Chapter XII: Front Matter (12)

The King was particular in many other enquiries relative to my
Administration, to the state of the Province, and the other
Colonies. I have minuted what remained the clearest upon my
mind, and as near the order in which they passed as I am able.
He asked also what part of my family I brought with me, and
what I left behind, and at length advised me to keep house a
few days for the recovery of my health. I then withdrew. I was
near two hours in the K. closet. Lord D. feared I was tired so
long standing. I observed that so gracious a reception made me
insensible of it."

_Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson.
chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September).
The meeting of the First Continental Congress.

"On the 5th day of September most of the delegates elected to
the congress were in Philadelphia. They were invited by the
speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly to hold their sessions in
the State House, but decided to meet in the hall owned by the
carpenters,—a fine brick building, having commodious rooms for
the use of the committees, and an excellent library in the
chambers. It is still in good preservation. At ten o'clock in
the morning the delegates met at the City Tavern, walked to
Carpenters' Hall, and began the sessions of the Continental
Congress. This assembly, when all the members had taken their
seats, consisted of 55 delegates, chosen by 12 colonies. They
represented a population of 2,200,000, paying a revenue of
£80,000 sterling. Georgia, which did not elect delegates, gave
a promise to concur with her 'sister colonies' in the effort
to maintain their right to the British Constitution. … In
general, the delegates elect were men of uncommon ability, who
had taken a prominent part in the political action of their
several localities. … New England presented, in John Sullivan,
vigor; in Roger Sherman, sterling sense and integrity; in
Thomas Cushing, commercial knowledge; in John Adams, large
capacity for public affairs; in Samuel Adams, a great
character, with influence and power to organize. The Middle
colonies presented, in Philip Livingston, the merchant prince
of enterprise and liberality; in John Jay, rare public virtue,
juridical learning, and classic taste; in William Livingston,
progressive ideas tempered by conservatism; in John Dickinson,
'The Immortal Farmer,' erudition and literary ability; in
Cæsar Rodney and Thomas McKean, working power; in James Duane,
timid Whiggism, halting, but keeping true to the cause; in
Joseph Galloway, downright Toryism, seeking control, and at
length going to the enemy. The Southern colonies presented, in
Thomas Johnson, the grasp of a statesman; in Samuel Chase,
activity and boldness; in the Rutledges, wealth and
accomplishment; in Christopher Gadsden, the genuine American;
and in the Virginia delegation, an illustrious group,—in
Richard Bland, wisdom; in Edmund Pendleton, practical talent;
in Peyton Randolph, experience in legislation; in Richard
Henry Lee, statesmanship in union with high culture; in
Patrick Henry, genius and eloquence; in Washington, justice
and patriotism. 'If,' said Patrick Henry, 'you speak of solid
information and sound judgment, Washington unquestionably is
the greatest man of them all.' … The congress was organized by
the choice of Peyton Randolph of Virginia for President, and
Charles Thomson of Philadelphia, not a member, for Secretary.
… A discussion … arose on the rules to be observed in
determining questions, … which was renewed the next day, when
it was agreed that each colony should have one vote."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_J. T. Scharf and. T. Westcott,
History of Philadelphia,
volume 1, chapter 16._

_C. J. Stillé,
Life and Times of John Dickinson,
chapter 5._

_V. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the! United States,
volume 3, chapter 13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September-October).
The action of the Congress.

"The Congress first resolved 'to state the rights of the
colonies in general, the several instances in which those
rights were violated or infringed, and the means most proper
for a restoration of them.' Next, 'to examine and report the
several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of
the colonies,' not earlier than the last nine years. While
these subjects were under consideration, resolutions of Boston
and its neighbors [Middlesex and Suffolk counties] were laid
before them, stating their wrongs and merely defensive
measures to which they would adhere, 'as long as such conduct
may be vindicated by reason and the principles of
self-preservation, but no longer.' … Congress unanimously
approved and recommended 'a perseverance in this firm and
temperate conduct,' trusting a change in the councils of the
British nation. The merchants were urged not to order goods,
and to suspend those ordered; and it was resolved, that after
the first of next December there should be no importation of
British goods, and no consumption of, or traffic in them. A
loyal petition to the king was ordered, assuring him that by
abolishing the system of laws and regulations of which the
colonies complained, enumerating them, the jealousies they had
caused would be removed, and harmony restored. 'We ask but for
peace, liberty and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in
our favor. Your royal authority over us, and our connection
with Great Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously
endeavor to support and maintain.' General Gage was entreated
to discontinue the erection of the fortifications on Boston
Neck, and to prevent all injuries on the part of the troops;
and Massachusetts was asked 'temporarily to submit to a
suspension of the administration of justice where it could not
be procured in a legal and peaceable manner.' Persons
accepting office under the recent act, changing the form of
her government, were denounced, 'as the wicked tools of that
despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which
God, nature, and compact have given to America.' A memorial
was next ordered to the inhabitants of the British colonies
there represented, exposing their common wrongs and urging a
united 'commercial opposition,' warning them to extend their
views 'to mournful events,' to be 'in all respects prepared
for every contingency, and to implore the favor of Almighty
God.'
{3215}
An appeal was made to the enlightened sympathies of the
British people. … Finally, an address was made to the
inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, inviting their
co-operation. In the meantime, the form of a non-exportation,
non-consumption association was adopted, and signed by each of
the delegates. … A declaration of the rights and injuries of
the colonies was made, in which the most difficult question
was disposed of. The right to participate in the legislative
council of their common country, was declared to be the
foundation of English liberty and of all free government. … Of
all these proceedings the language was that of peace, except
where other language was demanded. For they approved the
opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay to the
execution of the late acts of Parliament, and declared, 'If
these acts shall be attempted to be carried into execution by
force, in such case all America ought to support them in their
opposition,' and 'that seizing or attempting to seize any
person in America, in order to transport such person beyond
the sea for trial of offences committed within the body of a
county in America, being against law, will justify, and ought
to meet with, resistance and reprisal.' These were the
essential resolutions. They bound the colonies to a common
resistance to acts of force against all, or any one of them.
They also declared their opinion of the necessity that another
Congress should be held in the ensuing month of May, unless
the redress of grievances which they had desired was obtained
before that time, and that all the colonies in North America
choose deputies, as soon as possible, to attend such Congress.
On the twenty-sixth of October, after a secret session of
fifty-one days, this body adjourned. The recommendations of
this Congress were received with marked respect among the
patriots of the colonies."

_J. C. Hamilton,
History of the United States as traced
in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._

"Trained in all the theories of the mercantile system, America
had been taught to believe (1) that two countries could
continue to trade, though one of necessity did so at a loss;
(2) that in the trade between England and the colonies, the
former both through natural advantages and through law was the
party to which the profit accrued; (3) that England was 'a
shop-keeping nation,' whose very existence depended on her
trade and manufactures. A suspension of trade between England
and America therefore would mean misery, if not ruin, to the
mother country, while the colonies would 'both save and gain.'
With measures of non-importation, non-exportation and
non-consumption, accordingly, did this otherwise powerless
body hope to coerce the English people and government. Though
founded on an economic fallacy, this method of action was
certain to have a great effect in England. Twice already had
it been employed on a limited scale—against the Stamp Act and
against the revenue acts,—and each time with sufficient
success to warrant the belief that its wider application would
result in victory. Now the agents of the colonies in London
were writing home: 'If you have virtue enough to resolve to
stop, and to execute the resolution of stopping, your exports
and imports for one year, this country must do you justice.' …
In both England and America the temporary destruction of
British trade was viewed not merely as an effective weapon,
but as the only peaceful one which the colonies possessed. A
failure to unite in a non-importation agreement against
England would, according to a prominent English politician,
leave nothing for the colonies 'but to decide between ruin and
submission.' The question for the Congress was not, therefore,
a choice of remedies, but merely whether, and to how great an
extent, the dele·gates could be brought to agree to the only
one within their reach. For even while accepting the system as
effective against Great Britain, the delegates and their
constituents had so far progressed as to realize that it bore
with uneven force on the different colonies. The southern
colonies were really no more diversified in their industries
than the West India islands. South Carolina grew rice and
indigo; North Carolina depended largely on tar, pitch and
turpentine; Virginia raised tobacco. Unless these products
could be exported to Europe, those colonies might suffer for
the necessaries of life. … The first consideration of the
subject in the Congress revealed serious difficulties. The
Virginia delegation, 'to avoid the heavy injury that would
arise,' were prevented by their instructions from agreeing to
an immediate cessation of trade relations. Imports would cease
on November 1, 1774, but exports must continue till August 10,
1775. It was in vain they were told 'that a non-exportation at
a future day cannot avail,' and that at the Virginia date
non-exportation would not operate before the fall of 1776. The
Virginians had determined to cure and sell their tobacco crop
of 1774 before 'consideration of interest and of equality of
sacrifice should be laid aside.' So vital, however, did most
of the delegates consider the immediate enforcement, that it
was proposed to act without Virginia; for Boston and New
England, it was said, would need active support before that
date. This proposition was defeated by the refusal of the
delegates of North Carolina and Maryland to join unless
Virginia should also make the sacrifice. With sorry grace the
Congress had to accept the dictation of Virginia. But the
trouble did not end here. Virginia's selfish interest having
been triumphant, the South Carolina delegation sought for an
equal advantage, and demanded that the two great products of
that colony should be especially reserved from the
non-exportation clause. … Rather than yield, the Congress
preferred a cessation of business for several days, in order
'to give Our [South Carolina] deputies time to recollect
themselves.' But when the Association was ready for signing,
the South Carolina delegates, with but one exception, seceded
from the Congress, and their assent was only secured
eventually through a compromise, by virtue of which rice alone
was excluded from the agreement, while indigo was brought
under its terms. Such were the secret deliberations of the
Congress, in endeavoring to unite the colonies in the use of
their only weapon. The first public results appeared in the
form of a unanimous resolution, passed and published on
September 22, requesting 'the merchants and others in the
several colonies not to send to Great Britain any orders for
goods,' and to delay or suspend orders already sent. Five days
later it was unanimously resolved that after December 1, 1774,
'there should be no importation into British America from
Great Britain or Ireland, or from any other place,' of any
goods, wares or merchandise exported from Great Britain or
Ireland.
{3216}
Three days later, with no assertion of unanimity, a resolution
was announced to the effect 'that from and after the 10th day
of September, 1775, the exportation of all merchandise and
every commodity whatsoever to Great Britain, Ireland and the
West Indies ought to cease, unless the grievances of America
are redressed before that time,' and a committee was appointed
to draft a plan for carrying into effect these resolves. On
October 12 this committee brought in a report, which, after
consideration and amendment, was on the 18th of October agreed
to and ordered signed. On October 20 it was signed and ordered
to be printed. Possessed of no real power, the Congress relied
on the people to enforce this agreement. It was recommended
that in every county, city and town a committee be chosen
'whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct
of all persons touching this Association.' With hardly an
exception, this recommendation was adopted. … As America had
refused to trade with Great Britain and her colonies, the
government replied by acts prohibiting any such trade. The
policy of 'exhausting its opponent by injuring itself' was at
last to have a fair trial, but through British, not American
action. The colonies were by law interdicted from all
commerce, trade and fishing. But before the legislation went
into effect blood had been shed at Lexington. The contest
could no longer be fought with acts of Parliament and resolves
of Congress; 'blows must decide.' The Association was
distinctively a peace weapon. Had the Congress really expected
war, no action could have been more foolish. A garrison soon
to be beleaguered virtually shut its ports to supplies. No
better proof is needed of how little the delegates wished or
worked for separation."

_P. L. Ford,
The Association of the First Congress
(Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891.)_

'That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free
government, is a right in the people to participate in their
legislative council; and us the English colonists are not
represented, and from their local and other circumstances
cannot be properly represented in the British Parliament, they
are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in
their several provincial legislatures, where their rights of
representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of
taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of
their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used
and accustomed. But from the necessity of the case, and a
regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully
consent to the operation of such acts of the British
Parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of
our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the
commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother
country; and the commercial benefits of its respective
members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or
external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America,
without their consent.' This was not precisely what John Adams
wanted, but it was much. When this declaration went forth, the
cause of Massachusetts, in whatever it might eventuate, was
the cause of the colonies. It was nationalized. This was John
Adams's greatest feat of statesmanship. On it the Success of
the impending war, and the Declaration of Independence
rested."

_M. Chamberlain,
John Adams, the Statesman of the
American Revolution,
pages 78-80._

"How far the authority of this first congress extended,
according to the instructions of the delegates, it is
impossible to determine with certainty at this distance of
time. But it is probable that the original intention was that
it should consult as to the ways and means best calculated to
remove the grievances and to guaranty the rights and liberties
of the colonies, and should propose to the latter a series of
resolutions, furthering these objects. But the force of
circumstances at the time compelled it to act and order
immediately, and the people, by a consistent following of its
orders, approved this transcending of their written
instructions. The congress was therefore not only a
revolutionary body from its origin, but its acts assumed a
thoroughly revolutionary character. The people, also, by
recognizing its authority, placed themselves on a
revolutionary footing, and did so not as belonging to the
several colonies, but as a moral person; for to the extent
that congress assumed power to itself and made bold to adopt
measures national in their nature, to that extent the
colonists declared themselves henceforth to constitute one
people, inasmuch as the measures taken by congress could be
translated from words into deeds only with the consent of the
people. This state of affairs essentially continued up to
March 1, 1781.
{3217}
Until that time, that is, until the adoption of the articles
of confederation by all the states, congress continued a
revolutionary body, which was recognized by all the colonies
as 'de jure' and 'de facto' the national government, and which
as such came in contact with foreign powers and entered into
engagements, the binding force of which on the whole people
has never been called in question. The individual colonies, on
the other hand, considered themselves, up to the time of the
Declaration of Independence, as legally dependent upon England
and did not take a single step which could have placed them
before the mother country or the world in the light of 'de
facto' sovereign states. They remained colonies until the
'representatives of the United States' 'in the name of the
good people of these colonies' solemnly declared 'these united
colonies' to be 'free and independent states.' The
transformation of the colonies into 'states' was, therefore,
not the result of the independent action of the individual
colonies. It was accomplished through the 'representatives of
the United States'; that is, through the revolutionary
congress, in the name of the whole people. Each individual
colony became a state only in so far as it belonged to the
United States and in so far as its population constituted a
part of the people."

_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the
United States,
volume 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_W. V. Wells,
Life of Samuel Adams,
volume 2, pages 213-247._

_J. Adams,
Diary (Works, volume 2)
pages 358-401._

_Journal of the Congress which met at Philadelphia
September 5, 1774
(London: J. Almon)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774-1775.
Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and
Committee of Safety.
Military preparations.

"Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members
elected to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved
themselves into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th
of October, adopted a plan for organizing the militia,
maintaining it, and calling it out when circumstances should
render it necessary. It provided that one quarter of the
number enrolled should be held in readiness to muster at the
shortest notice, who were called by the popular name of
minute-men. An executive authority—the Committee of
Safety—was created, clothed with large discretionary powers;
and another called the Committee of Supplies. On the 27th
Jedediah Preble, (who did not accept,) Artemas Ward, and Seth
Pomeroy, were chosen general officers; and on the 28th, Henry
Gardner was chosen treasurer of the colony, under the title of
Receiver-General. Among the energetic acts of this memorable
Congress, was one authorizing the collection of military
stores. It dissolved December 10. The committee of safety, as
early as November, authorized the purchase of materials for an
army, and ordered them to be deposited at Concord and
Worcester. These proceedings were denounced by General Gage,
in a proclamation dated November 10, as treasonable, and a
compliance with them was forbidden. In a short time the king's
speech and the action of Parliament were received, which
manifested a firm determination to produce submission to the
late acts, and to maintain 'the supreme authority' of Great
Britain over the colonies. General Gage regarded this
intelligence as having 'cast a damp upon the faction,' and as
having produced a happy effect upon the royalist cause.
However, a second Provincial Congress (February 1 to 16, 1775)
renewed the measures of its predecessor; and gave definiteness
to the duties of the committee of safety, by 'empowering and
directing' them (on the 9th of February) to assemble the
militia whenever it was required to resist the execution of
the two acts, for altering the government and the
administration of justice. At the same time it appointed two
additional generals, John Thomas, and William Heath, and made
it the duty of the five general officers to take charge of the
militia when called out by the committee of safety, and to
'effectually oppose and resist such attempt or attempts as
shall be made for carrying into execution by force' the two
acts. … The conviction was fast becoming general that force
only could decide the contest. Stimulated and sustained by
such a public opinion, the committees of safety and supplies
were diligent, through the gloomy months of winter, in
collecting and storing at Concord and Worcester materials for
the maintenance of an army."

_R. Frothingham, Jr.,
History of the Siege of Boston,
chapter 1. _

The following citizens composed the Committee of Public
Safety, viz., "John Hancock, Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church,
Richard Devens, Benjamin White, Joseph Palmer, Abraham Watson,
Azor Orne, John Pigeon, William Heath, and Thomas Gardner. The
following 'Committee of Supplies' was announced, viz.,
Elbridge Gerry, David Cheever, Benjamin Lincoln, Moses Gill,
and Benjamin Hall. … By the first day of January, 1775, the
garrison of Boston had been increased to thirty-five hundred
men, and mounted three hundred and seventy men as a daily
guard-detail, besides a field officers' guard of one hundred
and fifty men on Boston Neck. Three brigades were organized
and were officered, respectively by Generals Lord Percy,
Pigott and Jones. In November of 1774, General Gage had
advised the British government, that he, 'was confident, that
to begin with an army twenty thousand strong, would in the end
save Great Britain blood and treasure.' Meanwhile, the militia
drilled openly, rapidly completed company organizations, and
made many sacrifices to procure arms, powder and other
materials of war. The Home government, in view of the serious
aspect of affairs, ordered Generals Howe, Clinton, and
Burgoyne to join General Gage, and announced that 'ample
reinforcements would be sent out, and the most speedy and
effectual measures would be taken to put down the rebellion,'
then pronounced to already exist. On the eighth of April, the
Provincial Congress resolved to take effectual measures to
raise an army, and requested the cooperation of Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Connecticut. On the thirteenth, it voted to
raise six companies of artillery, to pay them and keep them at
drill. On the fourteenth it advised citizens to leave Boston
and to remove to the country. On the fifteenth, it solemnly
appointed a day for 'Public Fasting and Prayer,' and adjourned
to the tenth day of May. The Committee of Public Safety at
once undertook the task of securing powder, cannon and small
arms. A practical embargo was laid upon all trade with Boston.
The garrison could obtain supplies only with great difficulty,
and, as stated by Gordon, 'nothing was wanting but a spark, to
set the whole continent in a flame.'"

_H. B. Carrington,
Battles of the American Revolution.
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{3218}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-March).
Vain efforts toward pacific statesmanship in the British
Parliament, by Chatham, Burke, and others.

A newly elected British Parliament "met on November 30, 1774;
but no serious measure relating to America was taken till
January 1775, when the House reassembled after the Christmas
vacation. The Ministers had a large majority, and even apart
from party interest the genuine feeling of both Houses ran
strongly against the Americans. Yet at no previous period were
they more powerfully defended. I have already noticed that
Chatham, having returned to active politics after his long
illness in 1774, had completely identified himself with the
American cause, and had advocated with all his eloquence
measures of conciliation. He … moved an address to the King
praying that he would as soon as possible, 'in order to open
the way towards a happy settlement of the dangerous troubles
in America,' withdraw the British troops stationed in Boston.
In the course of his speech he represented the question of
American taxation as the root-cause of the whole division, and
maintained that the only real basis of conciliation was to be
found in a distinct recognition of the principle that
'taxation is theirs, and commercial regulation ours;' that
England has a supreme right of regulating the commerce and
navigation of America, and that the Americans have an
inalienable right to their own property. He fully justified
their resistance, predicted that all attempts to coerce them
would fail, and eulogised the Congress at Philadelphia as
worthy of the greatest periods of antiquity. Only eighteen
peers voted for the address, while sixty-eight opposed it. On
February 1 he reappeared with an elaborate Bill for settling
the troubles in America. It asserted in strong terms the right
of Parliament to bind the colonies in all matters of imperial
concern, and especially in all matters of commerce and
navigation. It pronounced the new colonial doctrine that the
Crown had no right to send British soldiers to the colonies
without the assent of the Provincial Assemblies, dangerous and
unconstitutional in the highest degree, but at the same time
it recognised the sole right of the colonists to tax
themselves, guaranteed the inviolability of their charters,
and made the tenure of their judges the same as in England. It
proposed to make the Congress which had met at Philadelphia an
official and permanent body, and asked it to make a free grant
for imperial purposes. England, in return, was to reduce the
Admiralty Courts to their ancient limits, and to suspend for
the present the different Acts complained of by the colonists.
The Bill was not even admitted to a second reading. Several
other propositions tending towards conciliation were made in
this session. On March 22, 1775, Burke, in one of his greatest
speeches, moved a series of resolutions recommending a repeal
of the recent Acts complained of in America, reforming the
Admiralty Court and the position of the judges, and leaving
American taxation to the American Assemblies, without touching
upon any question of abstract right. A few days later, Hartley
moved a resolution calling upon the Government to make
requisitions to the colonial Assemblies to provide of their
own authority for their own defence; and Lord Camden in the
House of Lords and Sir G. Savile in the House of Commons
endeavoured to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act. All these
attempts, however, were defeated by enormous majorities. The
petition of Congress to the King was referred to Parliament,
which refused to receive it, and Franklin, after vain efforts
to effect a reconciliation, returned from England to America."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12. (volume 3)._

The following are the more important passages of the speech of
Burke, on moving the resolutions which he introduced in the
House of Commons, March 22, 1775:

"The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of
war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate
and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal
discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire;
not peace to depend on the juridical determination of
perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy
boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought
in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace
sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely
pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference,
and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the
colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction
to your people,—and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord)
to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the
bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to
British government. My idea is nothing more. Refined policy
ever has been the parent of confusion,—and ever will be so, as
long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as
easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely
detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the
government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an
healing and cementing principle. … The capital leading
questions on which you must this day decide are these two:
First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what your
concession ought to be. On the first of these questions we
have gained … some ground. But I am sensible that a good deal
more is still to be done. Indeed, Sir, to enable us to
determine both on the one and the other of these great
questions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be
necessary to consider distinctly the true nature and the
peculiar circumstances of the object which we have before us:
because, after all our struggle, whether we will or not, we
must govern America according to that nature and to those
circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, not
according to abstract ideas of right, by no means according to
mere general theories of government, the resort to which
appears to me, in our present situation, no better than arrant
trifling. … The first thing that we have to consider with
regard to the nature of the object is the number of people in
the colonies. I have taken for some years a good deal of pains
on that point. I can by no calculation justify myself in
placing the number below two millions of inhabitants of our
own European blood and color,—besides at least 500,000 others,
who form no inconsiderable part of the strength and opulence
of the whole. This, Sir, is, I believe, about the true number.
There is no occasion to exaggerate, where plain truth is of so
much weight and importance. But whether I put the present
numbers too high or too low is a matter of little moment.
{3219}
Such is the strength with which population shoots in that part
of the world, that, state the numbers as high as we will,
whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration ends. Whilst we
are discussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it.
Whilst we spend our time in deliberating on the mode of
governing two millions, we shall find we have millions more to
manage. Your children do not grow faster from infancy to
manhood than they spread from families to communities, and
from villages to nations. … But the population of this
country, the great and growing population, though a very
important consideration, will lose much of its weight, if not
combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your
colonies is out of all proportion beyond the numbers of the
people. … The trade with America alone is now within less than
£500,000 of being equal to what this great commercial nation,
Eng]and, carried on at the beginning of this century with the
whole world! … But, it will be said, is not this American
trade an unnatural protuberance, that has drawn the juices
from the rest of the body? The reverse. It is the very food
that has nourished every other part into its present
magnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and
augmented more or less in almost every part to which it ever
extended, but with this material difference: that of the six
millions which in the beginning of the century constituted the
whole mass of our export commerce the colony trade was but one
twelfth part; it is now (as a part of sixteen millions)
considerably more than a third of the whole. … I choose, Sir,
to enter into these minute and particular details; because
generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten and
raise the subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we
speak of the commerce of our colonies, fiction lags after
truth, invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and
barren. … I pass … to the colonies in another point of
view,—their agriculture. This they have prosecuted with such a
spirit, that, besides feeding plentifully their own growing
multitude, their annual export of grain, comprehending rice,
has some years ago exceeded a million in value. Of their last
harvest, I am persuaded, they will export much more. At the
beginning of the century some of these colonies imported corn
from the mother country. For some time past the Old World has
been fed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would
have been a desolating famine, if this child of your old age,
with a true filial piety, with a Roman charity, had not put
the full breast of its youthful exuberance to the mouth of its
exhausted parent. As to the wealth which the colonies have
drawn from the sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter
fully opened at your bar. You surely thought those
acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite your
envy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment
has been exercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised
your esteem and admiration. And pray, Sir, what in the world
is equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the
manner in which the people of New England have of late carried
on the whale-fishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling
mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating into the deepest
frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, whilst we
are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that
they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that
they are at the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen
serpent of the South. Falkland Island, which seemed too remote
and romantic an object for the grasp of national ambition, is
but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their
victorious industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more
discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the
poles. … I am sensible, Sir, that all which I have asserted in
my detail is admitted in the gross, but that quite a different
conclusion is drawn from it. America, gentlemen say, is a
noble object,—it is an object well worth fighting for.
Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of
gaining them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to their
choice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those
who understand the military art will of course have some
predilection for it. Those who wield the thunder of the state
may have more confidence in the efficacy of arms. But I
confess, possibly for want of this knowledge, my opinion is
much more in favor of prudent management than of
force,—considering force not as an odious, but a feeble
instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so
growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate
connection with us. First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the
use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a
moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing
again: and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be
conquered. My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not
always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory.
If you do not succeed, you are without resource: for,
conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no
further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority
are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged
as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. A further
objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very
endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the
thing which you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and
consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than
whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along
with our own; because in all parts it is the British strength
that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign
enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still less
in the midst of it. I may escape, but I can make no insurance
against such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly
to break the American spirit; because it is the spirit that
has made the country. Lastly, we have no sort of experience in
favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies.
Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods
altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to
be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if feeling
is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our
attempt to mend it, and our sin far more salutary than our
penitence. These, Sir, are my reasons for not entertaining
that high opinion of untried force by which many gentlemen,
for whose sentiments in other particulars I have great
respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. But there is still
behind a third consideration concerning this object, which
serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which
ought to be pursued in the management of America, even more
than its population and its commerce: I mean its temper and
character.
{3220}
In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the
predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.
… This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English
colonies, prob·ably, than in any other people of the earth,
and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, to
understand the true temper of their minds, and the direction
which this spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open
somewhat more largely. First, the people of the colonies are
descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which
still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The
colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character
was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction
the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not
only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English
ideas and on English principles. … Your mode of governing
them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom or
mistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well
as you, had an interest in these common principles. They were
further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their
provincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are
popular in an high degree: some are merely popular; in all,
the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share
of the people in their ordinary government never fails to
inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion
from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance.
If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the
form of government, religion would have given it a complete
effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new
people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of
professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The
people are Protestants, and of that kind which is the most
adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. … All
Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of
dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern
colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is
the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the
Protestant religion. … Permit me, Sir, to add another
circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part
towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit: I
mean their education. In no country, perhaps, in the world is
the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous
and powerful, and in most provinces it takes the lead. The
greater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were
lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to
obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an
eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after
tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the
law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen
into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that
they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's 'Commentaries'
in America as in England. General Gage marks out this
disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He
states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or
smatterers in law,—and that in Boston they have been enabled,
by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of
your capital penal constitutions. … The last cause of this
disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful
than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the
natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean
lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the
effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roll,
and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the
want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to
defeat an whole system. … Then, Sir, from these six capital
sources, of descent, of form of government, of religion in the
northern provinces, of manners in the southern, of education,
of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of
government,—from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty
has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in
your colonies, and increased with the increase of their
wealth: a spirit, that, unhappily meeting with an exercise of
power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable
to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled
this flame that is ready to consume us. … The question is not,
whether their spirit deserves praise or blame,—what, in the
name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the
object, such as it is,—with all its glories, with all its
imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, the
importance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all
these considerations we are strongly urged to determine
something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule
and line for our future conduct, which may give a little
stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such
unhappy deliberations as the present. … It should seem, to my
way of conceiving such matters, that there is a very wide
difference, in reason and policy, between the mode of
proceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals,
or even of bands of men, who disturb order within the state,
and the civil dissensions which may, from time to time, on
great questions, agitate the several communities which compose
a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to
apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great
public con·test. I do not know the method of drawing up an
indictment against an whole people. … I am not ripe to pass
sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with
magistracies of great authority and dignity, and charged with
the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title
that I am. I really think that for wise men this is not
judicious, for sober men not decent, for minds tinctured with
humanity not mild and merciful."

In the closing part of his speech, Mr. Burke introduced
successively and commented upon the following propositions, or
resolutions, which formed in their entirety his plan of
conciliation. At the end of his speaking they were rejected by
a vote of 270 against 78:

"That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North
America, consisting of 14 separate governments, and containing
two mil·lions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not had
the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights
and burgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court
of Parliament.

{3221}

That the said colonies and plantations have been made liable
to, and bounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and
taxes, given and granted by Parliament, though the said
colonies and plantations have not their knights and burgesses
in the said high court of Parliament, of their own election,
to represent the condition of their country; by lack whereof
they have been oftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies,
given, granted, and assented to, in the said court, in a
manner prejudicial to the common wealth, quietness, rest, and
peace of the subjects inhabiting within the same.

That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from other
circumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for
procuring a representation in Parliament for the said
colonies.

That each of the said colonies hath within itself a body,
chosen, in part or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders,
or other free inhabitants thereof, commonly called the General
Assembly, or General Court, with powers legally to raise,
levy, and assess, according to the several usages of such
colonies, duties and taxes towards defraying all sorts of
public services.

That the said general assemblies, general courts, or other
bodies legally qualified as aforesaid, have at sundry times
freely granted several large subsidies and public aids for his
Majesty's service, according to their abilities, when required
thereto by letter from one of his Majesty's principal
Secretaries of State; and that their right to grant the same,
and their cheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grants,
have been at sundry times acknowledged by Parliament. That it
hath been found by experience, that the manner of granting the
said supplies and aids by the said general assemblies hath
been more agreeable to the inhabitants of said colonies, and
more beneficial and conducive to the public service, than the
mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies in Parliament,
to be raised and paid in the said colonies.

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 7th year
of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
granting certain duties in the British colonies and
plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties
of customs, upon the exportation from this kingdom, of coffee
and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said colonies or
plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on China
earthen ware exported to America; and for more effectually
preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said
colonies and plantations.'

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to
discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein
mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of
goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the
harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in
North America.'

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of
persons questioned for any acts done by them, in the execution
of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in
the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
the better regulating the government of the province of the
Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

That it may be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the
35th year of the reign of King Henry VIII., intituled, 'An act
for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's
dominions.'

That, from the time when the general assembly, or general
court, of any colony or plantation in North America, shall
have appointed, by act of assembly duly confirmed, a settled
salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges of
the superior courts, it may be proper that the said chief
justice and other judges of the superior courts of such colony
shall hold his and their office and offices during their good
behaviour, and shall not be removed therefrom, but when the
said removal shall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon
a hearing on complaint from the general assembly, or on a
complaint from the governor, or the council, or the house of
representatives, severally, of the colony in which the said
chief justice and other judges have exercised the said
offices.

That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or
vice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th
George III., in such a manner as to make the same more
commodious to those who sue or are sued in the said courts;
and to provide for the more decent maintenance of the judges
of the same."

_Edmund Burke,
Works,
volume 2._

ALSO IN:
_T. MacKnight,
Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._

_J. Adolphus,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-April).
Aims at independence disclaimed.

"The denial that independence was the final object, was
constant and general. To obtain concessions and to preserve
the connection with England was affirmed everywhere; and John
Adams, after the peace, went farther than this, for he
said:—'There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I
would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration
to the state of things before the contest began, provided we
could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.' If
Mr. Adams be regarded as expressing the sentiments of the
Whigs, they were willing to remain Colonists, provided they
could have had their rights secured to them; while the Tories
were contented thus to continue, without such security. Such,
as it appears to me, was the only difference between the two
parties prior to hostilities. … Franklin's testimony, a few
days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had 'more
than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to
the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking,
and conversing with them freely, [and] never had heard from
any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for
a separation, or a hint that such a thing would be
advantageous to America.' Mr. Jay is quite as explicit.
'During the course of my life,' said he, 'and until the second
petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of
any class, or of any description, express a wish for the
independence of the Colonies.' 'It has always been, and still
is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and
impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.'
{3222}
Mr. Jefferson affirmed, 'What, eastward of New York, might
have been the dispositions towards England before the
commencement of hostilities, I know not; but before that I
never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great
Britain; and after that its possibility was contemplated with
affliction by all.' Washington, in 1774, fully sustains these
declarations, and, in the 'Fairfax County Resolves,' it was
complained that 'malevolent falsehoods' were propagated by the
ministry to prejudice the mind of the king: 'particularly that
there is an intention in the American Colonies to set up for
independent States.' Mr. Madison was not in public life until
May, 1776, but he says, 'It has always been my impression,
that a reëstablishment of the Colonial relations to the parent
country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the
real object of every class of the people, till the despair of
obtaining it,' &c. … The only way to dispose of testimony like
this, is to impeach the persons who have given it."

_L. Sabine,
Biographical Sketches of Loyalists
of the American Revolution,
volume 1, pages 64-66._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-September).
Revolution in South Carolina.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.