Chapter XI: Front Matter (11)

This discourse was from the text, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.”[425] After announcing that “perhaps the annals of history have never afforded a more grateful spectacle to a benevolent and philosophic mind than the growth and progress of the British Colonies in North America,” the preacher becomes prophet, and here his words are memorable:--

“The Colonies in North America have not only taken root and
acquired strength, but seem hastening with an accelerated
progress to such a powerful state _as may introduce a new and
important change in human affairs_.”[426]

Then picturing the Colonies as receiving “by inheritance all the improvements and discoveries of their mother country,”--commencing “their flourishing state at a time when the human understanding has attained to the free use of its powers, and has learned to act with vigor and certainty,” and being in such a situation that “they may avail themselves not only of the experience and industry, but even of the errors and mistakes of former days,” the prophet proceeds:--

“The vast continent itself, over which they are gradually
spreading, may be considered as a treasure yet untouched of
natural productions _that shall hereafter afford ample matter
for commerce and contemplation_. And if we reflect what a stock
of knowledge may be accumulated by the constant progress of
industry and observation, … _it is difficult even to imagine to
what height of improvement their discoveries may extend_.”[427]

The prophet opens another vista: “And perhaps they may make as considerable _advances in the arts of civil government_ and the conduct of life.” Then, exhibiting the excellences of the British Constitution with its “equal representation,” which he calls “the best discovery of political wisdom,” and inquiring anxiously if they “must rest here, as in the utmost effort of human genius,” the preacher becomes again prophetic:--

“May they not possibly be more successful than their mother
country has been in preserving that reverence and authority
which is due to the laws,--to those who make, and to those
who execute them? May not a method be invented of procuring
some tolerable share of the comforts of life to those inferior
useful ranks of men to whose industry we are indebted for the
whole? _Time and discipline may discover some means to correct
the extreme inequalities of condition between the rich and
the poor, so dangerous to the innocence and the happiness of
both._”[428]

Beautiful words! And in the same spirit the prophet discerns increasing opportunities of progress:--

“The diversity of new scenes and situations, which so many
growing states must necessarily pass through, _may introduce
changes in the fluctuating opinions and manners of men which
we can form no conception of_. And not only the gracious
disposition of Providence, but the visible preparation of
causes, _seems to indicate strong tendencies towards a general
improvement_.”[429]

To a spirit so elevated the obligations of duty are the same for nations as for individuals, and he nobly vindicates the duty of the Christian preacher “to point out the laws of justice and equity which must ultimately regulate the happiness of states as well as of individuals,” and which he declares “are no other than those benevolent Christian morals which it is the province of this Society to teach, transferred from the duties of private life to the administration of public affairs.”[430] Then again he declares amazement, in which all but hardened politicians will unite, at seeing “how slowly in all countries the principles of natural justice, which are so evidently necessary in private life, have been admitted into the administration of public affairs.” And, in the same spirit, he announces:--

“A time, I doubt not, will come, in the progressive improvement
of human affairs, when the checks and restraints we lay on the
industry of our fellow-subjects and the jealousies we conceive
at their prosperity will be considered as the effects of a
mistaken policy, prejudicial to all parties, but chiefly to
ourselves.”[431]

Then, after presenting it as “a noble effort of virtuous ambition … to make our country great and powerful and rich, not by force or fraud, but by justice, friendship, and humanity,” this remarkable sermon concludes with calling attention to “the plain good rules so often repeated to us in Scripture,” which “lie before the eyes of men like medicinal herbs in the open field.”[432]

In the course of his remarks, the preacher lets drop words often quoted since, and doubtless considered much in conversation with Franklin. After setting forth that the Colonies had “been trusted in a good measure with the entire management of their affairs,” he proceeds to say: “And the success they have met with ought to be to us an ever-memorable proof that _the true art of government consists in not governing too much_.”[433]

In similar spirit the good Bishop came to the defence of Massachusetts, in the crisis which followed the nullification of the Tea-Tax,--as witness an able pamphlet, printed in 1774, entitled “A Speech intended to have been spoken on the Bill for altering the Charters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.” In this most vigorous production, reported by Franklin as “a masterpiece of eloquence,”[434] where he pleads for reconciliation, after announcing that England had drawn from the Colonies, by commerce, “more clear profit than Spain has drawn from all its mines,”[435] he says: “Let them continue to enjoy the liberty our fathers gave them. Gave them, did I say? They are coheirs of liberty with ourselves; and their portion of the inheritance has been much better looked after than ours.”[436] Then again: “My Lords, I look upon North America as the only great nursery of freemen now left upon the face of the earth.”[437] And yet once more: “But whatever may be our future fate, the greatest glory that attends this country, a greater than any other nation ever acquired, is to have formed and nursed up to such a state of happiness those Colonies whom we are now so eager to butcher.”[438] Thanks, perpetual thanks, to the good friend who stood so well by our country in its beginning, and discerned so clearly its exalted future!

DEAN TUCKER, 1774.

In contrast with Shipley was his contemporary, Josiah Tucker, also of the Church, who was born 1712, and died 4th November, 1799.

The contrast is more curious, when it is considered that Tucker, like Shipley, was for the peaceful separation of the Colonies from the mother country; but the former was biting and cynical, while the latter was sympathetic and kind. The former sent forth a succession of criticisms as from the tub of Diogenes, while the latter, with genial power, vindicated America and predicted its future. The former was a carping censor and enemy of Franklin; the latter, his loving friend.

Tucker was rector of a church in Bristol and Dean of Gloucester, and he announces that he had “written near three hundred sermons, and preached them all again and again”;[439] but it was by political essays that he made his name known and became a conspicuous gladiator.

Here it is easy to recognize industry, facility, boldness. He was not afraid to speak out, nor did he shrink from coping with those who commanded the public attention,--joining issue directly with Burke, “in answer to his printed speech, _said to be spoken_ in the House of Commons on the 22d of March, 1775,”[440] being that famous masterpiece, on “Conciliation with America,” so much read, so often quoted, and so highly placed among the efforts of human genius. The Dean used plain language, charging the great orator with excelling “in the art of ambiguous expressions,” and at all times having one general end in view, “to amuse with tropes and figures and great swelling words,” and hoping, that, while emulating the freedom of Burke in examining the writings and opinions of others, he should do it “with more decency and good manners.”[441] More than once the Dean complains that the orator had classed him by name with what he called “court vermin.”[442]

As early as 1766, in the heats of the Stamp Act, he entered the lists by an unamiable pamphlet, entitled “A Letter from a Merchant in London to his Nephew in North America, relative to the Present Posture of Affairs in the Colonies.” Here appears the vigorous cynicism of his nature. The mother country is vindicated, and the Colonies are told that “the complaint of being unrepresented is entirely false and groundless,” inasmuch as every member of Parliament, when once chosen, becomes “the equal guardian of all,” and “_our_ Birminghams, Manchesters, Leeds, Halifaxes, &c., and _your_ Bostons, New Yorks, and Philadelphias are all as _really_, though not so nominally, represented as any part whatsoever of the British Empire.”[443] In the same spirit he ridiculed the pretensions of the Colonists, putting into their mouths the words: “What! an Island! a spot such as this to command the great and mighty Continent of North America! Preposterous! A Continent, whose inhabitants double every five-and-twenty years! who, therefore, within a century and an half will be upwards of an hundred and twenty millions of souls! Forbid it, Patriotism, forbid it, Politics, that such a great and mighty Empire as this should be held in subjection by the paltry Kingdom of Great Britain! _Rather let the seat of empire be transferred; and let it be fixed where it ought to be, namely, in Great America!_”[444] And then declaring “the calculations themselves both false and absurd,” taunting the Colonists with inability to make the mother country “a province of America,” and depicting the evils that will ensue to them from separation, he announces, that, “having been surfeited with the bitter fruits of American Republicanism, they will heartily wish and petition to be again united to the mother country.”[445]

As the conflict approached, the Dean became more earnest and incessant. In 1774 he published a book entitled “Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects,” of which the third was a reprint of the “Letter from a Merchant in London,” and the fourth was a new appeal, entitled “The True Interest of Great Britain set forth in regard to the Colonies, and the only Means of Living in Peace and Harmony with them,”--“including Five different Plans for effecting this Desirable Event.”[446] Here he openly proposed separation, and predicted its advantage to England. On general grounds he was persuaded that extensive colonies were an evil rather than an advantage, especially to a commercial nation, while he was satisfied of a present alienation on the part of America, which it would be unprofitable, if not perilous, to combat. England was in no mood for such truth, and the author was set down as madman or quack. Evidently he was a prophet.

A few passages will show the character of this remarkable production.

“It is the nature of them all [colonies] to aspire after
independence, and to set up for themselves as soon as ever they
find that they are able to subsist without being beholden to
the mother country.”[447]

True enough, and often said by others. In dealing with the different plans the Dean shows originality. To the idea of compulsion by arms he exclaimed: “But, alas! victory alone is but a poor compensation for all the blood and treasure which must be spilt.”[448] The scheme numbered Fourth was nothing less than “to consent that America should become the general seat of empire, and that Great Britain and Ireland should be governed by viceroys sent over from the court residences either at Philadelphia or New York, or at some other American imperial city,”--to which the indefatigable Dean replies:--

“Now, wild as such a scheme may appear, there are certainly
some Americans who seriously embrace it; and the late
prodigious swarms of emigrants encourage them to suppose that a
time is approaching when the seat of empire must be changed.
But, whatever events may be in the womb of Time, or whatever
revolutions may happen in the rise and fall of empires, there
is not the least probability that this country should ever
become a province to North America: … unless, indeed, we should
add one extravagance to another, by supposing that these
American heroes are to conquer all the world; and in that case
I do allow that England must become a province to America.”[449]

Then comes the Fifth Scheme, which was, “To propose to separate entirely from the North American Colonies, by declaring them to be a free and independent people, over whom we lay no claim, and then by offering to guaranty this freedom and independence against all foreign invaders whatever.”[450] And he proceeds to show that by such separation the mother country would not lose the trade of the Colonies. His unamiable nature flares out in the suggestions, that, “the moment a separation takes effect, intestine quarrels will begin,” and that, “in proportion as their factious republican spirit shall intrigue and cabal, shall split into parties, divide and subdivide, in the same proportion shall we be called in to become their general umpires and referees,”[451] while his confidence in the result is declared: “And yet I have observed, and have myself had some experience, that measures evidently right will prevail at last”; therefore he had “not the least doubt” but that a separation would take place “within half a century.”[452] Though seeing the separation so clearly, he did not see how near at hand it then was.

The Dean grew more earnest. Other pamphlets followed: for instance, in 1775, “An Humble Address and Earnest Appeal, … whether a Connection with or a Separation from the Continental Colonies of America be most for the National Advantage and the Lasting Benefit of these Kingdoms.” Here he says openly:--

“My scheme, which Mr. Burke, in his last speech, of March 22,
1775, is pleased to term a _childish_ one, is, To separate
totally from the Colonies, and to reject them from being
fellow-members and joint partakers with us in the privileges
and advantages of the British Empire, because they refuse
to submit to the authority and jurisdiction of the British
legislature,--offering at the same time to enter into alliances
of friendship and treaties of commerce with them, as with any
other sovereign, independent state.”[453]

Then, insisting that his scheme “most infallibly cuts off all the present causes of dispute and contention between the two countries, so that they never can revive again,”[454] he establishes that commercial intercourse with the Americans would not cease, inasmuch as it cannot be shown that they “will no longer adhere to their own interest when they shall be disunited from us.”[455]

Among subsequent tracts was one entitled “_Cui Bono?_ or, An Inquiry, What Benefits can arise either to the English or the Americans, the French, Spaniards, or Dutch, from the Greatest Victories or Successes in the Present War? Being a Series of Letters addressed to Monsieur Necker, late Controller-General of the Finances of France. London, 1782.” Here was the same ardor for separation, with the same bitter words for the Colonies.

Tardily the foresight of the Dean was recognized, until at last Archbishop Whately, in his annotations upon Bacon’s Essay on Honor and Reputation, commemorates it as an historic example. According to him, “the whole British nation were in one particular manifestly _puzzle-headed_, except _one_ man, who was accordingly derided by all.” Then mentioning the dispute between the mother country and her colonies, he says: “But Dean Tucker, standing quite alone, wrote a pamphlet to show that the separation would be no loss at all, and that we had best give them the independence they coveted at once and in a friendly way. Some thought he was writing in jest; the rest despised him, as too absurd to be worth answering. But now, and for above half a century, every one admits that he was quite right, and regrets that his view was not adopted.”[456] Unquestionably this is a remarkable tribute. Kindred to it was that of the excellent Professor Smyth, who, in exhibiting the “American War,” dwells on “the superior and the memorable wisdom of Tucker.”[457]

The bad temper shooting from his writings interfered, doubtless, with their acceptance. His spirit, so hostile to us, justified his own characterization of himself as “the author of these tracts against the rebel Americans.” As the war drew to a close, his bad temper still prevailed, heightened by antipathy to republicanism, so that, after picturing the Colonies, separated at last from the mother country, as having “gained a general disappointment mixed with anger and indignation,”[458] he thus predicts their terrible destiny:--

“As to the future grandeur of America, and its being a rising
empire under one head, whether republican or monarchical, it
is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that ever was
conceived, even by writers of romance. For there is nothing
in the genius of the people, the situation of their country,
or the nature of their different climates, which tends to
countenance such a supposition.… Above all, when those immense
inland regions beyond the back settlements, which are still
unexplored, are taken into the account, they form the highest
probability that the Americans never can be united into one
compact empire, under any species of government whatever.
Their fate seems to be--_a disunited people till the end of
time_.”[459]

Alas! But evidently the Dean saw the future of our continent no better than the Ministry saw their duty with regard to it.

* * * * *

Unlike in spirit was Matthew Robinson, a contemporary friend of America, whose able and elaborate tracts[460] in successive editions are now forgotten, except so far as revived by the notice of Professor Smyth.[461] His vindication of the Colonies, at the time of the Boston Port Bill, was complete, without the harshness of Tucker, and he did not hesitate to present the impossibility of conquering them. “What expectation or probability,” he asks, “can there be of sending from hence armies capable to conquer and subdue so great a force of men defending and defended by such a continent?”[462] Then, while depicting English mastery of the sea, he says: “We may do whatever a fleet can. Very true; but it cannot sail all over North America.”[463] The productions of this enlightened author cannot have been without effect. Doubtless they helped the final acknowledgment of independence. When will the “Old Mortality” appear, to discover and restore his monument?

The able annotator of Lord Bacon was too sweeping, when he said that on the great American question all England was wrong, “except _one_ man.” Robinson was as right as the Dean, and there were others also. The “Monthly Review,” in an article on the Dean’s appeal for separation, said: “This, however, is not a new idea. It has frequently occurred to others.”[464] Even Soame Jenyns, a life-long member of Parliament, essayist, poet, defender of Christianity, while upholding the right to tax the Colonies, is said to have accepted the idea of “total separation”:--

“Let all who view th’ instructive scene,
And patronize the plan,
Give thanks to Gloucester’s honest Dean,
For, Tucker, thou’rt the man.”[465]

In a better spirit, and with affecting earnestness, John Cartwright, once of the Royal Navy, and known as Major from his rank in the Nottinghamshire Militia, followed the Dean, in 1774, with a series of letters collected in a pamphlet entitled “American Independence the Interest and Glory of Great Britain,” where he insists upon separation, and thenceforward a friendly league, “that the true and lasting welfare of both countries can be promoted.”[466] In enforcing his conclusion the author says: “When we talk of asserting our sovereignty over the Americans, do we foresee to what fatal lengths it will carry us? Are not those nations increasing with astonishing rapidity? _Must they not, in the nature of things, cover in a few ages that immense continent like a swarm of bees?_”[467] Then again: “We may, indeed, by means of fleets and armies, maintain a precarious tyranny over the Americans for a while; but the most shallow politicians must foresee what this would end in.”[468] Then, in reply to the Dean: “’Tis a pity so able a writer had not discovered that the Americans have a right to choose their own governors, and thence enforced the necessity of his proposed separation as a religious duty, no less than a measure of national policy.”[469] Cartwright continued at home the conflicts of principle involved in our War of Independence, and became an English Reformer. Honor to his name!

DAVID HARTLEY, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1785.

Another English friend was David Hartley. He was constant and even pertinacious on our side, although less prophetic than Pownall, with whom he coöperated in purpose and activity. His father was Hartley the metaphysician, and author of the ingenious theory of sensation, who predicted the fate of existing governments and hierarchies in two simple sentences: “It is probable that all the present Civil Governments will be overturned”; “It is probable that the present forms of Church Government will be dissolved.”[470] Many were alarmed. Lady Charlotte Wentworth asked the prophet when these terrible things would happen. The answer was: “I am an old man, and shall not live to see them; but you are a young woman, and probably will see them.”[471]

The son was born in 1729, and died at Bath in 1813. During our Revolution he sat in Parliament for Kingston-upon-Hull. He was also the British plenipotentiary in negotiating the Definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States. He has dropped out of sight. The biographical dictionaries afford him a few lines only. But he deserves a considerable place in the history of our Independence.

John Adams was often austere, and sometimes cynical, in his judgments. Evidently he did not like Hartley. In one place he speaks of him as “a person of consummate vanity”;[472] then, as “talkative and disputatious, and not always intelligible”;[473] and in still another place remarks, “Mr. Hartley was as copious as usual;”[474] and when appointed to sign the Definitive Treaty, “It would have been more agreeable to have finished with Mr. Oswald.”[475] And yet, when writing most elaborately to the Comte de Vergennes on the state of affairs previous to the final campaign, he introduces opinions of Hartley at length, saying that he was “more for peace than any man in the kingdom.”[476] Such testimony may well outweigh the other expressions, especially as nothing of the kind appears in the correspondence of Franklin, with whom Hartley was much more intimate.

The “Parliamentary History” is a sufficient monument for Hartley. He was a frequent speaker, and never missed an opportunity of pleading our cause. Although without the immortal eloquence of Burke, he was always clear and full. Many of his speeches seem written out by himself. He was not a tardy convert, but began as “a new member” by supporting an amendment favorable to the Colonies, 5th December, 1774. Then, in March, 1775, he brought forward “Propositions for Conciliation with America,” which he sustained in an elaborate speech, where he avowed that the American question had occupied him for some time:--

“Though I have so lately had the honor of a seat in this House,
yet I have for many years turned my thoughts and attention to
matters of public concern and national policy. This question of
America is now of many years’ standing.”[477]

In this speech he acknowledges the services of New England at Louisburg:--

“In that war too, Sir, they took Louisburg from the French,
single-handed, without any European assistance: as mettled
an enterprise as any in our history; an everlasting memorial
of the zeal, courage, and perseverance of the troops of New
England. The men themselves dragged the cannon over a morass
which had always been thought impassable, where neither
horses nor oxen could go; and they carried the shot upon their
backs. And what was their reward for this forward and spirited
enterprise,--for the reduction of this American Dunkirk? Their
reward, Sir, you know very well: it was given up for a barrier
to the Dutch.”[478]

All his various propositions were negatived; but he was not disheartened. Constantly he spoke,--now on the Budget, then on the Address, and then on specific propositions. At this time he asserted the power of Parliament over the Colonies, and he proposed, on the 2d November, 1775, that a test of submission by the Colonists should be the recognition of an Act of Parliament enacting “that all the slaves in America should have the trial by jury.”[479] Shortly afterwards, on the 7th December, 1775, he brought forward a second set of “Propositions for Conciliation with America,” where, among other things, he embodied the test on slavery, which he put forward as a compromise; and here his language belongs not only to the history of our Revolution, but to the history of Antislavery. While declaring that in his opinion Great Britain was “the aggressor in everything,”[480] he sought to bring the two countries together on a platform of human rights, which he thus explained:--

“The act to be proposed to America, _as an auspicious beginning
to lay the first stone of universal liberty to mankind_, should
be what no American could hesitate an instant to comply with,
namely, that every slave in North America should be entitled to
his trial by jury in all criminal cases. America cannot refuse
to accept and to enroll such an act as this, and thereby to
reëstablish peace and harmony with the parent state. _Let us
all be reunited in this, as a foundation to extirpate slavery
from the face of the earth. Let those who seek justice and
liberty for themselves give that justice and liberty to their
fellow-creatures._ With respect to the idea of putting a final
period to slavery in North America, it should seem best that
when this country had led the way by the act for jury, that
each Colony, knowing their own peculiar circumstances, should
undertake the work in the most practicable way, and that they
should endeavor to establish some system by which slavery
should be in a certain term of years abolished. _Let the only
contention henceforward between Great Britain and America be,
which shall exceed the other in zeal for establishing the
fundamental rights of liberty to all mankind._”[481]

How grand and beautiful!--not to be read without gratitude! The motion was rejected; but among the twenty-three in its favor were Fox and Burke.

During this same month the unwearied defender of our country came forward again, declaring that he could not be “an adviser or a well-wisher to any of the vindictive operations against America, because he thought the cause unjust; but at the same time he must be equally earnest to secure British interests from destruction”; and he thus prophesies:--

“The fate of America is cast. You may bruise its heel, but you
cannot crush its head. It will revive again. _The New World
is before them. Liberty is theirs._ They have possession of a
free government, their birthright and inheritance, derived to
them from their parent state, which the hand of violence cannot
wrest from them. If you will cast them off, my last wish is to
them, May they go and prosper!”[482]

Again, on the 10th May, 1776, he vindicated anew his original proposition; and here again he testifies for peace and against slavery:--

“For the sake of peace, therefore, I did propose a test of
compromise, by an acceptance, on the part of the Colonists,
of an Act of Parliament which should lay _the foundation for
the extirpation of the horrid custom of slavery in the New
World_.… My motion was … simply as an act of compromise and
reconciliation; and, as far as it was a legislative act, it was
still to have been applied in correcting the laws of slavery
in America, which I considered as repugnant to the laws of the
realm of England, and to the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Such a compromise would at the same time have saved the
national honor.”[483]

All gratitude to the hero who at this early day vowed himself to the abolition of slavery! Hartley is among the first of Abolitionists, with hardly a predecessor except Granville Sharp, and in Parliament absolutely the first. Clarkson was at this time fifteen years old, Wilberforce sixteen. Only in 1785 Clarkson obtained the prize for the best Latin essay on the question, “Is it right to make men slaves against their will?”[484] It was not until 1791 that Wilberforce moved for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the slave-trade. It is no small honor for one man to have come forward in Parliament as an avowed abolitionist, while at the same time a vindicator of our independence.

Again, on the 15th May, 1777, Hartley pleaded for us:--

“At sea, which has hitherto been our prerogative element, they
rise against us at a stupendous rate; and if we cannot return
to our old mutual hospitalities towards each other, a very few
years will show us a most formidable hostile marine, ready to
join hands with any of our enemies.… I will venture to prophesy
that the principles of a federal alliance are the only terms of
peace that ever will and that ever ought to obtain between the
two countries.”[485]

On the 5th of June, three weeks afterwards, the “Parliamentary History” reports briefly:--

“Mr. Hartley went upon the cruelties of slavery, and urged the
Board of Trade to take some means of mitigating it. He produced
a pair of handcuffs, which he said was a manufacture they were
now going to establish.”[486]

Thus again the abolitionist reappeared in the vindicator of our independence. On the 22d June, 1779, he brought forward another formal motion “for reconciliation with America,” and, in the course of a well-considered speech, denounced the ministers for “headstrong and inflexible obstinacy in prosecuting a cruel and destructive American war.”[487] On the 3d December, 1779, in what is called “a very long speech,” he returned to his theme, inveighing against ministers for “the favorite, though wild, Quixote, and impracticable measure of coercing America.”[488] These are only instances.

During this time he maintained relations with Franklin, as appears in the “Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution,” all of which attests a desire for peace. In 1778 he arrived at Paris on a confidential errand, especially to confer with Franklin. On this occasion John Adams met him and judged him severely. In 1783 he was appointed a commissioner to sign the Definitive Treaty of Peace.

* * * * *

These things belong to history. Though perhaps not generally known, they are accessible. I have presented them for their intrinsic value and prophetic character, but also as the introduction to an unpublished letter from Hartley, which I received some time ago from an English friend, who has since been called away from important labors. The letter concerns _emigration to our country, and the payment of the national debt_. The following indorsement explains its character:--

“NOTE. This is a copy of the material portion of a long letter
from D. Hartley, the British Commissioner in Paris, to Lord
Sydenham, January, 1785. The original was sold by C. Robinson,
of 21 Bond Street, London, on the 6th April, 1859, at a sale
of Hartley’s MSS. and papers, chiefly relating to the United
States of America. It was Hartley’s copy, in his own hand.

“The lot was No. 82 in the sale catalogue. It was bought by J.
R. Smith, the London bookseller, for £2 6_s._ 0_d._

“I had a copy made before the sale.

“JOSEPH PARKES.

“LONDON, 18 July, ’59.”

The letter is as follows:--

“MY LORD,--In your Lordship’s last letter to me, just before
my leaving Paris, you are pleased to say that any information
which I might have been able to collect of a nature to promote
the mutual and reciprocal interests of Great Britain and the
United States of America would be extremely acceptable to his
Majesty’s government.… Annexed to this letter I have the honor
of transmitting to your Lordship some papers and documents
which I have received from the American ministers. One of them
(No. 5) is a Map of the Continent of North America, in which
the land ceded to them by the late treaty of peace is divided
by parallels of latitude and longitude into fourteen new States.

“The whole project, in its full extent, would take many years
in its execution, and therefore it must be far beyond the
present race of men to say, ‘This shall be so.’ Nevertheless,
_those who have the first care of this New World will probably
give it such directions and inherent influences as may guide
and control its course and revolutions for ages to come_. But
these plans, being beyond the reach of man to predestinate,
are likewise beyond the reach of comment or speculation to
say what may or may not be possible, or to predict what
events may hereafter be produced by time, climates, soils,
adjoining nations, or by the unwieldy magnitude of empire, _and
the future population of millions superadded to millions_.
The sources of the Mississippi may be unknown; the lines
of longitude and latitude may be extended into unexplored
regions; and the plan of this new creation may be sketched out
by a presumptuous compass, if all its intermediate uses and
functions were to be suspended until the final and precise
accomplishment, without failure or deviation, of this unbounded
plan. But this is not the case; the immediate objects in view
are limited and precise; they are of prudent thought, and
within the scope of human power to measure out and to execute.
The principle, indeed, is indefinite, and will be left to the
test of future ages to determine its duration or extent.

“I take the liberty to suggest thus much, lest we should be led
away to suppose that the councils which have produced these
plans have had no wiser or more sedate views than merely the
amusement of drawing meridians of ambition and high thoughts.
There appear to me to be two solid and rational objects in
view: the first is, by the sale of lands nearly contiguous
to the present States, (receiving Congress paper in payment
according to its scale of depreciation,) _to extinguish the
present national debt_, which I understand might be discharged
for about twelve millions sterling.…

“It is a new proposition to be offered to the numerous common
rank of mankind in all the countries of the world, to say that
there are in America fertile soils and temperate climates
in which an acre of land may be purchased for a trifling
consideration, which may be possessed in freedom, together with
all the natural and civil rights of mankind. The Congress have
already proclaimed this, and that no other qualification or
name is necessary but to become settlers, without distinction
of countries or persons. The European peasant, who toils for
his scanty sustenance in penury, wretchedness, and servitude,
will eagerly fly to this asylum for free and industrious labor.
The tide of emigration may set strongly outward from Scotland,
Ireland, and Canada to this new land of promise.

“A very great proportion of men in all the countries of the
world are without property, and generally are subject to
governments of which they have no participation, and over
whom they have no control. The Congress have now opened to
all the world a sale of landed settlements where the liberty
and property of each individual is to be consigned to his own
custody and defence.… These are such propositions of free
establishments as have never yet been offered to mankind, and
cannot fail of producing great effects in the future progress
of things. The Congress have arranged their offers in the most
inviting and artful terms; and lest individual peasants and
laborers should not have the means of removing themselves,
they throw out inducements to moneyed adventurers to purchase
and to undertake the settlement by commission and agency,
without personal residence, by stipulating that the lands of
proprietors being absentees shall not be higher taxed than the
lands of residents. This will quicken the sale of lands, which
is their object.

“For the explanation of these points, I beg leave to refer
your Lordship to the documents annexed, Nos. 5 and 6,--namely,
the Map, and Resolutions of Congress, dated April, 1784.
Another circumstance would confirm that it is the intention
of Congress to invite moneyed adventurers to make purchases
and settlements, which is the precise and mathematical mode
of dividing and marking out for sale the lands in each new
proposed State. These new States are to be divided by parallel
lines running north and south, and by other parallels running
east and west. They are to be divided into hundreds of ten
geographical miles square, and then again into lots of one
square mile. The divisions are laid out as regularly as the
squares upon a chessboard, and all to be formed into a Charter
of Compact.

“They may be purchased by purchasers at any distance, and
the titles may be verified by registers of such or such
numbers, north or south, east or west: all this is explained
by the document annexed, No. 7, namely, _The Ordinance for
ascertaining the mode of locating and disposing of lands in the
Western Territory. This is their plan and means for paying off
their national debt, and they seem very intent upon doing it._
I should observe that their debt consists of two parts, namely,
domestic and foreign. The sale of lands is to be appropriated
to the former.

“The domestic debt may perhaps be nine or ten millions, and
the foreign debt two or three. For payment of the foreign debt
it is proposed to lay a tax of five per cent. upon all imports
until discharged, which, I am informed, has already been agreed
to by most of the States, and probably will soon be confirmed
by the rest. Upon the whole, it appears that this plan is as
prudently conceived and as judiciously arranged, as to the
end proposed, as any experienced cabinet of European ministers
could have devised or planned any similar project.

“The second point which appears to me to be deserving of
attention, respecting the immense cession of territory to
the United States at the late peace, is a point _which will
perhaps in a few years become an unparalleled phenomenon in the
political world_. As soon as the national debt of the United
States shall be discharged by the sale of one portion of those
lands, we shall then see the Confederate Republic in a new
character, as a proprietor of lands either for sale or to let
upon rents. While other nations may be struggling under debts
too enormous to be discharged either by economy or taxation,
and while they may be laboring to raise ordinary and necessary
supplies by burdensome impositions upon their own persons and
properties, _here will be a nation possessed of a new and
unheard-of financial organ of stupendous magnitude, and in
process of time of unmeasured value, thrown into their lap as a
fortuitous superfluity, and almost without being sought for_.

“When such an organ of revenue begins to arise into produce and
exertion, what public uses it may be applicable to, or to what
abuses and perversions it might be rendered subservient, is far
beyond the reach of probable discussion now. Such discussions
would only be visionary speculations. However, thus far it
is obvious, and highly deserving of our attention, that it
cannot fail becoming to the American States a most important
instrument of national power, the progress and operation of
which must hereafter be _a most interesting object of attention
to the British American dominions which are in close vicinity
to the territories of the United States; and I should hope that
these considerations would lead us, inasmuch as we value those
parts of our dominions, to encourage conciliatory and amicable
correspondence between them and their neighbors_.”

This private communication, now for the first time seeing the light, is full of prophecy, or of that remarkable discernment and forecast which mark the prophetic spirit, whether in announcing “the future population of millions superadded to millions,” or in the high estimate of the National Territory, destined to become in a few years “an unparalleled phenomenon in the political world,” “a new and unheard-of _financial organ_ of stupendous magnitude.” How few at home saw the Public Lands with as clear a vision as Hartley!

GALIANI, 1776, 1778.

Among the most brilliant in this extending list is the Abbé Galiani, the Neapolitan, who was born 1728, and died at Naples 1787. Although Italian by birth, yet by the accident of official residence he became for a while domesticated in France, wrote the French language, and now enjoys a French reputation. His writings in French and his letters have the wit and ease of Voltaire.

Galiani was a genius. Whatever he touched shone at once with his brightness, in which there was originality as well as knowledge. He was a finished scholar, and very successful in lapidary verses. Early in life, while in Italy, he wrote a grave essay on Money, which contrasted with another of rare humor suggested by the death of the public executioner. Other essays followed; and then came the favor of the congenial pontiff, Benedict the Fourteenth. In 1760 he found himself at Paris as Secretary of the Neapolitan Embassy. Mingling with courtiers officially, according to the duties of his position, he fraternized with the liberal and adventurous spirits who exercised such influence over society and literature. He was recognized as one of them, and inferior to none. His petty stature was forgotten when he conversed with inexhaustible faculties of all kinds, so that he seemed an Encyclopædia, Harlequin, and Machiavelli all in one. The atheists at the Thursday dinner of D’Holbach were confounded while he enforced the existence of God. Into the questions of political economy occupying attention at the time he entered with a pen which seemed borrowed from the French Academy. His “Dialogues sur le Commerce des Blés” had the success of a romance: ladies carried this book on Corn in their work-baskets. Returning to Naples, he continued to live in Paris through his correspondence, especially with Madame d’Épinay, the Baron d’Holbach, Diderot, and Grimm.[489]

Among later works, after his return to Naples, was a solid volume--not to be forgotten in the History of International Law--on the Duties of Neutrals, where a difficult subject is treated with such mastery, that, more than half a century later, D’Hautefeuille, in his elaborate treatise, copies from it at length. Galiani was the predecessor of this French writer in the extreme assertion of neutral rights. Other works were left at his death in manuscript, some grave and some humorous; also letters without number. The letters preserved from Italian _savans_ filled eight large volumes; those from _savans_, ministers, and sovereigns abroad filled fourteen. His Parisian correspondence did not see the light till 1818, although some of the letters may be found in the contemporary correspondence of Grimm.

In his Parisian letters, which are addressed chiefly to that clever individuality, Madame d’Épinay, the Neapolitan abbé shows not only the brilliancy and nimbleness of his talent, but the universality of his knowledge and the boldness of his speculations. Here are a few words from a letter dated at Naples, 12th October, 1776, in which he brings forward the idea of “races,” so important in our day, with an illustration from Russia:--

“_All depends upon races._ The first, the most noble of races,
comes naturally from the North of Asia. The Russians are the
nearest to it, and this is the reason why they have made more
progress in fifty years than can be got out of the Portuguese
in five hundred.”[490]

Belonging to the Latin race, Galiani was entitled to speak thus freely.

In another letter to Madame d’Épinay, dated at Naples, 18th May, 1776, he had already foretold the success of our Revolution. Few prophets have been more explicit than he was in the following passage:--

“Livy said of his age, which so strongly resembled ours, ‘_Ad
hæc tempora ventum est, quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia
pati possumus_,’--‘We are in an age when the remedies hurt
at least as much as the vices.’[491] Do you know how matters
stand? _The epoch has come of the total downfall of Europe,
and of transmigration to America._ Everything here is falling
into rottenness,--religion, laws, arts, sciences,--and
everything is going to be rebuilt anew in America. This is no
joke; nor is it an idea drawn from the English quarrels; I
have said, announced, preached it, for more than twenty years,
and I have always seen my prophecies fulfilled. _Do not buy
your house, then, in the Chaussée d’Antin; you must buy it
in Philadelphia._ My trouble is, that there are no abbeys in
America.”[492]

This letter was written some months before the Declaration of Independence.

In another, dated at Naples, 7th February, 1778, the Abbé alludes to the great numbers of English men and women who have come to Naples “for shelter from the American tempests,” and adds, “Meanwhile the Washingtons and Hancocks will be fatal to them.”[493] In still another, dated at Naples, 25th July, 1778, he renews his prophecies in language still more explicit:--

“You will at this time have decided the greatest revolution of
the globe,--namely, _if it is America which is to reign over
Europe, or if it is Europe which is to continue to reign over
America_. I would wager in favor of America, for the reason,
merely physical, that for five thousand years genius has turned
opposite to the diurnal motion, and travelled from East to
West.”[494]

Here again is the idea of Berkeley which has been so captivating.

ADAM SMITH, 1776.

In contrast with the witty Italian is the illustrious philosopher and writer of Scotland, Adam Smith, who was born 5th June, 1723, and died 17th July, 1790. His fame is so commanding that any details of life or works would be out of place. He was thinker and inventor, through whom mankind was advanced in knowledge.

I say nothing of his “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” constituting an important contribution to the science of Ethics, but come at once to his great work of political economy, entitled “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” which first appeared in 1776. Its publication marks an epoch described by Mr. Buckle, when he says that Adam Smith, “by the publication of this single work, contributed more towards the happiness of man than has been effected by the united abilities of all the statesmen and legislators of whom history has preserved an authentic account.”[495] The work is full of prophetic knowledge, and especially with regard to the British Colonies. Writing while the debate with the mother country was still pending, Adam Smith urged that they should be admitted to Parliamentary representation in proportion to taxation, so that their representation would enlarge with their growing resources; and here he predicts nothing less than the transfer of empire:--

“The distance of America from the seat of government, the
natives of that country might flatter themselves, with
some appearance of reason too, would not be of very long
continuance. Such has hitherto been the rapid progress of that
country in wealth, population, and improvement, that, in the
course of little more than a century, perhaps, the produce of
American might exceed that of British taxation. _The seat of
the empire would then naturally remove itself to that part of
the empire which contributed most to the general defence and
support of the whole._”[496]

In these tranquil words of assured science the great author carries the seat of government across the Atlantic.

Did Adam Smith in this remarkable passage do more than follow a hint from our own prophet? The prophecy of the great economist first appeared in 1776. In the course of 1774, and down to April 19, 1775, John Adams published in the “Boston Gazette” a series of weekly articles, under the signature of “Novanglus,” which were abridged in Almon’s “Remembrancer” for 1775, with the following title: “History of the Dispute with America, from its Origin in 1754 to the Present Time.” Although this abridged edition stops before the prophetic passage, it is not impossible that the whole series was known to Adam Smith. After speculating, as the latter did afterwards, on the extension of the British Constitution and Parliamentary representation to the outlying British dominions, our prophet says:--

“If in twenty years more America should have six millions of
inhabitants, as there is a boundless territory to fill up, she
must have five hundred representatives. Upon these principles,
if in forty years she should have twelve millions, a thousand;
and if the inhabitants of the three kingdoms remain as they
are, being already full of inhabitants, what will become of
your supreme legislative? _It will be translated, crown and
all, to America._ This is a sublime system for America. It will
flatter those ideas of independency which the Tories impute
to them, if they have any such, more than any other plan of
independency that I have ever heard projected.”[497]

Thus plainly was John Adams precursor of Adam Smith.

In 1784 these papers were reprinted from the “Remembrancer,” by Stockdale, in London, bearing the same title, substantially, as before, “History of the Dispute with America, from its Origin in 1754,” with the addition, “Written in the Year 1774, by John Adams, Esq.” The “Monthly Review,” in a notice of the publication, after speaking of “the inauspicious system of American taxation,” says, “Mr. Adams foretold the consequence of obstinately adhering to it, and the event hath too well verified his predictions. They were, however, predictions which required no inspiration.”[498] So that his wise second-sight was recognized in England much beyond the prevision of Adam Smith.

The idea of transferring the seat of government to America was often attributed to Franklin by Dean Tucker. The former, in a letter, as early as 25th November, 1767, reports the Dean as saying, “That is his constant plan.”[499] In one of his tracts, the Dean attributes it not only to Franklin, but also to our people. With strange exaggeration he says: “It has been the unanimous opinion of the North Americans for these fifty years past, that the seat of empire ought to be transferred from the lesser to the greater country,--that is, from England to America, or, as Dr. Franklin elegantly phrased it, from the cock-boat to the man-of-war.”[500] It is impossible to say how much of this was from the excited brain of the Dean.

RICHARD PRICE, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1784.

A true and solid ally of our country at a critical period was Dr. Price, dissenting clergyman, metaphysician, political writer, and mathematician, who was born in Wales, 23d February, 1723, and died in London, 19th April, 1791.

His earliest labors were “A Review of the Principal Questions and Difficulties in Morals,” by which he was recognized as a metaphysician, and “Observations on Reversionary Payments,” by which he was recognized as an authority on a large class of financial questions. At the same time his sermons were regarded as excellent. Amidst these various labors he was moved to enlist as a pamphleteer in defence of the American Colonies. This service, prompted by a generous devotion to just principles, awakened grateful sentiments on both sides of the ocean.

The Aldermen and Common Council of London marked their sympathy by voting him the freedom of the city in a gold box of fifty pounds value. The American Congress sent him a different testimonial, officially communicated to him, being a solemn resolution declaring “the desire of Congress to consider him a citizen of the United States, and to receive his assistance in regulating their finances.”[501] In reply, under date of 18th January, 1779, while declining the invitation, he offered “assurances that Dr. Price feels the warmest gratitude for the notice taken of him, and that he looks to the American States as _now_ the hope and likely _soon_ to become the refuge of mankind.”[502] Franklin and Adams contracted with him relations of friendship. The former, under date of 6th February, 1780, wrote him: “Your writings, after all the abuse you and they have met with, begin to make serious impressions on those who at first rejected the counsels you gave”;[503] and 24th October, 1788, he wrote to another: “Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price.”[504] The latter, in correspondence many years afterwards, recorded the intimacy he enjoyed with Dr. Price, “at his own house, at my house, and at the houses and tables of many friends.”[505]

The first of his American tracts was in 1776, being “Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America.” The sale of sixty thousand copies in a few months shows the extensive acceptance of the work. The general principles so clearly exhibited are invoked for America. Occasionally the philosopher becomes prophet, as when he predicts the growth of population:--

“They are now but little short of half our number. To this
number they have grown, from a small body of original settlers,
by a very rapid increase. The probability is that they will go
on to increase, and that in fifty or sixty years they will be
_double our number, and form a mighty empire, consisting of a
variety of States, all equal or superior to ourselves in all
the arts and accomplishments which give dignity and happiness
to human life_.”[506]