Chapter 26
DISCUSSION BETWEEN CHARLES TOWNSEND AND COLONEL BARRe IN THE DEBATE ON Pa.s.sING THE STAMP ACT, REFERRED TO ON PAGE 293.
It was during the discussion on this Bill that Colonel Barre 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 Barre rose and replied with great energy, and, under the influence of intense excitement, uttered the following impa.s.sioned 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 hards.h.i.+ps 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 G.o.d's earth; and yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, they met all hards.h.i.+ps 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 n.o.bly 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. G.o.d 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 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 Barre._
Perhaps the English language does not present a more eloquent and touching appeal than these words of Colonel Barre, 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 a.n.a.lysing 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 a.s.sumed 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 ent.i.tled 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 const.i.tuted real manhood greatness. But though Charles Townsend's insulting haughtiness to the American colonists, and his proposal to treat them as minors, dest.i.tute 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 Barre 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 a.s.sisted 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Ma.s.sachusetts Bay was that to abolish the Church of England wors.h.i.+p itself, and set up the Congregational wors.h.i.+p 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 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 G.o.d 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,[276] 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.[277]
2. "The colonies being nourished by the indulgence" of England, a.s.sumed by Charles Townsend, is the second ground of Colonel Barre'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 Ma.s.sachusetts during the first half century
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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Barre on the subject.
3. In the third place, Colonel Barre denied that the colonies had been defended by the arms of England, and said, on the contrary, "they have n.o.bly 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 "n.o.bly 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. 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sed. 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 const.i.tutionally, or reasonably subject to obedience to any money bill of this kingdom. The colonies are, equally with yourselves, ent.i.tled to all the natural rights of mankind, and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by the laws, and equally partic.i.p.ating in the const.i.tution of this free country. The Americans are the sons, not the b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, of England. As subjects, they are ent.i.tled to the common right of representation, and cannot be bound to pay taxes without their consent....
"The Commons of America, represented in their several a.s.semblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their const.i.tutional 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 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 const.i.tution of England. If the colonies, instead of throwing off entirely the authority of Parliament, had presented a pet.i.tion 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 pa.s.sed 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 emanc.i.p.ated?
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 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 const.i.tutional 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 emanc.i.p.ated? 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;[278] 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?[279] 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 a.s.signed, because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be a.s.serted 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."[280]
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."[281]