1

The omni-competence of Parliament was now accepted by Englishmen as the salient feature of the constitution. They had come to realise that the constitution, in the words of Lord Mansfield, "has always been in a moving state, either gaining or losing something”, an idea which would have seemed as preposterous to most Englishmen a generation back as it did to the Americans, whose view was summed up in a sentence by Samuel Adams: "In all free states the constitution is fixed". Similarly the concepts of natural law and the contractual theory of government, which formed the chief dialectic weapons of the Americans, had become for most Englishmen exploded superstitions to which they could hardly listen with patience. It was, therefore, difficult to find a plane where the disputants could meet without misunderstanding each other's position.

Once the controversy was suffered to topple into the mire of legalism, the last no less than the first refuge of the narrow-minded, then the issue seemed in British eyes to whittle down to one of right. What were the powers of Parliament? In such guise the issue assumed a form particularly congenial to minds insensitive to the pressure of facts and the solicitation of new ideas. To such, all that was necessary was to obtain the most authoritative legal opinion. This line, which was followed in many pamphlets, was little calculated to assuage political passions, in the atmosphere of which the shafts of Samuel Adams, feathered by the determination to extort independence, could be discharged with most telling effect. It was a foregone conclusion that legal opinion would be overwhelmingly in favour of the claims of Parliament. Juridically there had been no advance in the status of the colonies since the seventeenth century, and Lord Mansfield's dictum that the American governments were "all on the same footing as our great corporations in London" was according to the letter of the law. Among British jurists the only one of eminence to befriend the American cause was Lord Camden, who took up position, unsupported by history or jurisprudence, that the constitution was "grounded on the eternal and immutable laws of nature".

the

This legal definition naturally resulted from the constitutional points raised in the course of the debates on the repeal of the Stamp Act, and need not have been dangerous had the relation of the constitutional issue to the demands of imperial unity been kept in mind. There developed, however, an unfortunate tendency in Great Britain to base all claims on what the law allowed without sufficiently examining the extent to which legal definition accurately interpreted the realities of the situation. Possibly the influence of Sir William Blackstone contributed to fix British attention too closely on what were deemed to be legal rights at the expense of what was expedient. His lectures at Oxford, which in their published form as Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) were widely read in Great 1 Ibid. XVI, 178.

1 Parl. Hist. XVI, 197.

INFLUENCE OF BLACKSTONE

633

Britain and America, had revived interest in the study of English law. He supported in the most explicit terms the omni-competence of Parliament: "What Parliament doth no authority upon earth can undo". It would be unjust to charge Blackstone with being hostile to reform-in fact, his exposition prepared the ground for the legal reforms that were accomplished in the nineteenth century—but he expressed such satisfaction with the constitution as to convey the impression that it required no amendment, and so confirmed the minds of his readers in the legalistic habits of thought that were politically so disastrous.

1 Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England (ed. of 1773), 1, 161.

CHAPTER XXII

(I) IMPERIAL RECONSTRUCTION, 1763-5

AN Empire of vast extent had been won. Its acquisition brought

with it new problems of expenditure, of administration, and defence. Attempts to solve those problems provoked a constitutional struggle with the American colonies which ended in the loss of a great part of the Empire in the West. At first the sun shone in an almost unclouded sky. The expulsion of the French from Canada and of the Spaniards from Florida had at last almost wholly freed the Americans from the threat which had so long haunted them. They had taken their share in the effort to achieve their deliverance, but they were well aware that they owed it and the bright future which now seemed to open before them to the British fleet and the British army, and the minister whose name they celebrated in Pittsburg, the successor of Fort Duquesne. In an Address to the King the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay fully acknowledged this debt. The People, they declared, would show their gratitude by every possible testimony of duty and gratitude.1

Whilst the eloquence and idealism of Chatham had stimulated in the British race a sense of pride in their Empire, the necessity of remodelling the administrative machinery of the colonies in the direction of imperial co-ordination had for some time been apparent. The defects of the loose control of the colonies, arising out of the period of so-called "salutary neglect", were emphasised by the problems created by the issue of the Seven Years' War. The preparation of measures calculated to meet the new requirements of imperial administration was largely the work of one man, Lord Halifax. He was gifted with considerable imagination and ability. His interest in colonial affairs was intense, and he clearly perceived their ever-growing importance. From 1748 to 1765, except for a brief interval, he held positions in successive ministries which gave him the chief responsibility for the development of the overseas dependencies.

The most urgent of imperial problems was that of defence. That a combination among the American colonies for that purpose was necessary, was the view long held by every intelligent colonist. It was in this connection, when both French and British were preparing for the hostilities which broke out in 1755, that Lord Halifax made his first proposal for altering the imperial machinery. At the conference at Albany, 1754, called at his suggestion to confirm the

1 Hutchinson, T., Hist. Mass. Bay, III, 101.

2 See Kimball, G. S., Corresp. of Pitt with Colonial Governors, passim.

PLANS FOR DEFENCE

635

alliance with the Iroquois Indians, the Americans themselves formulated a plan of union by means of which they would be able to tax their whole body for the purpose of carrying on war. Nothing came of that proposal. But at the same time the subject was being considered by the Board of Trade. Halifax's immediate purpose was to stop the encroachment of the French upon territory claimed by the British. With this object in view, it was recommended that a royal military officer should be appointed, to be responsible both for colonial defence and the management of the Indians. His salary as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Commissary-General of the Indian Department was to be paid by the colonies, which were to remain responsible for the frontier forts and the usual presents to the Indians, each contributing a quota of the expense in proportion to its wealth and population.1 If this scheme had been adopted, the financial burden of the war in America would have been borne mainly by the colonies. But there was no time to put it into operation. War was imminent. One important part of this plan, however, was adopted. As an answer to the despatch of a large military force by France, General Braddock was sent to America in 1755 as Commander-in-Chief of all land forces, regular and colonial. The experiences of the war of 1744-8 had shown that this step was a strategic necessity in order to meet the more centralised military system of the French in Canada. From that time onwards there was always stationed in America an imperial military officer, whose authority extended over all the colonies. His presence put some check on local autonomy and was not seldom the cause of friction.2

Braddock was also instructed to inaugurate an important political reform. Hitherto, all relations with the Indians had been under the jurisdiction of the provincial officials. That system had not proved successful. From the earliest times fur-traders and land-speculators had cheated and imposed upon the natives. Time and again Indian chiefs were plied with rum, and, when rendered sufficiently drunk, were induced to sign away huge concessions of land, without knowing what they were doing. Goods were bartered at outrageous prices by traders using all the chicanery of false weights and other devices familiar to the petty swindler. No proper control was exercised over these Indian traders. Governors like Spotswood of Virginia or Burnet of New York might endeavour to establish a system of monopolies, trading-posts and licences; but for the most part, protected by the mountains and forests of the wilderness, the traders continued to defraud the Redskin without scruple and without restraint. Impartial observers declared again and again that it was

1 O'Callaghan, E. B., N.Y. Col. Docs. VI, 903; Alvord, C. W., Mississippi Valley in British Politics, 1, 117.

2 Carter, C. E., Great Britain and the Illinois Country, pp. 17-20, 49-72.

3 See Osgood, H. L., American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, IV, 299 seqq.

such abuses, and such abuses only, that occasioned the terrible Indian wars and outrages on the frontiers.1 The protection of the natives had long exercised the Home Government. It was, besides, important from a military point of view to secure the friendship and alliance of the Indians, who were already regarding with dismay the advance of the Pale-faces into their territory in the Mississippi Valley. Braddock was, therefore, instructed to appoint officers to control all political transactions with the natives. The jurisdiction of these superintendents of Indian affairs was divided between northern and southern districts, with a boundary line south of the Ohio River. Charge of the northern district was given to Sir William Johnson, a man of great ability, skill and experience in dealing with the Indians. The best known superintendent in the south was John Stuart. Both these agents gradually extended their power over political relations with the Indians so as to include control of purchases of land and the fur trade.

As soon as peace was signed, one of the first duties of the Government was to reduce the establishment of the Army and Navy to a peace footing, whilst providing adequate protection for the greatly extended Empire. The large issue of the Seven Years' War had been the expansion of the British race in the British Empire. But the war had originated in America, and most directly it had been waged in the interests of the American colonies. Though the Americans as a whole had done their share of fighting, the experience of the war had shown how impossible it still was to rely upon the several colonies to combine in a scheme for their own defence. It was naturally expected that the Americans should contribute handsomely towards its successful conduct both in money and in man power. But as the contributory scheme suggested in 1754 had not been adopted, it became necessary to fall back on the old method, which had so often before proved unsatisfactory, of sending requisitions for troops to the separate colonies. The response to such requisitions had varied in proportion to the goodwill or self-interest of the respective provinces. Virginians and Pennsylvanians were acutely interested in the dispute with France over the forks of the Ohio; the Northerners were not. The Southerners, on the other hand, objected to sending their troops into Canada. But neither Virginia nor Pennsylvania, in which colony Quakers, opposed to all warfare, predominated, contributed the quota expected from them. A quarrel between the governor and the Legislature had the same result in Maryland. The situation improved when, under Pitt, grants of money were regularly made by Parliament towards the military expenses of the colonies. But even so, only Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York came near to supplying the desired quotas. With a population numbering no

1 See Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1714-15, no. 521, etc.; 1716, no. 146, etc.