Segre
oka oz aoe a ieoviats
Sens eS a
see elem ES
Riser pan
*
pee ees
Peart a
te Aig
elie i
Sit aoe
ei eesoe
ee tales
eno
caer 3 eT
sie Bis Pare eet eae ce ae a
eal P- na paras eae pee eae ee cteyrewaetiaes aa pie pce pee Kai (a ore soe
Ae We ee eae Te sain akd pen oath
ee a oma os Ear Lees thee ore
a zs i peitcs
BE ee Tense ge el is net ei Kea IA fn
win
In compliance with current
copyright law, Cornell University
Library produced this
replacement volume on paper
that meets the ANSI Standard
Z39.48-1992 to replace the
irreparably deteriorated original.
2005
THE AMERICAN COLONIES
PREVIOUS TO THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
THE AMERICAN COLONIES
PREVIOUS TO THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
(Tut ARNoLD Prizz Essay, READ IN THE THEATRE at OxForD, June 9, 1869)
BY
JOHN ANDREW DOYLE, B.A. or Barzzon Couzer,
“« Westward the course of empire takes its way.”
RIVINGTONS
London, Oxford, and Cambridge
Late:
TABLE OF
INTRODUCTION : ‘
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
English Navigation at the eat of tha”
Fifteenth Century, ‘ cS .
Sebastian Cabot, % . . .
Other Early Discoverers, -
Commencement wg a new Epoch under
Elizabeth, . ‘i ° . «
6,7 Contiuting e necaaks, te
E
Frobisher’s Voyages, . e . .
1,2|]Sir Humphrey Gilbert, . si
3-4 Raleigh sends out ‘Amidas and Barlow,
46 poten under Granville and sane, =
White's ‘ . .
CHAPTER II.
FORMATION OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES.
Formation of the Virginia Company, 19
Captain John Smith,
Colonisation of Virginia i in 1606, a
The Second Colony, * . .
Growth of the Colony, . . .
Story of Pocahontas, ; . “
The Indian Massacre, . .
Early Legislation of Virginia,” 5
Emigration to Virginia, 2
The Virginia Company dissolved, : “
First sndependént Legislatio :
History of Vi Peinis from 1620 to 1659, 5
Slavery in Virgi 34, 35
Social and Economical State of the Colony, 35- 38
Intolerant Laws, 38, 39
ro
Ve
9
a
Constitution of Virginia,” . “39-41
Laws regulating the cultivation of To- ‘
. . . 41, 42
Laws concerning the Indians, . « 42-44
Bacon's Insurrectio 44-48
Government of Culpepper and. Péfingham, 48, 49
Early History of Mary! 49, 5
Attempt to colonise Ne ew England in 1607, 51, 52
Gorges's Attempts at Colonisation, 5 52, 5.
The Leyden Puritans, . * . - 58-55
Their Project of Colonisation, . - 55, 56
The Colonisation of Plymouth, . . 57, 58
Positin of the New England Company, . 58-61
“Weston's Colony, . 62
Colonisation of New “Hampshire, " si 62
ey ots Massachusetts, = « 62-64
Roger Willi: ‘i . » 64-67
Colgniaation of ‘iownectical - « « 67,68
Gorges colonises Maine, . . . . 68, 69
3 | Quakerism, é ‘ . . ‘
Colonisation of New Haven,
Difficulties between New England and
the Home Government, a
Acquisition of New Ni etherlands, if
James II. attempts to consolidate the
New England Colonies, a a .
Government of Andros, . . *
His Defeat,
State of New England from 1640 to ‘1075,
The Pequod War,
Laws of the New England Colonies, 7
Peculiarly Religious Character of ae
England, 2 . z . ‘
Its Tutolerance, . . . .
Provision for Education .
Copper gin N a England” and
Early eNttempts to colonise Carolina, Q
Locke's Constitution for Carolina, . = 8
Formation of a Settlement at Albermarle,
Colonisation and Early HLBOny, of South
Carolina, . . . . . &
North Carolina, < . ° .
William Penn,
His Colony in West New J ersey,
Establishment of a Quaker Colony in
Pennsylvania, z
Penn’s Relations with the Indians, - . .
Early History of Pennsylvania, 3 5
General James Oglethorpe
ace and Early History of
geal Bureey of the Thirteen Colonies,
PAGE
vii
V1 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE COLONIES FROM 1688 To 1760
PAGE ; PAGE
Ethnology of the Indians, 97, 98 | His Scheme for Confederation, 110, 111
eir Character, Religion, and Political Braddock’s Defeat, . 111, 112
System, . 98-101 | Defeat of the French near Fort Edward,
Failure of of all Attempts to civilise them, 101-103 | The French Inhabitants of Acadia, 112, 113
King Philip's 103-105 | Their Eviction by Wer British Coreen 113,
Early ees Slav very, a 105, 106 | Conclusion of the W: 114, 115
ee ae erecnltonns in New England, 106-108 | Discussion whether England hall’ keep
ch Aggressions in the Ohio Valley, 108,109] Canada or Guadalo se oe a
Bananas Franklin, . «109, 110] Canada becomes British Territo erritory, .
CHAPTER Iv.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE
Position of the Colonies at the Sone The Boston Tea-riot, - « « 168, 164
sion of the French War, 116-118 | The Boston Port-bill, e cal 165, 166
State of England at the Accession of How received by Boston, . - 166, 167
orge IIT., 5 . 118-120 | And the other Colonies,” a 167, 168
Influence of that event, z a a 120, 121 | Preparations for Resista: < 168, 169
Character of the Ministers Granville and Proceedings of the Pouesisi at Phila-
Townshend, . e ie 121} delp! 169-171
Project of an ‘American Revenue, é 121, 122) The Britizh Parliament of 1775, < 171-174
How received by the Americans, . 122, 123 | Chatham’s Policy of Conciliation, 5 174-176
Attempt to subeert the Independence of The Newfoundland Fishery 176,177
the Judiciary, " 123 | Lord North’s Scheme of Conciliation, 177, a
Townshend's American Policy, * 123, 124 | Burke’s Policy, 178-
Carried out by George Granville, . 124-126 | Address presented by the Citizens of
The Stamp Act, 126,127) London,
General i Attitude of England towards the gS of the British Soldiers at
Dolo} 127-133| Boston, ‘ “ = 180-182
News of he Stamp Act received in -| The Virginian Convention a é z 182
America, 2 = a = 3 33-135 | Patrick Henry’s Speech 182, 183
Granville’s Scheme discussed in Parlia- Preparations for Resistance in Virginia, 183, 184
*» ment, < 135, 136 | General Survey of the Pan of both
The Stamp. Act becomes Law, - zs 136, 137 Countries at the Commencement of the
Patrick Henry, ‘: 187, 138 184-187
His Resolutions denouncing the Stamp Conca Bridge “and Lexington, - 187,188
Act passed by Legislature of Virginia, 138, 139 | Siege of Boston,
Massachusetts proposes a Congress, 139, 140} Capture of Ticonderoga and Crown Point, "189
Nine Colonies meet in Congress, Military Daring of the Americans, . . 189
Proceedings of Massachusetts Assembly, 140, 141] The Philadelphia Congress. is i
Reception of the Stamp Act, . : 141, 142 | Its Proceedings, . ‘ 190-192
Ministerial Changes in England, A 142, 143 | Washington clected General, : i‘ s 192
Pitt opposes the Taxation of America, 143, 144} His Character, 5 a A ». 192
Tre ick and Franklin examined, 144, 145 | Bunker's Hil, . : 193-195
Rockingham’s Ministry repeal the Stamp Proceedings of Congr . 195, 196
Act... «. «~~ « 145] Weakness rat the Colonial Army, : — 196,197
Rejoicings in England and America, 146 | The Americans resolve to at Canada, 197
Disputes in Massachusetts Assembly, “146, 147 Montgomery appointed General . * 1
Chatham’s Ministry, "14 7 | Operations in Canada, . # e 198-200
Townshend introdices a Scheme for Tax- Siege of Quebec, 2 « * é 200, 201
ing Ameri 147-149 | Death of Montgomery, . s . - 201
Farther Resistance i in America, 2 149 | Quebec is relieved . ‘ is 201, 202
Policy of Massachusetts, . s é 150-153 | Proceedings of Dunmore i in Virginia
Proceedings in Englan 153, 154 | State of things i in England, 203-205
The Southern Colonies ‘pass Non-impor, Examination of Penn before the Lords, 205, oe
! tation Resolves 154, 155 | Proceedings of Parliament,
Departure of Bernard from Boston, 155, 156 | Washington raises the Siege of Boston, soe
The Boston Massacre, . # s 156, 157| Victory of the Americans in North
Lord North’s Policy, 158, 15! olina, a % 210, 211
The Non-importation Agreements fail, . 159 | Battle of Fort Moultrie, . < - 211, 212
Disputes between Hutc mn and the Proceedings of Congress, 212, 213
Assembly, a 159-162 | South Carolina and Virginia’ construct
The Slavery, Question in Virginia, < 162, 163 Governments, is 3, 214
Viremua © role on Committees of Congress resolves on ‘Independence, 24, 215
respond: S = 5 163 | The Declaration of Sueeie eae, 215, 216
Hutchinson’ s E betters, - « « « 163} Conclusion - . 216-219
INTRODUCTION.
I propose in this Essay to examine a few of the most remarkable
in that course of events by which a wilderness, inhabited only by
savages and wild beasts, was changed in less than two hundred
years into the home of one of the greatest of the civilised powers
of the world. For this purpose I propose, jirst, to glance briefly
and in outline at that movement which changed the sober,
homely Englishman of the earlier Tudor reigns into the enter-
prising versatile Elizabethan Englishman, and which moulded
the gentry, yeomanry, and merchants of the sixteenth century
into a race of navigators and explorers, the boldest and most
adventurous that the world has ever seen. I propose then to
trace somewhat more fully the growth of the several colonies, to
illustrate their social and political life, their manners, religion,
and laws; to pass in review the most striking incidents, and the
most eminent characters in their history ; to consider their rela-
viii INTRODUCTION.
tions to the savage inhabitants whom they drove out, and to the
colonists of other civilised nations with whom they came in con-
tact; lastly, to examine the principal causes which gradually
alienated, and finally rent them asunder, from their mother
country, and bound them together in one independent, empire.
THE AMERICAN COLONTES
PREVIOUS TO
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
CHAPTER I.
ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA DURING THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
In 1488 an obscure Genoese, one Bartholomew Columbus, was
sailing to England with an offer from his brother, an unsuccessful
projector at the Court of Castille, to Henry VII. That offer, if
accepted in time, might have enabled England to anticipate Spain
in the New World, and to become the great gold-power of Europe.
England was saved from that lot by the unconscious agency of a
pirate ship. Bartholomew Columbus escaped from captivity and
completed his mission at the English Court, but, before he could
return, the eyes of the Spanish sovereign had been in some
measure opened to the importance of his brother’s designs, and
the destiny of Spain and South America was sealed. Even had
Columbus’ offer come in time, it is hardly likely that the English
king would have committed himself to the adventure, or that the
English people would have followed it up. The English of that
1 Knight's “History of England,” vol. iii, p. 776.
A
Ce
Bhs
2 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
day were a thriving, industrious race, content with the resources
of a moderately populated soil and a stationary commerce. “The
wine brigs made their annual voyages to Bordeaux and Cadiz;
the hoys plied with such regularity as the winds allowed them
between the Scheldt and Thames; summer after summer the Ice-
land fleet went north for the cod and ling, which were the food of the
winter fasting days; the boats of Yarmouth and Rye, Southamp-
ton, Pool, Brixham, Dartmouth, Plymouth, and Fowie fished the
channel.”! The spirit of Drake and Gilbert and Raleigh yet
slept. Even eight years later, when Columbus had already sailed
on his second voyage, it was left for foreign enterprise, albeit
helped by English seamanship, to take the first step towards
founding a British Empire in the New World. In 1496 John
Cabot, a Venetian, and his two sons, obtained a patent from
Henry VII. for the discovery of hitherto unknown lands? In
1 Froude’s “ History of England,” vol. viii., chap. xiii., p. 423.
* The History of Sebastian Cabot and his voyages from 1496 to 1498, is somewhat
obscure. I have throughout followed Biddle’s ‘‘ Memorial of Sebastian Cabot.”
The principal points in question are—l. The birthplace of Sebastian Cabot ;
2. The distinctness of the two voyages; 3. Whether it was John or Sebastian
Cabot that undertook, or at all events commanded, the first voyage? 4. What was
the land discovered ?” :
1. Stow says, ‘‘ One Sebastian Gabatto, a Genoa’s son, borne in Bristow.” Stow’s
“Annals,” p. 481. Eden, ‘‘ Sebastian Cabot tould me that he was born in Bristow.”
Eden and Wylles Decades of the New World of Indies, published, London, 1555, by
William Powell. An old Bristol chronicle, “Sebastizn Cabot borne in Bristol.”
Quoted by Mr Seyers, in his Memoirs, Historical and Topographical, of Bristol.
Best says in the dedication of his account of Sir Martin Frobisher’s three voyages,
published 1578, to Sir Christopher Hutton, ‘‘ Sebastian Cabota being an Englishman
and born in Bristowe.” Haklnyt, (Ed. 1589], p. 680. “Sebastian his sonne an
Englishman borne.”
2. That Cabot made a voyage in 1497, is proved by an extract from a MS. in
“The History and Antiquities of Bristol.” ‘In the year 1497, 24th of June, on St
John’s Day, was Newfoundland found by Bristol men in a ship called the Matthew,”
and by extracts from the Privy Purse expenses of Henry VII. for 1497, ‘‘to Lym
that found the new Isle £10,” and “to John Carter going to the newe Isle, a
reward £2.” Moreover, from the passage quoted above, Stow says, “This yeere
[1498] one Sebastian Gabatto, a Genoa’s son borne in Bristow, professing himselfe
to be expert in knowledge of the circuit of the world and islands of the same, as by
his charts and other reasonable demonstrations he shewed, caused the king to man
and victual a ship at Bristol, to search for an island which he knew to be replenished
with rich commodities.” This evidently implies a previous knowledge of the land
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 3
the next year the eldest son, Sebastian Cabot, set sail in pursuit
of the philosopher’s stone of the mariners of that day, a north-
to be traded with. Besides, the second patent [given by Biddle, p. 76] refers to
‘*the land and isle of late found by the said John in oure name and by oure com-
mandment.” Bacon too, in his life of Henry VII., speaks like Stow of a voyage in
1498, in terms which evidently refer to a voyage of commerce, and imply a
previous discovery. That a voyage was made in 1498 from England to trade with
the “New Island,” is proved by entries in the King’s Privy Purse Accounts “to
Lanslot Thirkell of London, upon a prest for his ship going towards the New Island,
£2, 22d of March, 1498.”
“Delivered to Lanslot Thirkell going towards the new Isle, a prest. £20.
“To Thomas Bradley and Lanslot Thirkell going to the New Isle, £30, April 1st
1498.”
8. With the exception of Hakluyt in his later edition, all the early writers, includ-
ing Stow, attribute the voyage of 1497 to Sebastian, not to John, Cabot. It is
clear, too, that it was attributed to Sebastian in the authority from which Hakluyt
took his statement, and that he must himself have changed the name to John.
His account is taken from Stow, and is headed, ‘‘ A Note of Sebastian Cabot’s First
Discovery of Part of the Indies, taken out of the latter part of Robert Fabyan’s
Chronicle, not hitherto printed, which is in the custody of Mr John Stow, a diligent
preserver of antiquities.” In the original edition of Hakluyt, 1582, the name of
Sebastian was left to stand not only in the heading, but in the narrative. It is
clear that when Hakluyt compiled this edition, he had not read the patents of 1496
and 1498. Itis probable that, after reading them, he substituted the name of John
for that of Sebastian in the narrative, though he omitted to do so in the heading.
The statement in the second patent, that the land and isles were found by John
Cabot, may mean that the expedition went out at his expense ; nor does the fact of
the first patent being made out in his favour necessarily imply that he went on the
voyage. That the father should undertake the expense of the voyage, and send out
his son, a man in the prime of life, is in itself reasonable and probable, while the
testimony of contemporary writers is strongly in favour of the claims of the younger
Cabot.
4. The extent of Cabot’s Voyages.—The authorities for the statement that he
sailed as far as 674 degrees of north latitude [in all probability into Hudson’s Bay]
are,—1. Cabot’s own statement in ‘‘ Peter Martyr’s Decades,” iii. lib. 6. 2. In the
prayse and report of Master Martyn Forboisere’s voyage to Meta incognita, pub-
lished in Hakluyt, the author says, ‘‘ In reading Belle Forest, in the second tome,
and other authors, I find that Gabotha was the first in King Henry VII.’s daies
that discovered this frozen land or seas, from sixtie-seven towards the north, and
from thence towards the south along the Coast of America to thirtie-six degrees and
a half, as it is affirmed in the sixth book of the Decade.”
The land which Cabot discovered, was in all probability not Newfoundland, but
Labrador. The character of the country, the elks, the white bears, fishing, and the
appearance of the inhabitants, [Peter Martyr], all correspond with the character of
Labrador. The mention of the Island of St Jobn, as off the coast discovered by
Cabot, has given rise to some confusion, but this is cleared up by reference to
Ortelius, who, in his ‘‘ Theatrum orbis terrarum,” in a map, dated 1587, calls a
small island just off the coast of Labrador St Joan.
4 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
west passage to “Cataia” Baffled by the increasing icebergs when
he had reached sixty-seven and a half degrees of north latitude,
he turned sonth, and on St John’s Day discovered the coast of
Labrador. Still sailing south he explored the coast of Florida as
far as thirty-six and a half degrees of north latitude. On his
return he obtained a second patent, and again sailed in 1498
with several ships laden with “grosse and sleighte wares” for
trafficking with the natives With so little attention, however,
did his successes meet, that after this we hear no more of him in
England for nineteen years.
There may have been various causes beside lack of enterprise
which may have made Henry VII. and his subjects disinclined
for maritime discoveries in the direction of America. The bull of
Alexander VI. could not but have some effect with a still Roman
Catholic nation, and the hope of a Spanish alliance may have
made the king chary of encroaching on the treasures of the New
World. Still he did not altogether neglect American discoveries.
For the next seven or eight years we have scattered intimations
that voyages were made, though of their circumstances and
results we know nothing. We find a patent granted to three
Englishmen, Thomas Ashurst, Richard Warde, and John Thomas,
and three Portuguese, John Gonsalo, and John and Francis
Fernando, bearing date, March 1501, and another patent in
December of the same year, in favour of Hugh Eliot and Thomas
Ashurst, merchants of Bristol, and John Gonsalo and Francis
Fernando, Esquires.2 Both these patents reserve the rights of
the king of Portugal, and expressly forbid the offering of any
violence to the persons of the natives,‘ a condition which speaks
well for the humanity of the king, if not for the morality of the
early navigators. It is also stated in Purchas that Robert Thorne
1 Stow, p. 481. 2 Biddle. Appendix D.
3 Rymer, vol. xiii., pp. 37, 42. Rymer places the date of the first patent the 10th
of May, sixteenth year of Henry VIL. Biddle, however, shows that this is wrong.
4 ¢©Sive aliquas mulieres insularum seu patriarum predictarum rapuerint et viola-
verint, juxta leges ac statuta per ipsos in hac parte ordinata castigandi et
puniendi.”
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 5
and Hugh Eliot ‘discovered the Newfoundland,” and that
had they followed their pilot’s mind the lands of the West
Indies had been ours.”1 Traces also are to be found of such
voyages in the existing records of the time. We read in the
King’s Privy Purse Accounts such entries as these—
“17th November 1503.—To one that brought hawkes from
the new founded isle, £1.”
“8th April 1504.—To a preste that goeth to the islande, £2.”
“25th August 1505.—To Clays going to Richmond with wylde
catts and popyngays of the new found islande for his costs,
13s. 4d.”
“To Portugales that brought popyngais and catts of the
mountayne, with the stuff to the king's grace, £5.”
It was probably in one of these voyages that the savages were
brought over, who, Stow says, were seen in London in 1502?
After the accession of Henry VIII. we hear of no more voyages
till the nineteenth year of his reign. In that year two ships
were sent out in search of the North-west Passage, under Thorne
and Eliot, of which the larger was lost on the coast of New-
foundland. The other returned safe to England. Nine years
later Hore sailed from London with two ships, and encountered
the horrors of the north seas in their worst form. That some
definite progress had been made by the year 1541 is proved by
an Act of Parliament, in which special provision is made for the
Newfoundland Fisheries* In 1549, the third year of Edward
1 Purchas, [Ed. 1626], p. 810. Biddle identifies this with the voyage of 1527,
mentioned below, but the expression, ‘‘discovered the Newfoundland,” and the
reference to the West Indies would seem to refer to an earlier date.
2 Stow, p. 485. “This yeere [1502] were brought into the king taken in ye New-
found Tlands by Sebastian Gabote, before named, in anno 1498. These men were
clothed in beasts’ skins, and eate raw flesh, but spake such a language as no man
could understand, of the which three men, two of them were seene in the king’s
court at Westminster two yeeres after. They were clothed like Englishmen, and
could not be discerned from Englishmen.” It is exceedingly improbable that if
these men had been brought over by Cabot in 1498, as Stow supposes, and still
retained their native customs and language four years later, that two years could
afterwards have made so great a change in them.
3 Purchas, p. 822. 4 Bancroft’s “ History of America,” vol. i., p. 7.
6 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
VI., Cabot’s services at last met with a portion of the reward
they had deserved, and he was made Grand Pilot of England,
with a pension of £166, 13s. 4d? Age had not lessened his
energy for discovery, but America was no longer the field of his
-labours. He, like most of the navigators of his age, attached
more value to the visionary project of a north-west or a north-
east passage to Asia, than to the substantial advantages which
the American trade and fisheries placed within their grasp. He
became president of a merchant company, which included
Willoughby, Chancellor, and Burroughs, and whose object was
the discovery of a north-east passage to China? The voyage in
1553 was in its main object unsuccessful, and resulted in the loss
of Willoughby and his ship, but the failure was compensated for
by the discovery of a passage to Archangel®
After this Cabot disappears from the history of discovery ; but
the seed which he had sown was in a few years to bear fruit that
would have far surpassed his most fervent anticipations, In the
words of an old writer, “ it pleased Almighty God, of His infinite
mercy, at length to awake some of our worthy countrymen out of
their drowsy dreame wherein we have all so long slumbered.”*
The seventy years preceding the reign of Elizabeth had not only
changed English modes of thought and life; they had begotten a
new race of Englishmen. Various tendencies had combined to
bring about this growth. The movement which in theology had
produced the Reformation, and in philosophy contained the teach-
ing of Bacon, and of the seventeenth century in its womb, had
changed the social and mercantile, as well as the political life of
the nation. Henry VIII, when he made England independent
of the Papacy, foresaw that growing struggle between the two
great principles of the age which culminated in the fight with
the Armada, and he provided for it by making England an inde-
pendent military and naval power. There were special reasons
1 Purchas, p. 810. 2 Thid. > Bancroft, vol i, p. 79.
4 «A Trne Report of the Tate Discoveries and Possession taken in the Right of
the Crown of England in the Newfoundland,” in Hakloyt, [Ed. 1589], p. 704.
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 7
why the newly awakened life of the nation should show itself on
the seas. The theoretical discoveries of Galileo, the practical
discoveries of Columbus, shed a halo of science and romance over
seamanship. Spain was no longer an ally to be respected, but a
dangerous and hated rival. The spectacle of Philip and his
Spanish courtiers riding into London decked in the spoils of
Mexico and Peru must have been at once dazzling, enraging, ani-
mating. Might not England fight Spain on her own ground, and
with her own weapons? Might not the treasures of the New
World be used to support England and Protestantism, not Spain
and the Inquisition? Even the thirst for gold was ennobled
when thus linked with love of national greatness and religious
freedom. Another motive ought not in justice to be overlooked.
As in the search for gold, so, in the conversion of the Indians,
Spain was at once a pattern and a rival. To carry out the gospel
to wild races dwelling in distant lands was a task peculiarly
suited to the temper of an adventurous generation that had just
passed through a great religious crisis. Such was the combina-
tion of influences under which England entered upon her career
in the New World. The reign of Mary had repressed, but in
nowise destroyed, the new-born spirit of the nation. When that
evil time was passed, and a popular, ambitious, and enterprising
monarch sat on the throne, the torrent burst forth in full strength.
Privateers harassed the Spanish commerce on the coast of South
America, and from thirty to fifty ships went every year to the
Newfoundland fisheries. In 1576, Frobisher, afterwards Sir
Martin Frobisher, a west country sea captain, hitherto only known
as having been implicated in a charge of piracy,’ conceived a
design of discovering the North-west Passage. Encouraged by
the example of Cabot, with whose voyage he was acquainted,? on
1 Bancroft, vol. i., p. 80. 2 Catalogue of State Papers, vol. xL, 7.
3 George Gascoyne says, in the preface to Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s Account of a
North-west Passage, with reference to an account of Sebastian Cabot, ‘‘ The which,
as well because it was not long, as also because I understoode that Mr Fourboiser [a
kinsman of mine] did pretend to travaile in the same discoverie, I craved at the saide
Sir Humfreye’s hands for two or three days to reade and to peruse.”
8 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
the 15th of June he set sail from Blackwell. He sailed into
Frobisher’s Straits, landed on the coast of Labrador, captured a
native and returned, having lost five men.1 Hc brought back not
the report of a North-west Passage, but hopes as chimerical and
more dangerous. A stone which he had found was reported to
contain gold. England was already gold-mad,? and the prospect
of a northern Peru instantly awakened the enthusiasm of those
who had been unmoved by the project of a North-west Passage.
The Company of “Kathai,” or Cathay, was formed, of which
Michael Lok was to be governor, and “ Furbisher” high admiral
of all the newly discovered lands.* In 1577, Frobisher sailed
with three ships on his search for ore* He returned, after a
severe voyage, with a cargo of earth to be deposited in the
mints The next year, at the desire of the Queen,® a third
voyage was undertaken on a larger scale, and a colony pro-
jected.’ Colony and voyage alike were failures. Beset by fogs
and icebergs one vessel was crushed, and the rest lost their
course. The sailors almost mutinied, one of the ships with pro-
visions for the colony deserted, and the settlers became dis-
heartened. The fleet was freighted with two thousand tons of
ore, and returned home.® The ore proved worthless, and all that
we ever hear further of the Cathay Company is a succession of
squabbles between Lok and the adventurers.® But the chapter
1 Parchas, p. 811.
2 The public records of the time are full of references to the gold brought back by
Frobisher. In the Catalogue of State Papers, vol. cxlvii. 69, we find an offer from
Lok to work the ore brought from the north-west voyage by “ Captain Furbisher.”
So also in vol. cxviii. 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43; vol. cxix. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14,15; vol.
cxxii. 3, it is stated in a note that some of the gold still remains attached by wax
to a paper.
3 State Papers, vol. cx. 21.
4 State Papers, vol. cxi. 48, 49. Purchas, p. 811.
= State Papers, vol. cxvi. 25.
6 State Papers, vol. cxxiii. 5. Letters from Walsingham to the Lord Treasurer
and Lord Chamberlain, March 11, 1578.
7 Bancroft, vol. i, p. 84-
> Catalogue of State Papers, vol. cxxvi. 20. Bancroft, vol. i., p. 85.
8 Frobisher’s gold discoveries seem to have been prolific in disputes. We find
Lok repeatedly applying to the Council for orders to be given to the adventurers to
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 9
of British maritime discovery was not yet closed. Regardless of
Frobisher’s failure, Davies and Hudson essayed once more to
discover the North-west Passage. It was not granted to the
Elizabethan seamen to win that goal for which they had so per-
sistently striven, or to share in the colonisation of America. But
though they left no permanent memorial of their triumphs, they
stamped their impress on the generation that followed them.
They were worthy to be the fathers of those puritan settlers, who
left their English villages and farms to sail across three thou-
sand miles of ocean with no home awaiting them but a bleak
wilderness. Nothing in modern seamanship can give us an idea
of the hardships and sufferings of the early navigators. In
vessels little bigger than fishing smacks they ventured through
fogs and icebergs into unknown seas, or landed on frozen shores,
where they were reduced by hunger to eat the bodies of their
companions, or to live on sea-weed, when they scarce had
strength to steer their boat.”
But their spirit of adventure, heroic as it was, was essentially
that of explorers, not of colonists. Gilbert and Raleigh alone
were conspicuous exceptions. Gilbert was, as far as we know,
the first in that age to whom the idea of founding a great trans-
atlantic empire had suggested itself. Even with him it is pro-
bable that the main idea was that of a great commercial power
to counteract and cripple Spain, rather than an agricultural com-
munity in a great measure independent of the mother country.®
pay their shares, Catalogue of State Papers, vol. cxvi. 24; vol. exxii. 9; vol.
exxvii. 8, 9, 10, 16, 20; vol. cxxix. 4,12. Nor do they seem profitable to the
adventurers, as we find Thomas Renham claiming allowance from the Council in
consideration of his losses in “ Furbisher’s” voyage, vol. cxxvi. 33; vol. cxlix. 12.
We find Lok complaining in 1581 “that Furbisher and others had slandered him,
and Captain Furbisher had endangered the Company by his evil service and pro-
digality,” and about the same time [vol. cli. 17] we find Captain Frobisher’s wife,
Isabel Frobisher, petitioning the Queen, and setting forth “that Captain Frobisher
[whom God forgive] had spent all our money, and she was starving and her chil-
dren’s children.”
1 Account of Hore’s voyage in 1536. Purchas, p. 822.
? Account of Hudson’s third voyage. Purchas, p. 818.
3 There is among the State Papers a document bearing date November 6, 1577,
10 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
In 1578 he took his first step towards the project of forming “a
Christian plantation and regiment,” by obtaining a general patent
bearing date June 11, 1578, and giving him “free power and
liberty” to discover and colonise all “remote heathen and
barbarous lands” not already occupied by any Christian prince
or people. At the same time the patent prohibited any colonisa-
tion within two hundred leagues of the territory occupied by
Gilbert, reserved certain rights to the crown, and was to expire
if the colony should not be founded in six years.2 On the 23d
of September 1578 he sailed from Dartmouth with a fleet of
eleven ships victualled for a year. The expedition, however,
was unprosperous from the outset. One of the ships leaked and
had to be left behind, and shortly after seven more deserted.
From what we know of the habits of the sailors of that day it is
not unlikely that they preferred piracy to colonisation. The
expedition was a complete failure, and left Gilbert too crippled
in means to go on with his project. In 1580 he transferred his
patent to Sir Thomas Gerrard and Sir George Peckham.®> They
either did nothing in the matter, or failed so completely that all
trace of their attempt is lost. In 1583, Gilbert himself, rather than
allow the patent to expire, made one more effort. On Tuesday,
June 14, he set sail with five ships, the largest of two hundred tons,
the smallest ten tons, and with two hundred and sixty men. No
[the year before Gilbert got his patent], entitled “A Discourse how her Majestie
may annoy the King of Spayne by fitting out a fleet of shippes of war under pre-
tence of a voyage of discovery, and so fall upon the enemies’ shippes, and destroy
his trade in Newfoundland and the West Indies, and possess their countrie.” The
signature is obliterated, but it is supposed to be “‘ H. Gylberte.”
1 A Report of the Voyage, and the Success thereof, attempted in the yeere of our
Lord 1553 by Sir H. Gilbert, knt., written by Mr Edward Haies, gent., in
Hakluyt, [Ed. 1589], p. 679.
2 The patent is given in Stith’s “History of Virginia,” book i, p. 4, and in
Hakluyt, pp. 677-679.
3 Letter from J. Gilbert to Walsingham, December 20, 1578. State Papers,
vol exxvi. 20.
4 Haies, pp. 631, 682. 5 State Papers, vol. cxlvii 40.
6 The whole of the following account is taken from Haies’ account. Hakluyt,
pp. 679-697, and from “A True Report of the Late Discoveries,” &c. Hakluyt,
pp. 702, 714.
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 11
cost seems to have been spared on this attempt, and everything
was arranged with the view to a permanent settlement, and to
the establishing friendly relations with the natives, and carrying
on trade with them. There were men “of every faculty, good
choice, as shipwrights, masons, carpenters, smiths, and such like
requisite to such an action; also mineral men and refiners.
Beside, for solace of our people, and allurement for the savages,
we were provided of music in good variety, not omitting the
least toyes, as morris dancers, hobby-horsse, and maylike con-
ceits, to delight the savage people, whom we intended to winne
by all fayre means possible. And to that end we were indiffe-
rently furnished of all petty haberdashery wares to barter with
those simple people.” At the outset the voyage was unfortunate.
Two days after they left Plymouth the largest ship deserted.
The sailors were, with difficulty, restrained from piracy. On the
5th of August they landed in Newfoundland, and Gilbert took
possession in the queen’s name. A pillar was erected with the
royal arms on it. Three laws were passed, interesting as being
the earliest specimen of British legislation in America, and as
illustrating the spirit of those times. The first provided for
religion, “which, in public exercise, should be according to the
Church of England.” The second for the maintenance of her
Majesty’s right and possession of those territories. Should any-
thing be attempted against these, it should be treated as high
treason against the laws of England. The third provided that if
any one uttered words dishonourable to her Majesty, he should
lose his ears, and his goods and ships should be confiscated.
Nevertheless, no settlement was effected. The soil was barren
and the climate harsh, while the colonists were an unruly mob of
adventurers, ill-fitted to be the fathers of an infant state. They
were more congenially employed in collecting silver ore, and in
attempts at piracy. Finally, another of the ships deserted, re-
ducing the fleet to three. With these Gilbert set sail to investi-
gate the coast further south. Soon, however, the largest of the
three remaining ships was wrecked, and the silver ore all lost, an
12 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
event which seems to have troubled Gilbert more than any of the
other mischances of the voyage. The two remaining ships, The
Squirrel and The Golden Hind, then turned homewards.
Storms arose. Gilbert, with characteristic heroism, persisted in
sailing in the Squirrel. At twelve o’clock on a September night
his lights disappeared, and the father of New England colonisa-
tion went to his rest. His last words were, “‘We are as near
heaven by sea as by land,” “a speech well beseeming a soldier re-
solute in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was.” +
The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by
one better qualified to carry it out. If any man in that age was
fitted to be the founder of a colonial empire, Raleigh was that
man. Like Gilbert, he had studied books; like Drake, he could
tule men. The pupil of Coligny, the friend of Spencer, traveller,
soldier, scholar, courtier, statesman, Raleigh, with all his varied
graces and powers, rises before us, the type and personification of
the age in which he lived. Nothing daunted by Gilbert’s failure,
by which he himself had been a loser, in 1584 he obtained a
patent from Elizabeth in precisely the same terms as Gilbert’s, ?
and sent out two vessels under the command of Philip Amidas
and Arthur Barlow. They reached the coast of Virginia, then
called Florida, on the 15th of July, took possession in the name
of the queen, and anchored off a small island. On the third
day, a native came across from the mainland anc approached
them, “never making any showe of feare or doubt.”? They re-
ceived him on board, gave him food and clothes, and showed him
the interior of the ship. The next day, the king’s brother, Gran-
ganimeo, came over with a number of Indians, the king himself
being prevented from coming by a wound which he had received
in arecent fight. The natives carried on some friendly inter-
course with them, did “some small traffic, and eat and drank
very merrily with them ;” and Granganimeo sent them game and
1 Haies, p. 695. ° Stith, book i. pp. 7,8. 7 Purchas, p. 829; Hakluyt, p. 728,
4 Hakluyt, p. 729; Stith, book i, p. 9. 5 Hakluyt, p. 729.
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 13
fruit.1 Nor did the soil please them less than the people. The
natives reported that it produced three grain crops a-year,” and
the English tested its fertility for themselves by sowing peas,
which grew fourteen inches in ten days.? Emboldened by the
friendliness of the natives, they explored further. They ventured
up Pamptico Sound,‘ and the next day sailed to the island of
Roanoke. On landing there, they were received by the wife of
Granganimeo “with wonderful courtesy and kindness.” She
carefully guarded their property, entertained them in her own
house, and took away her men’s bows and arrows to disarm all
suspicion. When the English at dusk retired for safety to their
ships, she sent them down their supper, and appointed guards to
watch by the shore all night; “in short, she omitted nothing that
the most generous hospitality and hearty desire of pleasing could
do to entertain them.” About the middle of September, Amidas
and Barlow returned to England, bringing with them two natives,
Wanchese and Manteo. Their tidings were received at court
with delight, and the queen bestowed on the country the name
of Virginia, either to commemorate herself, or as being “not yet
polluted with Spanish lusts.” ®
The next year, Sir Richard Grenville sailed in the spring with
seven ships for the purpose of founding a colony.’ The spot
selected for the settlement was Roanoke. A hundred and eight
colonists were left under the government of Mr, afterwards Sir
Ralph, Lane. Amidas also stayed with them, and Herriot, a man
of eminent scientific attainments, who acted as the historian of the
expedition.® On the 25th of August, Grenville left the colony,
1 Stith, book i, pp. 9, 10. 2 Hakluyt, p. 781.
3 Stith, book i, p. 10. Hakluyt, p. 731. Thisseems to have been a common prac-
tice among the early explorers. We find Sebastian Cabot doing the same thing.
Eden and Wylles, fol. 297.
4 Stith, booki., p. 10. 5 Stith, book i, p. 11. 6 Purchas, p. 828.
7 Hakluyt, p. 732; Purchas, p. 829 ; Stith, book i, p. 12.
8 « An Account of the Particularities of the Employment of the Englishmen left in
Virginia by Sir Richard Grenvill uncer the charge of Master Ralfe Lane, Generall
of the same, from the 17th of August 1585 until the 18th of June 1586, at which
time they departed the countrie ;” “sent and directed to Sir Walter Raleigh in
Hakluyt,” p. 738. Stith, booki., p, 13.
14 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
unfortunately not before he had marred the harmony which had
hitherto subsisted between the colonists and the natives. During
his journey of exploration among the Indian villages, a silver cup
was stolen by a native. In retaliation, the English burnt their
village, and from that time we perceive a difference in the
temper of the Indians. After Grenville’s departure, Lane went
on an exploring journey, and penetrated the country for a hundred
and thirty miles as far as the territory of the Chawonocks. ?
Their king Menatonon, “impotent in his limbs, but otherwise for
a savage a very grave and wise man, and of very singular good
discourse in matters touching the state,’? seems to have
perceived and worked upon the colonists’ weaknesses, by holding
out to them the extravagant hopes of pearl fisheries and mines
where was to be found a wonderful mineral called Wassader. 4
Stimulated by these hopes, Lane and his party journeyed inland,
and would not give up the hopeless undertaking until they had
been reduced to eating their mastiffs. On their retum to
Roanoke, they found that Grenville’s severity had already borne
fruit. Their friend Granganimeo was dead, and his brother
Wingina, or, as he was now called, Pemissapan, was plotting
against the colonists. He had already prejudiced the tribes,
through whose territory Lane had been travelling, against the
intruders. When, however, they returned safe, bringing with
them the son of Menatonon, and when their Indian guide testi-
fied how little any danger or hardship had deterred them, Pe-
missapan deferred his hostile purpose. The death of his father,
Ensenore, who was friendly to the English, at once removed an
obstacle to his hostile designs, and furnished him with an oppor-
tunity for executing them. On the pretext of celebrating the
funeral, he collected about sixteen hundred men, and prepared
a wholesale massacre of the English. The plot, however, was
revealed to Lane by Skico, the son of Menatonon, in time to save
the colonists, and hostilities ensued, in which Pemissapan
1 Stith, book i., p. 12. 2 Stith, book i, p. 13. 3 Hakluyt, p. 738.
4 Hakluyt, pp. 739-741 ; Stith, book i, p. 13. ® Stith, book i, p. 14.
DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 15
and fifteen of his men were killed But though the colonists
had escaped from the immediate danger of a massacre, their
prospects were very gloomy. They were suffering from lack of
food ;? their hopes of mines and pearl fisheries, their main object,
had failed; the Indians were no longer their friends, and there
seemed little hopes of Grenville’s return. At this crisis Drake’s
fleet, just sailing back from a raid on the Spanish Coast, appeared
off Roanoke. He got ready a ship for the settlers, with a
hundred men, and provisions for six months, but just as it was
ready a storm arose, and it was driven out to sea. Another
attempt was made to send a ship to their relief, but the har-
bourage was insufficient, and the design had to be abandoned.
Finally, the colonists despairing of maintaining their position,
resolved to embark in Drake’s fleet, and at the end of July 1586,
they arrived at Portsmouth. The colonists had only sailed a
few days before a ship arrived, sent out by Raleigh, with pro-
visions. After an ineffectual search for the colony it returned to
England.® About a fortnight later, Grenville arrived with three
ships well provisioned. Having spent some time in searching
for the colony, he landed fifteen men with provisions for two
years, to keep possession, and sailed home.’ In the next year,
Raleigh, undeterred by his previous failures, prepared three ships
under the command of John White, who was appointed governor
of the colony, with twelve assistants as a council. To these,
Raleigh gave a charter, and incorporated them by the name of
the City of Raleigh in Virginia.8 On the 25th of April, the
colonists sailed from Plymouth. In spite of the attempted
treachery of their shipmaster, they arrived safely and landed on
the 22d of July. They found no trace of Lane’s colony or of the
fifteen men left by Grenville, save one skeleton. Afterwards
1 Hakluyt, pp. 742-746 ; Stith, book i, p. 15. 2 Stith, book i, p. 15.
3 Hakluyt, p. 747. 4 Stith, book i., p. 16.
5 Hakluyt, p. 747; Stith, book i., pp. 21, 22.
6 Hakluyt, p. 748; Stith, book i, p. 22, says that Grenville left fifty men; but
Purchas, p. 829, confirms Hakluyt.
7 Hakluyt, p. 764. 8 Hakluyt, pp. 766-768 ; Stith, book i., pp. 22-24.
16 ENGLISH DISCOVERIES IN AMERICA
they learnt from the Indians that Grenville’s men had been
attacked and one slain; the rest; had disappeared and were no
more heard of. Before the settlers had landed three days, the
Indians commenced hostilities, and one of the assistants, Howe,
was killed. In retaliation for this the settlers fell upon a party of
Indians and killed one, but found when it was too late, that they
were of a friendly tribe. The 13th of this month was signalised
by the baptism of Manteo, who, as a reward of his fidelity, was
created Lord of Roanoke and Dasamonpeake. The country
still continued to be cursed with “ jail-birds,”® but juster ideas
as to the merits of Virginia began to prevail in England. In
1611, Dale had written home that “four of the best kingdoms in
Christendom altogether may in no way compare with this country,
either for commodities or goodness of soil.”” In 1620, a com-
1 Stith, book iii., pp. 117, 118, 120. “ True Declaration of the Colony in Virginia,”
Force, vol. iii., p. 20. 2 Stith, book iii., pp. 131, 132.
3 * Nova Britania,” Force, vol. i, p. 23. Stith, book iii., pp. 139, 140.
4 Stith, book iii., p. 148.
5 “ A Declaration of the State of Virginia,” Force, vol. iii., p. 5.
§ Stith, book iii, p. 168. . 1” New Life of Virginia, p. 21.
26 FORMATION OF
mission was sent out to report on the soil of Virginia, and a
pamphlet was drawn up by order of the company, setting forth
the merits of the country. *
In 1612, an event occurred which at first seemed likely to
embroil the settlers with the Indians, but which ultimately
proved a strong bond of union between them. Argall had gone
on a trading expedition up the Potomac, and had formed friendly
relations with one Japazaus, who had known Smith. Pocahontas
was at that time staying near, and Argall conceived the design of
capturing and detaining her as a hostage for Powhatan’s good
behaviour. To effect this, he entered into diplomatic negotiations
with Japazaus. The king of Potomac was won by the splendour
of a bright copper kettle; Pocahontas was lured on board Argall’s
ship, and taken as a prisoner to Jamestown. A message was
sent to Powhatan, demanding the English prisoners’ guns and
tools as ransom for his daughter. The news troubled the chief,
and he was divided between his love for his daughter and for the
English commodities. At last he sent back seven Englishmen,
each with an unserviceable musket, and promised five hundred
bushels of corn on the restoration of his daughter. The English
refused his terms, and Pocahontas remained a prisoner. She
soon became a Christian, and by the next year she had won the
heart of John Rolfe, a young Englishman. In 1613, this singular
marriage was celebrated, with the approbation of Powhatan, who
from that time lived on friendly terms with the English. In
1616, Pocahontas and her husband sailed for England. Her in-
telligence, grace, and courtesy won her universal admiration ; she
was received at court, and the friendship which she showed for
the English promised to be a bond of unity between the two
races. But the heroine of this strange career, who had been
reared in an Indian wigwam, and entertained in the drawing-
rooms of English peeresses, never revisited Virginia. On the eve
of her departure in 1617, she died at Gravesend, leaving one son,
1 Published in Force, vol. iii., and referred to above.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 27
from whom many of the best families in Virginia afterwards
claimed descent.1
Another circumstance served to strengthen the friendship
between Powhatan and the English. He dreaded their allying
themselves with his brother Opechancanough, of whom, as
virtually the next successor, he stood in perpetual fear. Another
tribe, the Chickahominies, once subjects of Powhatan, but who
had now set up a sort of republic, also feared that Powhatan
might employ the English to reconquer them, and, to guard
against this danger, offered to place themselves under the govern-
ment of Sir Thomas Dale. A formal treaty was made in which
they were received as English subjects,”
In 1618 Powhatan died, and was succeeded, nominally, by his
brother Opitchapan. He, however, being feeble both in mind
and body, left the whole power in the hands of his brother
Opechancanough2 In the year of Powhatan’s death events
occurred which excited suspicions of Opechancanough’s fidelity,
but no open rupture ensued* For four years the friendly
relations continued. A college was established to train up the
Indian children in Christianity. No violence was used in con-
version, and a perfect trust in the good intentions of the Indians
was shown. The English lived in plantations widely separated
from one another, alone and unarmed. The natives were “kindly
received into their houses, fed at their tables, were lodged in
their bedchambers ; they seemed entirely to have coalesced, and
to live together as one people.”® This harmony was not to last.
In 1622 an Indian chief, Nemattanow, or, as he was called by
the English, “Jack of the Feather,” one of the most noted
warriors of his tribe, treacherously murdered an English trader.
He was apprehended, and afterwards, in attempting to escape,
killed. Opechancanough had previously shown an unfriendly
1 Stith, book iii., pp. 127-130, 42-46. Pocahontas is more than once referred to
in the correspondence of Chamberlain and Sir Dudley Carleton.
? Stith, book iii., pp. 130, 181. 3 Stith, book ili., p. 129.
4 Stith, book iii., p. 169. 5 Stith, book iii., pp. 162, 163.
® Stith, book iv., p. 210.
28 FORMATION OF
spirit to Nemattanow, and it is unlikely that he was moved by
any spirit of revenge, but the pretext was a good one, and a
general massacre was determined on. Fortunately, a warning
was given by a converted Indian, and the colony escaped with
the loss of three hundred and forty-seven lives.1 The next year
an order was issued by the assembly “that the inhabitants of
every corporation should fall upon their adjoyning salvages, as we
did the last yeere.” Other precautions were enjoined. Houses
were to be palisaded, and no one was to go to church unarmed.?
The original code of laws for the settlement was drawn up by
the king, and sent out with the first colonists. It provided that
the colony should be governed by a council who should elect a
president from among themselves; that the doctrines of the
Church of England should be observed by the colonists, and pro-
mulgated among the natives ; that the land tenures should be the
same as in England ; that tumults, rebellion, conspiracy, mutiny,
and sedition, together with murder, manslaughter, incest, rape,
and adultery, should be capital crimes ; that such offences should
be tried by jury, and that the mght of pardon should be vested
in the crown ; that all other cases should be tried by the pre-
sident and council; that the president and council should have
full power to make laws, orders, or ordinances subject to the
approval of the king, and provided they were not contrary to the
laws of England. Such a constitution evidently contained within
it none of the elements of a representative government, nor did
it even provide the security of trial by jury, except for capital
offences. The condition was, however, added that, as the colony
increased, the king, his heirs and successors, should have power
to ordain and give such laws, constitutions, and ordinances as
they should think fit; and at first, while the colony was more
like a family than a state, the form of its constitution was not
very important. In 1611 Sir Thomas Smith, the treasurer of the
company, sent over a printed book of articles and laws chiefly
1 Stith, book iv., pp. 210-214. 2 Henings, vol. i., pp. 127, 128,
3 Stith, book ii., pp. 37-41.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 29
translated from the martial laws of the low countries, and drawn
up probably by Edward Strachey.1. These laws, if carried out
rigorously, would have established a civil and spiritual tyranny
of the most unendurable kind. Blasphemy against God, or any
article of the Christian faith, or any words or acts tending to the
derision or dispute of God’s Holy Word, were capital crimes.
Divine service was to be attended twice a-day ; the first omission
was to be punished by the loss of the day’s allowance of food,
the second by whipping, and the third by six months in the
galleys. Gambling on Sunday, or neglecting Sunday worship,
was severely punished, and, if persisted in, the offender was put
to death. To slander the council by seditious speeches or writ-
ing, was on the third offence a capital crime. The laws for the
regulation of trade, and the like were in themselves judicious,
but the penalties imposed terribly severe. Plundering the
Indians, trading with them without leave, or showing favouritism
in the distribution of provisions, were all capital offences. Dale
at first caused these laws to be executed rigorously,? and the
demoralised state of the colony, when he succeeded to the gover-
norship, no doubt made strong measures necessary; but we can
hardly suppose that the code was long maintained in its integrity.
In 1619, the settlers were “ again restored to their birthright, the
enjoyment of British liberty,’* and the colony was granted a
constitution. Yeardley, the new governor, brought out “ commis-
sions and instructions from the company for the better establish-
inge a commonwealth,” and made proclamation “ that those cruell
lawes by which the ancient planters had soe longe been governed
were now abrogated.” The colony was divided into boroughs,
and each had two burgesses. The assembly was to be held once
a year, and was to consist of the governor, the council, and the
burgesses. The governor and council were to be elected by the
1 Stith, book iii., p. 122. The laws are published in Force, vol. iii, under the
title “For the Colony of Virginea Britania, Laws Divine, Morall, and Martiall.”
For the probability of their being by Strachey, see the preface to Strachey’s
“ Travayle into Virginia,” published by the Hakluyt Society.
2 Stith, book iii., p. 1238. 3 Stith, book iii., p. 160.
30 FORMATION OF
council of the colony in England, who were also to distribute
lands in Virginia, and to settle matters of trade. The officers
were to hold office for three years at least, and afterwards during
pleasure, except the governor, who was to hold office for six years
at least. At the same time, a committee was appointed from
among the members of the company to establish a constitution
for the colony; the design, however, was not carried out, and
Virginia was from that time governed by laws made by its own
representatives.!
In the same year no less than twelve hundred and sixty-six
persons were sent out, making up the whole number to more
than eight thousand.2 A few years later, sixty young women
“handsome and well recommended for their virtues, education,
and demeanour,” were sent out with written characters, at the
fixed price of one hundred and twenty pounds of tobacco. It was
also specified that they should be married, not to servants, but to
“freemen and tenants capable of supporting them handsomely,”
while at the same time the colonists were bribed into matrimony
by a number of boys being sent out to be apprenticed to those
who married.*_ In other respects the colony was, in spite of the
massacre, prosperous. The cattle had multiplied, manufactures
had been set up, the numbers of adventurers had greatly increased,
and forty-two ships were employed every year in the Virginian
trade. *
In England, Virginian affairs were not so flourishing. The
misconduct of Sir Thomas Smith, the treasurer, and Wrote, a
member of the council, had given rise to considerable strife.
Hitherto, the king had taken but little active interest in the
colony. From one point of view, indeed, Virginia was interest-
ing; it produced tobacco, and to tax tobacco was, to the author
1 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 163, 164.
2 Declaration of the State of Virginia, pp. 5-10.
3 Stith, book iv., p. 197. The sixty maids seem to have abused their matrimonial
monopoly, for in 1624 it was made an offence punishable either by corporal chas-
tisement, or a fine for any one, male or female, to contract him or herself to two per-
sons at once. 4 Stith, book iv., pp. 254, 264, 266.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 31
of “The Counterblast,” both pleasant and profitable. Moreover,
he had, as we have seen, drawn up a code of laws which were
almost immediately superseded, and he had expressed a great
desire to possess a Virginian flying squirrel ;? but his services to
the colony had been confined to a donation of condemned arms
at the time of the massacre.? Gradually, however, the disputes
among the company began to assume a political character. The
members of the country party in the Virginian Council opposed
the interference of the Privy Council in the affairs of Virginia. *
Gondomar, whose Spanish gold, it was openly alleged, had already
influenced many of our leading statesmen against Virginia, advised
the king that the Virginian Court was but a seminary to a sedi-
tious parliament.® The taxation of tobacco soon afforded the
king a ground for attack. After a long and complicated dispute,
an order was issued by the Privy Council establishing a new
constitution for Virginia. The company resisted, but in vain.
A commission was sent out to Virginia, which, as might be ex-
pected, brought back a report unfavourable to the company. The
council carefully and successfully answered the charges brought
against them, but their fate was predetermined, and in June 1624
their patents were cancelled. This proceeding was beyond all
doubt an unjust one, but the colony was probably the gainer. A
constitutional king was a better, because a less jealous and exact-
ing ruler than a commercial corporation.
In the meantime, the Virginian legislature had been asserting
itself independent alike of king and company. They had con-
structed the first code ever framed for itself by an Anglo-Ameri-
can state. The laws consisted of thirty-nine articles. They pro-
vided for the observance of religion by ordering a maintenance
for a ministry, and by enforcing attendance at public worship.
1 Stith, book iv., pp. 243, 244.
2 Letter from Lord Southampton to Lord Salisbury, Catalogue of State Papers,
i, 65.
3 Bancroft, vol. i., p. 183. 4 Bancroft, vol. i., p. 186.
5 A New Description of Virginia. Massachusetts Historical Collection, 1st
Series, vol. ix., p. 111. 6 Stith, book v., p. 328,
32 FORMATION OF
The liberty of the subject was maintained in two most important
particulars, by restricting the right of taxation to the assembly,
and by forbidding the governor to employ the inhabitants on any
service without consent, if possible, of the assembly ; if a sudden
emergency should arise, of the council. From that time, the colony
commenced its existence as (in fact, though not in theory) an in-
dependent and self-governed state.1 The first assembly had met in
1619.2 It was, as we have seen, composed of the representatives
of boroughs. In 1629 plantations were substituted, and in 1632
counties.
Under Charles I little worthy of notice occurred in the
political history of Virginia. Sir John Harvey, during his
governorship, involved himself in a conflict with the assembly. It
is, however, manifest that no very substantial grievances existed,
since, in 1642, two months after Harvey's retirement, the
assembly refer to the happy state of the colony under the royal
government.2 Attempts were made to raise a revenue on tobacco,
and subsequently to establish a royal monopoly of the tobacco
trade. The attempts were averted, and the king contented
himself with the pre-emption of the Virginian tobacco, and with
enacting that no foreign vessel should be allowed to trade with
Virginia, or to carry Virginian goods.* In 1639 an attempt
was made to re-establish the authority of the company, but
was strenuously and successfully opposed by the assembly.5”
That the royal government sat lightly on Virginia may be
inferred from the loyal tone which had thus early become a
characteristic of the colony. After the establishment of the
commonwealth, “ Virginia was whole for monarchy and the last
country belonging to England that submitted to obedience of the
commonwealth of England,” ® and under Berkeley’s government
1 Stith, book iv., pp. 318-323.
2 Stith, book iii, p. 110.
* Hening’s Statutes of Virginia, vol. i., p. 231.
4 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 194, 195, 221.
5 Extract from MSS. relating to Virginia. Force, vol. ii.
® Rachel and Leah; or, The Two Fruitful Sisters. Force, vol. iii., p. 22.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 33
the plantation was a safe refuge for the defeated cavaliers In
October 1649, the assembly passed an Act premising “ that there
were some who, out of ignorance or malice, schism and faction—
in pursuance of some design of innovation—cast blemishes of dis-
honour upon the late most excellent and now undoubtedly sainted,
king,” and “to those close ends vindicating and attesting the
late proceedings against the said blessed king, and who, by such
arguments, press and persuade the power of the commission to be
null and void, and all magistracy and office depending thereon,
to have lost their vigour and efficacy, by such means assuredly
expecting advantages for the accomplishment of their lawless
and tyrannous intentions,” and enacting “that any person that
shall go about to defend and maintain the late traitorous pro-
ceedings against the aforesaid king of most happy memory, under
any notions of law and justice, such persons using any reasoning,
discourse, or argument, or uttering any words or speech to that pur-
pose or effect, to be an accessory post factum, and to be proceeded
against as such. Or whoever should go about, by unreverent or
scandalous worés or language, to blast the memory and honour
of that late most pious king (deserving of altars and monuments
in the hearts of all good men) shall be punished at the discretion
of the governor and council.” To question Charles II.’s right of
succession, or to propose a change of government, was made high
treason.? The hopes of the royalists in England were raised, and
in spite of the surrender of all the other colonists, they trusted
that Virginia would hold out. But as soon as two or three
parliamentary ships appeared all thoughts of resistance were laid
aside.2 Yet, whether from lenity or caution, the parliament was
satisfied with moderate terms. The submission of the colonists
was accepted as free and voluntary; they obtained an act of
indemnity for all things said or done against the parliament.
They stipulated that Virginia should be free from all taxes and
impositions except those imposed by the assembly, and that
1 Col. Norwood’s Account of a Voyage to Virginia, 1649. Force, vol. iii., p. 50.
2 Hening, vol. i., pp. 858-361. 3 Clarendon, book xiii., pp. 466, 467; ed. 1706.
Cc
34 FORMATION OF
neither governor nor council should be obliged to take any oath
or engagement to the commonwealth for one whole year, nor
should they be censured for praying for the king, or speaking
well of him, during the same space of time, in their own houses
or “neighbouring conferences.” They agreed for free trade with
the Dutch and all other nations at peace with England. In
conjunction with the parliamentary commissioners the assembly
elected a governor and council, and during the commonwealth no
attempt was made to impose governors on Virginia In 1659 a
message was sent out announcing Cromwell’s death and the
frustration of his plans for the benefit of the colony, approving
of their conduct hitherto, and requiring them to acknowledge
Richard Cromwell, an injunction which the assembly obeyed”?
When the news of restoration arrived the assembly passed a reso-
lution taking the government into their own hands, “ until such a
council and commission of Virginia come out from England as
shall be by the assembly adjudged lawfull” They then ap-
pointed Berkeley governor, premising that he should govern
according to the written laws of England and the established
laws of this country, and that all writs be issued in the name of
the Grand Assembly.2 When the restoration of the Stuart
dyxzasty was confirmed the Virginians acquiesced in it as peace-
ably as they had in its overthrow; a proof that the imperial
legislature did not materially affect them.
All doubts were now at an end as to the stability and pros-
perity of the colony. In 1649 there were fifteen thousand
white inhabitants, and by 1671, they had increased to forty
thousand.> The evils resulting from the transportation of crimi-
nals was kept in check by a humane system of slavery, itself in
time to be the parent of greater evils than those which it cured,
The whole question of American slavery will be considered more
’ Hening, vol. ii, pp. 363-369. 2 Hening, vol. ii., pp. 509, 510.
3 Hening, vol. ii., p. 530.
4 A Perfect Description of Virginia, p. 3.
5 Berkeley's Report of the State of Virginia. Hening, vol.i., p. 5-15.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 35
fully hereafter. But it will not be amiss in this place to notice
a few of its principal features as they appeared in Virginian
society. In 1649 there were only three hundred negroes in
the colony. In 1671, the number of Christian servants was
eight thousand; that of black slaves, two thousand.2 Of these
white servants, the majority were convicts, many of them con-
demned for political offences. Others were kidnapped and sent
off, either because there was a motive for getting them out of
the way, or because their friendless condition made them safe
objects to the slave merchant. The earliest restriction we find
imposed on the slaves, was an act punishing them for secret
marriages. At the same time, we find enactments guarding
against their running away. In 1670, we find it made no felony
to kill slaves if they resisted their master. A difference arose
very early between the condition of the white servants and the
negroes. The whites were emancipated after a certain time; the
negro was a slave for life. In the white race, slavery did not
descend from parent to child. The negro was born a bondman.
As the practice of transporting to the plantations ceased, the
white servants became gradually absorbed into the free popula-
tion, and slave and negro became synonymous terms. Hence, a
strong caste feeling soon grew up. The union of. the races was
strictly prohibited. In 1637, we find that Robert Sweet was
condemned to do penance, according to the laws of England, for
getting a negro woman with child, and the woman was sentenced
to be whipped,* and in 1691, a law was passed, that a white
woman having a child by a negro, should be fined £15, or in
default of payment, be sold for five years.5
With settled government and increased material prosperity,
1 A Perfect Description of Virginia, p. 4.
® Berkeley's Report. Hening, vol. i., p. 515.
3 Hening, vol. i, pp. 252, 253, 458.
4 Hening, vol. i., p. 552. Subsequently, we find one Hugh Davies sentenced
‘to be soundly whipped before an assembly of negroes and others, for abusing
himself to the dishonour of God and shame of Christians, by defiling his body in
lying with a negro.” Hening, vol. ii., p. 265.
5 Hening, vol. ii., p. 87.
36 FORMATION OF
crime disappeared. Theft was almost unknown. Houses were
left open all night, and clothes suffered to hang on hedges in
perfect safety. A neighbourly and social spirit prevailed. If a
man was sick, his neighbours would see that his crops took no
hurt! Travellers were entertained in private houses, and inns
throughout the country were unknown.? Poverty scarcely ex-
isted, and unless due to improvidence or indolence, was hardly
possible. The labour of a single man could produce in a year
two hundred and fifty bushels of maize* Wheat yielded from
thirty to fifty fold, maize from a hundred to three hundred fold,
and the latter was ready to gather in three months after sowing>
Servants were allowed a plot of land for the cultivation of
tobacco. Much land was found cleared ready to hand by the
Indians.” The prevalence of wolves made sheep farming diffi-
cult, but horned cattle and swine needed no care, and were
ready for the butcher when driven out of the woods® Wild fowl
abounded. An indifferent sportsman, Beverley tells us, could
kill twenty at a shot.? Wild turkeys grew to fifty pounds
weight. The rivers swarmed with fish, of which five thousand
had been taken at a single draught, none less than two feet long.
The aspect of the country was “so delectable, that the melan-
chollyest eye in the world could not look upon it without con-
tentment, or content himself without admiration.” “Purling
streams and wanton rivers everywhere kissed the happy soyle
into perpetuall verdure and unto an unwearied fertility.”° Few
who once visited it ever wished to return.
1 Rachel and Leah, pp. 16, 19.
2 Norwood’s Voyage, Virginia, p. 48. Rachel and Leah, p. 15.
* Beverley, p. 233.
4 A True Relation of Virginia and Maryland. By Nathaniel Shrigley. Force,
vol. iii., p. 5.
> Virginia Richly and Truly Valued. By Edward Williams, gent. London,
1650. Force, vol. iii., p. 12.
6 Rachel and Leah, p. 14. 7 Virginia Richly and Truly Valued, p. 13.
8 A True Relation, &c., p. 5. ° Beverley, p. 123.
10 Virginia Richly and Truly Valued, pp. 11, 21, 27, 28.
1 Rachel and Leah, p. 12.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 37
The want of skilled labour, and the great distance between the
plantations, were two of the chief drawbacks to the welfare of the
plantation. The latter was due partly to the character of the
country, which fitted it for a patriarchal mode of life and also made
communication difficult; partly to the provisions of the original
charter, which had enabled the early adventurers to claim fifty
acres of land for every colonist whom they sent out, and which thus
gave rise to a system of latifundia.! The lack of skilled labour was
due, no doubt, to the character of the early colonists, and was per-
petuated by the fertility of the soil, which made no demand on the
energy or invention of the farmer. Much of the best land was
allowed to lie waste through ignorance of draining. Tobacco
excluded all other crops. Attempts were made to introduce the
cultivation of the vine and of silk grass, but to no purpose? Of
the attempts made by the legislature to check the over-production
of tobacco, I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. The most
serious evil of all was the want of education. In 1671,
Berkeley, in the true spirit of his party, thanked God “that
there were no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not
have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience
and heresy and sects into the world, and printing has divulged
libels against the best government. God keep us from both.”
“The greater number of Christian children” were, through this,
“unserviceable in Church and State.”* The clergy did nothing
to make amends for this. From the first, Virginia seems to have
been unfortunate in her ministers. “Many came of such as wore
black coats and could babble in a pulpit, roare in a tavern, exact
from their parishes, and rather by their dissoluteness destroy
than feed their flock.” They “paddled in factious and state
matters.’> Berkeley complained “that as of all other com-
modities, so of these the worst are sent us.”° Gross religious in-
1 Virginia's Cure. London, 1661. Force, vol. iii., p. 8. Beverley, p. 45,
* Clayton’s Account of Virginia, 1688. Force, vel. iii, pp. 20,21. Virginia
Richly and Truly Valued, p. 25.
3 Berkeley’s Report. Hening, vol. ii., p. 517. 4 Virginia's Cure, p. 6.
® Rachel and Leah, pp. 7-20. 6 Hening, vol. ii., p. 517.
38 FORMATION OF
tolerance prevailed. We have already seen how rigorous were
the early laws, both those of King James, and those afterwards
sent out by Sir Thomas Smith, in their provisions for religion.
Yet they seem either to have suited the temper of the colonists,
or to have infected them with bigotry, for their own laws, though
less severe, were not more tolerant. To be absent from church
was to incur a penalty of a hogshead of tobacco, and a month’s
absence was punished by a fine of £50. The civil magistrates
were ordered “to see that the Sabbath-day was not profaned by
working or any employments, or journeying from place to place.”
These acts were passed in 1623, and renewed in 1629.1 In 1642
an oath was administered to the churchwardens, binding them to
make a true presentment of all such as “ prophane God's name and
his holy Sabbath, abuse His holy word and commandments, con-
temn His holy sacrament, or anything belonging to His service and
worship.”? In 1657, the use of boats or guns or any other act
tending to the profanation of the Sabbath, was forbidden under a
penalty of one hundred pounds of tobacco.2 In 1659, an edict
was issued against “an unreasonable and turbulent sort of people
commonly called Quakers.” A penalty of £100 was imposed
on any master of a ship who should bring in Quakers, and orders
were given that all Quakers should be apprehended and kept in
custody till they gave security to leave the colony. In 1661 it
was enacted that Quakers and Nonconformists who absented
themselves from church, should be fined for every offence, £20
sterling, and if they continued to absent themselves for a year,
they were to find securities for good behaviour. Conventicles of
Quakers were to be fined two hundred pounds of tobacco each
individual, and if any of them were insolvent, the more able
were to pay for them.’ Even to sympathise with Quakers was a
crime. In 1663, Mr John Porter, a member of the assembly,
being suspected of being “loving” to the Quakers and leaning to
1 Hening, vol. i, p. 144. ? Hening, vol. i., p. 240.
3 Hening, vol. i., p. 433. 4 Hening, vol. i., p. 532,
s » PB:
5 Hening, vol. ii., p. 166.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 39
anabaptism, was ordered to take the oath of allegiance and
supremacy, and, refusing, was expelled the assembly.1_ About
1650, a congregation of Independents established themselves. It
was determined to suppress them. Their pastors and other
teachers were banished ; some of them were imprisoned, and the
rest disarmed, till at length they fled to Maryland, where the
upright and pious Lord Baltimore had shown that, in the New
World at least, Romanism was not incompatible with toleration.?
Laws equally stringent were enacted on behalf of morality.
‘Whoredom, fornication, and the “loathsome sin of drunkenness,”
were all the subject of severe penal laws, and the enforcement of
these laws was the special province of the churchwardens.? But
in spite of these manifestations of the protective spirit in religion
and morals, politically Virginia enjoyed a high degree of freedom.
Under the original constitution of 1619, every freeman had a
vote. In 1655, the suffrage was limited to householders, and
any attempt on the part of an unqualified person to vote was
punishable by a fine of one hundred pounds of tobacco. In the
next year this act was repealed on the ground that it was “some-
thing hard and unagreeable to reason that any persons should
pay equal taxes and yet have no votes in elections.” In 1670,
the franchise was again restricted, and an act passed setting forth
that, “Whereas the ‘lawes of England grant a voyce in such
election only to such as by their estates, real or personal, have
interest enough to tye them to the endeavour of the publique
good ;” none but freeholders and householders should be allowed
to retain the privilege of voting.*
The government of the colony consisted, as we have already
seen, of a governor, a council, and a body of burgesses. The
governor was elected by the council, except during the more
Liberal Government which Virginia enjoyed under the common-
wealth. His office was, in theory, to represent the king. In
addition to this, he had the supreme naval and military authority.
1 Hening, vol. ii., p. 198. 2 Rachel and Leah, p. 23.
3 Hening, vol. i., p. 240. 4 Hening, vol. i., pp. 408, 412 ; vol. ii., p. 280.
40 FORMATION OF
His salary was, until 1677, £1000 a year. In that year the
assembly voted Berkeley an addition of £2001 The council
consisted of twelve members, nominated by the king. Under
certain circumstances, the governor had power to fill up vacancies.”
The whole deliberative and legislative power of the state was in
the hands of the burgesses—limited only by the governor's veto.
Originally the governor, the council, and the burgesses, had all
sat together. But in progress of time, the burgesses sat apart
and constituted by themselves the assembly.* All laws passed
by them and approved by the governor were sent over to England
for the royal sanction, but remained in force provisionally from
the time they were passed.* The expenses of the burgesses, which
the scattered state of the population made considerable, were
paid by the constituencies, and to guard against candidates pur-
chasing votes by offering to serve for little or no remuneration, a
fixed rate was established.° Under the commonwealth, a dispute
arose between the governor and the burgesses—each claiming the
right of dissolving the assembly. The dispute was settled in
favour of the burgesses, but it may be doubted whether they
retained the right after the restoration® That there was but
little state in the meetings of these colonial legislators, we may
judge from some records in Hening. In 1663, it was deliberated
“whether it were not more profitable to purchase, than continue
for ever at the expense, accompanied by the dishonour of all our
laws being made, and our judgments given, in an ale-house.”
At the same time, fines were imposed for various acts of disorder,
and amongst other offences, “ piping it” was prohibited.”
The judiciary was almost irresponsible. The governor and
the council formed the chief court both for civil and crimi-
nal cases,—subject to no appeal, except in civil cases in which
1 Beverley, p. 188. Account of Virginia in the Massachusetts’ Historical
Collection. Ist series, vo]. v., p. 142.
2 Beverley, p. 189. 3 Beverley, p. 187. 4 Beverley, p. 190.
5 Hening, vol. ii., pp. 73, 106, 109. * Hening, vol. i, pp. 498-500,
7 Hening, vol. ii., p. 204.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 41
the matter at issue was over £300 in value.! Besides this,
there were county courts, presided over by justices appointed
by the governor, in which cases of less than £15 value were
tried. ?
The special legislation on the subject of tobacco is too impor-
tant a feature in the early history of Virginia to be passed over.
As I have said before, the cultivation of tobacco was unduly prac-
tised, to the exclusion of other branches of agriculture. This was
due, no doubt, to want of skill in the labourers employed, many
of whom were, as we have seen, slaves. It has often been
observed, that a rotation of crops requires greater intelligence and
versatility than is found among slave labourers, and that conse-
quently the slave-driver is compelled to exhaust his land by
repeating the same crop year after year, and then to fall back
upon fresh tracts of virgin soil. As early as 1619 Yeardley had
endeavoured to legislate against the over-production of tobacco. 3
In 1623, it had become an established custom among the inhabi-
tants to make their contracts and to keep their accounts in tobacco
instead of money. This was found to be inconvenient, and a law
was passed to provide that all such dealings should thereafter be
transacted in money. Notwithstanding this attempt, tobacco
became ultimately the recognised currency of Virginia.* Various
other attempts were made to limit tobacco planting among the
early Virginian settlers. Vine dressers were introduced from
France.5 Efforts were made to cultivate silk, and it was supposed
that it would afford a branch of industry for which the Indian
women and children would be peculiarly fitted.6 But none of
these attempts seem to have attained any permanent success.
So great was the evil, that it was thought necessary, very early
in the history of the colony, to have recourse to direct legislation.
In 1629, an act was passed to limit the production, by which
1 Berkeley’s Account of Virginia. Hening, vol. i., p. 511.
2 Stith, book iv., p. 207. Hening, vol.i., p. 511.
3 Stith, book iii., pp. 163-165. 4 Hening, vol. i., p. 216.
© Virginia Richly and Truly Valued, p. 17. Hening, vol. i., p. 161.
6 Virginia Richly and Truly Valued, p. 38.
42 FORMATION OF
new-comers were forbidden to grow tobacco, while every planter
was definitely limited to two thousand plants. Inspectors were
appointed, and delinquents debarred from future cultivation.
The growing of slips or seconds was also prohibited, a prohibition
which was renewed in 1658 under the heavy penalty of ten thou-
sand pounds of tobacco. In 1631, the price was limited to six-
pence a pound. In 1633, the quantity was further limited to
fifteen hundred plants, and the cultivation of certain sorts was
forbidden. A public warehouse was appointed, where all the
tobacco was to be lodged and examined by an inspector. In the
autumn of the same year seven warehouses were established, and
the price raised to ninepence. In 1639, it was determined to
take further measures to limit the supply, and a law was passed
that half the tobacco which was passed by the inspector should
be burnt along with the condemned. In 1662, it was enacted
that no tobacco should be planted after July 10th, a limitation
which was afterwards made more stringent by substituting June
1st. These attempts to limit artificially the supply of tobacco
were, however, for the most part nullified by the refusal of Mary-
land to co-operate. In 1682, the tobacco difficulty gave rise to
serious troubles. A number of individuals took the law into
their own hands, and limited the tobacco supply forcibly by de-
stroying the plants. So serious did the matter become, that in
1684 an act was passed “for the better preservation of the peace
in Virginia, and preventing unlawful and treasonable associations,”
providing “that, if more than eight persons assemble to cut
tobacco, and do not disperse within four hours, they should be
deemed guilty of high treason, and put to death.”?
Another prolific subject of legislation was the relation of the
colonists to the Indians. We have already seen that in 1624
special enactments were made for an offensive and defensive war-
fare with them. In 1631, we find an order issued, containing the
words, “ because wee hold the neighbouring Indians oure irrecon-
1 For these tobacco laws, see Ifening, vol. i., pp. 141, 152, 161, 162, 164, 206,
209, 224, 399, 478; and vol. ii., pp. 106, 119, 190, 209, 222, 562.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 43
cilable enemies.”! In 1632, an order was passed, forbidding all
trade or intercourse with the Indians.2 Two years later, a similar
order was re-imposed, with severe penalties. In 1643, another
massacre was perpetrated, in which three hundred white men were
cut off. But Opechancanough was now long past his prime, and
the attack was conducted feebly. War was declared, and in
1646 Opechancanough was captured, and put to death under cir-
cumstances of peculiar brutality. In the same year, we find the
declaration of war repealed, and a treaty made with Necotowance,
Opechancanough’s successor, which was renewed in 1658.4 From
that time, for nearly thirty years, the red men and the colonists
remained at peace. So utterly were the dangers of Indian war-
fare forgotten, that in 1650 Williams wrote that “one man that
was master but of a heart and pitchforke hath been known to
stave off and affright ten of them; nor were any that had the
generosity to oppose, or the discretion to kepe good their houses,
massacred by them ;”® and in 1661 Berkeley reported that “the
Indians our neighbours are absolutely subjected, so that there is
no fear of them.”® So little was danger apprehended, that all
precautions against the Indians bearing arms were omitted. In
1655, an attempt was made to improve their condition by edu-
cating their children, by giving them cows as rewards for the
destruction of wolves, and by incapacitating them from alien-
ating their lands.” In 1658, they were allowed to carry arms,
and all restrictions on Indian commerce were removed on
the ground that the restrictions were futile, and prejudicial to the
beaver trade.8 Indeed, the whole tone of the Virginian laws in
reference to the Indians during the period of peace from 1646 to
1674 is singularly humane. Berkeley’s conduct in this respect
goes far to atone for his arbitrary and even brutal policy at other
times. In 1653, a law was passed, prohibiting the enslaving of
Indians. In 1654, another law protected their lives when they
1 Hening, vol. i, p. 193. 2 Hening, vol. i., p. 173.
3 Beverley, pp. 49, 50. 4 Hening, vol. i., p. 323.
5 Virginia Richly and Truly Valued, p. 58. § Hening, vol. i., p. 515.
7 Hening, vol. i., p. 393. 8 Hening, vol. i., p. 525.
44 FORMATION OF
came on to the lands of the settlers. In 1657, the settlers were
prohibited from squatting on the lands of the Indians. The
legislature of 1659 enacted that no debts should be recoverable
from Indians, and that no merchants should take Indian children
to England without the consent of their parents. In 1660, to
guard against encroachments on the Indian territory, certain
lands were settled inalienably on the Indians of Accomack.! In
1666, an act was passed containing a sort of digest of all the
laws then in force with respect to the Indians. Alienation of
Indian lands was forbidden, and those who had encroached on
their territory were to be ejected, and their houses pulled down.
No Indian chief was to be imprisoned, and -no Indian whatever
to be held as a slave for a longer period than was allowed in the
case of a white man. Badges were granted as passports to the
friendly Indians coming on the English lands. In the same
session, we find that Colonel Yorke was fined ten thousand
pounds of tobacco for allowing the murderer of an Indian to
escape, and that Captains Brent and Hawk should pay fifteen
thousand pounds of tobacco, and be disqualified from holding any
civil or military office for the illegal imprisonment of an Indian,
and that Colonel Moore Fauntleroy was similarly disqualified for
extorting Roanoke from the Indians, under the pretence that it
was ransom.? In 1665, a law was passed, that in the case of a
white man being murdered by the Indians, the nearest town
should be responsible, but in the next year it was repealed.$
In spite of this amity and tranquillity, events were at hand
which were to recall the horrors of the massacre, followed by
the still worse horrors of civil war. A variety of circumstances
had combined to disaffect the minds of the settlers. In 1669,
Charles II. granted to Lords Culpepper and Arlington the whole
of Virginia, giving at the same time the power of nominating
sheriffs and surveyors, of presenting to churches, of dividing the
colonies into counties and parishes, of granting lands, and of
1 Hening, vol. i., pp. 896, 401, 476, 541, 546 ; and vol. ii., p. 13.
2 Hening, vol. ii., pp. 138-150. 3 Hening, vol. ii., pp. 208, 237.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 45
nullifying previous grants. The colonists instantly took alarm ;
Morryson, Smith, and Ludwell were sent over as agents. Of the
result of their agency I shall have to speak again: its immediate
effect was to necessitate considerable expense, and compel the
assembly to impose a poll-tax of fifty pounds of tobacco. This,
added to the low price of tobacco, and the severe restrictions
imposed on trade, had caused considerable distress.2 Moreover,
corruption had become rife in the government offices, and in the
management of elections? The Virginians were, as we have
seen, a loyal people, and Berkeley was popular. But their lack
of education, and their mode of life, had developed in them what
a modern writer has well called “that peculiar taint of barbarism
which makes men prefer occasional disobedience to systematic
liberty.” * Moreover, the treatment they had met with from the
king whom they befriended must have contrasted singularly with
the liberality of the parliament which they had resisted. Events
were soon to fire the train thus prepared. In 1675, troubles
arose with the Susquehannah Indians on the Potomac, and one
thousand men had been raised for purposes of defence in Vir-
ginia, and a similar number in Maryland. During the course of
their disturbances, six Susquehannah chiefs, who had come to
treat of peace, were treacherously murdered. In retaliation,
their countrymen ranged through the colony, and killed sixty
white men. The necessity of taking prompt measures for defence
was represented to Berkeley, who, however, was content to send
vague promises of assistance. The Virginians were not of a
temper to suffer the country to be ravaged, and the inhabitants
murdered for want of legal authority to take up arms. Almost
every colonist was a skilful marksman, and fitted by his habits
for a backwoods warfare, and all they needed was a head. The
leader they wanted was found in Nathaniel Bacon, “the most
accomplished gentleman in Virginia, to serve his king and
1 Hening, vol. ii., p. 247. 2 Beverley, pp. 61, 62.
% Evidence of this is to be seen in Bacon’s law, of which I shall speak hereafter.
4 Buckle (History of Civilisation in England) uses these words of the Spaniards,
46 FORMATION OF
country at the councill table, or to put a stop to the insolences
of the heathen.”! He was the son of a member of the council;
and it is clear from subsequent events, that he possessed the con-
fidence of the country, and was eminently fitted to be the leader
in a guerilla warfare. Berkeley, however, refused him a com-
mission. Upon this he declared that as soon as another white
man was killed, he would take up arms. Immediately after-
wards news arrived that Bacon’s plantation had been attacked,
and his overseer, a favourite servant, killed. Bacon immediately
carried out his threat, and five hundred men soon gathered to his
standard. Berkeley thereupon proclaimed him a rebel, arranged
with the friendly Indians to cut off his supplies, and marched
against him. A civil war was now added to that with the
Indians ; but before Berkeley could overtake Bacon, Jamestown
was upinarms. A fresh assembly was summoned, and Bacon
elected member for Henrico county.* Through the influence of
his father, Bacon was granted a free pardon upon his submission.
The proceedings which immediately followed are somewhat
obscure. At the opening of the session Bacon appears as a
pardoned rebel; almost immediately afterwards he is an influen-
tial leader instituting great political reforms. It is at least cer-
tain that on the 5th of June the assembly passed measures which
sufficiently show how much ground there was for disaffection.
An act was passed setting forth that abuses had crept into
government offices, and ordering that the sheriffs’ and under-
sheriffs’ tenure of office should be limited to a year. No officer
was to hold more than one office of profit at the same time, or to
take more than their lecal fees. The secretary and his clerk had
been in the practice of levying a duty of eighty hogsheads of to-
bacco on every parcel of land granted ; for the future they were
ordered to levy this duty only on each patent, (one patent fre-
quently including several parcels.) Another act was passed
enabling freemen to vote for burgesses, and preventing false
returns, Taxation was transferred from the county magistrates
1 Private letter, written at the time, given in Force.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 47
to the assembly. At the same time measures were taken to
guard against the immediate danger from the Indians. An act
was passed “ for carrying on a warre against the barbarous In-
dians.” One thousand men were to be raised, of whom one-
eighth were to be horse, and Nathaniel Bacon was appointed
commander-in-chief. Yet it is clear that Bacon’s position was
by no means safe. Being warned that Berkeley meditated
treachery, he left Jamestown, on the pretext of visiting his wife,
who was sick, and returned in a few days with four hundred men.
Berkeley yielded. An act of indemnity was passed for all
offences done between March Ist and June 24th, those only
excepted who had traded with the Indians, and Berkeley was
compelled to sign a report approving of Bacon’s conduct. Ber-
keley was scrupulously honest in his dealings with the hostile
Indians, but he appears to have thought that rebels were entitled
to no such consideration. In spite of the act just passed, he
again declared Bacon a rebeL Fora time the insurgents’ cause
seemed completely triumphant. Bacon had the whole colony
with him. Berkeley’s retreat from Jamestown was considered
tantamount to abdication, and a provisional government was
appointed. Gloucester, the most populous and loyal country in
Virginia, refused to take the governor’s part. At length, he
succeeded in raising a force in Accomack. He bribed servants
by the hope of liberty, others by promises of the insurgents’
estates, and of immunities from taxation. A civil war ensued,
in which, as might be expected, the insurgents had the best of it.
They obtained possession of Jamestown, the only city in the
colony, and burnt it, lest the enemy should find shelter there.
But on the 1st of October they were deprived of their leader.
Bacon died, whether by sickness or “ Paracelsian art” seems un-
certain, and the rebel force having lost its head fell to pieces in
less than two months. The ringleaders were most of them taken
and put to death by Berkeley under circumstances of peculiar
brutality. At length the assembly interfered, and passed an act
of indemnity pardoning all treasons, murders, &c., committed since
48 FORMATION OF
April 1st, with certain exceptions. At the same time they passed
an act of attainder against Bacon and others, and declared all
Bacon’s acts null and void. To obliterate, as far as possible, all
recollection of past grievances, they enacted that no private
compensation was to be made for injuries inflicted during the
rebellion, and that no abusive terms were to be used having
reference to it. In the next year the king sent out instructions
to Berkeley to pardon all except Bacon. He was to be captured
by “all waies of force or design,” if he refused to surrender; an
order which had already been rendered unnecessary, perhaps by
having been too faithfully anticipated. These instructions were
confirmed by an act sent out two years later by Culpepper, and
passed by the assembly. The ease with which Bacon’s party
was overthrown after his death proves how little of the material
for a revolution the country contained within itself; but his
reforms did not wholly die with him. Many of his laws were
re-enacted, and we do not find any complaint afterwards of such
abuses as those which he had remedied.t
The history of Virginia, under the two last Stuarts, continues
to present to us a policy of petty tyranny and irregular resist-
ance. In 1680, as we have seen, Lord Culpepper was sent out
as governor. He brought two acts with him, beside that of
indemnity. One of these made the naturalisation of aliens a
prerogative of the governor, not as hitherto a privilege of the
assembly. The other imposed a perpetual export duty on
tobacco, the proceeds of which were to be accounted for not to
the assembly, but to the king? At the same time, Lord Cul-
pepper obtained from the assembly a doubled salary on the
ground of his being a peer, with an addition of house rent? On
the other hand, the colonists had, by their agents in London,
obtained an important advantage. A charter had been’ pro-
1 I have taken this account of Bacon’s proceedings from three pamphlets
written by contemporaries, and published in Force, and from Hening, vol. ii., pp.
341-365, 408, 409, and 428. I have occasionally referred to Bancroft, who quotes,
in addition to the above authorities, some Richmond Records.
2 Hening, vol. ii., pp. 458, 466. 3 Beverley, p. 188,
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 49
mised, granting them immunity from taxation, but it was allowed
to fall through. A second attempt was more successful. After
much resistance, Culpepper and Arlington gave up their grant,
reserving only escheats and quit-rents. Beside this, the agents
drew up a new charter, to which they obtained the king’s assent.
This charter provided that the crown should have no power to
transfer its authority, as in the case of Culpepper, that the pre-
sent grants should be confirmed, and that no taxes should be
imposed but by consent of the assembly.t
Culpepper was succeeded in 1683 by Lord Howard of Effing-
ham. A century of corruption was then beginning to assert its
sway over English politics, and in Effingham’s government,
Virginia had a foretaste of it. He established a chancery court
with an arbitrary table of fees, and constituted himself Lord
Chancellor. Other despotic measures followed. The printing
press was prohibited. The franchise was restricted. The
assembly, on the other hand, questioned the royal veto, and was
accordingly dissolved, and one of its members kept in irons for
using treasonable language.? But the governor was too weak
and ill supported to take any decisive measures, and Virginia was
allowed to grow up a stronghold of liberty, with institutions
which inadequately expressed the needs of her citizens.
In Virginia, we have seen a colony growing up in the spirit of
the old world, and with many of its faults and failings. In New
England, we shall see hereafter a community throwing off the
yoke of the old world, flying into a wilderness for freedom, and
with too faithful imitation, establishing a spiritual tyranny
different only in form from that which it had escaped from in
the old world, and scarcely less irksome. In Maryland, we see
the stranger spectacle of that Church, whose name is in Europe
associated with intolerance, setting a continent the example of
toleration. In 1629, Lord Baltimore had visited Virginia, but
the bigotry of the legislature had made it impossible for him to
remain there.3 But there was a country to the north of Virginia,
1 Hening, vol. i., p. 520. 2 Beverley, pp. 128-131... 3 Beverley, PP. 46, 47.
50 FORMATION OF
another “ fruitful sister,” in which he might find a home for him-
self and those who held his faith. In fertility, Maryland
equalled Virginia, while in climate it was superior. Wild cattle,
deer, and swine abounded. Delaware Bay afforded rich fisheries,
and the Potomac swarmed with beaver! In 1632, Lord Balti-
more obtained a proprietary grant of Maryland, modified by pro-
visions for the protection of the colonists against the proprietary.
It was provided that the statutes of the province should be
established with the advice and approbation of the majority of
the freemen and their deputies, and that the authority of the
proprietary should not extend to the life or estate of any emi-
grant. Before the patent was completed, Lord Baltimore died,
but it was renewed in the name of his son. On the 2d of
November 1633, Leonard Calvert, the brother of Lord Baltimore,
and two hundred colonists sailed? The conditions of the
adventure were, that every share of £100 entitled the holder to
two hundred acres of land, beside a distribution in proportion to
personal services.2 On the 27th of March, they landed at the
Indian town of Yoacomoco. As if by “a miracle, the savages
trusted themselves like lambs” to the colonists, and “surrendered.
to them themselves and their property.”* The early history of
Maryland is a scene of unruffied peace and prosperity. The
relations with the Indians, which had opened so favourably, were
kept up by the agency of the Roman Catholic missionaries.
The solitary priest, with his interpreter and servant, his little
stock of provisions, his baptismal water and sacramental wine,
and a few small presents for the natives, wandered through the
Indian villages, carrying his tent with him, and “enjoying his
humble fare and hard couch, with no less enjoyment than more
luxurious provisions in Europe.”® In 1642, the Indians, pro-
voked by the rapacity of white traders, commenced a war of
1 «A Relation of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore in Maryland,
copied from the Archives of the Jesuits’ College at Rome,” Pp. 5-7. Force, vol. i.
2 Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 240-246. 3 A Relation, &c., p. 4.
4 A Relation, &., p. 25. 5 A Relation, &., pp. 39, 40.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 51
retaliation. Friendship, however, was soon restored, and laws
were passed, giving the pre-emption of the soil to Lord Balti-
more, making the kidnapping of Indians a capital offence, and
the selling arms to them a felony.?
All the troubles that beset the youthful state resulted from
the intrigues of a Virginian—Clayborne, who claimed a right
over the territory, under an old license granted for commercial,
purposes in 1632. Early in the history of the colony, he had
created a disturbance in which lives had been lost; and in 1638,
one or two of his adherents were executed on the charge of piracy
and murder. He availed himself of the establishment of the
commonwealth, and of the consequent confusion, to seize the
supreme power, and to establish a board of ten commissioners, to
whom the government of the colony was intrusted. One of the
first legislative acts of the new party, was to exclude “ popery,
prelacy, or licentiousness of opinion,” “from the freedom of
conscience granted to all other beliefs.” The act met with a
rebuke from Cromwell, who bade the commissioners “not to
busy themselves about religion, but settle the civil government.”
For a time discord prevailed, but in 1660, the assembly claimed
full legislative power, and the liberties of the colony, which by
this time contained ten thousand inhabitants, were established
on a firm basis.
We have already seen that at the time of the original forma-
tion of the Virginian plantation, another colony was projected in
the territory, which was afterwards New England. In 1607, it
was determined to send out a colony, under the charter of the
North Virginia Company. George Popham was appointed
president, and Ralegh Gilbert admiral, and with one hundred
settlers, they sailed from Plymouth on the 31st of May 1607.
On the 8th of August they landed at the mouth of the Kennebek,
where they built Fort St George. They made friends with the
natives through the agency of two Indians, whom they had
brought with them, and forty-five men were left as a colony.
1 Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 258, 254. 2 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 254-265.
52 FORMATION OF
Unfortunately for the new settlement the winter was exception-
ally cold. Popham died; Gilbert was obliged to return home,
owing to the death of his father, and the colony was broken up,
having only served to establish a belief in the unendurable
severity of the climate.
One of the most energetic in organising this colony had been
Sir Fernando Gorges. His interest in the colonisation of America
had originally been aroused by the possession of three Indians
brought back by Weymouth from America in 1605. The report
which he had received from them of their country, “its goodly
rivers, stately islands, and safe harbours,” had impressed him
with the value of settlements on the coast of North America,
and in 1606, he had sent out one Captain Challoungs with two of
these Indians. Challoungs was captured by the Spanish fleet
before he reached America, and the expedition came to nothing.
Notwithstanding this failure, and that in the following year, he
determined to renew the attempt, “not despairing,” as he quaintly
says, “of means, when God should be pleased to make it appear,
it would yield both profit and content to those that aimed
thereat, these being truly, (for the most part), the motives that
all men labour, howsoever otherwise adorned with fair colours and
goodly shadows.” Under the pretext of fishing and trade, he
sent out several voyages to inspect the country, but saw no
prospect of a settlement. In vain Smith represented the
capacities of New England as a fishing station. The ill-success
with which Virginia had hitherto met, was discouraging, and the
New England patent remained unused. Various fishing voyages
were made, but their chief effect was to discredit the English
with the natives, by the “beastly demeanours” of the fisher-
men.®
1 Sir Ferdinando Gorges’ “ Description of New England,” [Massachusetts’
“Historical Collection,” 3d series, vol. vi.,] pp. 54, 56. Travayle into Virginia,
pp. 161-179. ;
2 Gorges, pp. 51, 56-63.
3 Gorges, p. 70. It was in one of these voyages that Hunt kidnapped a num-
ber of Indians, one of whom afterwards escaped, and acted as an interpreter for the
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 53
The colonisation of New England, incredible as it might seem
to Gorges, was to proceed from other motives than “aiming at
profit and content.” That which the wisest and bravest English-
men of the Elizabethan age had failed to do, which the most
enterprising merchants and gentry of England had only done
after a succession of failures, was destined to be accomplished
even more fully, by a small and obscure band of exiled en-
thusiasts. “T will make them conform, or I will harry them out
of the land,” said King James at the Hampton Court Conference.
“T protest my heart melteth for joy, that Almighty God, of His
singular mercy, has given us such a king as since Christ’s time
has not been,” was the pious comment with which Bancroft re-
ceived the declaration of the royal policy. King and primate
alike little knew of how great a work God’s counsels had made
them the unconscious instruments. In 1608, a troop of men,
women, and children, were gathered together on a lonely beach
between Grimsby and Hull. They had been “harried out of the
land,” they were “going into a country they know not but by
hearsay, where they must learn a new language, and get their
livings they knew not how.” Holland was in that age the one
spot of dry land on which the tossed and troubled ark of freedom
had found rest. Thither Ames had fled when Oxford had driven
him forth, and there the disciples of Barrowe and Greenwood had
found the home which England under Elizabeth had refused
them.” The goods and the greater part of the men were on
board, the women and children were just ready to embark, when
“the master espied a great company, both horse and foot, with
bills and guns and other weapons, for the country was raised to
take them.” The Dutchman seeing that, swore his country’s oath
(‘sacrament’) and having the wind fair, weighed his anchor,
hoisted sail and away.” At first it seemed as if those who had
Plymouth pilgrims. Discovery and Plantation of New England. Massachusetts’
Historical Collection, 2d series, vol. ix. p. 4, and New England’s Memorial,
p. 54; ed. 1855. 1 Stoughton’s ‘‘ Spiritual Heroes,” pp. 68, 69.
- ? Belknap’s “‘ American Biography,” p. 274, n.
54 FORMATION OF
been left behind had fared better. A fearful storm arose. For
seven days “they neither saw sun, moon, nor stars, and were
driven to the coast of Norway; the mariners themselves often
despairing of life, and once with shrieks and cries gave over all,
as if the ship had been foundered in the sea and they sinking
without recovery.” Truly the pilgrims might have said, “quid
times! Cwsarem vehis.” The outcasts who, after fourteen days
in the deep, landed at Amsterdam, were to be the founders of
an empire which, perhaps, shall influence the world even more
mightily than did Cesar’s. The wives and children whom they
had left behind them, homeless, and penniless, after being
“hurried from one place to another, and from one justice to an-
other,” and “thus turmoiled a good while,” were at last let go,
their persecutors being glad to be rid of them, and joined their
husbands and fathers in Holland.
Their historian tells with almost scriptural simplicity and
pathos, how “in the low countries, they saw many goodly and
fortified cities, strongly walled and guarded with troops and
armed men;” how “they heard a strange language and beheld
the different manners and customs of the people, with their
strange fashions and attires all so far differing from that of their
plain country villages, wherein they were born and bred and had
so long lived, as it seemed they were come into a new world.”
After sojourning a year at Amsterdam, they removed to Leyden,
“a, fair and beautiful city and of a sweet situation” and there
“fell to such trades and employments as they best could, valuing
peace and spiritual comfort above all riches whatsoever; and at
length they came to raise a competent and comfortable living,
and with hard and continual labour.” There they “continued
for many years in a comfortable condition, enjoying much sweet
and delightful society and spiritual comfort together.” The little
colony formed a refuge for Nonconformists from various parts of
England, till they became a great congregation. Their honesty
and industry gained them employment, and so peaceful was their
life, that the magistrates held them up as an example to the tur-
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. ‘5D
bulent Walloons. Yet their position was a hard, and in many
respects a painful one. They saw their children growing up to a
life of almost ceaseless toil, or becoming sailors and soldiers, and
acquiring the rudeness and often the vices of their associates.
Above all, “they had a great hope and inward zeal of laying
some good foundation, or at least, to make some way thereunto,
for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of
Christ in remote parts of the world.” Sixty years before, Coligny
had conceived the idea of establishing that home for religious
liberty in the New World which was denied to it in the Oldt To
America the thoughts of the Leyden puritans now turned.
Guiana and Virginia were both proposed. Guiana was overruled
as being unhealthy and exposed to the Spaniards, while in
Virginia, it was feared they would be in danger of the same per-
secution which had driven them from England. Their lines were
to be cast in a spot seemingly far less pleasant than Virginia or
Guiana, but had the wisest political foresight guided them, they
could not have chosen more discreetly. “If men desire to have
a people degenerate speedily, and to corrupt their minds and
bodies too, and besides, to take in thieves and spoilers from
abroad, let them seeke a rich soile that brings in much with
little labour; but if they desire that piety and godliness should
prosper accompanied with sobriety, justice and love, let them
choose a country such as this (New England) is; even like
France or England which may yield sufficiency with hard labour
and industry; the truth is, there is more reason to fear wealth
than poverty in that soile.” 4
At length it was determined to settle by themselves under the
general government of Virginia, and two deputies were sent to
England to treat with the Virginia Company. The company
gladly accepted this offer, and were willing to grant them a
patent, with as ample privileges as they had or could grant.
The king, however, refused to tolerate them by his public
authority, though he gave a general promise that he would
1 Bancroft, vol. i, p. 61. 2 The Planter’s Plea. Force, vol. ii., p. 18.
56 FORMATION OF
connive at them, and not molest them, if they carried themselves
peaceably. At first this “made a damp on the business.” But
the principal men in the congregation were disposed to attach
little importance to the royal sanction, arguing, with a knowledge
of Stuart principles, which showed that enthusiasm had not
diminished their worldly wisdom, that “if there should be a
purpose or desire to wrong them, though they had a seal as
broad as the house floor, it would not serve the turn, for there
would be means enough found to recall or reverse it.” Their
attempt was delayed by internal dissensions then prevailing in
the Virginia Company. At length, in 1620, they got a patent in
the name of John Wincob, “a religious gentleman, then belonging
to the Countess of Lincoln, who intended to go with them.” In
the meantime the company for New England had obtained a
renewal of their patent in precisely the same terms as the
Virginia patent. The pilgrims were, for a time, inclined to settle
under this, but nothing came of the design, and they adhered to
the patent they already had. The terms of it were that the
shares should be of £10 value each; that every planter of the
age of sixteen should be considered as having one share in the
adventure. That all property and land should be common for
seven years, at the end of which time this should be divided.t
On the 5th of September, after crossing over from Leyden, they
sailed from Southampton. For a time it seemed as if their
second departure from England was to be as disastrous as their
first. Owing to the smaller of their two ships being overmasted
they had, after sailing more than three hundred miles, to put
back and leave it with its passengers, and to sail with the
Mayflower alone. Yet the outcasts carried away a grateful
recollection of the country from which they had been driven
forth, and the name of their settlement commemorated kindness
received on the last spot of English soil on which they rested.?
1 The whole of this account of the early wanderings of the Pilgrim Fathers is
taken from Bradford’s “Letter Book,” published in Davis’ edition of “New
England's Memorial.” ? Belknap’s “ American Biography,” vol. ii., p. 323.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 57
In November 1620 they reached Cape Cod. They then directed
their shipmaster to make for Hudson’s river. But the same good
fortune which had before saved them from settling in Virginia
still attended them. The territory about Hudson’s river was
much richer and more fertile than Cape Cod, but the latter
district had been recently depopulated by a pestilence, and was
therefore peculiarly fitted to be the settlement of a weak and
unwarlike people. Their shipmaster being bribed by the Dutch,
who were hostile to the plantation, refused to take them further
south, and they were constrained, almost in the dead of winter,
to land in “a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts
and wild men.” -On the 11th of November 1620 the fathers of
New England met to constitute themselves a body politic. The
heads of the forty-six families who composed the little republic
signed a solemn combination, binding themselves to submit to
“such just and equal laws as shall be thought most meet and
convenient for the general good of the colony.” They then
appointed William Carver their governor. Their next proceeding
was to find a habitation, On the 16th they sent out sixteen
men, well armed, to explore. They met with no Indians, but
found some of their wigwams, and, what was of the utmost
importance to them, some seed-corn for the new year. On the
6th of December they sent out a second expedition in the
shallop to explore the bay. On the same day that they sailed
they perceived, near the shore, some ten or twelve natives, the
first that they had seen. The next morning, about dawn,
they heard “a great and strange cry,” which was speedily
followed by a flight of arrows. Most of their arms were
in the shallop, but fortunately they had four muskets,
and with them they kept them at bay, and “soon stayed
their violence.” None of the savages seem to have been
killed, but at length one of the English “taking full aim at” a
savage, “ made the bark or splinters of the tree fly about his ears ;
after which he gave an extraordinary shriek, and away they
went all of them.” After returning solemn thanksgiving for their
‘58 FORMATION OF
deliverance, they again set sail, On returning, they landed at
Plymouth, and there spent their Sabbath. On the Monday they
sounded the harbour, and found it suitable for shipping, and find-
ing also corn-fields and running water, they chose the spot for
their settlement. On the 16th of December, the whole body of
pilgrims landed at Plymouth, and on the 25th the first house was
begun. The hardships of the voyage, the sufferings from cold
and lack of food which the emigrants had undergone soon began
to tell upon them, and in three months they were reduced to
about fifty. Sometimes there were not more than six or seven
well But the spirit of Christian fortitude and brotherhood
which they had brought with them into the wilderness did not
fail under these trials. The few who had strength ministered
night and day to the sick, “not shunning to do very mean ser-
vices to help the weak and impotent.” Had the savages taken
advantage of their weakness, the pilgrim colony could not have
lived through a single summer. But various circumstances hin-
dered the Indians from an attack. I have already mentioned
that they had suffered severely from a pestilence. So widespread
had been the destruction, that the sites of their villages were
strewed with bones and skulls, and the forest seemed “a new-
found Golgotha.”? Moreover, the savages had about three years
before captured the crew of a French ship at Cape Cod, and put
nearly the whole of them to death. One of the survivors, who
was kept in captivity, having learnt their language, warned them
that their crime would not go unpunished. Shortly after, the
plague fell upon them, an event that made the survivors hence-
forth scrupulous in their dealings with the white men. In
March they met an Indian, the first with whom they had spoken,
who hailed them with “Welcome, Englishmen.” A few days after-
wards, they received a visit from Massasoit, the sachem of Poka-
noket, with whom they made a league. Two years later, this
friendship was confirmed by a fortunate circumstance. Massasoit
fell ill, and his life was despaired of. The colonists, hearing of
1 New England’s Canaan, By Thomas Morton. Force, vol. ii, pp. 18, 19.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 59
this, sent Winslow to see him. By the use of some simple medi-
cines, he restored Massasoit, and the sachem was ever after a
firm friend to the colonists.
With the appearance of summer, the health of the settlers im-
proved, but in April they were deprived of their governor, Carver.
He was succeeded by Bradford, a brave and pious descendant of
a family of English yeomen.? The same autumn, several other
chiefs entered into an alliance with the colony, and gave in their
allegiance to the English king. So prosperous was the past
summer, that when thirty-five more emigrants appeared on the
9th of November, the arrival excited no fear of lack of stores.
The colonists could write home to their friends in England,—
“ By the goodness of God we are so far from want, that we often
wish you the partakers of our plenty.”’* They had, however,
overrated their strength, for before the next harvest they again
suffered for lack of provisions. Shortly after the departure of
the ship which brought the emigrants, an ambassador arrived
from Canonicus, the sachem of Narraganset, bearing a bundle of
arrows in the skin of a rattlesnake. Bradford answered the
challenge in kind by sending back the skin stuffed with powder
and ball, accompanying it with the message that if the Indians
preferred war to peace, they were welcome to attack them; they
would not find them unprepared. The colonists, after this,
thought it prudent to palisade their village, to place sentries, and
to divide their little force into four squadrons to guard the differ-
ent quarters. In the next summer they built a fort “ both strong
and comely,” and it was characteristic of these soldiers of the
1 The narrative of this visit, written by Winslow, is published in New England’s
Memorial, pp. 8367-375. It is worthy of notice that Winslow was accompanied by
“one Master John Hampden, a gentleman of London.” It was probably the pre-
sence of this John Hampden in the colony, that gave rise to the idea that the
celebrated John Hampden intended at one time to emigrate to New England.
The improbability of such an intention is shown by Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 411, 412.
2 Belknap’s “ American Biography,” vol. iii., p. 1.
3 Moint’s “ Relation,” in Massachusetts’ ‘“ Historical Collection,” 2d series,
vol. ix., p. 60.
60 FORMATION OF
“holy war,” that the same building served them for their place
of defence and of worship.
In the summer of 1623 it was found necessary to abandon the
system of common labour, and to apportion the land into hold-
ings, the soil itself being as before common property, but
the labour and produce divided. They had now spent two
winters and three summers in the colony, and had still a hard
battle to wage against poverty. They had as yet no cattle,1 and
by the time “their corn was planted all their victual was spent,
and they were only to rest on God’s providence.” Shell-fish was
the principal staple of their food. ?
Before proceeding further, it may be well to review the posi-
tion of the corporation under which the Plymouth colonists
occupied their lands. In 1620, the New England company
obtained a fresh patent. Under this the Plymouth colonists had
obtained a patent in the name of one John Pierce. Pierce
had made two unsuccessful attempts to visit New England,
but had been frustrated, once by a leak in his vessel, and once
by storms. Finally, he had given up the idea, and assigned his
patent to the company for £500. The company treated the
Plymouth colonists with liberality in the matter of grants, giving
them such patents as were necessary for the Indian trade.* But
in 1627, difficulties arose. The colonists felt the restrictions on
the trade irksome, and the company were dissatisfied with the
small profits.° Accordingly, Allerton, the deputy-governor, was
sent over to make an arrangement by which the colony might be
independent of the company. Seven or eight of the leading men
among the colonists entered into an agreement by which the
1 The first neat cattle was expected to New England in 1624. Josselyn’s
“ Chronological Observations of America,” Massachusetts’ ‘“ Historical Collec-
tion,” 3d series, vol. iii., p. 375.
2 This account of the settlement of Plymouth is taken from Morton’s ‘‘ New
England’s Memorial.”
3 New England’s Memorial, pp. 61-63. Belknap’s “American Biography,”
vol. iii., pp. 28, 29.
‘ 4 Bancroft, vol: i., p. 320.
5 Belknap’s “American Biography,”’ vol. iii., pp. 2-34.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 61
company agreed to sell all their shares, stocks, merchandise, lands,
and chattels, for a sum of £1800, to be paid by instalments, those
who madé the agreement being responsible on behalf of the
colonists. The money had to be raised at extravagant interest,
but the stimulus of independence more than compensated for the
immediate expense. The land and stock were divided into shares;
every person was to have a single share, and in addition, heads of
families were allowed to purchase one share for every member of
the family. In July the same eight “directors,” if we may so
call them, who had arranged these regulations, determined “to
run a great venture,” and to pay off the debt due to the company,
and all other debts at once, and to take the trade of the colony
for six years in payment under certain conditions.1_ Thus, in less
than seven years from its first settlement, did Plymouth become
an independent society, with full tenure of the land which it
occupied. More than twenty years later, a young Oxford scholar
amused the courtiers of St James by representing New England
as a, land of simpletons, the paradise of adventurers and sharpers. ?
The history of Plymouth was a sufficient answer to the lying
prophet, but the history of Plymouth was only on a small scale
1 Prince’s “ New England Chronology.”
2 Cartwright in “The Ordinary,” acted in 1651. Three Swindlers—Sharpe,
Slicer, and Hearsay—are represented laying their plans—
“Sharpe. There is no longer tarrying here ; let's
Swear fidelity to one another, and so resolve for
New England.
Hearsay. ’Tis but getting a little pigeon hole
Reformed ruff.
Slicer, Forcing our beards into the orthodox set.
Sharpe. Nosing a little treason ’gainst the king,
Bark something at the bishops, and we shall
Be easily received.
Hearsay. No fitter place.
They are good silly people ; souls that will
Be cheated without trouble ; one eye is
Put out with zeal, t’other with ignorance,
And they think they're eagles.
Sharpe, ‘We are made
Just fit for that Meridian ; no good works
Allowed there ; faith, faith is that they call for,
And we will bring it ’em.
Hearsay, For what Old England can’t
Afford New England will ; you shall hear of us
By the next ship that comes for proselytes.”
—Act V., SCENE 5.
62 FORMATION OF
the history of the nation. In the meantime, other settlers had
followed in the path which Plymouth had opened. In 1623,
Robert Gorges obtained a patent and a commission from the New
England company, constituting him governor-general of New
England. He established a plantation in Massachusetts Bay, but
his governorship of New England came to nothing.* In 1622,
one Wiston, who had been at one time an adventurer in the Ply-
mouth company, sent over a colony of sixty “lusty men,” who
settled near Plymouth. They proved “an unruly company and
no good government over them, and by disorder fell into many
wants.” They ridiculed the Plymouth plantation as a weak
settlement, hampered by women and children. But in one year
they were reduced to so wretched a condition, that some were
glad to sell themselves as slaves to the Indians, while others
brought the settlers into disrepute with the savages by stealing
their corn, and by other abuses. After a year, having changed
their settlement, and having been rescued from famine and mas-
sacre by the men of Plymouth whom they had despised, they
broke up their colony. Some were incorporated into Plymouth,
others returned to England. ?
For several years Gorges and Mason had made several attempts
to establish a plantation ; but the territorial grants, though im-
posing on paper, led to little practical result. Scattered settle-
ments were established along the banks of the Piscataqua, but
Mason’s death in 1635 prevented any attempt on a grand scale,
and New Hampshire struggled into being the most independent
of the American colonies.?
It seemed as though the task of settling New England was
specially set apart for Puritans. Already, in 1625, a small body
had separated from the colony at Plymouth, and established
themselves at Naumkeak, in Massachusetts Bayt In 1628 a
number of merchants and gentry in London, Lincolnshire, and
7 New England’s Memorial, pp. 67-70.
* Bancroft, vol. i, p. 319. New England’s Memorial, pp. 53-57.
3 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 328-330. 4 New England Chronology.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 63
the west country, friends to the movement for further church
reform, had resolved to enlarge the small settlement at Naum-
keak into a Puritan plantation. For this purpose they obtained
a patent from the Council of Plymouth, and on the 4th of March
1629 they obtained the charter of Massachusetts. The govern-
ment was placed in the hands of a governor, a deputy-governor,
and eighteen assistants, to be elected by the freemen or members
of the corporation! In 1628 Endicott was sent over with a
small party. On his arrival he joined himself to the colony at
Naumkeak, the whole not amounting to more than sixty, and
founded the first town on Massachusetts Bay, afterwards to be
known as Salem.? The next year in June three ships came over
bringing colonists for Salem, “many godly Christians,” and two
nonconformist ministers, who were duly appointed pastor and
teacher. The ships brought out not only colonists and ministers,
but means for their support, cattle, goats, and horses in great
abundance? 1629 was the most important year in the annals
of New England since the first colonists had sailed from Ply-
mouth. At a general court held on the 28th of July, it was
proposed to “ transfer the government of the plantation to those
that should inhabit there.” On the 26th of August John Win-
throp, Thomas Dudley, and ten others, entered into a solemn
covenant, binding themselves, if the court would transfer the
government and the patent to them, to form a colony in New
England. The subject was brought forward two days after, and
it was then resolved that the government and patent should be
settled in New England. On the 20th of October Winthrop was
elected governor of the new colony, and on Easter Sunday, in
1630, the colonists set sail in six ships, and on the 12th of
June they landed in New England.* Others followed in seven
1 Bancroft, vol. i., p. 342.
2 Bancroft, vol. i, p. 341. Hubbard’s ‘‘ History of New England.” Massa-
chusetts’ ‘‘ Historical Collection,” 2d series, vol. v., p. 109.
3 Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 846, 847. Hubbard, pp. 112, 118. New England’s
Memorial, pp. 97, 98.
4 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 351-854. Winthrop’s ‘‘ History of New England,” vol. i.,
pp. 1-29.
64 FORMATION OF
ships, in all about seven hundred? On the 17th of June, Win-
throp explored the country in search of a site for the colony.
Charlestown was ultimately selected, but the colonists scattered,
and Dorchester, Malden, and other towns date from this settle-
ment.2 At first the colony, like all its predecessors, underwent
hardships. By December two hundred had died, and a hundred
more returned to England. Provisions ran short, and the
colonists were saved from famine only by the timely arrival of a
provision ship from Bristol? At first it seemed as if the report
of their ill success had daunted their brethren at home, and in
1631 only ninety emigrants came out.* But the spirit of enter-
prise only flagged for a moment, and in 1632 and 1633 about six
hundred men settlers came over. In Winthrop the colony had
a governor well worthy to head the list of New England’s states-
men. He was one of those high-minded and far-seeing Puri-
tans, who so effectually redeemed their party from the oft-re-
peated charge of poverty or narrowness of views. His principles
made him severe, while his temper inclined to lenity, and no
man ever more truly carried out Fuller’s principle that “one
may be a lamb in private wrongs, but on hearing general affronts
to goodness, they are asses which are not lions.” &
We have already seen how the intolerance of England had
established the New England colonies. The time was at hand
when those colonies should in their turn alienate from them
their own children, and be the unwilling parents of a fresh state.
In 1631, there arrived at Boston a young minister, Roger
Williams, “ godly and jealous, having precious gifts.”7 Williams
had been educated at Charter House and at Pembroke College,
Cambridge, and under the patronage of Lord Coke, he had
} New England’s Memorial, p. 108. Hubbard, pp. 132, 133.
2 Bancroft, vol. i, p. 358.
3 Winthrop, vol. i, p. 49. Bancroft, vol. i., p. 360.
: oe vol i, » 361. ig Winthrop, vol. i, pp. 93, 94, 107, 121, 129.
i a instances of this, see Belknap’s “ American Biography,” vol. iii, pp.-
? Phrase quoted by Bancroft, vol. i., p. 361.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 65
studied jurisprudence. His theological doctrines seem to have
been those generally received among the Puritans, but in ques-
tions of church discipline, he went far beyond most of his sect.
He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of toleration,
or, as perhaps it might be more properly called, state indifference,
to its fullest length. Accordingly it was impossible to employ
him as a minister at Boston. He went to Salem, which was
then without a preacher, and was appointed to the vacant office.
But a message from Winthrop and the assistants compelled the
church of Salem to retract its choice, and the young enthusiast
withdrew to Plymouth. In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of
some of his congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no
tenure of land could be valid which had not the sanction of the
natives. His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but
on his satisfying the court of his “loyalty,” the matter passed
over. But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion
of the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated com-
plete separation from the Church of England, and denounced
compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.
Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest extent,
he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of the people,
and had no right to protect the people against itself; that his
power extends only as far as such cases as disturb the public
peace. The occasion gave special importance to the assertion of
such doctrines. The English government had lately shown
aggressive tendencies, and it seemed as if the authority of the
colonial magistrates needed to be strengthened, rather than made
looser.1 On the 8th of August 1635, Williams was summoned
before the general court ; his opinions were denounced as “ erron-
eous and very dangerous,” and notice was given to the church
at Salem, that unless it could explain the matter to the satisfac-
tion of the court, Williams must be dismissed. In October,
Williams was again brought before the court, and after a “ dis-
putation” with Mr Hooker, which failed to reduce him from any
1 Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 369-371, 407.
E
66 FORMATION OF
of his errors, he was sentenced to depart out of the jurisdiction
of Massachusetts in six weeks. The church of Salem acquiesced
in the condemnation of their pastor. Their own experience might
have taught the fathers of New England, that the best way to
strengthen heresy is to oppose it. The natural result followed:
The people were “ much taken with the apprehension of Williams’
godliness,” and a large congregation, including “many devout
women,” gathered round him. Since they had failed to check
the evil, the Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate
it and to ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace
was sent to arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New
England, he had escaped With five companions in a canoe,
he had set out for the territory of Narraganset, and there founded
the village of Providence. The little settlement of outcasts
became the nucleus of a flourishing colony, and Rhode Island
grew into existence the first pure democracy founded by English-
men on American soil.2 A few years later, the government of
Massachusetts bore the highest testimony to his character.
They were glad to avail themselves of his services to bring
about a league with the Mohicans. In a canoe, without a
companion, the forgiving apostle of the Indians ventured among
a savage people on behalf of the state from which he had been
banished. Seven years later, Williams was sent to England by
the colony that he had founded, to obtain for it a charter. The
affairs of the colonies had at that time been placed by the
parliament under the control of Lord Warwick as governor-
general, assisted by a council of five peers and twelve com-
moners. Among these was Vane. He had known Williams in
former days, and could sympathise with the liberal-minded
enthusiast. His services as an Indian missionary were repre-
sented to parliament, and in consideration of them, they granted
a free and absolute charter constituting Rhode Island an indepen-
dent state.‘
1 Winthrop, vol. i., pp. 193, 194,204, 209, 210. 2 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 379, 380.
3 Bancroft, vol. i., p. 398. * Bancroft, vol. i., p. 425.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIRS. 67
I have dwelt thus at length on the career of Williams, because
it is one of the most striking instances of the exclusive and
narrow spirit of the New England Puritans. No doubt, a young
colony is justified in using measures to secure the unity of the
commonwealth, which would be intolerable in an established
state. An established state need impose no tests of either
political or religious orthodoxy on its citizens. It can offer them
protection to life and property, a career, numerous advantages
which they cannot obtain elsewhere, or if it cannot, it has only
itself to blame. But a newly-founded colony has no such
guarantee for the good conduct of its citizens. Such consider-
ations may justify the rulers of an infant state in exercising a
degree of inspection over the acts of its subjects, which would be
otherwise unwarranted. But they cannot justify, though they
may extenuate, the expulsion of a man like Williams. His life
was blameless; he was, as his future history shows, gifted with
great political sagacity, and guided by the most exalted principle
of justice. But because he could not conform to a rigid code of
Church discipline, New England would find no place for him.
Yet New England was not the only state in which Roger
Williams would have been a martyr. He was one of those
catholic spirits who are of no age, and whom their own age there-
fore has ever rejected. The effect of such men’s lives is not to
be measured by the outward fruit of their actions. They keep
alight the torch of freedom; they awaken a sense of its existence
in the hearts of those whose lips condemn them.
In 1631, a number of influential men among the Puritan
party in England, including Lord Brook and Lord Say and Seal,
obtained a grant for the territory of Narraganset. No attempt,
however, was made to settle under this patent till 1634.. In
that year, a number of the inhabitants of Massachusetts, finding
themselves straitened for room, made application for liberty to
emigrate. The project met with much opposition, on the ground
that the defection would weaken Massachusetts, and that the
new colony would be exposed to danger. In the next year, the
68 FORMATION OF
desire for emigration became general, and on the 15th of
October, sixty men, women, and children, with their horses and
cattle, commenced their journey to Connecticut river. The
journey was a difficult and weary one, and it was winter before
they reached their new settlement. Their goods had been em-
barked in small vessels, many of which were cast away. Their
provisions failed, and by the beginning of December, “famine and
‘death looked the inhabitants sternly in the face.” Some of them
attempted to return to Massachusetts, and would have perished by
the way but for the assistance given them by the Indians. In
spite of this, the next summer saw more than one hundred settlers,
many of them “ persons of figure, entire strangers to fatigue and
danger,” on their way from Massachusetts to Connecticut. Under
the governorship of John Winthrop, son of the governor of Massa-
chusetts, the colony made rapid progress. Houses were built,
toads were made, a good fort was erected, and by the end of
the year, the whole colony numbered eight hundred persons.!
In 1635, the New England Company came to an end. Like
the Virginia Company, it had done its work, and could only
be a restriction on the growth of the colonies. Such portions of
the unoccupied land as were supposed to be most eligible for
plantation were divided among eight of the former patentees.
Among them was the indefatigable Gorges. His career is inte-
resting, not for its own sake, but as a link connecting the
Elizabethan explorers with the actual colonists of New England.
In his old age, he resolved to become a colonial legislator. He
divided his territory into bailiwicks, and subdivided it into
hundreds, and resubdivided it into parishes and tithings. He
appointed a deputy-governor, a chancellor, a treasurer, a marshal,
a judge-marshal, an admiral, a master of the ordnance, a secretary
of state, and a council of eight deputies. He made laws for
the transfer of lands. He established a judiciary and a constab-
wlary force? The practical result was hardly worthy of this
1 Turnbull’s “ History of Connecticut,” pp. 27, 58-68.
* Gorges, pp. 83-86. Gorges does not seem to have devoted himself to the
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 69
imposing array of officials. In 1642, the state numbered three
hundred citizens, and in 1650 it was incorporated together with
New Hampshire into Massachusetts.
At Newhaven a state had grown up under very different
influences. A territory was purchased from the Indians; the
freemen met in a large barn, and, in a very formal and solemn
manner, proceeded to lay the foundation of their civil and
religious polity ; a covenant was drawn up pledging the inhabi-
tants to be guided by the rule of Scripture. Seven commis-
sioners, “pillars,” were chosen to form a constitution. Church
membership was made a qualification for citizenship, and thus
more completely than in any of the New England colonies was
the idea of a Christian state for a time fulfilled.?
The growth of New England soon excited the jealousy of the
home government. In 1622 the king’s privy council having
been advised of the “consequences that might follow so un-
bridled spirits,” resolved that the oaths of supremacy and
allegiance should be imposed on all emigrants. For several
years, however, it was thought unnecessary to enforce the oaths.
But, in 1631, “the daily reports brought over word of their
continued misdemeanours,” and, in 1633, an order was issued that
no emigrants should sail without special inquiry.2 But little
practical result ensued. Greater danger was to be apprehended
from internal division. A considerable party in New England
feeling their own government, not unnaturally, irksome, were
short-sighted enough to wish to set up the authority of the
mother-country as a check upon it. Had they been successful
they would assuredly have realised the fable of the horse and the
stag. But the majority of the country were firm, and the long
parliament set an example that another English parliament, at a
colony he had founded, for in 1645 we find that the inhabitants elected Vines
deputy-governor, not having heard from Gorges for a long time. arly Records of
Maine in Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,” 1st series, vol. i, p. 102.
1 Bancroft, vol. i., pp. 429-481.
2? New England’s Memorial, pp. 182, 133. Hubbard, pp. 317-323. Turnbull,
vol. i., pp. 104-106. 5 Gorges, p. 82. Hubbard, p. 153.
70 FORMATION OF
later day, might well have imitated. Winslow, their agent,
declared that “if the parliament of England should impose laws
upon us having no burgesses in the House of Commons, nor
capable of a summons by reason of the vast distance, we should
lose the liberties and freedom of English indeed.” The answer
of parliament set their fears at rest. “We leave you,” they
said, “all the freedom and latitude that may be duly claimed by
you.”! With the establishment of the commonwealth all present
_ danger was at an end. Cromwell consistently befriended
New England, and the parliament offered them a charter, but
Massachusetts, either from timidity or far-sighted policy, did not
stake their freedom on the precarious existence of a republic.
The restoration did not affect their liberties. In 1662 Charles
II. granted a charter to Connecticut giving them full and inde-
pendent legislative powers. The next year a full charter was
granted to Rhode Island, giving them equal powers, and estab-
lishing full liberty of conscience.”
In 1664 New Netherlands passed by conquest into the power
of the English, and the acquisition was confirmed by the treaty
of Breda. The territory was soon divided into New Jersey and
New York. New Jersey was granted to Lord Carteret and Lord
Berkeley, New York to the Duke of York. The newly-acquired
territory was fertile, and abounded in timber and minerals.3 The
population, in number about twenty thousand, was composed of
motley elements. Every persecution which had disgraced the
Old World had contributed its share There were not only
Calvinists from Holland and France, but Lutherans from
Germany, and Hussites from Bohemia.”* Such was the com-
munity which now became a part of British America. The
difference of race was never a strong enough solvent to inter-
fere with the unity of the empire, but in the War of Inde-
1 Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 437-443. ? Bancroft, vol. ii., pp. 54, 55, 62, 63.
3 An Account of the European Settlements in America (commonly attributed to
Barke), vol. ii, pp. 185-190.
4 Bancroft, vol. ii., pp. 300, 301.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 71
pendence we can trace a want of cordiality and consideration on
the part of New England towards New York, which may have
been in some measure due to this cause.
In 1674 James II. conceived the idea of consolidating the
whole of New England and the newly-acquired territory into
one state under a royal governor. Andros was sent out as the
first satrap. The selection for New England was a happy one.
Andros was a man of no ability, whose idea of ruling the colonies
was to play the king “in scarlet and lace,”? whose tyranny
irritated without destroying or permanently injuring. He pro-
hibited town meetings, extorted unlawful fees and imposed
illegal taxes. The men of Ipswich resisted his arbitrary taxa-
tion, and were arrested without regard to the Habeas Corpus Act.
On their trial they were told that they must not suppose that the
liberties of Englishmen followed them to the ends of the earth.
They were fined, disqualified from office, and compelled to pro-
vide sureties for good behaviour.* Lynde of Charlestown was
told that an Indian deed for his land was “worth no more
than the scratch of a bear’s claw.” >
In 1687, Andros dissolved the government of Rhode Island.
Massachusetts refused to surrender its charter, and the men of
Connecticut hid theirs in a hollow tree But the tyranny of
Andros in New England was but the last effort of despotism that
was tottering to its ruin. When the news of the revolution
arrived at Boston on the 4th of April 1689, there was “a general
buzzing among the people, great with expectation of their old
charter, or they know not what.”’ The people rose “ with the
most unanimous resolution that ever inspired a people.” Andros
endeavoured to escape, not in his governor’s robes, but in
1 Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 366; vol. viii., p. 276. 2 Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 425.
3 The Revolution in New England Justified, published in 1691. Force, vol. iv.,
pp. 2, 8, 12, 18. An Account of the Late Revolution in New England, published
in 1689. Force, vol. iv., p. 7.
4 The Revolution Justified, pp. 15-17. An Account, &c., p. 8
5 Bancroft, vol. i., p. 428.
§ Bancroft, vol. i, pp. 429, 480.
7 Expression used by Andros, quoted by Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 446.
72 FORMATION OF
woman’s clothes, but his shoes betrayed the disguise. The people
achieved a bloodless victory. The movement spread through New
England. Everywhere Andros’s officers were expelled or im-
prisoned, and the colonies renewe their democratic government.
By 1640, upwards of twenty thousand people had emigrated to
New England, and by 1675, fifty-five thousand? The trials
proper to a new country had been overcome. The climate was
found to be healthy, and the inhabitants were both long-lived and
prolific? The soil never attained to the fertility of Virginia, but
it afforded sufficient corn to export to the West Indies, and to
trade with the natives for beaver. The inhabitants grew their
own flax, and made their own linen. Cotton they imported from
the West Indies, and manufactured themselves. Fish were so
plentiful, that they were used as manure.’ The relations with the
savages were friendly. The only exception to this was in Con-
necticut. At the first settlement of the colony, the Pequods had
harassed and plundered the English, and in 1634 they had con-
nived at the murder of eight Englishmen, perpetrated by some of
their confederates. Soon after, the Pequods, being pressed by the
Narragansets, sent a messenger to treat of peace with the English.
The English demanded the surrender of the murderers, which the
Pequods refused, averring that the English had given provoca-
tion, and that only two of the criminals were living. A treaty
was at length made, but in the next year some Narraganset
Indians who had murdered an English trader took refuge with the
Pequods. Accordingly, in 1636, Endicott was sent with ninety
volunteers to exact satisfaction. The Indians fled into the woods,
and the only result of the expedition was to “ exasperate, without
subduing, a haughty and warlike enemy.” Sasacus, the chief of
the Pequods, was a man of vigour and ability. He saw that the
1 Bancroft, vol. ii., pp. 446-449. An Account, &c., pp. 4, 5.
2 A Perfect Description of Virginia, p. 12. Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 92.
3 New England’s First Fruits, p. 246. ‘A sup of New England air is worth a
draught of Old England’s ale.” New England’s Plantation,
4 New England’s First Fruits, p. 247.
5 A Perfect Description of Virginia, p. 12.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 73
only hope of driving out the white intruders lay in a union with
the Narragansets. Had they been willing to enter into these
“ schemes, and to forego their revenge against the Pequods, nothing
could have saved the young colony of Connecticut. The Narra-
gansetts, however, allied themselves with the strangers rather
than with their hereditary enemies. During the whole of 1636,
the Pequods harassed the settlers, burning their hay, and killing
their cattle, and reducing the colony to a state of severe distress.
In May 1637, the colonists determined on an offensive war.
They raised one hundred and eighty men, while Massachusetts
and Plymouth contributed two hundred and forty. They were
aided by seventy of the Mohican Indians, a powerful and warlike
tribe. Mason was sent in advance with a force of about eighty
English, and the Mohican allies. Subsequently he was joined by
two hundred Narragansets. With this force he resolved to attack
Sasacus in his own fort. Such a proceeding was probably un-
heard of in Indian warfare. The fort was attacked and set on
fire, and between five hundred and six hundred Pequods perished.
“Parents and children, the old man and the babe, perished in
promiscuous ruin.” The Pequods made a desperate resistance,
but their bows and arrows were useless against fire-arms. The
Mohicans and Narragansets took advantage of their weakened
state to satisfy their ancient grudge, and by the end of the summer
only two hundred Pequods survived. They were so reduced as
to make terms with the English to obtain protection against their
foes. A treaty was made by which the surviving remnant of the
Pequods was broken up and incorporated with the Mohicans and
the Narragansets, and soon there was not one “ that was, or at
least dare call himself, a Pequod.”} From that time, New England
1 New England’s First Fruits. Massachusetts’ ‘‘ Historical Collection,” 1st
series, vol. i., p. 246. The above account of the Pequod war is taken from Turn-
bull, vol. i, pp. 69-93. The first New England war did want a ‘‘vates sacer.”
A versified account of Winthrop’s ‘‘ Embassy to England,” was written by Roger
Wolcott, his successor in the government, and is published in the Massachusetty’
‘¢ Historical Collection,” Ist series, vol. iv., pp. 204-295. Winthrop gives a
description of the war to King Charles. The Pequod chiefs hold a council in
74 FORMATION OF
suffered from no Indian war for nearly forty years, though in
1643 apprehensions were entertained of an attack from the Nar-
ragansets, and it was thought prudent to unite the four colonies
of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and Newhaven into a
defensive confederation.?
The constitutions of the New England colonies were, as I have
mentioned, different. Rhode Island was a pure democracy, every
man having a voice in the government. Plymouth was also a
democracy, with a governor elected by universal suffrage, and a
council. In time the increase of the colony rendered it impos-
sible that every inhabitant should have a direct voice in the
government, and assemblies to which each town sent a represen-
tative were substituted for the town meetings.? In Massachusetts
a council was elected by the freemen of the province, and the
council chose the governor and deputy-governor from among
their own number.? Connecticut had a governor and a council
of six magistrates elected by the whole body of freemen, and a
general assembly of deputies from the towns.* In Massachusetts
none but church members were admitted as freemen.® The pro-
vincial legislature generally was marked by the same character.
The first duty of government was to protect religion and morality.
Laws were passed against fornication, drunkenness, idleness, pro-
Homeric style, and Sasacus warns them of the proselytising designs of the
English—
‘You must not have so many handsome wives
That don’t consist with mortified lives.”
In relating the catastrophe of Sasacus’ death, he tells us how he fled to the
Mohicans, who
“To cure the passions of his breast,
Cut off his head, and all his cares released.”
The Puritan fathers do not seem to have carried out with them the muse of
Milton and Waller.
1 Turnbull, vol. i., p. 226. ? Bancroft, vol i, p. 322.
* Early Laws of Massachusetts. Massachusetts’ ‘‘ Historical Collection,” 3d
series, vol viii., pp. 200, 201.
4 Turnbull, vol. i, pp. 100-102.
5 Description of Salem. By the Rev. William Bentley. Massachusetts’ “ His-
torical Collection,” 1st series, vol vi., p. 60. Belknap’s ‘‘ History of New Hamp-
shire,” p. 70. An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are now Estab
lished. 1641. Force, vol. iii., p. 5.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 75
fane swearing, and Sabbath-breaking. Blasphemy, idolatry,
witchcraft, and propagation of heresy were all capital crimes.
Yet, where religious prejudices were not touched upon, the code
was lenient. Theft was never a capital crime. Even rape at first
was not, though it afterwards became so. In other ways the
protective character of the political system showed itself. No
dwelling-house was to be more than half a mile from a church. To
preserve the original division into townships, no land was allowed
to be sold to a man of another town without the consent of the
fellow-townsmen of the seller.! Rigid sumptuary laws were en-
forced. The drinking of toasts was forbidden. ‘Restrictions were
placed on female dress. Men were obliged to wear their hair
short. No person with an income of less than £200 a-year was
allowed gold or silver lace, or silk hoods or scarfs. Any person
violating this law was to be assessed accordingly. ?
That such legislation was practicable, that it did not bring all
government into contempt, is in itself the highest testimony to
the character of the people. Nothing could have made such a
system possible but that strong religious character which colours
not only the laws of New England, but its social life, and even
its wars. In 1631, a deputy-governor of Massachusetts wrote
home, “If any come hither to plant for worldly ends that can
live well at home, hee comits an errour of which he will soon re-
pent him. Butif for spiritual, and noe particular obstacle hinder
his removal, he maye find here what may well content him.”®
“Tt concerneth New England,” said Higginson, “to remember that
they are originally a plantation religious, not a plantation of trade.
The profession of the purity of doctrine, worship, and discipline
is written upon her forehead. Let merchants, and such as are
increasing cent. per cent., remember this, that worldly gain was not
the end and design of the people of New England, but religion.
1 An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are now Established. 1641.
Force, vol. iii.
2 Belknap’s “ History of New Hampshire,” vol. i., pp. 66, 67.
3 Governor Thomas Dudley’s Letter to the Countess of Lincoln, March 1631.
Force, vol. ii., p. 12. '
76 FORMATION OF
And if any make religion as twelve and the world as thirteen,
such an one hath not the spirit of a true New England man.”?
The early history of New England presents the unique spectacle
of a sect growing into a nation. There was the narrowness and
exclusiveness of a religious sect mingled and contrasted with the
sense of an independent national existence. If we would see
English Puritanism in its best form, we must study it in the early
fathers of New England. The idea that a Puritan was a tasteless
misanthrope, is of course absurd. The greatest epic and the
greatest allegory in the English languagé are a sufficient answer
to that charge. But it cannot be denied, that the Puritan in
England too often acquired the morose fanaticism which his
enemies represented as natural to him. To live in danger of
being “harried out of the land,” and having their ears grubbed
out by the hangman’s knife, is not calculated to make men gentle
or loving to the world around them. In New England all this
was different. There the Puritan was no longer a bondman in
Egypt, he had reached the Promised Land. The dark past was
separated from him by a vast ocean, the bright future was what
he had to live for. In England we have almost lost sight of the
domestic and civil life of the Puritan, we know him only as a
preacher or a soldier; if we would contemplate him as a citizen,
we must turn to ‘Amaerina, Much, no doubt, of our disgust at the
phraseology of the Puritans proceeds from our own want of ear-
nestness, but much is really offensive to a more cultivated taste.
Scriptural phrases, when united with denunciations of false hair
and stage plays, or used as war-cries, naturally grate somewhat
on our ears. But in New England the life and the language
seemed to match. There was nothing unreal about the Puritan’s
use of biblical language. The Hebrew Scriptures were to him
not a formal record which it was heresy to disbelieve and irreve-
rence to act upon; not a narrative of another world from that in
which we live, to be got rid of by phrases about Judaism and a
later dispensation. The heroes of Jewish history were to the New
1 Belknap’s ‘‘ History of New Hampshire,” vol. i., p. 61.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 77
England Puritan real men of flesh and blood, fighting the same
battle, beset with the same troubles as himself. Was he a wan-
derer in a strange land? So had Abraham been. Was he likely
to perish from famine? He remembered Jacob, and contrasted
the flocks and herds of the patriarch with his own poverty. Were
the Pequods a mighty people? So were the Amalekites. 1
‘With the earnestness of their Puritan forefathers, the New
Englanders inherited a full share of their intolerance. We have
seen how they treated Roger Williams. In 1637, Mrs Hutchin-
son, “a gentlewoman of a nimble wit, voluble tongue, eminent
knowledge in the Scriptures, of great charity, and notable helpful-
ness,” was accused of introducing antinomian doctrines. After a
long contest, and a display of fanaticism in which it is painful
to find Winthrop taking a prominent part, she was expelled?
Some years later, one Samuel Gorton, “a proud and pestilent
seducer, deeply leavened with blasphemous and familistic doc-
trines,* became a prominent character in the religious controver-
sies of New England. His theological opinions and personal
character are veiled in considerable obscurity, different writers
giving different accounts. After causing considerable disturbance,
he was imprisoned for six months, and afterwards banished.®
Of Ann Hutchinson and Gorton, we can at this distance of time
know little. A juster inference as to the intolerance of the early
New Englanders is to be drawn from their treatment of the
Quakers. The language used of the Quaker tenets would be
ludicrous if the bigotry and uncharitableness of good men could
ever be so. Their doctrines are “ corrupt and abominable ;
dreams and conceits tending to gross blasphemy and atheism.” ®
1 New England’s Memorial, pp. 5,67. New England’s First Fruits, p. 246.
? Hubbard, p. 283. Winthrop says, “A woman of a ready wit and bold spirit,”
vol. i, p. 239.
8 Hubbard, pp. 283-285. New England’s Memorial, pp. 133, 134. Winthrop,
pp. 239-241, 304-311.
4 New England's Memorial, p. 135.
5 New England’s Memorial, pp. 135-138, Hubbard, pp. 401-408,
8 New England's Memorial, p. 185.
78 FORMATION OF
To become a Quaker was to sink to the lowest depth of heresy.4
Nor did this hostility confine itself to words. In 1658 Quaker-
ism was made a capital offence. In 1659 the members of a
Quaker family were publicly sold. In 1660 two Quakers were
hanged in Boston. In 1662 “it was moderation to obtain that
these unhappy people should be whipped only in three towns.” *
The idea of toleration was utterly foreign to the mind of the
New England Puritan. The very name of it was loathed by him:
* Let men of God in courts and churches watch
O’er such as do a toleration hatch,”
were the lines found in Dudley’s pocket after his death.2 Ward,
a shrewd and vigorous writer, did not scruple to say, “ He that
willingly assents to toleration of divers religions, or of one reli-
gion in segregant shades, if he examines his heart by daylight,
his conscience will tell him he is either an atheist, or an heretick,
or an hypocrite, or at best a captive to some lust; polypiety is
the greatest impiety in the world.” “Persecution of true reli-
gion, and toleration of false, are the Jannes and Jambres to the
kingdom of Christ, whereof the last is far the worst.” “It is
said that men ought to have liberty of conscience, and that it is
persecution to deprive them of it; I can rather stand amazed
than reply to this. It is an astonishment to think that the brains
of men should be parboyled in such impious ignorance.”* In
the first colonists of New England there is much to extenuate
intolerance. The victims of Laud and Strafford might well be-
lieve that the safety of a commonwealth depended on the purity
of its faith, and might be excused for not having learnt that the
means they adopted to preserve that faith were the worst possible
for the purpose. New England outgrew the fanaticism of her
1 “One Hickes began to be unsettled about the ordinances of the Church...
The issue was this poor unsettled man fell yet further and further, and at last
became a Quaker.” Account of the Church of Christ at Plymouth. Massachusetts’
‘* Historical Collection,” Ist series, vol. iv., p. 121.
? Description of Salem. By the Rev. W. Bentley. Massachusetts’ ‘‘ Historical
Collection,” Ist series, vol vi, pp. 259-262.
3 New Esgland’s Memorial, p. 167.
+ The Simple Cobbler of Agawam. Force, vol. iii, pp. 7-11.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 79
youth, but we shall see hereafter how the stern religion of the
early pilgrims degenerated into childish.superstition, and at how
fearful a cost the demon of bigotry was exorcised.
One influence alone saved New England—that which alone
can save a civilised nation from becoming heartless sensualists,
or priest-ridden bigots. From the first it had been the care of
New England that none of her citizens should grow up without
education unless by his own fault. In 1636 the general court of
Massachusetts voted a supply for the foundation of a college, and
in 1638 Harvard, “a godly gentlemen and a lover of learning,”
bequeathed his estate, £850 and half his library to the college.
Other benefactions followed. The college was built at Cambridge,
and was soon followed by a grammar school.+
Such was early New England, a state founded on principles
which the world had ever rejected and despised. Those prin-
ciples were not enforced by institutions established once for all
by an overruling will) New England was no Sparta, forced,
often unwillingly, into a particular mould by the mechanism of
laws and discipline. Her government was an expression of the
free will of her people. Nor was the Puritanism of New England
a burst of temporary enthusiasm engendered by persecution and
destined to fall when that persecution ceased. Time modified it,
but did not change its inmost nature. The citizens of Boston
during the revolution, orderly, submissive to their leaders, never
impetuous, scrupulous even to slowness, were in spirit as well as
in blood the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers.
I have dwelt at considerable length on the early growth and
characteristics of Virginia and New England as being the best
representatives of the two types of national life, presenting some
features of similarity, but more of contrast. In Virginia we have
a colony founded by the most influential and far-seeing states-
men of the age, watched over with care, blessed with a fertile
soil and a genial climate. In New England we see a small band
of religious enthusiasts, tolerated from their very insignificance,
1 New England’s First Fruits, pp. 242, 243.
80 FORMATION OF
legislated for by no king or courtiers, landing on a bleak and
barren shore. The people of Virginia had wealth, leisure, every-
thing commonly supposed to be favourable to intellectual culture ;
the New Englanders were a set of rude husbandmen, toiling from
day to day for their bread. Yet a governor of Virginia could
boast, more than fifty years after the colony had been founded,
that it did not contain a school or a printing press, while New
England had a college in sixteen years. The Virginian colonists
carried out with them the spirit of feudalism, modified but not
destroyed by the exigencies of colonial life. The passion for
landed possession characterised them from the first, a passion
sure to produce, when aided by the noxious influence of slavery,
a system of caste and contempt for industry. The colonists of
New England were from the first led by the spirit of democracy,
resting not on laws, but on the surer basis of social institutions
and feelings. Almost at the same time that a Virginian governor
was demanding that his salary should be doubled because he was
a nobleman, a leading statesman of New England was declining
a military command because his wife was sick and had no
servant, and his cattle and fields demanded his care Both
colonies were strongholds of popular liberty; but in the one it
was the liberty of lawlessness, in the other it was freedom from
every law which interfered with the highest law ofall. In the
early history of Virginia we have an insurrection, but at the same
time continual and often successful encroachments on the part of
government; in New England we have no violent outburst of
the popular will, but a uniform and successful resistance to any
exercise of arbitrary authority.
As early as 1620, a patent had been obtained for Carolina by
Sir Robert Heath, and an attempt made to colonise it from Vir-
ginia. The project came to nothing, and the patent was rendered
void. More than thirty years later, a small band of emigrants from
New England had endeavoured to establish themselves near Cape
” Letter from James Cudworth to Josiah Winslow. Massachusetts’ “Historical
Collection,” vol. vi., pp. 81, 82.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 81
Fear, but had been repulsed by the hostility of the Indians. In
‘1663, a colony from Virginia was more successful. Berkeley granted
them a separate government. Drummond, their leader, was created
‘governor, and Virginia became the parent of North Carolina. A
colony from Barbadoes increased the little State, and for a time
flourished, though its very site is now disputed. In the same
year, a number of proprietaries, including Lords Albemarle and
Shaftesbury, Berkeley and Carteret, obtained a grant of Carolina.
‘The greatest philosopher of the age was called on to form a con-
stitution for the projected colony. It might have seemed as if
the scheme of a model state was never likely to have so fair a
trial. There was no fear of anything visionary or Utopian in a
constitution framed by Locke. He was not likely to be misled
.by any impracticable optimism. A state adapted to the wants of
man as a producing and a consuming animal would be the natural
outcome of his philosophy. Experience of the past, and distrust
of human capacity for self-government, were the basis of the con-
stitution. The land was to be divided into five equal parts. Of
this, one-fifth was to be the inalienable property of the proprie-
taries, and another the inalienable and indivisible estate of the
two orders of nobility. The rest was to be held by the people.
There were to be four estates,—the proprietaries, the landgraves,
the caciques, and the commons. The proprietaries represented
the sovereign. They were a permanent corporation of eight, the
dignity to be hereditary; in default of heirs, the survivors to elect
a successor. One of their number was to act for them in the
colony. The landgraves and the caciques formed the nobility,
and sat as an Upper House. The Lower House consisted of
representatives; freeholders of fifty acres alone had votes, and a
property qualification of three hundred acres was necessary for a
representative. In New England, a little commonwealth, with
no territorial rights, founded by a band of religious exiles, became
the foundation of an empire. Carolina began its career under
different auspices. The territory was enormous, and the consti-
tution proportionately imposing. Nothing was wanting but colo-
F
82 FORMATION OF
nists to till the land, and to be governed by the laws. The result
was not encouraging to the philosophy of common sense. The
institutions of Carolina remained a dead letter, and her citizens
formed a constitution for themselves, suggested not by the dic-
tates of philosophy, but by a knowledge of their own wants. In
1665, the colonists of Albemarle formed a government, and drew
up laws which remained in force for fifty years. In 1777, the
_state numbered eight thousand inhabitants. In 1778, an insur-
rection broke out, provoked apparently by the interference of the
proprietaries, and resulted in a compromise which practically left
the government in the hands of the people. Sothel then mis-
governed the colony for five years, but his rapacity was as offen-
sive to the proprietaries as to the colonists, and when the people
rose against him and deposed him, the proprietaries did not
interfere. 1
In South Carolina, the attempt to establish the model consti-
tution was equally unsuccessful.e In 1670, the first colony was
sent out, and, disregarding their instructions, established a govern-
ment consisting of a council and a house of representatives.? In
1672, they founded Charlestown, and soon outstripped their
-brethren of North Carolina. In 1685, the persecution of the
Huguenots drove a large portion of the most industrious and
intelligent artisans gf France to America. In South Carolina,
they found full liberty of conscience, and a climate that reminded
them of the most favoured spots in their native land. Struggles
between the people and the proprietaries soon began. Religious
differences aggravated political hostility. In 1690, Colleton, the
proprietary governor, was ejected from his office, and banished,
For years, “ dissensions, tumults, riots, tore the colony to pieces,” 3
In 1715, an Indian war was added to the troubles of the colony,
The natives planned a general massacre, and slew four hundred
1 Bancroft, vol. ii., pp. 128-166. An Account of the European Settlements,
vol. ii, pp. 236-238.
2 A Narrative of the Proceedings of the People of South Carolina in the year
1719. Published, London, 1726. Force, vol. ii., p. 6.
3 An Account of the European Settlements, vol. ii., p, 237.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 83
inhabitants. The colony, in its weakness, had to send for assist-
ance to Virginia. The Indians were completely defeated, but at
the conclusion of the war, South Carolina had contracted a debt
of £8000. Their application to parliament for relief was refused
on the ground that they were a proprietary colony. As the
colonists had never gained anything from their connection with
the proprietaries, they naturally resolved to terminate it. They
desired Johnson, their governor, to take possession of the govern-
ment in the name of the king. Johnson refused, upon which
they threw off their allegiance to the proprietaries, established a
government, and elected a governor. They then sent a delegate
to England to state their grievances. The proprietaries surren-
dered their charter, Cartaret alone retaining his share, and North
and South Carolina were constituted royal provinces, under
governors appointed by the crown.
Hitherto the divisions of the colony had interfered with its
material prosperity, but when they were removed South Carolina
rapidly became a flourishing community. By 1757 land had
risen to four times its previous value. Indigo, rice, tar and deer-
skins formed the staple exports. The abundance of navigable
rivers made the conveyance of goods easy and inexpensive. The
climate was healthy though variable. Poverty, except as the
result of vice, was unknown. The great bane of the colony was’
the prevalence of slavery. Three thousand negroes were im-
ported annually, and in 1734 they outnumbered the white
inhabitants as five to one.”
In North Carolina a different state of society prevailed. There
nothing existed of that industry and commercial activity which
the Huguenots had done so much to introduce into South
Carolina. The planters grew up a race of backwoods’ hunters,
1 A Narrative of the Proceedings, &c. Bancroft, vol. ii., pp. 166-187 ; vol. iii.,
pp. 18-15, 326-331.
2 Description of the Province of South Carolina in the Gentleman’s Magazine fox
1737. Account of the European Settlements, vol. ii, pp. 241-254, Extract fro
the Journal of Mr Commissary Van Beck, giving an account of the voyage of the
Salzburgers to Georgia. London, 1734. Force, vol, iv., p. 9.
“84 FORMATION OF
-wilder even than those of Virginia. It was “a country where
there’s scarce any form of government.” “Every one did what
was right in his own eyes, paying tribute neither to God nor to
Ceesar.” 1
In Pennsylvania a community came into existence like that of
New England, separated from the world by rigid lines of
demarcation, and claiming equally to rest on a divine and
spiritual basis. It might, at first, seem as if the difference
between the Puritan and the Quaker were only merely of degree,
as if the Quaker had carried out, to their logical conclusion,
those doctrines which were the basis of the Puritan community.
Both set authority at defiance; both regarded forms as strong-
holds of superstition ; both believed in direct spiritual influences
and in a rigid separation between true believers and the world.
In reality the resemblance was superficial, the difference funda-
mental. The Puritan threw aside ordinances and outward forms,
“not from a general principle of hostility to them, but because
they were, in his eyes, the instruments of spiritual tyranny.
His very intolerance, his attempts to establish a system of
authority, often stricter than that which he had thrown off, bore
witness to this. When the remembrance of the tyranny, which
.to the Puritan was associated with external forms, had had time
to subside, there was nothing to prevent him from acknowledg-
ing that they might have a value, that they had once had a
value, not as substitutes for spiritual truths, but as symbols of,
and witnesses to it The Quaker had severed the connection
-with the historical past more completely. If he was right the
test of mankind, past and present, were wrong. Outward forms
were not the vestibules through which the soul is led up to the
Holy of Holies, but prison-houses in which it is for ever debarred
from the enjoyment of light. Thus the Quaker was cut off from
the world. He was pledged either to conquer it or to keep up a
rigid and impracticable separation from it. The early Friends
accepted neither alternative, and their descendants have held
1 Expressions quoted by Bancroft, vol. iii.,-p. 21.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 85
their ground, as citizens of the world, only by sliding gradually
further and further from the position that their fathers took up.
The early Quakers abjured all forms; their descendants are
separated from the world only by a barrier of forms. The early
Quakers avowed themselves to be not of the world; in no sect.
have material interests predominated more strongly than among
modern Quakers. Yet the patience, the integrity, the active
philanthropy of the early American Quakers, above all, the
character of that extraordinary man, with whom their name is
indissolubly linked, are not less pleasing subjects of contempla-
tion than the more robust and enduring virtues of the New
England Fathers.
The disciples of Fox, in search of a refuge from a world with
which they were at war, naturally turned to America. We have
seen how they fared in Virginia and New England. In 1676
circumstances opened to them a means of effecting a settlement.
William Penn was the son of a naval commander who had served
with distinction against the Dutch in 1664. At the age of six-
teen his hostility to forms led to his expulsion from Oxford. A
scholar and a, traveller, of good family and high position, gifted
with abilities and influence that must have secured him a bril-
liant career, graced with all the accomplishments of an educated
gentleman, he forsook the world, and consented, for the sake of
religion, to be driven from his father’s house, to be the ridicule of
his fashionable friends, and to be cast into prison. In 1676 he
became a trustee for the estate of one Byllinge, who had pur-
chased half the territory of New Jersey from Lord Berkeley.
Penn and his fellow-trustees agreed on a division of the province .
with the other proprietor, Sir George Carteret. Carteret re-_
tained East New Jersey; West New Jersey fell to the share of:
the trustees. They then divided the land into a hundred lots,
1 Clarkson’s Memoirs of William Penn, vol. i, pp. 6-30. ‘‘Mr Pen, Sir
William’s son, is come back from France, and come to visit my wife: a most
moclish person, grown, she says, a fine gentleman.” “Mr William Pen is a Quaker
again, or some very melancholy thing.” Pepy’s Diary, vol. ii, p. 162; vol. iii,
p. 332.
86 FORMATION OF
ten of which they made over to one Fenwick, who had a claim
on Byllinge’s American possessions, and the rest they advertised
for sale, while at the same time they drew up a settlement for
their new colony. The legislature was to be in the hands of an
assembly of representatives chosen by the people. Every man
was to have a vote. The executive was to consist of a governor
and twelve assistants. There was to be a trial by jury. No im-
prisonment for debt was allowed, and full liberty of conscience
was secured. An advertisement was also published setting forth
the condition and prospects of the colony. The friends availed
themselves of the refuge opened to them, and West New Jersey
became a Quaker colony. Andros, the governor of New York,
claimed jurisdiction over the soil, but the question was referred
to the decision of England. The Duke of York also claimed the
right of exacting customs from the vessels that sailed up the
river which lay in his territory of Delaware. The colonists
claimed full right of legislation and taxation. Their arguments
are interesting as anticipating much that was said when the
general question of colonial taxation was in dispute. “If we
could not assure people of an easy, free, and safe government,
liberty of conscience, and an inviolable possession of their civil
rights and freedoms, a mere wilderness would be no encourage-
ment. It were madness to leave a free country to plant a wil-
derness, and give another person an absolute title to tax us at
will” “By what right are we thus used? The king of
England cannot take his subjects’ goods without their consent.”
“To exact such unterminated tax from English planters, and to
continue it, after so many repeated complaints, will be the
greatest evidence of a design to introduce, if the crown should
ever devolve upon the duke, an unlimited government in Eng-
land.” The question was referred to an English judge, and the
Duke of York acquiesced in a decision in favour of the colonists?
In 1680 the increasing persecution of the Quakers made Penn
desirous to furnish a further refuge for them in America, where
3 Clarkson, vol. i, pp. 167-175. ? Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 357-360,
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 8%
he might convert and civilise the Indians, and raise up a theo-
polity, “a virtuous empire in the New Land which should diffuse
its example far and wide, and to the remotest ages.” £16,000
were due to Penn on account of money lent by his father to
government, In lieu of this, he petitioned for a grant of land to
the north of Maryland. The grant was opposed both in the
Privy Council and by the Lords of Trade and Plantations, and
also by the Duke of York, as proprietary of Delaware, and Lord
Baltimore of Maryland. These objections, however, were over-
ruled, and on the 4th of March 1681 the charter of Pennsylvania
was granted. It constituted Penn absolute proprietary, with the
power of making laws, with the advice, assent, and approbation
of the freemen of the territory, and of dividing, selling, or alienat-
ing any part of the territory.2? In the same year a society of
traders in Pennsylvania was formed, and three ships sent out with
colonists. Before their departure, Penn published a rough
draft of a constitution to be thereafter considered by the bulk of
the colonists. The first article in the code of laws was a broad
declaration of the principle of liberty of conscience. The govern-
ment was entrusted to a governor, a council, of whom one-third
were to retire every year, and an assembly of representatives
elected annually. The principle of the constitution was, in his
own words, “ to leave himself and his successors no power of doing
mischief, that the will of one man may not hinder the good of
a whole country.”? Jn the next year the Duke of York made
over to Penn his rights over the district of Delaware, or, as it was
then called, the Territories* In the same year Penn himself
sailed for America. On the 10th of January 1683 the first
assembly met. They passed an Act of Union annexing the ter-
ritories to the province, and an Act of Settlement. The frame of
government before referred to was then passed, and some other
Jaws added. The tenor of several of these laws shows that,
enthusiast though he might be, Penn was, in the principles of
1 Clarkson, vol. i., pp. 273-278. 2 Clarkson, vol. i, pp. 273-278.
3 Clarkson, vol. i., p. 289. 4 Clarkson, vol. i., pp. 278-289, 299-309.
88 FORMATION OF.
political philosophy, far in advance of his age. All children
were to be taught some useful trade. All legal processes were to
be as short as possible. Punishments were to be reformatory,
and all prisons were to be considered as workshops where the
offenders might be industriously, soberly, and morally employed.
On the 20th of January, the governor asked the assembly
whether they would prefer a new charter. They requested a new
one, with certain alterations, which was granted.
Of all the philosophers who have conceived ideal schemes of
government, Penn is almost the only one who has put his Utopia
into practice with success. That he should have done so at all
is high praise. But that he should have framed a government to
satisfy the wants of his people rather than to embody his own
preconceived ideas,—that, having strong and distinct political
opinions, he should have been willing to entrust the people with
self-government at the risk of their defying those opinions——that
he should have seen that no laws or institutions, however perfect
in themselves, could be so good as those which expressed the
free-will of the people,—proves that Penn was not merely a specu-
lative philosopher, but a practical statesman of the highest order.?
But the peculiar glory of Penn’s early proceedings was his con-
duct towards the Indians. With the first colonists, Penn sent
out his relation, Colonel William Markham, with several com-
missioners, to confer with the Indians and arrange a treaty. He
himself sent a letter in his own hand, declaring his kind inten-
tions towards them, and his “desire to win and gain their love
and friendship by a kind, just, and peaceable life,” and promising
them speedy satisfaction if any of the colonists should wrong
them.? After his arrival, he himself held a conference with them
at Shakamaxon.* The peaceful mystic and enthusiast might
1 Clarkson, vol. i, pp. 332-385. Proud’s “ History of Pennsylvania, vol. i,
p- 235. Colden’s “ History of the Five Nations,” vol. ii, pp. 18-200.
2 Penn’s own doctrine was, ‘‘ Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men
give them, and as governments are made and moved by man, so by them they are
ruined too.” Colden, vol. i., p. 185. :
3 Clarkson, vol. i., pp. 290-292. 4 Clarkson, -vol. i, p. 329.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 89
seem to have little in common with the wild savage, but Penn’s
doctrines taught him that there was a sense of right in the savage
as well as in the white man, to which he would not appeal in
vain, His humanity to the Indians bore fruit.. They ministered
to the wants of the early colonists, and treated them uniformly
with love and affection! In after days, the memory of the
father of Pennsylvania lingered among the Indians, and the
highest praise that could be awarded a white man was, that he
was like “ Onas.” ?
Colonisation was no longer the irksome and even dangerous
task that it had been when the wilds of Virginia and New
England were first subdued by Englishmen. The Swedes and
Dutch had already prepared the way, and the hardships of the
early Pennsylvanians were little more than those with which the
inhabitants of a new country are necessarily familiar. In 1683,
the legislature of Pennsylvania became involved in a dispute
with Lord Baltimore about boundaries, and in the next yeara
forcible entry was made on several plantations from Maryland.
Penn, however, asserted his claims firmly, and for the time the
matter dropped. In 1685 the dispute was renewed, and was
finally settled by the Lords of Plantations. In 1691, a dispute
arose between the territories and the legislature of Pennsylvania.
Penn regretted the division, but his moderate and liberal temper
restrained him from any attempt to force a distasteful union on
the territories. He constituted them a separate government
under Markham, and thus became the founder of Delaware.
Penn’s friendship for the fallen dynasty was naturally no re-
commendation at the new court, and in 1692 he was deprived of
his government of Pennsylvania, and a commission given to
Fletcher. Unjust as this was, the colonists were the gainers by
it, for they learnt the lesson of resistance. The whole of Fletcher's
government was spent in fruitless altercations with the assembly.
1 Proud, vol. i, p. 224.
2 Proud, vol. i., pp. 214, 215. Colden, vol. ii., p. 18.
3 Proud, vol. i, pp. 355-357.
90 FORMATION OF
In 1694, through the instrumentality of Rochester and other
noblemen, Penn was reinstated in his government, and in 1699
he returned to the colony.1 In 1701, the reported intention of
Parliament to abrogate the colonial charters necessitated Penn’s
return to England.” Before he left the colony, he granted a
third charter. True to the principles which Penn had ever up-
held, it granted full liberty of conscience to all who admitted the
existence of God, and it opened office to all Christians, of what-
soever denomination. In its general provisions, it was substan-
tially the same as the preceding charter. 3
In its late history, Pennsylvania did little either to preserve
its individuality or to leaven the rest of America with its own
character. The only permanent influence of Quakerism was a
moderation degenerating at times into timidity, and widely alien
from the stern democratic character of New England, or the law-
less independence of Virginia. Yet the repeated contests between
the assembly and the proprietary government kept alive a spirit
of resistance, and helped to prepare Pennsylvania for playing her
part in the national struggle for freedom.
For fifty years after the foundation of Pennsylvania, no fresh
settlement was established in America. The colonisation of
Georgia in 1732 will be ever associated with one of the purest
and noblest characters in American history, James Oglethorpe.
The associate of Johnson, educated at Oxford, aristocratic by
birth, profession, and sentiment, he devoted his life to the service
of the poor and friendless. He was the Howard of his age. His
pity had been especially moved by the sufferings of debtors in
1 Proud, vol. i., pp. 377-400. ? Proud, vol i, p. 436.
3 Proud, vol. i., pp. 443-450. As a proof of Penn’s advanced views it should be
mentioned that he abolished the iniquitous law which punishes the children of a
suicide by making his property forfeit, and which to this day compels every jury,
which tries a case of suicide, to be guilty of perjury.
4 Their Quaker principles seem to have sat lightly on the later Pennsylvanians.
The assembly, on one occasion, refused to grant a supply for the purchase of
powder. They, however, voted an aid of £3000 to be applied to the purchase of
bread, flour, wheat, or other grain. Franklin subsequently proposed to his own
party, when a cannoa was wanted, that they should move for the purchase of a
fire-engine. Autobiography of Franklin in his Works, vol. i, p. 154.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 91
prisons. In 1728, he acted as a commissioner for inquiring into
the state of jails, and by his exertions, “he restored to light and
freedom multitudes who, by long confinement for debt, were
strangers and helpless in the land of their birth.” Colonisation,
it seemed to him, might afford a permanent alleviation of this
misery. He looked to
“Where, beyond the spacious ocean, lies
A wide waste land beneath the southern skies ;
Where kindly suns for ages rolled in vain,
Nor e’er the vintage saw nor ripening grain,
Where all things into wild luxuriance ran,
And burdened nature asked the aid of man.’”!
There Oglethorpe thought he might found a home for English
paupers and the distressed Protestants of Europe? In 1732, a
charter was granted, constituting the whole territory between the
rivers Savannah and Alatamaha into the Province of Georgia, to
be held by a coporation under a quit-rent. The charter set
forth—1. The need of emigration to relieve poverty; 2. The
necessity of establishing a protection for the frontier of South
Carolina. It then constituted a body of thirteen trustees for
establishing the colony of Georgia in America, and created it a
corporation. The corporation was to appoint the governor and
all officers for twenty-one years. After that time, the right was
to revert to the crown. The declared intention of the trustees
was, “to relieve such unfortunate persons as cannot subsist here,
and establish them in an orderly manner, so as to form a well-
regulated town.” To carry out the intentions of the promoters
of the scheme, and to make the colony a community of resident
and working proprietors, no person was allowed to hold more
than five hundred acres of land, and no alienation was allowed.
The importation of slaves was forbidden as putting free labour
on an unfair footing, and giving the rich an undue advantage.
The vicinity of the Spaniards also would have made a servile
insurrection peculiarly dangerous. As it was to be a military
1 “Georgia,” a Poem. By Samuel Wesley.
2 Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 418, 419.
92 FORMATION OF
colony, and a protection to the frontier of Carolina, it was pro-
vided that every inhabitant should be trained to the use of arms.
The culture of mulberries for the production of silk was rendered
compulsory. Another less judicious, because almost impractic-
able, law was passed, forbidding the importation of rum. ‘Liberty.
of conscience was granted to all, Papists alone excepted.. Rich.
men invested their capital, and Parliament voted a grant of
£10,000.
On the 17th of November 1632, Oglethorpe, with one hundred
and thirty persons, sailed from Gravesend, and on the 20th of
January, they landed at Beaufort town. Oglethorpe went up
the river to select a spot for a settlement, and entered into an
alliance with Tomochichi, the chief of a tribe of Indians. On
the 1st of February, the colonists arrived at the spot selected by
Oglethorpe. The infant colony was supported by the kindness
of its neighbours in South Carolina, who helped them with food
and labour. On the 18th of May, Oglethorpe held a conference
with the chief men of the eight Creek cantons. The Indians
brought a present of buckskins and professed themselves friends
to the white men, and ready to protect them against the Chero-.
kees if necessary. On the 21st, a treaty was signed, and the
Indians went away with presents, including ammunition, and, it
is painful to add, eight kegs of rum.?
In the next year, on the 24th of March, the colony was re-
inforced by the emigration of a band of Salzburgers. They were
received kindly, both by the Indians and the English. “The
blessing of God,” they said, “seems to have gone along with this
happy undertaking; for here we see industry honoured, and.
justice strictly executed, and luxury and idleness banished from:
this happy place, where plenty and brotherly love seem to make
their abode ;” and in the Savannah they found a river to remind.
1 A True and Historical Narrative of the Colony of Georgia. Force, vol. i.,
pp. 2-19. :
? A Brief Account of the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia. Force, vol. i. ;
pp. 8-12.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 93
them of their native Rhine. Oglethorpe gave them their choice
of a plantation, and they pitched on a spot about twenty-one
miles from Savannah, and thirty miles from the sea. Their
industry, and the rapidity with which their settlement grew up,
astonished the English.?
In April 1734, Oglethorpe returned to England, taking with
him Tomochichi and others of the Creek chiefs.2 That the
results of the colony were not altogether satisfactory, may be
inferred from the fact. that the trustees gave notice, “that as
they found that many of the poor who had been useless in
England were inclined to be useless likewise in Georgia, they
determined that ‘these embarkations should consist chiefly of
persons from the Highlands of Scotland, and persecuted German
Protestants””> In 1735, a small body of Moravians emigrated
to Savannah, and a colony of Highlanders established themselves
at New Inverness in Darien. Oglethorpe returned in 1736 with
three hundred emigrants. In the winter of the same year,
Oglethorpe again visited England. He was able to report that
the colony was doing well, and in the autumn of 1737, he
returned with a commission as brigadier-general and a regiment.
His men worked laboriously, and a fort was soon erected.® In
spite of the above-mentioned dissatisfaction, the liberality of
parliament was continued to an extent which was hardly recom-
pensed by the results. In seven years they granted £94,000,
and during that time the number of emigrants had only reached
two thousand two hundred, of whom nearly seven hundred were
foreign Protestants. There were one hundred and nine free-
holders in Savannah, and twenty-seven thousand one hundred
acres of land had been divided in private grants. As might be
1 Extract from Van Beck’s Journal, pp. 8-11.
2 Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 425, 426.
3 An Account showing the Progress of the Colony of Georgia. Published by
Order of the Trustees. 1742.
4 Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 427.
5 Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 433. A state of the province of Georgia attested upon
oath in the Court of Savannah. 1740. Force, vol. i., p. 17.
§ Account published by Trustees, p. 15.
94 FORMATION OF
expected from the character of the colonists, Georgia did not
escape internal dissensions. Several of the colonists drew up
and published a memorial attacking Oglethorpe.* Its character
may be judged of by the fact that the points which it selected
for attack, were Oglethorpe’s humanity to the natives, whom it
calls “a parcel of fugitive Indians—useless vagrants,” and his
refusal to relax the restrictions on the importation of rum and
negroes. John Wesley, who visited the colony in 1736, is in the
same document accused of being a papist.
In 1736, difficulties as to boundaries had arisen with the
Spaniards, and the colonists suspected that their Indian allies
were being tampered with. In 1742, the young colony was to
feel the danger of its proximity to the Spanish frontier. Party
spirit had engaged England in one of the most unjust of all
unjust wars. A Spanish force was collected at Cuba for the
invasion of Georgia. Oglethorpe was ready to lay down his
life for the state which his devotion had founded. “We are
resolved no. to suffer defeat; we will rather die like Leonidas
and his Spartans, if we can but protect Carolina and the rest of
the Americans from desolation,” was his message to Savannah.
On the 4th of July, the Spanish force landed, and marched on
Frederica, but the frontier selected for the fort had been a strong
one, and the courage of the Highlanders repelled the invaders
with loss. On the 18th, after an unsuccessful attack on Fort-
William, which was defended with great bravery, the Spanish
force re-embarked and sailed south, and on the 24th of July,
Oglethorpe published an order for a general thanksgiving.? The
father and saviour of the colony soon returned to England.
For ten years he had devoted himself to the cause of Georgia.
“Instead of allowing himself the satisfaction which a plentiful
fortune, powerful friends, and great merit entitle him to in
1 Given in Force, vol. ii The introduction to the Account, published by the
Trustees, stigmatises it, apparently with perfect justice, as “a mean, low sneer,
a malicious, ill-natured invective, published by a few persons of no estate, and as
little character.”
2 Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 443-446.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES. 95
England, he has inured himself to the greatest hardships that
any the meanest inhabitant of this new colony will be exposed
to; his diet has been mouldy bread, or boiled rice, instead of
bread, salt beef, pork, &c. His drink has been water, his bed the
damp earth, without any other covering than the canopy of
heaven to shelter him, and all this to set an example to this
new colony, how they might bear with such hardships in their
new settlements.” He never revisited Georgia, but during the
rest of a long and honourable life, he was ever the firm friend of
the colonies. ?
For a time the new colony was unprosperous. Dissensions
arose, and the inhabitants emigrated till the colony was finally
reduced to about eight hundred inhabitants. The conversion of
it into a royal province improved its condition and obliterated
the peculiarities of its institutions. The restrictions on the
alienation and accumulation of land disappeared. The indolence
of the settlers and the facility of employing slave labour,
triumphed over the conscientious scruples of the Germans and
the Highlanders, and in all respects Georgia became assimilated
to the other southern colonies.®
I have traced, briefly and imperfectly, the growth and develop-
ment of these thirteen colonies, which up to the middle of the
eighteenth century formed the Anglo-American empire. In that
empire there was apparently little of the material for national
unity. Its inhabitants were not of one race or one speech, still
less were their institutions or worship the same. One thread
alone bound them together—the common spirit of independence
and self-government. We can easily understand the democratic
character of New England, but it is harder at first to see what
influence extended that spirit to the southern colonies. Some-
thing is due, no doubt, to the self-reliance and freedom from
1 Preface to the Account, published by Order of the Trustees, p. 4.
2 In 1768 he distributed pamphlets, in behalf of America, among the leading
public men in England. Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 148.
3 Account of the European Settlements, vol, ii., pp. 261-272.
96 FORMATION OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES.
restraint engendered by colonial life. But that alone is not a
sufficient explanation. In truth the colonies did not become
democratic; they took out democratic principles with them. The
outward manifestation of those principles was checked in England
by the remaining forms of feudalism, but they were not the less
real. By the middle of the seventeenth century, English loyalty
had become a sentiment rather than a principle of action. The
complete isolation of the colonies from the mother country re-
moved most of the checks which that sentiment still imposed on
popular liberty. How, it may be asked, can this be said, while
the outcry of loyalty with which a colony greeted an English
prince is yet ringing in our ears? But it is not certain that an
English prince would not have been received as enthusiastically in
America in 1760, nor is it certain that Australia would not defend
her rights against the mother country if necessary, as readily as
America did a hundred years ago. But if we are at a loss to
trace the causes of the growing spirit of democracy in America,
we cannot fail to perceive its manifestations. Nothing illustrates
more strikingly the really democratic character of the American
colonies than their system of representation. The member of
the provincial assembly often went from his constituents with a
clear and definite set of instructions ;' he was a delegate rather
than a representative. Such a system might be unfavourable to
the production of great statesmen. It gave America that without
which great statesmen are useless, an independent and self-
reliant people.
1 The history of the War of Independence furnishes us w:th many such instances.
Several copies of instructions are to be found in Wirt’s “ Life of Patrick Henry,”
and in Hutchinson’s ‘“‘ History of Massachusetts,”
CHAPTER III.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE COLONIES FROM 1688 To 1760.
I HAVE hitherto said nothing, save in the way of reference, of
that remarkable people who occupied the soil of America before
it was known to Europeans. The nationality of the North
American Indians is one of the most vexed questions of eth-
nology. In the limited space of such an essay as this it will be
enough to notice a few of the more salient peculiarities which
apparently connect them with some of the races of the Old
World. In several of their customs, the observation of separa-
tion and purification by the women, the practice of placing their
altars on twelve stones, their fasts and feasts, they bear a remark-
able resemblance to the Jews! In other respects the reader of
Herodotus cannot fail to be struck with the likeness of some of
their customs to those of the ancient Scythians. They scalped
their foes and cherished the scalps as trophies, and, like the
Scythians, the prairie Indians used the scalps as decorations for
their bridles, customs so peculiar that one can hardly suppose the
coincidence fortuitous? Like the Scythians they used the
vapour bath2 The challenge of Canonicus to the New Eng-
1 Clarkson, vol. i, pp. 397, 398. Catlin’s “ Letters and Notes on the North
American Indians,” vol. ii., pp. 282-234,
2 Herodotus, book iv., chap. 64-75.
3 Travayle into Virginia, p. 108. Catlin, vol. i., pp. 97, 98, 186. Beverley,
p. 172. Roger Williams’ Key to the Language of the Indians of New England.
Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,” 1st series, vol. iii, p. 237, It is also worthy
of notice that the Finns, who, if we suppose the Indians to be Mongols, may be
connected with both them and the Scythians, also use the vapour bath,
98 GENERAL VIEW OF
landers is a repetition of the Scythian message to Darius. The
advocates of each theory find arguments in the personal appear-
ance of the Indians. Penn avers “that a man would think
himself in Duke’s Place or Berry Street in London, when he
seath them,”! while some of the early navigators were struck by
their Mongolian appearance.” ?
To many of these good qualities all the early writers bear
witness. Their chastity was universally acknowledged, even by
their revilers.2 In no instance had any white women cause to
dread dishonour at their hands. Both to the English and among
themselves they were hospitable and generous, giving with the
thoughtless liberality of children, and expecting presents with
equally thoughtless acquisitiveness.© In scarcely a single in-
stance can they be justly charged with commencing hostilities.
In Virginia they did not molest the colonists till provoked by
Granville’s ill-judged severity, and in New England they had
been prejudiced against the English by the misconduct of the
fishermen who frequented the coast. In Pennsylvania they
reciprocated the kindness of the colonists by uniform friendship
and fidelity.6 Prisoners, when taken young by them, often bore
away so grateful a recollection of their captivity that when
restored they endeavoured to escape to their former life.’ Of the
arts of life the Indians understood enough to satisfy their simple
requirements, and they were restrained from useful industry
rather by the pride of savage independence than by inability.
They comprehended the teaching of their religious instructors
rapidly, and often showed considerable aptitude for speculative
thought. They raised difficulties in morals and theology which
have puzzled wise men in the Old World® An Indian could
1 Clarkson, vol. i, p. 397. ® Purchas, p. 818. 3 Roger Williams, p. 230.
4 Colden, vol. i, p. 9.
5 “Tn liberality they excel, nothing is too good for their friend.” Penn in Clark-
son, vol. i, p. 389. Colden, vol. i, pp. 12, 13. Roger Williams, p. 208.
§ Proud, vol. ii., p. 325. 7 New England’s First Fruits, pp. 254, 264.
8 «The Clear Sunshine of the Gospel breaking forth upon the Indians in New
England.” By Mr Thomas Shepherd. Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,”
3d series, vol. iv., p. 63.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760. 99
even defend his drunkenness by an appeal to final causes. Of
their social life, and the relative position occupied by the sexes,
is difficult to form clear ideas. Polygamy was allowed and
divorce was common,” yet conjugal infidelity seems to have been
almost unknown. Woman was regarded as a drudge, whose
function was to save man from the degradation of labour, yet we
hear of “Sachem squaws.”® Such conflicting accounts may
perhaps be explained by some distinct difference of character
founded on difference of race, like that which divided the Gauls
and Germans in the time of Cesar. Their religion is scarcely a
less puzzling question than their social state.6 All writers agree
that they were theists,’ but of the details of their belief we know
little that is authentic. They seem to have regarded the God of
the white man as difference from their own God, but of local or
tribal worship we find no trace. Idolatry, though not unknown,
was rare, but fetichism seems to have been common?’ Their
political system appears to have been based entirely on race,
1 An Indian, apologising for his drunkenness, said, The great Spirit who made
all things, made everything for some use, and whatever use He designed anything
for that use, it should always be put to. Now when He made rum, He said,—Let
this be for the Indian to get drunk with, and it must be so.—Franklin’s Auto-
biography, vol. i., p. 164.
2 Travayle into Virginia, p. 51. 3 Roger Williams, p. 230.
4 “Man was made for war and hunting, and holding councils; squaws and
hedgehogs were made to scratch the ground.” Report of a Committee, &c.,
pp. 19, 20.
5 Travayle into Virginia, p. 55.
§ Colden, p. 17. It is hardly likely that they would be communicative on the
subject, or that, if so, their statements would be trustworthy. Beverley gives a
long account of their religious system, pp. 156,157. But when we find that he
had taken the precaution of giving his informant ‘‘ plenty of strong cider to make
him good company and open-hearted,”’ we may attach Jess importance to the
expositions of te Indian theologian. The statement of a New England divine
(“ New England’s Plantation”) that the Indians worship two gods, Tantum and
Squantum, may probably take ranks with the Mophi and Crophi of Hercdotus.
7 Travayle into Virginia, p. 82,“ All the Indians have two things, religion and
a bow and arrows.” Roger Williams, p. 226 ; Clarkson, vol. i., p. 391, and many
other authorities.
- 8 See Catlin’s Account of the Sanctity attaching to the Medicine Bag, vol. i.,
pp. 35-37, An English pig, introduced by the early colonists of Virginia, terrified
them, as they thought he was the god of the pigs. Purchas, p. 829.
100 GENERAL VIEW OF
and so to have been an immediate development of the patriarchal
mode of life The authority of the king was usually lax,
varying, no doubt, with his personal qualities.? Their mode of
succession was, at least among the Virginian tribes, peculiar.
The sovereign power, though held chiefly, if not exclusively, by
males, descended in the direct female line, and was transmitted,
firstly, from brother to brother, and then from brother to sister's
son, so that the direct line did not succeed till all the collateral
claimants were exhausted, a provision probably established
chiefly with a view to securing an adult leader.® Of political
union between different tribes they seem to have had little or no
idea. To this there is one striking exception, in that remarkable
confederacy, called the Five Nations. The political condition of
the Five Nations appears to have been far more advanced than
that of any other tribe of the continent. The permanence of
their union, and the practice of keeping up their numbers by
adoption,‘ all point to a higher development than we find else--
where. In the French war the alliance of the Five Nations
continued to be a matter of great importance. Yet their history
is itself an illustration of a fact which is one of the most striking
1 Thus we find that Powhatan was obliged to tell the English privately of
offences committed by his subjects for fear of offending them. Travayle into
Virginia, p. 51.
? Thus, as we have seen, (p. 27), Opitchapan was virtually superseded in con-
sequence of his infirmities by his brother Opechancanough. At the same time we
should notice that Menatonon (p. 14) is described as impotent in his limbs, show-
ing that mere physical qualities were not the great essential.
3 Beverley, p. 150. Travayle into Virginia, pp. 69, 70. The mode of succession
may be best illustrated by a sketch thus. (Those signified by capital letters are
chiefs, Those marked * are females).
a*
*
g
|
ec
A
|
b &
json PS es
e via
Thus at A’s death, B, his younger brother, succeeds to the exclusion of 6 and c; and-
at B’s death, c, his sister's son, succeeds to the exclusion of e and f. But this mode.
of succession does not seem to have extended to the Northern tribes, and was per-
haps confined to Virginia.
4 Colden, vol. i, p. 5.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760. 101
‘proofs of the incapacity of the Indians for civilisation. No tribe
appears to have continued great for any space of time. The Five
Nations themselves were only stimulated into vigour by the
aggressiveness of the Adirondacs, then the most powerful tribe on
the continent, but who absolutely disappeared before the strength
of the new-born confederacy.
The general history of the American Indians is by no means
a pleasing subject of contemplation for an Englishman. From
the day that white colonists set their foot on the soil of North
America, the natives of that soil were doomed. The acquisition
of fire-arms made them reckless in their destruction of game, and
rendered their petty wars more frequent and more bloody.2 The
substitution of our cottons and calicoes for their own furs and
deerskins was a fertile cause of sickness and consumption?
“Firewater” was a still more potent engine of evil.4 We could
give them nothing to compensate far these evils. “What,” says
Colden, “have we done to make them better? We have indeed
reason to be ashamed that these infidels, by our conversation and
neighbourhood, are become worse than they were before they
knew us. Instead of virtues, we have only taught them vices
that they were entirely free from before that time.”® The labours
of Eliot, and Gookin, and Williams are among the most praise-
worthy efforts in missionary history; yet they bore no perma-
nent fruit.6 The opinion which the savages formed, and with too
1 Colden, vol. i., p. 239.
2 Observations on the Indians of North America, in a Letter from General
Lincoln. 1795. Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,” Ist series, vol. v., pp.
7, 8.
3 Report of a Committee, &c., p. 26. General Lincoln’s Letter, p. 7.
4 Catlin, vol. ii., p. 251, and elsewhere. Franklin's Autobiography, vol. i, p. 163.
5 Colden’s Dedication, p. 6. So Penn says, ‘‘They are the worst for the
Christians who have propagated their vices, and yielded their tradition for ill, and
not for good things.” Clarkson, vol. i., p. 396. Beverley says, in the same spirit,
“ They have reason to regret the arrival of the Europeans, by whose means they
seem to have lost their plenty as well as their innocence.” Beverley, p. 185.
6 The religious instruction imparted does not seem to have been always received
in a very Christian spirit. Colden tells of an Indian convert, whose comment, after
hearing the account of the crucifixion, was, that if he had becn there he would
have had Pontius Pilate’s scalp. Colden, vol. i. p. 207.
102 GENERAL VIEW OF
much apparent justice, of the results of Christianity, was ex-
pressed by one of them in Georgia :—“ Christian much drunk !
Christian beat aen! Christian tell lies! Devil Christian! Me no
Christian!”1 The French were guilty of atrocities towards the
Indians far surpassing anything ever perpetrated by the English,’
yet their attempts to civilise and Christianise them were some-
what more successful. No wilderness was so inhospitable, no
tribe so savage, that the Jesuit missionary did not brave their
perils? Their creed was naturally more acceptable to the childish
temper of the savage than the stern Calvinism of New England.
The more versatile and plastic character of the Celt lent itself
better to the exigencies of savage life. Many of the French on
the Canadian frontier lived among the Indians, married with
them, and thus formed a bond of national union.* Yet they pro-
duced nothing worthy of the name of civilisation. In truth, the
Indian had not the rudiments of civilisation in his character. He
had no sense of the obligation of law, he had no capacity for
settled industry. To endeavour to civilise him was but to destroy
his native virtues, and to give him no others in their stead.
“The Great Spirit,’ he said himself, “gave the white man a
plough, and the red man a bow and arrow, and sent them into
the world by different paths, each to get his living in his own
way.”® An American writer has drawn a happy picture of the
mongrel that was produced by the attempt to impose the training
of a white man on the native temper of the savage, and of his
degraded condition. “ His new friends profess love to him, and
a desire for his improvement in human and divine knowledge,
and for his eternal salvation, but at the same time endeavour
to make him sensible of his inferiority to themselves. He is put
to school, but his fellow-students look upon him as a being of
inferior species. He is neither a white man nor an Indian; as
1 Southey’s “ Life of Wesley,” vol. i, p. 80.
2 Colden, vol. i, pp. 79, 120-122, 198-196.
3 Colden, vol. i., p. 60. 4 Colden, vol. i, p. 260.
> Report of a Committee, &c., pp. 19, 20.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760, 103
lie has no character with us, he has none with them.”1 The best
of them would shun such a condition, and prefer to die with
Sasacus and Philip as the champions of national freedom. What
legislation could do for their protection the colonial legisla-
tion did. It forbade enslaving them, it restricted the sale of
spirits, it debarred them from alienating their lands. It regarded
their lives as equally sacred, in the eye of the law, with those of
its white subjects.? But no legislation could save the barbarian
when brought face to face with the civilised man. Yet the fate
of the Indian, though inevitable, is not the less sad. One can
acquiesce in the extinction of the scarce human Bushmen, or the
aborigines of Australia; but the destruction, and, even worse, the
utter demoralisation of a brave, generous, and high-spirited race,
must ever be one of the saddest chapters in the history of
America.
T have already given one specimen of the ferocious energy with
which the fathers of New England set to work to root out the
heathen from their Canaan. For nearly forty years no other
nation exposed itself to the fate of the luckless Pequods. In
1670, Alexander, the sachem of Pokanoket and the son of Mas-
sasoit, the faithful ally of the English, was suspected of hostile
schemes. Death, however, anticipated his designs, and his
brother Philip succeeded. Philip, like his father Massasoit, was
resolutely opposed to Christianity. In 1671, he made a treaty
with the English and surrendered his arms. Four years later,
finding his territory becoming more and more restricted, he re-
solved to strike a last blow for the liberty of his people.
Happily the English were warned in time, and the attack had
to be made before the preparations for it were fully ripe. During
the whole summer of 1675, Philip's men ravaged the colony,
plundering, murdering, and desolating everywhere. Happily for
the colonists many of the Indians stood neutral, and some were
1 Report of a Committee, &c., p. 30.
2 Winthrop, vol. i., p. 323. Hening, vol. i., pp. 248, 252, 253 ; vol. ii, p. 138;
vol, iv., p. 286.
104 GENERAL VIEW OF
moved by rewards to take up arms against Philip? Yet the
English dared not pursue their enemy into the forests. “It is
ill,” they said, “fighting with a wild beast in his own den,” and
they confined themselves to defensive measures. But in the
winter, when the forests were clear, a force of one thousand men
under the command of Josiah Winslow, marched against the
enemy. The treachery of an Indian fugitive guided them to the
camp of Philip. The fort was taken with comparatively small
loss of life, and the scene of horror which we have witnessed in
the Pequod war was now re-enacted. Nearly one thousand
Indians, many of them women and children, perished either by
the weapons of the English or in the flames of their own wig-
wams. Philip and the survivors renewed the war during the
ensuing summer, and inflicted severe loss on their enemies. But
their cause was utterly hopeless. Their women had perished,
and their fields remained untilled. Many of the neutrals began
to take the side of the English, and even Philip’s own people
were brought over by the hope of pardon. Betrayed and sur-
rounded, the Arminius of North America was hunted down and
shot like a wild beast in the forests where his fathers had
reigned.” Like his German prototype he had lived long enough
to see his wife and son the prisoners of his foes. Neither the
consistent kindness received from Massasoit, nor the respect due
to a brave enemy, saved the young sachem from being sold as a
slave to the Bermudas.? Philip’s war was the last unaided
attempt of the red men in New England to expel their invaders.
It was marked by actions worthy of the dying effort of a heroic
people. The English surrendered one of their prisoners to the
Mohicans, who tortured him horribly and asked him tauntingly
whether he liked the war then. “The insensible and hard-
hearted monster did answer that he liked it very well, and found
1 The reward was a coat for every enemy slain, two for every prisoner. The
reward offered for Philip was forty coats if taken alive, twenty if killed.
2 The above account is taken from Hubbard’s ‘‘ Present State of New England,”
being a narrative of the troubles with the Indians. London, 1677.
3 Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 108.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 70 1760, 105
it as sweet as Englshmen did their sugar.” Another prisoner
in a spirit of Roman patriotism, consented to die rather than
take back proposals for a peace.’ If the revenge taken was
severe, so was the suffering. Six hundred men, a twentieth of
the whole able-bodied force of the colony had fallen. Whole
towns were destroyed, and six hundred houses were burnt to the
-ground.?
The Indians were not the only inferior race with whom the
white man in America was brought in contact. In 1619, a
Dutch ship landed twenty negroes at Jamestown.? These are the
first negro slaves on American soil of whom there is any record.
For a considerable time the slave trade was in the hands of the
Dutch, and, as I have before mentioned, in 1653 the number of
whites in Virginia exceeded that of negroes as twenty to one.
But the poison had been introduced, though its operation might
be slow. We have seen that the union of the races was from the
first looked on with disgust. Yet it is not till the eighteenth
century that we meet with much in the legislation of Virginia to
remind us of the existence of an inferior caste. In 1705 we find
an ominous law protecting negro slaves against ill-treatment,
and in 1711 we find that their testimony was not to be received
on the same footing as that of white men. The evil did not
confine itself to the degradation of the negroes. There grew up
“a feculum of beings called overseers, a most abject, unprincipled
race.”* I do not find any explicit record of the existence of
such a class in early times in the other colonies, but we can
hardly doubt that in South Carolina the preponderance of the
negro population must have produced the same evils in even an
intensified form.
1 Hubbard, who tells of these actions, adds a strange comment. ‘‘ Instances of
this nature should be incentives unto us to bless the Father of lights, who hath
called us out from the dark places of the earth, full of the habitations of cruelty.”
It would be hard, one would think, to find “ darker places of cruelty,” than existed
in the hearts of men who could tell of such actions with no other feeling than self-
righteous exultation.
2 Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 109. 3 Beverley, p. 37.
4 A private letter, quoted in Wirt’s “ Life of Patrick Henry,” p. 32.
106 GENERAL VIEW OF
We find no mention of negroes in New England till eighteen
years after their first appearance in Virginia. In 1763, out of a
total of about two hundred and fifty-one thousand souls, a little
over five thousand were negroes; and in the next thirteen years,
while the whole population was increased by one hundred and
twelve thousand, the number of negroes was about stationary. *
Here a caste feeling prevailed, though not as strongly as in Vir-
ginia. A negro striking a white man was liable to be sold out of
the province. Mixed marriages were punishable, and the offici-
ating clergyman was liable to a fine of £80, though the marriage,
when once celebrated, could not be annulled. No negro might
be in the streets after nine o'clock Slavery, no doubt, was
opposed to the principles, and even more to the social character,
of New England, but it was not to these wholly or even chiefly
that the difference between the Northern and Southern colonies
is due. The difference of climate, and even more of soil, is the
real explanation. Not that, as is sometimes alleged, the climate
of the Southern States is such as to render white labour in any
way impossible. The Salzburgers and Oglethorpe’s highlanders
worked diligently, while the broken tradesmen who had been
sent to Georgia out of charity clamoured for negroes. The differ-
ence is, not that white labour is impossible in the South, but that
black labour is impossible in the North. The climate was ill-
suited to the African, and the barren soil required a more scientific
system of tillage than he could carry out. The labour of a gang
of human machines working under the whip of an overseer could
not stand in competition against the active New England yeoman.
In the Southern colonies, the richer soil and the simpler agricul-
ture placed the free labour and the slave far more nearly on the
same footing.
I must not altogether pass over without notice those strange
and tragical events which, towards the close of the seventeenth
century, threw so dark a cloud over the hitherto tranquil career
1 Answers, by the Rev. Dr Bellinap, to questions proposed by Judge Flecker.
Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,” vol. iv., pp. 191-198.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760. 107
of New England. The penal code of Massachusetts, based as it
was on that of the Jews, included witchcraft among its capital
crimes. The early New England Puritan no doubt thought
himself a firm believer in possession and in the power of witches.
But he had no time for such follies. He had to fight Satan by
nobler means than by hanging old women. It was not till he
had leisure to mix up Indian demonology with crude theological
notions and the conceits of his own brain, and till the stern
unreasoning bigotry of Dudley had given way to the hypocritical
self-justifying bigotry of Cotton Mather, that the penalties im-
posed on witchcraft became a real evil. In 1656, a Mrs Hilbers,
widow of a leading citizen of Boston, and sister to the deputy-
governor, had been hanged, as an old pastor said, “for having
more wit than her neighbours.” In 1685, a miserable Irish-
woman was hanged as a witch at Salem. One of those supposed
to have been bewitched worked on Cotton Mather’s credulity and
vanity till he thought he saw an opportunity of serving of God,
and distinguishing himself by a general crusade against witch-
craft. About the same time, there were dissensions in the church
at Salem. Beside the town, a separate community, Salem
village, had grown up. Disputes had arisen between the two
churches. Burroughs, the favourite minister of Salem village,
had been expelled, and his successor, Parris, had involved
himself in incessant disputes with his parishioners. In 1691
he allied himself with Mather, and they commenced their cam-
paign. They obtained a complete triumph. The inhabitants
were seized by one of those epidemics, of which there are
other instances in history, but of which the laws are as yet
unknown. The life of every man, woman, and child in Salem
was at the mercy of a vindictive priest and a vain pedant. No
age, no rank was safe. A life of blameless virtue was no protec-
tion. A child of four years old was accused ; a gentlewoman of
‘eighty, of good family and exemplary character, was hanged. An
aged man suffered himself to be pressed to death rather than let
himself be convicted, and his goods forfeited. Burroughs, the
198 GENERAL VIEW OF
predecessor and rival of Parris, was among those executed. No
show of justice was observed in the trials. So weak did the pro-
secutors feel their own case, that, when some of the accused fled
to the other colonies, they did not dare to demand them. At
length, the good sense of the people came to the rescue. The
terrible infection was checked, but not before twenty innocent
persons had perished on the gallows. Under the wise and gentle
management of a new pastor, the dark cloud left by the witch
tragedy passed away. Some of the “ possessed” children re-
_pented with open confession, and expiated their misdeeds by acts
of kindness to the relations of those whom they had helped to
murder. Mather and Parris, on whose heads the main guilt
rests, died unrepentant.1
For more than a hundred years, the colonists knew nothing of
war save the ferocious, but ill-organised and short-lived attacks
of the savages. But it was soon evident that America must be-
come the battle-field of England and France. The French held
Louisiana and Canada. Could they but establish a line of com-
munication along the valleys of Ohio and the Mississippi, they
would have a complete belt along the whole English frontier.
For years that had been the policy of France, and her relations
with the natives had all been directed to that end. In 1753
matters drew to a crisis. The French began to encroach on the
unoccupied valley of the Ohio territory, claimed by England as
_part of Virginia. In April Duquesne, with a force of twelve
hundred men, marched into the valley, disregarding the feeble
protest of the natives. In the autumn of that year Dinwiddie,
the governor of Virginia, sent by the direction of the home
government, “a person of distinction” to demand an explanation
from the French commander. The ambassador selected was
George Washington, a young Virginian gentleman, twenty-one
1 T have taken this account from Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 75-78, 84-98. A letter
from Thomas Brattle, F.R.S., giving a full and candid account of the delusion
called witchcraft, which prevailed in New England, 1692, and from an article on
Salem witchcraft, lately published in the Edinburgh Review.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760. 109
years old, brought up as a land surveyor. The French commander
boldly avowed his purpose of holding the valley of the Ohio.
On Washington’s return, it was decided to adopt prompt mea-
sures, The Ohio company erected a fort, and Washington was
sent with a hundred and fifty men to hold the territory. Aided
by the Indians, he attacked the French at Great Meadows on the
27th of May, and defeated them. But he was unsupported, and
could do nothing towards holding the valley against the con-
stantly increasing French forces. On the 4th of July he capitu-
lated, and retreated with all his effects, leaving the French in
possession of the valley.
French aggression was to lead the American colonies to take
the first step towards national unity. On the 19th of June a
congress of representatives from every colony north of the Poto-
mac met at Albany. Among these representatives was Benjamin
Franklin. Self-made and self-taught, the journeyman printer
had risen to be one of the leading statesmen of his country. His
name was not yet associated with those great discoveries which
have now made it immortal, but he had already shown himself
one of the most active and public-spirited citizens of Phila-
delphia. He had organised a public library and a fire company,
and had induced the citizens to establish an academy. The city
owed it to him that its streets were paved and swept.? Nothing
was so vast as to be beyond his comprehension ; nothing so
minute as to escape his attention. In everything he undertook,
great or small, he showed that most rare combination of qualities,
an unresting desire for improvement, with the capacity for seeing
what improvement was possible, and the readiness to acquiesce
in going no further. There have been natural philosophers who
have bequeathed even greater gifts to the world ; there have been
statesmen who have left their mark more indelibly stamped on
the character and institutions of their country ; there have been
philanthropists who have rendered greater public services, But
1 Bancroft, vol. iv.,-pp. 106-121.
2 Franklin’s Autobiography, published in his Works, vol. i., pp. 99, 183, 158.
110 GENERAL VIEW OF.
in all history we can scarcely find a character who combined in
himself so many and such varied means of usefulness to his fel-
low-men, and who employed them so ungrudgingly and so wisely.
He now laid before the congress a scheme for uniting the colo-
nies in a confederacy. The immediate grounds set forth for this
measure were the necessity for resistance to the French, the
failure of that resistance in the present year, owing to the
absence of co-operation, and the confidence which such a state of
disunion tended to inspire in the enemy. The play of union pro-
posed “that humble application be made for am Act of Pérlia-
ment of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government
may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within
and under which government each colony may retain its present
constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be
directed by the said act.” The plan then provided “that the
said general government be administered by a president-general,
to be appointed and supported by the crown; and a grand council
to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several
colonies met in their several assemblies.” The council was to be
elected every three years. The number of representatives allotted
to each colony should be proportionate to its contribution to the
general treasury. The president-general was to have a veto on
alllaws. The council was to have power to raise soldiers and
build forts for the protection of any of the colonies, or equip
ships for the defence of the empire generally, but might not
impress men in any colony without the consent of the colonial
legislature. It was also to have power to make laws and levy
taxes, with due regard to the convenience of the people, “rather
discouraging luxury, than loading industry with unnecessary
burdens.” All laws were to be transmitted to England for appro-
bation. Military and naval officers were to be nominated by the
president, and approved by the council; civil officers to be nomi-
nated by the council, and approved by the president. The sepa-
rate states were still to keep up their own military establish-
ments, and if they should be put to any expense in self-defence,
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760. 111
the general government was to defray it, so far as it was reason-
able The congress approved of the scheme, and the project of
union seemed at first likely to create general enthusiasm. But
the centrifugal tendency was still too strong for the centripetal,
and the confederation of the American colonies was postponed.”
The home government now took up the cause‘ of the colonies.
Provisions were made for the settlement of the Ohio valley, and
the direction of American affairs was entrusted to the brave and.
ferocious Cumberland. Braddock, a man of no military genius,
violent, brutal, and overbearing, was appointed commander-in-
chief. Orders were given that the provisional officers should
hold no rank while serving with the regular troops? At the
same time, Dieskau sailed with troops from Canada. Everything
spoke plainly of war. On the 9th of July 1755, Braddock, with
twelve hundred picked men, forded the Mononhangela, and
entered the valley of the Ohio. Franklin had reminded him of
the dangers of backwoods warfare, and the fear of ambuscades,
but he had scorned the warning as coming from a provincial and
a civilian.t At one o'clock, just after the whole force had crossed
the Mononhangela, they heard a quick and heavy fire in their
front. The two front detachments of five hundred men fell back,
and the whole force was in confusion. The officers, conspicuous
on horseback, were picked off by riflemen. Braddock had five
horses killed under him, and was at length mortally wounded.
The officers behaved with unparalleled courage, and strove to
rally their troops, but to no purpose. The men, deaf to the
exhortations of their officers, fired away all their ammunition, and
then fled, leaving their artillery, provisions, and baggage.
Washington, who had resigned his commission in disgust at the
stigma cast on the American officers, was present, and, with his
despised provincials, “behaved the whole time with the greatest
1 Franklin’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 22-55.
2 Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 125, 126.
* Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 167-170.
4 Franklin’s Autobiography. Works, vol. i., p. 190.
112 GENERAL VIEW OF
courage and resolution.”! The total loss in killed and wounded
-was seven hundred and thirteen, while that of the enemy did not
amount to one hundred.”? Braddock died in the space of two
days, and was buried secretly to save his corpse from the fury of
the Indians. ?
In Canada, the colonists had done better for themselves than
the regular troops had done for them. A force of New England
tmnilitia had defeated the enemy near Fort-Edward. The loss on
each side had been about equal, but among the French who fell
was their leader, the brave Dieskau.*
Meantime, in another part of the continent, a scene had been
enacted, more full of human suffering than many battle-fields.
In 1714, the treaty of Utrecht had given to Great Britain the
French colony of Acadia. The inhabitants of that province were
loyal and attached subjects of France, and they stipulated that,
under the British government, they should not be called upon to
bear arms against their native country. On the whole continent,
there was not a more peaceful and tranquil community than that
of Acadia. They were “a society of brethren, every individual
of which was equally ready to give and receive what he thought
the common right of mankind” Vice was unknown. None
lived single, and when a young couple married, the community
furnished them with a house and ground, and supplied them
with the necessaries of life for a year. Agriculture was their
staple occupation, and the produce of their own fields and flocks.
supplied nearly all their wants. The English government granted
chem the benefit of complete neglect. ‘No magistrate was ever-
xppointed to rule over them. No rents or taxes of any kind were
aver exacted from them. Their new sovereign seemed to have
forgotten them, and they were equally strangers to him.”5
1 Original Account of Braddock’s Defeat. By Orme, (his aidede-camp.) Pub-
ished in the Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,” 2d series, vol. viii, pp. 153~
55. Franklin’s Works, vol i, p. 191. 2 Bancroft, vol. iv., p- 191,
3 Hutchinson’s “ History of Massachusetts,” ed. 1828, p. 32.
* Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 207-212.
5 Some account of the late inhabitants of Acadia, translated from the French of
he Abbé Raynal, and published in the Annual Register, vol. xix,
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760, 113
Surely the storm of European war might pass by and leave these
Acadians to the enjoyment of their tranquil life. But when did
such considerations weigh as a feather in the balance in the
schemes of the rulers of mankind? The peaceful happiness of
the people is no part of the statesman’s care; that is only the
province of visionary enthusiasts like Penn and Oglethorpe.
The peace of Acadia was threatened in 1755 by the establish-
ment of a British force among them. War between their country-
men and their rulers was close at hand. Yet they only desired
to stand neutral, The English government was not satisfied.
“They possess the best and largest tract of land in this province ;
if they refuse the oaths, it would be much better that they were
away,” was the report of Lawrence, the Lieutenant-Governor of
Nova Scotia. It was not hard to find pretexts for carrying out
the desired policy. The Acadians had refused the oath of allegi-
ance, though almost immediately afterwards, they had repented
and offered to take it. They were declared “ Popish recusants,”
and their deportation was. ordered. The whole population of
Acadia, probably the happiest and most prosperous settlement in
America, was driven out at the point of the bayonet. Families
were broken up, husbands sent to one colony, their wives to
another far distant. One thousand of them landed at Boston in
the dead of winter, utterly unprovided for. The government had
made no arrangements for their reception, and but for the
humanity of the-citizens, many of them must have perished of
cold and hunger. The kindness shown to men of an alien race
and a detested religion, shows that the New Englanders had
added tolerance and charity to the virtues of their Puritan
fathers.”
In 1751, war was declared between England and France, and
in 1758, the conquest of the Ohio valley was again attempted
The first attack on Fort Duquesne failed, like Braddock’s, through
the foolhardiness of the English commander, Grant, and as in
Braddock’s defeat, the courage of the provincials helped to save
1 Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 194-206. 2 Hutchinson, pp. 39, 40.
H
114 GENERAL VIEW OF
the force from destruction. In November, two thousand five
hundred men marched against Fort Duquesne, under the com-
mand of Forbes, with Washington at the head of the provincials.
‘Braddock’s defeat was avenged, but by a bloodless victory. The
French garrison set fire to the fort and fled. The spot was
named Pittsburg by the victors, in honour of the great dictator
-who had revived the glory of the English arms. If equal success
attended them in Canada, the future expansion of the Anglo-
‘American empire would be bounded only by the Pacific.
In the campaigns of 1757 and 1758, the ability of the French
General Montcalm was assisted by the incapacity and supineness
of the English commanders. But Wolfe’s arrival introduced a
fresh spirit, and the campaign of 1759, was crowned by the sur-
render of Quebec. With that event the war in America was
virtually at a close. A question now remained to be settled of
‘vital importance to the colonies. Should England retain Canada,
‘or cede it in consideration of receiving Guadaloupe? The voice
of the colonists was unanimously in favour of Canada. To have
Canada under the same government as themselves would relieve
them from the expense of guarding a vast frontier, and would
diminish the danger of Indian warfare. On the other hand,
there were those in England who argued that the extent of
territory would tend to make the colonists independent, both com-
mercially and politically, of the mother country. Against these
views, Franklin published a pamphlet, urging the superior value
of Canada to England.? The increase in the number of subjects
need be, he pointed out, no source of alarm. The extension of
territory would be in itself a security against the colonists under-
taking manufactures. Increase of population might drive them
to it, but extension of territory would serve to confine them to
agriculture. The idea that the colonies would be induced to aim
at independence he utterly ridiculed. Could it be supposed that
these separate colonies with different forms of government, different
1 Bancroft, vol. viii., pp. 308-311.
2 Published in Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 153.
THE COLONIES FROM 1688 TO 1760. 115
laws, different interests, and some of them different religious per-
suasions, and different manners, would ever be bound together in
oneempire. Would these colonists who would not unite for self-
defence against the French and Indians, unite against their own
nation, which protects and encourages them, and with which
they have so many ties of blood, interest, and affection? The
idea that Canada in the possession of the French acted as a
check on the colonies, he denounced as a barbarous scheme for
employing the French and Indians to restrain the colonists, and
he pointed out that independence of each other, and separate
interest, was the guarantee which England had for the security
of her American possessions. At the same time he took occasion
indirectly to remind the government of the duty they owed to
the colonies. “While the government is mild and just, while
important civil and religious rights are secure, subjects will be
dutiful and obedient. The waves do not rise but while the
winds blow.” Franklin’s policy, or rather the design of Pitt, for
amassing and consolidating a great English empire prevailed,
and Canada became British territory.
CHAPTER IV.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
We have seen the colonies at the end of a severe and exhausting,
but not destructive war. Their services were acknowledged by
the mother country, and considerable, though probably inade-
quate, compensation was voted to them. But though the war had
taxed them heavily, in other respects the yoke of English supre-
macy sat lightly on the neck of the colonists. The severity of
the navigation laws was in practice mitigated by the lenity with
which they were carried out. The excise officers systematically
connived at the evasions of the law.1 Of the million and a half
pounds of tea consumed annually in the colonies, not more than
a tenth came from England? The commercial monopoly of
Great Britain was regarded, according to the economical principles
of that age, as a politic and necessary measure.® The severe
restrictions on colonial industry were indeed felt, but so many
and so varied were the fields for labour, that though these restric-
tions might impede the progress of the colonies, they never could
produce actual want. The rapid growth of their commercial
prosperity closed the eyes of the Americans to the severity of the
trade regulations. “After the war, and in the last years of it,
1 Annual Register, vol. iii., pp. 219, 220. Bancroft, vol. sy p- 158, and vol. v.,
p. 87. Franklin says, (vol. iv., p. 325), ‘‘The needy wretches who, with poor
salaries, were trusted to watch the post day and night, found it easier and more
profitable not only to wink but to sleep in their beds; the merchant’s pay being
more generous than the king's.”
2 Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 158, note.
3 Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 181; vol. v., p. 7.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 117
the trade of America had increased far beyond the speculations
of the most sanguine imaginations. It swelled out on. every
side. It filled all the proper channels to the brim.”! In other
respects, America might well be content with her political rela-
tions to the mother country. “She had, except the commercial
restraint, every characteristic mark of a free people in all her
internal concerns, She had the image of the British constitution.
She had the substance. She was taxed by her own representa-
tives. She chose most of her own magistrates. She paid them
all. She had, in effect, the sole disposal of her own internal
government.”? Consequently, “she had not only a respect, but
an affection for Great Britain, for its laws, its customs, and
manners. Natives of Britain were always treated with particular
regard ; to be an old England man was of itself a character of
some respect.”? The principal grievance was the character of
the governors, many of whom were, like the Roman pro-consuls,
needy adventurers, who came out to retrieve their fortunes, and
to acquire resources for future extravagance at the expense of the
colonies. Projects of raising a revenue and maintaining a civil
list had occasionally been heard of, but they had taken no defi-
nite form, and the colonists might well feel that the sufferings
they had undergone, and the loyalty they had shown in the late
war, would exempt them from any such burdens. Not that the
materials for resistance were wanting whenever the need of them
should come. All the traditions of their origin pointed to freedom
as their birthright, to resistance against tyranny as their duty.
Nor had the old Puritan spirit died for lack of nourishment or
exercise. Massachusetts had had struggles with her governors,
Pennsylvania with her proprietors, Virginia with her clergy.
The democratic training of the New England townships had not
1 Burke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 391. ® Burke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 385.
3 Franklin’s Examination before Parliament, in his Works, vol. iv., p. 169.
4 Franklin’s “ American Discontents,” vol. iv., p. 248. Rules for Reducing a
Great Empire into a Small One, vol. iv., pp. 389, 390. Franklin states (vol. iv.,
p. 469) that in 1764 Bernard was convicted of corruption and collusion with
smugglers, and still allowed to retain his office.
118 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
perished. Public libraries had diffused knowledge among the
people The late war had taught them the strength of a colonial
militia, But though the nation was gradually and secretly
developing its fitness for freedom, the idea of independence had
never consciously presented itself. A few far-seeing statesmen
and enthusiastic patriots may have discerned on the horizon the
“ttle cloud like a man’s hand,” which contained within it the
storm of civil war, but separation from the mother country would
have seemed to the mass of Americans a wild dream.2 In 1764,
Otis, the leading statesman of Massachusetts, said publicly, “The
true interests of Great Britain and her plantations are mutual,
and what God has in providence united, let no man dare attempt
to pull asunder.” ®
Nor was there anything in the internal state of England to
make the Americans apprehend danger. England, at the accession
‘of George IIL. was, beyond all doubt, the freest of the nations of
Europe. The principles of liberal government had, for nearly a
hundred years, made steady progress. There had been a steady
1 Franklin’s Works, vol. i., p. 97.
® Lord Chatham stated to Franklin, in a conversation in 1774, that it was com-
monly believed in England that America was aiming at independence. Franklin’s
answer was, “that having more.than once travelled almost from one end of the con-
tinent to the other, and kept a great variety of company, eating, drinking, and con-
versing with them freely, he had never heard, in any conversation, from any person,
drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for such a separation.” Franklin’s
Works, vol. v., pp. 6, 7. Dr Price, in his “ Additional Observations on the Nature
and Value of Civil Liberty, and the War with America,” published in 1777, quotes
[pp. 80-82] private letters from New York, written as late as 1775, disavowing any
idea of independence in very strong terms. Horace Walpole, wise after the event,
says in his “ Memoirs of George II.,” vol. i, p. 397, that suspicions had been
entertained as early as 1754 that America was aiming at independence. I can find
no evidence for such a supposition, much against it. See Franklin’s Works, vol. iv.,
pp. 482, 477, 485, 496, 498, 503. Annual Register, vol. xix. p. 96. Bancroft,
vol. v., pp. 148, 201, 202, 205, 217, 271 ; vol. vi., p. 78. The Critical Moment on
which the Salvation or Destruction of the British Empire Depend, by Janus,
published, 1776, p. 81, and Thoughts on the Letter of Edmund Burke, Esquire, to
the Sheriffs of Bristol on the Affairs of America, by the Earl of Abingdon, pp.
56, 57. Compare with such statements the repeated disavowals of independence,
both by provincial assemblies and continental congresses.
3 Hutchinson, p. 102.
4 For an account of this movement, see Buckle’s “ History of Civilisation in
England,” vol. i., chap. 7.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 119
diminution of the royal prerogative. The king no longer
attended cabinet councils or debates in the House of Lords.
The two first Hanoverian princes were restrained by indolence
and ignorance from interfering in the affairs of the nation.
Whenever their influence was exercised it was only in foreign,
not domestic, politics, and though parliament acquiesced in that
influence the nation protested against it. The prime minister no
longer held office by the will of the sovereign: The king was
forced by the Pelhams to dismiss Granville; he was forced by
the nation to accept Pitt. The once strong party of prerogative
was, as a political force, extinct, and when the Whigs, after
ruling England for forty-five years, were at length overthrown, it
was by weakness within, not by attacks from without. The publi-
cation of the debates of parliament at once indicated the interest
which the nation felt in the proceedings of its rulers, and
strengthened its power of criticising them. Political newspapers
had sprung up, and eminent statesmen did not think it unworthy
of them to fight their battles in the popular arena, and to appeal
to the voice of the multitude By various means knowledge had
been widely diffused. Circulating libraries and book clubs were
organised. Lectures were delivered, and treatises written on
scientific subjects in a popular and untechnical style.”
It would exceed the limits of my subject were I to attempt to
trace in full the causes which had combined to produce this
movement. In the first place various circumstances had effectu-
ally debarred the king from the use of arbitrary power. A
disputed succession not only acted as security for good behaviour,
but alienated from the throne the only party who would have
been likely to support it in any encroachments on popular liberties.
The king's own claim to the throne rested on the people's right of:
self-government. The king’s own party, the Whig aristocracy, was.
like himself pledged to the cause of liberty. Additional security
was provided by the national debt, which gave so large a portion
of the community a direct interest in the security of parliament.*
1 Hallam, vol. iii., p. 298. 2 Buckle, vol. i. pp. 393, 394.
3 Cooke's “ History of Party,” vol. ii, p. 409.
120 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
Mainly, however, the growth of liberal principles was due to this,
that a new political force had come into being. The power of the
aristocracy had been relatively lessened; that of the landed
gentry was at best stationary, while that of the mercantile and
professional classes, the most progressive and enlightened part of
the nation, had greatly increased. A time was at hand which
was to test the value of that movement. It was yet to be seen
whether national liberty did not require a wider basis; whether
the Whig party were capable of resisting the encroachments of
arbitrary power, or whether they might not themselves become
the willing instruments of arbitrary power. It yet remained to
be seen how far the progress which England had made during the
eighteenth century could be checked by a reactionary king and
subservient ministers, how far it was a permanent law and prin-
ciple of her growth.
In the accession of George IIT. there seemed nothing to awaken
the fears of British subjects, much to raise their hopes. The new
king spoke the language of his people; he avowed himself a
Briton. England, not Hanover, was to be the object of his
affection and interest. The last hope of the Stuart dynasty had
perished, and all fear of a disputed succession was at an end.
Time was to show how far these changes in the position of the
king were subjects of congratulation. The new system soon bore
fruit. In less than a year Pitt, the minister of the people, had
resigned. The words that then passed between him and Gran-
ville foreshadowed the spirit of the coming reign. The people,
said Pitt, had called him to the ministry, and to them he was
responsible, “When,” said Granville, “a minister talks of being
responsible to the people, he talks the language of the House of
Commons, and forgets that at this board he is only responsible
to the king.” In another year a ministry was in office fully
prepared to carry out Granville’s principles. The self-styled
patriots who, eighteen years before, had driven out Walpole,
and overthrown his party, must have rued their success when
1 Cooke, vol. ii, p. 404.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 121
they contrasted the present ministry with that sturdy autocrat.
They had promised themselves a pure parliament and a patriotic
cabinet. Instead of that, they had a parliament more corrupt
and subservient than ever, led by ministers with no more prin-
ciple than Walpole, and without a tithe of his ability. The
three principal figures in the cabinet were Bute, Granville, and
Townshend. Bute was a brainless courtier, the mouthpiece of
the king ; Granville was, according to the political notions of the
time, honest, but he was a pedant, a slave to precedent and
system, ready to worship the Stamp Act as his “idol,” and to
talk in parliament of the “sacredness” ? of the navigation laws.
Townshend was by far the ablest of them; he was a brilliant
debater, and ready at mastering the details of any subject which
his official duties imposed upon him, but without any sense of
the responsibilities of statesmanship. He looked on the House
of Commons as a debating society in which to fire off brilliant
paradoxes. Incapable of fixed and far-seeing ambition, his only
aim was to win the applause of a moment. He was ready to
impose a tax, at the risk of ruining an empire, rather than suffer
.a political opponent to taunt him with cowardice. Such were
the men to whom, under the “ over-ruling influence”? of the
king, himself, if possible, more arbitrary, ignorant, and obstinate
than any of them, the destinies of England and her colonies were
intrusted.
As we have seen, projects had been more than once enter-
tained for an American revenue. When Keith, the governor of.
Pennsylvania, made the proposal to Walpole, he met with the
answer, “I have Old England set against me, and do you think I
will have New England likewise.”* In 1754, Halifax had pro-
posed a “certain and permanent revenue” to be adjusted by
commissioners, one from each province. Several of the pro-
1 Burke’s speech on American Taxation, April 19, 1774, in Burke’s Works,
vol. ii., p. 391.
2 Walpole, quoted by Bancroft, vol. v., p. 294.
3 Expression used by Pitt in Parliament. Bancroft, vol. v., p. 384.
4 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 25. 6 Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 166.
122 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
vincial governors came forward with suggestions, but at such a
time it would have been unsafe to weaken the loyalty of the
colonies, and the projects came to nothing. The next year,
however, the subject was again mooted. Halifax insisted on the
propriety of raising a revenue. Huske, an American patronised
by Townshend, urged a reform in the colonial administration,
and a system of taxation by parliament. The colonial governors
almost unanimously joined in the cry. So serious did it seem,
that in November, Massachusetts gave its agent instructions “to
oppose everything that should have the remotest tendency to
raise a revenue in the plantations.”! None of these proposals
produced any immediate result, but they had the effect of famil-
iarising parliament with an idea of an American revenue, and
with the necessity of checking colonial independence. Had
parliament been gifted with political foresight, it might also
have seen in the spirit which these encroachments elicited, the
germ of future resistance. When it was suggested in 1760 by
some English officers at New York, that a revenue should be
raised by a system of quit-rents virtually amounting to a land
tax, Livingstone, an American landholder, cried out, grasping his
sword, “While I can wield this weapon, England shall never get
it, but with my heart’s blood.”? In the next year a dispute
arose at Boston about molasses’ duties. The custom-house
officers demanded the assistance of the executive in their search
for contraband goods, and the colonists refused it. This was the
opening scene of American resistance. The case was tried before
Hutchinson and the council. Gridley, the crown lawyer, ap-
pealed to a statute of William IIL Otis, “ the great incendiary,”
replied, “I am determined,” he said, “to sacrifice estate, ease,
health, applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of my country
in opposition to a kind of power, the exercise of which cost one
king of England his head, and another his throne.” He de-
nounced the writs of assistance as a violation of personal liberty
and security; he appealed to the charter of Massachusetts, and
1 Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 178-181. ? Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 371.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 123
he denied the power of parliament to issue such writs, since they
were opposed to the first principles of law. Otis lost his case,
but the spirit which he had awakened did not perish. The next
year furnished him with another opportunity of asserting the
rights of the colonies. The inhabitants of Salem and Marble-
head petitioned that a ship might be sent to protect their
fisheries against the French. A sloop was sent, and the assembly
was ordered to make provision for the expense. They protested,
and Otis drew up a remonstrance claiming for the colony “their
most darling privilege, the right of originating all taxes,” and
averring that to withhold it was “to annhilate one branch of the
legislature.” ?
But the attacks on American liberty were not confined to the
question of taxation. Hitherto the colonial judges had held
their appointments during good behaviour, and had been de-
pendent on the local assemblies for their salaries. In 1761 a
blow was struck at the independence of the judiciary, by the
appointment of Pratt to the post of chief-justice of New York,
during the king’s pleasure. To meet this, the assembly of New
York resolved to withhold the judge’s salary till the form of the
order was changed. This gave an opening for further encroach-
ment. “Shall,” said Colden, “the chief justice of so considerable
a province as this be left to beg his bread of the people?” The
Board of Trade therefore recommended that the judge’s salary
should be paid out of the royal quit-rents, pointing out, at the
same time, that this would give the judge a direct interest in
protecting the crown domains against encroachments. The
recommendation was adopted, and the judges were no longer
responsible to the colonial governments.
This was but the first step towards remodelling the whole
colonial system. The conclusion of peace removed the last
obstacle which had interfered with such a policy. In 1763,
Townshend, holding the post of First Lord of Trade with the
1 Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 414, 415. Hutchinson, pp. 89-94.
2 Hutchinson, p. 97. 3 Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 427-429, 440.
124 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
administration of the colonies, brought forward his policy. His
first measure was a declaration, that for the future direct tax-
ation was to supersede requisitions. With the revenue thus
raised, a civil list was to be maintained, so that every person in
public employment should be immediately dependent on the
home government. The charters were to be superseded, and a new
territorial arrangement introduced. The navigation laws were to
be strictly enforced, and as a necessary condition for the success
of these measures, a standing army was to be maintained. The
general assembly at New York protested, but the protest fell
to the ground. The system of making the judges answerable
only to the crown was established, and twenty regiments were
voted as a standing army for America. On the 9th of March,
Townshend brought forward his scheme of American taxation.
The first measure was to lower the excise duties on the French
and Spanish trade,—duties which, I have said before, had been
hitherto systematically evaded,—and to enforce them rigidly.
To enable this policy to be carried out, Granville brought in a
bill, empowering the commanders of ships in the regular navy
to examine, and on suspicion, to apprehend smuggling vessels,
and encouraging their activity in this service by the hope of
rewards.! Before Townshend could proceed further with his
policy, events had driven him from the cabinet. His successor,
Shelburne, refused to have anything to do with the taxation of
America,” and it was left to Granville to complete the measures
which Townshend had begun. If the colonial system was to be
remodelled, it was to be regretted that the task was not in Gran-
ville’s hands from the beginning. Unlike Townshend, he had
political principles, and those principles, narrow though they
were, would have withheld him from imposing arbitrary govern-
ment on America, But that part of the task which devolved on
him was the very one for which he was the least fit. Moderately
liberal in general politics, in commercial matters he was a slave
to the spirit of protection, and his pride and obstinacy made him
1 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 86-92. ? Bancroft, vol. v., p. 136.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 125
incapable of withdrawing from a policy to which he had once
pledged himself. In justice to him, it must be said that he did
not propose his measures without due inquiry. Unhappily, the
class of men who then held government offices in the colonies,
was such that it was useless to look to them for authentic infor-
-mation, He learnt that a Stamp Act might be reckoned on to
produce an annual revenue of £60,000.1 Accordingly, on the 23d
of September, the secretary of the treasury was instructed “to
write to the commissioners of the stamp duties, to prepare a
draft of a bill to be presented to parliament for extending the
stamp duties to the colonies.”? The ministry, however, con-
sidered that there were other measures of more pressing import-
ance than the Stamp Act.
The first step was to provide for the execution of the Naviga-
tion Act. Every power that could be put in action, governors
and officers, civil, military, and naval, were to help at this task.
In the words of Franklin, “the brave honest officers of the navy
were to be converted into pimping tide-waiters and colony
officers of the customs. Those who, in time of war, had fought
gallantly in defence of the commerce of their country, were in
peace to be taught to prey on it.”? The next measure was to
reconstitute the boundaries of British America. The newly
acquired territories were divided into three provinces, Quebec,
and East and West Florida, and the boundaries of the old pro-
vinces, whose uncertainty had been the cause of much confusion,
were definitely settled.* The whole territory to the west of Lake
Nepising and beyond the Alleghanies was forbidden soil to the
colonists. “The country to the west of our frontiers quite to the
Mississippi was intended to be a desert for the Indians to hunt
in.”® If anything were needed to show the incapacity of the
1 Bancroft, vol. v.,p. 187. Huske, who had in 1755 advocated a Stamp Act,
extravagantly promised a result of £500,000. Bancroft, vol. v., p. 170.
2 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 151.
3 Rules for Reducing a Great Empire into a Small One. Franklin's Works,
vol. iv., p. 395.
4 Annual Register, vol. vi., pp. 19-21. 5 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 164.
126 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
ministry and the parliament for imperial legislation, it was this
cowardly and feeble attempt to check the growth of the colonies.
The reconstitution of the judiciary and of the civil offices stood
over for the present. Halifax in vain pressed the point,’ but it
was no essential part of Granville’s scheme. His sole object was
to raise a revenue and to enforce the commercial supremacy of
Great Britain. At that point he was inflexible, but he saw the
folly of unnecessarily inflaming the colonies, and upon repre-
sentation being made to him from various quarters he consented
to postpone the Stamp Act for a year. At the same time, as a
measure of conciliation, he granted the freedom of the whale
fishery to New England? On the 9th of March 1764 he brought
forward his budget, and gave notice of his intention to impose a
Stamp Act on the colonies, stating that he would be ready to
commute such a duty for any other that might seem equally
profitable, and was preferred by the colonies. When that fatal
proposal of taxing the colonies was first laid before parliament
not a voice was raised against it. Beckford alone said, “As we
are stout I hope we shall be merciful,” and the subject was
allowed to rest. Five days later a bill was brought in remodel-
ling the Navigation Acts, and making them still more oppressive
to America, and on the 5th of April it received the royal assent.
Yet Granville still endeavoured to persuade others, and doubtless
did persuade himself that his policy was moderate and concilia-
tory. He represented to the colonial agents that the Stamp Act
was the most efficient and easiest of collection that could be
imposed. But although he was willing to adopt an alternative,
he had no idea of giving up the policy of taxation! To a
1 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 177. ? Bancroft, vol. v., p. 185.
3 Burke expressly declares, in his speech of April 19, 1774, that Granville never
proposed to the colonial agents that the assemblies should tax themselves instead of
having a Stamp Act levied by the British Government, and that Granville never
availed himself of such u defence. The only ground for the statement is a pam-
phlet by Israel Mauduit, published in the Massachusetts’ “ Historical Collection,”
lst series, vol. ix., pp. 268-271, which contains a letter from the Massachusetts’
assembly to their agent in London, referring to such an offer as having been made
by Granville, which is, however, no proof that the offer was really made. Burke’s
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 127
member of the House of Commons he said, “If the stamp duty is
disliked I am willing to change it for any other equally produc-
tive. If you object to the Americans being taxed by parliament,
save yourself the trouble of discussion, for I am determined on
‘the measure.”
The Stamp Act was a completion of the new system on which
America was to be governed. At this point we may pause to
consider the general nature of that system, and the feelings with
which it was regarded in this country and by the Americans.
The objects of the ministerial policy were, as we have already
seen—firstly, to enforce a strict commercial monopoly ; secondly,
to impose on the colonists a civil and military system, over
which the colonial legislatures should have no control; thirdly, to
raise a revenue, partly for the purpose of maintaining this system,
partly to relieve a portion of the country from taxation. The
scheme was, in fact, to convert the colonies into so many
separate satrapies to be governed by and for England. To agera-
vate the difficulty of the colonists they were forbidden to pay
their taxes in paper. It is needless to dwell at length on the
injustice of the scheme. To fetter the growing industry and
enterprise of colonies for the benefit of the mother country is not
only, as we now know, foolish and impolitic, but it is in itself an
unjust abuse of national power. Yet there was, at least, this
defence for the monopoly system, that it was regarded, according
to the erroneous economic theories of that day, as a necessary
protection for English labour, and that as such the colonies
acquiesced in it. But having already fettered the industry of
the colonies, then to levy toll on the fruits of that industry was
to impose, in the words of Burke, “perfect and uncompensated
slavery.”2 The time selected for the attempt heightened its
injustice. The colonies had just gone through an exhausting war
statement on such a subject made when he must have known that if false it was
open to contradiction, is almost conclusive.
1 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 187-191.
2 Burke’s Speech, April 19, 1774, vol. ii., p. 396.
128 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
entailed upon them by their connection with England. They
were receiving compensation for that war from the very parlia-
ment which proposed to take away with its left hand what it
gave with its right. Even Bernard, the servile tool of arbitrary
government, stated, in a letter written from Boston at the time
of the Stamp Act, that the government of Massachusetts, “ which
was as much beforehand as any,” was at that time raising an
annual revenue of £37,500 to liquidate its debt, and could not
hope to be free till four years later.1 The question which one
naturally asks is, “How could England be so unjust as to pass
such measures, so foolish as to believe that they could be
enforced?” ‘For all classes alike were implicated. The king
favoured the measures, the ministry originated them, the parlia-
ment passed them unanimously, the people acquiesced in them.
The only answer that can be given is that the king and his
ministers were ignorant and arbitrary, parliament was ignorant
and subservient, the people were ignorant and selfish. I have
already dwelt on the character of the king and his ministers, and
I have also shown how some of the checks which had restrained
the undue exercise of the prerogative in the two past reigns were
now removed. But the arbitrary policy of George III. and the
cabinet could have done little harm had parliament maintained
its proper ground as the supporter of liberal principles.’ The
decay of those principles was due to a variety of causes. The
force of that movement which had arrayed the parliament against
the Stuarts was spent, and no fresh impetus supplied its place.
In that struggle the commons had been per force the champion of
the nation. Just as the barons, who obtained Magna Charta,
could not take the narrow standing ground of class interest, but
were obliged, while fighting their own battle, to fight that of the
commons, so the commons, in opposing Charles L, could not rest
on the narrow standing-ground of parliamentary privilege. But
here the question was not the supremacy of the king over the
people, but the supremacy of the English government, of which
1 Burke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 396.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 129
they themselves formed a part, over men separated from them
by three thousand miles of sea. Moreover, as I have already
pointed out, circumstances had for years identified the royal
prerogative with the rights of the people, and the old spirit
of resistance had dwindled and decayed for lack of exercise.
Walpole’s government, too, had done much to demoralise
parliament. Not only had he employed wholesale corruption,
but he had ruled the House of Commons as a despot, and it
was now paying the penalty of that languor and inefficiency
which always succeeds despotism. Lastly, the Stamp Act was
openly held out by the ministers as giving relief to English land-
holders by diminishing the land tax. “I well remember,” said
Burke, “that Mr Townshend dazzled the country gentlemen by
playing before their eyes the image of a revenue to be raised in
America! Such were some of the causes which account for the
English nation ever entertaining such designs. But that they
could have believed them to be beneficial, or even practicable, is
a proof not merely of selfish indifference to the welfare of the
colonies, but of great, and, in the case of a ministry, most culpable
ignorance. It proceeded from ignorance, firstly, of the principles
of commerce. To imagine that it was necessary to coerce the
trade of America in order to limit it to our ports was an error,
but in that age of protection a venial ohe. But to attempt to
tax industry, and at the same time to cut off the sources of in-
dustry, was self-contradictory and suicidal. It was endeavouring
“to cure an emaciated body by leaving it no juices at all”?
Secondly, From ignorance of the true principles of colonial
government. One error pervaded and vitiated nearly all the
popular speculations on the relation of the colonies to England.
The colonists were regarded as the subjects of the English nation,
not as their fellow citizens? As long as this was merely a
1 Burke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 388. 2 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 22.
3 Franklin said, in a letter to Lord Kames, quoted in Life, vol. i, p. 309,
“ Every man in England seems to consider himself as a piece of a sovereign over
America ; seems to jostle himself into the throne with the king, and talks of our
subjects in the colonies.” Pownall, writing in 1769, said, in a letter quoted by
I
130 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
phrase, the colonists might afford to regard it with contempt; but
when the idea began to translate itself into action, it was clear
that they had no longer any alternative but slavery or independ-
ence, Thirdly, A degree of ignorance amounting to fatuity seems
to have existed in this country as to the state of America.
That a nation who had just incurred a debt of £2,600,000 in a
war undertaken on behalf of the mother country should be ex-
pected to pay a revenue into the Home Treasury, seems incred-
ible. Again, nothing is more common in the writings of the
time than to find the colonies taxed with ingratitude and un-
reasonableness for expecting protection, and giving nothing in
return. Yet the legislature had itself admitted, by granting
compensation for the expenses of the war, that the debt was on
the side of England, to say nothing of the benefit derived from
the monopoly of the colonial trade. That any rational man
should have imagined that America was indebted to England,
and not England to America, seems now incredible; yet it was
then the opinion of a vast majority of the nation’? Equally
erroneous ideas obtained in England as to the willingness and
capacity of the colonists to resist.2 They forgot that the Ameri-
cans were the children of men who had fled into a wilderness
from the tyranny of the Stuarts; who had faced savage men
and wild beasts rather than endure Laud and Strafford ; who
had encountered the despotism of James II., not with secret
intrigues, not by the treachery of the king’s children and favour-
ites, but by the open resistance of New England farmers and
Bancroft, vol. vi, p. 267, “ We have but one word that is our sovereignty, and it
is like some word to a madman which, whenever mentioned, throws him into his
ravings, and brings on a paroxysm.” See also Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., pp.
288-293, 538.
1 Franklin, vol. iv., p. 292, quotes and animadverts on the statement, occurring
in a pamphlet, called ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Disputes
between the British Colonies in America, and the Mother Country,”—“ It is very
certain that England is entitled to a great deal of gratitude from her colonies,” For
further remarks on the same subject, see p. 494; vol. v., pp. 85-87.
2 “The sound of the drum, the piercing squall of the fife, the sight of regular
troops without the use of arms, or the thunder of guns, were to frighten the
Americans into submission.” The Critical Moment, p. 44.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 131
merchants. The ministry and parliament of George III. might
be excused if they forgot that Englishmen had ever fought for
their liberties, that they ever had liberties to fight for; but the
nation cannot be excused for the slanders which it heaped on
the loyalty and courage of its own kinsmen. For one hundred
years the New England colonies had received no aid in the
wars with the Indians ;! yet in spite of this, in spite of the
late war, in spite of their repeated protestations of loyalty, the
Americans were commonly regarded as a set of disaffected traitors
who were manceuvring for independence, and who only remained
loyal for lack of courage to secede. Two causes no doubt con-
tributed to keep the mass of the people ignorant as to the true
state of American affairs. The parliament resolutely refused to
entertain the petitions of the various assemblies; and the pro-
vincial governors, from whose statements the popular ideas about
America were derived, systematically traduced and misrepre-
sented the colonists. But, though these facts palliate the guilt
of the English nation, they only prove more completely the un-
fitness of England at that time to be the centre of a great
imperial system.
By the more thoughtful in both countries, the relation of the
colonists to England was variously regarded. There were those
who, like Burke, declined to go into the question of right at all,
cr like Dickinson, the Pennsylvania farmer, “accepted the unde-
fined relations of the parliament to the colonies as a perpetual
compromise, which neither party was to disturb by pursuing an
abstract theory to its ultimate conclusions.”* They must have per-
ceived the anomalies of the existing system ; they must have seen
that the supremacy of the mother country might at any time,
must inevitably at some time, clash with the wellbeing of the
unrepresented colonies, but they preferred the known evils of a
theoretically imperfect union to the unknown dangers of separa-
1 Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 190. Hutchinson, in a letter quoted by Bancroft,
vol. v., p. 208.
? Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 105.
132 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
tion. Others there were who, like Chatham and Otis,’ passion-
ately loved England and upheld her imperial supremacy, yet
thought it possible to reconcile that supremacy with the freedom
of the dependencies. The ambition of Chatham’s soul was to
make England a great imperial power, monopolising the com-
merce of India and America, and recompensing them for that
monopoly by its protection. There were others, both here and
in America, less sanguine, but, as the event would seem to prove,
more far-seeing. Long before any dispute had arisen, Camden
prophesied that the folly of England would one day rob her of
her colonies.2 In America, Henry seems to have understood
from the beginning of the struggle that the interests of the two
countries were incompatible. No doubt it would have been pos-
sible, if England had been temperate and just, to maintain the
connection longer, yet some time the rupture must have come.
The Americans must have seen, sooner or later, that the right of
self-taxation which they claimed was only a part of the larger
right of self-government. If England could not tax the colonies
because they were unrepresented, on what principle could she
involve them in a war, or exercise any of the legislative rights
which an imperial state must necessarily claim? That taxation
should have been the first point on which the colonies resisted
was but natural ; it was historically the battle-ground of English
liberties. “On this point the ablest and most eloquent tongues
had been exercised, the greatest spirits had acted and suffered.”
The strongest defenders of popular rights in England “took
infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all
monarchies the people must in effect themselves mediately or
immediately possess the power of granting their own money, or
no shadow of liberty could exist.”? But sooner or later the
contest would have extended to the whole question of govern-
ment. Nor does it seem likely that the difficulty could have
1 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 202; vol. vi, p. 118. Hutchinson, p. 339,
2 Franklin’s Works, vol. i, p. 373, note.
-3 Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with America, in his Works, vol. iii., p. 50.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 133
been overcome by a system of colonial representation. Burke
has pointed out how impracticable such a scheme must have
been,? nor is it certain that it would have been acceptable to the
colonists. In any case England was utterly unfit to become, as
Chatham wished her to be, a centre of a great colonial empire.
The whole conduct of the American dispute, from first to last,
showed how low and petty were the notions prevalent in this
country as to colonial government. It was clear that our colonies
were regarded by the aristocracy merely as affording so many
places of emolument for their own class, and by the bulk of the
nation as a means of increasing their commerce and decreasing
their taxation, With provincials of an inferior race, such a
system would have been dangerous; with men of English blood,
and with English traditions, and with English ideas of liberty,
it was impossible. That we have lost for ever the opportunity
of displaying to the world a great Anglo-Saxon confederation,
bound together by the ties of race, speech, and religion, may in-
deed be cause for regret; that England, under George III., was
no longer permitted to hold a supremacy at once oppressive to
the governed and demoralising to herself, can only be matter for
thankfulness.
We have already seen that Granville was impolitic enough to
give notice of the Stamp Act a year before it was to be put in
force. The delay gave the colonists time to concert measures of
resistance. They had been forewarned of the danger. Already
had the proceedings of the colonists foreshadowed the coming
conflict, A month before the news of the bill arrived, Boston,
under the leadership of Samuel Adams, had claimed the right of
self-taxation. "When the news actually came, a statement was
drawn up by Otis, and forwarded to the agent in London. New
York showed a similar spirit. Her assembly sent an address to
the king, a manifesto to the Lords, and a petition to the Com-
1 Burke’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 187-141. “It is questionable whether representation,
even if practicable, would have been acceptable to the colonists.” Franklin’s
Works, vol. iv., pp. 156-283.
134° THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
mons. Her citizens vowed to wear only homespun, and to drink
no wine until the act was repealed. Massachusetts established
a committee of correspondence. Rhode Island followed their
example Nor were the southern colonies backward in resist-
ance. Virginia appealed to the King, the Lords, and the Com-
mons.2 The assembly of North Carolina claimed the right of
self-taxation, and appointed a committee to correspond with
Massachusetts.2 Thus, with one unanimous voice, did the colo-
nies proclaim their intention of resisting the threatened injury.
They protested, not against the immediate act of oppression only,
but against the principle of arbitrary government. The Naviga-
tion Acts, already passed, were oppressive; “their bonds were
straitened so much, that America was upon the point of having
no trade, either contraband or legitimate. They found, under the
construction and execution then used, the act no longer tying, but
actually strangling them.”* Yet they did not put this forward
as their main grievance. They wisely saw that the issue was
not a mere temporary question of taxation, but the permanent:
principle of colonial liberty ;* “ non agitur de vectigalibus, libertas
in dubio est.” Yet the Americans still maintained their loyalty,
and it was the opinion of Hutchinson that England could get all
she wanted by conciliatory measures. In the true spirit of
Englishmen, the colonists, as long as they could find a standing:
ground of precedent, declined to have recourse to first principles.
They appealed to their rights as granted by charter, and claimed
to be the subjects of the king, and independent of parliament.
They recognised that the parliament and not the king was the
1 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 197-199, 200-217. 2 Hutchinson. Appendix B.
3 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 223. * Burke’s Works, vol. ii, p. 392.
® Franklin, in January 1768, wrote, “If the parliament has a right thus to take
from us a penny in the pound, where is the line drawn that bounds that right, and
what shall hinder their calling whenever they please for the other 19s. 11d.”
Franklin's Works, vol. iv., pp. 158, 159. See also the Instructions of the Electors
of Boston to their Representatives. Hutchinson, p. 102. In a letter in a New
York paper, signed Freeman, the writer says, ‘‘It is not the tax, it is the uncon-
stitutional manner of imposing it, that is the great subject of uneasiness to the
colonies.” Bancroft, vol. v., p. 280,
® Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 208, 209.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 135
quarter from which an arbitrary exercise of power was to be
feared. On the subject of America, the king and the parliament
might be at one, yet as long as such a fiction was tenable, they
fell back on the sovereign as an imaginary ally to whom they
might appeal against the parliament.
In the meantime, Bernard was urging the Home Government
to proceed with their task of colonial reconstruction on a plan
which he had been for years maturing. There was to be a civil
list, an American nobility, and direct taxation if necessary. The
charters were to be abolished and a uniform government sub-
stituted by act of parliament.2 With such an adviser, we can
scarcely wonder that in England the remonstrances of the
colonists called forth only censure. At the opening of the next
session on the 10th January, 1765, the king in his speech, called
attention to the American question, as one involving “obedience
to the laws and respect for the legislative authority of the king-
dom.” Both houses echoed this sentiment. In spite of the
representations of the colonial agents and the protests of London
merchants, who had debts in America to the amount of £4,000,000
the ministry was firm. Grenville was resolved “to establish as
undoubted the authority of the British legislature in all cases
whatsoever.” ‘The colonies,” said Townshend, “are not to be
emancipated.” On the 6th of February, Grenville brought
forward his general scheme. With strange self-deception, he
strove to reconcile arbitrary measures with his political prin-
ciples, by the transparent fallacy that the Americans were really
represented, though he himself, had just before been considering
a scheme for giving them representatives in parliament. The
house was full and acquiesced contentedly in the ministerial
policy. Still it did not pass altogether unchallenged. Beckford
again protested that “taxing America for the sake of raising a
revenue would never do.” Townshend repeated the charge of
ingratitude. “Will these American children,” he said, “planted
1 Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 408, 2 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 229-231.
3 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 200, 201. :
136 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
by our care, nourished up by our indulgence to a degree of
strength and opulence, and protected by our arms, grudge to con-
tribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy burden under
which we lie.” The charge drew forth a burst of eloquent
indignation from Barré—“ They planted by your care! No; your
oppressions planted them in America..... They nourished
up by your indulgence! They grew up by your neglect of them.
. .. . 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 couutry
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 free-
dom which actuated that people will accompany them still.
. . .. 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.” In spite of this
opposition, the ministerial motion was carried by two hundred
and forty-five to forty-nine.
On the 13th, the stamp bill itself was intoduced. Petitions
against it were presented from Jamaica, Virginia, South Carolina,
Canada, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.2 But the house
absolutely refused to receive them. In vain did Conway protest
against ‘‘shutting their ears to the representations of the col-
onists.” In vain did he ask “to receive from the colonies in-
formation by which his judgment might be directed, and his
conduct regulated.” “The light which I desire,” he said, “the
colonists alone can give.”* The very act of petitioning was, as
he pointed out, an acknowledgment of supremacy, but it was all
in vain. Parliament preferred darkness to light, and recklessly
voted away the finances of a country of whose condition it knew
1 The account of this debate is taken from Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 236-242. Lord
Mahon, in his ‘‘ History of England,” pp. 130, 131, throws doubts on the authen+
ticity of Barré’s speech. .
2 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 244-246. 3 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 244, 245,
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 137
nothing. On the 27th, the bill passed the commons, and on the
22d March, it received the royal assent by commission. That
there would be any difficulty in carrying it out, does not seem to,
have occurred to the minds of any of the ministers. Grenville
said, five years later, that “he did not foresee the opposition to the
measure, and would have staked his life for obedience.”! Even
the friends of America in England anticipated no resistance.2
The colonies understood their own spirit better. “They may
from present weakness submit to the impositions of ministerial
power, but they will certainly hate that power as tyrannical;
and as soon as they are able, will throw it off.”
Little did the English ministry think that a young Virginian
yoeman was destined to set that “ball of revolution” rolling,
which would not stop till England and the colonies were separate
powers. Patrick Henry may share with the patriots of Massa-
chusetis the honour of having opened the contest of indepen-
dence. Seldom had boyhood promised less for the future man.
Utterly averse to books, “he loved idleness for its own sake,”
and “ran wild in the forest like one of the aborigines of the
wood, dividing his life between the dissipation and uproar of the
chase and the languor of inaction.” His features were coarse,
his speech plain, his dress slovenly. At eighteen, a reckless
marriage had driven him to labour on a small farm for his liveli-
hood; at twenty-three, he was bankrupt. Yet with all this, he
was upright, temperate, and pious,’ and under the rude exterior
there lay the “perfervidum ingenium” of his Scotch ancestors.
Two years before the passing of the Stamp Act, he had won his
spurs as a champion of popular liberty, and had sounded the
boldest note of defiance to arbitrary power that had been yet
1 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 252.
2 In a letter published in his Life, vol. i, p. 294, Franklin says, ‘‘ We might as
well hinder the sun-setting—that we could not do. But since it is down, my friend,
and it may be long before it rises again, let us make as good a night of it as we
can.” Compare Wirt’s “ Life of Patrick Henry,” p. 61.
3 A New York paper, quoted by Bancroft, vol. v., p. 270.
4 Expression of Jefferson, quoted by Wirt, p. 59.
5 Wirt, pp. 22-24, 29-31. § Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 417-419.
138 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
heard in America. The occasion was a trial about the stipend of
the clergy. The Virginian clergy had originally received sixteen
thousand pounds of tobacco per annum under a law, which was
re-enacted in 1748. In 1755, a short crop was anticipated, and
it was settled that the stipend of the clergy, as well as the
salaries of all the civil officers, should be commuted for money at
a fixed rate of sixteen shillings and eight pence per hundred
weight, about one-third of the actual value of tobacco. In 1578,
a short crop was again expected, and the assembly, as before,
passed an act for commuting the stipend of the clergy. The act
was, however, opposed by the Bishop of London, and failed to
receive the royal assent. The clergy then proceeded to bring
actions for the loss they had sustained by the commutation, A
verdict was given in their favour, but a fresh issue was raised
and a second trial ensued. Henry was retained against the
clergy. His speech was not that of an advocate, but a dema-
gogue. Ignoring the legal merits of the case, he took his stand
on the broad principle, that the supreme right of legislation lay
in the people, and that the royal sanction was unnecessary. The
court rang with cries of “treason” from his opponents, while the
multitude who crowded around listened in mixed terror and
admiration. The jury awarded the clergy nominal damages, but
the verdict was the least result. The spirit of resistance was
awakened, and the people had learnt that day that they had
rights, and that those rights would not want a defender.
Two years later, Henry was elected to represent Louisa county
in the assembly of Virginia. The enforcement of the Stamp Act
was drawing nigh, and as yet there had been no sign of resist-
ance. More than half the assembly had gone home, when
Henry came forward to defend the cause which he had made his
own, “the majesty of the people.’ He proposed five resolu-
tions :-—
1. Declaring that the colonists had brought with them the full
rights of Englishmen,
1 Wirt, pp. 38-47. 2 Wirt, p. 53.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 139
2. That these rights were confirmed by the charters.
3. That these rights implied that they could not be taxed
without their own consent.
4, That they had hitherto been uniformly acknowledged and
never forfeited.
5. That the general assembly alone can impose taxes, and that
the subversion of this right, would be destructive not only of
American but British freedom.
Two more resolutions were drawn up, but not officially pro-
posed. After a severe contest, Henry carried all his measures.
Thinking that all was over, he went home the next day, and the
government party took the occasion of his absence to reverse the
fifth resolution.t But all the resolutions went out to the world,
as declaring the mind of Virginia, and in the words of Bernard,
“rang the alarum bell” to the rest of America.?
It did not sound in vain. On the 6th of June, Otis proposed
in the assembly of Massachusetts the calling of a congress, to con-
sist of deputies from the various colonies elected by the delegates
of the people*® The proposal was accepted, and letters were sent
to all the assemblies, advising that a congress should meet on the
first Tuesday in October.* Yet the proposal at first met with a
cold reception. Forty years before, Massachusetts had made a
similar suggestion, and it had been forbidden by the home govern-
ment as mutinous.® The assembly of Virginia was forbidden by
the governor to meet. New Jersey and New Hampshire de-
clined. At length the proposal of Massachusetts met with a
response from South Carolina. “Though one of the weakest, it
was the first to listen to the call of its northern brethren in their
distresses. Massachusetts sounded the trumpet, but to Carolina
is it owing that it was attended to. Had it not been for South
Carolina, no congress would then have happened.”?
1 Wirt, pp. 74-76. Hutchinson. Appendix B.
2 Letter of Bernard to Halifax. Bancroft, vol. v., p. 278.
3 Hutchinson, p. 118. 4 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 280. 5 Hutchinson, p. 119.
6 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 292, 293.
Gadsden, quoted by Bancroft, vol. v., p. 294.
140 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
On Monday, October 7th, the delegates of nine colonies met in
congress! Union was their principle of action. They no longer
took their stand on separate charter rights, but on the higher
ground of national independence. They passed resolves, express-
ing loyalty to the king, and attachment to parliament, claiming
the right of fixing their own taxes, both on grounds of equity and
precedent, and setting forth the right and necessity of petitioning
the king and both houses of parliament. They drew up an
address to the king, a memorial to the Lords, and a petition to
the Commons, conceived in the same tone of loyalty and submis-
sion. To the Commons they said, “ We glory in being the sub-
jects of the best of kings, and having been born under the best
form of government. . . . . We esteem our connection with
and dependence on Great Britain as one of our greatest blessings,
and apprehend the latter will appear to be sufficiently secure
when it is considered that the inhabitants in the colonies have
the most unbounded affection for his majesty’s person, family,
and government, as well as for the mother country, and that their
subordination to the parliament is universally acknowledged.”
At the same time, they asserted unswervingly their right of self-
taxation.2 Two only of the deputies refused to sign, Ruggles of
Massachusetts, and Ogden of New Jersey. Ogden was hung in
effigy by the people of New Jersey, and Ruggles censured by the
assembly of Massachusetts.?
The nation responded to the call of congress. When the
Massachusetts assembly met in September, they received a
message from Bernard warning them that the attempt to pre-
vent the execution of the Stamp Act might lead to civil war,
and that before the petition for repealing the act could even
be entertained, the act must be formally acquiesced in. Unde-
terred, they sent back an answer reasserting all the points urged
by the congress, and adopted resolves that all courts should do
business without stamps. Bernard, seeing their temper, ad-
1 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 334, 3 Hutchinson. Appendix F-Y.
3 Hutchinson, p. 134.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 141
journed them till the next month! When they met again,
they passed fourteen resolutions asserting that the colonists had,
on the ground of justice and precedent, the same rights as English-
men ; that these rights included self-taxation ; that representa-
tion in England was impossible ; that all attempts in parliament
to tax them were infringements of their rights and their charter.
Finally, they avowed their loyalty to the king and parliament.?
The same spirit pervaded the whole continent. When the
“mother of mischiefs,”* as Franklin called the Stamp Act, was
received in New Hampshire, the ships hung their flags half-mast
high, and the bells rang muffled At Boston, copies of the
Stamp Act were hawked about the streets, with a black border
and a death’s head, as an emblem under the title of “ England’s
Folly and America’s Ruin.”*> “ Great sir, retreat, or you are
ruined,” was the address of a New England paper to the king®
The very children in the streets learned the cry, “ Liberty, pro-
perty, and no stamps.””’ Pictures of Barré and Conway were
hung in Fanueil Hall® Bute, Grenville, Huske, and Oliver were
hung in effigy.® At New York, a figure of Colden was burnt
with the wood of his own state coach. The mob of Boston
broke open and sacked Hutchinson’s house Yet no violence
was offered to life. Though the cannon at Boston was spiked as
a measure of precaution, “not a sword was drawn, not a gun
fired.” 12, The assembly of Boston offered a reward of £300 for
the apprehension of any of the ringleaders in the attack on Hut-
chinson’s house, and £100 for the detection of any one con-
cerned init. A public meeting of freeholders passed a resolution
condemning the proceedings of the mob. In the same spirit, the
1 Hutchinson, p. 131. The Critical Moment, p. 88.
2 Hutchinson. Appendix E. 3 Life of Franklin, vol. i, p. 295.
4 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 50, Bancroft, vol. v., p. 352.
5 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 377. § Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 50.
7 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 352. 8 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 51.
® Hutchinson, p. 185. Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 51. The Critical Moment,
. 92.
: 10 The Critical Moment, p. 92. 1. Hutchinson, pp. 124, 145.
22 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 52.
13 Hutchinson, p. 125. Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 471.
142 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
a
colonists tried to find legal justification for their resistance.
They quoted the authority of Coke and Locke. Everything
was done to make the colonies independent of English trade.
A society of arts, manufactures, and commerce was formed to
encourage native industry. No lamb was eaten. People of the
highest class wore homespun. “ The spirit of industry and
frugality took the place of the spirit of idleness and profusion.”
It was no longer “ the pride of the Americans to indulge in the
fashions and manufactures of Great Britain,” but “to wear their
old clothes over again till they could make new ones.”? Rather
than use stamps, they would suffer trade to stagnate altogether.
The stamp distributors were all compelled to resign. Various
means were adopted to evade the act. Bark was used instead of
paper.» “The people’s wrath was kindled against the stamped
paper as if it were fraught with the seeds of a pestilence or a
contagious poison.”® The governors were at last compelled to
yield the point, and allow business to proceed without stamps.’
It was clear that England would have either to retract or to
resort to arms, unless the prophecy of Johnson, the pastor of
Lyme, was to be fulfilled: “Such councils ended in Israel in such
a revolt and wide breach as could never be healed. That this
may end in a similar event is not impossible to the providence of
God, nor more improbable to Britons, than five years ago this
Stamp Act was to Americans.” §
Meanwhile a ray of hope for America seemed to have revived
in England. “The counsellors of Rehoboam’s stamp”® were no
longer in office. The conduct of Grenville’s ministry about the
Regency Act had so offended the king that he had even desired
Pitt to form a government. Had Temple been willing to take
office with his brother-in-law it might have been done. It is
generally useless to speculate on what might have been, but it is
1 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 286, 291, 328, ® Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 55.
* 3 Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 198. * Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 810, 314, 316.
5 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 54. ® Franklin’s Life, vol. i, p. 298,
7 Annual Register, vol. viii., p. 55. 8 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 321.
® Expression of Johnson, quoted by Bancroft, vol. v., p. 321.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 143
difficult not to think, as Pitt evidently thought,’ that the scene
at Hayes, when Temple refused his brother’s overture, was one of
the great turning-points of history. Had Pitt then come in with
the nation at his back, with the disorganised opposition and a House
that was ready, as the next session showed, to make any conces-
sions if it could only hide its own weakness under any decent
mask, the defection of the colonies might have been indefinitely
postponed. But weaker rulers and a sadder fate were in store for
the country.
Still the change of ministers was a distinct gain to the colonies.
Rockingham, the new prime minister, had avowed that he would
rather repeal a hundred Stamp Acts than run the risk of em-
broiling England with America,? and Conway, the secretary of
state, had, in the Stamp Act debates, shown himself willing to
listen to the appeals of the colonies. In January of the follow-
ing year petitions were presented from the merchants of London,
Bristol, and Glasgow to both houses of parliament, representing
the great injury which the Stamp Act would inflict on the com-
merce of the kingdom, and praying for its repeal? In the same
month the ministers made overtures to Pitt. He had not
forgotten the treachery of Newcastle, and refused to act with the
government, but appeared in the House of Commons as an inde-
pendent member, as he said himself, “single, unsolicited, and
unconnected.”! He took for his standing point the constitutional
Whig doctrine that taxation and representation were inseparable ;
that commercial restrictions were just, but the direct taxation in
the case of America was justified neither by law or equity. “I
rejoice,” he said, “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 feelings of liberty as
voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would be fit instruments to
make slaves of others.” He pointed out the meagre results
1 Bancroft, vol. v., 298. 2 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 365.
3 Annual Register, vol. ix., p. 34. 4 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 383.
144 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
which the tax could at best produce, and the danger of enforcing
it. He warned them “that in such a cause their success would
be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like the strong
man, she would embrace the pillars of the state, and pull down
the constitution along with her.”1 In spite of these representa-
tions the’ ministry, before the end of the month, brought in a
resolution, to the effect, “that the king in parliament has full
power to bind the colonies and the people of America in all
cases whatsoever.”2 When the resolutions came before the
Lords, Camden, following the example of Pitt, pointed out the
injustice and impolicy of their proceedings, and reminded them
how Spain, by her obstinacy, lost the low countries. When the
Lords divided, Camden, Shelburne, and three others, voted
against the resolution, while one hundred and twenty-five
supported it. In the Commons the same spirit prevailed. Pitt,
Barré, and Beckford in vain pointed out the injustice, the folly,
and the hoplessness of the measure, and at the division there
were not ten voices to confirm their protest? The ministry,
however, though they agreed with the Tory party in maintain-
ing the right to tax, differed from them as to the practical
expediency of enforcing it. On the 7th of February it became
known that the ministry intended to move the repeal of the Act.
That same night Grenville brought forward a motion for enforcing
allthe American Acts. Pitt, availing himself of the declared policy
of the ministry, pointed out to the House the unreasonableness of
carrying out measures, the repeal of which was shortly to be the
subject of discussion, and for the first time the enemies of
America were defeated in a full house.* All the evidence that was
laid before parliament pointed to the hopelessness of the enforce-
ment. On the 11th, Trecothick was examined at the bar of the
House of Commons. “ Will the Americans acquiesce,” he was
asked, “if this act is mitigated?” “No modification will reconcile
them to it,” he said, “nor will anything satisfy them less than its
1 Bancroft, vol v., pp. 383-395. 2 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 401.
3 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 404, 413-417. 4 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 422-424,
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE, 145
total repeal.”! Two days afterwards Franklin was examined.
He corroborated Trecothick’s statement. When asked, “Do yon
think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp
duty if it was moderated?” “No,” he answered, “never, unless
compelled by force of arms.” He showed that the colonies had
sufficient internal resources for their own support, and scouted
the idea that they could be starved into submission. At the
same time he reminded the house that till the Stamp Act the
colonies had been attached to the mother country, and loyal and
obedient to parliament, and that they had always acquiesced in
commercial restrictions imposed by England, considering an
excise duty only a legitimate return for the protection afforded
to their trade. He pointed out, too, that America had borne its
share in the expenses of the late war. ?
The time had come when the ministry saw that if they would not
commit themselves to the “thorough” policy of Townshend, they
must yield. On the 20th of February, Conway moved for leave
to bring in a bill for the repeal, and on the 22d July a division
took place. The Stamp Act was repealed by a majority of one
hundred and eight in a house of four hundred and forty-two.
Eight years later, Burke described “ with melancholy pleasure”
the scene of that night; how “the whole trading interest of the
empire, crammed into the lobbies of the House with a trembling
and anxious expectation, waited their fate almost to a winter's
return of light;” how “from the whole of that grave multitude
there arose an involuntary burst of gratitude and transport.
They jumped upon Conway like children on a long absent father ;
they clung about him as captives about their redeemer; all
England, all America, joined to his applause.” The ministry
unhappily marred the boon by bringing in, and passing at the
same time, an act declaratory of their right to tax the colonies,
In the Lords the repeal act passed, though not without violent
1 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 424.
2 Franklin's examination, as given in his Works, vol. iv., pp. 161-199.
* Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 434-486, 4 Burke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 434.
K
146 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
opposition, by a majority of thirty-four. The declaratory act
passed both houses, in spite of the attacks. of Pitt and Camden.*
On the 18th of March the acts received the royal assent, and the
unity of the empire was respited. The king returned from West-
minster amid the cheers of the multitude. Bow Bellsrang. The
friends of America testified their pleasure by a public dinner. The
ships on the river hoisted their colours, and at night the city was
illuminated.? In America, the joy at the news was not alloyed
by any fears for the future. South Carolina voted a statue to
Pitt, and Virginia one to the king, and an obelisk to the de-
fenders of American freedom.* In Boston the houses were hung
with banners by day, and were illuminated by night. Liberty-
tree was lit up, and figures of the king, of Pitt, Barré, and Cam-
den were exhibited. Debtors were released by public subscrip-
tions. In the words of the colonists themselves, “they had
escaped like a bird from the net of the fowler.”* The declaratory
act and the mutiny act were overlooked in their gratitude, and
Bernard himself was compelled to acknowledge “their good
humour, temper, and moderation.” 5
This unbroken sunshine was not to last long. In the same
month a dispute arose between Bernard and the assembly about
the election of the council, The assembly, exercising their Tight
of election, rejected all the government officers. Bernard resisted
this, and endeavoured to coerce the assembly ; but they reasserted
their right, and maintained it successfully. In other matters,
Massachusetts showed that the cessation of danger had not
extinguished the spirit of liberty. The assembly threw the
debates open to the public. Following up the congress of last
year, they proposed a conference of delegates, and actually estab-
lished a committee of correspondence.? When petitions were
made by sufferers from the Stamp Act disturbances, discussion
1 Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 444-450, 2 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 454.
3 Wirt, p. 86. Bancroft, vol. v., p. 457. 4 Bancroft, vol. v., p. 458.
5 Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., p. 476. * Bancroft, vol. vi, pp. 10-12.
7 Hutchinson, p. 166.
IHE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 147
arose. In the course of it, Hawley, the member for Northampton,
used the ominous words, “The parliament of Great Britain hag
no right to legislate for us.” +
The hopes of a more liberal system which the late measures of
parliament had encouraged were gradually overcast. On the 25th
of August the Rockingham government went out, and it was left
to Pitt to form an administration. As before, Temple refused to
join him.? He had to form a ministry of the most incongruous
materials, as Burke described it, “a mosaic of patriots and
courtiers, king’s friends and republicans, Whigs and Tories,
treacherous friends and open enemies.”? Townshend was Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and in him Pitt let in one who was
destined to thwart his most cherished designs, to betray his
ministry, and to plunge his party into disgrace and confusion.
For the present, however, America was in the hands of Shelburne,
the only statesman perhaps who was fitted for the post. His
moderate and conciliatory tone won the heart of the colonies,
and when he requested the assembly of Massachusetts to settle
their local differences as far as they could, they gladly acceded,
and voted a grant of compensation. But Shelburne’s modera-
tion made him odious to the king, and when ill-health drove
Chatham into retirement, the colonies were left at the mercy of
Townshend. On the 26th of January he took advantage of
Chatham’s absence to declare his colonial policy. In reply to
Granville, who complained that the scheme for colonial revenue
had been frustrated, Townshend pledged himself, amid the
applause of the house, to bring forward a scheme of American
taxation. “TI am still,” he said, “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
no such distinction. It is a distinction without a difference ; it
is perfect nonsense; if we have a right to impose the one, we
1 Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 38. ° Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 20.
3 Burke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 420. 4 Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 40.
148 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
have the right to impose the other; the distinction is ridiculous
in the opinion of everybody except the Americans.” And turning
to the colonial agents in the gallery,—“ I speak this aloud, that
all you who are here in the galleries may hear me ; and after this
I do not expect to have my statue erected in America.” And
when Granville taunted the ministry with cowardice in not
daring to tax America, he instantly rebutted the charge by
pledging himself to the measure.*
Thus the repeal of the Stamp Act was reversed at a simple
stroke by the treachery of an unprincipled politician, and the
name and authority of Chatham were used to sanction measures
which, less than a year ago, he had risen from his sick-bed to
resist. On the head of Townshend, more than of any other man,
rests the crime of having driven the colonies into rebellion.
Others might plead ignorance, he could not; or if he was misled
by ignorance, it was wanton and wilful ignorance—the ignor-
ance, not of stupidity, but of levity and recklessness, Granville
was a bigot to his commercial creed; the king was a bigot to his
doctrine of prerogative, but Townshend could urge no such de-
fence. Of him Burke said, “ Perhaps there never arose in this
country, nor in any country, a man of a more pointed and
finished wit; and, where his passions were not concerned, of a
more refined, exquisite, and penetrating judgment.”2 But he
was a slave to that miserable form of ambition, a love of pre-
eminence for its own sake, scarcely to be called ambition, since
it lacked all sense of the value and duties of power, and to
gratify that passion, he was alike ready to betray a party, or to
endanger an empire.
With such an opponent in the cabinet, and with the king for
his enemy, Shelburne, though supported by Chatham, could do
little. Everything looked more hopeless than ever. Camden
had gone over to the supporters of authority. Rockingham
1 My authorities for this are, Bancroft, vol. vi, pp. 46-49; Wirt, p. 96, and
Cooke’s “ History of Party,” vol. iii., pp. 91, 92.
2 Burke’s Works, vol. ii, p. 422.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 149
regarded America as a mere party question. Conway stood firm,
but was without influence or energy.1 On the 13th of May,
Townshend, on behalf of the government, brought forward his
policy for America, The main features of his scheme were,—
1, That New York was to be punished for its disregard of the Bil-
letting Act by being deprived of all legislative power. 2. Port
duties were to be levied on Spanish exports, on glass, and other
commodities, and especially on tea. 3. The revenue thus ob-
tained was to be placed at the king’s disposal, and a civil list
established. The plan was received with general approbation.
Yet Burke said prophetically, “You will never see a single shil-
ling from America,” and Beckford, the constant friend of the colo-
nies, bade the ministry “ do, like the best of physicians, heal the
disease by doing nothing.” 2
When the news reached America, the spirit of resistance, which
had been temporarily laid, re-awakened. “The Rubicon,” they
said, “is past.” “Such counsels will deprive the prince who now
sways the British sceptre of millions of free subjects.”* The
disfranchisement of New York in particular warned them on how
frail a basis their liberties rested. “The language of the act
seems to them to be,—Obey implicitly laws made by the parlia-
ment of Great Britain to raise money on you without your con-
sent, or you shall enjoy no rights or privileges at all.”* Appeals
to the law of nature began to be heard.® Yet even so they
blamed only the ministry and the parliament, and declared them-
selves, as ever, loyal to England and the king.
Massachusetts, as before, was the first colony to take active
measures. In January 1768, they drew up with great care, under -
the guidance of Samuel Adams, a statement of their case, to be
1 Townshend said of him at this time, “Conway is below low water mark.”
Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 64.
2 Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 75-79. 3 Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 97, 98.
4 Franklin’s Works, vol. iv., pp. 447. Hutchinson, p. 171.
5 Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 102. It is curious to trace the gradual manner in which
the Americans shifted their position from the technical and legal ground of charters
and constitutional rights to wider ground of equity and natural law. Compare
Franklin’s Life, vol. i., pp. 807-310.
150 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
communicated to the ministry, and laid before the world? They
accompanied this with letters to the ministers, and an address to
the king. Their next step showed their caution, and, to some
extent, the unformed nature of their schemes. It was proposed
that circular letters should be sent to the other colonies, apprising
them of the steps which Massachusetts had taken. But it was
feared that this proposal would be looked upon with suspicion in
England, and it was rejected by a large majority. The motion,
however, was again brought forward on the 4th of February, and
the former vote reversed. A circular letter was drawn up and
forwarded to all the colonial assemblies.? Meanwhile the bur-
gesses of Virginia had passed resolutions affirming the right of the
Americans to be taxed only by their own assemblies. At the
same time, they drew up a petition to the king, a memorial to the
House of Lords, and a remonstrance to the House of Commons,
which were unanimously adopted. Besides this, they not only
expressed their sense of the service which Massachusetts had
rendered to American liberties, but followed their example by
directing their speaker to communicate their proceedings to the
speakers of all the assemblies, and to intimate to them the neces-
sity of resistance. New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York all
followed the example set by Virginia, and expressed their sym-
pathy with Massachusetts?
But English government was doing more to accelerate colonial
independence than any of the assemblies. The 18th of March,
the anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act, was celebrated at
Boston with a temperate festival; as Hutchinson described it,
“We had only such a mob as we have long been used to on the
5th of November, and other holidays.” Bernard, however, who
was a coward as well as a knave, represented it as “a great dis-
position to the utmost disorder,’ and made his helpless state a
ground for demanding troops. Hillsborough, who had succeeded
Shelburne, deceived by Bernard’s representations, had given
1 Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 119-122. ? Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 124, 125.
3 Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 149, 150. * Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 133-135.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 151
orders to Gage, the commander of troops in America, to quarter
a regiment at Boston. The admiralty was at the same time
directed to send one frigate, two sloops, and two cutters to remain
in Boston harbour, and the castle of William and Mary was to be
repaired and occupied. But before these orders arrived, the out-
rageous conduct of the government officers at Boston had resulted
in violence. A ship of fifty guns, the Romney, had been sent
from Halifax, at the request of the commissioners of the customs,
to lie in the harbour, and its captain had pressed New England
seamen in direct defiance of a statute. Shortly after this, the
excise officers had seized a sloop, the property of John Hancock,
a leading merchant, with circumstances of violence, and had
unnecessarily called the Romney to their assistance. The as-
sembly of Virginia set apart the 1st of June as a fast-day, an
example almost universally followed. For this act of insubordi-
nation the governor dissolved them. Forming themselves into
a private committee, they resolved on a continental congress. ®
Three months later they met again, confirmed their importation
agreement, pledging themselves to export no tobacco after the
10th of August 1775, if the American grievances were not
redressed, and recommending the substitution of other articles
of agriculture. Maryland, which, like Virginia, depended on its
tobacco, passed similar resolutions.’ Everywhere the same
spirit prevailed. The Philadelphians alone were lukewarm, and
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii., pp. 7, 8.
2 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 3. 3 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 9.
4 Bancroft, vol. vii. p. 42. 5 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 62.
§ Annual Register, vol. xviii, pp. 5, 6. Wirt, pp. 114-118.
7 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 13.
168 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
hoped that by a threat of a congress, they might terrify the
English government into submission without incurring the loss
of their commerce. But they were the only exceptions. Nor
was the sympathy so widely shown confined to words. Marble-
head placed its harbour, its wharves and warehouses, at the
disposal of the merchants of Boston.? South Carolina sent
two hundred barrels of rice, and promised eight hundred more.
Virginia in less than three months gave three thousand seven
hundred and twenty-three bushels of wheat, and one thousand
five hundred and twenty-five bushels of Indian corn. Quebec
shipped one thousand and forty bushels of wheat. Willming-
ton collected in a few days £2000.%
The possibility of armed resistance began to be discussed.
The militia paraded in the different villages of Massachusetts. +
When it was rumoured that Gage intended to employ his troops
to enforce the laws at Worcester, the inhabitants prepared arms
and ammunition, and threatened openly to fight in defence of their
tights.* The inhabitants of Pepperell in an address to Boston
declared themselves ready to appeal to arms. “Is not a glorious
death,” they asked, “in defence of our liberties, better than a
short infamous life, and our memories to be had in detestation to
the latest posterity?”® Of thirty-six mandamus counsellors
appointed, twenty either declined to act, or were compelled to
resign. One of them warned the people that the consequences
of their proceedings would be rebellion, confiscation, and death ;
and they replied, “No consequences are so dreadful to a free
people as that of being made slaves.”” All civil proceedings were
stopped. At Springfield, one thousand five hundred, or two thou-
sand men occupied the court, set up a black flag, and threatened
1 Bancroft, vol. vii, p. 82.
? Annual Register, vol. xviii, p.15. Bancroft, vol. vii, p. 65.
* List of donations to Boston during the operation of the Port Bil Massa-
chusetts’ “ Historical Collection,” 2d series, vol. ix, pp. 158-166. Bancroft, vol.
vii., p. 73.
4 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 101. 5 Annual Register, vol. xviii. p. 15.
§ Bancroft, vol. vii, p. 99. 7 Bancroft, vol. vii, pp. 104, 105.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 169
death to any one who should enter. At Barrington, the people
refused to allow the judges or their officers to enter the court,
and upon the sheriff's commanding them to make way, they
answered that they knew no court nor other establishment inde-
pendent of the ancient laws and usages of their country. At
Boston, the jurors unanimously refused to serve. “The old con-
stitution being taken away by act of parliament, and the new
one being rejected by the people, an end was put to all forms of
law and government in the province of Massachusetts bay, and
the people were reduced to a state of anarchy.”?
The journey of the Massachusetts’ deputies to the congress was
a triumphal procession. Feasts were given in their honour ; and
when they entered or left a town, crowds went out to meet and
escort them.2 On the 5th of September the whole body of de-
puties met at Philadelphia? They had not sat a week, or settled
the preliminary question of the system of representation in con-
gress, when news came which showed them that a crisis was close
at hand. On the 1st of September Gage had seized the public
store of powder at Boston, and stored it in the castle. The
people rose in thousands—* not a mad mob”* or “a Boston
rabble, but the freeholders and farmers of the country.”> By
the next day twenty thousand men were in motion. Confused
reports of bloodshed flew about; but on receiving instructions
from Boston that nothing was to be attempted at present, the
insurgents dispersed.© The event, however, had shown the con-
gress how much public spirit and organized power of resistance
they could look for. Yet their proceedings were thoroughly tem-
perate, proving that the desire for union was no empty profes-
sion. On the 17th of September they passed a declaratory reso-
lution expressing their sympathy with the sufferings of Boston ;
their sense of the injustice of the enactments of Parliament ; their
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 17. Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 110-113.
2 Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 106, 107. 3 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 23.
4 Expression of Oliver, quoted by Bancroft, vol vii., p. 115.
5 Gage in a letter to England. Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 115.
6 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 18. Bancroft, vol, vii., pp. 114-116.
170 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
approbation of the past measures adopted by the citizens of Bos-
ton, and their desire that they would continue the same policy ;
together with a hope that the other colonies would still assist
them. In subsequent resolutions they proposed that, if it should
be found necessary for the people of Boston to move into the
country, all the colonies should compensate them for the injuries
sustained. They recommended the inhabitants of Massachusetts
to submit to a suspension of the administration of justice, and
they denounced any person in that colony who should accept
any office from government as a public enemy. They wrote a
letter to Gage expressing their regret that he should have taken
up so hostile an attitude, and requesting him to discontinue his
fortification, and to check the irregularities of his soldiers. They
published a declaration of rights, in which they claim the full
right of British subjects to fix their own taxes, but professed
their willingness to allow England to regulate their trade. They
protested against being deprived of the right of trial by their
peers of the vicinage. They then drew up a non-importation,
non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement in fourteen
heads. In spite of the persistent refusal of the government to
listen to any complaints from America, they drew up a petition
to the king, a memorial to the people of Great Britain, an address
to the colonists in general, and another to the people of Quebec.
To the natives of Quebec they pointed out the rights to which
their new position as British subjects entitled them. They
showed them that the Quebec Act makes the maintenance of their
liberties depend on the arbitrary will of the English government,
and they warned them that their own freedom depended on that
of the other colonies. To anticipate any religious difficulty, they
reminded them of the union of the Catholic and Protestant Can-
tons of Switzerland. They appealed to the countrymen of
Montesquieu to join their political interests, as nature had
joined their countries ; to seize the opportunity of allying them-
selves with numerous and powerful neighbours, who, with open
arms, were inviting them into fellowship, and not to hesitate
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 171
whether they would have all the rest of North America their
unalterable friends or their inveterate enemies.
In their address to the colonies they reviewed the unjust policy
of England for the past eleven years. They professed, at the
same time, an ardent hope that England would not push matters
so far as to make separation inevitable, and expressed their confi-
dence that the people of England, who would so soon be appealed
to, would disavow the conduct of their rulers.
There was unconscious irony in that appeal. Those resolu-
tions had scarcely been passed, when England sent a parliament
to Westminster, as thoroughly subservient to ministers, and as
obstinately resolved to exercise its authority over the colonies as
any that had gone before it. In corruption, it even surpassed its
predecessors. One seat was occupied by a paid agent of the
French king.2 “If America could have saved for three or four
years the money she spent in the fashions and fineries and fop-
peries of England, she might have bought the whole parlia-
ment, ministers and all.”
On the 30th of November, when a new parliament met, the
speech from the throne set forth that a spirit of disobedience and
resistance prevailed in the province of Massachusetts, stating at
the same time that proper measures had been taken, and were
then in progress, for maintaining the supreme authority of the
legislature. When the address was moved, an amendment was
proposed to the effect that the king should be requested to lay
all the facts which bore on the case of America before the house.
A debate ensued, in which the ministry was severely censured
and reminded of the effects which they had predicted from the
late acts against America; acts which, “instead of dividing the
colonies, had joined them in a closeness of friendship and union
which perhaps no other means in nature could have done.” The
division showed that the new house was of the same temper in
1 This account of the proceedings of congress is taken from the Annual Register,
vol. xviii., pp. 24-36. =
2 Bancroft, vol. vii, pp. 174, 175. 3 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 175.
172 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
American matters as its predecessor, inasmuch as the amendment
was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-one. A
debate also ensued in the Lords on the subject of the address,
with a similar result. Nothing more was done with reference
to America before the Christmas recess, though the production of
the estimates gave Lord Sandwich an opportunity for insulting
the Americans as a people “not disciplined nor capable of
discipline, and formed of such materials, and so indisposed to
action, that the numbers of which such boasts had been made,
would only add to the facility of their defeat.”
During the recess, the supporters of America were not idle.
Meetings of American merchants were held in London and
Bristol, and petitions agreed upon. The other great trading and
manufacturing cities followed their example, and in January
after parliament had assembled, petitions came in from London,
Bristol, Glasgow, Norwich, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham,
Wolverhampton, Dudley, and other places. A committee had
been appointed to consider papers bearing upon America. To
this committee they would naturally have been referred. The
ministry, however, found a device which enabled them to keep to
their policy of stifling complaints. They argued that, as the
. petitions were commercial and not political, and as the question
was a political one, a separate committee should be appointed to
consider them. This iniquitous device, whereby the petitions
were “received with one hand, and thrown out of the window
with the other,’! was carried by a majority of one hundred and
ninety-seven against eighty-one. Three days afterwards, three
agents, Franklin, Bolland, and Lee, stated that they had been
authorised by the American Congress to present a petition, and
requested to be heard on behalf of it. The supporters of America
represented that the principal question before the house was the
preservation of order, and that “the rejection of petitions was a
principal cause of the present troubles,” and “would infallibly
end in universal rebellion, and not unnaturally, as those seem to
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 53.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 173
give up the right of government who refuse to hear the
complaints of the subjects”! But the ministry were true
to their policy of punishing first and judging afterwards,
and the petition was refused. On the 3d of February,
Lord North gave notice of his American policy. The princi-
pal points were, that the forces were to be increased, the
New England fisheries to be cut off, and the colonies treated
with gradations of severity according to their degrees of
guilt. In other words, the government trusted to three means of
subduing America, force, starvation, and internal disunion. He
then moved for an address to the king, returning thanks for the
communications of the American papers, declaring that the in-
habitants of Massachusetts were in a state of rebellion, that it
was necessary to maintain the authority of government in
America, and that they were willing to listen to any grievances
of his majesty’s suhjects, when laid before them in a proper
manner ; at the same time requesting his majesty to take effectual
measures for enforcing obedience and pledging themselves to
maintain his and their rights. This address met with strenuous
opposition, Dunning contended that no rebellion existed in
America, and that the disorders were due to the conduct of the
government officials, whuse designs were hostile equally to the
liberties of the colonies and of the mother country. It was
pointed out, that to accuse the Americans of rebellion, would be
a sure step towards driving them to desperate measures. The
idea of selecting Massachusetts as a special victim, was shown to
be both unjust and impolitic. “The colonies were now coim-
pacted into one body. The proceeding of one was to become the
proceeding of all Every attempt to disunite them had been
found to strengthen their union.”? The address was, as a matter
of course, carried. On the 6th, when the address was reported
to the house, Lord John Cavendish re-opened the question, He
deprecated driving the Americans to extremities, and thereby
hurrying them into a civil war, which would inevitably bring a
1 Annual Register, vol, xviii. p. 56. 2 Annual Register, vol, xviii., p. 65.
174 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
foreign war along with it. “ What,” he asked, “ was the prize to
be gained by running all this risk and encountering all this
danger? If we were successful we might subdue America, by
which we gain nothing—America being to all wise intents and
purposes our own already, and much more profitably so, than it
could be in virtue of any conquest.”! Wilkes denounced the
address as “violent and mad.” “Who can tell,” he said,
“whether the scabbard may not be thrown away by the Americans
as well as by us, and should success attend them, whether in a
few years the Americans may not celebrate the glorious era of
the revolution of the year 1775, as we do that of 1688?” The
address, however, was carried by a great majority, and when
taken up to the Lords with the proposal that they should join in
it, it passed without any difficulty.
Meanwhile the opposition had received an addition of strength.
Chatham had reappeared in parliament. On the 20th of January,
he had brought forward a motion for the removal of the troops,
as a preliminary step towards conciliation. In his speech he in-
veighed against the whole policy of the ministry. He charged
them with having deceived the nation and held out unfounded
hopes of tranquillity. He warned them to concede in time and of
free grace what they would have to concede at length of necessity.
He concluded with the prophetic words, “If the ministers thus
persevere in misadvising and misleading the king, I will not say
that they can alienate the affections of his subjects from his
crown, but I will affirm that they will make the crown not worth
his wearing. I will not say that the king is betrayed, but I will
pronounce that the kingdom is undone.”? The proposal to re-
move the troops was looked upon as dangerous by many of those
who were inclined towards conciliation. Notwithstanding, they
supported the motion as the first step towards a juster policy. The
bill, however, was lost by a majority of sixty-eight to eighteen.
Undeterred by this result, on the Ist of February, Chatham
1 Anvual Register, vol. xviii, p. 67.
2 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 225. 4 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 48.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 175
brought forward a scheme of conciliation. The principal points
in the bill were, that a congress should be held in the ensuing
month of May, to recognise the supreme legislative power of par-
liament, and to make a free grant to the king, his heirs, and
successors, of a certain and perpetual revenue, subject to the dis-
position of parliament, and applicable to the alleviation of the
national debt; that the late offensive acts should be suspended
for a time, without being formally repealed; that the judges
should be placed upon the same footing with those in England,
and that all the privileges secured to the colonists by their
charters and constitutions, should remain intact. It was a
scheme which conceded all that America required, with the least
possible humiliation to England, yet the authority of the proposer,
the “clarum et venerabile nomen” of Chatham, his advanced age,
his past services could not save the measure from the indignity,
not merely of rejection, but of not being allowed to lie on the
table of the house. Well might Franklin say, “hereditary legis-
lators! there would be more propriety because less hazard of
mischief in having, as in some universities of Germany, hereditary
professors of mathematics.” Well might it seem “the greatest of
absurdities,” that men should “claim sovereignty over three
millions of virtuous, sensible people in America, when they ap-
peared to have scarce discretion enough to govern a herd of swine.”?
In that time of national shame, there is one figure on which
an Englishman may look with satisfaction and pride. In the
zenith of his career, when he was guiding the victorious arms of
Britain in four continents, Chatham was never so truly great as
when, with shattered health and fallen power, he was maintain-
ing English liberties against the tyranny of England. If any
think that patriotism is necessarily a narrowing or an exclusive
spirit, let them look at Chatham. He loved England with
“True love turned round on fixed poles,
Love that endures not sordid ends
For English natures, freemen, friends,
His brethren and immortal souls.”
1 Franklin’s Works, vol. v., p. 159.
176 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
He loved her because he saw in her the embodiment of great
principles, because her past history had been a witness for free-
dom. And those principles which were dear to him in English-
men, were not less dear to him when Englishmen had, by their
own folly, arrayed them against themselves. He saw in the
Americans the spirit of the heroes of ancient history, * the spirit,
too, of the heroes of his own nation, the spirit of Pym and
Hampden.? His last hours were saddened by the approaching
“dismemberment of that ancient empire” which he had served
so truly and loved so well; but hope may have revived as he
remembered that, though England had been false to herself, there
were men of English speech and English race who would not
betray the inheritance that their fathers had won for them.
The next proceeding of the ministry was to bring in a bill for
cutting off New England from the Newfoundland fisheries. The
bill, as was pointed out, was not only unjust, but impolitic. By
destroying the commerce of New England it would prevent the
payment of English debts, and would turn the fishermen into
recruits for the American army. It would drive the colonies to
throw off their allegiance by showing them “that, if but a single
branch of legislative power were left to England, it could distort
that branch in such a manner that it should include all the pur-
poses of an unlimited tyranny.”* The opposition launched out
into general invectives against the whole policy of the ministry.
They pointed out how each measure of coercion had brought in
its train another measure yet more severe, “till one by one par-
liament had ruined all its colonies and rooted up all its commerce,
till the statute-book had become nothing but a black and bloody
roll of proscriptions, and that wherever it was opened it would
1 “They acted,” he [Lord Chatham] said, “with so much temper, moderation,
and wisdom, that he thought it the most honourable assembly of statesmen, since
those of the ancient Greeks and Romans, in the most virtuous times.” Franklin’s
Works, vol. v., p. 34.
2 “These worthy New Englanders ever feel as Old Englanders ought to do.”
Expression of Chatham, quoted by Bancroft, vol. vi., p. 434.
3 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 86.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 177
present a title of destroying some trade, or ruining some pro-
vince.” But notwithstanding that the opposition strove as
throughout the session “to make amends for the smallness of
their numbers by their zeal and activity,”? the bill was carried
through all its stages.
But the temper of the house was to be more fully shown before
the session was over. On the 20th of February, Lord North
brought forward his scheme for conciliation. The plan was, that
when a supply was required from any of the colonies, the colonial
legislature should vote a certain sum, and Uf this sum was approved
of by the English government, no taxation for purposes of revenue
should be imposed. In other words, the colonies were to be
allowed to determine the method of their own taxation, but to
have no voice either in regulating the amount or directing the
purposes to which it should be applied. As Franklin said, “ It
was similar to no mode of obtaining aids that ever existed
except that of a highwayman who presents his pistol and hat at
a coach window, demanding no specific sum, but if you will give
all your money, or what he is pleased to think sufficient, he will
civilly omit putting his own hand into your pockets; if not, there
is his pistol.”’ Had the house known with how much scorn the
colonists would reject the offer, they might have saved themselves
some alarm. But the very word conciliation, when heard from a
minister, produced a panic. “The courtiers looked at each other
with amazement.” “The treasury benches seemed to totter, and
that ministerial phalanx which had been so irresistible, was ready
to break and fall into irretrievable disorder.” * To be likened to
Hancock and Otis was all the reward that Lord North got for
having for once allowed his humanity to lead him aside from the
path of oppression. His immediate supporters, however, were
equal to the occasion. With a readiness which shows that par-
liamentary “cross-fishing” is not an invention of to-day, they
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii, p. 87. 2 Annual Register, vol. xviii, p. 85.
3 Franklin’s Works, vol. v., p. 87. 4 Annual Register, vol. xviii, p. 97.
> Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 243.
M
178 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
represented that the present measures were not in any way
inconsistent with the previous policy of government. As they
pointed out, it reserved the right and provided for the substantial
exercise of it. The compulsion of America was no longer a mere
question of national honour, but was put upon its proper footing
—revenue or no revenue. They held out the motion, in fact, as
the opposition said, “to one side of the house as a measure of
concession, and to the other as a strong assertion of authority,”
like the tea act, “which to this country was to be a duty of
supply, and to the Americans a tax only of regulation.”1 Accord-
ingly, the ministerial party, finding that the plan for conciliation
had nothing conciliatory in it, returned to their accustomed
docility, and carried it by a large majority.
Undeterred by the numerous proofs already given of the un-
compromising spirit of parliament, Burke made. one more attempt
at conciliation. “If he could not give peace to his country, he
would at least give it to his conscience.” True to the principles
he had always upheld, he refused to entertain the question of
right. “The question was not whether parliament had a right to
tender its-people miserable, but whether it was not their interest
to make them happy.” He warned them of the difficulty of the
task which they were undertaking. “I am afraid,” he said, “that
the temper and character which prevail in our colonies are un-
alterable by any human art.” “An Englishman is the unfittest
person in the world to argue another Englishman into slavery.”
The enlistment of the negroes he looked on as a wild and dan-
gerous project. He pointed out that the Americans were by
their present state of anarchy being trained to be independent of
English government. His scheme consisted of six resolutions,
and altogether proposed a plan for placing the taxation of the
colonies in their own hands. The first resolution declared that
the colonies were not represented; the second declared that they
had been subjected to taxes whereby they had been oftentimes
“touched and grieved ;” the third declared that no method had
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii, p. 99.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 179
hitherto been devised for representing the colonies in parliament ;
the fourth that each of the colonies had a representative body,
with a power of taxation; the fifth that these bodies had at
sundry times freely granted large subsidies; that their right to
do so, and their “ cheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grant,
had been at sundry times acknowledged by parliament;” the
sixth that it had been found by experience that taxation by the
assemblies had been “more agreeable to the said colonies, and
more beneficial and conducive to the public service than by par-
liament.” Other resolutions followed, proposing the repeal of all
the obnoxious acts, and an explanation and amendment of the
statute of Henry VIII, entitled, “ An act for the trial of treasons
committed out of the king’s dominions.” Throughout his speech,
Burke carefully eschewed any ground except that of expediency.
Anticipating the possible argument that if taxation implied
representation, legislation did so also, he pointed out that the
colonies were devoted not to liberty in the abstract, but to
“liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles,”
and that that liberty had always turned on the point of taxation.
In conclusion, he met those slanders which had been cast on the
loyalty and the spirit of the colonies, saying, “ Your hold of the
colonies is in the close affection which grows from common
names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal
protection, .... As long as you have the wisdom to keep the
sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty,
the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the
chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn
their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more
friends you will have; the more ardently they love, liberty, the
more perfect will be their obedience.”
In the ensuing debate, the ministry took new ground. They
alleged that the raising of money by any authority except parlia-
ment was a violation of the bill of rights, a plea which the oppo-
sition met with the example of Ireland. Burke’s proposal went
1 Burke’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 23-132.
180 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
the same way as every similar attempt, and was defeated by one
hundred and ninety-two votes.
On the 10th of April, the citizens of London presented a peti-
tion to the king, deprecating the destruction of commerce, the
prospect of bloodshed, the alienation of the colonies, and the
establishment of military government. In answer to this, the
king expressed his astonishment that any of his subjects
should be capable of encouraging the rebellious disposition of the
Americans.!
Such a brief account as I have given of the most important
proceedings during the session of 1775, will suffice to illustrate
the temper of the English parliament, and unhappily of the
English people. Blind ignorance of the principles of govern-
ment, utter indifference to the interests of the colonies, and an
overweening contempt for the power of resistance—such were
the influences by which the rulers of the British Empire were
guided. Before that parliament rose, events were to show
whether the Americans were, as Grant had told the House of
Commons, “neither soldiers, nor ever capable of being made so;
being naturally of a pusillanimous disposition, and utterly in-
capable of any sort or order of discipline,’? or whether they were
“a brave, generous, and united people, the genuine descendants
of a valiant and pious ancestry.”? For six months after the
dissolution of congress, no change took place in the relative
position of parties in America. In New York the assembly
had been won over to the side of government, but the mass of
the inhabitants were faithful to the cause of freedom. The
provincial congress of Massachusetts had appointed a committee
of safety to take possession of the military stores of the province,
to make returns of the militia and minute men, and to muster so
1 This account of the proceedings of the session is taken substantially from the
Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 836-120.
2 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 66. Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 223.
3 Chathan’s Speech in Parliament, January 20, 1775. Bancroft, vol. vii.,
p. 197.
4 Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 210-212.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 181
many of the militia as they judged necessary. Another com-
mittee was appointed to draw up rules and regulations for the
constitutional army. Meanwhile the soldiers and the citizens
had become more and more odious to one another. On the 26th
of February, Gage having learnt that some brass cannon had been
deposited at Salem, sent a detachment of troops, under the com-
mand of a field officer, to seize the cannon and to bring them to
Boston. When they arrived at Salem they failed to find the
cannon. Believing, however, that they had only been removed
that morning, they went further into the country in pursuit of
them. Near Danvers, their passage across a river was barred by
a number of countrymen who had taken up the drawbridge and
refused to lower it. Meanwhile the cannon were being removed
to a place of safety. The officer then attempted to get posses-
sion of a boat, but the people, seeing his design, scuttled it with
their axes, Hostilities seemed imminent, but by the good
offices of a clergyman who happened to be at hand, the two
parties came to terms; the bridge was lowered; the troops
marched across, and the officer having done all that was necessary
for the point of military honour, marched back empty-handed.?
A fortnight after this, the anniversary of the massacre was
kept, and a public meeting held, at which some forty British
officers were present, listening to a harangue from Warren.
After recalling the horrors of the massacre, he reminded them of
the dangers with which they were surrounded, and of the neces-
sity for courage, and, in conclusion, exhorted them, if the hour
for resistance should come, “not to turn their faces from their
foes, but undauntedly to press forward until tyranny should be
trodden under foot.” After the oration a motion was passed,
amid the hisses of the English officers, for “appointing an orator
for the ensuing year to commemorate the horrid massacre.”
Further symptoms of ill-feeling manifested themselves. A
countryman bought a gun from a soldier, As soon as he had
1 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 228. 2 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 125.
3 Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 253-256.
182 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
paid for it, he was seized by some of the troops for having vio-
lated an act of parliament which forbade trading with soldiers,
and was shut up all night in the guard-room. The next day he
was tarred and feathered, and carted through the principal streets
with a placard on his back, “American liberty, or a specimen of
democracy,” followed by the drums and fifes of the 27th regiment,
by a guard of twenty men with fixed bayonets, and a mob of
officers, among whom was an English lieutenant-colonel.*
During the winter Virginia had not been idle. In December,
the Fairfax county committee, led by Washington, had followed
the example of Maryland in forming the inhabitants into small
militia companies, under officers of their own choice.2 On the
20th of March the Virginian convention assembled at Richmond.
Their tone was at first moderate. “Where,” said the party of
inaction, “are our stores, our soldiers, our generals, our money.
We are defenceless, yet we talk of war against one of the most
formidable nations in the world. It will be time enough to resort
to measures of despair when every well-founded hope is vanished.”
But Henry saw the vanity of such delay, and bade them arm, in
a speech which sounded the first war-note of American inde-
pendence. “ Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love
and reconciliation? Our petitions have been slighted, our re-
monstrances have produced additional violence and insult, our
supplications have been disregarded, and we have been spurned
with contempt from the foot of the throne. In vain after these
things may we indulge in the fond hope of peace and reconcilia-
tion. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be
free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privi-
leges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean
not basely to abandon the whole struggle in which we have
been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never
to abandon, until the glorious object of our content shall be
obtained—we must fight. I repeat, sir, we must fight! An
1 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 256. * Bancroft, vol. vii, p. 207.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 183
appeal to arms, and to the God of Hosts, is all that is left us.
They tell us, sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so for-
midable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will
it be the next week or the next year? ‘Will it be when we are
totally disarmed, and a British guard shall be stationed in every
house ? Shall we gather strength by irresolution or inaction ?
Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying on
our backs, hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our ene-
mies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak,
if we make a proper use of those means which the God of
nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people’
arrayed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as
that which we possess, are invincible by any force which the
enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our
battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the des-
tinies of nations who will raise up friends to fight our battles
for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the
vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election.
If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire
from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and’
slavery. Our chains are forged. Their clankings may be heard
on the plains of Boston. The war is inevitable, and let it come.
I repeat, sir, let it come.
“Tt is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may
say peace, peace, but there is no peace. The war has actually
begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to
our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already
in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it the gentle-
men wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, and peace
so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others
may take, but as for me”—and his gesture told of the intensity
of his feeling—“ give me liberty, or give me death.”
All doubt and delay vanished. A militia was organised
Nicholas, in his enthusiasm, proposed to raise ten thousand
184 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
regulars! To meet the danger, Dunmore, following Gage’s
example, seized the powder at Williamsburgh, and threatened
to taise and arm the negroes. “If,” he said, “any insult is
offered to me, or those who have obeyed my orders, I will de-
clare freedom to the slaves, and lay the town in ashes.” Such
conduct added fuel to the flame. On the 29th of April, up-
wards of six hundred well-armed men were in readiness at Fre-
dericksburgh.? Everything was ripe for resistance ; and while
they knew it not, the hour had come. At that very time the
war of independence had begun.
Ever since George III. had found, in Lord North, a minister
ready to be the servile dictator of a servile parliament, that
result had been inevitable. England had pledged herself, if
necessary, to subdue the continent of America; to subdue by
arms, and to hold by force nearly three millions of people. The
Americans, it is true, were imperfectly armed, but they had the
command of supplies and the choice of position In an
aggressive war a half-drilled army of citizen soldiers would be
overpowered by a third of their number of regular troops. But,
in a purely defensive struggle, the disparity is vastly diminished.
A war in which the object is not to advance a frontier, or even
to drive an enemy out of a territory, but only to harass them
while in it, and make their position ultimately untenable, is
peculiarly favourable to the readiness and enterprise in which
citizen soldiers excel, and does not test so highly the machine-
like merits of regular tooops. "We must remember, too, that the
New England or Virginian yeomen were no mere machines tied
to one routine of daily toil. The life of a settler in a young
country is specially calculated to develop his versatility. The
backwoodsman of Virginia or Massachusetts was no mere tiller
11 have taken this t of the p dings of the tion, of Patrick
Henry’s speech and its results, from Wirt, pp. 133-143. Bancroft questions the
historical authenticity of Henry’s speech, vol. vii., p. 273, note. In any case it
represents much of the substance of what was said, and is a good exposition of the
views of the extreme party in America.
2 Wirt, pp. 149, 150. Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 275-277.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 185
of soil, working from day to day in a mechanical groove of toil,
that neither asks nor arouses thought. He was at once farmer,
hunter, and craftsmen. He made his own cart, he broke and
shod his own horses, he raised his log hut with timber that he
himself had hewn. Their leaders were many of them men of the
same stamp ; yeomen, like Patrick Henry or Putnam, who lived
the life and spoke the dialect of the people. As in the citizen
armies of the ancient world, every man fought side by side with
those he knew, his townsmen, his friends, often his kinsmen,
and there was enough of local division to rouse emulation but
not jealousy. Moreover they were rebels but in name; in
reality their war was purely defensive, as purely defensive as
ever was the war of an invaded people. Their task was not to
destroy but to preserve. This is no mere matter of words.
Instead of a people setting to work to destroy institutions which
had become the engines of tyranny, or which they had out-
grown, they were people fighting to preserve, always the spirit
and often the form of institutions under which they had become
a great nation. They were not assuming new rights but main-
taining old. They were not overthrowing an existing system
with the after-task of evolving a new and untried order out of
chaos. They had a clear, definite goal before them, the nature of
which every man who took up arms could understand. The
rebellion did not cut them off from the past, it bound them more
closely to it. They were fighting not for abstract rights but for
English rights. They could look back with pride on Hampden
and Russell, on Sidney and Somers, on the acknowledged heroes
of English history to whom England was now false. They saw
that their friends in England felt this, Clive and Effingham had
refused to take up arms against their brethren. The people of
Treland were with them almost to a man.’ If they conquered
they would not be destroying England, or even injuring her;
they would only be crushing an unjust system of imperialism,
1 It is worthy of notice that Burke, Shelburne, Barré, and Conway, four of the
most consistent friends of America, were all Irishmen.
186 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
under which the liberties of no British subject could be safe.
Above all, the colonies were united. The readiness with which
they had answered to Adam’s call for committees of correspon-
dence proved this beyond a doubt. So long as that spirit
prevailed, America could not be conquered. The arms of Eng-
land might be for the time victorious, but all history showed that
it was impossible to govern by force a resolute and united people
living in a country three thousand miles distant. The Americans
were asserting and recovering freedom, if not for themselves, for
their children, and their children’s children.
Far other must have been the feelings of those in England
whose sympathies with America could not make them forget that
they were Englishmen. The new life which Pitt had breathed
into the English service was extinct. That system of favouritism
and jobbery which had sapped the strength of our army and
navy, and against which Pitt had warred with temporary success,
was as rife again as ever. Never had a government rushed
blindfold into war in more complete ignorance of the character of
their enemy, or disregard of resources. They were to fight in an
unknown country, in dense woods where marching was difficult,
and the conveyance of cannon impossible, against an army of
backwoodsmen trained to the chase, and many of them experi-
enced in Indian warfare. Or were they to call in the Indians as
allies, and see the bodies of their fellow-countrymen mutilated
by the scalping-knife of the savage? And if these difficulties
were overcome, what was to be the fruit of success? To destroy
a nation which it was our greatest glory to have founded, to
overthrow liberties which it was our chief pride to have nurtured.
What should we have left to govern but “the ruins of depopu-
lated towns, uncultivated fields, old men, women, and children,
whose relations had fallen in the national contest?”1 Well
might a nation, deliberately and of its own choice, entering on
such a war, be the ridicule of the whole civilised world.2 The
1 The Critical Moment, p. 54.
* Horace Walpole, in a letter to Conway, written from Paris, September 8, 1775,
says, “There is not a Frenchman that does not think us distracted.” Walpole’s
Letters, vol. v., p. 430.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 187
destruction of our empire was not the worst part. All far-seeing
men perceived that if we were successful, the time was at hand
when
‘That England that was wont to conquer others,
Should make a shameful conquest of itself.”
To such a pass had misgovernment brought England, that our
only hope lay in the incapacity of her commanders, and the
courage of her foes.
For six months, nothing noticeable had happened at Boston,
although, as I said before, the ill-feeling between the citizens and
the soldiers had been aggravated by a variety of circumstances.
But on the night of the 18th of April, Gage sent off a force of
eight hundred men to seize the cannon and stores at Concord.
The attempt was planned and executed with caution, but the
colonists were on their guard. Before the troops had gone far,
they saw, by the hoisting of lights and ringing of bells, that they
were detected, and Smith, who was in command, sent back for a
reinforcement. At five o’clock in the morning, they reached
Lexington. There, on the village green, they found some sixty
men drawn up in two ranks. One of the officers ordered them
to disperse. They stood their ground. Another officer thereupon
fired a pistol, which was followed by a general volley by which
eight of the militia were killed, and several wounded. From
Lexington the troops proceeded on their errand. By seven
o'clock they reached Concord. They spiked two guns, destroyed
some stores, and plundered private houses. The colonists who
had gathered outside the town, over four hundred in number, at
first stood on the defensive. After a short deliberation, they
resolved to march into the town. As they reached the bridge,
1 The danger to English liberty, which would have resulted from the success of
our arms in America, was fully recognised by thinking men. Burke said, “That
the establishment of such a power in America will utterly ruin our finances is the
smallest part of our concern. It will become an apt, powerful, and certain engine
for the destruction of our freedom here.” Burke’s Works, vol, iv., p. 192. Lord
Chatham wrote, ‘‘ England will have fallen upon her own sword.” Buckle, vol. i,
p. 488. I have quoted another remark made by Chatham of similar tenor else-
where,
188 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
the English troops began to take up the planks. The provincials
advanced. Then, as at Lexington, two or three stray shots were
fired by the soldiers, followed by a general volley. The colonists
returned the volley, and the troops retreated. The first blow had
been struck. Concord bridge was in truth the opening scene of
the American War of Independence. The usual result of unex-
pected defeat followed. The troops were utterly demoralised, and
were driven back to Boston like sheep. Reinforcements kept
pouring in to the help of the colonists, till the hills and walls that
flanked the road swarmed with rebels. At last, about a mile
beyond Lexington, the officers managed, by threats of death, to
get the troops into some formation. At that moment, Percy
arrived with a reinforcement, and formed a hollow square round
the fugitives, who lay stretched on the ground, panting and
exhausted. By this time, two-thirds of the whole English force
was on the ground, yet their only safety was in retreat. As the
news of the morning’s events spread abroad, every town and
village sent out its troop of militia. The soldiers under Percy
retreated, burning and pillaging by the way, murdering helpless
old men, and driving women out of their houses half naked.
Just after sunset, they reached Boston, having lost two hundred
and seventy-three men. But the loss was not to be measured by
men. The presence of British troops had lost its terrors; its
spell was broken from that time as effectually as was that of “the
barbarian” at Marathon.
On the night of the 19th of April, the English troops were be-
sieged in Boston. Three days afterwards, the Massachusetts con-
gress resolved to raise a New England army of thirty thousand
men, itself to contribute thirteen thousand six hundred. From
New Hampshire, from Connecticut, from Rhode Island, volunteers
poured in, each with his gun and store of ammunition.? The con-
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii, pp. 126-128. Bancroft, vol. vii, pp. 288-310.
Depositions laid before Congress, published in the Journal of the Proceedings of
Congress, printed by order of Congress, and reprinted by Almann in London, 1776,
pp. 19-40.
2 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 317.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 189
dition of the inhabitants of Boston was most pitiable. The city was
besieged by both sea and land. The king’s stores were the only
means of subsistence in the town. At length Gage entered into
a capitulation by which the inhabitants were to be at liberty to
depart with their goods, on condition that they surrendered their
arms. The arms were surrendered, but Gage’s part of the contract
was not fulfilled. Many of the inhabitants did obtain leave to
depart, but only by leaving behind them their goods, and what
was worse, their relations. Families were broken up, and the
dearest connections separated; part were compelled to quit the
town, part were retained against their will!
The second attempt of the rebels was as successful as the first,
and even bolder. A band of about one hundred Vermont back-
woodsmen, aided by fifty of the Massachusetts militia, conceived
the adventurous design of capturing Ticonderoga, a fortress
guarded by more than a hundred pieces of cannon, and com-
manding the passage from Canada to New England. Its capture
had cost the English eight millions of money, and several cam-
paigns. On the 9th of May, at daybreak, Ethen Allen with
eighty-three volunteers marched into the fort, overpowered the
sentinels, and in ten minutes were masters of Ticonderoga.
Crown Point surrendered with equal ease.?
The colonists exulting in their newly discovered strength,
ventured on exploits from which more experienced soldiers might
have shrunk. A party of Vermont volunteers manned a schooner
on Lake Champlain, sailed into the harbour of St John’s, and
captured a British sloop, thirteen soldiers, and brass cannon.
Boston was besieged so closely, that its only supplies were
derived from the small islands in the bay. On one occasion a
small party of provincials were engaged in clearing off and de-
stroying the stock and forage on one of these islands. Two
vessels and a party of marines were sent from Boston to check
them. An engagement ensued in which the English were de-
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii., p. 130.
2 Annual Register, vol. xviii, p. 132. Bancroft, vol. vii, pp. 338-341.
190 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
feated, with a loss of twenty killed and fifty wounded, and com-
pelled to desert one of the ships. The Americans, whose loss had
been trifling, boarded the ship, removed the cannon from her,
and set her on fire.’
Everywhere the national spirit of daring was effectually raised.
When the news of Lexington reached New York, two sloops,
which lay at the wharfs laden with supplies for the troops at
Boston, were instantly unloaded. Even the Quakers of Pennsyl-
vania took up arms. In Virginia, Patrick, Henry was at the
head of five thousand men.2 Everywhere Lord North’s concili-
ation scheme was received with contempt.? As before, the dele-
gates of Massachusetts, on their way to the congress, were
received everywhere as the representatives of national liberty.*
The congress, consisting of the delegates of twelve colonies, met
on May the 10th at Philadelphia) On the 13th, they were
joined by a delegate from Georgia. An American historian has
well represented how anomalous was the position occupied by
that congress.© They had none of the powers of government ;
they had not even an authorised legal existence. They had not
the bond of common race or common religion. There were
Swedes and Dutch, Quakers and Calvinists. Nor was there any
presiding will to bind together these incongruous atoms. They
had no Cromwell to overrule their conflicting impulses, and
mould them all to one common purpose; no William the Silent
who could enter into the feelings of the whole nation, and in
whom each man might find the representative of his own needs.
The first question to be decided was the policy to be adopted by
New York where British troops were expected. The orders were,
that the citizens should observe a strictly defensive policy, and
should suffer the troops to land, but not to erect fortifications.
The same spirit of moderation induced them to make a last effort
at reconciliation with the mother country. To avoid creating an
1 Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 362-364. 2 Bancroft, vol. vii., pp. 328-834.
3 Annual Register, vol. xviii, p. 130. 4 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 332.
5 Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 355.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 191
insuperable breach, the congress recommended Massachusetts
not ta establish a new government, but to entrust the executive
to the elective council, until a governor of the king's appoint-
ment would consent to govern the colony according to the
charter. At the same time, they expressed their contempt for
Gage’s government by electing Hancock, who, with Adams, had
just been proclaimed a traitor and rebel, President of the Con-
gress. On the 3d of June, committees were appointed to draw
up a petition to the king, and addresses to the inhabitants of
Great Britain, of Ireland, and of Jamaica. On the 12th of
June, they passed a recommendation that Thursday, the 20th of
July, should be set apart as a day of humiliation, fasting, and
prayer. Meantime, though studious to avoid anything that
would seem like aggression, they had been making provision for
a defensive war. On the 26th of April, they had drawn up a
formal address to the inhabitants of Great Britain, setting forth
the circumstances of the affair at Concord, stating that the
English troops had commenced hostilities, declaring their inten-
tion of resisting “the persecution and tyranny of a cruel
ministry,” while, at the same time, they expressed their hope
that, “in a constitutional connection with the mother country,
they might soon be altogether a free and happy people.” On the
18th of May, notice was given to the congress that an attack
from the province of Quebec might be expected. The frontier
colonies were recommended to make preparations against such
an attempt, and an address was sent to the Canadians, conceived
in much the same spirit as that drawn up by the last congress.
Resolves were passed on the 2d of June, that no bill of exchange
or money order should be negotiated for any English officer or
army agent, or any money supplied to them in any way; that no
provisions should be supplied to the British army or navy in
Massachusetts; and that no vessel employed in transporting
British troops to any part of America should be furnished with
stores or necessaries. Soon after this, a letter was laid before
the congress from the congress of Massachusetts, inviting them
192 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
“to assume the regulation and direction of the army then collect-
ing from different colonies for the defence of the rights of
America.” At the same time, Adams received a private letter
from Warren on behalf of the Massachusetts’ congress, expressing
a desire that the general congress should appoint a general.
The suggestion as to the army does not seem to have been
formally adopted, but on the 10th of June, it was recommended
to the conventions of various colonies that they should take
measures to have gunpowder manufactured “for the use of the
continent,” and on the 14th, it was resolved that ten companies
of riflemen should be raised in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia, and that they should be enlisted as soldiers in the
“ American continental army.” On the 15th, in accordance with
the suggestion of Warren, congress proceeded to the choice of a
general, and unanimously elected George Washington.?
Washington was then in his forty-fourth year. He had, as we
have already seen, shown heroic courage and considerable military
skill in the valley of the Ohio. After the congress of 1774,
Henry had said of him, “If you speak of solid information and
sound judgment, Colonel Washington was the greatest man on
that floor.”* Washington was not one of those, many of them
the greatest names in history, whose powers have suddenly burst
forth when the occasion has called for them. The qualities to
which he owed his greatness were the same which had already
made him successful in a narrower sphere. He was a great
statesman and a great general, not from any special aptitude for
war or politics, but from his industry, patience, strength of will,
and clearness of judgment. His peculiar merit, that through
which he stands almost alone among the great, is his public spirit.
Above all men, he united the highest capacity for action with the
most perfect freedom from personal ambition. Among the heroes
of ancient history, Epaminondas alone perhaps equals him; in
the modern world he is without a rival
’ Bancroft, vol. vii., p. 389.
? Journal of Proceedings of Congress, pp. 3-38. * Wirt, p. 132.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 193
On the 25th of May, Howe, Burgoyne, and Clinton had arrived
at Boston, with a number of marines and drafts from other regi-
ments to supply the vacancies, and were soon followed by several
regiments from Ireland. Notwithstanding this reinforcement,
they did not venture on any attempt to break up the blockade.
Hitherto, both parties had neglected the important point of
Charlestown. That town, the parent of Boston, stood on a penin-
sula to the north of that occupied by the younger city, and about
parallel to it. The peninsula is about a mile long, and at its
widest rather more than half a mile broad, but grows narrower at
the point where it joins the mainland. Its north-east termina-
tion is occupied by Bunker’s Hill, an eminence about one hundred
and ten feet high, On the 15th of June it became known that
Gage intended to occupy this position, and the Americans resolved
to anticipate him. After dusk, on the evening of June 16th, a
brigade of a thousand men, without uniform, armed with fowling-
pieces, with no bayonets, carrying their ammunition in horns and
hunting pouches, marched towards Charlestown, under the com-
mand of William Prescott. The point to be occupied was a
height called Breed’s Hill. After twelve the work of fortification
commenced, and before daylight a complete redoubt was thrown
up with considerable intrenchments, and a breast-work that was
in some parts cannon-proof. As soon as the attempt was dis-
covered, a heavy cannonade was opened from the ships, and from
Copps Hill in Boston. The Americans stood their ground with
the firmness of old soldiers. About one o’clock Howe landed on
the north side of the Isthmus with two thousand men. The de-
fenders of the hill numbered about eight hundred,? and were
exhausted with the laborious work of intrenching, and with lack
of food and water. But Howe thought it better to send back for
more troops. Before they arrived, reinforcements were sent from
the American camp. The number of troops on Bunker’s Hill
2 Annual Register, vol. xviii. p. 132.
2 Two hundred had been detached to fortify the summit of Bunker's Hill But
the attempt was not carried out.
N
194 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
v
was doubled, and their line of defence was completed as far as
the north side of the Isthmus. At half-past two the British line
advanced in two columns, under cover of a heavy fire of howitzers
and cannon. Not a shot was returned till the troops were close
to the redoubt, and then for several minutes a close and con-
tinuous fire was kept up along the whole extent of the line.
Nearly every officer near Howe was killed, and for a few seconds
he was left alone. For about ten minutes the British troops
stood the fire of the provincials, then they wavered and fell back
in confusion. A second time they attacked the line ; but in spite
of the efforts of their officers encouraging, threatening, and even
urging them on with their swords, they were again beaten back,
For a third time they rallied. They had an ally that they did
not reckon on. The Americans’ supply of powder had failed,
and they had little more than enough for one volley left. They
held out for some time fighting against the bayonets of the En-
glish with the butt-end of their guns till their stocks were broken:
At last they gave way, retreating across Charlestown neck under
the fire of a frigate and two floating batteries. The English
were too exhausted to press them severely, and their total loss
was less than two hundred killed, and a little more than three
hundred wounded. The severest loss the Americans sustained
was the death of Warren. He had come as a volunteer from the
committee of safety at Cambridge to fall as the Hampden of
American liberty. But the hopes of America did not rest on the
insecure basis of individual courage or wisdom. Never was
there a great struggle in which the leaders more completely re-
presented the nation’s will and executed her designs. When
she called, citizens were found as ready to command as they were
to obey ; none shunned greatness, none sought it.
One lamentable result of the battle was the destruction of
Charlestown. It was set on fire by the cannonading of the
British troops, and being built of wood was utterly destroyed.
The English had lost two hundred and twenty-six killed and
eight hundred and twenty wounded, among whom were thirteen
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 195
officers. This was the first British victory in America. Gage,
who never seems to have entertained the same contempt for the
Americans as the majority of his countrymen, wrote home to
Dartmouth—* The trials we have had show the rebels are not
the despicable rabble too many have supposed them to be. The
conquest of this country is not easy. You have to cope with
vast numbers.” “England has lost her colonies for ever,” were
Franklin’s words, when he heard the news.!
The confidence of the English cabinet was at length shaken.
Barrington declared that no augmentation of the forces was
possible. The king alone remained firm. He would have twenty
thousand men in America by next spring.
“Flectere si nequeo Superos, Acheronta movebo”
seemed to be his motto. If Englishmen would not murder and en-
slave their kinsmen in America, Hessians or Russians, or even Red
Indians should. In America a spirit widely different prevailed. On
the 6th of July a declaration was laid before congress and agreed
to, setting forth the causes and the necessities of the war. It
declared that the legislature of Great Britain, “stimulated by an
inordinate passion for power, not only unjustifiable, but which
they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution
of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest
where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length,
deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic
purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby
rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from
reason to arms.” They set forth the happy results of the union
as it had previously existed; the injustice of the enactments
imposed by parliament; the rejection of their petitions; the
unprovoked attacks made by the British troops at Lexington and
Concord; the perfidy of Gage towards the inhabitants of Boston,
and the fear of an invasion from Canada. Finally they declared that:
although “resolved to die freemen rather than live slaves,” they
had no intention of dissolving the union. “We have not,” they
1 Annual Register, vol. xviii, pp. 134-137. Bancroft, vol. vii, pp. 406-4385.
196 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
said, “raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from
Great Britain and 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.”* On the 8th of
July, the petition to the king, drawn up by Dickinson, was laid
before the congress. Its tone was loyal and temperate, but
somewhat indefinite. It expressed a general desire for reconcilia-
tion, but did not contain any explicit statement of grievances.
But it mattered little what the petition contained. The only
acceptable address which the colonies could have presented
would have been summed up in two words, “ We submit,” and
those words the colonists were determined the king should never
hear. At the same time they sent an address to the inhabitants
of Great Britain. They appealed to their love of freedom; they
repeated their avowals of loyalty, and warned them of the hope-
lessness of war, reminding them that success, even if “it. were
possible, would be useless. They sent a letter to the Lord Mayor
and the Corporation of London, thanking them for their advocacy.
These documents were sent with a letter of instructions to Penn
and to the colony agents in London. Addresses were also drawn
up to the people of Jamaica and Ireland, and on the 31st July a
resolution was passed, formally condemning Lord North’s concili-
atory scheme. On the 30th of June, a committee was appointed
to prepare “ proper talks to the several tribes of Indians,” and on
the 13th of July they laid before the congress a “ talk,” represent-
ing the state of affairs between the colonies and the mother
country, and likening themselves to a child, whose father had
been persuaded by servants to load him with too heavy a
pack.”
As a means of organising national resistance, the congress had
been eminently successful. As an instrument for governing an
empire and conducting a war, it seemed in danger of being a
1 Journal of Congress, pp. 120-129.
2 Journal of Congress, pp. 116, 130-149, 154-166, 172-182, 188-195.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 197
failure. Hitherto it had been a deliberative and advisatory body,
now it was called on to exercise legislative powers, without any
strictly defined limits to its authority, or any recognised basis on
which that authority should rest. Not only had the congress no
power to pass laws, but it had no means of executing them. It
was at war with the existing executive, yet unwilling to take the
decisive step of creating an executive of its own. In the camp
this weakness was especially felt. The rolls promised seventeen
thousand men, but there were never more than fourteen thousand
five hundred fit for duty. After all possible exertions, the supply
of powder was insufficient. The troops, though undoubtedly
brave, were utterly undisciplined, and the officers possessed no
authority. Courts-martial had to be frequently held, and Wash-
ington’s life was “one continued round of vexation and fatigue.” }
Nor was the brilliant promise of success opened by the capture
of Ticonderoga fulfilled. On the 18th of May, as we have seen,
congress had been apprised that danger was to be apprehended
from Canada, On the 13th of May, a letter written by Arnold
from Crown Point was laid before congress, informing them that
there were four hundred regulars at St John’s in readiness to cross
the lake, and expecting to be joined by a number of Indians,
with the design of retaking Crown Point and Ticonderoga. It
was thereupon decided that reinforcements should be sent to the
garrisons at both those places, and other preparations made for
their defence.? The position of congress was a difficult one. To
attack Canada was to abandon the position of unaggressive re-
sistance which the colonists had hitherto occupied; to neglect it
might be to allow the enemy to gain a fatal advantage. Carleton,
the governor of Canada, had been furnished with special powers
to embody and arm the Canadians, to employ them out of the
country against the other colonists, and to deal summarily with
all whom he might deem rebels. Under these circumstances,
to anticipate his attack seemed necessary as a measure of self-
1 Bancroft, vol. viii., pp. 44, 45. 2 Journal of Congress, pp. 64-66.
3 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 2, 3.
198 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE,
defence. That such an attempt on their part would be successful,
they had good grounds for believing. The generality of the in-
habitants were discontented under their new government, and
were, it was generally believed, disposed to identify their own
interests with those of the rest of the colonies.1 Accordingly,
three thousand men were sent out under the command of
Schuyler and Montgomery.” Schuyler was a man of considerable
social influence, honest, laborious, and patriotic, but wanting in
enterprise; a civilian in his tastes and habits, and utterly unfit
to become a general at a month’s notice.* He, however, fell
sick, and the command devolved on his colleague. Montgomery
was an Irishman who had served with distinction in the Seven
Years’ War. Thinking that his claims had been unfairly passed
over, he changed the career of a soldier for a life of studious re-
tirement on a New York farm. His marriage had connected him
with the Livingstones, an influential and patriotic New York
family. Like all the great champions of American liberty, he
did not seek command, but was sought by it. He left his farm,
his newly married wife, and his books, in obedience to “the will
of an oppressed people, compelled to choose between liberty and
slavery.”* Early in September, Montgomery laid siege to St
John’s. The garrison numbered between six hundred and seven
hundred men, of whom about five hundred were regulars.
At first Montgomery’s operations were impeded by want of
powder. Bya bold stroke he obtained possession of the small
fort of Chambley, and captured one hundred and twenty barrels
of powder. Schuyler, though incapacitated for active service,
took care that reinforcements of troops and abundant supplies of
provisions should be sent up. In the meantime, Carleton had
been making efforts to relieve St John’s. With a motley force,
composed principally of Canadians, with a few regulars and some
English volunteers, he marched from Montreal. He had arranged
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 3.
2 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 4. * Bancroft, vol. viii, p. 29.
4 Bancroft, vol. viii, p. 178. Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 15.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 199,
to effect a junction with M‘Lean, a Scotch officer, who had béen
raising a regiment among his countrymen, many of whom had
recently emigrated into Canada, and had not yet settled. But
Montgomery had been beforehand with him, and sent detachments
to prevent the junction. Carleton’s force was easily repulsed, and
M'Lean, finding the case hopeless, retreated to Quebec. On the
3d of November, St John’s capitulated. The garrison laid down
their arms, and were sent as prisoners into the provinces. !
The success of the American armies in Canada had not, how-
ever, been unbroken. Allen, the captor of Ticonderoga, had taken
in hand another enterprise equally wild, but not, like his former
one, justified by success. He had been sent to raise a force to
join Montgomery, and had collected about one hundred and ten
men. But instead of joining the army with them, he bethought
him of capturing Montreal. While yet on his march, a mixed
force of Indians and Canadians of about four times his own
strength fell upon him. Most of his men made good their
escape, but Allen himself with thirty-eight others was taken
prisoner. ?
From St John’s, Montgomery proceeded to Montreal. The
inhabitants at once offered to come to terms, which Montgomery
refused. In answer, however, to their proposal, he pledged him-
self, if they surrendered, not to interfere with their civil and
religious rights, and to protect their property. His terms satis-
fied the citizens, and on the 13th of November, Montreal sur-
rendered.®
The English hopes in Canada now centred in Quebec. Before
Montgomery could reach that fortress, it was threatened by
another force. Arnold, in command of one thousand one hundred
men, had started from the mouth of the Kennebec, and marched
up the course of the stream. For thirty-one days, he and his
troops travelled through a wilderness without seeing a human
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 5-7.
2 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 5. Bancroft, vol. viii., pp. 183, 184.
3 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 7.
200 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
being. Woods, swamps, and precipices, all barred their path.
Sometimes they could not travel more than four or five miles a
day. Their supplies failed. They were reduced to eating their
dogs. Their clothes were torn by the thickets through which
they struggled. On the march, the force was diminished by the
desertion of three companies. "When they reached Canada, they
were but two-thirds of their original number. Once in Canada,
they were received everywhere with good will and hospitality.
Arnold, following the example of Montgomery and Schuyler,
published an address signed by Washington, inviting the Can-
adians to join them, and promising them safety and protection.
In a little less than three weeks afterwards, Arnold was joined
by Montgomery. In spite of the supplies of clothing which
Montgomery had obtained at Montreal, his troops had suffered
severely from the inclement weather. By this time the immi-
nence of danger had united the hitherto discordant and discon-
tented inhabitants of Quebec. Montgomery finding that the
town was likely to hold out, and that both his supplies and
artillery were insufficient for a siege, proposed to try a storming
party. On the 16th of December a council of war was held, and
an assault was determined on. On the last night of the old
year, Montgomery led the storming party, consisting of three
hundred New Yorkers, That they might know one another in
the darkness, they had pieces of white paper on their caps
inscribed, “Death or Liberty.” There was a strong north-east
wind. The hail drove in their eyes, and they slipped on the
frozen snow. The first position to be won was guarded by a
battery of two three-pounders. When the Americans were
within fifty yards, a cannonade of grape shot swept the path, and
Montgomery fell dead. The grape shot was followed up by a
discharge of musketry, and the storming party retreated. On
the north-west side, the attack had at first been successful,
Arnold had been carried off wounded at the first battery, but
Morgan, a brave Virginian, had taken his place, and after a fierce
engagement of an hour, had carried the battery. But by the
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 201.
time they had reached the next barricade, the garrison had
recovered their surprise, while the arms of the assailants were
rendered almost useless by the storm. Retreat was impossible.
On both sides they were exposed to heavy fire, and the troops
who had opposed Montgomery were now disengaged. Taken in
flank and rear, all hope of escape was gone, and at ten o'clock
the next morning, they surrendered. Sixty men had fallen in
the assault, and between three hundred and four hundred were
taken prisoners,?
In the death of Montgomery the American cause sustained an
irreparable loss. Congress honoured him with the expression of
“their profound respect and high veneration,” and directed a
marble monument to his “glory.” In parliament his memory
was eulogised, and even his enemies could only charge him
with having undone his country by his virtues. Barré, his
countryman and once his companion in arms, wept as he dwelt
on his greatness. Burke contrasted him with the English com-
manders in Boston, and Fox retorted on those who called him a
rebel, by reminding them that the House of Commons itself owed
its existence to a rebellion.?
For the next three months, Arnold continued the blockade.
More than once he attempted to set fire to the town and the ships
in the harbour, intending to attack the town in the confusion,
but although considerable damage was done, no decisive ad-
vantage was gained. The appearance of small-pox in the be-
siegers’ camp created, as it always did in America, a panic, like
that caused by the plague in Europe. The discipline of the New
England troops, always defective, became yet worse under this
trial. Besides, Arnold was ill supported both by congress and by
the inhabitants of Canada. Could Quebec only hold out till the
ice broke up, and till ships could arrive from England, it would
be safe. That succour came before the blockaders expected it,
On the 6th of May, English ships appeared in the river. The
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 8-15. Bancroft, vol. viii., pp. 190-212,
2 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 15. Bancroft, vol. viii., p. 212.
202 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. .
besiegers, utterly unprepared for such intervention, were thrown
into confusion. Immediately Carleton ordered a sally. The
Americans retreated precipitately, abandoning their artillery
stores and scaling ladders. The governor, however, was too
weak to pursue them, and only the sick and wounded became
prisoners. Although Carleton had shown a lack of skill and
readiness in protecting the frontier of Canada, his defence of
Quebec fully retrieved his military fame. But what is still more
to his honour, is his humanity to the “rebels.” Many of the
sick and wounded were scattered through the woods and villages,
and were in danger of perishing through famine or disease. To
save them from such a fate, he issued a proclamation giving
orders that they should be sought for and relieved at the public
expense, and that as soon as they were sufficiently recovered, they
should be at liberty to return to their respective provinces.’
Nor should it be forgotten that he had done his utmost to deprive
an unnatural war of its worst features, by preventing incursions
of Indians on the New England frontiers.*
In Virginia, Dunmore had shown a widely different spirit.
Not content with following Gage’s example of seizing the public
store of powder, he set spring guns about the magazine® Further
outrages followed. reading, not unnaturally, though it would
seem without foundation, the revenge of the people, he took
up his quarters on board a man-of-war, and refused to land.
The assembly, on their part, refused to transact business on board
ship. Various messages passed between them, till at last the
assembly, seeing that the governor was immovable, dissolved, and
the legislation of Virginia was at an end.* The governor then
commenced his campaign. His programme was to exhibit to the
colonists the spectacle of an English nobleman, the ruler of an
ancient and important colony, carrying on a guerilla warfare
against his own subjects, plundering their plantations, burning
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 145-153. 2 Bancroft, vol. viii, p. 186.
* Wirt, pp. 168, 169. Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 21.
4 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 21-26.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 203
their houses, and raising their slaves against them. The emanci-
pation of the negroes certainly seemed strange policy for a govern-
ment, that only five years back had so resolutely opposed any
approach to such a measure. Possibly Dunmore and the king
argued that the crime of freeing a negro was compensated for
by the merit of employing him to enslave a white man. On the
governor’s proclamation being issued, several hundreds of blacks
and whites flocked to his standard. On the 9th of December,
hostilities commenced. The colonists were entrenched in a posi-
tion defended by a narrow causeway. Captain Fordyce, at the
head of upwards of sixty grenadiers, attempted to carry the
causeway. They were met by a heavy fire in front and on the
left flank. Fordyce fell, and his troops, after a brave resistance,
were beaten back, having lost fully half their number.’ The
loyalists took to their ships, and lay off the coast of Norfolk. On
the 21st of December, a man-of-war and a brig from England
arrived. They brought three thousand stands of arms, for which
Dunmore had promised to provide negroes and Indians. A flag
of truce was sent on shore to demand provisions for the ships,
which were refused. The governor, after consulting Belew, the
captain of the man-of-war, resolved that the town should be bom-
barded. On the Ist of January 1776, a cannonade was opened.
Parties of sailors landed under cover of the ship’s guns, and set
fire to the town, and by the evening Norfolk, the richest city in
Virginia, was a heap of ashes.”
What, meanwhile, was the condition of things in England ?
How far had the report of Bunker’s Hill dispelled those vain
hopes with which the English parliament had rushed headlong
into war? One would have supposed that the hardiest reviler of
the Americans must have seen by this time how utterly unfounded
were his anticipations. The disasters of the war were not con-
fined to defeats by land. Supplies had been sent out in the most
lavish manner during the autumn of 1775. Five thousand oxen
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 29. Bancroft, vol. viii., pp. 226, 227.
2 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 29-31.. Bancroft, vol. viii., pp. 228-230.
204 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
and fourteen thousand sheep, with a vast number of pigs, had
been shipped alive. Beer, and vegetables, and vinegar had been
sent out at a cost of £22,000. Half a million of specie was
remitted. With the mismanagement which had throughout
characterised the conduct of the war, the ships were sent out too
late in the year for the voyage to be safe. Some were wind-
bound on the English coast, others stopped by storms. The
channel was strewn with dead bodies of sheep and pigs. Nor was
the fate of the ships that reached America better. Some were
driven ashore on the West Indies, or captured by American
privateers. A small proportion arrived at Boston, and these,
with their cargoes, rendered almost worthless by the length and
severity of the voyage! The Fishery Act, like all the other coer-
cive measures adopted by England, had recoiled on her own
head. It had cut off supplies from our own fisheries, and thrown
the whole trade of Newfoundland into confusion.2, The Duke of
Grafton had the candour to confess, when resigning his office,
that he had been led to sanction the government policy by gross
misrepresentation and concealment of facts; that events had
taught him wisdom, and that he now saw that the only plan to
avert the most destructive and fatal consequences would be to
place the Americans in the same position as they occupied in
1763.3 The prospect of diminished taxation, which had led the
country gentry to go heart and soul into the war, was lamentably
reversed. On the 13th of November, Lord North moved that the
land tax for the ensuing year should be five shillings in the
pound‘ Yet the country was willing to pay this price for the
triumph of destroying its own colonies. It was even willing to
go about hiring troops at an extortionate price from every petty
prince in Germany to fight against its own fellow-subjects. One
influence which tended to keep up this state of things was that
of the public journals. The partisans of government studiously
filled them not merely with attacks on the opposition, but with
1 Annnal Register, vol. xix., pp. 51, 52. 2 Annnal Register, vol. xix., p. 49,
3 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 69, 70, 4 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 99.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 205
charges as ludicrous as malignant. A number of peers and emi-
nent commoners had been detected in treasonable correspondence,
and the country might soon hope to see the Tower filled with
persons of rank, and a full harvest of impeachments and punish-
ments succeed. One incident that occurred in the autumn of
1775, trivial in itself, throws light on the deluded state of the
public mind, and on the artifices which were used to maintain it.
A London banker, of good position by birth, an American, was
seized under a warrant from the Secretary of State, and thrown
into the Tower, on the charge of having suborned some of the
guards to seize the king’s person, and keep him prisoner in the
Tower till he could be removed. The whole history of the
Popish Plot cannot show anything more extravagant. The only
sufferer ultimately was the Secretary of State, who was mulcted
in £1000 damages for false imprisonment, but the rumour at first
excited universal “indignation and horror,” and “absorbed all
other considerations with respect to public affairs.” 1
The petition of congress presented by Penn met with the re-
ception that might have been expected. Moderate and concilia-
tory as it was, it was decided that to entertain any proposals
would be unbecoming the dignity of a great nation, and the peti-
tion was refused an answer. Even an examination of Penn be-
fore the Lords was strenuously resisted.2 His evidence was un-
likely to be tainted by any suspicion of bias towards the Ameri-
cans. His interests, and those of his family, as proprietaries of
Pennsylvania, all led him to wish for the preservation of the
colonies as dependencies. In fact, he united the interests of an
Englishman with the information of an American. Yet so de-
termined were the ministry to stick to one fixed line of policy,
and so resolved to hear nothing that could lead them to modify
it, that they did not make the least attempt to get any informa-
tion from him about the state of America. On his examination,
he assured the House that the colonies had no desire for inde-
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 53-55. ? Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 93, 94.
3 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 96.
206 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE,
pendence, but that, if necessary, they were ready and able to
defend their liberties. In his own colony there were sixty thou-
sand men capable of bearing arms, and that twenty thousand,
mostly men of good fortune and character, had enrolled them-
selves as volunteers. They had the means and the requisite skill
for manufacturing brass cannon and small arms. He warned
them that the colonists had staked their last hope of peace on the
petition, and that if repulsed, they. would probably seek foreign
alliances. At the conclusion of his examination the .Duke of
Richmond, who had proposed it, brought forward a measure for
conciliation on the basis of the petition. After a fierce debate,
the motion went the way of all its predecessors, and was lost by
eighty-six to thirty-three! Six days later Burke made a similar
attempt in the Commons. Taking up his old ground of constitu-
tional policy, he modelled his scheme on the statute of Edward
IIL, De tallagio non concedendo. He deprecated the imputations
cast upon the supporters of America as being deficient in patriot-
ism, or disposed to regard sedition with leniency. He examined
the three possible lines of policy open to England—force, con-
cession, or a combination of the two. The employment of force,
he argued, was impracticable; the arrangements made for it
could not be carried out; the moment our troops marched into
the country, they would be cut off from supplies. A mixed
policy would give no satisfaction to the Americans ; it was useless
to send out pardons to a people who would not accept them.
Concession was the only line of conduct open to us. He pointed
out that the settlement of the question of taxation was an indis-
pensable preliminary to peace. He allowed that the necessity
for surrendering any part of our legislative power was to be re-
gretted, but that it was the inevitable consequence of our inju-
dicious policy. A long debate followed, but the motion was lost.
by a majority of two-thirds in a house of three hundred and
fifteen.2 On the 20th the fight was renewed over the Prohibitory’
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 95-99.
? Annual Register, vol, xix., pp. 104-107. Burke’s Works, vol. iii, pp. 23-132.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 207
Bill of the ministry. The object of this bill was to cut off all
trade and intercourse with the thirteen united colonies. It em-
powered the officers of the king’s ships to capture all American
goods and ships, whether in harbour or on the high seas, and to
impress all Americans that should be taken prisoners. The
goods so seized were to become the property of the captors.
At the same time, it enabled the crown to appoint commis-
sioners, who should have power to grant special exemptions from
the conditions of the act to such colonies as should have re-
turned to their allegiance. The opposition denounced the mea-
sure as “a cruel, indiscriminate, and perpetual declaration of
war.” They represented that it would compel the Americans to
convert their merchant ships into privateers, and would thereby
endanger our commerce in every quarter of the globe. They
ridiculed the idea of holding out offers of pardon to men “ who
acknowledged no crime, and were conscious, not of doing, but
of suffering wrong.” The clause which vested the property of
seizures in the captors was denounced as lowering our sailors
to the level of pirates. One speaker proposed that the bill
should be entitled, “A Bill for carrying more effectually into exe-
cution the resolves of Congress.”1 In the Upper House the
bill met with equally severe treatment. To compel the captured
Americans to serve on board our vessels, was described as “a
refinement in tyranny, which, in a sentence worse than death,
obliges the unhappy men who shall be made captives in this
predatory war to bear arms against their families, kindred, friends,
and country ; and after being plundered themselves, to become
accomplices in plundering their brethren.” Mansfield, in reply-
ing to these charges, hardily avowed that the time for all consi-
derations of justice was past ; we were in the war, and must fight
it out; and he quoted the speech of a Scotch officer in the
army of Gustavus Adolphus, who, pointing to the enemy, said to
his men, “See you those, lads ? kill them, or they will kill you ;”
T Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 109-112.
208 THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE.
an illustration the main defect of which was its total inapplica-
bility? :
On the 20th of February, Fox brought forward a motion
attacking the ministry, not for their policy, but for the inefficient
and extravagant manner in which that policy had been carried
out. The defence they set up is interesting, as illustrating,
perhaps, more forcibly than anything which we have yet seen,
the principles which they applied to the case of America. The
failure of our arms was due, not to mismanagement or even mis-
fortune, but to our clemency and desire for conciliation, of which
the Americans had taken an unworthy and base advantage. The
failure of the war, so far, would only show to the world “the
lenity, forbearance, and temperate justice of our government,
and the incorrigible turpitude of the colonists.”* The defeat at
Concord was, it seems, due to the conciliatory spirit shown by
Gage and his troops. Truly, if to blockade the colonists’ ports, to
cut off their fisheries, to place them under martial law, and to let
loose on them bands of negroes and Red Indians were measures
of lenity and conciliation, while the serious business of coercion
had yet to begin, the Americans had no need to justify their
rebellion.
On the 4th of March, the aspect of American affairs reached its
culminating point. The Duke of Grafton moved in the House of
Lords that a proclamation should be issued, declaring that if the
colonists should, within a certain time, present a petition, setting
forth their grievances, hostility should be suspended, and their
petition taken into consideration. He pointed out that to
adhere to the principle of requiring unqualified submission was,
in the present state of things, simply an open declaration of war.
He also warned his hearers, that the Americans had already
commenced negotiations with France, and that to drive them to
extremities would probably involve us in a foreign war. The
debate was long and fierce, and the ground taken up by the
1 Annual Register, vol. xix., pp. 118, 119.
2 Annual Register, vol. xix., p. 130.
THE CONTEST FOR INDEPENDENCE. 209
ministerial party more decided than ever.. The Declaration of
Independence was the only thing needed to make America and
England two belligerent powers.
At that very time the English arms had sustained the severest
blow that had yet befallen them. The army in Boston numbered
eight thousand men. Their supplies from England had, as we
have seen, failed, and a famine in the West Indies cut off their
hope of relief from that quarter.2 The American army, on the
other hand, was well supplied both with provisions and clothing.
But in the means of reducing a strictly garrisoned town they
were miserably deficient. Their supply of powder was insuffi-
cient; their military chest was empty; many of the muskets had
no bayonets, and their artillery was chiefly supplied from prizes
captured by American cruisers’ The last year’s army had
served their time, and the fresh enlistments went on slowly.
Congress starved the army in the matter of money and supplies,
partly through irresolution and dread of action, to some extent
excusable in a body whose position was so indefinite and anoma-
lous, partly through a desire to conciliate the ship-builders by
favouring the navy at the expense of the land force. Neverthe-
less, congress expected bricks without straw, and on the 22d of
December they passed a resolution, and forwarded it to Washing-
ton, authorising him “to attack Boston in any manner that he
might deem expedient.” Hitherto he had never complained, but
his answer was a dignified remonstrance.* Still, ill supplied as
he was, having only a hundred barrels of powder, on the 4th of
March he determined on a bold attempt. After dark, a heavy
bombardment and cannonade commenced from the American
lines, and was kept up on both sides till morning. When day
broke, Howe was met by a sight which showed him that at one
stroke his position had been rendered untenable. About this time, Franklin’s scheme for a confederation
was laid before congress. The scheme did not include, but it
evidently implied independence. Franklin had been throughout
a strenuous advocate of reconciliation, as long as reconciliation
was possible, and his opinion ought to have convinced all that
the time for separation had come. But the timid counsels of his
colleague, Dickinson, overruled the motion, and the scheme of a
confederation was not even formally considered.t On the 16th
of February, the question of opening the ports was formally laid
before congress.© In the next month, measures were taken
which clearly showed that independence was at hand.