THE TRUE HISTORY OF
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY SYDNEY GEORGE FISHER
V
THE TEA EPISODE
BEFORE the passage of the paint, paper, and glass act
tea had been taxed on its arrival in England
at the high
rate of a shilling per pound. When any of the tea was
shipped from England
to the colonies, the colonists, of
course, paid this tax in the enhanced price of the tea.
Hutchinson, the governor of Massachusetts, suggested
that
all colonial taxation be made in that way, the tax levied
and collected before the goods
left England, which would
be as external as it was possible
to make a tax, and the
colonists might be persuaded
not to call it taxation.
This expensive tea, which paid
a shilling per pound
duty in England, did not trouble the colonists, because
they smuggled all the tea they wanted from Holland. It
was in the hope of breaking up this smuggling and encouraging
the sale of English
tea that Parliament,
in the
paint, paper, and glass act, struck off the shilling duty,
and on all tea sent to the colonies placed a duty of only
threepence per pound
to be paid
in the colonial ports.
Thus the colonists would pay
nine cents per pound less
tax, the sale of tea from English provinces
in the far East,
and especially the tea of the great East India Company,
would be promoted,
the immoral smuggling of the Americans
checked, and everybody made happy.
Some of this threepence-per-pound
tea seems to have
been imported and the duty paid. But because the duty
was a direct tax, associations or clubs were formed whose
members agreed not to drink it. Merchants were applauded
for not importing it, and encouraged
to smuggle the Holland tea, and the smuggling, being very profitable,
was regularly and extensively practised.*
*
Brake,
' Tea-Leaves,
"
pp. 193, 196, 201
; Hutchinson,
"
History
of Massachusetts," vol. iii. pp. 331, 332, 351, 422; "Free Thoughts
on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress," p. 10, New York,
1774.
There was, therefore, every
reason why the patriots
should be content for the present ;
for they were successfully
defeating England and the tea act by their old
methods, and their merchants were growing rich by smuggling.
The loyalists afterwards said that the trifling tea
tax would soon have become obsolete, and some liberally
inclined ministry would have repealed
it. Colonial taxation
had been abandoned, was dying a natural death,# and
harmony was returning, they said, if both England and
the Americans would only be careful and forbearing.
#fRyerson, "American Loyalists,"
vol. i. p. 371
; Hutchinson,
"History of Massachusetts,"
vol. iii, p. 331
But the harmony that was returning could only be continued
by letting the colonies alone, and, as they
increased
in population and wealth, letting them pass more and
more into absolute independence. The colonists were now
quiet, because British authority was not established among
them
;
it had been defied and beaten
,-
the remodelling
begun some seven years
before had failed
;
and even smuggling
could not be suppressed. Could England endure this
state of affairs and allow it to drift into absolute separation
? Wedderburn is reported
to have said in Parliament
at this time that the colonies were already
lost to the
crown.
The government could not refrain from discussing the
"
disorders in America," and attempting some slight remedies,
especially in that hot-bed of sedition, Massachusetts.
It was decided, as a first step, that the crown should pay
the salaries of the governor and judges.
It seemed also well for the present
to ignore
or suspend
that provision
in
the Massachusetts charter which provided
that all troops,
even the regulars, should be under the control of the governor.
It seemed better to place such troops under a
military officer, who could more properly
decide whether
they should be moved here or there as "Sam Adams" or
a rebel committee might
direct.
A great deal has been written on this violation of the
charter of Massachusetts. It is useless to debate the
question. If you are an Englishman, and believe independence
a crime, and that the colonies should have been saved
from independence, you will see in this violation merely a
military or British necessity. If you are a patriot, and
believe independence and self-government
to be natural
rights, you will see in the violation an atrocious crime.
The practical question was how far this sort of thing
might go before it would produce an outbreak. The patriot
party was quiet, but very
inflammable. Its radical
leaders were hard at work. Samuel Adams began
to carry
out his idea of organizing
the rebellion by means of committees
of correspondence,
at first among the Massachusetts
towns
;
afterwards throughout
the country. We find
the Boston Gazette of November 2, 1772, threatening
that, unless
"
their liberties are immediately restored," they "
will form an independent commonwealth." By the system
of correspondence among the patriots town committees
and various bodies were drawing up
lists of the laws England
must repeal and the positions from which she must
recede. She must withdraw even the right
to tax
;
and
they went on enumerating every objection, great and
small, until their lists were in effect a complete
denial of
British sovereignty. They were ordering
the British government
off the continent.
In June, 1772, the revenue cutter
"
Gaspec" was seized in Narragansett Bay by the people of Rhode Island and
burned. The lieutenant of this cutter had been trying
to
enforce the revenue laws. Like other officers on the
coast, he found it very
difficult to catch any one in the act
of smuggling. He seized the property of people who were
suddenly found to be innocent; and he acted altogether
very indiscreetly in the opinion of the people of Rhode
Island. But the method adopted
of repressing him, by
seizing and burning
one of the king's ships, did not
strike the British government as the sort of conduct to be
expected of a dependency. A commission was sent to
Providence to inquire
into the matter
;
and there was talk
of sending colonists to England
to be tried
;
but nothing
was done
;
no severe measures taken. It is difficult to see
how the government
could have been more conciliatory
and forbearing. They professed
to believe that such
outrages were brought
about by "the artifices of a
few."
England might have refrained still longer from forcing
an outbreak, if that great corporation, the East India
Company, had not brought
a pressure on the government
which could not be resisted. The company was at that
time in a bad condition, and was generally supposed
to
be bankrupt. Its stock was rapidly depreciating, and the
fall of such a vast concern would precipitate a financial
panic. In fact, the great company
had already sunk so
low that the panic was thought
to have begun. Firms
were going bankrupt, and merchants, manufacturers, and
traders suffering. It seemed quite absurd to Englishmen,
that the company could not sell its tea in colonies that
belonged to England,
while Holland sold in those colonies
thousands of pounds
of tea every year. There was,
in fact, laid up in warehouses in England
seventeen million
pounds of the East India Company's
tea for which there was no demand, because of the smuggling practices
of those dreadful American colonists.
The East India Company and the government were
closely allied. The company, besides paying
into the
exchequer 400,000 per year, was really a branch of the
government for the control of India
;
and it afterwards
became merged in a department
of the government. Accordingly
the ministry made an arrangement with the
company which to them seemed quite
reasonable.
The East India Company's
tea had to pay duty on its
arrival in England ;
but three-fifths of this duty was remitted
or drawn back, as the expression was, when the tea
was exported to the colonies. It was now proposed
that
all of this duty should be remitted on exportation
to
America, so that the East India Company could undersell
the tea which the colonists smuggled from the Dutch.
Accordingly an act of Parliament was passed, May 10,
1773, remitting the duty, and the East India Company
freighted ships with tea to Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
and Charleston.
Looked at in cold blood,
it was a rather amusing and
very English device for helping
out the bankrupt
company,
coaxing the colonists to accept English
taxed tea,
and, if possible, stopping by ingenuity
the smuggling
that could not be stopped by revenue-cutters, boards of
commissioners, troops, and men-of-war. It was so far
from being tyrannous and cruel that it was pitiable;
pitiable for a proud
nation to bo reduced to such straits.
The colonists had the whole summer and most of the
autumn of 1773 to think over the matter, for the teaships
did not begin
to arrive until November. The
patriots in all the colonies were determined that the
tea should not be sold. They wished also to prevent
it
being landed, for, if landed,
the duty of threepence per pound might be paid and the plan
of the king and the
ministry would be partially
successful.
There was now an opportunity
for agitation, and the
radical leaders bestirred themselves. The committees of
correspondence worked upon the people
all over the
country. Some of the newspapers openly
advocated independence.
The attacks upon
the East India Company as
a soulless corporation and an inhuman monopoly
remind
us of the language
of our own times.
If such a company,
it was said, once got a foothold in
America, it would trade in other articles besides tea, and
drive American merchants out of business. A printed
handbill* was circulated in Pennsylvania describing the
company's shocking
deeds of plunder and cruelty
in India,
and arguing that it would overwhelm America with the
same rapacity and slaughter
that had been inflicted on the
unfortunate East Indians. Franklin's old friend, the
Bishop of St. Asaph, prepared
a speech
for the House of
Lords, denouncing the government for turning
loose upon
the Americans a corporation with such a record of bloodshed
and tyranny.
*
It was addressed
"
To the Tradesmen and Mechanics of Pennsylvania.
' J
Copies are now rare. The one I have examined is in the
collection of JVtr. Joseph Y. Jeanes,
of Philadelphia
It was at this time that Samuel Adams and the more
ardent patriots took the next step in their plan, and suggested
a union of all the colonies in a congress. The
Boston Gazette had been openly suggesting independence
for over a year. It now demanded a "Congress
of
American States to frame a bill of rights," or to
"
form an
independent state, an American commonwealth"# All this
was treason, under English law, and in a modern English
colony would be severely punished and repressed. The boldness and impunity
with, which it was done show the
effect of the conciliatory policy and the weakness of England.
# Hosmer,
ct Life of Samuel Adams,'' p. 238.
Some of the patriots of the type of Gushing,
of Massachusetts,
or Reed and Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, advocated
caution. We were not yet strong enough,
not
sufficiently united or sufficiently numerous, for a dash for
independence. But Samuel Adams would have no delay.
He was for forcing a conflict
; striking
at once
; for, said
he,
"
when our liberty
is gone, history and experience
will
teach us that an increase of inhabitants will be but an
increase of slaves."
The majority of the patriots were apparently
for moderation,
and had they had their way this episode would
have been tided over. Their plan was quietly
to prevent
the landing and payment of duty on the tea
;
send it all
back to England, and thus show that the tea act, the last
remnant of the taxation system begun eight years before,
was a failure. The act would then soon be repealed and
taxation never again be attempted.
It must be confessed
that there were plausible
reasons for supposing
that this
plan might have accomplished peaceful independence.
"Our natural increase in wealth and population,"
said
Gushing,
"
will in a course of years
settle this dispute
in
our favor."
On the other hand, Samuel Adams and the radicals had
strong grounds for believing
that the course of years
would not necessarily bring independence without a war
to settle it. England would not finally recognize
the
absolute independence of the colonies without fighting.
No nation had ever done so. The inherent right of a
naturally separated people
to be independent according
to
the rights of man, might
be just and sound, but no nation
has as yet recognized
its justice. As there must be a fight, it was better, the radicals thought,
to have it now at
once while our people were hot and England was so weak.*
England might settle the taxation question satisfactorily,
and in the future settle the smuggling question, and be
so conciliatory that the mass of people, no matter how
numerous they became, would forget the past and be content
to live along under an easy yoke or with a sort of
semi-independence.
* For several years the argument had "been insinuated that the
weak, debt-ridden state of England had "been ordained in the providence
of God to give us a chance for independence. Hosmer, "Life
of Samuel Adams," p. 134.
The extravagant and even bombastic rhetoric that was
used in speeches and resolutions to stir the people
out of
this easy frame of mind was commented on by English
writers like Dean Tucker as showing not only the bad
taste and vulgarity of the Americans, but the insincerity
of the independence movement.
The tea-ships which came to Charleston, Philadelphia,
and New York were handled by the moderate patriots.
The Charleston ship
arrived December 2. The consignees
were induced to resign; but nothing more was
done. The twenty days expired ;
the tea was seized by
the customs officers and offered for sale to pay the duty ;
but no one would buy it
;
it could not be sold, and was
stored in damp cellars until useless. From the point of
view of the moderate patriots
this was a proper way of
solving the difficulty. It was perfectly lawful
;
there was
no violence
;
the British government
could make no complaint,
and yet the tea act, the duty, and the plan
of the
East India Company were killed as dead as Caesar.
At Philadelphia, printed circulars, some of which are
still preserved, were sent to all the Delaware River pilots,
reminding them in rather significant language
not to bring any tea-ships up to the town, Nevertheless, a tea-ship got
up the river as far as Chester. A town meeting was held
and a committee went down to Chester to talk to the
captain and the consignee. They used such well-chosen
words that the next day
the ship
sailed down the river
and returned to England.*
*
Pennsylvania Magazine of History,
vol. xv. p. 385
In a similar way the consignees
at New York resigned
and sent the tea back
;
and some tea that arrived at Portsmouth,
New Hampshire, was sent away to Halifax. But
the three tea-ships which came into Boston harbor fell
into the hands of Samuel Adams and his followers, and
then the trouble began.
The consignees in this case were five in number, including
the two sons of Hutchinson,
the governor, who,
like their father, were devoted loyalists, believing
in the
supremacy of the British empire, and regarding American
independence as a delusion and a crime. They would not
resign. Town meetings were held upon them, committees
visited them, violence was threatened, but they were firm.
They did not, however, attempt
to land the cargoes. The
patriots placed a guard
over the ships, and six horsemen
held themselves ready
to alarm the country towns. The
radicals were determined to begin
the active revolution at
this point.
The owners and the captains of the ships were willing
to take the tea back to England,
but the custom-house
officers would not give
the ships a clearance until they had
discharged their tea. Governor Hutchinson gave instructions
that no ship should be allowed to pass the castle outward
bound unless it had a permit, and he would not issue
a permit unless the vessel first showed a clearance. Meanwhile,
during these disputes the twenty days were passing.
Some patriots advised moderation, and there was a strong loyalist minority. But the party
of violence was in the
ascendant
;
the town was placarded with liberty posters ;
riders were posting back and forth from the neighboring
towns, and the country people were beginning
to flock into
Boston.
The common statements in some of our histories that
Governor Hutchinson was the vacillating and cowardly
agent of tyranny are utterly without foundation. If he
had been cowardly, he would have given
the ships a permit,
let them return to England, and thus have postponed
the Revolution for another three or four years. He acted
consistently with his own opinions and the conciliatory
policy of the government. He abstained from any use of
the men-of-war in the harbor or of the two
"
Sam Adams"
regiments that were still down at the castle, where
"
Sam"
had put them. He allowed the patriots themselves to guard
the tea-ships. The war-ships
or the soldiers could have
taken possession of the tea-ships and prevented
all that
happened. But British sovereignty was on this occasion a
mere spectator and visitor in its own dominions.
The difficulty might have been settled as in Charleston,
by allowing the customs officials to seize the tea at the end
of the twenty days. No one would have had the temerity
to buy it, and it would then have been stored till it rotted.
In fact, the consignees
offered to have it stored until they
should receive instructions from the East India Company
what to do with it. But Adams and his people were too
hot to take such chances. They were planning an outbreak,
a truly Boston and Massachusetts outbreak which
would be self-restrained, and yet sufficiently violent to force
both England and America to an open
contest on the one
great question which lay beneath all the past eight years of
wrangling.
They prepared everything
for action on the night
of the 16th of December, because two days
after that the twenty
days' limit would expire on the
"
Dartmouth" which had
been the first ship to arrive. Seven thousand people
filled
the Old South Meeting House on that afternoon, while
Hotch, the Quaker owner of the
"
Dartmouth" drove out
to Milton to Governor Hutchinson's country place, to ask
him for a permit to pass
the castle. Every one knew or
felt confident that the permit would be refused
;
so that
this meeting cannot be called a deliberative one.
Darkness came on, and still the meeting
waited. At
last Hotch returned, and made the formal announcement
that the permit had been refused, Samuel Adams arose
and gave the signal that had evidently been agreed upon :
"
This meeting can do nothing more to save the country."
Immediately, as has been so often related, the war whoop
was heard, or resounded, I believe,
is the usual expression,
outside the door. Some forty or fifty men, painted and
disguised as Indians, and with hatchets in their hands,
suddenly appeared from some place where they had been
waiting, and rushed down to the tea-ships, directly encouraged
by Adams, Hancock, and the other patriots.
The crowd formed around them as a protection, and posted
guards about the wharf to prevent
interference while the
Indians worked with their hatchets. It is said that the
vast crowd was perfectly silent, a most respectful Boston
silence, and not a sound could be heard for three hours
save the cracking of the hatchets on the chests of tea in
all three ships.*
* There was not the slightest attempt by the governor,
the fleet, or
the army to interfere with the work of the mob. The admiral of the
fleet is said to have stood in the street as the crowd returned, goodnaturedly
joked with them, and said that having had their sport they
might soon have to pay the piper
At the end of that time every pound
of tea was in the water, and the proceedings, so like a great deal of our lynch
law, were ended. It was a serious business for the people
concerned
;
but now that we are too far away to feel the
seriousness it seems really comical. The most comical
part of it was that the Indians claimed particular
credit
for not having injured any other property on the ships, and
declared that
"
all things were conducted with great order,
decency, and perfect submission to government." Our
ancestors had a fine sense of humor.
From the point of view of Samuel Adams, I suppose
there never was a piece of liberty or revolutionary rioting
that was so sagaciously and accurately
calculated to effect
its purpose, and not go
too far. If it had been very
violent disorder, or brutality,
it might have alienated
moderate or doubtful patriots whom it was important
to
win over. But it was so neat, gentle, pretty, and comical
that to this day it can be described in school-books without
much danger of the children at once seeing that it was a
riotious breach of the peace, a lawless violation of the
rights of private property, and an open
defiance of governmental
authority. In England, however,
the violence of
it was sufficiently apparent
to break up
for a time the conciliatory
policy and to bring upon the Massachusetts colonists
such punishment
as the radical patriots hoped would
arouse the fighting spirit.*
*Hosmer,
"
Life of Samuel Adams, p. 243; Hutchinson, "History
of Massachusetts," vol. iii. p. 423; Barry, Massachusetts,"
chap. xiv.
; Ranosay,
" American Revolution," vol. i. chap, iii.;
Holmes,
"
Annals,
"
vol. ii. p. 181; "The Origin of the American
Contest with Great Britain," p. 39, New York, 1775.
It is possible that it was intended as an example which
would be followed in one or two other colonies, and thus
bring on a general punishment
that would arouse them
all; but that did not happen.
It had no effect on the Philadelphia's, who, more than a week afterwards, quietly
and without any violence, sent their tea-ship back to England.
The time on the Charleston ship expired December
22, and they also, as we have shown, acted moderately.
The British government
could have nothing
to say against
the action of those colonies, and the whole punishment was
directed against Massachusetts.
It was a great event for Samuel Adams; and who
was this Samuel Adams, who is so conspicuous
in this
part of the Revolution, and later on almost disappears
from view? The portrait we have of him, which has
often been reproduced, represents what would seem to
be a stout, handsomely dressed, prosperous merchant,
with a very firm chin and jaw, proud
of his wealth
and success, and proud
of his long-tested ability in business.
Unfortunately,
the only part of this portrait which
is true to life is that iron-like jaw. Samuel Adams was
not a merchant, was seldom well dressed, was not at all
proud, and never rich. He was always poor. He failed
in his malting business, was unthrifty and careless with
money, and had, in fact, no liking for, or ability in, any
business except politics. He lived with his family
in a
dilapidated house on Purchase Street, and when in 1774
he was elected a delegate
to the Continental Congress
at
Philadelphia, his admirers had to furnish the money to
make him look respectable.
"However some may despise him, he has certainly very many
friends. For not long since, some persons (their names unknown)
sent and asked his permission to build him a new barn, the old one
being decayed, which was executed in a few days. A second sent to
ask leave to repair his house, which was thoroughly effected soon.
A third sent to beg the favor of him to call at a tailor's shop, and be
measured for a suit of clothes, and choose his cloth, which were finished
and sent home for his acceptance. A fourth presented him with a
new wig, a fifth with a new hat, a sixth with six pairs of the best silk hose, a seventh, with six pairs of fine thread ditto, an eighth -with six
pairs of shoes, and a ninth modestly inquired of him whether his
finances were not rather low than otherwise. He replied it was true
that was the case, but he was very indifferent about these matters, so
that his poor abilities were of any service to the public upon which
the gentleman obliged him to accept a purse containing about fifteen
or twenty Johannes. ' '
Hosmer,
' ' Life of Samuel Adams,
' '
p. 308.
All this assistance Adams was not too proud
to accept.
He had long been engaged
in small local politics, and when
tax-collector had been short in his accounts and threatened
with ruin.* The patriots, of course, forgave him this
lapse, which was not repeated ;
but Englishmen and loyalists
never forgot it. "When coupled with his shiffclessness
and shabbiness and the gifts of money and clothes to make
him presentable in the Congress,
it is easy
to understand
the indignation, contempt, and disgust which were entertained
for him by those who were opposed
to the rebellion.
Such a disloyal and dishonest movement, they would say,
naturally had a shabby rascal for its leader.
*
Hosmer,
"
Life of Samuel Adams," pp. 37-47, 240.
On the other hand, Adams was a man of good education,
and the public documents he prepared show considerable
ability. His speeches, though
at times somewhat turgid
and violent, seem to have been well suited to their purpose.
He was a most competent politician and a good organizer
of agitation. He understood the temper
of the people from
the bottom up, and was so skilful in drawing
the shipcaulkers
into the revolution movement that some trace to
this source the origin of our word caucus. An account of
his language and advice to such people,
to fight England,
to
"
destroy every soldier that dare put
his foot on shore,"
and that
"
we shall have it in our power to give laws to
England," has been preserved, and by the English law it
was pure treason,#
# Ibid., p. 117.
Adams had also a constitutional tremulousness of his
head and hands, which did not improve loyalist opinion of
him. He was one of those men whom we call a devoted
and enlightened patriot, or slippery scoundrel, conspirator,
and fanatic, according
as we are on the side of the government
or of the rebellion. His best ability was shown in
agitation in the early stages of the Revolution,
in attending
to the small details of organization, while men of larger
capacity were still partially absorbed in their business or
professions.
That charmingly ingenuous
statement that all the
hatchet work on the tea-ships had been done
"
in perfect
submission to government" had no mitigating
effect in England.
The destruction by a mob of over 15,000 worth
of tea, the private property of the East India Company,
awoke Parliament from its dream of conciliation. That
the mob had been guided by respectable and wealthy men
like Hancock, Molineaux, Warren, and Young, who prevented
uproar and noise and enforced decency and order,
made it all the worse in English eyes. Parliament and
the ministry resolved at all hazards and at any cost to
establish British sovereignty
in America. Leniency and
conciliation had been carried too far.
January and February passed, and during March, 1774,
Parliament debated the punishment
that should be inflicted
on Boston for this
"
unpardonable outrage," obviously
leading
"
the way to the destruction of the freedom of commerce
in all parts of America." If such an insult,
it was
said, had been
"
offered to British property
in a foreign
port, the nation would have been called upon to demand
satisfaction for it."
Two principal measures and two subsidiary or minor
measures were decided upon. The first was that the town
of Boston must be fined and pay damages for allowing private property to be destroyed by a mob within her
limits. This was based on a legal principle recognized
to
this day in both England and America,
that a county
or
town which fails to keep
the peace
is liable in damages to
private individuals if their property
is destroyed. In
several instances in England towns had been fined for
allowing individuals or their property
to be injured.
London had been fined in the time of Charles II., when
Dr. Lamb was killed, Edinburgh
in a similar instance,
and part of the revenue of Glasgow
had been sequestrated
until satisfaction was made for the pulling down of Mr.
Campbell's house.
The question was, how could such a rebellious town as
Boston be compelled
to pay damages; how could she be
fined? There was no use in beginning
civil or penal
suits
in her courts, because no verdict against her could be obtained.
More important still, how could security be obtained
for the future
"
that trade may be safely carried on,
property protected, laws obeyed, and duties regularly paid
?"
All this, it was said, could be accomplished by closing
Boston harbor by act of Parliament and the blockade of
a fleet. No trading
vessels and no commerce should pass
in or out. The custom-house officials, "who were now
not safe in Boston or safe no longer than while they
neglected their duty," should be moved to Salem. This
closing of the port of Boston should continue until Boston,
by her own official act, paid
for the 15,000 worth of tea
she had allowed to be destroyed and reimbursed the customs
officials for damage
done by the mobs in 1773 and
January, 1774. "When the governor
should certify that
iids had been done and that the colony was peaceable and
orderly, the blockade should be removed and the port
opened.*
* Annual Begister
for 1774,
vol. zvii
This measure was carried out by an act of Parliament
known in history as the Boston Port Bill. Under this
law the fleet and armed power
of England for the first
time in this long controversy did their work. The port
was actually closed, and this was the first strong measure
taken to establish British sovereignty.
The patriot party
refused to allow the town to pay any
damages. They said that the town had no legal power to
pay them.* They also refused to punish any of the disguised
persons who had destroyed
the tea. The names of
these persons were known to many, and have been published % but in 1774 they were well protected by their
fellow-colonists.
* "
Observations on the Act of Parliament commonly called the
Boston Port Bill,
53
Boston, 1774.
%Brake,
"
Tea-Leaves,
J 7
pp. 84, 85
In order to keep
our heads clear in considering
these
great events, we must remember that many of the Whigs
and some of the best friends of the colonies in England,
especially Colonel Barre,
their eloquent defender in Parliament,
were in favor of the Boston Port Bill as a just
and proper punishment,
in the interests of good order, for
the unpardonable mob violence in destroying
the cargoes
of peaceful British merchant vessels.
"
I like it" said
Barre, "adopt and embrace it for its moderation."
Franklin also, it will be remembered, was always
in favor
of paying for the tea as a conciliatory step
to bring about
a peaceable settlement.#
#"Works, Bigelow edition, vol. v. pp. 452, 454
;
vol. vii. p.
3.
Englishmen argued
that if such acts as destroying
the
tea were allowed to go unpunished,
British commerce would
not be safe. The Boston people, they said, can easily escape
from any hardships they
suffer from the closing of their
port by simply paying
for the tea. The punishment
is not tyranny, because it is not intended to be perpetual.
It will
not last an hour after they make reparation. It all rests
with themselves. It will last only
until those who committed
the outrage have the honor and honesty
to repair
it.
The patriots argued
that the punishment
included the
innocent with the guilty, and punished
the whole town for
the acts of a few. It was absurd, they said, to ask Boston
to pay for the tea, because by closing her port
the town
within a few weeks lost far more than the value of the tea.
Instead of such wholesale punishment,
the government
should proceed in the regular way in the courts of law and
obtain damages, if any were due. It would certainly have
been rare sport for the patriots
to see the government trying
to obtain verdicts from Boston juries.
The closing of the port was intended to be severe, and it
was severe. Within a few weeks thousands of people
were out of work and threatened with starvation. Would
Boston be able to hold out indefinitely, or must she at last
pay for the tea and the other damage in order to have her
port and livelihood restored ?
The people of the country districts rallied to her assistance
and began sending
in supplies of food. Soon this
system spread to the other colonies
; provisions and subscriptions
in money began streaming along
all the colonial
roads, even from far down in the Southern colonies. If
this could be kept up England was beaten again ;
for the
patriot party in Boston would hold out against paying
for
the tea as long as it was possible.
The supplies were continued for over a year.* But such a contest could not be kept up indefinitely. A break
would have to come, and what that break should be
depended on how much rebellion and independence Massachusetts
could arouse in the other colonies.
*The loyalists, who were now beginning
to "be heard from, objected
to these supplies. Boston, they said, was becoming too important.
Let her take care of herself. One of them complained
that it seemed
as if
"
G-od had made Boston for Himself,' and all the rest of the world
for Boston. 77 "The Congress canvassed," p. 17, New York, 1774.
The second measure of punishment was an act of Parliament
accomplishing
the long-threatened change
in the
Massachusetts charter, so that the colony could be held
under control and prevented from rushing
at its will to
rebellion and independence. The change provided
that the
governor's council, heretofore elected by
the legislative
assembly, should be appointed by the crown; that the
governor should appoint and remove at pleasure judges,
sheriffs, and all executive officers
;
that the judges'
salaries
should be paid by the crown instead of by the legislature ;
that town meetings should be prohibited, except by permit
from the governor ;
that juries, instead of being
elected by
the inhabitants, should be selected by the sheriffs.
This alteration of the charter was as fiercely denounced
as the Port Bill, and the echoes of that denunciation are
still repeating themselves in our history. But it did not
go anything like so far as we ourselves have gone
in governing
dependencies. It merely made Massachusetts more
of a crown colony than she had been before; a sort of
colony which still exists under the British system. There
are today dependencies of Great Britain which have no
better government than that which the alteration in the
Massachusetts charter provided, and many that have less
self-government than was left to Massachusetts. But
compared with the semi-independence Massachusetts had
once known, and the absolute independence
she was seeking,
this alteration was a punishment which set her patriot
party furious with indignation.
This alteration, this withdrawal of a part of self-government,
said the supporters of the ministry,
is only temporary until reparation
is made and peace established.
William III., that great founder of liberty, once withdrew
all self-government from both Maryland and Pennsylvania
without even an act of Parliament
;
and George
I.
took the government of South Carolina into his own
hands.*
* "The Address of the People
of Great Britain to the Inhabitants
of America," p. 49, London, 1775
Two minor measures of punishment
were adopted, a
law providing that persons
indicted by the colonists for
murder in suppressing
riots might be taken for trial to
another county or to England ;
and a law legalizing the
quartering of troops on the inhabitants in the town of
Boston. All these measures of punishment became laws
before the first of April, and were put
in force in June,
1774.
Thoroughly aroused at last to the necessity of the most
strenuous endeavors, Parliament at this same time passed
the famous Quebec Act. There was supposed
to be danger
that the French colonists in Canada might join the
union that was forming
to the south of them. Massachusetts
and the patriot party had as yet done nothing
to secure
the Canadians. It would be well, therefore, to cut off all
chance of such action, and accordingly
the Quebec Act
gave to those French people
their Roman Catholic religion
established by law, and the French code of laws.
That England should establish Romanism by law in any
of her possessions was certainly an extraordinary
occurrence.
The strong
Protestant feeling in New England
was outraged. The whole patriot party were indignant
also, because this Quebec Act extended the boundaries of
Canada down into the Ohio Valley, and established what
was then considered an extremely arbitrary crown colony
government of a governor and council appointed by the king, without any legislature or representation of the
people, and without trial by jury.* The Quebec Act was
given in the Declaration of 1776 as another reason for seeking
independence.
* " The Other Side of the Question ; or, A Defence of the Liberties of North America, " p. 23, ]STew York, 1774 ; Hamilton, Works, Lodge edition, vol. i. p. 173.
The Quebec Act has sometimes been described as a bold,
sagacious piece of statesmanship which saved Canada to
England. But it was unnecessary ; for, as we shall see,
there was little or no chance of the Canadians joining the
rebellious colonies
;
and the act, which is still part of the
Canadian Constitution,
built up
the power of an alien race,
gave to their religion the control of the school fund and
other privileges which have caused endless discord, and may
in the end make Canada more French than English.
Governor Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, immediately
after the tea episode, obtained leave of absence to visit
England, and never returned. General Gage, who had
just returned from New York, was made civil governor
of Massachusetts and commander-in-cbief of the British
forces. He went out to Boston in June with four regiments,
took possession of the town, and enforced the new
laws.
The calculation of the British ministry was that these
punishments would compel
Massachusetts to submit
; or,
if she openly rebelled, she would be isolated from the rest
of the country, which would not care to countenance her
violence and extreme proceedings. If, on the other hand,
alone and unaided, she should persist in rebellion, that
would give the opportunity
to teach a lesson and crush
her completely by force.
It was a shrewd and wise calculation, and in nine cases
out of ten would have been justified by events. Great Britain has broken the independent,
national spirit of not
a few people by dividing them. It was a nice question,
how far homogeneousness,
the secret longing
for independence
and nationality, which was causing
all this violence
and law-breaking, had proceeded
in the American colonies.
Was it enough to bring them all, including
the French in
Canada, to the side of wounded, struggling Massachusetts?
That daring, audacious colony
cried aloud for aid. She
did not submit
;
she did not wait for the other colonies to
repudiate her. She called on them for assistance. She
demanded a congress of delegates from all of the colonies
to consider her plight
as a national question concerning
them all. But the word
"
national" could not be used,
for
divers good reasons; so
"
continental" was used instead;
and the congress
is still known as the
"
Continental
Congress."
It assembled in Philadelphia, September 5, 1774;
for there were people
in all the colonies who sympathized
with Massachusetts. In some way or other the rebellious
ones in all the colonies except Canada, Georgia, and
Florida managed to send representatives of their feelings
and opinions. The mere fact of such a body assembling
was a distinct menace to British sovereignty, and brought
the inevitable conflict one step
nearer.
The loyalists complained
that this congress was created
in an irregular, one-sided manner, and could not be called
representative. They ridiculed and denounced most unsparingly
the methods that were used. It was certainly
not representative
in the sense in which the word is
usually understood. It was not chosen by a vote of the
people at large. The delegates
sent by Connecticut, by
the New York counties, by New Jersey, and by Maryland
were chosen by the committees of correspondence
without any vote of the people
at large. These delegates were, therefore, merely
the representatives of the patriot
movement in those colonies. The loyalists, who were now
beginning to increase in numbers, had no voice whatever.
In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania
the
delegates were chosen by
the legislative assemblies, which
in those provinces happened
to be more or less in control
of the patriot party.* In Massachusetts, with the British
army now strongly
in control, loyalism was gaining
ground, and it is not improbable
that a reactionary
delegation,
if not a loyalist one, would have been sent had it
not been for the shrewd tactics and rather violent proceedings
of Samuel Adams. The description of his cautious
manipulation, and final locking
of the door and putting
the key in his pocket,
is most amusing,
as well as a
striking illustration of the way in which the delegates
were chosen. # The delegation
sent by the Pennsylvania
Assembly was in many respects a moderate one, which
afterwards had to be changed
for one more in sympathy
with radical patriotism. It contained one member, Joseph
Galloway, who was a loyalist. Apparently
it was not
altogether safe to let an assembly
send the delegates.
The surer way was for the committees of correspondence
to send them.
* In Delaware the delegates were sent by a convention composed
apparently of the members of the legislature.
# Hosmer,
"
Adams," pp. 290-297
The patriots of each colony, however, decided the question
for themselves according
to their circumstances, and
seem to have known what they were about,
for they were
successful enough in every instance. South Carolina appears
to have sent her delegates by a general convention
of the white people of the province. These delegates
were as stanch for patriotism
as any that appeared.
Either the loyalists were very few,
or they were absent or passive. A few years afterwards they were very numerous,
and seem to have constituted fully half the population of
the province. In the town of !N~ew York a vote appears
to have been taken by wards, but whether only among the
patriot party, or generally,
is not determined. In New
Hampshire the towns appear
to have appointed deputies
who met together July 2 and chose the delegates
to the
Congress. The only
instance where there seems to have
been a chance for a perfectly
free vote of all the people
was in South Carolina, although
there may have been a
chance in New Hampshire and in the town of New York.*
* " An Alarm to the Legislature
of the Province of New York,'
7
p. 4, New York, 1774; "The Congress canvassed," p. 10, !N"ew
York, 1774
;
" A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and
her Colonies," etc., pp. 7, 8, ISTew York, 1774
;
"
Galloway's Examination
before Parliament,
JJ
p. 11
j Journal of Continental Congress,
vol. i.j gives the certificates showing the method of appointment
VI
THE FINAL ARGUMENT
WHILE the Congress
is debating,
it may be well to
consider the point of development
to which patriot opinion
had now attained. They had abandoned their old distinction
between external and internal taxes, but they kept
the
empty form of it in their pamphlets, even when in the same
pamphlet they were arguing
that Parliament had no authority
at all over the colonies. In abandoning
the old distinction,
there was no place where they could stop
short of
denying all authority of Parliament. That was a serious
undertaking, because they had to deny the validity not only
of their own previous admissions, but also the validity of
acts of Parliament under which they had been living
for
many generations.
At the same time they must prove
that in spite of all
this they were still loyal, and this clinging
to the old and
the new makes a great
deal of the reasoning
in their pamphlets
obscure and confused until we have the key. "We
must pardon them for this obscurity, because,
if England
chose to enforce her laws against treason, the course they
were on might prove
to be a hanging business.
Nevertheless, in the year 1774 they were prepared
for
this supreme effort to get
rid of Parliament entirely.
Study and reflection culminated in that year. Both sides
got down to bed-rock, and in this period we find the best
and strongest pamphlets. They went so far that there was
nothing more to be said.
The argument by which the patriots professed
to dispose
entirely of all parliamentary authority, sweep
out of existence their own damaging admissions, and also appear
in
the light of
"
dutiful and loving children," was most ingenuous.
Even if Parliament, they said, had taxed and regulated
the colonies internally, and the colonists themselves
had solemnly admitted the right, yet, in reason and on
principle, Parliament had no such right. Parliament's
long course of conduct regulating
colonial internal affairs
was a usurpation. The colonies had not resisted that usurpation
; had, perhaps, not even protested much against it,
because there was not a great deal of it, and as the Continental
Congress put it, they
"
were too sensible of their
weakness to be fully sensible of their rights."
The colonial charters were now the great subject of discussion,
and the pamphleteers
of both sides tore and
worried at them like hungry dogs. These charters, the
patriots said, contained words which cut off Parliament
entirely from any control of those much-discussed internal
affairs, or vital organs of the colonies. Some of the charters,
they said, might
at first appear non-committal, or
seem to say nothing directly about the authority of Parliament.
But these non-committal ones often contained
general expressions giving
a great
deal of vague authority
to
the colony or to its legislature ;
and an attempt was made
to show that authority
so vague and general must be
exclusive and imply an extinguishment
of any rights of
Parliament.
Queen Elizabeth's charter to Sir Walter Raleigh gave him such vast prerogatives and privileges in America, was so sweeping and general, that it must have been intended to exclude the authority of Parliament. The first Virginia charter provided that the colony was to be ruled by such laws as the king should make, which necessarily excluded, it was said, the making of laws by Parliament. There was a clause which said that the colonists should have the same liberties in other British dominions " as if they had been abiding and born within our realm of England" which showed that the colony was a territory outside of the realm, and therefore, inferentially, outside of all authority of Parliament. The second Virginia charter declared that all the colony's privileges were to be held of the king, which again excluded all authority of Parliament.
Indeed, such charters as those of Connecticut and Rhode Island, which gave such large privileges to the colonists, and spoke only of the colonists and the king without any mention of Parliament, seemed to exclude the authority of Parliament. Diligent students also found instances where the action of British officials, and even of Parliament itself, looked in the same direction. In April, 1621, a bill was introduced in Parliament for indulging British subjects with the privilege of fishing on the coast of America ; but the House was informed through the Secretary of State, by order of his Majesty, King James, that " America was not annexed to the realm, and that it was not fitting that Parliament should make laws for these countries."
This was certainly strong evidence, and supported all that had been said. The evidence became stronger still when they found that some years afterwards, in the reign of Charles I., the same bill was again proposed in Parliament, and the same answer made that " it was unnecessary ; that the colonies were without the realm and the jurisdiction of Parliament."*
* " The Fanner refuted ; or, A More Impartial and Comprehensive View of the Disputes, ;? etc., p. 27 ; Hamilton, Works, Lodge edition, vol. 1. pp. 53, 89; " An Address on Public Liberty in General and American Affairs in Particular,' 7 p. 17, London, 1774
These charters and the action of high officials seemed to show that in the early days Parliament had no authority whatever over the colonies ; could not tax them, and could not regulate their internal affairs in any way whatsoever. The colonies were, in short, outside the realm and to be controlled only by the king.
There was one charter, however, that of Pennsylvania, granted in 1681, which looked the other way. It provided in unmistakable language that the king would never levy any custom or tax on the inhabitants of the province except " with the consent of the proprietors, or chief governor or assembly, or by act of Parliament in England" That was a flat contradiction of the doctrine drawn from the other charters, and what could be done with it ?
Pennsylvania could surely be taxed by Parliament as much as Parliament pleased ; and her people had no possible excuse for their rebellion except to call it by its name and fight it out. Their pamphlets defending their conduct on the ground of legal right were palpably absurd, so far as themselves were concerned.
The loyalist writers used this Pennsylvania clause with great effect. The patriot writers either ignored it altogether or, like young Hamilton, boldly declared that it was a mistake, and, being inconsistent with the other documents, must be rejected. That was the only way to dispose of it, and, having done that, one might go on with the argument.
The king had originally granted the charters to the colonies because in the early times Parliament had no power to charter corporations. He had also given the colonists the title to the land they were to occupy in America, for Parliament had not then the right to grant away the public domain. He had also given the colonists permission to leave the realm, a permission which at that time could be granted only by the king. These facts showed, it was said, that the colonies were exclusively the king's property, and that Parliament had nothing to do with them. They were completely outside of its jurisdiction, and were to be ruled by the king alone.
This meant no rule at all, because the king had now lost nearly all his old powers, which had been absorbed by Parliament. But this thread of attachment to the king was important to save the argument from being treason. It was, of course, much ridiculed by the loyalists as well as by people in England.*
* The loyalist versifier, "Bob Jingle, 77 had some rhymes on the subject in his poem called " The Association. 77
" And first and foremost we do vow ' ' Affection for old England Folk, (As it is politic) Whom we do Brethren call, Allegiance to his Majesty, We do profess, but here's the joke, Whom we intend to trick. For faith, we'll starve 'em all"
"Here we have a full view of the plan of the delegates of North America, which, when examined, appears to he that of absolute independence on the mother-state. But conscious that a scheme which has so great a tendency to the forfeiture of her rights, and so destructive to her safety and happiness, could not meet with the approbation and support of the colonists in general, unless in some measure disguised, they have endeavored to throw a veil over it, by graciously conceding to the mother-state a whimsical authority, useless and impractical, in the nature." " A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and the Colonies," p. 27, New York, 1775.
The argument was, in effect, that the colonies were independent in government and merely under the protecting influence of the king, who would keep foreign nations from interfering with them, a condition which in international law is called a protectorate. They could not be brought into subjection to Parliament, because the king, as Edward Bancroft put it, "had a right to constitute distinct states in America," and had so constituted the colonies. "No power could unite them to the realm or to the authority of Parliament without the consent of the king and their own consent, given as formally and as solemnly as Scotland gave her consent to the union with England. Such consent, so far as the colonies were concerned, had never been given.*
* ' c Remarks on the Review of the Controversy "between Great Britain and her Colonies," pp. 48, 49; Jenkyns, "British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas, " p. 165.
This patriot argument, however, had no effect. The English and the loyalists had an answer which swept all this learned and ingenious reasoning into the sea.
All these instances of the exclusion of the authority of Parliament from the colonies occurred previous to the year 1700 ; not a single instance could be found after that date. In fact, a totally reverse condition could be found; for it was since that time that Parliament had been habitually regulating the internal affairs of the colonies ; and until quite recently the colonists had submitted to it.
Those charters containing clauses implied excluding Parliament from the government of the colonies, and those admissions by British officials to the same effect, were previous to the revolution of 1688, by which any power there might have been in the crown to dispense with or abrogate laws or rights of Parliament was abolished. If the king, in granting those early charters, intended to abrogate or dispense with the taxing power or any other legislative power of Parliament in the colonies, those charters were to that extent now void, because the dispensing power of the English kings had been abolished by the revolution of 1688, which put William III. on the throne. In other words, the dispensing power had been abolished for nearly a hundred years ; and the colonists, as good "Whigs and lovers of liberty, would surely not uphold the wicked dispensing power of the Stuart kings against whom their Puritan ancestors had fought.*
* It was and still is the unbroken opinion of English lawyers that all charters which kings had granted were since 1689 subordinate to the will of Parliament. Indeed, any one who has made the slightest attempt to understand the development of English history knows that for a century previous to 1689, under the Stuart kings, the great contest was whether Parliament had any power at all. That was the problem with which Cromwell struggled, and the problem which "William III. solved in favor of Parliament in 1689. See Bernard's "Select Letters on the Trade and Government of America," London, 1774.
Moreover, said Englishmen; the present King George III., whom the colonists pretend to be so anxious to have govern them, to the exclusion of Parliament, is king by the act of Parliament which placed the house of Hanover on the throne. The colonists are, therefore, compelled to acknowledge that Parliament can give them a king, which is, of all other things, the highest act of sovereignty and legislative power. If Parliament has the right to give them a king, it surely has the right to tax them or rule them in every other way. Since the revolution of 1688 Parliament has become omnipotent. One hundred years ago it may have been the law that Parliament had no authority in the colonies, but within the last hundred years the law has evidently changed, for Parliament has been exercising in them a great deal of authority, which the colonists cannot deny.
The colonists were, therefore, asking for independence of Parliament under an ancient form of the British Constitution, a form which had been abolished in the previous century by their friends the Whigs and William III. In the time of those old Virginia charters Parliament was of little importance and small authority. Sometimes many years passed without a Parliament being held.The king was then necessarily the important power in the government. He both created and governed the colonies.* But Parliament had now become vastly more powerful. It was in session part of every year. The revolution of 1688, the steady development of ideas, the needs of a nation that was rapidly increasing its trade and commerce and adding new conquests and territories to its domain, compelled a very different, a more powerful, far-reaching Parliament than that of the time of Charles I., who hated Parliaments and tried to rule without them.
* Before the revolution of 1688 the land of the colonies and the government of them were supposed to be the absolute property of the king. The Parliament was scarcely allowed to have anything to do with them. But after 1688 the power of Parliament extended over everything. ' The Eight of the British Legislature to tax the American Colonies,' 7 pp. 18, 19, London, 1774; "The Address of the People of Great Britain to the Inhabitants of America;" "The Supremacy of the British Legislature over the Colonies candidly discussed," London, 1775. See, also, "The Claim of the Colonies to an Exemption from Internal Taxes examined, ' ' London, 1766 ; American Historical Review, vol. i. p. 37.
Parliament had abolished the former powers of the king and extended itself to every part of the empire, just as to-day the power of Parliament is sovereign and unlimited over all the British colonies. To suppose that there was any part of the empire to which the whole power of Parliament did not extend was as absurd in 1774 as it is today. It had the same authority over the people in America that it had over the people in London.
"It is a contradiction, in the nature of things," said one of the ablest loyalists, " and as absurd as that a part should be greater than the whole, to suppose that the supreme legislative power of any kingdom does not extend to the utmost bounds of that kingdom. If these colonies, which originally belonged to England, are not now to be regulated and governed by authority of Great Britain, then the consequences are plain. They are not dependent upon Great Britain ; they are not included within its territories ; they are not part of its dominion; the inhabitants are not English, they can have no claim to the privileges of Englishmen ; they are, with regard to England, foreigners and aliens j nay, worse, as they have never been legally discharged from the duty they owe it, they are rebels and apostates. } ' "A. Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans," p. 3, 1774
next
THE RIGHTS OF MAN
Queen Elizabeth's charter to Sir Walter Raleigh gave him such vast prerogatives and privileges in America, was so sweeping and general, that it must have been intended to exclude the authority of Parliament. The first Virginia charter provided that the colony was to be ruled by such laws as the king should make, which necessarily excluded, it was said, the making of laws by Parliament. There was a clause which said that the colonists should have the same liberties in other British dominions " as if they had been abiding and born within our realm of England" which showed that the colony was a territory outside of the realm, and therefore, inferentially, outside of all authority of Parliament. The second Virginia charter declared that all the colony's privileges were to be held of the king, which again excluded all authority of Parliament.
Indeed, such charters as those of Connecticut and Rhode Island, which gave such large privileges to the colonists, and spoke only of the colonists and the king without any mention of Parliament, seemed to exclude the authority of Parliament. Diligent students also found instances where the action of British officials, and even of Parliament itself, looked in the same direction. In April, 1621, a bill was introduced in Parliament for indulging British subjects with the privilege of fishing on the coast of America ; but the House was informed through the Secretary of State, by order of his Majesty, King James, that " America was not annexed to the realm, and that it was not fitting that Parliament should make laws for these countries."
This was certainly strong evidence, and supported all that had been said. The evidence became stronger still when they found that some years afterwards, in the reign of Charles I., the same bill was again proposed in Parliament, and the same answer made that " it was unnecessary ; that the colonies were without the realm and the jurisdiction of Parliament."*
* " The Fanner refuted ; or, A More Impartial and Comprehensive View of the Disputes, ;? etc., p. 27 ; Hamilton, Works, Lodge edition, vol. 1. pp. 53, 89; " An Address on Public Liberty in General and American Affairs in Particular,' 7 p. 17, London, 1774
These charters and the action of high officials seemed to show that in the early days Parliament had no authority whatever over the colonies ; could not tax them, and could not regulate their internal affairs in any way whatsoever. The colonies were, in short, outside the realm and to be controlled only by the king.
There was one charter, however, that of Pennsylvania, granted in 1681, which looked the other way. It provided in unmistakable language that the king would never levy any custom or tax on the inhabitants of the province except " with the consent of the proprietors, or chief governor or assembly, or by act of Parliament in England" That was a flat contradiction of the doctrine drawn from the other charters, and what could be done with it ?
Pennsylvania could surely be taxed by Parliament as much as Parliament pleased ; and her people had no possible excuse for their rebellion except to call it by its name and fight it out. Their pamphlets defending their conduct on the ground of legal right were palpably absurd, so far as themselves were concerned.
The loyalist writers used this Pennsylvania clause with great effect. The patriot writers either ignored it altogether or, like young Hamilton, boldly declared that it was a mistake, and, being inconsistent with the other documents, must be rejected. That was the only way to dispose of it, and, having done that, one might go on with the argument.
The king had originally granted the charters to the colonies because in the early times Parliament had no power to charter corporations. He had also given the colonists the title to the land they were to occupy in America, for Parliament had not then the right to grant away the public domain. He had also given the colonists permission to leave the realm, a permission which at that time could be granted only by the king. These facts showed, it was said, that the colonies were exclusively the king's property, and that Parliament had nothing to do with them. They were completely outside of its jurisdiction, and were to be ruled by the king alone.
This meant no rule at all, because the king had now lost nearly all his old powers, which had been absorbed by Parliament. But this thread of attachment to the king was important to save the argument from being treason. It was, of course, much ridiculed by the loyalists as well as by people in England.*
* The loyalist versifier, "Bob Jingle, 77 had some rhymes on the subject in his poem called " The Association. 77
" And first and foremost we do vow ' ' Affection for old England Folk, (As it is politic) Whom we do Brethren call, Allegiance to his Majesty, We do profess, but here's the joke, Whom we intend to trick. For faith, we'll starve 'em all"
"Here we have a full view of the plan of the delegates of North America, which, when examined, appears to he that of absolute independence on the mother-state. But conscious that a scheme which has so great a tendency to the forfeiture of her rights, and so destructive to her safety and happiness, could not meet with the approbation and support of the colonists in general, unless in some measure disguised, they have endeavored to throw a veil over it, by graciously conceding to the mother-state a whimsical authority, useless and impractical, in the nature." " A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and the Colonies," p. 27, New York, 1775.
The argument was, in effect, that the colonies were independent in government and merely under the protecting influence of the king, who would keep foreign nations from interfering with them, a condition which in international law is called a protectorate. They could not be brought into subjection to Parliament, because the king, as Edward Bancroft put it, "had a right to constitute distinct states in America," and had so constituted the colonies. "No power could unite them to the realm or to the authority of Parliament without the consent of the king and their own consent, given as formally and as solemnly as Scotland gave her consent to the union with England. Such consent, so far as the colonies were concerned, had never been given.*
* ' c Remarks on the Review of the Controversy "between Great Britain and her Colonies," pp. 48, 49; Jenkyns, "British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas, " p. 165.
This patriot argument, however, had no effect. The English and the loyalists had an answer which swept all this learned and ingenious reasoning into the sea.
All these instances of the exclusion of the authority of Parliament from the colonies occurred previous to the year 1700 ; not a single instance could be found after that date. In fact, a totally reverse condition could be found; for it was since that time that Parliament had been habitually regulating the internal affairs of the colonies ; and until quite recently the colonists had submitted to it.
Those charters containing clauses implied excluding Parliament from the government of the colonies, and those admissions by British officials to the same effect, were previous to the revolution of 1688, by which any power there might have been in the crown to dispense with or abrogate laws or rights of Parliament was abolished. If the king, in granting those early charters, intended to abrogate or dispense with the taxing power or any other legislative power of Parliament in the colonies, those charters were to that extent now void, because the dispensing power of the English kings had been abolished by the revolution of 1688, which put William III. on the throne. In other words, the dispensing power had been abolished for nearly a hundred years ; and the colonists, as good "Whigs and lovers of liberty, would surely not uphold the wicked dispensing power of the Stuart kings against whom their Puritan ancestors had fought.*
* It was and still is the unbroken opinion of English lawyers that all charters which kings had granted were since 1689 subordinate to the will of Parliament. Indeed, any one who has made the slightest attempt to understand the development of English history knows that for a century previous to 1689, under the Stuart kings, the great contest was whether Parliament had any power at all. That was the problem with which Cromwell struggled, and the problem which "William III. solved in favor of Parliament in 1689. See Bernard's "Select Letters on the Trade and Government of America," London, 1774.
Moreover, said Englishmen; the present King George III., whom the colonists pretend to be so anxious to have govern them, to the exclusion of Parliament, is king by the act of Parliament which placed the house of Hanover on the throne. The colonists are, therefore, compelled to acknowledge that Parliament can give them a king, which is, of all other things, the highest act of sovereignty and legislative power. If Parliament has the right to give them a king, it surely has the right to tax them or rule them in every other way. Since the revolution of 1688 Parliament has become omnipotent. One hundred years ago it may have been the law that Parliament had no authority in the colonies, but within the last hundred years the law has evidently changed, for Parliament has been exercising in them a great deal of authority, which the colonists cannot deny.
The colonists were, therefore, asking for independence of Parliament under an ancient form of the British Constitution, a form which had been abolished in the previous century by their friends the Whigs and William III. In the time of those old Virginia charters Parliament was of little importance and small authority. Sometimes many years passed without a Parliament being held.The king was then necessarily the important power in the government. He both created and governed the colonies.* But Parliament had now become vastly more powerful. It was in session part of every year. The revolution of 1688, the steady development of ideas, the needs of a nation that was rapidly increasing its trade and commerce and adding new conquests and territories to its domain, compelled a very different, a more powerful, far-reaching Parliament than that of the time of Charles I., who hated Parliaments and tried to rule without them.
* Before the revolution of 1688 the land of the colonies and the government of them were supposed to be the absolute property of the king. The Parliament was scarcely allowed to have anything to do with them. But after 1688 the power of Parliament extended over everything. ' The Eight of the British Legislature to tax the American Colonies,' 7 pp. 18, 19, London, 1774; "The Address of the People of Great Britain to the Inhabitants of America;" "The Supremacy of the British Legislature over the Colonies candidly discussed," London, 1775. See, also, "The Claim of the Colonies to an Exemption from Internal Taxes examined, ' ' London, 1766 ; American Historical Review, vol. i. p. 37.
Parliament had abolished the former powers of the king and extended itself to every part of the empire, just as to-day the power of Parliament is sovereign and unlimited over all the British colonies. To suppose that there was any part of the empire to which the whole power of Parliament did not extend was as absurd in 1774 as it is today. It had the same authority over the people in America that it had over the people in London.
"It is a contradiction, in the nature of things," said one of the ablest loyalists, " and as absurd as that a part should be greater than the whole, to suppose that the supreme legislative power of any kingdom does not extend to the utmost bounds of that kingdom. If these colonies, which originally belonged to England, are not now to be regulated and governed by authority of Great Britain, then the consequences are plain. They are not dependent upon Great Britain ; they are not included within its territories ; they are not part of its dominion; the inhabitants are not English, they can have no claim to the privileges of Englishmen ; they are, with regard to England, foreigners and aliens j nay, worse, as they have never been legally discharged from the duty they owe it, they are rebels and apostates. } ' "A. Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans," p. 3, 1774
next
THE RIGHTS OF MAN
No comments:
Post a Comment