Hutchinson in the now celebrated interview by his acquaintance with many trifling matters, and as we read the twenty pages in which the conversation is recorded by Hutchinson, we must recognize the good sense of many of the monarch's remarks. * It will I think be conceded, that, whatever the perversion of mind with which George III. regarded these events, he was sincerely patriotic; and one of the strongest feelings he possessed was his desire to see the termination of the quarrel effected to the general advantage of the empire. One of the misfortunes of that period, and it is by no means a rare feature with men in authority, was that the king believed in himself, and in the honesty of his intentions, and what was to have greater weight in the dispute, he had formed strong opinions, to which he clung with invincible obstinacy. The proofs of his interference in the policy of the country are too numerous for the fact to be disputed, and those who differed directly from the king's views, as they were expressed, had not the courage to state their own sentiments in opposition to them. Acceptance of the royal utterances, as infallible, was regarded as a safe passport, both to the acquirement of office and the retention of its possession.

There was, however, no indifference concerning the American question. During the ten years the agitation had lasted, it had exercised a continual disturbance in the house of commons, and had intruded itself into the political relationship of many prominent men. An uneasy feeling had arisen with regard to the cause of discontent, which few attempted to consider, and none to regard in a statesmanlike spirit. The commercial classes feared the loss of their customers. Those who in the colonies advocated the non-importation clause correctly estimated that they were appealing to a powerful influence on party combinations to be exercised on their behalf. What greatly aided to bewilder all classes of politicians was the ever-recurring protestation that there was no desire for separation, even on the part of the most active in the movement. Such a declaration gave ground for hope, that

Hutchinson's diary, Vol. I., pp. 157-174.

1774]

SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT.

357

the cause of dissatisfaction which prevailed could be removed, and the old friendly relationship be, re-established. The design and intent of those who had obtained the mastery of the situation in America, and especially in Massachusetts, were never even surmised. As the demand that the colonies should assist in the expense of their own defence, which was the reason assigned for the introduction of the stamp act, was not considered to press unduly upon America, and that act had been repealed owing to the violent opposition to it, it was hoped that if the sentiment, of which such strong assurances were given, really prevailed, the legislatures of the provinces would propose some mode of adjustment agreeable to them, by which peace could be preserved.

One claim never abandoned in England was the supremacy of parliament. The fact, as a theory in the first years of the dispute, was not called in question in America, and there was never any open repudiation of the doctrine, although the opposition to the mother country took many forms, until it assumed the demand for independence.* The objection, which was afterwards formulated, was against internal and external taxation, standing armies, the desire to control the Indian lands, the Quebec act; but it was only at a late date that this specific pretension was advanced, and when such was the case, it took the distinct character of the demand for a separate nationality. It was the misfortune in imperial politics that the true condition of the dispute remained unconsidered, and that the unexpressed demand was not brought to its simple elements, unencumbered by declamation. The quarrel would have been reduced to narrow limits; either that the points on

Some light is thrown on a dispassionate consideration of the matter by the declaration of the assembly of Massachusetts in their address to governor Pownall in 1757: "The authority of all Acts of Parliament, which concern the colonies and extend to them, is ever acknowledged in all the courts of law, and made the rule of all judicial proceedings in the Province. There is not a member of the general court, and we know no inhabitant within the bounds of the government, that ever questioned that authority." At this date the French were in full power at Quebec and possessed the fortress of Louisbourg, to impress on every seaport town of New England, a sense of the danger of the destructive attack to which it was constantly exposed.

which dissatisfaction was felt should be conceded, or their recognition enforced by irresistible power.

There ought to have been no difficulty in the removal of the want of concord, were it great or small, when the mother country disclaimed in plain language all desire to sacrifice the colonies to obtain revenue, to be expended for the benefit of the central power. The minister expressly declared that the sole desire was to retain the parliamentary right of determining the general policy for the benefit of the whole British dominions. Had there been as in modern times, a full discussion of the question in an ably written press, conducted by men of education and independent thought, there would have been a truer conception of the differences which prevailed. Political writing in this respect was in its infancy in England. Caricature was then more a political weapon than the modern leading article. Until the days of Junius such political disquisition was of rare occurrence; and reports of the proceedings in the house of commons were contrary to law. George III. spoke of those who gave an account of what took place in the two houses as "miscreants."* The law of libel was a law of terror, and prosecutions followed any strong declamation against a government policy. And as in the attack of Wilkes, when challenged by Martin, whose conduct on this occasion called forth the bitter animadversion of Churchill in the Duellist, there were always men ready to make a personal quarrel out of a political dispute, by which they could gain notoriety and favour, and possibly, remove a powerful opponent.

was

In the British provinces the press, with a few exceptions, on the side of those who were advocating extreme February 21, 1771.

"I have very much considered the affair of the printers, and in the strongest manner recommend that every caution may be used to prevent its becoming a serious business. It is highly necessary that this strange and lawless method of publishing debates in the papers should be put a stop to. But is not the house of lords the best court to bring such miscreants before, as it can fine as well as imprison, and has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a measure?"--George III. to lord North.

1774]

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

359

measures. Every number of such journals published in the heat of the contest was an appeal to additional violence, and, as time went on the pretensions advanced with it. There was no antidote to this violence. Agitation could run its course unimpeded by opposition. In any community a few active individuals well organized can make a great noise, and convey a false opinion of their strength and power. It is understood in modern politics, that these attempts have to be met in the early stage of their efforts. As opinion with time gains strength, so the agitation which could have been subdued at its commencement with no great exertion, finally acquired an increase of force almost to be irresistible.

The difficulty with the British ministry lay in their incapacity to determine the policy they could resolutely carry out. They saw events drifting onward in a direction which they could not follow, to an end which they could not foretell, and as they made no attempt to guide the former, so in no way they strove to shape the latter. It cannot, however, be pretended that the ministry remained unimpressed with the dangers of the situation and the obligations it entailed. Lord North told Hutchinson in November, 1774, that there was a determination to take effectual measures; he even confidentially communicated to him that parliament had been dissolved, and that a new house of commons had been obtained, so that the ministry could "at the beginning of a parliament take such measures as we could depend upon a parliament to prosecute to effect."*

Parliament met on the last day of November. But with all the sense of the necessity of urgent measures being adopted nothing was done. There was an unbroken silence upon American affairs, which was a general surprise, and to none. more bewildering than to the colonial loyalists, who had taken refuge in London. Letters had been received from Gage; there was nothing material in them. There was no appeal to the ministers to meet the threatening crisis. General opinion traced the procrastination to lord North having no definite

Hutchinson Diary, I., p. 298.

view of what he should do, and to his fear of taking a false step. Members in the house of commons, even on the ministerial side, became dissatisfied, and the propriety was discussed of preventing any adjournment for the christmas holidays. The adjournment, however, took place, and the ministers went gaily to their country houses. On all sides there was tranquility, as if America was not seething in an agitation which its fomenters never permitted to cease. It was, however, publicly said that lord North had a plan prepared, but had deemed it wise to postpone its introduction until after the holidays.

There was no public opinion with regard to the future. The view which generally prevailed was, that the strength of the mother country was irresistible, and that America should be clearly made to understand that parliament would maintain its authority to the full extent that circumstances would demand. It was hoped that from a sense of the power with which the declaration could be enforced, the colonies would become more submissive. The strongest desire was felt for the happiness and prosperity of the provinces, and there was a readiness to grant all that could properly be conceded, if the theoretical supremacy of parliament were recognized. Many asked if such an admission of supremacy could be obtained, with the understanding that no taxes should be enforced. The royalists in London saw that there was no hope for such accommodation. If excuse can be found for this view, it must be sought for in the conduct of those advocating the cause of congress both in America and London. There were unceasing complaints of grievances, a reiteration of assumed injuries, a parade of the violations of their ancient constitution, with the demand of reparation due for wrong; but there was never a specific proposition of the policy that would satisfy America. At this date no such proposition could have been made, for in the provinces themselves the agitation had passed out of the realm of constitutional discussion. The ill-conceived Boston act had ranged the whole country on the side of Massachusetts. That