England was not at first inclined to be conciliatory. Charles Townshend"s death in September, 1767, and the appointment of Lord North as Chancellor of the Exchequer had necessitated various changes in the ministry; and in December, in consequence of the increase of business in connexion with the American colonies, a third Secretary of State with the t.i.tle of Secretary of State for America was appointed in the person of Lord Hillsborough.[159] The latter, whom Horace Walpole has described as "nothing more than a pompous composition of ignorance and want of judgment," was a most unwise selection for the very difficult office. He seems to have had no opinion of his own, and to have been undismayed by the outbreaks, relying mainly upon the advice of Bernard, Governor of Ma.s.sachusetts, that a show of force would be sufficient to subdue the malcontents.
[159] Wills Hill (1718-1793), succeeded as second Viscount Hillsborough 1742, created Irish Earl 1751, and Marquis of Downshire 1789.
"The affairs in North America tend more and more to confusion," Lord Rockingham wrote on August 11, 1768; and about the same time Bernard, stating that his position was one of "utter and humiliating impotence,"
asked for troops. Soldiers were sent, in spite of Franklin"s warning that "they would not find, but would easily create rebellion." The troops arrived in November, and were kindly received by the colonists, who made it clear to them that the widespread indignation was not against them but against their masters. This show of force on a small scale was without effect. "Of what avail will an army be in so vast a country?" De Chatelet said to De Choiseul. "The Americans have made these reflections, and they will not give way."[160]
[160] Bancroft: _History of the American Revolution_.
For a while, however, the English continued their blundering.
Hillsborough instructed Bernard to order the Ma.s.sachusetts a.s.sembly to rescind its circular letter, and when the a.s.sembly reaffirmed its resolution by a still larger majority, it was dissolved. When Parliament met in December, the Duke of Bedford moved a pet.i.tion to the Crown to apply to Ma.s.sachusetts an act of 35 Henry VIII, by which offenders outside the kingdom were liable to be brought to England for trial, on the ground that owing to the state of public feeling in that province it would be impossible to obtain a conviction in any action brought by the Government. This extraordinary proposal actually pa.s.sed through Parliament, in spite of the opposition of Burke and Pownall, an ex-governor of Ma.s.sachusetts, for, as Burke said, "Repeal began to be in as bad odour in the House of Commons as the Stamp Act had been the session before."[161] There was so great an outcry, both in England and America, against this measure that no attempt was made to enforce it; indeed, it is probable that it was only intended to frighten the colonists, for it was impossible to make the mother-country realize that its American colonies were not a band of naughty children. As Horace Walpole wrote to Conway: "Our conduct has been that of pert children. We have thrown a pebble at a mastiff and are surprised it is not frightened."
[161] _Speech on American Taxation, 1774._
America was not frightened, but its att.i.tude was so threatening that the Duke of Grafton, influenced by the complaint of London merchants that between Christmas 1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America had decreased by 700,000, moved at a Cabinet Council held on May 1, 1769, for the Bill for the repeal of the import dues. At first it seemed as if it would be carried, but at a subsequent discussion Lord North, who, in the interval, had yielded to the King"s prayers, proposed that the duty on tea should be retained, not for its financial value, but as a sign of the right of Parliament to impose taxation. As the question at issue was the right to tax, not what to tax, North"s amendment practically neutralized the original proposal; but when Grafton divided the Cabinet upon the question, he was left in a minority of one. Soon after he resigned, and Lord North, reigning in his stead, introduced his measure on March 6, 1770. In vain Pownall, who after his return from America in 1760 had published a book on "The Administration of the Colonies," in which he laid especial stress upon the determination of the Americans not to be taxed without their own consent, begged the new ministry to reconsider its measure, a.s.suring them that it would be entirely ineffectual unless all the duties were repealed.
The time had gone by for partial concession, and on the very day before Lord North brought in his Bill, a serious riot broke out at Boston, when the soldiers fired and the first blood was shed. Yet nothing warned the King, whose pa.s.sion for prerogative it was impossible to quench, and he now strengthened the anti-colonial side of the new Cabinet. "Rigby ...
who cursed and swore when the repeal of the Stamp Act was alluded to in his presence, and Sandwich, who never spoke of the Americans except as rebels and cowards, openly proclaimed that three battalions and half-a-dozen frigates would soon bring New York and Ma.s.sachusetts to their senses. They became ministers on an express understanding that the British Government, in its dealing with the Provincial a.s.semblies, should henceforth employ undisguised coercion and insist upon unconditional submission."[162]
[162] Trevelyan: _Early Life of Charles James Fox._
In August, 1772, Lord Hillsborough was replaced as Secretary of State for America by the Earl of Dartmouth, who was known to be anxious for conciliation; but the colonies found fresh cause of offence in a measure that provided for the payment of the Ma.s.sachusetts judges by the Crown instead of the colonies, "a change which was designed to render the judges independent of popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to make him subservient to the Crown, for they held office during the King"s pleasure."
Meantime delegates from the various a.s.semblies met in congress, and presented to the King a pet.i.tion, at once firm and temperate, a.s.suring him of their desire to restore amicable relations with the mother-country. "As your Majesty enjoys the signal distinction of reigning over freemen, the language of freedom cannot be displeasing. We ask 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 favour.
In the magnanimity and justice of your Majesty and Parliament, we confide for a redress of our grievances, trusting that when the causes of our apprehensions are removed, our future conduct will prove us not unworthy of the regard we have been accustomed, in our happier days, to enjoy. We implore, therefore, your Majesty, as the loving father of all your people, connected by the same bonds of law, loyalty, faith and blood, not to suffer the transcendent relation, formed by these ties, to be further violated in uncertain expectation of effects which, if attained, never can compensate for the calamities through which they must be gained. So may your Majesty enjoy every temporal felicity, through a long and glorious reign, and your descendants inherit your prosperity and dominions, till time shall be no more." After pa.s.sing this Address, Congress, which had sat in defiance of the Government, dissolved, but not before it had agreed to a resolution that if the differences at issue were not previously settled, another Congress should meet on May 10, 1775. The pet.i.tion was, under the circ.u.mstances, so reasonable that on November 10 the Duke of Richmond moved in the House of Lords that the pet.i.tion of the American Congress to the King afforded _ground_ of conciliation. The King, however, would only regard the Address as an impertinence, and his reply was deliberately void of any conciliatory phrase. "It is with the utmost astonishment that I find any of my subjects capable of encouraging the rebellious disposition which unhappily exists in some of my colonies in North America. Having entire confidence in the wisdom of my Parliament, the great council of the nation, I will steadily pursue those measures which they have recommended, for the support of the const.i.tutional rights of Great Britain and the protection of the commercial interests of my kingdom."
The irritation of the American colonists broke out on December 16, 1773, when the ships laden with tea arrived at the port of Boston. These were boarded by a small army of responsible citizens disguised as Mohawk Indians in full war paint, with tomahawks and scalping knives, too numerous to be opposed, who flung the cargoes into the sea. The news of "the Boston Tea-Party," as the incident was subsequently known, only established George III in his belief that of all weapons firmness only would be effectual; and accordingly he sanctioned and, indeed, welcomed the Boston Port Bill, which ordered the closing of the port of Boston and altered the charter of the province of Ma.s.sachusetts. It was clear that if this Act could be enforced Boston would be punished for its sins by nothing less than ruin, and ministers believed that the dispersal of the trade of that flourishing town among its commercial compet.i.tors would result in internal quarrels. However, instead of the hoped for disunion, the colonies banded themselves together yet more closely, and when Hutchinson was recalled and General Gage sent out as Governor of Ma.s.sachusetts and Commander-in-Chief, the latter found himself confronted with the colonies on the very border-line of rebellion.
"Very little that is satisfactory has transpired of America. On Monday Lord North moved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove the Customs and Courts of Justice from Boston to New Salem--a step so detrimental to the former town, as must soon reduce it to your own terms; and yet of so mild an appearance that it was agreed to without a division and almost without a debate," Gibbon wrote on March 16, 1774. The truth is, outside a small body of active politicians, Englishmen had not yet realized that the American question had become so acute, that close at hand was the end of peaceful negotiations. Even when it seemed probable that hostilities must ensue, the landed gentry, the backbone of the House of Commons, were in favour of thrashing their impenitent brethren across the sea, and a little later, according to Burke, "The merchants began to snuff the cadaverous _haut got_ of lucrative war; the freighting business never was so lively, on account of the prodigious taking up for transport service: great orders for provisions of all kinds, new clothing for the troops, puts life into the woollen manufactures."[163]
[163] "I am grieved to observe that the landed interest is almost altogether anti-American, though the common people hold the war in abhorrence, and the merchants and tradesmen, for obvious reasons, are likewise against it."--Lord Camden to Lord Chatham, February, 1775.
Even the general body of the public was deluded, by the specious arguments of the ministers, into the support of the appeal to arms. "I recollect," Nicholls has recorded, "in one debate, Lord North stated that the inhabitants of Great Britain, considered collectively, paid one man with another twenty-five shillings a year in taxes; while the inhabitants of our American colonies, considered collectively, paid each only sixpence a year in taxes; he added, "Is this equitable?" The country gentlemen were weak enough to believe that, by persevering in the contest, their taxes would be diminished."[164]
[164] _Recollections and Reflections._
The Boston Port Act was the last straw. The Americans realized that they must either submit unconditionally to the home government or take arms in defence of their liberties. They did not long hesitate. In September the inter-provincial Congress approved the opposition of the inhabitants of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay to the execution of the late Acts of Parliament, and stated that if the same should be attempted to be carried into execution by force, in such cases all Americans ought to support them in their opposition. "I am not sorry that the line of conduct seems now chalked out," wrote the King on hearing the news. "The New England government are in a state of rebellion. Blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent."[165]
[165] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
The appeal to the G.o.d of Battles was not allowed without protest, and in January, 1775, Chatham, moving for the recall of the troops in Boston, made an impa.s.sioned speech. "For solidity of reasoning, and wisdom of conclusion under such a complication of difficult circ.u.mstances, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the General Congress at Philadelphia. All attempts to impose servitude upon such men, to establish despotism over such a mighty continental nation must be vain, must be fatal. We shall be forced ultimately to retract. Let us retract while we can, not when we must." In vain London and other cities pet.i.tioned against extreme measures, in vain Lord Effingham and Chatham"s eldest son resigned their commissions in the Army lest they should have to serve against the Americans, in vain Grafton resigned the Privy Seal. Lord Dartmouth took the Duke"s place; Lord George Germaine, a violent opponent of the colonies, became Secretary of State for America; and Howe took over from Gage the command of the British troops in the colonies; while those who opposed the war were looked upon as traitors by the Court. "The war was considered as the war of the King personally. Those who supported it were called the King"s friends; while those who wished the country to pause, and reconsider the propriety of persevering in the contest, were branded as disloyal."[166]
[166] Nicholls: _Recollections and Reflections._
The first blood was shed at Lexington on the morning of April 19, 1775, when General Gage"s troops engaged with a body of the colonial militia.
At that time no doubt was felt at home that the rebels would be promptly defeated, and still society at large did not take the American question very seriously. Even Selwyn referred to it as "that little dispute."
"You pant after news from America, there are none _pour le moment_," he wrote to Lord Carlisle on October 11, 1775. "But you may depend upon it, if that little dispute interests you, I will let you know, _quand le monde sera ra.s.semble, tout ce que j"apprens, et de bon lieu_. Charles [James Fox] a.s.sures us that nothing is so easy as to put an end to all this, but then there must be a change of ministry, _quelconque_, no matter what, as a preliminary a.s.surance to the insurgents."[167] Two months later Selwyn was still optimistic. "Our last news from America are certainly not good, but it does not alter my expectations of what will be the issue of the next campaign." The delay in inflicting a serious defeat upon the colonists filled the latter with hope of ultimate success. "Britain," said Franklin jubilantly, "at expense of three millions, had killed a hundred and fifty Yankees this campaign, which is 20,000 a head; and at Bunker"s Hill she gained a mile of ground, part of which she lost again by our taking post on Ploughed Hill. During the same time sixty thousand children have been born in America: from these data may easily be calculated the time and expense necessary to kill us all and conquer our territory."
[167] _George Selwyn: His Life and Letters._
Lexington and Bunker"s Hill only served to irritate the King, who could not see to what these encounters would lead, and he was the more shocked, being in hourly expectation of the surrender of the rebels, to receive despatches from Sir William Howe, containing an account of the action on Long Island. "Since the future consequences of the American rebellion, if we may judge from this fatal event," he said to Lord George Germaine, after glancing at the lists of killed and wounded at Long Island, "are likely to be still more b.l.o.o.d.y and tragical, may my deluded subjects on the other side of the Atlantic behold their impending destruction with half the horror that I feel on the occasion; then I think I shall soon hear of their throwing off the yoke of republicanism and, like loyal subjects, returning to that duty they owe to an indulgent sovereign." Doubtless he still cherished the hope that colonists would come to heel, but even his optimism must have been shattered by the publication of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1775.
The war proceeded with varying fortunes, and the capture of New York by Howe encouraged the mother-country. Burgoyne"s success at Philadelphia in June, 1777, delighted the King, who is said to have rushed into the Queen"s room as soon as he heard of it, crying, "I have beat them! beat all the Americans!" But his pleasure was soon dashed by the news that on October 16, Burgoyne and his army capitulated at Saratoga, which, however, after the first shock, he p.r.o.nounced "very serious, but not without remedy." After these distressing tidings became known in England, a friend of Lord North said to him, "My Lord, you must now see that the whole population of America is hostile to your designs." Lord North replied, "I see that as clearly as you do; and the King shall either consent to allow me to a.s.sure the House of Commons that some means shall be found to put an end to the war, or I will not continue to be his minister."[168] The King, however, was not to be moved from his purpose, and his appeal to North not to desert him in the hour of his trouble could not be disregarded by his faithful minister.
[168] Nicholls: _Reflections Personal and Political_.
The situation was, indeed, distressing. "What a wretched piece of work do we seem to be making of it in America!" Gibbon wrote on April 13, 1777. "The greatest force which any European power ever ventured to transport into that continent is not strong enough ever to attack the enemy: the naval strength of Great Britain is not sufficient to prevent the Americans (they have almost lost the appellation of rebels) from receiving every a.s.sistance that they wanted; and in the meantime you are obliged to call out the militia to defend your own coast against their privateers. You possibly may expect from me some account of the designs and policy of the French Court. I shall only say that I am not under any immediate apprehension of a war with France. It is much more pleasant as well as profitable to view in safety the raging of the tempest, occasionally to pick up some pieces of wreck, and to improve their trade, their agriculture and their finances while the two countries are "_lento collisa duella_." Far from taking any step to put an end to this astonishing dispute, I should not be surprised if next summer they were to lend their cordial a.s.sistance to England as the weaker party."[169]
[169] Walpole: _Last Journals_.
It is beyond the scope of this work to trace the progress of the war, and it is for the military historian to criticise its conduct; but it was patent that the purchase of Hessian troops was a great diplomatic blunder. To invoke the aid of hired mercenaries was to make the breach irrevocable, as well as to set against the country employing them the sympathy of other nations. Frederick the Great said he "should make all the Hessian troops, marching through his dominions to America, pay the usual cattle tax, because though human beings they had been sold as beasts." The case has been well put by Lord Mahon. "If any men were needed, was there any lack of them in England?" he asked, "was it wise to inform foreign states that we deemed ourselves thus dependent on foreign aid. Was it wise to hold forth to America the first example of obtaining a.s.sistance from abroad? Above all, if conciliation was the object full as much as conquest, how signal the imprudence thus in the midst of a civil strife, to thrust forward aliens to both parties, in blood, in language, and in manners."[170] Chatham inveighed against "the traffic and barter driven with every pitiful German prince that sells his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country. This mercenary aid on which you rely irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies. To overrun them with the mercenary sons of rapine and plunder; devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty!
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while there was a foreign troop in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never! never!
never!"
[170] Mahon: _History of England_.
Chatham"s popularity, affected somewhat by his acceptance of a pension, had been greatly diminished when he went to the House of Lords, but now, when the country was in danger, all eyes were turned on him as the only man who could conceivably extract from the situation peace with honour. "If there be a man who has served this nation with honour to himself and glory to his country," said George Grenville the younger in the House of Commons on February 11, 1778, "if there be a man who has carried the arms of Britain triumphant to every quarter of the globe beyond the most sanguine expectations of the people, if there be a man of whom the House of Bourbon stands more particularly in awe; if there be a man in this country who unites the confidence of England and America, is not he the proper person to treat with Americans, and not those who have uniformly deceived and oppressed them? There is not one present who is ignorant of the person to whom I allude. You all know I mean a n.o.ble, near relation, Lord Chatham." Many years later an able historian, reviewing the situation, repeated in no uncertain tone the substance of the speech of the promising young statesman. "There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were turned," Lecky has written. "In Chatham England possessed a statesman whose genius in conducting a war was hardly inferior to that of Marlborough in conducting an army. In France his name produced an almost superst.i.tious terror."[171]
[171] "I had the fortune [at Paris] to be treated with the sight of what, next to Mr. Pitt, has occasioned most alarm in France, the Beast of the Gevandon."--Walpole to Lady Mary c.o.ke, 1765.
In America it was p.r.o.nounced with the deepest affection and reverence.
He had, in the great French war, secured the Anglo-Saxon preponderance in the colonies; he had defended the colonies in every stage of their controversy about the Stamp Act, and had fascinated them by the splendour of his genius. If any statesman could at the last moment conciliate them, dissolve the new alliance, and kindle into flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a war.[172]
[172] Lecky: _History of England_.
The state of affairs at home and abroad called for the strong hand of a great minister. British troops were confined in Philadelphia and New York; the navy had been starved; the commissariat of the troops in America was shamefully mismanaged. America, not slow to follow the example of the mother-country to employ foreign troops, signed a treaty with France, the ratification of which by Congress took place on May 4, 1778.
"Thy triumphs, George, the western world resounds, And Europe scarce thy paper _glory_ bounds!
Paper that trumps abroad thy martial toils, And copious harvest of Canadian spoils: _Tyrtaeus-like_, how Burgoyne fights his men, Belligerent alike with _sword_ and _pen_!
How Gates retires: and, as you rattle louder, One Arnold sickens at the smell of powder!
How brave thine admirals! and so discreet They never risk the honour of the fleet; Nor trust the dangers of the middle-main, Where Britain bids her thunder roar in vain; But wisely _coasting_, give some privateer A broadside; making her both feel and hear.
And sure, if _paper_ can so cheaply win, The harmless war of paper is no sin.
Proceed, great Sir! and, breaking all restraint, Embrace the _scarlet wh.o.r.e_, and be a _Saint_ _Sworn_ to maintain th" _established church_, advance The cross of Rome, the miracles of France; And leave us, though our liberties be lost, In pious bills the privilege to _roast_.[173]
In breaking oaths be like Alcides strong; Be weakly right, but obstinately wrong: Be all the bigot martyr was before-- A blessing for the nation yet in store!
See other _Hampdens_, other _Cromwells_ rise, And modern _tea-acts_ mimic _ship-supplies_: Hark! the glad sounds revive of _me_ and _mine_,[174]
And stale prerogative of _right divine_!
ONE REVOLUTION RAIS"D YOU TO THE CROWN; ANOTHER REVOLUTION MAY--DETHRONE."[175]
[173] In 1778 Sir George Saville introduced a Bill to enable Catholics in England who abjured the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope to purchase and inherit land, and to free their priests from liability to imprisonment. The outcome of this was the Gordon Riots.
[174] "My subjects! My army! My dominions! My colonies! the odds, however, even at St. James"s are, that we shall hear no more of _my_ colonies from the same quarter."--Note by the author of the lampoon.
[175] Peregrine the Elder: _An Heroic Epistle to an Unfortunate Monarch_.