the re-assembling of parliament—letters from colonial governors, revenue and military officers, against the colonists opposed to the ministerial policy—the ministry, supported by parliament, determine upon continuing and strengthening the coercive policy against the colonies.

on the re-assembling of parliament in january, 1775, a number of papers were produced from governors, and revenue and military officers in america, which contained various statements adverse to the proceedings and members of the congress, and the opposition to the coercive acts of parliament.

ministers and their supporters were pleased with these papers, which abetted their policy, lauded and caressed their authors, and decided to concede nothing, and continue and strengthen the policy of coercion.

on the 20th of january, the first day of the re-assembling of the lords, lord dartmouth laid the papers received from america before the house. the earl of chatham, after an absence of two years, appeared again in the house with restored health, and with all his former energy and eloquence. he moved:

"that a humble address be presented to his majesty, most humbly to advise and beseech him that, in order to open the way toward a happy settlement of the dangerous troubles in america, by beginning to allay ferments and soften animosities there, and above all for preventing, in the meantime, any sudden catastrophe at boston, now suffering under daily irritation of an army before their eyes, posted in their town, it may graciously please his majesty that immediate orders may be despatched to general gage for removing his majesty's forces[pg 423] from the town of boston as soon as the rigours of the season and other circumstances indispensable to the safety and accommodation of said troops may render the same practicable."

lord chatham advocated his motion in a very pathetic speech, and was supported by speeches by the marquis of rockingham, lords shelburne and camden, and petitions from merchants and manufacturers throughout the kingdom, and most prominently by those of london and bristol. but the motion was negatived by a majority of 63 to 13.

in the course of his speech lord chatham said:

"resistance to your acts was as necessary as it was just; and your imperious doctrine of the omnipotence of parliament and the necessity of submission will be found equally impotent to convince or to enslave.

"the means of enforcing the thraldom are as weak in practice as they are unjust in principle. general gage and the troops under his command are penned up, pining in inglorious inactivity. you may call them an army of safety and of guard, but they are in truth an army of impotence; and to make the folly equal to the disgrace, they are an army of irritation.

"but this tameness, however contemptible, cannot be censured; for the first drop of blood shed in civil and unnatural war will make a wound that years, perhaps ages, may not heal.... the indiscriminate hand of vengeance has lumped together innocent and guilty; with all the formalities of hostility, has blocked up the town of boston, and reduced to beggary and famine thirty thousand inhabitants....

"when your lordships look at the papers transmitted to us from america—when you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your own. for myself, i must avow that in all my reading—and i have read thucydides, and have studied the master-states of the world—for solidity of reason, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion under a complication of difficult circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the general congress of philadelphia. the histories of greece and rome give us nothing equal to it, and all attempts to impose servitude upon such a mighty continental nation must be vain. we shall be forced ultimately to retract; let us retract[pg 424] while we can, not when we must. these violent acts must be repealed; you will repeal them; i pledge myself for it, i stake my reputation upon it, that you will in the end repeal them. avoid, then, this humiliating necessity. with a dignity becoming your exalted station, make the first advance towards concord, peace, and happiness; for that is your true dignity. concession comes with better grace from superior power, and establishes solid confidence on the foundations of affection and gratitude. be the first to spare; throw down the weapons in your hand.

"every motive of justice and policy, of dignity and of prudence, urges you to allay the ferment in america by a removal of your troops from boston, by a repeal of your acts of parliament, and by demonstrating amiable dispositions towards your colonies.... if the ministers persevere in thus misadvising and misleading the king, i will not say that the king is betrayed, but i will pronounce that the kingdom is undone; i will not say that they can alienate the affections of his subjects from his crown, but i will affirm that, the american jewel out of it, they will make the crown not worth his wearing."[354]

the earl of suffolk, with whining vehemence, assured the house that, in spite of lord chatham's prophecy, the government was resolved to repeal not one of the acts, but to use all possible means to bring the americans to obedience; and after declaiming violently against their conduct, boasted as "having been one of the first to advise coercive measures."

ex-lord chancellor camden excelled every other speaker, except lord chatham, in the discussion; he declared in the course of his speech:

"this i will say, not only as a statesman, politician, and philosopher, but as a common lawyer: my lords, you have no right to[pg 425] tax america; the natural rights of man, and the immutable laws of nature, are all with that people. king, lords, and commons are fine-sounding names, but king, lords, and commons may become tyrants as well as others. it is as lawful to resist the tyranny of many as of one. somebody once asked the great selden in what book you might find the law for resisting tyranny. 'it has always been the custom of england,' answered selden, 'and the custom of england is the law of the land.'"

after several other speeches and much recrimination, and a characteristic reply from lord chatham, his motion was rejected by a majority of sixty-eight to eighteen; but the duke of cumberland, the king's own brother, was one of the minority. the king triumphed in what he called "the very handsome majority," and said he was sure "nothing could be more calculated to bring the americans to submission." the king's prediction of "submission" was followed by more united and energetic resistance in the colonies.

but lord chatham, persevering in his efforts of conciliation, notwithstanding the large majority against him, brought in, the 1st of february, a bill entitled "a provisional act for settling the troubles in america, and for asserting the supreme legislative authority and superintending power of great britain over the colonies." the bill, however, was not allowed to be read the first time, or even to lie on the table, but was rejected by a majority of sixty-four to thirty-two—a contempt of the colonists and a discourtesy to the noble mover of the bill without example in the house of lords.

in the meantime, petitions were presented to the commons from various towns in england, scotland, and ireland, by manufacturers and merchants connected with the colonial trade. on the 23rd of january, alderman hayley presented a petition from the merchants of the city of london trading to america, stating at great length the nature and extent of the trade, direct and indirect, between great britain and america, and the immense injury to it by the recent acts of parliament, and praying for relief; but this petition was conveyed to the "committee of oblivion," as were petitions from the merchants of glasgow, liverpool, norwich and other towns, on american affairs. these petitions, together with their advocates in both houses of parliament, showed that the oppressive [pg 426]policy and abuse of the americans were the acts of the ministry of the day, and not properly of the english people.

on the 26th of january, sir george saville offered to present a petition from dr. franklin, mr. bollan, and mr. lee, stating that they had been authorized by the american continental congress to present a petition from the congress to the king, which his majesty had referred to that house, and that they were able to throw great light upon the subject; they therefore prayed to be heard at the bar in support of the petition. after a violent debate the petition was rejected by a majority of 218 to 68.[355]

lord north on the 2nd of february, moved that the house resolve itself into committee on an address to his majesty, thanking him for having communicated to the house the several papers relating to the present state of the british colonies, and from which "we find that a part of his majesty's subjects in[pg 427] the province of massachusetts bay have proceeded so far as to resist the authority of the supreme legislature; that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said province; and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements entered into by his majesty's subjects in several other colonies, to the injury and oppression of many of their innocent fellow-subjects resident within the kingdom of great britain and the rest of his majesty's dominions. this conduct on their part appears to us the more inexcusable when we consider with how much temper his majesty and the two houses of parliament have acted in support of the laws and constitution of great britain; to declare that we can never so far desert the trust reposed in us as to relinquish any part of the sovereign authority over all his majesty's dominions which by law is invested in his majesty and the two houses of parliament, and that the conduct of many persons, in several of the colonies, during the late disturbances, is alone sufficient to convince us how necessary this power is for the protection of the lives and fortunes of all his majesty's subjects; that we ever have been and always shall be ready to pay attention and regard to any real grievances of any of his majesty's subjects, which shall, in a dutiful and constitutional manner, be laid before us; and whenever any of the colonies shall make proper application to us, we shall be ready to afford them every just and reasonable indulgence; but that, at the same time, we consider it our indispensable duty humbly to beseech his majesty to take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature; and that we beg leave, in the most solemn manner, to assure his majesty that it is our fixed resolution, at the hazard of our lives and properties, to stand by his majesty against all rebellious attempts, in the maintenance of the just rights of his majesty and the two houses of parliament."[356]

i have given lord north's proposed address to the king at length, in order that the reader may understand fully the policy of the government at that eventful moment, and the statements on which that policy was founded.

[pg 428]

in relation to this address several things may be observed: 1. there is not the slightest recognition in it that the american colonists have any constitutional rights whatever; they are claimed as the absolute property of king and parliament, irrespective of local charters or legislatures. 2. it is alleged that parliament always had been and would be "ready to pay attention to any real grievances of any of his majesty's subjects which shall, in a dutiful and constitutional manner, be laid before us," when "we shall be ready to afford them every just and reasonable indulgence." yet every one of the hundreds of petitions which had been sent from the colonies to england for the previous ten years, complaining of grievances, was rejected, under one pretext or another, as not having been adopted or transmitted in "a dutiful and constitutional manner." if a legislative assembly proceeded to prepare a petition of grievances to the king, the king's governor immediately dissolved the assembly; and when its members afterwards met in their private capacity and embodied their complaints, their proceedings were pronounced unlawful and seditious. when township, county, and provincial conventions met and expressed their complaints and grievances in resolutions and petitions, their proceedings were denounced by the royal representatives as unlawful and rebellious; and when elected representatives from all the provinces (but georgia) assembled in philadelphia to express the complaints and wishes of all the provinces, their meeting was declared unlawful, and their petition to the king a collection of fictitious statements and rebellious sentiments, though more loyal sentiments to the king, and more full recognition of his constitutional prerogatives were never expressed in any document presented to his majesty. when that petition of the continental congregation was presented to the earl of dartmouth, the head of the colonial department, he said it was a decent and proper document, and he would have pleasure in laying it before the king, who referred it to the house of commons; yet lord north himself and a majority of his colleagues, backed by a majority of the house of commons, rejected that petition, refused to consider its statements and prayers, but instead thereof proposed an address which declared one of the colonies in a state of rebellion, abetted by many in other colonies, advised military force[pg 429] against the colonies, and assured the king that they would stand by his majesty "at the hazard of their lives and properties, against all rebellious attempts" to maintain the assumed rights of his majesty and the two houses of parliament over the colonies. yet not one of them ever afterwards risked a hair of his head in the war which they advised to maintain such rights. 3. it was also as insulting and provoking to the colonists as it was unjust, impolitic, and untrue, to assert that a rebellion "existed in one province of america, and was encouraged by many persons in other colonies;" when not an act of rebellion existed in any colony, but dissatisfaction, meetings to express sentiments and adopt petitions founded upon their declining and agreeing not to buy or drink tea, or buy or wear clothes of english manufacture, until english justice should be done to them—all which they had a right as british subjects to do, and for doing which those were responsible who compelled them to such self-denying acts in the maintenance of constitutional rights which are now recognised as such, at this day, throughout all the colonies of the british empire.

it is not surprising that lord north's motion and statements were severely canvassed in the house of commons. mr. dunning, in reply to lord north, "insisted that america was not in rebellion, and that every appearance of riot, disorder, tumult, and sedition the noble lord had so carefully recounted arose not from disobedience, treason, or rebellion, but was created by the conduct of those whose views were to establish despotism." the attorney-general (thurlow) argued strongly against mr. dunning's position that the americans were not in rebellion, and affirmed the contrary. general grant said "he had served in america, knew the americans well, and was certain they would not fight; they would never dare to fight an english army; they did not possess any of the qualifications necessary to make good soldiers; and that a very slight force would be more than sufficient for their complete reduction. he repeated many of their commonplace expressions, ridiculed their enthusiasm in religion, and drew a disagreeable picture of their manners and ways of living."

mr. fox entered fully into the question; pointed out the injustice, the inexpediency, the folly of the motion; prophesied defeat on one side of the water, and ruin and punishment on[pg 430] the other. he said, among other things, "the reason why the colonies objected to taxes by parliament for revenue was, that such revenue, in the hands of government, took out of the hands of the people that were to be governed that control which every englishman thinks he ought to have over the government to which his rights and interests are entrusted." he moved an amendment to omit all the motion but the three first lines, and to substitute: "but deploring that the information which they (the papers) had afforded served only to convince the house that the measures taken by his majesty's servants tended rather to widen than to heal the unhappy differences which had so long subsisted between great britain and america, and praying a speedy alteration of the same."

a long debate ensued; after which the house divided on mr. fox's amendment, which was lost by a majority of 304 to 105. lord north's motion was then adopted by a majority of 296 to 106.

thus was war virtually proclaimed by the british ministry of the day and the parliament (not by the people) of great britain against the colonies.

on the 6th of february the report of lord north's address was made to the house, when lord john cavendish moved to recommit the proposed address agreed to in the committee. he strongly recommended the reconsideration of a measure which he deemed fraught with much mischief. he commented on the proposed address; thought it improper to assert that rebellion exists; mentioned the insecurity created by the act changing the government of massachusetts bay; said the inhabitants knew not for a moment under what government they lived.

a long discussion ensued. on the side of absolute prerogative, and of subduing the colonies to it by military force, spoke mr. grenville, captain harvey, sir william mayne, mr. stanley, mr. adam, mr. scott, the solicitor-general (wedderburn, who grossly insulted dr. franklin before the privy council), mr. mackworth, and mr. sawbridge. for the recommitting the address, and in favour of a conciliatory policy towards the colonies, spoke, besides lord john cavendish, the mover, mr. lumley, the lord mayor of london, rt. hon. t. townshend, mr. jolyffe, lord truham, governor johnstone, mr. burke, and colonel barré.

[pg 431]

a conference was held between the lords and commons, and the address was made the joint address of both houses of parliament and presented to the king the 9th of february; to which the king replied as follows:

"my lords and gentlemen,—i thank you for this very dutiful address, and for the affectionate and solemn assurances you give me of your support in maintaining the just rights of my crown and of the two houses of parliament; and you may depend on my taking the most speedy and effectual measures for enforcing due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature. when any of my colonies shall make a proper and dutiful application, i shall be ready to concur with you in affording them every just and reasonable indulgence; and it is my ardent wish that this disposition on our part may have a happy effect on the temper and conduct of my subjects in america."

the "disposition" of "indulgence," shown by parliament was simply the enforcement of its declaratory act of absolute power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and "the proper and dutiful application of any colony" was simply a renunciation of all they had claimed as their constitutional rights—a penitent prayer of forgiveness for having avowed and maintained those rights, and of submitting all their rights and interests to the absolute and merciful consideration of the king and his parliament, and that in the presence of the parliamentary enactments and royal institutions of the previous ten years. during those years, the parliament, with royal consent, had passed acts to tax the colonies without representation, ignoring their own representative legislatures; had imposed duties on goods imported to be enforced by courts which deprived the colonists of the privilege of trial by jury; had made by act of parliament, without trial, the city of boston not only responsible for tea destroyed by seventeen individuals, but blocked up its port not only until the money was paid, but until the city authorities should give guarantee satisfactory to the king that the tea and other revenue acts should be enforced—a proceeding unprecedented and unparalleled in the annals of british history. even in more arbitrary times, when the cities of london, glasgow, and edinburgh were made responsible for property lawlessly destroyed within their limit, it was only[pg 432] until after trial in each case, in which those cities had an opportunity of defence, and in neither case was the trade of the city prohibited and destroyed. but the british ministry and parliament proceeded still further by superseding the most essential provisions of the charter of the province of massachusetts, and changing its whole constitution of government—a high-handed act of arbitrary government which had not been attempted by either charles the first or charles the second in regard to the same colony; for when charges were brought, in 1632, against the massachusetts authorities, for having violated the charter, charles the first appointed a commission, gave the accused a trial, which resulted in their acquittal and promised support by the king; and when they were accused again in 1634, the king did not forthwith cancel their charter, but issued a second commission, which, however, never reported, in consequence of the commencement of the civil war in england, which resulted in the death of the king. then, in the restoration, when charges were preferred, by parties without as well as within the province, against the government of massachusetts, king charles the second appointed a commission to examine into the complaints, and at length tested their acts by trial in the highest courts of law, and by whose decision their first charter was cancelled for repeated and even habitual violations of it. but without a trial, or even commission of inquiry, the king and parliament changed the constitution of the province as well as extinguished the trade of its metropolis.

footnotes:

[354] when the words of lord chatham were reported to the king, his majesty was "stung to the heart," and was greatly enraged, denouncing lord chatham as an "abandoned politician," "the trumpet of sedition," and classified him with temple and grenville as "void of gratitude." the king repelled and hated every statesman who advised him to conciliate the colonists by recognising them as having the rights of british subjects. he was the prompter of the most violent measures against them, and seemed to think that their only rights and duties were to obey whatever he might command and the parliament declare.

[355] dr. franklin had been postmaster-general for america. when he assumed the office the expenditure exceeded the receipts by ￡3,000 a year; under his administration the receipts gradually increased so as to become a source of revenue. the day after his advocacy of the american petitions before the privy council, he was dismissed from office. referring to the manner in which american petitions and their agents were treated by the british government, dr. franklin expressed himself as follows, in a letter to the hon. thomas cushing, speaker of the house of representatives of massachusetts:

"when i see that all petitions and complaints of grievances are so odious to government that even the mere pipe which conveys them becomes obnoxious, i am at a loss to know how peace and union is to be maintained or restored between the different parts of the empire. grievances cannot be redressed unless they are known; and they cannot be known but through complaints and petitions. if these are deemed affronts, and the messengers punished as offenders, who will henceforth send petitions? and who will deliver them? it has been thought a dangerous thing in any state to stop up the vent of griefs. wise governments have therefore generally received petitions with some indulgence even when but slightly founded. those who think themselves injured by their rulers are sometimes, by a mild and prudent answer, convinced of their error. but where complaining is a crime, hope becomes despair." (collections of massachusetts historical society.)

(yet the government of massachusetts, under the first charter, pronounced petitions a crime, and punished as criminals those who petitioned against the governmental acts which denied them the right of worship or elective franchise because they were non-congregationalists.)

[356] parliamentary register for 1775, p. 134.