1769]

THE BOSTON PORT ACT.

301

judicious alleviation of the trade regulations would have satisfied public feeling in both provinces.

Two measures, however, were introduced into the house of commons, which, the more closely they are regarded, the more indefensible they appear: the proposal to revive the obsolete statute of 35th Henry VIII., by which offences committed beyond the seas should be tried in England; and subsequently the Boston port bill which closed the port of that city. These acts, dictated more by a spirit of revenge than by policy, in themselves a senseless exercise of power, did more to unite the provinces in common action than all which otherwise happened. They awoke a spirit which had then not been called forth; the failure to believe in the justice of the mother country. They were accepted as an outrage, and an insult to American sentiment, and insults sink deeper into the mind than injuries. These acts gave countenance to the repeated assertion of the republican party, that Great Britain felt jealous of the prosperity of the provinces, and desired to use their success and well-being for her own advancement, by imposing taxes generally on the community, and by governing arbitrarily. With such a prospect before them, the only safety was in independence. No act could have more promoted the cause of the more violent partizans; and it gave the death-blow to the loyalty and affection of many who had hitherto felt but moderate sympathy with the lawlessness of Massachusetts.

At the meeting of parliament in November, 1768, resolutions were carried in the two houses, approving of the steps taken to maintain the authority of parliament, and declaring their readiness to concur in further measures which might be necessary to sustain it. Motions were also passed censuring the proceedings of the house of assembly of Massachusetts, and of the public meetings held in Boston. Such a reproof was most impolitic. Allusion in this direct form to the lawlessness which had taken place, gave it strength and character. What was needed was its repression, and at the same time an investigation into the causes of discontent,

accompanied by the benignant determination to remedy what even might be considered a sentimental grievance; and further by the enforcement of law and order, to awaken a healthy state of public feeling, the key-note of which should have been, that the peace could not be broken with impunity. Any mention of the violence which had taken place should have been made incidentally. In the house of lords much bitterness was shewn to the provincial cause; but it reached its climax in the motion of the duke of Bedford, who was the means of an address to the king being carried through both houses, asking that he would cause the fullest information to be obtained regarding the actors concerned in the late outrages, and, if he deemed it expedient would enforce the statute of the 35th Henry VIII., by which, offences committed beyond the seas might be tried in England. It is possible, that in this monstrous proposition nothing more than a threat was meant. Even if this be so, it was as repellant to wisdom as to decency and the national honour. There is no darker stain on the escutcheon of Great Britain during this melancholy quarrel.

Burke immediately saw not only the ill consequences of the measure, but its logical folly. While the enactment would exasperate the Americans, and would be regarded as an attempted wrong to recoil upon those who conceived it, it declared by its provisions, that there was not a jury in the country to be trusted; and, if in a people of two millions there was no party to sustain the authority of the mother country, either the plan of government should be changed, or the colonies be abandoned.

In the house of commons the government was opposed in its policy by an uncertain union of the Rockingham party, and the adherents of Grenville; and the colonists might find some comfort in the pleading of their defenders on their behalf. They were described as a simple people, driven to madness by the unjust imposition of taxes. Those, who were in opposition to the policy of the court, became as it were the constituted defenders of the colonial cause. Thus a party was inau

1769]

RE-APPEARANCE OF CHATHAM.

303

gurated in opposition to the ministry, one of the elements of their union being the discontinuance of repression in America, so that the early causes of difference disappeared from view. It cannot, however, be disputed that the threat of carrying prisoners to England for trial worked its influence during a few weeks in Massachusetts. Seditious writings ceased to appear, and for some short time there was more political quiet. It is a proof what might have been the effect of a strong government acting with firmness. But the feeling of anxiety passed away, as it was understood that the measure was a mere threat, and the old agitation was resumed, embittered by the opposition it had received.

In July, 1769, Chatham took the world by surprise by appearing at the king's levee apparently recovered in health, with his faculties in full vigour. On the 28th of October, he resigned his office. Parliament met the following January, when Chatham was in his place to criticise the address to the throne, and to move an amendment with regard to Wilkes. He dwelt much upon the distractions of the empire, as shewn in the colonies, and spoke powerfully in their favour.

It was the commencement of those remarkable orations, which, during eight years, almost to the hour of his death, were uttered by him in defence of the American revolution; at the same time he asserted the legislative supremacy and constitutional control of the mother country. Two principles appear to have affected Chatham's mind. He gave unhesitating credence to the sentiment of affection for the mother country publicly expressed by the leaders of the colonial cause, and to the reiteration of the sentiment that there was no desire for separation. It was the expression of a policy on the part of the colonial politicians, attended by no inconvenience. Those, most intent on promoting the cause of independence, early learned the value of this pretended loyalty, and never failed to assert that it was strongly felt. Satisfied of the truth of this sentiment, Chatham saw in the advocacy of the colonial cause only a powerful means of counteracting the ills threatening the commonwealth, through

the increased influence of the crown, in the house of commons. In consequence of its preponderance, votes. destructive to the liberty of the subject were carried by large majorities, and the ancient constitutional restraint over the policy of ministers was passing away before the strength which the court party had attained.

It may be asked, if at this date, in England, any general real sympathy with the cause of America was felt by the public men who advocated the claim of the colonists to be freed from contributing to their defence. In the first year of the agitation in the provinces themselves, there was by no means a generally settled sentiment on the matter. If Grenville had introduced his stamp act when the Indian wars of 1763-1764 remained undecided, the probability is that it would have been accepted without tumult. Statesmen of all opinions, who had watched the American colonies, saw they possessed every element of prosperity and advancement, and that their continued connection with the mother country would add to its power and importance. There likewise arose a feeling of pride and affection towards these happily constituted communities, as their advancement in prosperity and wealth became better known and understood. However strong this feeling with those who maintained their cause in the house of commons, it is scarcely possible to dissever it from the questions affecting imperial politics, and the important issues raised at home undoubtedly obtained for the cause of the colonists a support, which, under other conditions, might not have been given.

The fact is to some extent traceable in Pitt's celebrated reply to Grenville in 1766. "The gentlemen," he said, "tell us America is obstinate. America is almost in open rebellion. Sir, I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest." The passage suggests that it was designed as much to apply to home politics as to encourage resistance across the Atlantic. The idea of any organized

1769]

LORD GEORGE SACKVILLE.

305

opposition to imperial power, on the part of the American provinces, was not at that date entertained by a single person in the house of commons; and there was an indifference as to trans-Atlantic politics, with the great body of the people, which has by no means entirely passed away. When public opinion, even at this date in England, is at all aroused by some extraordinary events happening across the Atlantic, that view of the situation, which is dogmatically and perseveringly enforced, obtains currency, until some painful dilemma establishes its incorrectness, and the truth becomes known. There was not a man in England who thought that armed resistance on the part of the colonists against the crown, was possible, or, should it be madly attempted, that there was the slightest chance of its eventual success. There was consequently by no means perfect restraint in the language used by the public men who took the colonial side. While defending them on this occasion, Pitt defined his own political position; speaking of Grenville's ministry he affirmed "that every capital measure they have taken has been entirely wrong;" but he arbitrarily declined to give his confidence to the Rockingham administration. His failure to act with, and control the government of that day, is one of the points on which posterity will deal hardly with Chatham's memory. Had he come forward on that occasion to assume the leading part in political life, which his genius and fame pointed out, there would have been a different page of history to write.

It was during these difficulties that lord George Sackville's name was restored to the privy council, a proceeding denounced by Pitt as an insult to the memory of George II., he himself declaring that he would never sit at the same board with him.

Lord George Sackville had been cashiered for cowardice at Minden. George II. with his own hand had removed his name from the list of privy councillors. In the history of those unhappy days, the memory of no public man is held at a lower estimate; and it is scarcely possible to use stronger language than such condemnation implies.

V