discussion between charles townsend and colonel barré in the debate on passing the stamp act, referred to on page 293.
it was during the discussion on this bill that colonel barré made the famous retort to mr. charles townsend, head of the board of trade. mr. townsend made an able speech in support of the bill and the equity of the taxation, and insisted that the colonies had borne but a small proportion of the expenses of the last war, and had yet obtained by it immense advantages at a vast expense to the mother country. he concluded in the following words:
"and now will these american children, planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence to a degree of strength and opulence, and protected by our arms, grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy burden under which we lie?"
as he sat down, colonel barré rose and replied with great energy, and, under the influence of intense excitement, uttered the following impassioned retort to the concluding words of charles townsend's speech:
"they planted by your care! no; your oppressions planted them in america. they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated, inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable, and among others to the cruelties of a savage foe—the most subtle, and i will take upon me to say the most formidable of any people upon the face of god's earth; and yet, actuated by principles of true english liberty, they met all hardships with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own country from the hands of those who should have been their friends.
"they nourished by your indulgence! they grew by your neglect of them. as soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them, in one department and another, who were perhaps the deputies of deputies to some members of this house, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men whose behaviour, on many occasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them; men promoted to the highest seats of justice—some who, to my knowledge, were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own.
"they protected by your arms! they have nobly taken up arms in your defence; have exerted a valour amidst their constant and laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your emolument. and, believe me—remember, i this day told you so—the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany them still. but prudence forbids me to explain myself further. god knows, i do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what i deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. however superior to me in general knowledge and experience the[pg 296] respectable body of this house may be, yet i claim to know more of america than most of you, having seen and been conversant in that country. the people, i believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated. but the subject is too delicate; i will say no more."
remarks on the speeches of mr. charles townsend and colonel barré.
perhaps the english language does not present a more eloquent and touching appeal than these words of colonel barré, the utterances of a sincere and patriotic heart. they were taken down by a friend at the time of delivery, sent across the atlantic, published and circulated in every form throughout america, and probably produced more effect upon the minds of the colonists than anything ever uttered or written. very likely not one out of a thousand of those who have read them, carried away by their eloquence and fervour, has ever thought of analysing them to ascertain how far they are just or true; yet i am bound to say that their misstatements are such as to render their argument fallacious from beginning to end, with the exception of their just tribute to the character of the american colonists.
the words of charles townsend were insulting to the colonists to the last degree, and were open to the severest rebuke. he assumed that because the settlements in america were infant settlements, in comparison with those of the mother country, the settlers themselves were but children, and should be treated as such; whereas the fathers of new settlements and their commerce, the guiding spirits in their advancement, are the most advanced men of their nation and age, the pioneers of enterprise and civilization; and as such they are entitled to peculiar respect and consideration, instead of their being referred to as children, and taxed without their consent by men who, whatever their rank in the society and public affairs of england, could not compare with them in what constituted real manhood greatness. but though charles townsend's insulting haughtiness to the american colonists, and his proposal to treat them as minors, destitute of the feelings and rights of grown-up englishmen, merited the severest rebuke, yet that did not justify the statements and counter-pretensions on which colonel barré founded that rebuke. let us briefly examine some of his statements.
1. he says that the oppressions of england planted the settlers in america, who fled from english tyranny to a then uncultivated, inhospitable country.
in reply it may be affirmed, as a notorious fact, that the southern and middle colonies, even to pennsylvania, were nationalized by the kings of england from their commencement, and were frequently assisted by both king and parliament. the dutch and the swedes were the fathers of the settlements of new york and new jersey. the "pilgrim fathers," the founders of the plymouth colony, did, however, flee from persecution in england in the first years of king james, but found their eleven years' residence in holland less agreeable than settlement under english rule, or rather english indulgence, in america. the founders of the massachusetts bay settlement were a puritan section of the church of england, of which they professed to be devoted members after they embarked for america. a wealthy company of them determined to found a settlement in america, where they could enjoy the pure worship of the church of england without the ceremonies enjoined by archbishop laud—where they could convert the savage indians, and pursue the fur and fish trade, and agriculture; but they were no more driven to america by the "tyranny" of england, than the hundreds of thousands of puritans who remained in england, overthrew the monarchy, beheaded the king, abolished the church of england, first established presbyterianism and then abolished it, and determined upon the establishment of congregationalism at the moment of cromwell's death. but those "puritan fathers" who came to massachusetts bay, actually came under the auspices of a "royal charter," which they cherished as the greatest boon conferred upon any people. but among their first acts after their arrival at massachusetts bay was that to abolish the church of england worship itself, and set up the congregational worship in its place; to proscribe the common prayer book, and forbid its use even in private families, and to banish those who persisted in its use. and instead of converting and christianizing the savage heathen—the chief professed object of their emigration, and so expressed in their royal charter of [pg 298]incorporation—they never sent a missionary or established a school among them for more than twelve years; and then the first and long the only missionary among the indians was john elliott, self-appointed, and supported by contributions from england. but during those twelve years, and afterwards, they slew the indians by thousands, as the canaanites and amalekites, to be rooted out of the land which god had given to "the saints" (that is, to themselves), to be possessed and enjoyed by them. the savage foe, whose arms were bows and arrows, were made "formidable" in defence of their homes, which they had inherited from their forefathers; and if, in defence and attempted recovery of their homes when driven from them, they inflicted, after their own mode of warfare, "cruelties" upon their invaders, yet they themselves were the greatest sufferers, almost to annihilation.
2. "the colonies being nourished by the indulgence" of england, assumed by charles townsend, is the second ground of colonel barré's retort, who affirmed that the colonies grew by england's neglect of them, and that as soon as she began to care for them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them in one department or another, etc.
in reply, let it be remembered that three out of the four new england colonies—plymouth, rhode island, and connecticut—elected their own governors and officers from the beginning to the end of their colonial existence, as did massachusetts during the first half century of her first charter, which she forfeited by her usurpations, persecutions, and encroachments upon the rights of others, as i have shown in chapter vi. of this history; and it has been shown in chapter vii., on the authority of puritan ministers, jurists, and historians, that during the seventy years that massachusetts was ruled under the second royal charter, her governors being appointed by the crown, she advanced in social unity, in breadth and dignity of legislation, and in equity of government, commerce, and prosperity, beyond anything she had enjoyed and manifested under the first charter—so much so, that the neighbouring colonies would have gladly been favoured with her system of government. it is possible there may have been individual instances of inefficiency, and even failure of character, in some officers of the government during a period of seventy years, as is the case in all governments, but such instances were few, if they occurred at all, and such as to afford no just pretext for the rhapsody and insinuations of colonel barré on the subject.
3. in the third place, colonel barré denied that the colonies had been defended by the arms of england, and said, on the contrary, "they have nobly taken arms in your defence." it is true the colonists carried on their own local contests with the indians. the northern colonies conceived the idea of driving the french out of america, and twice attacked quebec for that purpose, but they failed; and the french and indians made such encroachments upon them that they implored aid from england "to prevent their being driven into the sea." it was not until england "nobly took up arms" in their behalf, and sent navies and armies for their "defence," that the progress of french arms and indian depredations were arrested in america, and the colonists were delivered from enemies who had disturbed their peace and endangered their safety for more than a century.[pg 302] at the close of the last french war, the colonies themselves, through their legislatures, gratefully acknowledged their indebtedness to the mother country for their deliverance and safety, which, without her aid, they said they never could have secured.
appendix b.
opinions of mr. grenville, mr. pitt, and lord camden (formerly chief justice pratt) on the stamp act and its repeal.
the great commoner, pitt, was not present in the commons when the declaratory and stamp acts were passed in 1765; but he was present at one sitting when an address to the king, in reply to a speech from the throne, relating to opposition in america to the stamp act, was discussed, and in which the propriety of repealing that act was mooted and partially argued. mr. pitt held the right of parliament to impose external taxes on the colonies by imposing duties on goods imported into them, but not to impose internal taxes, such as the stamp act imposed. in the course of his speech mr. pitt said:
"it is a long time since i have attended in parliament. when the resolution was taken in the house to tax america, i was ill in bed. if i could have endured to have been carried in my bed, so great was the agitation of my mind for the consequences, i would have solicited some kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony against it. it is now an act that has been passed. i would speak with decency of every act of this house; but i must beg the indulgence to speak of it with freedom.
"as my health and life are so very infirm and precarious, that i may not be able to attend on the day that may be fixed by this house for the consideration of america, i must now, though somewhat unseasonably, leaving the expediency of the stamp act to some other time, speak to a point of infinite moment—i mean the right. on a question that may mortally wound the freedom of three millions of virtuous and brave subjects beyond the atlantic ocean, i cannot be silent. america being neither really nor virtually represented in westminster, cannot be held legally, or constitutionally, or reasonably subject to obedience to any money bill of this kingdom. the colonies are, equally with yourselves, entitled to all the natural rights of mankind, and the peculiar privileges of englishmen; equally bound by the laws, and equally participating in the constitution of this free country. the americans are the sons, not the bastards, of england. as subjects, they are entitled to the common right of representation, and cannot be bound to pay taxes without their consent....
"the commons of america, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. they would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it....
"if this house suffers the stamp act to continue in force, france will gain more by your colonies than she ever could have done if her arms in the last war had been victorious.
"i never shall own the justice of taxing america internally until she enjoys the right of representation. in every other point of legislation the authority of parliament is like the north star, fixed for the reciprocal benefit of the parent country and her colonies. the british parliament, as the supreme gathering and legislative power, has always bound them by her laws, by her regulations of their trade and manufactures, and even in the more absolute interdiction of both. the power of parliament, like the circulation from the human heart, active, vigorous, and perfect in the smallest fibre of the arterial system, may be known in the colonies by the prohibition of their carrying a hat to market over the line of one province into another; or by breaking down the loom in the most distant corner of the british empire in america; and if this power were denied, i would not permit them to manufacture a lock of wool, or form a horse-shoe or hob-nail. but i repeat the house has no right to lay an internal tax upon america, that country not being represented."
after pitt ceased, a pause ensued, when general conway rose and said:
"i not only adopt all that has just been said, but believe it expresses the sentiments of most if not all the king's servants and wish it may be the unanimous opinion of this house."
mr. grenville, author of the stamp act, now leader of the[pg 304] opposition, recovering by this time his self-possession, replied at length to mr. pitt. among other things he said:
"the disturbances in america began in july, and now we are in the middle of january; lately they were only occurrences; they are now grown to tumults and riots; they border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine i have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to produce revolution. the government over them being dissolved, a revolution will take place in america.
"external and internal taxation are the same in effect, and only differ in name. that the sovereign has the supreme legislative power over america cannot be denied; and taxation is a part of sovereign power. it is one branch of the legislation. it has been and it is exercised over those who are not and were never represented. it is exercised over the india company, the merchants of london, the proprietors of the stocks, and over many great manufacturing towns." ...
"to hold that the king, by the concession of a charter, can exempt a family or a colony from taxation by parliament, degrades the constitution of england. if the colonies, instead of throwing off entirely the authority of parliament, had presented a petition to send to it deputies elected among themselves, this step would have evoked their attachment to the crown and their affection for the mother country, and would have merited attention.
"the stamp act is but a pretext of which they make use to arrive at independence. (french report.) it was thoroughly considered, and not hurried at the end of the session. it passed through the different stages in full houses, with only one division. when i proposed to tax america, i asked the house if any gentleman would object to the right; i repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. protection and obedience are reciprocal. great britain protects america; america is bound to yield obedience. if not, tell us when they were emancipated? when they wanted the protection of this kingdom, they were always ready to ask it. that protection has always been afforded them in the most full and ample manner. the nation has run itself into an immense debt to give it to them; and now that they are called upon to contribute a small share towards an expense arising from themselves, they renounce your authority, insult your officers, and break out, i might almost say, into open rebellion.
"the seditious spirit of the colonists owes its birth to the factions in this house. we were told we tread on tender ground; we were told to expect disobedience. what was this but telling the americans to stand out against the law, to encourage their obstinacy, with the expectation of support from hence? let us only hold back a little, they would say; our friends will soon be in power.
"ungrateful people of america! when i had the honour to serve the crown, while you yourselves were loaded with an enormous debt of one hundred and forty millions sterling, and paid a revenue of ten millions sterling, you have given bounties on their timber, on their iron, their hemp, and many other articles. you have restored in their favour the act of navigation, that palladium of british commerce. i offered to do everything in my power to advance the trade of america. i discouraged no trade but what was prohibited by act of parliament. i was above giving an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place it becomes me to wipe off the aspersion."
when grenville sat down, several members got up; but the house clamoured for pitt, who seemed to rise. a point of order was decided in favour of his speaking, and the cry of "go on, go on!" resounded from all parts of the house. pitt, addressing the speaker, said:
"sir, i have been charged with giving birth to sedition in america. they have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. sorry i am to hear the liberty of speech in this house imputed as a crime. but the imputation shall not discourage me. it is a liberty i mean to exercise; no gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. it is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might and ought to have profited. he ought to have desisted from his project. the gentleman tells us america is obstinate; america is almost in open rebellion. i rejoice that america has resisted." (at this word the members of the house were startled as though an electric spark had darted through them all.) "i rejoice that america has resisted. if its millions of inhabitants had submitted, taxes would soon have been laid on ireland; and if ever this nation should have a[pg 306] tyrant for its king, six millions of freemen, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would be fit instruments to make slaves of the rest." ...
"the gentleman tells us of many who are taxed and are not represented—the east india company, merchants, stockholders, manufacturers. surely many of these are represented in other capacities. it is a misfortune that more are not actually represented. but they are all inhabitants of great britain, and as such are virtually represented. they have connection with those that elect, and they have influence over them.
"not one of the ministers who have taken the lead of government since the accession of king william ever recommended a tax like this of the stamp act. lord halifax, educated in the house of commons; lord oxford, lord orford, a great revenue minister (walpole), never thought of this. none of these ever dreamed of robbing the colonies of their constitutional rights. this was reserved to mark the era of the late administration.
"the gentleman boasts of his bounties to america. are not these bounties intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? if so, where is the peculiar merit to america? if they are not, he has misapplied the national treasures.
"if the gentleman cannot understand the difference between internal and external taxes, i cannot help it. but there is a plain distinction between taxes levied for purposes of raising revenue and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accommodation of the subject, although in the consequences some revenue may incidentally arise for the latter.
"the gentleman asks when were the colonies emancipated? i desire to know when they were made slaves? but i do not dwell upon words. the profits to great britain from the trade of the colonies through all its branches is two millions a year. this is the fund that carried you triumphantly through the last war. the estates that were rented at two thousand pounds a year threescore years ago, are at three thousand pounds at present. you owe this to america. this is the price that america pays for your protection; and shall a miserable financier come with a boast that he can fetch a peppercorn into the exchequer to the loss of millions to the nation? i dare not say how much higher these profits may be augmented. omitting the immense increase of people in the northern colonies by natural population, and the emigration from every part of europe, i am convinced the whole commercial system may be altered to advantage." ...
"upon the whole, i will beg leave to tell the house what is really my opinion. it is that the stamp act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately; that the reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle. at the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation, that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent.
"let us be content with the advantage which providence has bestowed upon us. we have attained the highest glory and greatness. let us strive long to preserve them for our own happiness and that of our posterity."
the effect of pitt's speech was prodigious, combining cogency of argument with fervour of feeling, splendour of eloquence, and matchless oratorical power. the very next day the duke of grafton advised the king to send for pitt; but the king declined, though in a state of "extreme agitation." nevertheless, the duke of grafton himself sought an interview with pitt, who showed every disposition to unite with certain members and friends of the liberal rockingham administration to promote the repeal of the stamp act and the pacification of america; but it was found that many of the friends and advocates of america did not agree with pitt in denying the right of parliament to tax america, though they deemed it inexpedient and unjust. pitt could not therefore accept office. mr. bancroft remarks: "the principle of giving up all taxation over the colonies, on which the union was to have rested, had implacable opponents in the family of hardwicke, and in the person of rockingham's own private secretary (edmund burke). 'if ever one man lived more zealous than another for the supremacy of parliament, and the rights of the imperial crown, it was edmund burke.' he was the advocate of 'an unlimited legislative power over the colonies.' 'he saw not how the power of taxation could be given up, without giving up the rest.' 'if pitt was able to see it, pitt saw further than he could.' his wishes were very earnest 'to keep the whole body of this authority perfect and entire.' he was jealous of it; he was honestly of that opinion; and rockingham, after proceeding so far, and finding in pitt all the encouragement that he expected, let the negotiation drop. conway and grafton were compelled to disregard their own avowals on the question of the right of taxation; the ministry conformed to the opinion, which was that of charles yorke, the attorney-general, and still more of edmund burke."
while the repeal of the stamp act was under discussion in the commons, dr. franklin—then deputy postmaster-general for america—was summoned to give evidence at the bar of the house. his examination was long and minute. his thorough knowledge of all the subjects, his independence and candour made a deep impression, but he was dismissed from office the day after giving his evidence. some of the questions and answers are as follows:
question.—what is your name and place of abode?
answer.—franklin, of philadelphia.
q.—do the americans pay any considerable taxes among themselves?
a.—certainly; many and very heavy taxes.
q.—what are the present taxes in pennsylvania levied by the laws of the colony?
a.—there are taxes on all estates, real and personal; a poll-tax; a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and businesses, according to their profits; an excise on all wine, rum, and other spirits; and a duty of ￡10 per head on all negroes imported; with some other duties.
q.—for what purpose are those taxes levied?
a.—for the support of the civil and military establishment of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last war.
q.—are not you concerned in the management of the post-office in america?
a.—yes. i am deputy postmaster-general of north america.
q.—don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all the inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?
a.—the posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except in a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did, sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage amounting, in many cases, to much more than that of the stamps themselves.
q.—are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay the stamp duty?
a.—in my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.
q.—don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was all to be laid out in america?
a.—i know it is appropriated by the act to the american service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where the soldiers are, not in the colonies that pay it.
q.—is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the old colonies?
a.—i think not. i believe very little would come back. i know of no trade likely to bring it back. i think it would come from the colonies where it was spent, directly to england; for i have always observed that in every colony the more plenty the means of remittance to england, the more goods are sent for, and the more trade with england carried on.
q.—what may be the amount of one year's imports into pennsylvania from britain?
a.—i have been informed that our merchants compute the imports from britain to be above ￡500,000.
q.—what may be the amount of the produce of your province exported to britain?
a.—it must be small, as we produce little that is wanted in britain. i suppose it cannot exceed ￡40,000.
q.—how then do you pay the balance?
a.—the balance is paid by our produce carried to the west indies, and sold in our own island, or to the french, spaniards, danes and dutch; by the same carried to other colonies in north america, as to new england, nova scotia, newfoundland, carolina and georgia; by the same carried to different parts of europe, as spain, portugal and italy. in all which places we receive either money, bills of exchange, or commodities that suit for remittance to britain; which together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the freights made by their ships, centre finally in britain to discharge the balance, and pay for british manufactures continually used in the province, or sold to foreigners by our traders.
q.—do you think it right that america should be protected by this country and pay no part of the expense?
a.—that is not the case. the colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many millions.
q.—were not you reimbursed by parliament?
a.—we were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about ￡500,000, and the reimbursements in the whole did not exceed ￡60,000.
q.—you have said that you pay heavy taxes in pennsylvania; what do they amount to in the pound?
a.—the tax on all estates, real and personal, to eighteen-pence in the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of trades and professions, with other taxes, do, i suppose, make full half-a-crown in the pound.
q.—do you not think the people of america would submit to pay the stamp duty if it were moderated?
a.—no, never, unless compelled by the force of arms.
q.—what was the temper of america towards great britain before the year 1763?
a.—the best in the world. they submitted willingly to the government of the crown, and paid, in all their courts, obedience to acts of parliament. numerous as the people are in the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels, garrisons, or armies, to keep them in subjection. they were governed by this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink and paper. they were led by a thread. they had not only a respect, but an affection for great britain, for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. natives of britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an old-englandman was of itself a character of some respect, and gave a kind of rank among us.
q.—and what is their temper now?
a.—oh! very much altered.
q.—did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws for america questioned till lately?
a.—the authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should levy internal taxes. it was never disputed in levying duties to regulate commerce.
q.—in what light did the people of america use to consider the parliament of great britain?
a.—they considered the parliament as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and veneration. arbitrary ministers, they thought, might possibly at times attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it, that the parliament on application would always give redress. they remembered with gratitude a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought into parliament, with a clause to make royal instructions laws in the colonies, which the house of commons would not pass, and it was thrown out.
q.—and have they not still the same respect for parliament?
a.—no; it is greatly lessened.
q.—to what causes is that owing?
a.—to a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their trade by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away at the same time trial by juries, and refusing to see and hear their humble petitions.
q.—don't you think they would submit to the stamp act if it was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some particulars of small moment?
a.—no; they will never submit to it.
q.—what is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle of that of the stamp act; how would the americans receive it?
a.—just as they do this. they would not pay it.
q.—have not you heard of the resolutions of this house, and of the house of lords, asserting the right of parliament relating to america, including a power to tax the people there?
a.—yes; i have heard of such resolutions.
q.—what will be the opinion of the americans on those resolutions?
a.—they will think them unconstitutional and unjust.
q.—was it an opinion in america before 1763, that the parliament had no right to levy taxes and duties there?
a.—i never heard any objection to the right of levying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to levy internal taxes was never supposed to be in parliament, as we are not represented there.
q.—you say the colonies have always submitted to external taxes, and object to the right of parliament only in levying internal taxes; now, can you show that there is any kind of difference between the two taxes to the colony on which they may be laid?
a.—i think the difference is very great. an external tax is a duty levied on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is offered for sale, makes a part of the price. if the people do not like it at that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. but an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent, if not levied by their own representatives. the stamp act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase, nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills unless we pay such and such sums, and thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by the consequences of refusing to pay it.
q.—but supposing the internal tax or duty to be levied on the necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax?
a.—i do not know a single article imported into the northern colonies, but what they can either do without or make themselves.
q.—don't you think cloth from england absolutely necessary to them?
a.—no, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and good management, they may very well supply themselves with all they want.
q.—considering the resolution of parliament as to the right, do you think, if the stamp act is repealed, that the north americans will be satisfied?
a.—i believe they will.
q.—why do you think so?
a.—i think the resolutions of right will give them very little concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into practice. the colonies will probably consider themselves in the same situation in that respect with ireland; they know you claim the same right with regard to ireland, but you never exercise it. and they may believe you never will exercise it in the colonies, any more than in ireland, unless on some very extraordinary occasion.
q.—but who are to be the judges of that extraordinary occasion? is not the parliament?
a.—though the parliament may judge of the occasion, the people will think it can never exercise such right till representatives from the colonies are admitted into parliament, and that, whenever the occasion arises, representatives will be ordered.
q.—did the americans ever dispute the controlling power of parliament to regulate the commerce?
a.—no.
q.—can anything less than a military force carry the stamp act into execution??
a.—i do not see how a military force can be applied to that purpose.
q.—why may it not?
a.—suppose a military force sent into america, they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? they cannot force a man to take stamps, who refuses to do without them. they will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.
q.—if the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the consequences?
a.—a total loss of the respect and affection the people of america bear to this country, and of all the commerce that depends on that respect and affection.
q.—how can the commerce be affected?
a.—you will find that, if the act is not repealed, they will take very little of your manufactures in a short time.
q.—is it in their power to do without them?
a.—i think they may very well do without them.
q.—is it their interest not to take them?
a.—the goods they take from britain are either necessaries, mere conveniences, or superfluities. the first, as cloth, etc., with a little industry they can make at home; the second they can do without, till they are able to provide them among themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike off immediately. they are mere articles of fashion, purchased and consumed because the fashion in a respected country, but will now be detested and rejected. the people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many thousand pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.
q.—suppose an act of internal regulations connected with a tax, how would they receive it?
a.—i think it would be objected to.
q.—then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?
a.—their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are wanted, they are to be asked of the several assemblies, according to the old-established usage, who will, as they always have done, grant them freely; and that their money ought not to be given away without their consent by persons at a distance, unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. the granting aids to the crown is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it extremely hard and unjust that a body of men, in which they have no representation, should make a merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.
q.—but is not the post-office, which they have long received, a tax as well as a regulation?
a.—no; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of the nature of a tax; it is merely a quantum meruit for a service done; no person is compellable to pay the money if he does not choose to receive the service. a man may still, as before the act, send his letter by a servant, a special messenger, or a friend, if he thinks it cheaper and safer.
q.—but do they not consider the regulations of the post-office, by the act of last year, as a tax?
a.—by the regulations of last year, the rate of postage was generally abated near thirty per cent. through all america; they certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.
q.—if an excise was laid by parliament, which they might likewise avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised, would they then object to it?
a.—they would certainly object to it, as an excise is unconnected with any service done, and is merely an aid which they think ought to be asked of them, and granted by them if they are to pay it, and can be granted for them by no others whatsoever, whom they have not empowered for that purpose.
q.—you say they do not object to the right of parliament in levying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now, is there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of goods and an excise on their consumption?
a.—yes, a very material one; an excise, for the reasons i have just mentioned, they think you can have no right to levy within their country. but the sea is yours; you maintain by your fleets the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right to some toll or duty on merchandise carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage.
q.—supposing the stamp act continued and was enforced, do you imagine that ill-humour will induce the americans to give as much for worse [pg 314]manufactures of their own, and use them preferably to better ones of yours?
a.—yes, i think so. people will pay as freely to gratify one passion as another—their resentment as their pride.
q.—what do you think a sufficient military force to protect the distribution of the stamps in every part of america?
a.—a very great force; i can't say what, if the disposition of america is for a general resistance.
q.—if the stamp act should be repealed, would not the americans think they could oblige the parliament to repeal every external tax law now in force?
a.—it is hard to answer questions of what people at such a distance will think.
q.—but what do you imagine they will think were the motives of repealing the act?
a.—i suppose they will think that it was repealed from a conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it that, while the same expediency subsists, you will never attempt to make such another.
q—what do you mean by its inexpediency?
a.—i mean its inexpediency on several accounts: the poverty and inability of those who were to pay the tax, the general discontent it has occasioned, and the impracticability of enforcing it.
q.—if the act should be repealed, and the legislature should show its resentment to the opposers of the stamp act, would the colonies acquiesce in the authority of the legislature? what is your opinion they would do?
a.—i don't doubt at all that if the legislature repeal the stamp act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.
q.—but if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its right to levy taxes, by any act levying a small tax, contrary to their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
a.—the proceedings of the people in america have been considered too much together. the proceedings of the assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each other. the assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have taken no measures for opposition by force; they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition in order to such opposition. the ringleaders of riots they think ought to be punished; they would punish them themselves if they could. every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or estate. but as to an internal tax, how small soever, levied by the legislature here on the people there, while they have no representatives in this legislature, i think it will never be submitted to. they will oppose it to the last. they do not consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the crown. they have not only granted equal to their abilities, but during all the last [pg 315]war they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds; and this they did freely and readily, only on a sort of promise from the secretary of state that it should be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. it was accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable manner, for them. america has been greatly misrepresented and abused here, in papers and pamphlets and speeches, as ungrateful, unreasonable, and unjust in having put this nation to immense expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that expense. the colonies raised, paid, and clothed near 25,000 men during the last war—a number equal to those sent from britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for discharging that debt. the government here was at that time very sensible of this. the colonies were recommended to parliament. every year the king sent down to the house a written message to this purport: that his majesty, being highly sensible of the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in north america had exerted themselves in defence of his majesty's just rights and possessions, recommended it to the house to take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation. you will find those messages on your journals every year of the war to the very last, and you did accordingly give ￡200,000 annually to the crown, to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. this is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or reason for compensation. indeed, the sums reimbursed them were by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their proportion; but they never murmured at that: they esteemed their sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the approbation of this house, far beyond any other kind of compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act to force money from an unwilling people. they had not refused giving money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been made; they were always willing and ready to do what could reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered.
q.—but suppose great britain should be engaged in a war in europe, would north america contribute to the support of it?
a.—i do think they would, as far as their circumstances would permit. they consider themselves as a part of the british empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider themselves as such. they are zealous for the honour and prosperity of this nation, and, while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as far as their little power goes.
q.—do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on the subject there, to grant to the crown?
a.—i certainly think so; they have always done it.
q.—would they do this for a british concern; as, suppose, a war in some part of europe that did not affect them?
a.—yes, for anything that concerned the general interest. they consider themselves as a part of the whole.
q.—what is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the colonies for aids?
a.—a letter from the secretary of state.
q.—is this all you mean—a letter from the secretary of state?
a.—i mean the usual way of requisition—in a circular letter from the secretary of state, by his majesty's command, reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to grant such aids as became their royalty and were suitable to their abilities.
q.—did the secretary of state ever write for money for the crown?
a.—the requisitions have been to raise, clothe, and pay men, which cannot be done without money.
q.—would they grant money alone if called on?
a.—in my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they have money or can make it.
q.—what used to be the pride of the americans?
a.—to indulge in the fashions and manufactures of great britain.
q.—what is now their pride?
a.—to wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new ones.[282]
footnotes:
"an american revenue was, in england, a very popular measure. the cry in favour of it was so strong as to silence the voice of petitions to the contrary. the equity of compelling the americans to contribute to the common expenses of the empire satisfied many, who, without inquiring into the policy or justice of taxing their unrepresented fellow-subjects, readily assented to the measures adopted by parliament for that purpose. the prospect of easing their own burdens at the expense of the colonists, dazzled the eyes of gentlemen of landed interest, so as to keep out of their view the probable consequences of the innovation."
"the disposition to tax the colonies was also strengthened by exaggerated accounts of their wealth. it was said that the american planters lived in affluence and with inconsiderable taxes; while the inhabitants of great britain were borne down by such aggressive burdens as to make a bare existence a matter of extreme difficulty. the officers who had served in america during the late war contributed to this delusion. their observations were founded on what they had seen in the cities, and at a time when large sums were spent by government in support of fleets and armies, and when american commodities were in great demand. to treat with attention those who came to fight for them, and also to gratify their own pride, the colonists had made a parade of their riches, by frequently and sumptuously entertaining the gentlemen of the british army. these, judging from what they saw, without considering the general state of the country, concurred in representing the colonists as very able to contribute largely towards defraying the common expenses of the empire." (ramsay's colonial history, vol. i., chap. iii., pp. 332-335.)
prior documents, etc., p. 5.
"the taxes of great britain exceeded by ￡3,000,000 what they were in 1754, before the war; yet the present object was only to make the colonies maintain their own army. besides the taxes on trade, which were immediately to be imposed, mr. grenville gave notice in the house that it was his intention, in the next session, to bring in a bill imposing stamp duties in america; and the reasons for giving such notice were, because he understood some people entertained doubts of the power of parliament to impose internal taxes on the colonies, and because that, of all the schemes which had fallen under his consideration, he thought a stamp act was the best. but he was not so wedded to it as to be unwilling to give it up for any one that might appear more eligible; or if the colonies themselves thought any other mode would be more expedient, he should have no objection to come to it by act of parliament. at that time the merits of the question were opened at large. the opponents of the government were publicly called upon to deny, if they thought it fitting, the right of the legislature to impose any tax, internal or external, on the colonies; and not a single member ventured to controvert the right. upon a solemn question asked in a full house, there was not one negative." (bancroft's history of the united states, vol. v., chap. ix., pp. 186, 187.)
mr. grenville gave the year's notice apparently from motives of kindness and courtesy to the colonies, "in order that the colonies might have time to offer a compensation for the revenues which such a tax might produce. accordingly, when the agents of these colonies waited upon him to thank him for this mark of his consideration, he told them that he was ready to receive proposals from the colonies for any other tax that might be equivalent in its produce to the stamp tax, hinting withal that their principals would now have it in their power, by agreeing to this tax, to establish a precedent for their being consulted (by the ministry, we suppose) before any tax was imposed upon them by parliament.
"many persons at this side of the water, and perhaps the agents themselves, looked upon this as a humane and generous proceeding. but the colonies seemed to consider it as an affront rather than a compliment. at least not one of them authorized its agent to consent to the stamp duty, or to offer any compensation for it; and some of them went so far as to send over petitions, to be presented to the king, lords, and commons, positively and directly questioning the authority and jurisdiction of parliament over their properties." (annual register, vol. viii., chap. ix., p. 33.)
see appendix to this chapter for a summary and review of the speeches of mr. charles townsend and colonel barré.
"the province of virginia took the lead. on the 29th may, 1765, the house of burgesses of virginia adopted the following resolutions:
"whereas the honourable house of commons in england have of late drawn into question how far the general assembly of this province hath power to enact laws for levying taxes and imposing duties payable by the people of this his majesty's most ancient colony; for settling and ascertaining the same to all future times, the house of burgesses of this present general assembly have come to the following resolutions:
1. "resolved,—that the first adventurers and settlers of this his majesty's colony and dominion of virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other his majesty's subjects since inhabiting his majesty's colony, all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of great britain.
2. "resolved,—that by the two royal charters granted by king james the first, the colonies aforesaid are declared entitled to all privileges of faithful liege and natural-born subjects, to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of england.
3. "resolved,—that his majesty's liege people of this most ancient colony have enjoyed the right of having been thus far governed by their own assembly in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited, or in any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the king and people of great britain.
4. "resolved, therefore,—that the general assembly of this colony, together with his majesty or his substitute, have, in their representative capacity, the only exclusive right and power to levy taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the general assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, and has a manifest tendency to destroy british as well as american freedom." (prior documents, etc., pp. 6, 7.)
these resolutions were introduced by patrick henry, in an eloquent and animated speech, in the course of which the following extraordinary scene occurred: in an exciting tone he exclaimed, "c?sar had his brutus! charles the first had his cromwell! and george the third——" the speaker, greatly excited, cried out "treason! treason!" which was re-echoed from all sides. then henry, fixing his eye on the speaker, and pointing his finger towards him, raised his voice above the confusion and concluded, "and george the third may profit by their example. if this be treason, make the most of it." (elliott's history, etc., vol. ii., p. 252.)
mr bancroft says: "the resolutions were published in the newspapers throughout america, and by men of all parties—by royalists in office not less than by the public bodies in the colonies—were received without dispute as the avowed sentiments of the 'old dominion.'" (history of the united states, vol. v., chap, xiii., p. 278.)
holmes' annals, vol. ii., page 135. hildreth's history of the united states, vol. ii., pp. 530, 531.
cornelius burgess, a puritan minister, used to say of the rabble:
"these are my band-dogs. i can set them on; i can fetch them off again." (rapin's history of england, vol. ix., p. 410, in a note.)
"on sunday, 25th august (the day before these riots were renewed), dr. mayhew preached in the west meeting house, from the text, galatians, chap. v. verse 12: 'i would they were even cut off which trouble you.' although the sermon was regular enough, the text then seemed significant, and hutchinson (history) states that some were excited by it. (doubtless the 'band-dogs' of dr. mayhew.) at any rate, in the night the bonfires brought together their crowds, who, grown bold by success, proceeded to express their hatred against the admiralty courts and the custom-houses by attacking and damaging the houses of two officers, story and hallowell. in these they found good wines, which served to inflame their blood; and then their shout was, 'hutchinson! hutchinson!' a friend hastened to his house to warn him of his danger. he barred his windows, determined to resist their fury; but his family dragged him away with them in their flight. the mob rushed on, and beating down his windows, sacked the house (one of the finest in boston) and destroyed everything, even a valuable collection of books and manuscripts.
"this excess shocked the wise friends of liberty, and in a public meeting the citizens discovered the destruction, and set their faces against any further demonstrations of the sort. rewards were offered for the rioters, and mackintosh and some others were apprehended, but were rescued by their friends; and it was found impossible to proceed against them." (elliott's new england history, vol. ii., pp. 254, 255.)
"mayhew sent the next day a special apology and disclaimer to hutchinson. the inhabitants of boston, at a town meeting, unanimously expressed their abhorrence of these proceedings, and a civil guard was organized to prevent their repetition. yet the rioters, though well known, went unpunished—a sure sign of the secret concurrence of the mass of the community. those now committed were revolutionary acts, designed to intimidate—melancholy forerunners of civil war." (hildreth's history of the united states, vol. ii., chap, xxviii., p. 528.)
ib., p. 527.
1. lieutenant-governor hutchinson, whose house was thus sacked and his valuable papers destroyed, was the historian of his native province of massachusetts bay, whom i have quoted so frequently in the present volume of this history. of his history, mr. bancroft, a bitter enemy of hutchinson's, says:
"at the opening of the year 1765, the people of new england were reading the history of the first sixty years of the colony of massachusetts, by hutchinson. this work is so ably executed that as yet it remains without a rival; and his knowledge was so extensive that, with the exception of a few concealments, it exhausts the subject. nothing so much revived the ancestral spirit which a weaving of the gloomy superstitions, mixed with puritanism, had for a long time overshadowed." (history of the united states, vol. v., chap, xi., p. 228.)
2. but though mob violence distinguished boston on this as well as on other occasions, the opposition was such throughout the colonies, from new hampshire to georgia, that all those who had been appointed to receive and distribute the stamps were compelled, by the remonstrances and often threats of their fellow-colonists, to resign the office; and the stamped paper sent from england to the ports of the various provinces was either returned back by the vessel that brought it, or put into a place of sate keeping. "though the stamp act was to have operated from the 1st of november, yet the legal proceedings in courts were carried on as before. vessels entered and departed without stamped papers. the printers boldly printed and circulated their newspapers, and found a sufficient number of readers, though they used common paper, in defiance of the act of parliament. in most departments, by common consent, business was carried on as though no stamp law existed. this was accompanied by spirited resolutions to risk all consequences rather than submit to use the paper required by the stamp act. while these matters were in agitation, the colonists entered into associations against importing british manufactures till the stamp act should be repealed. agreeably to the free constitution of great britain, the subject was at liberty to buy, or not to buy, as he pleased. by suspending their future purchases until the repeal of the stamp act, the colonists made it the interest of merchants and manufacturers in england to solicit its repeal. they had usually taken so great a proportion of british manufactures, amounting annually to two or three millions sterling, that they threw some thousands in the mother country out of employment, and induced them, from a regard to their own interest, to advocate the measures wished for by america." (ramsay's colonial history, vol. i., pp. 345, 346).
"petitions were received by parliament from the merchants of london, bristol, lancaster, liverpool, hull, glasgow, etc., and indeed from most of the trading and manufacturing towns and boroughs in the kingdom. in these petitions they set forth the great decay of their trade, owing to the laws and regulations made for america; the vast quantities of our manufactures (besides those articles imported from abroad, which were enclosed either with our own manufactures or with the produce of our colonies) which the american trade formerly took off our hands; by all which many thousand manufacturers, seamen, and labourers had been employed, to the very great and increasing benefit of the nation. that in return for these exports the petitioners had received from the colonies rice, indigo, tobacco, naval stores, oil, whale-fins, furs, and lately potash, with other staple commodities, besides a large balance of remittances by bills of exchange and bullion obtained by the colonists for articles of their produce, not required for the british market, and therefore exported to other places.
"that from the nature of this trade, consisting of british manufactures exported, and of the import of raw material from america, many of them used in our manufactures, and all of them tending to lessen our dependence on neighbouring states, it must be deemed of the highest importance in the commercial system of this nation. that this commerce, so beneficial to the state, and so necessary to the support of multitudes, then lay under such difficulties and discouragements, that nothing less than its utter ruin was apprehended without the immediate interposition of parliament.
"that the colonies were then indebted to the merchants of great britain to the sum of several millions sterling; and that when pressed for payment, they appeal to past experience in proof of their willingness; but declare it is not in their power at present to make good their engagements, alleging that the taxes and restrictions laid upon them, and the extension of the jurisdiction of the vice-admiralty courts, established by some late acts of parliament, particularly by an act passed in the 4th year of his present majesty, for granting certain duties in the british colonies and plantations in america, and by an act passed in the 5th year of his majesty, for granting and applying certain stamp duties, etc., in said colonies, etc., with several regulations and restraints, which, if founded in acts of parliament for defined purposes, they represent to have been extended in such a manner as to disturb legal commerce and harass the fair trader, and to have so far interrupted the usual, former and most useful branches of their commerce, restrained the sale of their produce, thrown the state of the several provinces into confusion, and brought on so great a number of actual bankruptcies that the former opportunities and means of remittances and payments were utterly lost and taken from them.
"that the petitioners were, by these unhappy events, reduced to the necessity of applying to the house, in order to secure themselves and their families from impending ruin; to prevent a multitude of manufacturers from becoming a burden to the community, or else seeking their bread in other countries, to the irretrievable loss of the kingdom; and to preserve the strength of this nation entire, its commerce flourishing, the revenues increasing, our navigation the bulwark of the kingdom, in a state of growth and extension, and the colonies, from inclination, duty, and interest, attached to the mother country."
"such a number of petitions from every part of the kingdom, pregnant with so many interesting facts, stated and attested by such numbers of people, whose lives had been entirely devoted to trade, and who must be naturally supposed to be competent judges of a subject which they had so long and so closely attended to (besides that it showed the general sense of the nation), could not fail of having great weight with the house." (annual register for 1766, vol. ix., chap, vii., pp. 35, 36.)
ramsay's colonial history, vol. i., p. 348.
"at the same time that the stamp act was repealed, the absolute and unlimited supremacy of parliament was, in words, asserted. the opposers of repeal contended for this as essential. the friends of that measure acquiesced in it, to strengthen their party and make sure of their object. many of both sides thought that the dignity of great britain required something of the kind to counterbalance the loss of authority that might result from her yielding to the clamours of the colonists. the act for this purpose was called the declaratory act, and was, in principle, more hostile to america's rights than the stamp act; for it annulled those resolutions and acts of the provincial assemblies in which they had asserted their right to exemption from all taxes not imposed by their own representatives; and also enacted that the king and parliament had, and of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever."—ib., p. 349.
"the aborigines were never formidable in battle until they became supplied with the weapons of european invention." (bancroft's history of the united states, vol. i., p. 401.)
the treatment of the indians by the early new england puritans is one of the darkest pages in english colonial history. i have slightly alluded to it in the preceding pages of this volume. many passages might be selected from the early divines of new england, referring to the indians as the heathen whom they were to drive out of the land which god had given to this israel. i will confine myself to the quotation of a few words from the late rev. j.b. marsden, a.m., noted for his puritan partialities, in the two volumes of his history of the early and later puritans. but his sense of christian justice, tolerance, and humanity revolted at the new england puritans' intolerance to each other, and their cruel treatment of the indians. mr. marsden says:
"the new england puritans were revered beyond the atlantic as the pilgrim fathers, the founders of great cities, and of states renowned through the wide world for wealth, intelligence, and liberty. their memory is cherished in england with feelings of silent respect rather than of unmixed admiration; for their inconsistencies were almost equal to their virtues; and here, while we respect their integrity, we are not blinded to their faults. a persecuted band themselves, they soon learned to persecute each other. the disciples of liberty, they confined its blessings to themselves. the loud champions of the freedom of conscience, they allowed no freedom which interfered with their narrow views. professing a mission of gospel holiness, they fulfilled it but in part. when opposed, they were revengeful; when irritated, fanatical and cruel. in them a great experiment was to be tried, under conditions the most favourable to its success; and it failed in its most important point. the question to be solved was this: how would the puritans, the hunted, persecuted puritans behave, were they but once free, once at liberty to carry their principles into full effect? the answer was returned from the shores of another world. it was distinct and unequivocal. and it was this: they were prepared to copy the worst vices of their english persecutors, and, untaught by experience, to imitate their worst mistakes. the severities of whitgift seemed to be justified when it was made apparent on the plains of north america, that they had been inflicted upon men who wanted only the opportunity to inflict them again, and inflict them on one another." (marsden's history of the early puritans, chap, xi., pp. 305, 306.)
after referring to early conflicts between the puritans and indians, mr. marsden remarks as follows in regard to the manner in which the puritans destroyed the pequod nation:
"if there be a justifiable cause of war, it surely must be this, when our territory is invaded and our means of existence threatened. that the indians fell upon their enemies by the most nefarious stratagems, or exposed them, when taken in war, to cruel torments (though such ferocity is not alleged in this instance), does not much affect the question. they were savages, and fought white men as they and their fathers had always fought each other. how then should a community of christian men have dealt with them? were they to contend as savages or civilized men? as civilized men, or rather as men who had forsaken a land of civilization for purer abodes of piety and peace? the pequod war shows how little their piety could be trusted when their passions were aroused."
"after a week's marching, they came at day-break on the indian wigwams and immediately assaulted them. the 'massacre' (so their own chronicler, mr. bancroft, has termed it) spread from one hut to another; for the indians were asleep and unarmed. but the work of slaughter was too slow. 'we must burn them,' exclaimed the fanatic chieftain of the puritans; and he cast the first firebrand to windward among their wigwams. in an instant the encampment was in a blaze. not a soul escaped. six hundred indians, men, women, and children, perished by the steady hand of the marksman, by the unresisted broadsword, and by the hideous conflagration.
"the work of revenge was not yet accomplished. in a few days a fresh body of troops arrived from massachusetts, accompanied by their minister, wilson. the remnants of the proscribed race were now hunted down in their hiding places; every wigwam was burned; every settlement broken up; every cornfield laid waste. there remained, says their exulting historian, not a man or a woman, not a warrior or child of the pequod name. a nation had disappeared from the family of men." "history records many deeds of blood equal in ferocity to this; but we shall seek in vain for a parallel to the massacre of the pequod indians. it brought out the worst points in the puritan character, and displayed it in the strongest light. when their passions were once inflamed, their religion itself was cruelty. a dark, fanatical spirit of revenge took possession, not, as in other men, by first expelling every religious and every human consideration, but, what was infinitely more terrible, by calling to its aid every stimulant, every motive that religion, jaundiced and perverted, could supply. it is terrible to read, when cities are stormed, of children thrown into the flames, and shrieking women butchered by infuriated men who have burst the restraints of discipline. it is a dreadful licence; and true and gallant soldiers, occur when it may, feel that their profession is disgraced. but this was worse. here all was deliberately calm; all was sanctioned by religion. it was no outbreak of mere brutality. the fast was kept; the sabbath was observed; the staff of office, as a sacred ensign, was consecrated by one christian minister, while another attended upon the marching of soldiery, and cheered them in the murderous design with his presence and his prayers. piety was supposed not to abhor, but to exult in the exploit. this was true fanaticism. god's word and ordinances were made subservient to the greatest crimes. they were rudely forced and violated, and made the ministers of sin. when the assailants, reeking from the slaughter and blackened with the smoke, returned home, they were everywhere received with a pious ovation. god was devoutly praised, because the first principles of justice, nay, the stinted humanities of war, had been outraged, and unresisting savages, with their wives and children, had been ferociously destroyed." (marsden's history of the early puritans, chap, xi., pp. 305-311.)
such was the early puritan method of fulfilling the royal charter to the massachusetts company of "christianizing and civilizing the idolatrous indians;" and such is a practical comment upon colonel barré's statement as to indian cruelties.
but the intolerance of the puritans to each other was as conspicuous as their cruel treatment of the indians. on this point mr. marsden adds:
"the intolerance with which the puritans had been treated at home might at least have taught them a lesson of forbearance to each other. but it had no such effect. it would almost seem as if, true disciples in the school of the high commission and star chamber, their ambition was to excel their former tyrants in the art of persecution. they imitated, with a pertinacious accuracy, the bad examples of their worst oppressors; and with far less to excuse them, repeated in america the self-same crimes from which they and their fathers had suffered so much in england. no political considerations of real importance, no ancient prejudices interwoven with the framework of society, could be pleaded here. their institutions were new, their course was hampered by no precedents. imagination cannot suggest a state of things more favourable to the easy, safe, and sure development of their views. had they cherished a catholic spirit, there was nothing to prevent the exercise of the most enlarged beneficence. their choice was made freely, and they decided in favour of intolerance; and their fault was aggravated by the consideration that the experiment had been tried, and that they themselves were the living witnesses of its folly." (marsden's history of the early puritans, p. 311.)
it was but just to have added that the trade between england and america was as profitable to america as it was to england, and that the value of property and rents advanced more rapidly in america than in england.
this is a withering rebuke to a conceited though clever young statesman, lord nugent, who, in a previous part of the debate, insisted that the honour and dignity of the kingdom obligated them to compel the execution of the stamp act, "unless the right was acknowledged and the repeal solicited as a favour," concluding with the remark that "a peppercorn, in acknowledgment of the right, is of more value than millions without."
bancroft's history of the united states, vol. v., chap. xxi.
history of the united states, vol. v., chap. xxi., pp. 397, 398.
prior documents, pp. 64-81.
