the British. His example was followed by his party.
Retarded by boats which had been sunk across the Channel, the British on
that day vainly attempted to land. The following night the Culpepper
riflemen were despatched to the aid of Hampton; and William Woodford,
Colonel of the 2nd Regiment of Virginia, was sent by the Committee of
Safety from Williamsburg to take the direction. The next day the
British, having cut their way through the sunken boats, renewed the
attack; but the riflemen poured upon them a heavy fire, killing a few
and wounding more. One of the tenders was taken, with its armament and
seven seamen; the rest were with difficulty towed out of the creek. The
Virginians lost not a man. This was the first battle of the revolution
in the ancient Dominion, and its honours belonged to the
Virginians."[380]
In consequence of this failure of Lord Dunmore to burn the town of
Hampton, he proclaimed martial law and freedom to the slaves. The
English Annual Register states that, "In consequence of the repulse (at
Hampton) a proclamation was issued (Nov. 7th) by the Governor, dated on
board the ship _William_, off Norfolk, declaring, that as the civil law
was at present insufficient to prevent and punish treason and traitors,
martial law should take place, and be executed throughout the colony;
and requiring all persons capable of bearing arms to repair to his
Majesty's standard, or to be considered as traitors." He also declared
all indentured servants, negroes, and others, appertaining to rebels,
who were able and willing to bear arms, and who joined his Majesty's
forces, to be free.
"The measure for emancipating the negroes," continues the Annual
Register, "excited less surprise, and probably had less effect, from its
being so long threatened and apprehended, than if it had been more
immediate and unexpected. It was, however, received with the greatest
horror in all the colonies, and has been severely condemned elsewhere,
as tending to loosen the bands of society, to destroy domestic security,
and encourage the most barbarous of mankind to the commission of the
most horrible crimes and the most inhuman cruelties; that it was
confounding the innocent with the guilty, and exposing those who were
the best of friends to the Government, to the same loss of property,
danger, and destruction with the most incorrigible rebels."[381]
It will be observed in Lord Dunmore's proclamation, as also in the
English Register, and I may add in General Stedman's History of the
American War, and in other histories of those times, the terms "rebels,"
"treason," and "traitors" are applied to those who, at that time, as in
all previous years, disclaimed all desire of separation from England,
and only claimed those constitutional rights of Englishmen to which they
were as lawfully entitled as the King was to his Crown, and very much
more so than Lord Dunmore was entitled to the authority which he was
then exercising; for he had been invested with authority to rule
according to the Constitution of the colony, but he had set aside the
Legislature of the colony, which had as much right to its opinions and
the expression of them as he had to his; he had abandoned the legal seat
of government, and taken up his residence on board a man-of-war, and
employed his time and strength in issuing proclamations against people
to whom he had been sent to govern as the representative of a
_constitutional_ sovereign, and made raids upon their coasts, and burned
their towns. In truth, Lord Dunmore and his abettors were the real
"rebels" and "traitors," who were committing "treason" against the
constitutional rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects, while the
objects of their hostility were the real loyalists to the Constitution,
which gave to the humblest subject his rights as well as to the
Sovereign his prerogatives.
Lord Dunmore, from his ship of war, had no right to rule the rich and
most extensive colony in America. He had abandoned his appointed seat of
government, and he became the ravager of the coasts and the destroyer of
the seaport towns of the ancient dominion. This state of things could
not long continue. Lord Dunmore could not subsist his fleet without
provisions; and the people would not sell their provisions to those who
were seeking to rob them of their liberties and to plunder their
property. The English Annual Register observes:
"In the meantime, the people in the fleet were distressed for provisions
and necessaries of every sort, and were cut off from every kind of
succour from the shore. This occasioned constant bickering between the
armed ships and boats, and the forces that were stationed on the coast,
particularly at Norfolk. At length, upon the arrival of the _Liverpool_
man-of-war from England, a flag was sent on shore to put the question
"whether they would supply his Majesty's ships with provisions?" which
being answered in the negative, and the ships in the harbour being
continually annoyed by the fire of the rebels from that part of the town
which lay next the water, it was determined to dislodge them by
destroying it. Previous notice being accordingly given to the
inhabitants that they might remove from danger, the first day of the New
Year (1776) was signalized by the attack, when a violent cannonade from
the _Liverpool_ frigate, two sloops of war, and the Governor's armed
ship the _Dunmore_, seconded by parties of sailors and marines, who
landed and set fire to the nearest houses, _soon produced the desired
effect, and the whole town was reduced to ashes_."[382]
Mr. Bancroft eloquently observes: "In this manner the Royal Governor
burned and laid waste the best town in the oldest and most loyal colony
of England, to which Elizabeth had given a name, and Raleigh devoted his
fortune, and Shakspeare and Bacon and Herbert foretokened greatness; a
colony where the people themselves had established the Church of
England, and where many were still proud of their ancestors, and in the
day of the British Commonwealth had been faithful to the line of
kings."[383]
When Washington learned the fate of the rich emporium of his own
"country," for so he called Virginia, his breast heaved with waves of
anger and grief. "I hope," said he, "this and the threatened devastation
of other places will unite the whole country in one indissoluble band
against a Government which seems lost to every sense of virtue and those
feelings which distinguish a civilized people from the most barbarous
savages."
Thus the loyal churchmen of Virginia received the same treatment from
Lord Dunmore as did the republican Congregationalists of Massachusetts
from General Gage. The loyal Presbyterians of the two Carolinas
experienced similar treatment from Governors Campbell and Martin, as
stated by the English Annual Register, in the preceding note. The three
Southern Governors each fled from their seats of government and betook
themselves to ships of war; while Gage was shut up in Boston until his
recall to England.
The Southern colonies, with those of New England, shared the same fate
of misrepresentation, abuse, and invasion of their rights as British
subjects; the flames of discontent were spread through all the colonies
by a set of incompetent and reckless Governors, the favourites and tools
of perhaps the worst Administration and the most corrupt that ever ruled
Great Britain. All the colonies might adopt the language of the last
address of the Assembly of Virginia: "We have exhausted every mode of
application which our inventions could suggest, as proper and promising.
We have decently remonstrated with Parliament; they have added new
injuries to the old. We have wearied the King with our supplications; he
has not deigned to answer them. We have appealed to the native honour
and justice of the British nation; their efforts in our favour have been
hitherto ineffectual." At the meeting of Parliament, October 26th,
1775, the King was advised to utter in the Royal speech the usual
denunciation against the colonies, but the minority in Parliament (led
by Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, General Conway, and Lord John Cavendish)
discussed and denied the statements in the Royal speech, and exhibited
the results of the Ministerial warfare against the colonies at the close
of the year 1775, the year before the Declaration of Independence. "In
this contest," says the Annual Register of 1776, "the speech was taken
to pieces, and every part of it most severely scrutinized. The Ministers
were charged with having brought their Sovereign into the most
disgraceful and unhappy situation of any monarch now living. Their
conduct had already wrested the sceptre of America out of his hands.
One-half of the empire was lost, and the other thrown into a state of
anarchy and confusion. After having spread corruption like a deluge
through the land, until all public virtue was lost, and the people were
inebriated with vice and profligacy, they were then taught in the
paroxysms of their infatuation and madness to cry out for havoc and war.
History could not show an instance of such an empire ruined in such a
manner. They had lost a greater extent of dominion in the first campaign
of a ruinous civil war, which was intentionally produced by their own
acts, than the most celebrated conquerors had ever acquired in so short
a space of time.
"The speech was said to be composed of a mixture of assumed and false
facts, with some general undefined and undisputed axioms, which nobody
would attempt to controvert. Of the former, that of charging the
colonies with aiming at independence was severely reprehended, as being
totally unfounded, being directly contrary to the whole tenor of their
conduct, to their most express declarations both by word and writing,
and to what every person of any intelligence knew of their general
temper and disposition.[384] But what they never intended, we may drive
them to. They will, undoubtedly, prefer independence to slavery. They
will never continue their connection with this country unless they can
be connected with its privileges. The continuance of hostility, with the
determined refusal of security for these privileges, will infallibly
bring on separation.
"The charge of their making professions of duty and proposals of
reconciliation only for the insidious purpose of amusing and deceiving,
was equally reprobated. It was insisted that, on the contrary, these had
from the beginning told them honestly, openly and bravely, without
disguise or reserve, and declared to all the world, that they never
would submit to be arbitrarily taxed by any body of men whatsoever in
which they were not represented. They did not whisper behind the door,
nor mince the matter; they told fairly what they would do, and have
done, if they were unhappily urged to the last extremity. And that
though the Ministers affected not to believe them, it was evident from
the armament which they sent out that they did; for however incompetent
that armament has been to the end, nobody could admit a doubt that it
was intended to oppose men in arms, and to compel by force, the
incompetence for its purposes proceeding merely from that blind
ignorance and total misconception of American affairs which had operated
upon the Ministers in every part of their conduct.
"The shameful accusation," they said, "was only to cover that wretched
conduct, and, if possible, to hide or excuse the disgrace and failure
that had attended all their measures. Was any other part of their policy
more commendable or more successful? Did the cruel and sanguinary laws
of the preceding session answer any of the purposes for which they were
proposed? Had they in any degree fulfilled the triumphant predictions,
had they kept in countenance the overbearing vaunts of the Minister?
They have now sunk into the same nothingness with the terrors of that
armed force which was to have looked all America into submission. The
Americans have faced the one, and they despise the injustice and
iniquity of the other....
"The question of rebellion was also agitated; and it was asserted that
the taking up of arms in the defence of just rights did not, according
to the spirit of the British Constitution, come within that
comprehension. It was also asserted with great confidence, that
notwithstanding the mischiefs which the Americans had suffered, and the
great losses they had sustained, they would still readily lay down their
arms, and return with the greatest good-will and emulation to their
duty, if candid and unequivocal measures were taken for reinstating them
in their former rights; but that this must be done speedily, before the
evils had taken too wide an extent, and the animosity and irritation
arising from them had gone beyond a certain pitch.
"The boasted lenity of Parliament was much lauded. It was asked whether
the Boston Port Bill, by which, without trial or condemnation, a number
of people were stripped of their commercial property, and even deprived
of the benefit of their real estates, was an instance of it? Was it to
be found in the Fishery Bill, by which large countries were cut off from
the use of the elements, and deprived of the provision which nature had
allotted for their sustenance? Or was taking away the Charter and all
the rights of the people without trial or forfeiture the measure of
lenity from which such applause was now sought? Was the indemnity held
out to military power lenity? Was it lenity to free soldiers from a
trial in the country where the murders with which they should stand
charged, when acting in support of civil and revenue officers, were
committed, and forcing their accusers to come to England at the pleasure
of a governor?" ...
"The debate in the House of Lords was rendered particularly remarkable
by the unexpected defection of a noble duke (Duke of Grafton) who had
been for some years at the head of the Administration, had resigned of
his own accord at a critical period, but who had gone with the
Government ever since, and was at this time in high office. The line
which he immediately took was still more alarming to the Administration
than the act of defection. Besides a decisive condemnation of all their
acts for some time past with respect to America, as well as of the
measures now held out by the speech, he declared that he had been
deceived and misled upon that subject; that by the withholding of
information, and the misrepresentation of facts, he had been induced to
lend his countenance to measures which he never approved; among those
was that in particular of coercing America by force of arms, an idea the
most distant from his mind and opinions, but which he was blindly led to
give a support to from his total ignorance of the true state and
disposition of the colonies, and the firm persuasion held out that
matters would never come to an extremity of that nature; that an
appearance of coercion was all that was required to establish a
reconciliation, and that the stronger the Government appeared, and the
better it was supported, the sooner all disputes would be adjusted."
"He declared that nothing less than a total repeal of all the American laws
which had been passed since 1763 could now restore peace and happiness,
or prevent the most destructive and fatal consequences--consequences which
could not even be thought of without feeling the utmost degree of grief
and horror; that nothing could have brought him out in the present ill
state of his health but the fullest conviction of his being right--a
knowledge of the critical situation of his country, and a sense of what
he owed to his duty and to his conscience; that these operated so strongly
upon him, that no state of indisposition, if he were even obliged to come
in a litter, should prevent his attending to express his utmost
disapprobation of the measures which were now being pursued, as well as
of those which he understood from the lords in office it was intended
still to pursue. He concluded by declaring that if his nearest relations
or dearest friends were to be affected by this question or that the loss
of fortune, or of every other thing which he most esteemed, was to be
the certain consequence of his present conduct, yet the strong conviction
and compulsion operating at once upon his mind and conscience would not
permit him to hesitate upon the part which he should take.
"The address was productive of a _protest_ signed by _nineteen_ lords,
in which they combat the civil war as unjust and impolitic in its
principles, dangerous in its contingent and fatal in its final
consequences. They censured the calling in of foreign forces to decide
domestic quarrels as disgraceful and dangerous. They sum up and conclude
the protest by declaring: 'We cannot, therefore, consent to an address
which may deceive his Majesty and the public into a belief of the
confidence of this House in the present Ministers, who have deceived
Parliament, disgraced the nation, lost the colonies, and involved us in
a civil war against our clearest interests, and upon the most
unjustifiable grounds wantonly spilling the blood of thousands of our
fellow-subjects.'"[385]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 374: Annals, etc., Vol. II., p. 211. The annalist adds in a
note, that "Of the British 226 were killed and 828 wounded; 19
commissioned officers being among the former, and 70 among the latter.
Of the Americans, 139 were killed and 314 wounded and missing. The only
provincial officers of distinction lost were General Joseph Warren, Col.
Gardner, Lieut.-Col. Parker, and Messrs. Moore and McClany."]
[Footnote 375: The royal historian, Andrews, gives the following or
English account of the battle of Bunker's Hill, together with the
circumstances which preceded and followed it:
(PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS.)
"On the 12th of June (1775), a proclamation was issued by the British
Government at Boston, offering a pardon, in the King's name, to all who
laid down their arms and returned to their homes and occupations. Two
persons only were excepted--Mr. Samuel Adams and Mr. John Hancock--whose
guilt was represented as too great and notorious to escape punishment.
All who did not accept of this offer, or who assisted, abetted, or
corresponded with them, were to be deemed guilty of treason and
rebellion, and treated accordingly. By this proclamation it was declared
that as the Courts of Judicature were shut, martial law should take
place, till a due course of justice could be re-established.
"But this act of Government was as little regarded as the preceding. To
convince the world how firmly they were determined to persevere in their
measures, and how small an impression was made by the menaces of
Britain, Mr. Hancock, immediately after his proscription, was chosen
President of the Congress. The proclamation had no other effect than to
prepare people's minds for the worst that might follow.
"The reinforcements arrived from Britain; the eagerness of the British
military to avail themselves of their present strength, and the position
of the Provincials, concurred to make both parties diligent in their
preparation for action. It was equally the desire of both: the first
were earnest to exhibit an unquestionable testimony of their
superiority, and to terminate the quarrel by one decisive blow; the
others were no less willing to come to a second engagement (the first
being that of Concord and Lexington), from a confidence they would be
able to convince their enemies that they would find the subjugation of
America a much more difficult task than they hod promised themselves.
"Opposite to the northern shore of the peninsula upon which Boston
stands, lies Charleston, divided from it by a river (Mystic) about the
breadth of the Thames at London Bridge. Neither the British nor
Provincial troops had hitherto bethought themselves of securing this
place. In its neighbourhood, a little to the east, is a high ground
called Bunker's Hill, which overlooks and commands the whole town of
Boston.
"In the night of the 16th of June, a party of the Provincials took
possession of this hill, and worked with so much industry and diligence,
that by break of day they had almost completed a redoubt, together with
a strong intrenchment, reaching half a mile, as far as the River Mystic
to the east. As soon as discovered they were plied with a heavy and
incessant fire from the ships and floating batteries that surrounded the
neck on which Charleston is situated, and from the cannon planted on the
nearest eminence on the Boston side.
"This did not, however, prevent them from continuing their work, which
they had entirely finished by mid-day, when it was found necessary to
take more effectual methods to dislodge them.
"For this purpose a considerable body was landed at the foot of Bunker's
Hill, under the command of General Howe and General Pigot. The first was
to attack the Provincial lines, the second the redoubt. The British
troops advanced with great intrepidity, but on their approach were
received with a fire behind from the intrenchments, that continued
pouring during a full half hour upon them like a stream. The execution
it did was terrible; some of the bravest and oldest officers declared
that, for the time it lasted, it was the hottest service they had ever
seen. General Howe stood for some moments almost alone, the officers and
soldiers about him being nearly all slain or disabled; his intrepidity
and presence of mind were remarkable on this trying occasion.
"General Pigot, on the left, was in the meantime engaged with the
Provincials who had thrown themselves into Charleston, as well as with
the redoubt, and met with the same reception as the right. Though he
conducted his attack with great skill and courage, the incessant
destruction made among the troops threw them at first into some
disorder; but General Clinton coming up with a reinforcement, they
quickly rallied and attacked the works with such fury that the
Provincials were not able to resist them, and retreated beyond the neck
of land that leads into Charleston.
"This was the bloodiest engagement during the whole war. The loss of the
British troops amounted in killed and wounded to upwards of 1,000. Among
the first were 19, and among the last 70 officers. Colonel Abercrombie,
Major Pitcairn, of the Marines, and Majors Williams and Spenlowe, men of
distinguished bravery, fell in this action, which, though it terminated
to the advantage of the King's forces, cost altogether a dreadful price.
"The loss on the Provincial side, according to their account, did not
exceed 500. This might be true, as they fought behind intrenchments,
part of which were cannon proof, and where it was not possible for the
musketry to annoy them. This accounts no less for the numbers they
destroyed, to which the expertness of their marksmen chiefly
contributed. To render the dexterity of these completely effectual,
muskets ready loaded were handed to them as fast as they could be
discharged, that they might lose no time in reloading them, and they
took aim chiefly at the officers....
"The great slaughter occasioned on the left of the British troops, from
the houses in Charleston, obliged them to set fire to that place. The
Provincials defended it for some time with much obstinacy, but it was
quickly reduced to ashes; and when deprived of that cover, they were
immediately compelled to retire.
"But notwithstanding the honour of the day remained to the British
troops, the Americans boasted that the real advantages were on their
side. They had, said they, so much weakened their enemies in this
engagement, as to put an entire stop to their operations. Instead of
coming forth and improving their pretended victory, they did not dare to
venture out of the trenches and fortifications they had constructed
round Boston.
"The only apparent benefit gained by the troops was that they kept
possession of the ground whereon Charleston had stood; they fortified it
on every side, in order to secure themselves from the sudden attacks
that were daily threatened from so numerous a force as that which now
invested Boston....
"The Provincials, on the other hand, to convince the troops how little
their success had availed them, raised intrenchments on a height
opposite Charleston, intimating to them that they were ready for another
Bunker's Hill business whenever they thought proper, and were no less
willing than they to make another trial of skill.
"Their boldness increased to a degree that astonished the British
officers, who had, unhappily, been taught to believe them a contemptible
enemy, averse to the dangers of war, and incapable of the regular
operations of an army. The skirmishes were now renewed in Boston Bay.
The necessities of the garrison occasioned several attempts to carry off
the remaining stock of cattle and other articles of provision the
islands might contain. But the Provincials, who were better acquainted
with the navigation of the bay, landed on these islands, in spite of the
precaution of the numerous shipping, and destroyed or carried off
whatever could be of use; they even ventured so far as to burn the
light-house, situated at the entrance of the harbour, and afterwards
made prisoners of a number of workmen that had been sent to repair it,
together with a party of marines that guarded them." (Dr. Andrews'
History of the Late War, etc., Vol. I., Chap. xiii., pp. 300-306;
published under royal authority in 1785.)]
[Footnote 376: History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap. xxv., pp.
271, 272.]
[Footnote 377: The Secretary of State had instructed Lord Dunmore to
call the Assembly together, in order to submit to them a "conciliatory
proposition," as it was called, which Lord North had introduced into
Parliament--a proposition calculated to divide the colonies, and then
reduce each of them to servitude; but the colonies saw the snare, and
every one of them rejected the insidious offer. Lord Dunmore, in
obedience to his instructions, assembled for the last time the Virginia
House of Burgesses in June, 1775, to deliberate and decide upon Lord
North's proposition. But while the Burgesses were deliberating upon the
subject submitted to them, Lord Dunmore, agitated by his own fears, left
with his family the seat of government, and went on board a ship of war.
The House of Burgesses, however, proceeded in their deliberations;
referred the subject to a Committee, which presented a report prepared
by Mr. Jefferson, and adopted by the House, as a final answer to Lord
North's proposal. They said, "Next to the possession of liberty, they
should consider a reconciliation as the greatest of human blessings, but
that the resolution of the House of Commons only changed the form of
oppression, without lightening its burdens; that government in the
colonies was instituted not for the British Parliament, but for the
colonies themselves; that the British Parliament had no right to meddle
with their Constitution, or to prescribe either the number or the
pecuniary appointments of their officers; that they had a right to give
their money without coercion, and from time to time; that they alone
were the judges, alike of the public exigencies and the ability of the
people; that they contended not merely for the mode of raising their
money, but for the freedom of granting it; that the resolve to forbear
levying pecuniary taxes still left unrepealed the Acts restraining
trade, altering the form of government of Massachusetts, changing the
government of Quebec, enlarging the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty,
taking away the trial by jury, and keeping up standing armies; that the
invasion of the colonies with large armaments by sea and land was a
style of asking gifts not reconcilable to freedom; that the resolution
did not propose to the colonies to lay open a free trade with all the
world; that as it involved the interests of all the other colonies, they
were in honour bound to share one fate with them; that the Bill of Lord
Chatham on the one part, and the terms of Congress on the other, would
have formed a basis for negotiation and a reconciliation; that leaving
the final determination of the question to the General Congress, they
will weary the King with no more petitions--the British nation with no
more appeals." "What then," they ask, "remains to be done?" and they
answer, "That we commit our injuries to the justice of the even-handed
Being who doeth no wrong."
When the Earl of Shelburne read Mr. Jefferson's report, he said: "In my
life I was never more pleased with a State paper than with the Assembly
of Virginia's discussion of Lord North's proposition. It is masterly.
But what I fear is, that the evil is irretrievable."
"At Versailles, the French Minister, Vergennes, was equally attracted by
the wisdom and dignity of the document. He particularly noticed the
insinuation that a compromise might be effected on the basis of the
modification of the Navigation Acts; and saw so many ways opened of
settling every difficulty, that it was long before he could persuade
himself that the infatuation of the British Ministry was so blind as to
neglect them all." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII.,
Chap, xxxvii., pp. 386-388.)]
[Footnote 378: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
xxv., p. 276.
"The offer of freedom to the negroes came very oddly from the
representative of the nation which had sold them to their present
masters, and of the King who had been displeased with the colony for its
desire to tolerate that inhuman traffic no longer; and it was but a sad
resource for a commercial metropolis, to keep a hold on its colony by
letting loose slaves against its own colonists."--_Ib._, p. 276.
"Dunmore's menace to raise the standard of a servile insurrection and
set the slaves upon their masters, with British arms in their hands,
filled the South with horror and alarm. Besides, the retreat of the
British troops from Concord raised the belief that the American forces
were invincible; and the spirit of resistance had grown so strong, that
some of the Burgesses appeared in the uniform of the recently instituted
provincial troops, wearing a hunting shirt of coarse linen over their
clothes, and a woodman's axe by their sides."--_Ib._, pp. 384, 385.]
[Footnote 379: "Meantime, Dunmore, driven from the land of Virginia,
maintained command of the water by means of a flotilla composed of the
_Mercury_, of 24 guns; the _Kingfisher_, of 16; the _Otter_, of 14, with
other ships and light vessels, and tenders which he had engaged in the
King's service. At Norfolk, a town of about 6,000 inhabitants, a
newspaper was published by John Holt. About noon on the last day of
September (1775), Dunmore, finding fault with its favouring (according
to him) 'sedition and rebellion,' sent on shore a small party, who,
meeting with no resistance, seized and brought off two printers and all
the materials of the printing office, so that he could publish from his
ship a Gazette on the side of the King. The outrage, as we shall see,
produced retaliation." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol.
VIII., Chap. lv., pp. 220, 221.)]
[Footnote 380: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VIII.,
Chap. lv., pp. 221, 222.
The English Annual Register of 1776 states as follows the policy of Lord
Dunmore, culminating in the successful defence of Hampton and the
repulse of his ships:
"Whether Lord Dunmore expected that any extraordinary advantages might
be derived from an insurrection of the slaves, or that he imagined there
was a much greater number of people in the colony who were satisfied
with the present system of government than really was the case (_a
mistake, and an unfortunate one, which, like an epidemical distemper,
seems to have spread through all our official departments in
America_)--upon whatever grounds he proceeded, he determined, though he
relinquished his government, not to abandon his hopes, nor entirely to
lose sight of the country which he had governed. He, accordingly, being
joined by those friends of government who had rendered themselves too
obnoxious to the people to continue with safety in the country, as well
as by a number of runaway negroes, and supported by the frigates of war
which were upon the station, endeavoured to establish such a marine
force as would enable him, by means of the noble rivers, which render
the most valuable parts of that rich country accessible by water, to be
always at hand and ready to profit by any favourable occasion that
offered.
"Upon this or some similar system he by degrees equipped and armed a
number of vessels of different kinds and sizes, _in one of which he
constantly resided, never setting his foot on shore but in a hostile
manner_. The force thus put together was, however, _calculated only for
depredation_, and never became equal to any essential service. The
former, indeed, was in part a matter of necessity; for as the people on
shore would not supply those on board with provisions or necessaries,
they must either starve or provide them by force.... These proceedings
occasioned the sending of some detachments of the new-raised forces of
the colonists to protect their coasts, and from these ensued a small,
mischievous, predatory war, incapable of affording honour or benefit,
and in which, at length, every drop of water and every necessary was
purchased at the price or risk of blood.
"During this state of hostility, Lord Dunmore procured a few soldiers
from different parts, with whose assistance an attempt (Oct. 25th) was
made to burn a post town in an important situation called Hampton. It
seems the inhabitants had some previous suspicion of the design, for
they had sunk boats in the entrance of the harbour and thrown such other
obstacles in the way as rendered the approach of the ships, and
consequently a landing, impracticable on the day when the attack was
commenced. The ships cut a passage through the boats in the night, and
began to cannonade the town furiously in the morning; but at this
critical period the townspeople were relieved from their apprehensions
and danger by the arrival of a detachment of rifle and minute men from
Williamsburg, who had marched all night to their assistance. These,
joined with the inhabitants, attacked the ships so vigorously with their
small arms that they were obliged precipitately to quit their station,
with the loss of some men and of a tender, which was taken." (Annual
Register, Vol. XIX., Fourth Edition, pp. 26, 27.)]
[Footnote 381: English Annual Register, Vol. XIX.]
[Footnote 382: British Annual Register, Vol. XIX., p. 31.
Mr. Bancroft's account of this barbarous conflagration is as follows:
"New Year's day, 1776, was the saddest day that ever broke on the women
and children then in Norfolk; warned of their danger by the commander of
the squadron, there was for them no refuge. The _Kingfisher_ was
stationed at the upper end of Norfolk; a little below her, the _Otter_;
Belew, in the _Liverpool_, anchored near the middle of the town; and
next him lay the _Dunmore_; the rest of the fleet was moored in the
harbour. Between three and four in the afternoon, the _Liverpool_ opened
its fire upon the borough; the other ships immediately followed the
example, and a severe cannonade was begun from about sixty pieces of
cannon. Dunmore then himself, as night was coming on, ordered out
several boats to burn warehouses on the wharves; and hailed to Belew to
set fire to a large brig which lay in the dock. All the vessels of the
fleet, to show their zeal, sent great numbers of boats on shore to
assist in spreading the flames along the river; and as the buildings
were chiefly of pine wood, the conflagration, favoured by the wind,
spread with amazing rapidity, and soon became general. Women and
children, mothers with little ones in their arms, were seen by the glare
running through the shower of cannon balls to get out of their range.
Two or three persons were hit; and the scene became one of extreme
horror and confusion. Several times the British attempted to land, and
once to bring cannon into the street; but they were driven back by the
spirit and conduct of the Americans. The cannonade did not abate till
ten at night; after a short pause it was renewed, but with less fury,
and was kept up till two the next morning. The flames, which had made
their way from street to street, raged for three days; till four-fifths,
or, as some computed, nine-tenths of the houses were reduced to ashes
and heaps of ruins." (History of the United States, Vol. VIII., Chap.
lvi., pp. 230, 231.)]
[Footnote 383: History of the United States, Vol. VIII., Chap. lvi., p.
231.
The English Annual Register observes: "Such was the fate of the
unfortunate town of Norfolk, the most considerable for commerce in the
colony, and so growing and flourishing before these unhappy troubles,
that in the two years from 1773 to 1775, the rents of the houses
increased from £8,000 to £10,000 a year. However just the cause, or
urgent the necessity, which induced this measure, it was undoubtedly a
grievous and odious task to a Governor to be himself the principal actor
in burning and destroying the best town in his government.
"Nor was the situation of other Governors in America much more eligible
than that of Lord Dunmore. In South Carolina, Lord William Campbell,
having as they said, entered into a negotiation with the Indians for
coming in to the support of the Government in that province, and having
also succeeded in exciting a number of those back settlers whom we have
heretofore seen distinguished in the Carolinas, under the title of
Regulators, to espouse the same cause, the discovery of these measures,
before they were ripe for execution, occasioned such a ferment among the
people, that he thought it necessary to retire from Charleston on board
a ship of war in the river, from whence he returned no more to the seat
of his government.
"Similar measures were pursued in North Carolina (with the difference
that Governor Martin was more active and vigorous in his proceedings),
but attended with as little success. The Provincial Congress,
Committees, and Governor were in a continual state of the most violent
warfare. Upon a number of charges, particularly of fomenting a civil
war, and exciting an insurrection among the negroes, he was declared an
enemy to America in general, and to that colony in particular, and all
persons were forbidden from holding any communication with him. These
declarations he answered with a proclamation of uncommon length, which
the Provincial Congress resolved to be a false, scandalous, scurrilous
and seditious libel, and ordered it to be burned by the hands of the
common hangman.
"As the Governor expected, by means of the back settlers, as well as of
the Scotch inhabitants and Highland emigrants, who were numerous in the
province, to be able to raise a considerable force, he took pains to
fortify and arm his palace at Newburn, that it might answer the double
purpose of a garrison and a magazine. Before this could be effected, the
moving of some cannon excited such a commotion among the people that he
found it necessary to abandon the palace and retire on board a
sloop-of-war in Cape Fear river. The people upon this occasion
discovered powder, shot, ball, and various military stores and
implements which had been buried in the palace garden and yard. This
served to inflame them exceedingly, every man considering it as if it
had been a plot against himself in particular.
"The Provincial Congress published an address to the inhabitants of the
British empire, of the same nature with those we have formerly seen to
the people of Great Britain and Ireland, containing the same professions
of loyalty and affection, and declaring the same earnest desire of a
reconciliation." (English Annual Register, Vol. XIX., pp. 31-33.)]
[Footnote 384: General Conway said: "The noble lord who has the
direction of the affairs of this country tells you that the Americans
aim at Independence. I defy the noble lord, or any other member of this
House, to adduce one solid proof of this charge. He says: 'The era of
1763 is the time they wish to recur to, because such a concession on our
part would be, in effect, giving up their dependence on this country.' I
would ask the noble lord, Did the people of America set up this claim
previous to the year 1763? No; they were then peaceful and dutiful
subjects. They are still dutiful and obedient. (Here was a murmur of
disapprobation.) I repeat my words; I think them so inclined; I am sure
they would be so, if they were permitted: The acts they have committed
arise from no want of either. They have been forced into them. Taxes
have been attempted to be levied on them; their Charters have been
violated, nay, taken away; administration has attempted to coerce them
by the most cruel and oppressive laws."]
[Footnote 385: Annual Register, Vol. XIX., Chap. ix., pp. 57, 58, 63,
69, 70, 74, 75.]
CHAPTER XXV.
THE ASSEMBLING OF CONGRESS, MAY 10TH, 1776, AND TRANSACTIONS UNTIL THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE 4TH OF JULY.
It was under the circumstances stated in the preceding chapter, the
General Congress, according to adjournment the previous October,
reassembled in Philadelphia the 10th of May, 1776. The colonies were
profoundly convulsed by the transactions which had taken place in
Massachusetts, Virginia, North and South Carolina, by the intelligence
from England, that Parliament had, the previous December, passed an Act
to increase the army, that the British Government had largely increased
both the army and navy, and on failure of obtaining sufficient recruits
in England, Scotland, and Ireland, had negotiated with German princes,
who traded in the blood of their down-trodden subjects, for seventeen
thousand Hanoverian and Hessian mercenaries, to aid in reducing the
American colonies to absolute submission to the will of the King and
Parliament of Great Britain. It was supposed in England that the
decisive Act of Parliament, the unbending and hostile attitude of the
British Ministry, the formidable amount of naval and land forces, would
awe the colonies into unresisting and immediate submission; but the
effect of all these formidable preparations on the part of the British
Government was to unite rather than divide the colonies, and render them
more determined and resolute than ever to defend and maintain their
sacred and inherited rights and liberties as British subjects.
The thirteen colonies were a unit as to what they understood and
contended for in regard to their British constitutional rights and
liberties--namely, the rights which they had enjoyed for more than a
century--the right of taxation by their own elected representatives
alone, the right of providing for the support of their own civil
government and its officers--rights far less extensive than those which
are and have long been enjoyed by the loyal provinces of the Canadian
Dominion. There were, indeed, the Governors and their officers, sent
from England--the favourites and needy dependents of the British
Ministry and Parliament, sent out to subsist upon the colonists, but
were not of them, had no sympathy with them, nor any influence over them
except what they had over their dependents and the families with whom
they had formed connections. They were noisy and troublesome as a
_faction_, but not sufficient in numbers or influence to constitute a
_party_, properly speaking.
There was like unity among the colonies in regard to the _defence_ and
_support_ of the rights and liberties which they claimed. There was,
indeed, doubt on the part of a few, and but a few, comparatively, as to
the wisdom and expediency of taking arms and meeting the King's officers
and troops in the field of battle in support of their rights; but all
agreed that they should defend themselves and their property when
attacked by the King's troops, whether attacked by the King's orders or
not; for they held that their title to their property and constitutional
rights was as sacred and divine as that of the King to his throne.[386]
The question of questions with the General Congress on its assembling
in May, 1776, was what measures should be adopted for the defence of
their violated and invaded rights, and upon what grounds should that
defence be conducted? For the first time in the General Congress was it
proposed to abandon the ground on which they had vindicated and
maintained their rights as British subjects in their several
Legislatures and Conventions for eleven years, and successfully defended
them by force of arms for more than one year, or to avow entire
separation from the mother country, and declare absolute independence as
the ground of maintaining their rights and liberties?
There had long been some prominent men who held republican sentiments,
and some newspapers had in 1775 mooted the idea of separation from the
mother country. Such views prevailed widely in Massachusetts; there had
always been a clique of Congregational Republicans and Separationists in
Boston, from the days of Cromwell. They looked back upon the halcyon
days when none but Congregationalists could hold office--civil,
judicial, or military--or even exercise the elective franchise, and the
disclaimers of any earthly king; and though the separation from the
mother country and renunciation of monarchical government was carefully
avoided in the official documents of Massachusetts, as it was disclaimed
in the strongest terms in the official papers of other colonies, yet the
sentiment of hostility to monarchy and of separation from England was
artfully inculcated in resolutions, addresses, etc., prepared by Samuel
Adams, and sent forth from the Massachusetts Convention.[388] He was a
man of blameless life (no relation to John Adams)--a rigid religionist
of the old Massachusetts Puritan stamp--a hater of England and of
British institutions, able and indefatigable in everything that might
tend to sever America from England, in regard to which his writings
exerted a powerful influence. He was the Corypheus of the Separatist
party in Boston, the Chairman of the Committee of Correspondence, and
wrote the Massachusetts circulars to other colonies.
It was only early in May, 1776, that the question of independence was
discussed in the General Congress. The Congress _recommended_ those
colonies whose Governors had left their governments, or were declared
disqualified on account of their oppressive and cruel conduct, to form
governments for themselves. This, however, was not understood as a
declaration of independence, but a temporary measure of necessity, to
prevent anarchy and confusion in the colonies concerned. This proceeding
was immediately followed by a more comprehensive measure intended to
feel the pulse of the colonies on the subject of independence.
The Congress had waited with considerable patience, and some anxiety,
the result of the late session of Parliament; they had forborne to do
anything which might not be justified upon the fair principles of
self-defence, until it appeared that the Ministry was resolved that
nothing short of the most abject submission should be the price of
accommodation. Early in May, therefore, the Congress adopted a measure
intended to sound the sentiments of the colonies on the subject of
independence. They stated the rejection of their petitions, and the
employment of foreign mercenaries to reduce them to obedience, and
concluded by declaring it expedient that all the colonies should proceed
to the establishment of such a form of government as their
representatives might think most conducive to the peace and happiness of
the people. This preamble and resolution were immediately forwarded; and
in a few days afterwards Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, gave notice to
the Congress that he should, on an appointed day, move for a
_Declaration of Independence_. This was accordingly done, but the
consideration of the question was postponed until the 1st of July--_so
timid, so wavering, so unwilling to break the maternal connection were
most of the members_.[389]
It is clear that, so far from the Declaration of Independence being the
spontaneous uprising of the colonies, as represented by so many American
historians, that when it was first mooted in Congress the majority of
the General Congress itself were startled at it, and were opposed to it.
"On the 15th day of May, only four of the colonies had acted definitely
on the question of independence. North Carolina had authorized her
delegates to concur with the delegates from the other colonies 'in
declaring independency;' Rhode Island had commissioned hers 'to join in
any measures to secure American rights;' in Massachusetts, various towns
had pledged themselves to maintain any declaration on which Congress
might agree; and Virginia had given positive instructions to her
delegates that Congress should make a declaration of independence. These
proceedings were accompanied with declarations respecting a reservation
to each colony of the right to form its own government, in the
adjustment of the power universally felt to be necessary, and which was
to be lodged in a new political unit, designated by the terms,
'Confederation,' 'Continental Constitution,' and 'American
Republic.'"[390]
"On the 7th of June, Richard Henry Lee, in behalf of the Virginia
delegates, submitted in Congress resolves on independence, a
confederation, and foreign alliances. His biographer says that
'tradition relates that he prefaced his motion with a speech,'
portraying the resources of the colonies and their capacity for defence,
dwelling especially on the bearing which an independent position might
have on foreign Powers, and concluded by urging the members so to act,
that the day might give birth to an American Republic. The motion was:--
"'That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved.'
"'That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for
forming foreign alliances.'
"'That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the
respective colonies for their consideration and approbation.'
"John Adams seconded the motion. The Journal of Congress says, 'that
certain resolutions respecting independency being moved and seconded,
they were postponed till to-morrow morning,' and that 'the members were
enjoined to attend punctually at ten o'clock in order to take the same
into their consideration. Jefferson says the reason of postponement was
that the House were obliged to attend to other business. The record
indicates that no speech was made on that day.
"The next day was Saturday. John Hancock, the President, was in the
chair; and Charles Thompson was the Secretary. The resolves were
immediately referred to a Committee of the Whole, in which Benjamin
Harrison presided--the confidential correspondent of Washington, and
subsequently Governor of Virginia. They were debated with animation
until seven o'clock in the evening, when the President resumed the
chair, and reported that the Committee had considered the matter
referred to them, but, not having come to any decision, directed him to
move for leave to sit again on Monday.
"In Congress, on Monday, Edward Rutledge moved that the question be
postponed three weeks. The debate on this day continued until seven
o'clock in the evening. Not a single speech of any member is known to be
extant. Jefferson at the time summed up the arguments used by the
speakers during both days. The result may be given in his words: 'It
appearing, in the course of the debates, that the colonies of New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina were
not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they were
fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait awhile
for them. It was agreed in Committee of the Whole to report to Congress
a resolution, which was adopted by a vote of seven colonies to five, and
this postponed the resolution on independence to the 1st day of July;
and 'in meanwhile, that no time be lost, a Committee be appointed to
prepare a declaration in conformity to it.' On the next day a Committee
was chosen for this purpose by ballot: Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia;
John Adams, of Massachusetts; Benjamin Franklin, of Pennsylvania; Roger
Sherman, of Connecticut; and Robert R. Livingstone, of New York. [Such
was the Committee that prepared the Declaration of Independence.] On the
12th a Committee of one from each colony was appointed to report the
form of confederation, and a Committee of five to prepare a plan of
treaties to be proposed to foreign Powers.
"When Congress postponed the vote on independence, the popular movement
in its favour was in full activity. Some of the members left this body
to engage in it. Others promoted it by their counsel."[391]
"On the day agreed upon for the consideration of Mr. Lee's motion, the
1st of July, Congress resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole; the
debates on the question were continued with great warmth for _three
days_. It had been determined to take the vote by _colonies_; and as a
master-stroke of policy, the author of which is not known to history, it
had been proposed and agreed, that _the decision on the question,
whatever might be the state of the votes, should appear to the world as
the unanimous voice of the Congress_. On the first question [of
independence], _six_ colonies were in the affirmative, and _six_ in the
negative--_Pennsylvania_ being without a vote by the equal division of
her delegates. In this state of the business, it appears, on the
authority of evidence afterwards adduced before Parliament, that Mr.
_Samuel Adams_ once more successfully exerted his influence; and that
one of the delegates of Pennsylvania was brought over to the side of
independence. It is more probable, however, that the influence of Mr.
Adams extended no further than to procure that one of the dissenting
members withdraw from the House; and that the vote of Pennsylvania was
thus obtained."[392]
It is thus seen that the Declaration of Independence, so far from being
the spontaneous uprising of the American colonies, was the result of
months of agitation by scarcely a dozen leaders in the movement, by
canvassing at public meetings, and of delegates elected by them, not
excelled by any political and nearly balanced parties in England or
Canada in a life and death struggle for victory. In this case, the
important question was to be decided by some fifty members of Congress;
and when the first vote was given, after many weeks of popular
agitation, and three days of warm discussion in Congress, there was a
tie--six colonies for and six against the Declaration of
Independence--after which a majority of one was obtained for the
Declaration, by inducing the absence of certain members opposed to it;
and then, when a majority of votes was thus obtained, others were
persuaded to vote for the measure "_for the sake of unanimity_," though
they were opposed to the measure itself.
It has indeed been represented by some American historians, that the
vote of Congress for Independence was _unanimous_; but the fact is far
otherwise. As the vote was taken by _colonies_, and not by the majority
of the individual members present, as in ordinary legislative
proceedings, the majority of the delegates from each colony determined
the vote of that colony; and by a previous and very adroit proposal, an
agreement was entered into that the _vote of Congress should be
published to the world as_ UNANIMOUS, however divided the votes of
members on the question of Independence might be; and on this ground the
signatures of those who had opposed it, as well as of those who voted in
favour of it, were ultimately affixed to the Declaration, though it was
published and authenticated by the signatures of the President, John
Hancock, of Massachusetts, and Charles Thompson, of Philadelphia, as
Secretary.
The Declaration of Independence, as thus adopted, is as follows:
"A Declaration by the Representatives of the United _States_ of
America, in Congress assembled:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the
separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's
God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
such separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed; and whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter
or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness. Prudence, indeed, would dictate that governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more
inclined to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed;
but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies,
and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their
former systems of government. The history of the present King of
Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations;
all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
tyranny over these States: to prove this, let facts be exhibited to
a candid world.
"He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good.
"He has forbidden his Governours to pass laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his
assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.
"He has refused to pass other laws, for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the
rights of representation in the Legislature; a right inestimable to
them, and formidable to tyrants only.
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depositories of their public
records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance
with his measures.
"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing,
with manly firmness, his invasion on the rights of the people.
"He has refused, for a long time after such dissolution, to cause
others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of
annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their
exercise--the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the
dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for
that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners,
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and
raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
"He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his
assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
"He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms
of officers, to harass our people and eat out their substance.
"He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without
the consent of our Legislatures.
"He has affected to render the military independent of, and
superior to, the civil power.
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving
his assent to their pretended acts of legislation.
"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
"For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any
murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
States.
"For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.
"For imposing taxes on us without our consent.
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury.
"For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended
offences.
"For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and
enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and
fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these
colonies.
"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable laws,
and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.
"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
"He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his
protection, and waging war against us.
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns,
and destroyed the lives of our people.
"He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries to complete the work of death, desolation, and tyranny,
already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely
paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the
head of a civilized nation.
"He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high
seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the
executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands.
"He has excited domestick insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the
merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress
in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered
only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by
every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a
free people.
"Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We
have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their
Legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us; we
have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and
settlement here; we have appealed to their native justice and
magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common
kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably
interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been
deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold
them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace
friends.
"We therefore, the representatives of the United States of America,
in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of
the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and
by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly
publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right
ought to be, Free and Independent States; and that they are
absolved from allegiance to the British Crown; and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain
is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and
independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude
peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other
acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for
the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour."
* * * * *
_Note_.--This Declaration will be discussed in the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 386: "The theory that the popular leaders were playing a game
of hypocrisy may be tested in the case of Washington, whose sterling
patriotism was not more conspicuous than his irreproachable integrity.
The New York Provincial Congress, in an address to him (June 26th,
1775), on his way from Philadelphia to the American camp around Boston,
say that accommodation with the mother country was 'the fondest wish of
each American soul.' Washington, in reply, pledged his colleagues and
himself to use every exertion to re-establish peace and harmony. 'When
we assumed the soldier,' he said, 'we did not lay aside the citizen; and
we shall most sincerely rejoice with you in that happy hour when the
establishment of American liberty on the most solid and firm foundations
shall enable us to return to our private stations, in the bosom of a
free, peaceful, and happy country.'[387] There was no incompatibility in
the position of military leader of a great uprising with a desire to
preserve the old political ties. When the Barons of Runnymede,
surrounded by their retainers, wrested from King John the great Charter,
they meant not to renounce their allegiance, but simply to preserve the
old government. Though an act of apparent rebellion, yet it was in the
strictest sense an act of loyalty. So the popular leaders, in their
attitude of armed resistance, were loyal to what they conceived to be
essential to American liberty. They were asserting the majesty of
constitutional law against those who would have destroyed it, and thus
were more loyal to the Constitution than was George III. There really is
no ground on which justly to question the sincerity of declarations like
those of Congress and Washington. They aimed at a redress of grievances;
and the idea was quite general, of a Bill of Rights, or an American
Constitution, embodying the conditions on which the integrity of the
empire might be preserved. This was their last appeal for a settlement
on such a basis." (Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United
States, Chap. xi., pp. 438, 439.)]
[Footnote 387: "The London Chronicle of August 8th, 1775, has the speech
of the New York Provincial Congress, and the reply of Washington of the
26th of June, 1775."]
[Footnote 388: Mr. Bancroft, writing under date of October, 1775, says:
"The Americans had not designed to establish an independent government;
of their leading statesmen it was the desire of Samuel Adams alone; they
had all been educated in the love and admiration of constitutional
monarchy; and even John Adams and Jefferson so sincerely shrank back
from the attempt at creating another government in its stead, that, to
the last moment, they were most anxious to avert a separation, if it
could be avoided without a loss of their inherited liberties." (History
of the United States, Vol. VIII., Chap. li., p. 161.)]
[Footnote 389: Allan's American Revolution, Vol. I., pp. 342, 343.
"The interval was employed in unceasing exertions by the friends of
independence to prepare the minds of the people for the necessity and
advantages of such a measure. The press teemed with essays and
pamphlets, in which all the arts of eloquence were used to ridicule the
prejudices which supported an attachment to the King and Government of
England. Among the numerous writers on this momentous question, the most
luminous, the most eloquent, and the most forcible was _Thomas Paine_.
His pamphlet entitled 'Common Sense' was not only read, but understood,
by everybody; and those who regard the independence of the _United
States_ as a blessing will never cease to cherish the remembrance of
_Thomas Paine_. Whatever may have been his subsequent career--in
whatever light his religious principles may be regarded--it should never
be forgotten that _to him, more than to any single individual, was owing
the rapid diffusion of those sentiments and feelings which produced the
act of separation from Great Britain_."--_Ib._, pp. 343, 344.]
[Footnote 390: Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States,
p. 512.]
[Footnote 391: Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States,
Chap. xi., pp. 513-517.]
[Footnote 392: Allan's American Revolution, Chap, xii., pp. 344, 345.
"The question before the Committee was the portion of the _motion
relating to independence_, submitted by the Virginia delegates on the
7th of June. The New York members read their instructions, and were
excused from voting. Of the three delegates from Delaware, Rodney was
absent, Read in the negative, and thus the vote of that colony was lost.
South Carolina was in the negative; and so was Pennsylvania, by the
votes of Dickenson, Willing, Morris, and Humphries, against those of
Franklin, Morton, and Wilson. Nine colonies--New Hampshire, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, Georgia--voted in the affirmative. The Committee rose, the
President resumed the chair, and Harrison reported the resolution as
having been agreed to. Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina, said that
were the vote postponed till next day, he believed that his colleagues,
though they disapproved of the resolution, would then join in it for the
sake of unanimity. The final question, in accordance with this request,
was postponed until the next day; but it was agreed to go into Committee
on the draft of the Declaration.
"On the 2nd July, probably fifty members were present in Congress. After
disposing of the business of the morning, it resumed the resolution _on
independence_, and probably without much debate proceeded to vote.
McKean sent an express to Rodney, at Dover, which procured his
attendance, and secured the vote of Delaware in the affirmative; while
the same result was reached for Pennsylvania by Dickenson and Morris
absenting themselves, and allowing Franklin, Wilson, and Morton to give
the vote against Willing and Humphries. The South Carolina delegates
concluded to vote for the measure. Thus twelve colonies united in
adopting the following resolution:
"'That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.'"
(Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States, Chap. xi., pp.
537, 538.)
On the adoption of this resolution, continues the same historian,
"Congress went immediately into Committee of the Whole to consider the
draft of a Declaration of Independence, or the form of announcing the
fact to the world. During the remainder of that day, and during the
sessions of the 3rd and 4th, the phraseology, allegations, and
principles of this paper were subjected to severe scrutiny. Its author
relates: 'The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth
keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason,
those passages which conveyed censure on the people of England were
struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause, too,
reprobating the enslaving of the inhabitants of Africa was struck out in
complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to
restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, wished to
continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender
under these censures; for though their people had very few slaves
themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to
others.' (Memoirs of Jefferson, i. 15.) The striking out of the passage
declaring the slave trade 'piratical warfare against human nature
itself,' was deeply regretted by many of that generation. Other
alterations were for the better, making the paper more dispassionate and
terse, and--what was no small improvement--more brief and exact. On the
evening of the 4th the Committee rose, when Harrison reported the
Declaration as having been agreed upon. It was then adopted by twelve
States, unanimously." [That is, by the majority of the delegates of
twelve provinces, and, of course, _reported_ as "unanimous," according
to previous agreement.]--_Ib._, p. 539.]
CHAPTER XXVI.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISCUSSED.
The foregoing chapters bear ample testimony how heartily I have
sympathized with our elder brother colonists of America, in their
conception and manly advocacy and defence of their constitutional rights
as British subjects; how faithfully I have narrated their wrongs and
advocated their rights, and how utterly I have abhorred the despotic
conduct of George the Third, and of his corrupt Ministers and mercenary
and corrupted Parliament, in their unscrupulous efforts to wrest from
the American colonists the attributes and privileges of British freemen,
and to convert their lands, with their harbours and commerce, into mere
plantations and instruments to enrich the manufacturers and merchants of
England, and provide places of honour and emolument for the scions and
protegees of the British aristocracy and Parliament. But I cannot
sympathize with, much less defend, the leaders of the old American
colonists in the repudiating what they had professed from their
forefathers; in avowing what they had for many years denied; in making
their confiding and distinguished defenders in the British
Parliament--the Chathams, Camdens, Sherburnes, the Foxes, Burkes, and
Cavendishes--liars in presence of all Europe; in deliberately practising
upon their fellow-colonists what they had so loudly complained of
against the King and Parliament of Great Britain; in seeking the
alliance of a Power which had sought to destroy them for a hundred
years, against the land of their forefathers which had protected them
during that hundred years, and whose Administration had wronged and
sought to oppress them for only twelve years.
After many years of anxious study and reflection, I have a strong
conviction that the Declaration of American Independence, in 1776, was a
great mistake in itself, a great calamity to America as well as to
England, a great injustice to many thousands on both sides of the
Atlantic, a great loss of human life, a great blow to the real liberties
of mankind, and a great impediment to the highest Christian and
Anglo-Saxon civilization among the nations of the world.
In this summary statement of opinion--so contrary to the sentiments of
American historians and to popular feeling in the United States--I mean
no reflection on the motives, character, patriotism, and abilities of
those great men who advocated and secured the adoption of the
Declaration of Independence in the General Congress of 1776. I believe
America has never produced a race of statesmen equal in purity of
character, in comprehensiveness of views, in noble patriotism and moral
courage, to "the Fathers of the American Revolution." Their discussions
of public questions, during the eleven years which preceded the
Declaration of Independence, evince a clearness of discernment, an
accuracy of statement, a niceness of distinction, a thorough knowledge
of the principles of government, and the mutual relation of colonies and
the parent State, elegance of diction, and force of argument, not
surpassed in discussions of the kind in any age or country; their
diplomatic correspondence displays great superiority in every respect
over the English statesmen of the day, who sought to oppress them; the
correspondence of Washington with General Gage commanded alike the
admiration of Europe and the gratitude of America; the memorials and
other public papers transmitted to England by the American Congress, and
written by Jay and other members, drew forth from the Earl of Chatham,
in the House of Lords, January 20th, 1775, the following eulogy: "When
your lordships look at the papers transmitted to us from America--when
you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you cannot but respect
their cause, and wish to make it your own. For myself, I must avow that
in all my reading--and I have read Thucydides, and have studied and
admired the master States of the world--for solidity of reason, force of
sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion under a complication of difficult
circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the
General Congress at Philadelphia. The histories of Greece and Rome give
us nothing equal to it, and all attempts to impose servitude upon such a
mighty continental nation must be vain."
"We shall be forced ultimately to retract; let us retract while we can,
not when we must. These violent Acts must be repealed; you will repeal
them; I pledge myself for it, I stake my reputation on it, that you will
in the end repeal them."
(Those violent Acts were repealed three years afterwards.)
When the Earl of Shelburne read the reply, written by Jefferson, of the
Virginia Legislature, to Lord North's proposition, his Lordship said:
"In my life, I was never more pleased with a State paper than with the
Assembly of Virginia's discussion of Lord North's proposition. It is
masterly. But what I fear is that the evil is irretrievable."
Among the statesmanlike productions of that period, the correspondence
of Franklin, the masterly letters of Dickenson, the letters and State
papers of Samuel and John Adams, Jay and Livingstone, and of many
others, exhibit a scholarly race of statesmen and writers of whom any
nation or age might be proud.
But it must not be forgotten that the education of every one of these
great men, and their training in public affairs, was under English
constitutional government, for which every one of them (except Samuel
Adams) expressed their unqualified admiration, and to which they avowed
their unswerving attachment to within twelve months of the declaration
of independence. Though the United States can boast of many
distinguished scholars and politicians and jurists, I believe American
democracy has never produced a generation of scholarly, able, and
stainless statesmen, such as those who had received the whole of their
mental, moral, and political training when America formed a part of the
British empire.
It is not surprising, indeed, that the major part (for they were not
unanimous) of so noble and patriotic a class of statesmen should, by the
wicked policy and cruel measures against them by the worst
administration of government that ever ruled England, be betrayed into
an act which they had so many years disavowed. Placing, as they rightly
did, in the foreground the civil and religious liberties of Englishmen
as the first ingredient of the elements of political greatness and
social progress, they became exasperated into the conviction that the
last and only effective means of maintaining those liberties was to
sever their connection with England altogether, and declare their own
absolute independence. We honour the sentiments and courage which
prompted them to maintain and defend their liberties; we question not
the purity and patriotism of their motives in declaring independence as
the means of securing those liberties; but we must believe that, had
they maintained the integrity of their professions and positions for
even a twelvemonth longer, they would have achieved all for which they
had contended, would have become a free and happy country, as Canada now
is, beside the mother country and not in antagonism to her, maintaining
inviolate their national life and traditions, instead of forming an
alliance for bloody warfare with their own former and their mother
country's hereditary enemies.
It was unnatural and disgraceful for the British Ministry to employ
German mercenaries and savage Indians to subdue the American colonists
to unconditional obedience; but was it less unnatural for the colonists
themselves to seek and obtain the alliance of the King of France, whose
government was a despotism, and who had for a hundred years sought to
destroy the colonists, had murdered them without mercy, and employed by
high premiums the Indians to butcher and scalp men, women, and children
of the colonists--indeed, to "drive them into the sea," and to
exterminate them from the soil of America? Yet with such enemies of
civil and religious liberty, with such enemies of their own liberties,
and even their existence as Anglo-Saxons, the colonists sought and
obtained an alliance against the mother country, which had effectually,
and at an immense expenditure, defended them against the efforts of both
France and Spain to destroy them. Had the American colonists maintained
the position and professions after 1776, as they had maintained them
before 1776, presenting the contrast of their own integrity and unity
and patriotism to the perfidious counsels, mercenary and un-English
policy of the British Ministry and Parliament, they would have escaped
the disastrous defeats and bloodshed of 1777-8, and would have repeated
the victories which they had gained over the English soldiers in 1775
and the early part of 1776. Unprepared and sadly deficient in arms and
ammunition, they repulsed the regular English soldiers sent against them
at Concord, at Lexington, at Bunker's Hill; they had shut up as
prisoners the largest English army ever sent to New England, and, though
commanded by such generals as Howe and Clinton, compelled their
evacuation of the city of Boston. In the Southern States they had routed
the English forces, and had compelled the Governors of Virginia and
South and North Carolina to take refuge on board of English men-of-war.
Before the declaration of independence, the colonists fought with the
enthusiasm of Englishmen for Englishmen's rights, and the British
soldiers fought without heart against their fellow-subjects contending
for what many of both the soldiers and officers knew to be rights dear
to all true Englishmen; but when the Congress of the American colonies
declared themselves to be no longer Englishmen, no longer supporters of
the constitutional rights of Englishmen, but separationists from
England, and seeking alliance with the enemies of England, then the
English army felt that they were fighting against enemies and not
fellow-subjects, and fought with an energy and courage which carried
disaster, in almost every instance, to the heretofore united but now
divided colonists, until France and Spain came to their assistance.
With these preliminary and general remarks, we proceed to state more
specifically the grounds on which we regard, as a calamity to the
interests of true liberty and of civilization, the change of position,
policy, and principles avowed by the General Congress in the Declaration
of Independence, 1776.
I. The Declaration of Independence was a renunciation of all the
principles on which the General Congress, Provincial Legislatures, and
Conventions professed to act from the beginning of the contest. The
foregoing pages present abundant testimony and illustration how
earnestly, how constantly, how unanimously the American colonists
expressed their attachment to the mother country and to the principles
of the British Constitution--how indignantly they repelled, as an insult
and a slander, every suspicion and statement that they meditated or
desired _independence_, or that they would ever consent to sever the
ties of their connection with the mother country and the glorious
principles of her constitution of government.
In the same Congress of 1775, by which Washington was appointed
Commander-in-Chief, the higher departments of the army were organized.
Bills of credit to the amount of three millions were emitted to defray
the expenses of the war, and after the battles of Lexington and Bunker's
Hill, while the English army were shut in Boston by the Provincial
volunteers, a declaration was signed by Congress, justifying their
proceedings, but disdaining any idea of separation from England. They
say, "We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconstitutional
submission to the tyranny of irritated Ministers, or resistance by
force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this
contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honour,
justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which
we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity
have a right to receive from us....
"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly, before God and the world, _declare_ that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being
with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.
"Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and
fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, _we assure them that we mean
not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted
between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored_. Necessity has
not yet driven us to that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any
other nation to war against them. _We have not raised armies with
ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and of establishing
independent States._ We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit
to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked
enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast
of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder
conditions than servitude or death.
"In our native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright,
and which we ever enjoyed until the late violation of it, for the
protection of our property acquired solely by the honest industry of
our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we
have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease
on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed
shall be removed, and not before."[393]
"Amidst these hostile operations, the voice of peace was yet
heard--allegiance to the King was still acknowledged, and a lingering
hope remained that an accommodation was not impossible. Congress voted a
petition to his Majesty, replete with professions of duty and
attachment; and addressed a letter to the people of England, conjuring
them, by the endearing appellations of 'friends, countrymen, and
brethren,' to prevent the dissolution of 'that connection which the
remembrance of former friendships, pride in the glorious achievements of
common ancestors, and affection for the heirs of their virtues had
heretofore maintained.' _They uniformly disclaimed any idea of
independence, and professed themselves to consider union with England,
on constitutional principles_, as the greatest blessing which could be
bestowed on them."[394]
It is needless to multiply authorities and illustrations; the whole
tenor of the history of the colonies, as presented in the preceding
chapters of this volume, evinces their universal appreciation of the
principles of the British Constitution and their universal attachment to
union with the mother country.[395]
Even in the spring of 1776, after months of agitation by advocates of
separation in various colonies, a majority of the delegates in Congress
were for weeks opposed to separation; and it required long preparation
to familiarize the minds of its advocates to separation, and to
reconcile any considerable number of colonists to hostile severance from
the land of their forefathers. It may easily be conceived what must have
been the shock to a large part, if not a majority, of the colonists, to
have burst upon them, after weeks' secret session of Congress, a
declaration which, under the term Independence, renounced all the
principles and associations in which they had been educated, which they
had often avowed and held dear from their ancestors, which proclaimed
their mother country their enemy, and denounced connection with her a
crime. Such a renunciation of the past, and wrenching from it, could not
otherwise than weaken the foundations of society and the obligation of
oaths, as may be seen by a comparison in these respects of the
sacredness of laws and oaths, and their administration in America before
and since the revolution.
II. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of good faith to
those statesmen and numerous other parties in England who had, in and
out of Parliament, supported the rights and character of the colonies
during the whole contest. They had all done so upon the ground that the
colonists were contending for the constitutional rights of Englishmen;
that they intended and desired nothing more. On the ground that the
colonists, like the barons of Runnymede, were contending for the sacred
rights of Englishmen, and relying on the faith of their declaration that
Englishmen they would ever remain, their cause was patriotically
espoused and nobly vindicated in England by Lords Chatham, Camden,
Shelburne, the Duke of Richmond, and others in the House of Lords; by
Messrs. Burke and Fox, Lord John Cavendish, Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord
Ashburton), and others in the House of Commons; and by corporations of
cities and towns, and multitudes out of Parliament. Lord Mahon, in the
sixth volume of his History of England (pp. 35-37), relates that before
the Earl of Chatham introduced his famous "Provincial Bill for Settling
Troubles in America," and supported it by his masterly speeches in the
Lords, he sent for Dr. Franklin, the principal representative of the
colonists, to consult him and ascertain from him distinctly whether
there was any tendency or danger of the American colonies separating
from England, and was assured by Dr. Franklin that there was not the
least feeling in that direction; that the American colonies were
universally loyal to connection with the mother country, and desired and
contended for nothing more than the constitutional rights of
Englishmen.[396]
It was not till after this assurance, and it was under this conviction
and with this object, that the Earl of Chatham delivered those appeals
in behalf of America which electrified the British public, and gave tone
to the subsequent debates in both Houses of Parliament. These eloquent
and unanswerable defences of British rights, invaded and denied in
regard to the persons of the American colonists, were delivered in 1775
and the early part of 1776; but scarcely had their echoes died away on
the waves of the Atlantic, when news came from America that the
Congress, so warmly eulogized in the British Parliament for its fidelity
to English connection, as well as to the rights of England, had, after a
secret session of two months, renounced all connection with England, and
all acknowledgment of its authority and principles of government, thus
fulfilling the statements and predictions of the parliamentary enemies
of American rights, and presenting their advocates, Chatham, Camden,
Burke, etc., as liars and deceivers before the British nation and in the
face of all Europe. The Ministerial party triumphed; the advocates of
colonial rights were confounded, and their influence in and out of
Parliament was paralyzed. The power of the corrupt Ministers who had
been oppressing the colonies for ten years, was tottering to their fall;
they had played their last card; they had exhausted their credit; they
had staked their existence on the truth of the statements they had made,
and the accomplishment of the measures they had adopted; their measures
had failed; they saw that half-armed colonists had everywhere repulsed
the picked English generals and soldiers; their statements as to the
intentions and principles of the colonists would have also been
falsified had the Congress in 1776 adhered to the declaration of
principles and avowal of purposes which it had made in 1775; the friends
of American rights would have been triumphant, in and out of Parliament,
in England, and 1777 would doubtless have witnessed the overthrow of the
corrupt British Ministry, the constitutional freedom of the American
colonies in connection with the unity of the empire, instead of seven
years' bloody warfare, the destruction of the national life and of the
oneness of the Anglo-Saxon race.
III. But the Declaration of Independence on the part of its authors was
not only a violation of good faith to the statesmen and others in
England who had advocated the constitutional rights of the colonists, it
was also a violation both of good faith and justice to their colonial
fellow-countrymen who continued to adhere to connection with the mother
country upon the principles professed in all times past by the
separationists themselves.[397]
The adherents of connection with England had, with the exception of
certain office-holders and their relations, been as earnest advocates of
colonial rights as had the leaders of the separation. The opponents of
the constitutional rights of the colonies, in the colonies, were few and
far between--not numerous enough to form a party, or even to be called a
party. The Congress of 1775 declared the colonies to be "a unit" in
their determination to defend their rights, but disdained the idea of
separation from the mother country; and Mr. John Adams stated at the
same time: "All America is united in sentiment. When a masterly
statesman, to whom America has erected a statue in her heart for his
integrity, fortitude, and perseverance in her cause, invented a
Committee of Correspondence in Boston, did not every colony, nay, every
county, city, hundred, and town upon the whole continent adopt the
measure as if it had been a revelation from above? Look over the
resolves of the colonies for the past year; you will see that one
understanding governs, one heart animates the whole."[398]
Such were the sentiments and feelings of America in resisting the
innovations upon their rights of a British Ministry, while they denied
the idea of separation from the mother country as a calumny; and such
were the grounds on which millions in England and Scotland, in and out
of Parliament, supported them.[399]
"Though that measure (independence), a few months before, was not only
foreign from their wishes, but the object of their abhorrence, the
current suddenly became so strong in its favour that it bore down all
opposition. The multitude was hurried down the stream; but some worthy
men could not easily reconcile themselves to the idea of an eternal
separation from a country to which they had long been bound by the most
endearing ties." (Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., pp.
161, 162.)
When, therefore, the Congress at Philadelphia voted, by a majority of
one or two, but declaring that their vote should be published as
unanimous, to renounce all the professions of the past of connection
with the mother country, to declare her their enemy, and to avow eternal
separation from her, it may be easily conceived how a large portion of
the colonists would feel that their confidence had been betrayed; that
the representations they had made to English statesmen would bear the
stamp of untruth; that their hopes had been blasted, and that they were
now to be treated as rebels and traitors for adhering to the faith of
their forefathers; for, as Mr. Allan remarks, the Declaration of
Independence "left no neutrals. He who was not for independence,
unconditional independence, was an enemy."[400] Thus the many tens of
thousands of colonists who adhered to the faith of their forefathers,
and the traditions and professions of their own personal history, were,
by a single act of Congress, declared "enemies" of their country,
"rebels," and even "traitors," because they would not renounce their
oath of allegiance, and swear allegiance to a self and newly-created
authority, to relinquish the defence of the rights of Englishmen for the
theory of republican independence, adherence to which had been advocated
by the Chathams and Burkes in the British Parliament, in preference to
the new doctrines propounded by the leaders in the Philadelphia
Congress, for maintaining the unity and life of a great nation rather
than dismember and destroy it. Was it doing as one would be done by? Was
it not a violation of good faith, and hard treatment, for men to be
declared by a new tribunal criminals in July, for maintaining what all
had held to be loyal and patriotic in January? All the arguments and
appeals of the Northern States against the separation of the Southern
States from the Republic, as destructive of the life of the nation, in
the recent civil war of 1864-1869, were equally strong, on the same
ground, against the separation of the American colonies from the mother
country in the civil war of 1776-1783. The United Empire Loyalists of
that day were, as the conservators of the life of the nation, against
the dismemberment of the empire, as are the Americans of the Northern
States of the present day the conservators of the life of their nation
in opposing the dismemberment of the Republic.
IV. But this is not all. This Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, was
the commencement of persecutions, proscriptions, and confiscations of
property against those who refused to renounce the oaths which they had
taken, as well as the principles and traditions which had, until then,
been professed by their persecutors and oppressors as well as by
themselves. The declaration of independence had been made in the name
and for the professed purposes of liberty; but the very first acts under
it were to deprive a large portion of the colonists not only of liberty
of action, but liberty of thought and opinion--to extract from them
oaths and declarations which could not have been sincere, and which
could have been little better than perjuries, for the sole purpose of
saving life, liberty, or property. They were a numerous and intelligent
portion of the community; were equally interested in the welfare of the
country as their assailants, instead of being designated by every
epithet of opprobrium, and denied the freedom of opinion and privileges
of citizenship.[401] Mr. Elliott remarks:--
"The Tories comprised a large number, among whom were many rich,
cultivated, and kindly people; these last, above all, needed watching,
and were most dangerous. In looking over the harsh treatment of the
Tories by the rebels, it should be remembered that a covert enemy is
more dangerous than an open one, and that the Tories comprised both of
these. Many men of property and character in Massachusetts were in
favour of England, partly from conviction and partly from fear. That
large and often cultivated class called "Conservatives," who hold by the
past rather than hope for the future, and are constitutionally timid,
feared change; they were naturally Tories. Most of the Episcopalians in
New England (though not in Virginia) opposed the revolutionary
movements. They had felt the oppression and contempt of the New England
Congregationalists, and looked to the English Government and the English
Church for help. But in Virginia, where they were strong, this was not
so; and there the Episcopalians were among the warmest asserters of the
rights of man."
"In New York there was at first a very large proportion of Tories; in
1776, not less than twelve hundred and ninety-three persons, in the
County of Queen's alone, professed themselves subjects to the King. In
Suffolk County, eight hundred enrolled themselves as King's militia."
"In New Jersey, Governor Franklin, son of Benjamin Franklin, led the
King's friends, and was active against the Americans until it became
necessary to put him in confinement. The war carried on between Tories
and Whigs was more merciless than any other, and more cruel and wanton
than that of the Indians."
"Laws were made in Rhode Island against all who supplied the enemy with
provisions, or gave them information.
"In Connecticut the Tories were not allowed to speak or write against
Congress or the Assembly.
"In Massachusetts a man might be banished unless he would swear fealty
to the cause of liberty.
"Severe laws were also passed against the Tories in New Hampshire, New
York, New Jersey, and Virginia, and in nearly all the colonies now
seaboard States.
"John Jay thought the Confiscation Act of New York inexcusable and
disgraceful."[402]
Mr. Hildreth remarks: "Very serious was the change in the legal position
of the class known as Tories--in many of the States a very large
minority, and in all, respectable for wealth and social position. Of
those thus stigmatized, some were inclined to favour the utmost claims
of the mother country; but _the greater part, though determined to
adhere to the British connection, yet deprecated the policy which had
brought on so fatal a quarrel_. This loyal minority, especially its more
conspicuous members, as the warmth of political feeling increased, had
been exposed to the violence of mobs, and to all sorts of personal
indignities, in which private malice or a wanton and violent spirit of
mischief had been too often gratified under the guise of patriotism. By
the recent political changes, Tories and suspected persons became
exposed to dangers from the law as well as from mobs. Having boldly
seized the reins of government, the new State authorities claimed the
allegiance of all residents within their limits, and under the lead and
recommendation of Congress, those who refused to acknowledge their
authority, or who adhered to their enemies, were exposed to severe
penalties, confiscation of property, imprisonment, banishment, and
finally death."[403]
Thus was a large minority of the most wealthy and intelligent (their
wealth and intelligence making them the greater criminals) inhabitants
of the colonies, by the act of a new body not known to the Constitutions
of any of their provinces, reduced to the alternative of violating their
convictions, consciences, and oaths, or being branded and treated as
enemies of their country, deprived not only of the freedom of the press
and of speech, but made criminals for even neutrality and silence, and
their property confiscated to defray the expenses of a war upon
themselves. Had Congress, in July, 1776, maintained the principles and
objects it avowed even in the autumn of 1775, there would have been no
occasion of thus violating good faith and common justice to the large
minority of the colonies; there is every reason to believe that there
would have been a universal rallying, as there had been the year before,
in defence of the constitutional rights of Englishmen and the unimpaired
life of the empire; there would have been a far larger military force of
enthusiastic and patriotic volunteers collected and organized to defend
those rights than could ever afterwards be embodied to support
independence; there would have been a union of the friends of
constitutional liberty on both sides of the Atlantic; good faith would
have been kept on both sides, and the "millions in England and
Scotland," sustained by the millions in America, instead of being
abandoned by them in the very crisis of the contest in the mother
country, would have achieved in less than a twelvemonth a victory for
freedom, for civilization, and for humanity, far beyond what had been
accomplished in the English Revolution of 1688.
V. The Declaration of Independence was the commencement of weakness in
the army of its authors, and of defeats in their fields of battle. The
Declaration has been announced as the birth of a nation, though it was
actually the dismemberment of a nation. It was hailed with every
demonstration of joy and triumph on the part of those who had been
prepared for the event, and no efforts were spared on the part of those
who had advocated independence in the army, in the Congress, and in the
provinces, to accompany the circulation of the Declaration with every
enthusiastic expression of delight and anticipated free government, in
which, of course, they themselves would occupy the chief places of
profit and power. But this enthusiasm, notwithstanding the glowing
descriptions of some American historians, was far from being general or
ardent. Lord Mahon says: "As sent forth by Congress, the Declaration of
Independence having reached the camp of Washington, was, by his orders
(as commanded by Congress), read aloud at the head of every regiment.
There, as in most other places, it excited much less notice than might
have been supposed." An American author of our own day (President Reed),
most careful in his statements, and most zealous in the cause of
independence, observes that "No one can read the private correspondence
of the times without being struck with the slight impression made on
either the army or the mass of the people by the Declaration."[404]
The Adjutant-General, in his familiar and almost daily letters to his
wife, does not even allude to it. But though there was little
enthusiasm, there were some excesses. At New York a party of soldiers,
with tumultuary violence, tore down and beheaded a statue of the King
which stood upon Broadway, having been erected only six years before.
Washington, greatly to his honour, did not shrink from the duty of
rebuking them next day, in his General Orders, for their misdirected
zeal.[405]
Within a few weeks after the Declaration of Independence, Washington's
army, composed of forces raised before that Declaration, consisted of
27,000 men--a larger army than he was ever after able to assemble, and
more than twice as large as he commanded within a few months afterwards.
It has been seen with what readiness, zeal, and enthusiasm thousands and
tens of thousands of volunteers offered their services during the year
1775, and the first part of the year 1776, in defence of British
liberty, in union with the friends of civil liberty and defenders of
American liberty in England; but when, after the Declaration of the 4th
of July, 1776, the cause became one of Congressional liberty instead of
British liberty, of separation from the mother country instead of union
with it, of a new form of government instead of one to which they had
sworn allegiance, and which they had ever lauded and professed to
love,--then, in these novel circumstances, the provincial army dwindled
from day to day by desertions, as well as from other causes, and
recruiting its ranks could only be effected by bounties in money and
the promise of lands; the uninterrupted victories of the colonists
during the twelve months previous to the Declaration of Independence
were succeeded by uninterrupted defeats during the twelve months
succeeding it, with the exception of the brilliant and successful
surprise raids which Washington made upon _Trenton_ and _Princeton_. But
these exploits were wholly owing to Washington's skill, and sleepless
energy, and heroic courage, with feeble forces, in contrast to the
lethargy and self-indulgence of the English officers on the one hand and
the inactivity of Congress on the other.
The first trial of strength and courage between the English and
revolutionary forces took place in August, a few weeks after the
Declaration of Independence, in the battle of Long Island, in which
Washington's army was completely defeated; New York and all New Jersey
soon fell into the hands of the British. For this success General Howe
received the honour of knighthood, as did General Carlton for similar
success in Canada--the one becoming Sir William Howe, and the other Sir
Guy Carlton; but neither did much afterwards to merit the honour. The
English officers seemed to have anticipated a pastime in America instead
of hard fighting and severe service, and the German mercenaries
anticipated rich plunder and sensual indulgence.
In the autumn and winter following Washington's defeat at Long Island
and forced evacuation of New York, and indeed of New Jersey, Sir William
Howe buried himself in self-indulgent inactivity for six months in New
York; while a portion of his army sought quarters and plunder, and
committed brutal acts of sensuality, in the chief places of New Jersey.
Loyalty seems to have been the prevalent feeling of New Jersey on the
first passing of the King's troops through it.[406]
This is stated on unquestionable authority (see the previous note);
scarcely any of the inhabitants joined the American retreating army,
while numbers were daily flocking to the royal army. But within twelve
months, when that royal army passed through the same country, on the
evacuation of Philadelphia by Sir Henry Clinton (Sir William Howe having
returned to England), the inhabitants were universally hostile, instead
of being universally loyal, as the year before. The royal historian
says:
"In setting out on this dangerous retreat, the British general clearly
perceived that it would be indispensably necessary to provide for all
possible contingencies. _His way lay entirely through an enemy's
country, where everything was hostile in the extreme, and from whence no
assistance or help of any sort was to be expected._"[407]
The causes of this change in the feelings of the inhabitants of the
Jerseys, in the space of a few months, in regard to the British army and
mother country, will be a subject of future inquiry; but, in the
meantime, the manifest failure of the revolutionary army to maintain its
position during the twelve months following the Declaration of
Independence, its declining numbers, and the difficulty of recruiting
its ranks, show that the act of violent severance from the mother
country did not spring from the heart and intellect of the colonists,
but from a portion of them which had obtained all the resources of
material and military power, under the profession of defending their
rights as British subjects, with a view to ultimate reconciliation and
union with the mother country; but had used their advantages to declare
severance from the mother country, to excite hatred against it, and
establish themselves in sovereignty over America. Referring to the state
of the colonies toward the close of 1777, the latest American historian,
Mr. Frothingham, says:
"This was a period of great political languor. The burden of the war was
severely felt. The blaze of freedom, it was said, that burst forth at
the beginning had gone down, and numbers, in the thirst for riches, lost
sight of the original object. (Independent Chronicle, March 12, 1778.)
'Where,' wrote Henry Laurens (successor to John Hancock as the President
of the Congress) to Washington, 'where is virtue, where is patriotism
now, when almost every man has turned his thoughts and attention to gain
and pleasures?'" (Letter, November 20, 1778.)[408]
VI. The Declaration of Independence was the avowed expedient and prelude
to a sought-for alliance with France and Spain against the mother
country, notwithstanding they had sought for a hundred years to
extirpate the colonists, and had been prevented from "driving them into
the sea" by the aid of the army and navy and vast expenditure of the
mother country.
It seems difficult to reconcile with truthfulness, fairness, and
consistency, the intrigues and proposed terms of alliance between the
leaders of Congress and the King of France. These intrigues commenced
several months before the Declaration of Independence, when the authors
of it were disclaiming any wish or design to separate from England, and
their desire for reconciliation with the mother country by a recognition
of their rights as they existed in 1763. As early as December, 1775, six
months before the Declaration of Independence, a Congress Secret
Committee of Correspondence wrote to Arthur Lee, in London (a native of
Virginia, but a practising barrister in London), and Charles Dumas, at
the Hague, requesting them to ascertain the feeling of European Courts
respecting America, enjoining "great circumspection and secrecy."[409]
They hoped most from France; but opposition was made in Congress when it
was first suggested to apply for aid to the ancient enemy both of the
colonies and England. Dr. Zubly, of Georgia, said: "A proposal has been
made to apply to France and Spain. I apprehend the man who would propose
it (to his constituents) would be torn to pieces like De Witt." Within
three months after the utterance of these words in Congress, M. de
Bouvouloir, agent of the French Government, appeared in Philadelphia,
held secret conferences with the Secret Committee, and assured them that
France was ready to aid the colonies on such conditions as might be
considered equitable. These conferences were so secret that De
Bouvouloir says that "the Committee met him at an appointed place after
dark, each going to it by a different road."[410]
A few weeks later, the Secret Committee appointed Silas Deane commercial
agent to Europe (March 3), to procure military supplies, and to state to
the French Minister, Count Vergennes, the probability of the colonies
totally separating from England; that France was looked upon as the
power whose friendship they should most desire to cultivate; and to
inquire whether, in case of their independence, France would acknowledge
it, and receive their Ambassadors.
In April, 1776, three months before the Declaration of Independence, the
inquiry was made of Franklin, "When is the Continental Congress by
general consent to be formed into a Supreme Legislature?" He replied,
"Nothing seems wanting but that general consent. The novelty of the
thing deters some; the doubt of success, others; _the vain hope of
reconciliation, many_. Every day furnishes us with new causes of
increasing enmity, and new reasons for _wishing an eternal separation_;
so that there is a rapid increase of the _formerly small party_ who were
for an independent government."[411]
From these words of Dr. Franklin, as well as from the facts stated in
the preceding pages, it is clear the Declaration of Independence was not
the spontaneous voice of a continent, as represented by many American
historians, but the result of a persistent agitation on the part of the
leaders in Congress, and their agents and partizans in the several
provinces, who _now_ represented every act of the corrupt Administration
in England as the act of the _nation_, and thus sought to alienate the
affections of the colonists from the mother country. Upon Dr. Franklin's
own authority, it is clear that he was opposed to any reconciliation
with England and in favour of an "eternal separation" months before the
Declaration of Independence; that the party "for an independent
government" were "the formerly small party," but had "a rapid increase,"
which Dr. Franklin and his friends knew so well how to promote, while
they amused and deceived the friends of the unity of the empire, in
both England and America, by professing an earnest desire for
reconciliation with the mother country.
The same double game was played against England by the French Government
and the secret leaders of the American Congress, the latter professing a
desire for reconciliation with England, and the former professing the
warmest friendship for England and disapprobation of the separation of
the colonies from England, while both parties were secretly consulting
together as to the means of dismembering the British empire. "It was,"
says Dr. Ramsay, "evidently the interest of France to encourage the
Americans in their opposition to Great Britain; and it was true policy
to do this by degrees, and in a private manner, lest Great Britain might
take the alarm. It is certain that Great Britain was amused with
declarations of the most pacific disposition on the part of France, at
the time the Americans were liberally supplied with the means of
defence; and it is equally certain that this was the true line of policy
for promoting that dismemberment of the British empire which France had
an interest in accomplishing. It was the interest of Congress to apply
to the Court of France, and it was the interest of France to listen to
their application."[412]
The application for alliance with France to war with England was far
from being the voice of America. The fact that it was under discussion
in Congress three months before it could be carried, shows how strong
must have been the opposition to it in Congress itself, and how vigorous
and persevering must have been the efforts to manipulate a majority of
its members into acquiescing in an application for arms, money, and men
to a Government which was and had always been the enemy of civil and
Protestant liberty--which had hired savage Indians to butcher and scalp
their forefathers, mothers, and children, without regard to age or sex,
and which had sought to destroy their very settlements, and drive them
into the sea, while the British Government had preserved them from
destruction and secured to them the American continent. It is easy to
conceive how every British heart in America must have revolted at the
idea of seeking to become brother warriors with the French against the
mother country. Nor was the proceeding known in America until America
was committed to it, for the Congress made itself a secret conclave; its
sittings were held in secret; no divisions were allowed to be recorded;
its debates were suppressed; its members were sworn to secrecy; the
minorities had no means of making known their views to the public; it
was decided by the majority that every resolution published should be
reported as having been adopted _unanimously_, though actually carried
by the slenderest majority. The proceedings of that elected Congress,
which converted itself into a secret conclave, were never fully known
until the present century, and many of them not until the present age,
by the biographies of the men and the private correspondence of the
times of the American Revolution. The United Empire Loyalists of those
times were not permitted to speak for themselves, and their principles,
character and acts were only known from the pens of their adversaries.
Had the heart of America been allowed to speak and act, there would have
been no alliance of America, France, and Spain against England; the
American colonies would have achieved their own noblest freedom
unstained by future bloodshed, and untainted by so unnatural an
alliance; the Anglo-Saxon race and language would have been one, and
greatly more advanced than it now is in the cause of the world's freedom
and civilization.
History has justly censured, in the severest language, the conduct of
Lord North's Administration for employing German mercenaries to aid in
maintaining the assumed prerogative of King and Parliament in the
colonies; but was it less censurable and more patriotic for the
administrative leaders in Congress to engage French and Spanish forces,
both at sea and land, to invade Great Britain and her possessions, and
to unite with Republicans for the dismemberment of the British empire?
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 393: Judge Marshall's History of the American Colonies, Chap.
XIV., pp. 449-451.]
[Footnote 394: _Ib._, p. 457.]
[Footnote 395: "The commencement of hostilities on the 19th of April,
1775, exhibited the parent State in an odious point of view. But,
nevertheless, at that time, and for a twelvemonth after, a majority of
the colonists wished for no more than to be re-established as subjects
in their ancient rights. Had independence been their object, even at the
commencement of hostilities, they would have rescinded the associations
which have been already mentioned, and imported more largely than ever.
Common sense revolts at the idea that colonists, unfurnished with
military stores and wanting manufactures of every kind, should, at the
time of their intending a serious struggle for independence, by a
voluntary agreement, deprive themselves of the obvious means of
procuring such foreign supplies as their circumstances might make
necessary. Instead of pursuing a line of conduct which might have been
dictated by a wish for independence, they continued their exports for
nearly a year after they ceased to import. This not only lessened the
debts they owed to Great Britain, but furnished additional means for
carrying on war against themselves. To aim at independence, and at the
same time to transfer their resources to their enemies, could not have
been the policy of an enlightened people. It was not till some time in
1776 that the colonists began to take other ground, and contend that it
was for their interest to be for ever separated from Great Britain."
(Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xii., pp.
158, 159.)]
[Footnote 396: Lord Mahon says: "In framing this measure, he sought the
aid and counsel of Dr. Franklin. Already, in the month of August
preceding, they had become acquainted, through the mediation of Lord
Stanhope, who carried Dr. Franklin to Hayes (the residence of Lord
Chatham). Lord Chatham had then referred to the idea which began to
_prevail in England, that America aimed at setting up for herself as a
separate State. The truth of any such idea was loudly denied by Dr.
Franklin_. 'I assured his lordship,' Dr. Franklin said, 'that having
more than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to the
other, and kept a great variety of company, eating and drinking and
conversing with them freely, I never had heard from any person, drunk or
sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or hint that such
a thing would be advantageous to America.... In fine, Lord Chatham
expressed much satisfaction in my having called upon him, _and
particularly in the assurances I had given him that America did not aim
at independence_.'" (Works, Vol. V., p. 7, ed. 1844.)
The Earl of Chatham's last speech was an appeal against the separation
of the American colonies from England, and his last words were: "My
lords, I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me; that I am still
alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of this ancient and
most noble monarchy." (Bancroft, Vol. IX., p. 495.)]
[Footnote 397: "In the beginning of the memorable year 1776, there was a
public opinion in favour of independence in New England, and but little
more than individual preferences for it in the Middle or Southern
colonies. So deeply seated was the affection for the mother country,
that it required all the severe acts of war, directed by an inexorable
Ministry and the fierce words from the throne, to be made fully known
throughout America before the _majority_ of the people could be
persuaded to renounce their allegiance and assume the sovereignty.
Jefferson says that Samuel Adams was constantly holding caucuses with
distinguished men, in which the measures to be pursued were generally
determined upon, and their several parts were assigned to the actors who
afterwards appeared in them." (Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the
United States, pp. 468, 469.)]
[Footnote 398: Quoted by Bancroft, Vol. VII., p. 234.]
[Footnote 399: "Millions in England and Scotland" (said John Adams, who
nominated Washington as Commander-in-Chief, and was afterwards President
of the United States)--"millions in England and Scotland think it
unrighteous, impolitic, and ruinous to make war upon us; and a Minister,
though he may have a marble heart, will proceed with a desponding
spirit. London has bound her members under their hands to assist us;
Bristol has chosen two known friends of America; many of the most
virtuous of the nobility and gentry are for us, and among them a St.
Asaph, a Camden, and a Chatham; the best bishop that adorns the bench,
as great a judge as the nation can boast, and the greatest statesman it
ever saw." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
xxi, p. 235.)]
[Footnote 400: History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap. xiii.,
p. 353.]
[Footnote 401: It was the plea then, as it had and has always been in
all tyranny, whether wielded by an individual or an oligarchy or a
committee, whether under the pretext of liberty or of order, to
persecute all dissenting parties, under profession of preventing
division and promoting unity. But the true friends of liberty, even in
perilous times, have always relied upon the justice of their principles
and excellence of their policy and measures for support and success, and
not upon the prison, the gallows, and the impoverishment of the
dissenters by plunder. The Congress itself had declared to England that
the "colonists were a unit" in behalf of liberty; but their own
enactments and proceedings against the Loyalists refuted their own
statements. Even in England, tyrannical and corrupt as was the
Government at the time, and divided as were both Parliament and people,
and assailed by foreign and domestic enemies, the proceedings of both
Houses of Parliament were open to the public; every member was not only
free to express his opinions, but those opinions were forthwith
published to the world, and every man throughout the kingdom enjoyed
freedom of opinion. It was reserved for the American Congress, while
professing to found liberty, to conduct its proceedings in secret for
eleven years, to suppress the freedom of the press and individual
freedom of opinion, and to treat as criminals those who dissented from
its acts of policy. The private biography and letters of the principal
actors in the American revolution, published during the present century,
show (with the exception of Washington and very few others) that
individual ambition had quite as much to do in the contest of separation
from the mother country as patriotic love of constitutional liberty,
which, even at this day, in the United States, is not comparable with
that of Great Britain--some of the ablest American writers being
judges.]
[Footnote 402: Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., Chap. xxvii.,
pp. 369-375.
"A large number of the merchants in all the chief commercial towns of
the colonies were openly hostile, or but coldly inclined to the common
cause. General Lee, sent to Newport (Rhode Island) to advise about
throwing up fortifications, _called the principal persons among the
disaffected before him, and obliged them by a tremendous oath to support
the authority of Congress_. The Assembly met shortly after, and passed
an Act subjecting to death, with confiscation of property, all who
should hold intercourse with or assist the British ships. But to save
Newport from destruction it presently became necessary to permit a
certain stated supply to be furnished to the British ships from that
town." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap.
xxxii., p. 102.)
"In the Middle colonies the unwillingness to separate from Great Britain
was greater than in the colonies either to the North or South. One
reason probably was, that in this division were the towns of New York
and Philadelphia, which greatly profited by their trade to England, and
which contained a larger proportion of English and Scotch merchants,
who, with few exceptions, were attached to the royal cause." (Tucker's
History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 150.)]
[Footnote 403: History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxiii.,
pp. 137, 138.
On the 18th of June, 1776, about two weeks before adopting the
Declaration of Independence, Congress "_Resolved_,--That no man in these
colonies charged with being a Tory, or unfriendly to the cause of
American liberty, be injured in his person or property, unless the
proceeding against him be founded on an order of Congress or Committee,"
etc. But this resolution amounted practically to nothing. It seems to
have been intended to allay the fears and weaken the opposition of
loyalists, but contributed nothing for their protection, or to mitigate
the cruel persecutions everywhere waged against them.]
[Footnote 404: Life and Correspondence of President Reed, Vol. I., p.
195. Washington, however, in his public letter to Congress (unless Mr.
Jared Sparks has _improved_ this passage), says that the troops had
testified their "warmest approbation." (Writings, Vol. III., p. 457.)]
[Footnote 405: Lord Mahon's History of England from the Peace of
Utrecht, Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 161, 162.
Lord Mahon adds: "It was at this inauspicious juncture, only a few hours
after independence had been proclaimed in the ranks of his opponents,
that the bearer of the pacific commission, Lord Howe, arrived off Sandy
Hook. He had cause to regret most bitterly both the delay of his passage
and the limitation of his powers. He did not neglect, however, whatever
means of peace were still within his reach. He sent on shore a
declaration, announcing to the people the object of his mission. He
despatched a friendly letter, written at sea, to Dr. Franklin, at
Philadelphia. But when Franklin's answer came it showed him wholly
adverse to a reconciliation, expressing in strong terms his resentment
of the 'atrocious injuries' which, as he said, America had suffered from
'your unformed and proud nation.' Lord Howe's next step was to send a
flag of truce, with another letter, to Washington. But here a
preliminary point of form arose. Lord Howe, as holding the King's
commission, could not readily acknowledge any rank or title not derived
from his Majesty. He had therefore directed his letter to 'George
Washington, Esq.' On the other hand, Washington, feeling that, in his
circumstances, to yield a punctilio would be to sacrifice a principle,
declined to receive or open any letter not addressed to him as General.
Thus at the very outset this negotiation was cut short."--_Ib._, pp.
162, 163.]
[Footnote 406: After the battle of Long Island and the evacuation of New
York, "six thousand men, led by Earl Cornwallis, were landed on the
Jersey side. At their approach the Americans withdrew in great haste to
Fort Lee, leaving behind their artillery and stores. Washington himself
had no other alternative than to give way with all speed as his enemy
advanced. He fell back successively upon Brunswick, upon Princeton, upon
Trenton, and at last to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware. To all
these places, one after another, did Lord Cornwallis, though slowly, and
with little vigour, pursue him.
"This fair province of the Jerseys, sometimes called the Garden of
America, did not certainly on this occasion prove to be its bulwark. The
scene is described as follows by one of their own historians, Dr.
Ramsay: 'As the retreating Americans marched through the country,
scarcely one of the inhabitants joined them, while numbers were daily
flocking to the royal army to make their peace and obtain protection.
They saw on the one side a numerous, well-appointed, and full-clad army,
dazzling their eyes with their elegance of uniforms; on the other a few
poor fellows who, from their shabby clothing, were called ragamuffins,
fleeing for their safety. Not only the common people changed sides in
this gloomy state of public affairs, but some of the leading men in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania adopted the same expedient.'
"Yet it is scarcely just to the Americans to ascribe, with Dr. Ramsay,
their change of sides to nothing beyond their change of fortune. May we
not rather believe that a feeling of concern at the separation, hitherto
suppressed in terror, was now first freely avowed--that in New Jersey,
and not in New Jersey alone, an active and bold minority had been able
to overrule numbers much larger, but more quiescent and complying?
"Another remark made by the same historian might, as history shows, be
extended to other times and countries besides his own. The men who had
been the vainest braggarts, the loudest blusterers in favour of
independence, were now the first to veer around or to slink away. This
remark, which Dr. Ramsay makes only four years afterwards, is fully
confirmed by other documents of earlier date, but much later
publication, by the secret correspondence of the time. Thus writes the
Adjutant-General: 'Some of our Philadelphia gentlemen, who came over on
visits, upon the first cannon went off in a violent hurry. Your noisy
Sons of Liberty are, I find, the quietest in the field.' Thus again
Washington, with felicitous expression, points a paragraph at the
'chimney-corner heroes.'
"At this period the effective force under Washington had dwindled down
to four thousand men.
"The Congress at this juncture, like most other public assemblies,
seemed but slightly affected by the dangers which as yet were not close
upon them. On the 11th of December they passed some resolutions
contradicting, as false and malicious, a report that they intended to
remove from Philadelphia. They declared that they had a higher opinion
of the good people of these States than to suppose such a measure
requisite, and that they would not leave the city of Philadelphia
'unless the last necessity shall direct it.' These resolutions were
transmitted by the President to Washington, with a request that he would
publish them to the army in General Orders. Washington, in reply,
excused himself from complying with that suggestion. In thus declining
it, he showed his usual sagacity and foresight; for on the very next day
after the first resolution, the Congress underwent a sudden revulsion of
opinion, and did not scruple to disperse in all haste, to meet again the
20th of the same month, not at Philadelphia, but at Baltimore." (Lord
Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 189-193.)]
[Footnote 407: Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, etc., Vol.
III., Chap. xxxv., p. 111.]
[Footnote 408: Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, Chap. xii.,
p. 572.]
[Footnote 409: The Life of Arthur Lee (I., p. 53) contains the letter to
Lee, copied from the original MSS. in the handwriting of Franklin, dated
December 12, 1775, and signed by Franklin, Dickenson, and Jay.]
[Footnote 410: Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, Chap, xi.,
p. 488.]
[Footnote 411: Franklin to Josiah Quincy, April 15, 1776. Sparks' Works,
Vol. VIII., p. 181.]
[Footnote 412: History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xv., pp.
242, 243.
The same historian observes: "On the 11th of June, Congress appointed a
Committee to prepare a plan of a treaty to be proposed to foreign
powers. The discussion of this novel subject engaged their attention
till the latter end of September. Congress having agreed on the plan of
the treaty which they intended to propose to the King of France,
proceeded to elect commissioners to solicit its acceptance. Dr.
Franklin, Silas Deane, and Thomas Jefferson were chosen. The latter
declining to serve, Arthur Lee, who was then in London, and had been
very serviceable to his country in a variety of ways, was elected in his
room. It was resolved that no member should be at liberty to divulge
anything more of these transactions than 'that Congress had taken such
steps as they judged necessary for obtaining foreign alliances.'"--_Ib._,
p., 242, 243.
It is worthy of remark, that although Dr. Franklin consented to act as
one of the commissioners to France, he opposed the application itself;
for he himself wrote a few months afterwards as follows: "I have never
yet changed the opinions I gave in Congress, that a virgin state should
preserve a virgin character, and not go about suitoring for alliances,
but wait with decent dignity for the applications of others. I was
overruled, perhaps for the best." (Works, Vol. VIII., p. 209.)]
GENERAL INDEX.
Abercrombie (General)--Arrives in America with the troops, and forty
German officers to drill and command regiments in America (which
gives offence to the Colonists). i. 257.
Is disgracefully defeated by Montcalm (though commanding the largest
force ever assembled in America). i. 258.
With General Loudoun, hesitates and delays at Albany, while the French
generals are active and successful. i. 258.
Adams (John)--The prompter and adviser of hanging "Tories." ii. 127.
Address of Governor Winthrop and his company on leaving England, in
1630, to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England,"
declaring their filial and undying love to the Church of England,
as their "dear mother," from whose breasts they had derived their
nourishment. i. 55.
Alliance between Congress and the Kings of France not productive of
the effect anticipated, and deferred twelve months by France after
it had been applied for by Congress. ii. 1.
American Affairs--Misrepresented in the English Parliament and by
the English Press. i. 390.
American boastings groundless over the surrender of Cornwallis. ii. 46.
American Colonies--Their position in regard to England and other nations
at the Peace of Paris, 1763. i. 274.
American Revolution--primary cause of it. i. 30.
American treatment of Canadians by Americans who invaded them. ii. 464.
Invasions of Canada, and their forces. ii. 262.
Amherst (Lord)--Supersedes Abercrombie as Commander-in-Chief, assisted
by General Wolfe. i. 260.
Plans three expeditions, all of which are successful. i. 261.
His energetic movements. i. 262.
He receives all Canada for the King from the French. i. 267.
His parting address to the army. i. 268.
Anderson (Samuel). ii. 192.
Andros (Edmond)--Appointed local Governor of Massachusetts Bay, and
Governor-General of New England; his tyranny; seized at Boston and
sent prisoner to England. i. 215.
(Examined)--Acquitted by King William in Council, because he had acted
according to his instructions. i. 215.
Articles of treaty and preamble. ii. 56.
Associations in the Colonies against the use of tea imported from
England. i. 370.
Bancroft--Confirms the statement as to the aggressions and pretensions of
the Massachusetts Bay Government. i. 200.
His interpretations against England. i. 247.
Baptists--The persecution of them instigated by the Rev. Messrs. Wilson
and Newton, and justified by the Rev. Mr. Cotton. i. 120.
Barnard (Governor)--His reply to the Massachusetts Legislative
Assembly. i. 357.
His recall and character. i. 359.
Bethune (Rev. John). ii. 192.
Boston and Massachusetts--Three Acts of Parliament against, all infringing
and extinguishing the heretofore acknowledged constitutional rights of
the people. i. 389.
Boston--In great distress; addresses of sympathy and contributions from
other towns and provinces.
Fourth Act of Parliament, legalizing the quartering of troops in. i. 397.
General sympathy and liberality in its behalf. i. 404.
Boston Massacre--Soldiers acquitted by a Boston jury. i. 365.
Boyle (Hon. Robert)--In a letter in which he expostulates with the
Massachusetts Bay rulers on the intolerance and unreasonableness of their
conduct. i. 160.
Braddock's unfortunate expedition. i. 247.
Bradstreet (Colonel)--His brilliant achievement in taking and destroying
Fort Frontenac. i. 261.
Bradstreet and Norton--Sent to England to answer complaints; favourably
received; first thanked and then censured by the Massachusetts Bay
rulers; Norton dies of grief. i. 142.
Brock (Sir Isaac)---His address to the Legislature of Upper Canada,
ii. 341, 342.
Takes Detroit. ii. 352-354.
Proclamation to the inhabitants of Michigan. ii. 362, 363.
Killed at Queenston Heights. ii. 366.
Brown, Samuel and John--Their character and position. i. 35.
Banished from Massachusetts Bay for adhering to Episcopal worship. i. 35.
Misrepresented by Messrs. Palfrey and Bancroft. i. 37.
Their letters and papers seized, and their complaints successfully
denied to the King by their persecutors. i. 46.
Their conduct unblamable. i. 42.
Bunker's Hill, Concord, and Lexington--Battles of, numbers engaged,
with the accounts, on both sides. i. 460, 461.
Burke (the celebrated Edmund)--Reviews and denounces the persecuting
laws and spirit of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, during thirty
years. i. 122.
Canadian Militia--Their character. ii. 461.
Canada--What had been claimed by old American colonies in regard to the
payment of official salaries contended for by, and granted to Canada,
to the satisfaction and progress of the country. i. 267.
Canada wholly surrendered to the King of Great Britain, through Lord
Amherst. i. 267.
Canada--State of at the close of the war. ii. 471.
Carscallen (Luke). ii. 202.
Causes--Characteristics of early emigration to New England. i. 25.
Change of government in England and end of Lord North's administration.
ii. 57.
Change of tone and professions at Massachusetts Bay on the confirmation
of the King's restoration. i. 131.
The King's kind reply to their address--their joy at it, but they evade
the six conditions on which the King proposes to forgive their past
and continue their charter. i. 135-137, 139.
Characteristics of fifty-four years' government of Massachusetts Bay,
under the first charter. i. 217.
Charles the First--Deceived by the misstatements of the Massachusetts
Bay Puritans, to decide in their favour against the complaints made
in 1632. i. 67.
His kind and indulgent conduct to the Massachusetts Bay Company, and
how they deceived him. i. 67.
Charles the Second--His restoration; news of it received with joy in all
the Colonies except in Massachusetts, where false rumours are
circulated. i. 130.
Chateauguay, Battle of. ii. 413.
Chatham (Earl of)--Amendment; speech in the House of Lords (1774) against
the coercive policy of the Ministry and defence of Colonial rights; his
amendment opposed by Lord Suffolk, and supported by Lord Camden;
negatived by a majority of 68 to 18. i. 423-429.
His bill "to settle the troubles in America" not allowed a first reading
in the Lords. i. 425.
Chrysler's Farm, Battle of. ii. 419.
Clarendon (Earl of, Chancellor)--Reply to the address to the King,
Charles II., of the Massachusetts Bay rulers, dated October 25, 1664,
in which Lord Clarendon exposes the groundlessness of their pretensions,
suspicions, and imputations. i. 160.
Clark (Colonel John), and his Manuscript contributions. ii.
Clinton (Sir Henry)--Succeeds General Howe as Commander-in-Chief. ii. 14.
Deceived as to the design of Washington and the French commander. ii. 42.
Fails to reinforce Lord Cornwallis. ii. 44.
Colonies--All resolve in favour of a general convention or congress and
election of delegates to it, in 1774. i. 408.
How information on subjects of agitation was rapidly diffused throughout
the Colonies. i. 405.
Colonial Assemblies--Their dissolutions. i. 356.
Colonists--Their agreements for the non-importation of British
manufactured goods. i. 356.
Sons of Governors Barnard and Hutchinson refuse to enter into agreement,
but are at length compelled to yield. i. 360.
Their effective services to England in the English and French war; their
experience and skill thereby acquired in military affairs; their
superiority as marksmen. i. 460.
Desire to provide as aforetime for their own defence and the support of
their own local government, as is done in the provinces of the Dominion
of Canada. i. 460.
Colonist--The writer a native. i. 1.
Colonies--Three causes of irritation in 1768. i. 348.
Unjust imputations in the British Parliament and Press against their
loyalty. i. 353.
Their manly response to the imputations and assertion of British rights,
led by the General Assembly of Virginia. i. 355.
Company of Massachusetts Bay--Write to Endicot and ministers sent by them
against Church innovations. i. 49, 51.
Deny to the King and British public having made any Church innovations in
Massachusetts. i. 53.
Complaints of banished Episcopalians, persecuted Presbyterians, Baptists,
&c., to the King. i. 46, 137.
Complaints of the Massachusetts Bay Rulers--a pretext to perpetuate
sectarian rule and persecution. i. 183.
Conduct and pretensions of Massachusetts Bay Rulers condemned and exposed
by Loyalist inhabitants of Boston, Salem, Newbury, and Ipswich. i. 163.
Congregationalists--None other eligible for office, or allowed the elective
franchise at Massachusetts Bay. i. 63.
Congress (First General Congress)--
Met at Philadelphia, September, 1774. i. 409.
The word defined. i. 409.
Each day's proceedings commenced with prayer. i. 410.
Its members and their constituents throughout the Colonies thoroughly
loyal, while maintaining British constitutional rights. i. 410.
Its declaration of rights and grievances. i. 411.
Its loyal address to the King. i. 414.
Its manly and affectionate appeal to the British Nation. i. 416.
The address of its members to their constituents--a temperate and lucid
exposition of their grievances and sentiments. i. 417.
Its proceedings reach England before the adjournment for the Christmas
holidays in 1774, and produce an impression favourable to the
Colonies. i. 420.
(Second Continental) meets in Philadelphia, September, 1775; number and
character of its members. i. 442.
Its noble and affectionate petition to the King; the King denies an
audience to its agent, Mr. Penn, and answers the petition by
proclamation, declaring it "rebellion," and the petitioners
"rebels." i. 443-445.
Its petition to the House of Commons rejected, and its agent, Mr. Penn,
not asked a question. i. 444.
A large majority (Oct. 1775) still opposed to independence, but unanimous
in defence of British constitutional rights. i. 448.
Divided on the question of _Independence_, which is first moved in
Congress in May, 1776--deferred, after long debates, for three weeks, by
a vote of seven to five Colonies. i. 483, 484.
Manipulation and agitation to prepare the members of Congress and the
Colonies for separation from England. i. 482-485.
Proceeds with closed doors, and its members sworn to secrecy.
Votes by Colonies, and decides that each vote be reported unanimous,
though carried by only a bare majority. i. 486.
After three days' debate, the six Colonies for and seven Colonies against
independence; how a majority of one was obtained in favour of
it. i. 486, 487.
Refuses to confer with British Commissioners with a view to
reconciliation. ii. 2.
Feelings of the people of England and America different from those of
the leaders of Congress. ii. 14.
Sycophancy of its leaders to France. ii. 13.
Its degeneracy in 1778, as stated by General Washington. ii. 29.
The depression of its credit. ii. 30.
It confiscates and orders the sale of the property of "Tories." ii. 30.
Appeals to France for men and money as their only hope. ii. 40.
Fallacy of the plea or pretext that it had not power to grant compensation
to the Loyalists. ii. 61.
Meets at Philadelphia, 10th May, 1776. i. 479.
Contests--Chiefly between the Colonists, the French, and the Indians,
from 1648 to 1654. i. 250.
Colonies--their divided councils and isolated resources. i. 257.
Their alarming state of affairs at the close of the year 1757. i. 255.
Cornwallis--His antecedents, ii. 38; his severe policy injurious to the
British cause, ii. 40;
his defence of Yorktown, ii. 44;
his surrender to the French and American armies, ii. 45;
conditions of capitulation, ii. 46.
Count De Grasse--Sails from New York to the Chesapeake with a fleet of
28 ships and 7,000 French troops. ii. 43.
Crown Point taken from the French by the English. i. 263.
Debts--Incurred by the New England Colonies in the Indian wars; how
Massachusetts was relieved by England, and made prosperous. i. 240.
Declaration of American Independence--How the vote of the majority of the
Colonies for it was obtained, and how reported. i. 486, 487.
Copy of it. i. 488.
Homage of respect by the authors to the fathers of. i. 492-495.
1. A renunciation of all the principles on which the General Congress,
Provincial Legislatures, and Conventions professed to act from the
beginning of the contest; proofs and illustrations. i. 496-499.
2. A violation of good faith to those statesmen and numerous other
parties in Great Britain, who had, in and out of Parliament, defended
and supported the rights and character of the Colonists during the whole
contest; proofs and illustrations. i. 499-501.
3. A violation, not only of good faith, but of justice to the numerous
Colonists who adhered to connection with the Mother Country; proofs and
illustrations. i. 501-504.
4. The commencement of persecutions and proscriptions and confiscation of
property against those who refused to renounce the oaths which they had
taken, and the principles and traditions which had, until then, been
professed by their persecutors and oppressors as well as by themselves;
proofs and illustrations. i. 504-507.
The plea of tyranny. i. 504.
5. The commencement of weakness in the army of its authors, and of defeat
in their battle-fields; proofs and illustrations. i. 508-513.
6. The announced expedient and prelude to an alliance with France and
Spain against the Mother Country. i. 513-517.
New penal laws passed against the Loyalists after adopting it. ii. 5.
Detroit--Taken by the British under General Brock. ii. 354.
De Salaberry (General)--Defeats 10,000 Americans with 300 Canadians at
Chateauguay ii. 381.
D'Estaing--His doings and failures in America. ii. 17-27.
Diamond (John). ii. 202.
Doane. ii. 192.
Dudley (Joseph)--Appointed Governor of Massachusetts by King James II.
i. 212.
Dunmore (Earl of)--Governor of Virginia, commits the same outrages upon
the inhabitants of Virginia, and about the same time, as those
committed by General Gage upon the inhabitants of Massachusetts. i. 462.
Assembles the House of Burgesses to deliberate and decide upon Lord
North's so-called "conciliatory proposition" to the Colonies; the
House rejects the proposition on a report prepared by Mr. Jefferson--a
document eulogized in the strongest terms by the Earl of
Shelburne. i. 464.
East India Company--Disastrous effect of its agreement with the British
Government. i. 381.
East India Company's Tea--Causes of it being thrown into Boston Harbour,
as stated on both sides. i. 377.
Elections in England hastened in the autumn of 1774; adverse to the
Colonies. i. 419.
Emigrants to Massachusetts Bay--Two classes. i. 1.
Emigration to Massachusetts Bay stopped by a change of Government in
England. i. 85.
Endicot--Leader of the first company of emigrants to Massachusetts
Bay. i. 27.
His character. i. 27.
Becomes a Congregationalist. i. 29.
Abolishes the Church of England, and banishes its adherents. i. 29.
Cause of all the tyrannical proceedings against them. i. 42.
Finally condemned by the Company, but officially retained by
them. i. 43-48.
England's best and only means of protecting the Colonies against French
encroachments and invasion. i. 244.
Position in respect to other European Powers at the Peace of Paris
in 1763. i. 273.
England--Its resources at the conclusion of the Revolutionary
war. ii. 48, 49.
The war party, and corrupt Administration, is defeated. ii. 48, 49.
Change of Administration and of policy, both for England and the
Colonies. ii. 53.
Names of new Ministers, &c. ii. 53.
English Generals and soldiers refuse to fight against the
Colonists. i. 446.
English Government employs seventeen thousand German mercenaries to
bring the Colonists to absolute submission. i. 446-479.
Its change of policy, and effect of it in regard to the Colonies after
the Peace of Paris, 1763. i. 277.
Its first acts which caused dissatisfaction and alienation in the
American Colonies. i. 279.
Falmouth (now Portland) bombarded and burnt, by Captain Mowat, of the
British Navy. i. 446.
Five-sixths of the male population disfranchised by Puritan bigotry and
intolerance at Massachusetts Bay. i. 63.
Fort de Quesne taken by the English and called Pittsburg. i. 263.
Fox (C.J.)--His amendment to Lord North's address to the King, 1775,
rejected by a majority of 304 to 105. i. 430.
France and England at war; mutually restore, in 1748, places taken
during the first war. i. 242.
Franklin (Dr.)--His evidence at the Bar of the House of Commons on
the Stamp Act, etc. i. 308.
Dismissed from office the following day. i. 426.
His petition to the House of Commons rejected. i. 426.
Proposes to include Canada in the United States. ii. 54.
Counter scheme to defeat the proposition of the English
Commissioners. ii. 58.
Outwits the English Commissioners. ii. 63.
His Indian scalp fictions. ii. 119.
French--Attempt to take Quebec. i. 266.
Bitter feeling between French and American officers and soldiers,
at Rhode Island, Boston, Charleston, and Savannah. ii. 20-25.
Encroachments on the British Colonies, from 1748 to 1756. i. 243.
Evasions and disclaimers, while encroaching on the British Colonies
and making preparations for war against England. i. 245.
Successes in 1755, 1756, and 1757, in the war with England. i. 252.
French Fleet--Its complete failure under Count D'Estaing. ii. 17.
French Officers and Soldiers--Their kindness to the English after
the defeat of Lord Cornwallis. ii. 129.
Gage (General)--His arrival in Boston; courteous reception, as successor
to Governor Hutchinson; his character. i. 398.
Summons a meeting of the Legislature, which adjourns to meet at Salem,
and which replies respectfully but firmly to Governor
Gage's speech; his bitter answer. i. 399.
His curious dissolution of the last Legislature held in Massachusetts
Bay according to its first charter, which had proceeded with closed
doors, and adopted by a majority of 92 to 12, declaring the necessity
of a meeting of all the Colonies to meet and consult together on their
present state. i. 401.
Governor of Massachusetts, and Commander-in-chief of the British in
America, commences the first attack upon the Colonists. i. 460.
Governments of the British Provinces. ii. 271-276.
(1) Nova Scotia. ii. 274-277.
(2) New Brunswick. ii. 277-280.
(3) Prince Edward Island. ii. 280.
(4) Lower Canada. ii. 281-306. (See table of contents, chapter xlv.)
(5) Upper Canada, ii. 307-316. (See table of contents, chapter xlvi.)
Governor of Massachusetts Bay Puritans and a majority of the assistants
or magistrates vote in favour of submitting to the decision of the King
on the conditions of perpetuating the Charter; but Congregational
Ministers advise, and the majority of the deputies vote against
it. i. 208, 209.
Governors of South and North Carolina (Campbell and Martin), like Dunmore,
Governor of Virginia, betake themselves to ships--the Colonists in each
case being treated with like severity. i. 473.
Haight (Canniff). ii. 219.
Happiness and prosperity of Massachusetts during seventy years under the
second Charter. i. 240.
Harris (Mrs. Amelia). ii. 228-236.
Hessian soldiers--Their unreliable and bad character. ii. 73.
Hildreth, the historian, on the gloomy state of American affairs at
the close of 1780. ii. 41.
Hillsborough (Earl of)--Effects of his circular letter to Colonial
Governors. i. 345.
Joy in the Colonies at his despatch promising to repeal the
obnoxious revenue Acts, and to impose no more taxes on the Colonists
by acts of the British Parliament. i. 361.
Holland--Flight of Pilgrim Fathers to; trades there. i. 10.
Howe (Lord)--A monument erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey,
at the expense of £250 sterling, by the Massachusetts Court. i. 260.
Hutchinson (Governor of Massachusetts) and his sons alone determine to
land the East India Company tea in Boston. i. 376.
His account of the transactions at Boston, and vindication of
himself. i. 383.
His conduct different from that of the Governors of other
Colonies. i. 387.
Independence disclaimed by Franklin in 1773, by Washington and
Jefferson and by leading New Englanders in July, 1775. i. 451-453.
Independents, origin of. i. 7.
Indians--Employed by both French and English in their wars. ii. 75.
Their employment in the war with the Colonies, opposed by the English
Generals. ii. 76.
Their employment disadvantageous to England. ii. 76.
Their alliance and co-operation sought for by Congress. ii. 77.
Retaliations upon them by the Congress soldiers exceeded all that had
been committed by the Indians upon the Americans--opinion of American
writers. ii. 77.
Much that was written against them during the Revolution, since shown
by the letters and biographies of its actors to have been
fictitious. ii. 78.
Their employment against the English recommended by Washington, July
27th, 1776. ii. 80.
Efforts of General Burgoyne to restrain them from all cruel acts and
excesses. ii. 82.
Their conduct injurious to the English cause and beneficial to the
American. ii. 83.
The unprovoked invasion of their country, destruction of their
settlements, and desolation of their towns, orchards, and crops and
farms, by order of Congress. ii. 84.
Further examples of "retaliation," so-called, upon the Indian
settlements. ii. 106.
The "Tories" driven among them as their only refuge, and treated as
"traitors;" their conduct and duty. ii. 107.
Indians (Six Nations)--Colonel Stone's account in detail of General
Sullivan's expedition of extermination against the Six Nations of
Indians. ii. 108.
Indians--Treatment of by the Puritans in New England. ii. 293.
Intolerance and persecution of Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., by the
Massachusetts Bay Rulers, from 1643 to 1651. i. 112.
Invasions of Canada by Americans; numbers of invaders. ii. 462.
James II.--Succession to the throne; thanked by the Massachusetts Bay
Rulers for his Proclamation which violated the rights of England, and
cost him his crown. i. 216.
Jarvis (Stephen). ii. 193.
(William). ii. 193.
Johnson's (Sir William) victory over the French General Dieskau. i. 250.
Jones (David). ii. 193.
(Jonathan). ii. 193.
King Charles the Second--Enjoins to cease persecuting the Quakers;
how answered. i. 135.
The King retains Puritan councillors, who are kindly disposed to the
Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 138.
The King's pardon and oblivion of the past misdeeds of the Massachusetts
Bay Rulers, and promised continuance of Charter joyfully proclaimed;
but the part of the letter containing the conditions of pardon, and
oblivion, and toleration withheld from the public; and when the
publication of it was absolutely commanded, the Massachusetts Bay
Rulers ordered that the conditions of toleration, etc., should be
suspended until further orders from their Court. i. 139-141.
Royal Commissioners appointed by the King, to inquire into the matters
complained of in the New England Colonies, and to remedy what was
wrong. i. 145.
Royal Commission appointed; slanderous rumours circulated against the
Royal Commissioners. i. 146.
Copy of it explaining the reason and object of it. i. 147.
Duly received by all the New England Colonies except Massachusetts,
where slanderous rumours were circulated against the Commission and
Commissioners. i. 146, 147.
King Charles the Second's reply to the long address or petition of the
Massachusetts Bay Court, dated February 25, 1665, correcting their
misstatements and showing the groundlessness of their pretended fears
and actual pretensions. i. 166.
Kind letter without effect upon the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, who refuse
to receive the Royal Commissioners; second and more decisive letter from
the King, April, 1666. i. 169.
Grants Charters to Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1663, with remarks
upon them by Judge Story. i. 172.
On receiving the report of his Commissioners, who had been rejected by
the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, orders them to send agents to England to
answer before the King in Council to the complaints made against the
Government of the Colony. i. 179.
Entreated by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, who try to vindicate their
proceedings, and instead of sending agents, send two large masts and
resolve to send £1000 sterling to propitiate the King. i. 180.
Desists for some time from further action in regard to the Massachusetts
Bay Rulers, but is at length roused to decisive action by complaints
from neighbouring Colonists and individual citizens of the
invasions of their rights, and persecutions and proscriptions
inflicted upon them by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 187.
Seven requirements of the Massachusetts Bay Rulers, in his letter to them,
dated July, 1679, just and reasonable, and observed by all British
Colonies at this day. i. 188.
King George III.--Alleged author of the scheme with the East India
Company; his condemnation of the petitions and remonstrances
from the Colonies. i. 382.
His speech at the opening of the New Parliament, March 30th,
1774; and answers of both Houses. i. 419.
Opposition to the Royal Speech in both Houses; protest in the
Lords. i. 420.
Denounces the Earl of Chatham and others. i. 424.
La Fayette returns from France in 1778, with a loan of money and
reinforcements of land and naval forces. ii. 33.
Liberty (civil and religious) established in Massachusetts, not by
the Puritans, but by Royal Charter. i. 237.
Lippincott (Captain Richard). ii. 193.
Long Parliament--Its ordinances in regard to Massachusetts trade
in 1642. i. 87.
Appoints Commissioners and Governor General to Massachusetts
Bay in 1646, with large powers. i. 88.
Orders the surrender of the Massachusetts Bay Charter; and means
employed to evade it. i. 99, 100.
Loudoun (Earl of)--Arrival of from England, with troops, as
Commander-in-chief. i. 252.
Disputes between him and the Massachusetts Court, in regard
to the Mutiny Act, and quartering the troops upon the
citizens. i. 255.
His arbitrary conduct in quartering his officers in Albany and
New York. i. 258.
Hesitates and delays at Albany; never fought a battle in America. i. 259.
Loyalists--Circumstances of, after the surrender of Charleston to the
French and Americans. ii. 46.
Unprotected in the articles of peace. ii. 57.
Constituted a majority of the population of the Colonies at the beginning
of the contest. ii. 57.
Sacrificed in the treaty, as stated by Dr. Ramsay and Mr.
Hildreth. ii. 59-61.
What demanded had been sanctioned by all modern civilized
nations, in like circumstances. ii. 61.
Their deplorable condition during the war; utter abandonment by the
English commissioners. ii. 64.
Much of what was written against the Revolution, since shown by the
biographies and letters of its actors to be fictitious. ii. 77.
Summary of their condition and treatment. ii. 123.
Changes of their relation and condition by the Declaration of
Independence. ii. 124.
The elements of their affectionate attachment to England. ii. 125.
The largest part of the population of the Colonies after the Declaration
of Independence. ii. 124.
Their claims to have their rights and liberties restored. ii. 125.
Their position and character, described by Mr. Hildreth, and
abused by mobs and oppressed by new Acts, and authorities. ii. 125.
First scene of severity against them; new American maxim of forgiving
"Tories." ii. 127.
Their treatment in New York, Philadelphia, Virginia, and other
places. ii. 128.
Legislative and executive acts against them. ii. 130-136.
Rhode Island, Connecticut. ii. 130.
Massachusetts. ii. 131.
New Hampshire, Virginia, New York. ii. 131.
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware. ii. 132.
Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia. ii. 132.
South Carolina. ii. 136.
Their treatment on their applications for compensation after the
Revolution. ii. 139-144.
Their treatment by the British Government and Parliament after
the Revolution. ii. 159-182.
Refused compensation by the States of America, as proposed in the
Treaty of Peace, and contrary to the practice of civilized
nations. ii. 159.
Their compensation advocated in both Houses of Parliament. ii. 160, 163.
Their agents in England; proceedings of Parliamentary Commission;
results. ii. 166-182
Driven from the United States to the British Provinces; and sketches
of twenty-three of them. ii. 191-204.
Dr. Canniff's account of their first settlement on the North shore
of the St. Lawrence and in the country around and West of
Kingston. ii. 203-208.
Their adventures, sufferings, and first settlement in Canada,
privations and labours, as written by themselves and their
descendants. ii. 206-270.
(See table of contents, chapter xli.)
Loyalists--New penal laws passed against them after the Declaration
of Independence. ii. 5.
Loyalists, in Massachusetts, who maintain in the Court and among the
people, the Royal authority. i. 162.
The true Liberals of that day. i. 152.
Lundy's Lane--Battle of. ii. 438.
Marsden (Rev. J.W.). i. 298.
Maryland General Assembly's reply to the message of the Lt. Governor
on Lord Hillsborough's circular. i. 344.
Massachusetts and other Colonial grateful acknowledgments to England
for deliverance from the French and Spaniards. i. 27.
Massachusetts Bay Rulers persecute the Baptists, etc. i. 87.
Prohibit writing or speaking in favour of the King as a capital offence,
but authorize it in favour of the Parliament. i. 87.
Petition Parliament in 1651, and address Cromwell in 1651, 1654. i. 108.
Massachusetts Bay Rulers' treatment of Cromwell at his death, and their
professions in regard to Cromwell and Charles the Second at his
restoration. i. 124.
They evade the conditions on which the King promised to continue the
Charter, and deny the King's jurisdiction. i. 149.
They present a long address to the King, and enclose copies of it,
with letters to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the Earl of Manchester,
Lord Say, and the Hon. Robert Boyle. i. 152.
Massachusetts Bay Rulers aggressors throughout upon the rights of the
Sovereign and of their fellow-subjects. i. 75.
They side with the Long Parliament and Cromwell; their first address
and commissioners to. i. 86.
They pass Acts for publication in England, and then adopt measures to
prevent their execution in Massachusetts--such as the Navigation Act,
Oath of Allegiance, the Franchise, Liberty of Worship, and Persecution
of the Baptists and Quakers. i. 195.
They bribe Clerks in the Privy Council, and offer a bribe to the
King. i. 205.
Their double game played out. i. 204.
Massachusetts circular displeasing to the British Ministry. i. 341.
Circular from Lord Hillsborough, Secretary of State for the
Colonies. i. 341.
Massachusetts compensated by Parliament. i. 267.
Benefited by the English and French war. i. 270.
Massachusetts General Assembly refuse to legislate under the guns of
a land and naval force. i. 357.
General Assembly--Its proceedings on the quartering of troops in
Boston. i. 358.
Massachusetts never acknowledged the Act of Parliament changing its
constitution without its consent. i. 407.
Its proceedings before the affairs of Lexington and Concord to enlist
the Indians. ii. 79.
Massachusetts Legislative Assembly's noble circular to the Assemblies
of other Colonies, on the unconstitutional and oppressive acts of
the British Parliament. i. 338.
Massachusetts--Seed-plot of the American Revolution. i. 1.
First emigration to. i. 1.
Mahon (Lord)--His reflections on the American contest; apology for
George III.; unhappiness of the Americans since the Revolution;
unity of the Anglo-Saxon race. ii. 154.
Mather (Rev. Dr. Increase) makes a violent speech--appeals from man
to God--decision against him. i. 209.
His proceedings in England, i. 226.
Fails to get the first Charter restored. i. 228.
First protests against the second Royal Charter, then thanks King
William for it. i. 229.
Merritt (Thomas). ii. 196.
McDonald (Alexander). ii. 195.
McGill (John). 196.
McGillis (Donald). ii. 196.
McNab (Allan). ii. 202.
Moneys provided for the war, abstracted from England and expended
in the Colonies. i. 270.
Montcalm, French General, captures Forts Oswego and William Henry. i. 253.
Morris (Roger). ii. 200.
Montreal besieged and taken from the French. i. 267.
Navigation Act passed by the Long Parliament in 1651, oppressive to the
Southern Colonies, but regularly evaded in Massachusetts by collusion
with Cromwell. i. 111.
Neal (the Puritan historian) deprecates the persecutions by the
Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 120.
Newark (now Niagara)--Seat of Government of Upper Canada first established
there. ii. 308.
Burned by the Americans. ii. 423.
New England--Two distinct emigrations to. i. 1.
Two separate Governments in for seventy years, and characteristics
of each. i. 1.
New Plymouth--Original name of--first Sabbath in. i. 7.
First mild winter and early vegetation at. i. 8.
First "Harvest-home." i. 9.
Their government, toleration, oath of allegiance, loyalty. i. 15.
Their answers to the King's Commissioners. i. 18.
The melancholy end of their government. i. 22.
The loyalty and enterprise of their descendants. i. 23.
Ancestors of English Peers. i. 23.
New York--First Act of Parliament against. i. 329.
New York Legislature, which had not endorsed the first continental
Congress, in 1774, now petitions Parliament on the subject of
Colonial grievances; but its petition, presented by Mr. Burke,
defended by Mr. Fox and others, is refused to be received, on motion
of Lord North, by a majority of 186 to 67, and the Lords reject the
same petition. i. 434-440.
Niagara (Newark) taken from the French by the English. i. 263.
Nineteen years' evasion by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers of the conditions
on which King Charles II. promised to perpetuate their Charter. i. 193.
North (Lord)--His Bill to repeal the Colonial Revenue Acts, except the
duty on tea. i. 368.
His agreement with the East India Company rouses and intensifies
opposition in America. i. 371.
Combined opposition to it by English merchants and the Colonists. i. 372.
Explains his American policy. i. 394.
His resolution for address to the King, 1775, endorsing the coercive
policy, and denouncing Colonial complaints as "rebellion;" debates
on it. i. 426-429.
Second great debate in the Commons on his warlike resolution. i. 430.
His address made the joint address of both Houses of Parliament; the
King's reply. i. 431.
Lord North's proposed resignation and preparations for it. ii. 8.
Defeat of his Administration. ii. 51.
Opinions of Lords Macaulay and Mahon on the success of a Commission
recommended by the Earl of Chatham. ii. 8.
Origin of non-importation agreement in New York; sanctioned by persons
in the highest stations. i. 360.
Origin of republicanism and hatred of monarchy in America. ii. 66.
Paine (Tom)--His appeal to the Colonists, called _Common Sense_, the first
publication in America against monarchy. i. 450.
Author of republicanism and hatred of monarchy in America; his character
and writings, and their effects. ii. 66-72.
Palfrey's and other New England historians' unfair statements and unjust
imputations against the British Government of that time. i. 190, 211.
Parliament--Its authority over the Colonies. i. 317.
Three Bills passed by, to raise a revenue in the Colonies. i. 331.
Parliament passes an Act (1775) to punish the Colonies for countenancing
Massachusetts. i. 433.
Parliament passes oppressive Acts in 1775 and 1776, with measures for
employing foreign soldiers, Indians, and slaves against the complaining
Colonists. i. 459.
Parliament passes no Act to authorize peace with America for three months
after the accession of the new Ministry. ii. 54.
Parliament votes £115,000 sterling to compensate the Colonies for expenses
incurred by them. i. 252.
Parties--Origin of political parties at Massachusetts Bay. i. 209.
Petitions and representations to the King from Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, Baptists, etc., in Massachusetts Bay, on their
persecutions and disfranchisement by the local Government. i. 137.
Petitions from various towns in England, Scotland, and Ireland against
Lord North's coercive American policy. i. 425.
Pilgrim Fathers--who. i. 2.
Their settlement, and residence of 12 years in Holland. i. 3.
Long to be under the English Government. i. 3.
Cross the Atlantic in the _Mayflower_. i. 3.
Where intended to settle in America, i. 4
What known of Cape Cod before the Pilgrims landed. i. 4.
Their agreement and constitution of government before landing. i. 5.
Remarks upon it by Messrs. Bancroft and Young. i. 6.
Inflated American accounts of their voyage. i. 7.
Their first "Harvest-home." i. 9.
Pitt (afterwards Earl of Chatham) changes the whole fortune of the war
with the French in America in favour of England. i. 260.
Policy of the British Ministry in employing foreign soldiers and Indians,
deprecated by all classes in Europe and America. ii. 72-74.
Pownall (Governor)--His speech and amendment in the House of Commons to
repeal the duty on tea; rejected by a majority 242 to 204. i. 361.
Preface--The reason and objects of writing the history of the Loyalists
of America. i. 3-5.
Protests and Loyal Petitions of the Colonists against English
Parliamentary Acts to raise a revenue in the Colonies. i. 337.
Puritan authorities alone adduced in this historical discussion. i. 59.
Puritan letters suppressed by the biographer of Governor Winthrop. i. 59.
Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Company. i. 24.
Their Charter and settlement in 1629. i. 23.
Their intolerance. i. 24.
Their wealth and trade. i. 25.
Their enterprise under two aspects. i. 26.
Professed members of the Church of England when they left England. i. 26.
Puritan treatment of the Indians. i. 298.
Puritan legal opinions in England on the constant violation of the first
Charter by the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 233.
Quebec taken by General Wolfe. i. 263.
Queenston Heights--Battle of. ii. 365-8.
Quo Warranto--Notice of sent to the Rulers of Massachusetts Bay in July,
1683, to answer to thirteen complaints against them for violating the
Royal Charter; received in October, 1683; judgment given July, 1685,
nearly two years afterwards. i. 208-211.
Remonstrances of the Rev. Drs. Owen, T. Goodwin, and other Nonconformist
ministers in England against the persecutions by the Massachusetts Bay
Puritans. i. 185.
Retrospect of the transactions between Charles I. and II. and the
Massachusetts Bay Rulers from 1630 to 1666, with extracts of
correspondence. i. 171.
Revolution--Principal characteristics of it, and the feeling which should
now be cultivated by both of the former contending parties; by
J.M. Ludlow. ii. 145.
Richardson (Rev. James)--Letter by. ii. 208.
Robinson (Beverley). ii. 196.
Robinson (Christopher). ii. 198.
Robinson (Sir J.B.). ii. 199.
Robinson (Sir C.K.P.). ii. 199.
Robinson (Morris). ii. 199.
Robinson (John). ii. 200.
Rockingham (Marquis of)--His death and its consequences. ii. 53.
Royal Charter (second) by William and Mary; nine principal provisions of
it, establishing for the first time civil and religious liberty in
Massachusetts. i. 229-233.
Royal Charter to Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 28.
Its provisions. i. 30.
Violated by the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 33.
Transferred from England to Massachusetts Bay, and the fact concealed
for four years. i. 69.
Royal Commission issued to examine into the complaints made against
the Massachusetts Bay Rulers--conduct of parties. i. 72.
Royal Commissioners' Report on the Colony of Massachusetts Bay; twenty
anomalies in its laws inconsistent with the Royal Charter; evades the
conditions of the promised continuance of the Charter; denies the
King's jurisdiction. i. 149.
Royal Patriotic Society of Upper Canada and its doings. ii. 464.
Royal Speech on meeting Parliament, October 26th, 1775, and discussions
upon it. i. 474.
Ryerse (Rev. George)--Letter by. ii. 226.
Ryerse (Colonel Samuel). ii. 229.
Ryerson (Colonel Joseph). ii. 257.
Salaries of officials paid independent of the Colonies--cause of
dissatisfaction. i. 366.
Saltonstall (Sir Richard) remonstrates against the persecutions by
the Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 116.
Scadding (Rev. Dr.)--Sketch by. ii. 259.
Second Charter--Its happy influence upon toleration, loyalty, peace,
and unity of society in Massachusetts. i. 237.
Seven years of war and bloodshed prevented, had Congress in 1776
adhered to its previous professions. ii. 56.
Shelburne (Earl of)--Correspondence with Dr. Franklin on negotiations
for peace. ii. 54.
Simcoe (General Graves)--First Governor of Upper Canada. ii. 308.
Soldiers--The humiliating position of soldiers in Boston. i. 360.
Insulted, abused, and collisions with the inhabitants. i. 365.
Spain joins France against England in 1779. ii. 28.
Spohn (Mrs. E.B.)--Paper by. ii. 264.
Stamp Act and its effects in America. i. 283.
Virginia leads the opposition against it. i. 287.
Riots in Boston against it. i. 288.
Petitions in England against it. i. 291.
Its repeal and rejoicings at it. i. 323.
Extracts from speeches respecting it by Charles Townsend and Colonel
Barré, and remarks upon them. i. 296.
Extracts from the speeches of Lords Chatham and Camden on the passing
and repeal of the Stamp Act. i. 302.
Summary of events from its repeal, March, 1766, to the end of the
year. i. 323-336.
Statements of the historians Hutchinson and Neal on the persecutions by
the Massachusetts Bay Puritans. i. 185.
Story (Judge) on the happy influence of the second Charter, and
improved legislation and progress of the Colony under it. i. 235.
Tea Duty Act virtually defeated in America. i. 370.
Opposition to it represented in England as "rebellion," and the
advocates of Colonial rights as "rebels" and "traitors." i. 388.
Tea--Duty of threepence per pound, to be paid in America into the
British Treasury, continued. i. 363.
Three Acts of Parliament passed to remove all grounds of complaint
on the part of the Colonists. ii. 6.
Ticonderago taken by the English. i. 263.
Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States; rights
and interests of the Loyalists sacrificed by it; omissions in it;
protests against it in Parliament. ii. 164, 165.
Vane (Sir Henry) remonstrates against the persecutions by the
Massachusetts Bay Rulers. i. 116.
Vice-Admiralty Courts and the Navy employed as custom-house offices
in the Colonies. i. 331.
Virginia House of Burgess's admirable answer to the Massachusetts
Circular, 1668, and similar replies from other Colonies. i. 342, 343.
Rejects Lord North's so-called "conciliatory proposition" to the
Colonies. i. 464.
Its traditional loyalty of Virginians, and their aversion to revolutions;
but resolved to defend their rights. i. 464.
Remonstrate with Lord Dunmore for leaving the seat of his government
and going on board of a vessel; assure him and his family of perfect
safety by remaining at Williamsburg. i. 467.
Are horror-struck at Lord Dunmore's threat and proclamation to free
the slaves. i. 465.
Moved by his fears, goes on board of ship, twelve miles from the seat
of government. i. 466.
Attempts to destroy the town of Hampton; reduces to ashes the town of
Norfolk, then the first commercial city in Virginia. i. 467, 471.
His conduct unlawful and inhuman; English accounts of his
conduct. i. 470, 472.
War formally declared between England and France in 1756. i. 252.
War party and corrupt Administration defeated in the House of
Commons, 1782. ii. 49.
War by the United States against Great Britain, 1812-1815. ii. 316-330.
(See table of contents, chapters xlvii., xlviii., xlix., l., li., lii.,
liii., liv., lv., lvi., lvii., lviii.)
War--Close of; remarks; conclusion.
(See table of contents, chapter lx.)
Washington--Weakness of his army and depression of American finances
in 1778. ii. 32.
His despondency without funds. ii. 41.
With the French commander plans an expedition to the South. ii. 42.
His skill and courage. ii. 47.
Washington recommended by Dunwiddie, Governor of Virginia, but his
services are not recognized. i. 257.
Washington, under date of July 27th, 1776, recommends the employment
of the Indians in the Revolutionary Cause. ii. 80.
Watts (Rev. Isaac)--A remarkable letter from him addressed to the
Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, explanatory of Neal's History of New
England, on "the persecuting principles and practices of the first
planters," and urging the formal repeal of the "cruel and sanguinary
statutes" which had been passed by the Massachusetts Bay Court under
the first Charter. i. 239.
White (Rev. John), projector and founder of the Massachusetts Bay
Settlement. i. 26-28.
Wolfe (General)--His heroism at Louisburg. i. 262.
Takes Quebec. i. 263.
Wyoming--The massacre of, original inflated accounts of. ii. 85.
Four versions of it, by accredited American historians--Dr. Ramsay,
Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Hildreth. ii. 85-90.
Discrepancies in four essential particulars of these four
accounts. ii. 92.
Supplementary remarks upon, by the author of the Life of Joseph
Brant, etc. ii. 94.
Massacre (alleged) of Wyoming--American retaliation for. ii. 99-106.
(See table of contents, chapter xxxv.)
END OF VOL. I.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Loyalists of America and Their Times, Vol. 1 of 2. - From 1620-1816" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.