measures. Scots, both at home and in America, actively supported the claims of Great Britain. "Almost to a man", according to a contemporary writer, "they proffered life and fortune in support of the present "1 The Irish Protestants were equally zealous on the other side. "All Ireland", said Chatham, "is Whig." But this was not true of the Catholic population. And when the war was extended to France and Spain, the feelings of the Ulster Presbyterians underwent a notable change. Many who had refused to treat the Americans as enemies rallied round the Government against the Catholic Powers. The popularity of the war increased as it progressed. The spirit of the nation was stirred by the success of British arms. Resentment grew at the Declaration of Independence, the depredations of American privateers, and the grossly unpatriotic speeches of Fox and his friends. When the war became one with the old hereditary foes, the fighting instincts of the country were roused to make gigantic efforts in a combat single-handed against all the maritime Powers of Europe. One has, then, the impression of a nation divided against itself, in which a majority constantly recognised the necessity of enforcing imperial unity, but at the same time shrank from applying extreme measures against its own flesh and blood. The same indecision affected the generals in the field. Howe, for instance, instead of hitting hard and then negotiating, probably let slip his military opportunities because he inclined, for sentimental and political reasons, to fight with an olive branch in one hand and a sword in the other. The parliamentary Opposition, though small, was virulent and enthusiastic. Chatham, Burke, Shelburne, Rockingham, Richmond, Charles James Fox, Pitt and Sheridan-seldom has a national assembly contained a group of greater eloquence and force. As the situation developed, the Tories rallied round the King and his conception of the Empire, whilst the Whigs did their utmost to encourage the colonists in their resistance and to prevent the Government from applying the full resources of the country in the effort to suppress them. In this they were united. But between the followers of Chatham and Shelburne and the Rockingham Whigs a strong line of cleavage persisted over the question of yielding independence. Some, almost from the first, were ready to surrender British sovereignty. As early as 1776, the Duke of Richmond took the view that war with America would be ruinous; that it would bring France into the war against us, and that, even if successful, it would not be final. It would be better then, he argued, to grant independence at once. Whigs were moved too, Chatham as well as Fox, Horace Walpole as [? Burke, E.], Annual Register, 1776, p. 39; Shelburne to Dr Price, Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, 11, 40. Albemarle, Life of Rockingham, п, 305; Burke, Works, IX, 152. Richmond to Mr Connolly, Nov. 1776, in a letter quoted by Lecky, Hist. of Eng. in Eighteenth Cent. IV, 352. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION—A CIVIL WAR 763 well as Burke and Richmond, by the fear lest the triumph of the King and his "Friends" in America would prove to be the death knell of the Whig party and of English liberty. The victory of the Crown would, it was believed, usher in a reign of despotism. To such extremes did partisanship in this civil war go, that Fox described the British victory at Brooklyn as "terrible news".1 Whigs toasted every American success and every British disaster. They even spoke in Parliament of the insurgent forces as "our army". 2 In America the same division of opinion recurred. The conditions were those of civil war. Even in the State of New York, where the merchant class for the most part clung to their allegiance to Great Britain, the Provincial Convention of revolutionists decreed that all Loyalists were guilty of treason and should suffer death. The Loyalists were probably at least as numerous as the patriots. They included certainly the larger half of the propertied, educated and professional classes, as well as of the Quakers and Episcopalians. But they were inclined to leave the fighting to the British forces, and lack of organisation placed them largely at the mercy of the extremists. The early step taken for disarming them was perhaps one of the most crucial actions of the war. The paucity of numbers engaged in the battles of the Revolution and the ever-increasing difficulty in raising recruits for the continental army indicate that the idea of an independent American Republic did not appeal overwhelmingly to more than a fraction of the American people. Even those who espoused the revolutionary cause were lukewarm and reluctant to fight. Out of 700,000 fighting men in the country, Washington could never muster more than 20,000 for one battle. Whilst those who fought, half-frozen, starving and in rags, knew no limit to their heroism and endurance, many farmers were tempted to prefer British gold to paper "not worth a continental", and to sell their supplies in the best market. Hardly had the Declaration of Independence been proclaimed when Admiral Lord Howe arrived off Sandy Hook. To the Prohibitory Bill (20 November 1775) a conciliatory clause had been added appointing commissioners to enquire into grievances. They were empowered to raise the interdict of trade in the case of any colony or part thereof which might declare its readiness to return to its allegiance. Howe was the bearer of this conciliatory commission. It was treated with contempt by Franklin, and General Washington, whose title Howe would not recognise since it was not derived from the King, refused to receive any communication from him unless he did so. Lord Howe and his brother, General Howe, had been 1 Fox to Rockingham, 13 Oct. 1776. 2 Amer. Archives, 4th Ser. 1, 1046; II, 451; V, 215; VI, 984, etc. Fisher, S. G., The Struggle for American Independence, 1, 255 seqq.; Van Tyne, C. H., The Loyalists in the American Revolution, p. 163; Sabine, L., American Loyalists. 4 Van Tyne, C. H., England and America, p. 152. appointed commissioners, and no choice could have been more tactful, for both were earnest friends of the Americans and anxious to obtain a peaceful settlement. But the long delay in the arrival of the Commission, and the condition restricting their powers of pardon and enquiry into grievances till after submission had been made, helped to render it futile. In Parliament, though the voice might be the voice of North and his colleagues, the hand was the hand of George III. In the country the tide of the democratic movement ebbed after the Middlesex election.1 Popular violence during the Gordon riots caused further reaction, and coincided unfortunately with Richmond's attempt to introduce universal suffrage and annual parliaments. In these circumstances, fortified by the absence of Chatham and the divisions. among the Whigs, the "King's Friends" and the old followers of Grenville were content for the most part to follow the policy dictated by the King. How subservient ministers were to the Crown, and how completely non-existent was the practice of ministerial responsibility, are shown by the prolonged continuance in office of Lord Barrington and Lord North whilst disapproving of the policy they administered. On the American question the King's policy was clear, consistent and determined. He held from the first that the principle at stake was whether the colonies would continue to accept the authority of the Crown and Parliament. He held that a policy of firmness undeviatingly pursued would have settled that question. The policy of conciliation and retraction he could not endure. The splendour of the advocacy of Burke and Chatham left him cold. In his eyes, it merely encouraged rebellious subjects to persist in their rebellion.2 Now that vacillation had failed, as he always thought it would, he favoured "every means of distressing the Americans" in order to compel his recalcitrant subjects to acknowledge the sovereignty which he had inherited and regarded as a sacred trust. If his generals had served him with the same concentration of purpose, if his people at home had with unanimity espoused his cause, he would almost certainly have succeeded in quelling the rebellion for the time being. On 30 May 1777, after two years of seclusion, Chatham reappeared in the House of Lords and moved an Address to the Crown for putting an end to hostilities by removing the grievances of the Americans, before France should enter the war. This motion and its successor (20 November) were defeated by a large majority, for members were elated by the recent successes of Brandywine and Germantown. But Chatham foretold the defeat of Burgoyne, and warned the country that conquest was impossible, and, if possible, would not settle the question. The news of Saratoga, however, only roused the country to further exertions. Subscriptions were raised for enlisting troops. 1 Burke, E., Correspondence, II, 48. 2 George III to North, 31 May 1777. NORTH'S CONCILIATORY BILLS 765 The Highlands of Scotland seconded the efforts of the merchants of London, Manchester and Liverpool, and 15,000 soldiers were recruited. But whilst Fox poured abuse upon Scotland and Manchester, the Whigs did their utmost to obstruct. It was unconstitutional, they asserted, for private individuals to raise troops without the consent of Parliament, and for the garrisons at Gibraltar and Minorca to be replaced by Hanoverian troops. The impending hostility of France and Spain compelled George III to abandon "any absurd ideas of enforcing unconditional submission", but he would not "treat with independents". He was determined to continue the struggle until the country was convinced that it was in vain.1 North had already shown his appreciation of the situation by hinting at concessions. Now, on 17 February 1778, he introduced two bills, one renouncing the right to impose any tax except for regulating trade, the net produce to be applied to the use of the colonies, and the other appointing five commissioners to treat with any person or body public, raising no difficulty about titles. They were empowered to proclaim a cessation of hostilities, grant pardons, and suspend any Act of Parliament since 1763. The States were not to be asked to renounce independence till a treaty was ratified. The Act remodelling the Massachusetts constitution and the tea duty were formally repealed. Security for the debts of Congress and rehabilitation of the American paper currency, which had depreciated disastrously, were promised. Everything was conceded which the Americans had demanded and Burke had been urging for three years. 3 The announcement of these concessions filled the House with dismay. Opposition demanded the resignation of the statesman who had provoked the war and was unfitted to make peace. North, in fact, had long wished to resign. After the royal assent had been given to the Conciliatory bills and the French alliance with the United States had been announced, he again pressed his resignation upon the King, and advised him to send for Chatham (13 March). The whole nation, indeed, turned to the one statesman who seemed capable of saving it from disaster, whether by negotiating with the Americans or conducting the war. Bute, Mansfield, Rochford, Richmond even, all echoed that demand. The Rockingham party, however, could not follow their example, and any idea of agreement between the two leaders had soon to be abandoned. But George III refused to send for Chatham, "that perfidious man", whose recent invectives against the Throne and defence of the Americans he could not forgive. He would only consent to admit him "and his crew" to office if they would serve as allies of the existing Government under North. He appealed to North not to 1 George III to North, 31 Jan. 1778. 3 Annual Register, 1778, p. 133. a Gibbon, E., Miscell. Works, p. 216. desert him in the hour of danger, as Grafton had done. "No advantage to this country", he wrote, "no present danger to myself can ever make me address myself to Lord Chatham or any branch of Opposition." Not to save his Crown, or his country from ruin, would he consent to "be shackled by those desperate men". "No consideration in life will make me stoop to Opposition."1 Yet he was no longer at issue with Chatham over his American policy. He had consented to North's Conciliatory bills, which yielded every point for which Chatham had contended. Chatham was opposed, as he was opposed, to conceding independence, and died protesting against "the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy". The King's own words proclaim his reason: "Opposition would make me a slave for the remainder of my days". For Opposition, whether he summoned Rockingham or Chatham, would insist on the abandonment of that system of personal government which he had so laboriously established. The Whigs would insist that the government of the country should be carried on by responsible ministers and not by an irresponsible sovereign.2 Chatham, however, was not in the least inclined to take office under the existing ministry. If he accepted his country's call, it must be as "the dictator of a new administration".3 So North remained at the Treasury, and one half of the Opposition, now including Fox, continued to advocate American independence, and the other half to oppose it. Whether Chatham would or would not have been successful in conciliating America, if he had formed a ministry, is an interesting speculation. The answer, perhaps, is to be found in the reception accorded by Congress to the five Commissioners of Peace. They reached Philadelphia at an inopportune moment. The news of the alliance with France had arrived, and Clinton, in accordance with orders from home, was evacuating the city. Congress declined to confer with the Commissioners until the British forces had been withdrawn or independence had been acknowledged. In vain they offered every privilege and concession that had been demanded, short of independence. Congress refused to make any further reply. These concessions came, indeed, from the suspect source of North's ministry, but they were so generous that their rejection suggests that the extremists who dominated Congress would have had their way, even though Chatham had been the negotiator. Before returning to England, the Commissioners issued a "Proclamation to the American People", appealing to them against Congress, and offering peace to any or every colony. A foolish threat was added. The hopes of reunion, it was stated, had hitherto prevented the extremes of war, but if the colonies were determined to become an apanage of France, 1 George III to North, 17 March 1778. 2 Cf. Lecky, IV, 458. Russell, Lord John, Memorials of Fox, 1, 180. |