British Friends of the American Revolution 0765600730, 9780765600738

This volume profiles a dozen British men and women, who, for varying reasons, opposed the policy of the British governme

334 81 8MB

English Pages 196 Year 1997

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

British Friends of the American Revolution
 0765600730, 9780765600738

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
1. The Stage and the Players
2. Governor Pownall, Dean Tucker, and Major John Cartwright: Practical Idealists or Wishful Thinkers?
3. Pitt, Burke, and American Policy, 1763-1770
4. "Birds of a Feather": John Wilkes and John Home Tooke
5. The "Honest Whigs"
6. The Coercive Acts and Their Opponents: A Study in Futility
7. A Dire Prediction
8. The House of Lords
9. Richard Price: Apostle of Liberty
10. The Single Legal Victim of the American Revolution
11. Dean Tucker: He Told Them So!
12. Governor Pownall Fights to the Finish
13. David Hartley: Amateur Diplomat
14. Charles James Fox: The Life of the Party
15. "Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace"
16. Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

British Friendsof the American Revolution

This page intentionally left blank

British Friends of the American Revolution

J e r o m e R. Reich

ROUTLEDGE

Routledg e Taylor & Francis Croup

LONDON AND NEW YOR K

First published1998 by M.E. Sharpe Published2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square,Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue,New York, NY 10017,USA

Routledgeis an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 1998 Taylor & Francis.All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprintedor reproducedor utilised in any form or by any electronic,mechanical,or other means,now known or hereafterinvented,including photocopyingand recording,or in any information storageor retrieval system,without permissionin writing from the publishers. Notices No responsibilityis assumedby the publisherfor any injury and/ordamageto personsor property as a matterof productsliability, negligenceor otherwise, or from any use of operationof any methods,products,instructionsor ideas containedin the materialherein. Practitionersand researchersmust alwaysrely on their own experienceand knowledgein evaluatingand using any information, methods,compounds,or experimentsdescribedherein. In using such information or methodsthey should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others,including partiesfor whom they have a professionalresponsibility. Productor corporatenamesmay be trademarksor registeredtrademarks,and are usedonly for identification and explanationwithout intent to infringe.

Library of CongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Reich, JeromeR. British friends of the AmericanRevolution/ JeromeR. Reich p. cm. Includesbibliographicalreferences(p. ) and index. ISBN 0-7656-0073-0(hardcover:alk. paper).-ISBN0-7656-0074-9(pbk. : alk. paper) 1. United States--History-Revolution, 1775-1783--Influence. 2. United States--History-Revolution,1775-1783--Foreignpublic opinion, British. 3. Public Opinion-GreatBritain-History-18thcentury.I. Title. E209.R35 1997 973.3--dc21 97-14520 CIP ISBN 13: 9780765600745(pbk) ISBN 13: 9780765600738(hbk)

To my son Michael whosecommitmentandinsight havebeenindispensableat all stages in the productionof this volume.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

1. The Stageandthe Players 2. GovernorPownall, DeanTucker, and Major JohnCartwright: PracticalIdealistsor Wishful Thinkers? 3. Pitt, Burke, andAmericanPolicy, 1763--1770 4. "Birds ofa Feather":JohnWilkes andJohnHomeTooke 5. The "HonestWhigs" 6. The CoerciveActs andTheir Opponents:A Study in Futility 7. A Dire Prediction 8. The Houseof Lords 9. RichardPrice: Apostleof Liberty 10. The SingleLegal Victim of the AmericanRevolution 11. DeanTucker: He Told ThemSo! 12. GovernorPownallFightsto the Finish 13. David Hartley: AmateurDiplomat 14. CharlesJamesFox: The Life of the Party 15. "Peace,Peace,When ThereIs No Peace"

3 7 21 33 40 50 59 74 90 105 112 119 127 139 154

16. SummaryandConclusions Bibliography Index

164 173 179

This page intentionally left blank

British Friendsof the American Revolution

This page intentionally left blank

_____________________ 1 The Stageand the Players

"Let our patriots [italics mine] therefore,if they would arrive at eminence by their conduct, go over to America, and demandthe confidenceof the colonies. They may have real merit to plead there in their attempts to overthrow the Constitutionof Great Britain; they may have merit there by endeavoringto renderthe impudentresolutionsof a provincial committee, superiorto our lawful ordinances.But here, my lords, I trust they will ever be held contemptible,that their characterswill be as mean,astheir proceedings havebeenflagitious, and that their machinationsto destroythe importanceof the British empire,will alwaysmakethem detestableto every good Englishman.,,1 Against whom was this diatribe, deliveredby the earl of Hillsboroughin the Houseof Lords on May 18, 1770, directed?Who were thesevillainous individuals, ironically termed"patriots" by the secretaryof statefor America? As this volume will indicate, they included, among others, William Pitt, "the Great Commoner,"the most popular statesmanof his time; that "devil" (as King GeorgeIII termedhim) JohnWilkes, the key personin the radical reform movement,as well as ReverendJohnHorne Tooke, his rival in the samemovement;Dr. RichardPrice,a distinguisheddissentingclergyman with a mathematicalbent; two old enemieswho joined togetheras leadersof the Whig party, the earnestand eloquentEdmundBurke and the rakish descendantof King CharlesII, CharlesJamesFox; one of the few true "colonial experts,"former governorof Massachusetts ThomasPownall; JamesBurgh, a schoolmaster-turned-political-reformer; a sensationin her time, republican historian Catherine Macauley; David Hartley, a distinguishedscientistwho meddledin politics; John Cartwright, a naval officer who felt that the British empire had grown unwieldy and corrupt; and Josiah Tucker, an Anglican dean who was economically sophisticated 3

4

CHAPTER1

enoughto realize that GreatBritain would actually benefit if it grantedthe North American colonies their independence;and the duke of Richmond, whose efforts on behalfof America and parliamentaryreform earnedhim the sobriquet,"the RadicalDuke." What did this diverse group of individuals have in common to draw down uponthemselvesthe ire of Lord Hillsborough?Very little, exceptthat for disparate,sometimeseven contradictorymotives and utilizing varying techniques,they opposedthe policy of the British governmenttoward its ThirteenColonies. Our understandingof these "British Friends of the American Revolution" will be enhancedby a brief survey of political developmentsin eighteenth-centuryGreatBritain and America. During the reignsof the first two Georges(1714--1760),the Whig Party dominatedthe British government. The Whigs were not a party in the modemsenseof the term. They were a conglomerationof competingfactions each led by a nobleman.Years of power brought about a significant changein Whig political thinking. No longer did they acceptthe Lockeantheoriesof natural rights and the contractualorigin of government,which they had espoused during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Well before the accessionof George III, they had come to believe in a conservativedoctrine that positeda balancedgovernment of King, Lords, and Commons. In practice, however, sovereignty restedin Parliamentor, in other words, in themselves--thelandedaristocracy that dominatedboth Housesof Parliament.A corollary of this belief was that sovereigntywas indivisible and thus Parliamenthad unlimited powerto legislatefor the British coloniesas well as the homecountry. Not all Whigs acceptedthese new doctrines. A small minority called themselvesReal Whigs or Commonwealthmen(becausemany of their ideas dated back to the period 1649-1660).2They also believed in a balanced form of government,but one in which the powers of all three brancheswere circumscribedby an unwritten constitution,a body of fundamentallaws many of which, they claimed,antedatedthe NormanConquest. They retainedthe Lockean conceptof a social contract; believed that the Glorious Revolution had not sufficiently limited the power of the Crown (particularly its ability to "pack" the House of Commonsand maintain a standingarmy); and felt that more frequent elections,a broaderfranchise, and a reapportionmentof seatsin the Houseof Commonswerenecessaryto make that body less corrupt and more independent.Closely allied with the Real Whigs were the Dissenters,those Englishmennot affiliated with the Churchof England,who soughtto removethe legal andpolitical disabilities underwhich they suffered.During the 1760s,a third group-urban(largely London) radicalsenergizedby the John Wilkes affair-alsojoined there-

THE STAGE AND THE PLAYERS 5

formist ranks. This often uneasycoalition providedthe most consistentand zealoussupportersof the American point of view. This should come as no surprisebecausethe leadersof the American causewere themselvesReal Whigs (thoughthey did not usethe adjective). This is clearly illustratedby the statementsmade in two court casesthat took place in the colonies even before serious problems arose between Great Britainand its American colonies.According to John Adams'scontemporarynotes,in 1761, in a losing court battle againstwrits of assistance (generalsearchwarrants),JamesOtis declared,"As to Acts of Parliament, an Act against the Constitution is void; an Act against natural equity is void.,,3 And two years later, after the Privy Council disallowed Virginia's Two-Penny-Act,which effectively lowered clergymen'ssalaries,an Anglican clergymansuedhis vestry for back salary.In his exhortationto the jury, Patrick Henry, the attorney for the vestry, claimed "that a King, by disallowing Acts of this salutary nature, from being the father of his people, degeneratedinto a Tyrant and forfeits all right to his subjects'obedience.,,4 But the gulf in political outlook betweenGreatBritain and the colonieswas evendeeperthan thesequotationsindicate. The Glorious Revolution also exertedsignificant influence on colonial political practice and theory. Americansassumedthat the Revolution had won for the individual colonial assembliesall the rights gained by the English House of Commonsand, conversely,that the English Parliament had no power over the colonies except in the area of imperial affairs. In spite of the oppositionof the British government,by 1763 the first assumption had beenlargely realized: Membersof the colonial assemblieshad the right of freedom of discussionon the floor of the legislature; they were immune from arrestwhile the legislaturewas in session;they could make their own rules, settle disputedelections,and elect their own speaker;and finally, they won the exclusive right to initiate money bills and to oversee the expenditureof public funds. Only the governor'spowerto veto (andthe Privy Council's to disallow) acts of the colonial legislature and the governor'spower to prorogueor dissolveit differed from English practice, in which the king no longerexercisedthesepowersover Parliament. As to the secondassumption,colonial affairs were technically under royal control and, thoughParliamentclaimedultimate power over the colonies, it rarely chose to exerciseit. The years betweenWalpole's rise to power in 1721 and 1763 were later termedby EdmundBurke the period of "salutaryneglect,"when Parliamentpassedlaws for the coloniesthat dealt only with imperial affairs---regulationof trade and manufacturers;the establishmentof a postal service; control of the naturalizationprocess;and supervisionof coinage,currency,defense,andforeign affairs.

6

CHAPTER1

Sir FrancisBernard,governorof Massachusetts from 1760 to 1769, was exaggeratingonly slightly (or had a presentimentof the colonial position ten yearsin the future) whenhe wrote in 1765 In Britain the Americangovernmentsare consideredas corporationsempowered to make bylaws, existing only during the pleasureof Parliament,who haveneveryet done anythingto confirm their establishmentand hath at any time a powerto dissolvethem. In Americathey claim ... to be perfectStates, no otherwisedependentupon Great Britain than by having the same king, which having compleatlegislatureswithin themselvesare in no ways subject to that of GreatBritain; which in suchinstancesas it hasheretoforeexercised a legislativepowerover them hasusurpedit. 5

Only two of our "friends," ThomasPownall and JosiahTucker, had the backgroundand experienceto draw logical conclusions from Governor Bernard'sassessment. We shall meetthem andJohnCartwright,a man who combinedtheir ideas,in the next chapter. Notes 1. R.c. Simmonsand P.D.G. Thomas,eds.,Proceedingsand Debatesofthe British ParliamentsRespectingNorth America, 1754-1783,III, p. 335. 2. CarolineRobbins,The EighteenthCentury Commonwealthman,providesthe best

studyof this group. 3. CharlesFrancisAdams,ed., The Works ofJohn Adams,II, p. 522. 4. John P. Kennedy, ed., Journals of the House of Burgessesof Virginia, 17611765, p. 211. 5. Edward Channingand Archibald Cary Coolidge, eds., The Barrington-Bernard Correspondence andIllustrative Matter, 1760-1770,p. 96.

_______________________________ 2 Governor Pownall, Dean Tucker, and Major John Cartwright: Practical Idealists or Wishful Thinkers?

Theory and practice rarely coincide. As already noted, British statesmen insistedthat they ruled a unitary empire with all power residing in king and Parliament.In practice,however,the home governmenthad concerneditself only with imperial affairs while the colonial legislaturesdealt with the regulation of marriageand divorce, the provisionof relief to the poor, the maintenanceof roads and bridges,the organizationof a militia, and, most crucial, the levying of taxes. In other words, without intending to--in fact quite contrary to the desires of its leaders--theBritish had developed(to use modemterms)a federalempirein which the coloniesheld dominion status. Most Americanstook this situationfor grantedbut the oppositewas true of their British counterparts.Oneof the few exceptionswasThomasPownall. Thomas Pownall was born in 1722 of a Lincolnshire family of more prestige than pelf. 1 He attendedLincoln grammar school and graduated from Trinity College,Cambridge,in 1743. While in college,he developed a taste for philosophy and literature and did the preliminary work on a treatiseon government,Principles ofPolity, which was later publishedin 1752. His youngerbrother,John, who was alreadyan important functionary of the Board of Trade, obtaineda clerkship there for Thomas.However, Thomascame to realize that, for those of his social class,fame and fortune were only to be won in the colonies.In 1753, therefore,he became private secretaryto Sir DanversOsborne,the newly appointedgovernorof New York. Pownall's careerin the New World was over almost before it began, when Sir Danverscornmittedsuicide within a week of his arrival in New York. However, Pownall was not inclined to retreat to his insignificant 7

8

CHAPTER 2

position with the Board of Trade. He was detenninedto becomean expert on the coloniesby exploring them thoroughly. During the years 1754 and 1755, Pownall traveled through New England, the middle colonies, and down to Maryland and Virginia. In all thesetravels he managedto ingratiate himselfwith the leading men of eachcolony, including GovernorShirley of Massachusetts, GovernorSharpeof Maryland, and,most importantof all, BenjaminFranklin, with whom a lastingrelationshipwas forged. Pownall had arrived in the coloniesat an auspicioustime. It was obvious to all that the conflict betweenGreat Britain and Francefor the hegemony of North America was soon to climax. Pownall knew that the Board of Trade had resolvedto call an intercolonialconferenceto discussIndian and military affairs. In his travels he diligently preparedhimself for participation in this conference.When the Albany Congresswas held in 1754, Pownall delivered a paper in which he outlined a plan of defensefor the colonies that relied upon British naval control of the Great Lakes.2 However, for most of the Congress,he found himself more a student than a teacher.And the main lessonthat he learnedwas that imperial regulationof land purchasesand the fur trade was an absolutenecessityfor the healthy economicdevelopmentof the colonies. Immediatelyfollowing the conclusionof the Albany Congress,Pownall drew up a plan for westernsettlement.Many of his ideaswere later embodied in a similar proposalby BenjaminFranklin, which was draftedin 1756.3 Both plansrecommendedthe New Englandstyle of settlementin which the land was divided up into townships and sold in an orderly manner. Althoughthe outbreakof the Frenchand Indian War precludedany action on theseplans,many of their featureswere incorporatedin the postrevolutionary land laws of 1785 and 1787. In 1755, Pownall was namedlieutenantgovernorof New Jersey.However, he was hoping for a more importantposition and returnedto England in February 1756. There he obtained thepost of "secretaryextraordinary" and advisor on civil affairs to Lord Loudoun,who hadjust beenappointed commanderin chief of the British forces in North America. Pownall preferred this position to the governorshipof Pennsylvania,which was offered to him by the Pennfamily. His choiceprovedfortunatebecausehis relationship with Loudoun led to a commissionas governor of Massachusettsin 1757. The position of wartime governorof Massachusetts was a delicateone. Pownall was repeatedlycaughtbetweenthe demandsfor men and supplies from the British military commandersand the reluctanceof the Massachusetts legislature to vote him the necessaryfunds and powers. Although sensitiveto military needs,Pownall alwaystook the position that the rights

PRACTICAL IDEALISTS OR WISHFUL THINKERS? 9

and privilegesof the legislaturemust be respectedeven in wartime. Apparently he was successfulin pleasingall partiesbecausewhen he resignedhis governorshipin 1760, he left with the promiseof the governorshipof South Carolina and the respect of most of the leading men in Massachusetts, including both Sam and John Adams. As John Adams wrote in 1774, "Mr. Pownall seemsto have beena friend to liberty and to our constitution,and to havehadan aversionto all plots againsteither.,,4 Pownall, however,had higher ambitionsthan the governorshipof South Carolina.He felt that his rightful placewas in London, helping to formulate policy for the entire empire.Knowing that this could not comeaboutat least until the conclusion of the war, Pownall accepteda position as supply officer in Germanywhere he remainedfrom 1761 to 1763. Even in Germany, his thoughtsremainedon colonial affairs and in 1764 he produced the first edition of a study that he entitled Administration of the British Colonies.5 Succeedingeditions,enlarged andrevisedto meetchangingconditions, followed in the yearsbetween1765 and 1777. To capsulize what came to be two closely written volumes, Pownall finally recommendedessentiallythe formation of a dominion form of government-albeitone almostcompletelydominatedby the homecountry. As Pownall expressedit in the secondedition, Great Britain should not be thoughtof merely "as the kingdom of this Isle only, with many appendages of provinces, colonies, settlements,and other extraneousparts, but as a grand marine dominion consisting of our possessionsin the Atlantic, in America,unitedin one empire.,,6 As early as 1764, Pownall suggestedthe creation of a colonial department headedby a secretaryof state,which would have sole and complete jurisdiction over all colonial affairs. One of the top priorities of the colonial departmentwas to senda commissionto the coloniesto examinethe political realities of colonial governmentand commercein order to draw up a plan of governmentthat would preservecolonial "rights and liberties" yet still keep them dependent"upon Great Britain as the center." Pownall felt that "an actual systemof dominion" already existed and that it was only necessaryto formalize it and to grant the colonistsrepresentationin Parliament as well as their local legislatures(thoughhe graduallycameto realize that neitherthe colonistsnor the British governmentwere willing to adopt 7 this measure). Pownall also had many suggestionsin regard to monetary,judicial, Indian, military, and mercantileaffairs.8 As indicatedby his advice to Parliament to authorizea limited and regulatedamount of papermoney and to "enlargethe spirit of our commerciallaws" to make the administrationof NavigationActs more flexible, Pownall was concernedwith the welfare of

10

CHAPTER 2

the colonies as well as with the interestsof the mother country. Pownall came to acceptthe distinction betweeninternal and external taxation and hoped thatthe pre-1763situationwould return, in which GreatBritain had avoidedthe former and the colonieshad acceptedthe latter.9 (An excisetax collectedwithin the colonies fell into the categoryof an internal tax; customs duties on goods or products entering or leaving the colonies were deemedto be externaltaxes.)Yet in spite of the authorshipof this work on colonial administration,or perhapsbecauseof it, Pownall was neveragain appointedto any position in which he might have influence on colonial affairs. From 1767 to 1780, however,Pownall servedin the Houseof Commonswhere,as we shall seelater, he remaineda friend of colonial interests. The otherEnglishmanin the 1760swho hadthe backgroundto suggesta solution--albeit an even more radical one---to the controversybetween GreatBritain and its North Americancolonieswas JosiahTucker,an Anglican ministerwho servedas deanof the cathedralof Gloucester.Tuckerwas born in Wales in 1713 and, although from modestbackground,obtained Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Divinity degreesfrom Oxford.10 Early in his career,Tucker exhibiteda propensityfor putting his ideasin print. His first publication(1742) attackedthe tenetsof Methodism. Three years later, the JacobiteRebellion inspired Tucker to write a pamphlet defending the Hanoveriansuccessionand warning of perils facing Englandif the Stuartswere to return to the throne.Thesepublicationswere soonfollowed by many otherson religion, education,andthe naturalization of foreigners--asubject on which Tucker had, for that time, extremely liberal andunpopularviews. Many of Tucker'swritings dealt with trade and commerce----anareain which he provedto be both knowledgeableand innovative. His main work on economics,The Elementsof Commerceand Theory of Taxes (1755), anticipated,andmay evenhaveinfluenced,the thinking of the Frenchphysiocratsand AdamSmith.11 Although he did not advocatefree trade,Tucker did opposecommercialmonopoliessuch as those of the East India Company. His economicstudiesprobably led to his anti-imperialist stance.In his earliesteconomicpublication,An Essayon Trade, which first appeared in 1749, Tucker wasalready predictingthat coloniesthat realizedthey no longer neededthe assistanceof the mother country would soon seektheir independence.But at this date, he still felt that colonieswere potentially of greateconomicbenefit to the mothercountry and that a firm but fair policy would retain their loyalty. However, further study convincedTucker that colonieswere unnecessary,or evenan impediment,to a nation'sprosperity andhe objectedto the SevenYears'War. In 1763, Tucker advised Lord Shelburnethat the West Indian islands

PRACTICAL IDEALISTS OR WISHFUL THINKERS? II

acquiredfrom Francewere not "worth the Costsboth of Men and Money, which had been,and would be, bestowedon them.,,12In that sameyear, he wrote an antiwar essayentitled The Case of Going to War for the Sakeof Procuring, Enlarging or Securingof Trade, Consideredin a New Light. In it he attemptedto prove that "Neither Princesnor Peoplecan be Gainersby the most successfulwars: Trade in particular will make its Way to the Country where Goods aremanufacturedthe best and cheapest-Butconquering Nations neither manufacturewell nor cheap:-Andconsequently must sink in tradeas they extendin Conquest."J3 Tuckerwas an active leaderin local Whig politics but he did not approve of his party'sstandon the StampAct. In 1766,he publishedA Letterfrom a

Merchant in London to His Nephew in North America, Relative to the PresentPostureofAffairs in the Colonies.This pamphletbeganby attempting to refute the American claim that Parliamenthad no right to levy an internal tax upon them becausethey were not representedin that body. Like so many other Englishmen,Tucker believed that the colonial legislatures were subordinateto Parliamentand could only be comparedwith bodies such as London'scommoncouncil. He also presentedthe standardcasefor virtual representationin Parliament,the doctrine that a memberof Parliament representsthe interestsof the whole empire, not just the district that electedhim. Tuckerevenclaimedthat Parliamenthad shownunduepartiality toward the coloniesby grantingthem a monopolyof the sale of tobacco in Englandand by paying overgenerousbountiesto stimulatecolonial production of hemp,silk, rice, indigo, andnaval stores.14 Tucker next joined the chorusthat tried to demolishthe American complaints against the "excessiveness"and "unseasonableness" of the Stamp Tax by contrastingthe Englishman'shigh tax burdenand the relative prosperity, with the generalfreedom from taxation of the averageAmerican.15 But from this point, Tucker'sapproachdiffered markedly from that of all other English writers on the StampAct crisis. Tucker claimed that American opposition to the Stamp duties was "a mere Sham and Pretense."He felt their basic objectiveswere: (1) a desireto escapeall British regulation of their trade, (2) a desire to evadethe paymentof their debts to English merchants,and(3) a desireto be independent. Thus, long beforeany Americanhad written, spoken,or evendreamedof independence,Tucker told them that "you wish to be an Empire by itself, and to be no longer the Provinceof another.This Spirit is uppermost; and this Principle is visible in all your Speeches,and all your Writings, even when you take somepains to disguiseit.,,16 But even more surprisingwas his advice to the British government.As Tucker viewed the situation, the governmenthad three alternatives:(1) coercion,(2) procrastination,or (3)

12

CHAPTER 2

separation.Although he was absolutelycertain that Great Britain had the power to coercethe coloniesinto obedience,Tucker opposedthis courseof action: "What Fruits are to result from making, you [the colonists] a conqueredPeople?-Notan Increasein Trade; that is impossible:For a Shopkeeperwill neverget the more Customby beatinghis Customers:and what is true of a Shop-keeperis true of a Shop-keepingnation."17 Nor could Tucker seeany advantageto procrastination.He felt that the clashbetweenthe coloniesand mothercountry was inevitableand the delay would only increasethe strength of the colonies and make the eventual struggle "more obstinateand the Determinationthe more bloody.,,18 This left only the third alternative--"castthem off, and ... excludethem forever from the manifold Advantagesand Profits of Trade, which they now enjoy by no otherTitle but that of being a part of the British Empire." Tucker predicted that the dire consequenceto the colonists of such a coursewould include damageto their entire economy,high taxation,Indian attacks,and even internecinewarfare. He was certainthat "Under all these Pressuresand Calamities,[Americans] will certainly opentheir Eyesat last ... they will cursetheir ambitiousLeaders,and detestthose Mock Patriots who involved them in so many Miseries. And having been surfeited with the bitter Fruits of American Republicanism,they will heartily wish, and petition to be againunitedto Mother Country."19 Events between 1766 and 1774 only confirmed Tucker's opinion that American independencewas inevitable. In the latter year he reissuedThe CaseforGoing to War andA Letterfrom a Merchantin London, and added a new pamphlet,The True Interest of Great Britain SetForth in Regardto the Colonies. In this latest work, Tucker reiteratedmuch of what he had alreadywritten but somewhatsoftenedhis punitive attitudetoward the colonies. By 1774, he had come to the conclusionthat it was natural and proper for colonies"to aspireafter Independenceand to set up themselvesas soon as everthey find that they areable to subsist,without being beholdento the Mother Country." Tucker felt that "the sovereigntyof the Mother Country over her colonies" could no longer be effectively exercisedbecauseof the, extensivepolitical freedomit had allowed themandthe removalof the "fear from a foreign enemy"resultingfrom the British conquestof Canada.20 In this pamphlet,he not only dismissedprocrastinationand conquestof the coloniesas viable alternativesbut also arguedagainsttwo other "straw men" that he set up: allowing the coloniesrepresentationin Parliamentand shifting the seatof empire from the Old to the New World.21 By this time, Tucker was absolutelyconvincedthat granting independenceto the colonies, even supportingthem militarily againstany foreign attack, if necessary, would be definitely advantageousfor the mother country. He was

PRACTICAL IDEALISTS OR WISHFUL THINKERS? 13

confident that the high prices they would still obtain in England for their raw materials and the cheapnessof English manufacturedgoods would induce Americans to continue to trade with Great Britain. He was also confidentthat they could not be conqueredby Franceor any otherEuropean power. In addition, he listed other possiblebenefits from American independencesuchas: • stoppingthe migration of skilled workersto America,which had beenimpossiblewhile they were still colonies; • savingthe costsof colonial civil andmilitary administration; • savingthe costsof the bountiesthat hadbeenpaid to stimulate colonial productionof raw materials; • facilitating the collectionof debtsowedto British merchants becauserefusalto pay would no longer serveas an effective lever on Parliament; • increasingthe dependence of the West Indian colonies on the mothercountry; • improving the statusof the Anglican Churchin Americabecauseit would no longerbe handicappedby political ties with GreatBritain; and even • maintaininginfluencein North Americaashe expectedthe colonies to quarrelamongthemselvesandappealto GreatBritain for support. Tucker admitted that he saw little possibility of either the Tories' or the Whigs' acceptinghis advice but neverthelessfelt that "right will prevail at last" andpredictedthat Americanindependence was inevitable.22 The True InterestofGreat Britain had beenprinted in a volume entitled Four Tracts and Two Sermons,but early in 1775 Tucker felt that still anotherpamphletwas necessaryto explain his views. This Tract V was subtitled RespectivePleas and Argumentsof the Mother Country and of the Colonies, Distinctly Set Forth. Interestingly enough, it began with a dedicatoryepistle, one-third the length of the Tract proper, addressedto the membersof the ContinentalCongresswhom Tucker thankedfor helping to prove him right becausehe viewed their gatheringas proclaiming "that you renounceall Subjectionwhateverto the Legislatureof the Parent-State.,,23The dedication then chided the Americans for not granting the samefreedomsthey desiredto their slavesor to the Indians, and for continuing to demandall the privileges of British citizenship for themselveswithout willingness to assumeany of its burdens.Next, it warned membersof Congressnot to expectthe FrenchCatholicsof Canadato join their revolution (although Tucker expectedthat Canada,too, would ultimately demandits independence)and not to ignore the many problems

14

CHAPTER 2

being faced by the Swiss Confederation,which Americans seemedto be taking as their model. Finally, the dedicationconcludedby expressingthe hope that after independenceAmerica would "behave better and more justly" towardGreatBritain.24 The Tract's main aim was to prove that the claims of the mothercountry and its colonieswere so contradictoryand so mutually exclusivethat "any Schemefor a Compromiseis absolutelyimpracticable.,,25His entire argument was basedon the opposingviews of the power of Parliamentover the colonies.Unlike Pownall, Tuckerwas unableto acceptthe conceptof divisible sovereignty:"In all Societiesthere must be a demier Resort and Ne plus ultra of ruling power.... Here in Great Britain it is King, Lords and Commons, whenin Parliamentassembled."By Great Britain, he meant Scotland,Ireland, and all the colonieswhetherthey had local legislaturesor not. According to this line of reasoning,Parliamenthad always, and still possessed, unlimited authoritythroughoutthe British empire.26 Tucker next presentedthe colonial view of the powersof Parliamentas expressedin a Declarationof Rights passedby the ContinentalCongress itself in October 1774. He included all ten of the resolutionscontainedin that Declaration but the most relevant to his argument wasthe fourth, which stated That the foundationof English liberty, and of all free Government,is a Right in the Peopleto participatein their Legislative Council: And as the English Colonists are not representedand from their local and other circumstances cannotproperly berepresentedin the British Parliament,they are entitledto a free and exclusivePowerof Legislatures,wheretheir Right of Representation can alone be preserved,in all Casesof Taxation and internal Polity, subject only to the Negativeof their Sovereign,in sucha Manneras has beenheretofore usedand accustomed:but from the necessityof the case,and a regardto the mutual interestsof both countries,we cheerfully consentto the Opemtion of such Acts of the British Parliament as are bonafide restmined to the Regulationof our externalCommerce,for the Purposeof securingthe commercial Advantagesof the whole Empire to the Mother Country, and the commercial Benefitsof its respectiveMembers,excludingevery idea of Taxation internal or external,for raising a Revenueon the Subjectsin America without their consent.27

In the remainderof the Tract, Tuckerreiteratedhis main thesisthat the English andAmericanviews "hold no Groundsfor a Compromise,"declaringthat "the Parent-Stategroundsher presentclaim of Authority and Jurisdictionover the colonieson Factsand Precedents... the colonists,who are all the Disciplesof Mr. Locke, have Recourseto what they call immutable Truthr-the abstract Reasonings,and eternal Fitness of Things,-andin short to such Rights of

PRACTICAL IDEALISTS OR WISHFUL THINKERS? 15

HumanNaturewhich they supposeto be unalienableandindefeasible.,,28 Tucker had no illusions thatthe Americanswould be satisfiedwith, or obey, parliamentaryregulationof its trade. He quotedBenjaminFranklin to prove that Parliament'sauthority must be recognizedcompletely or not at all. As Tucker saw it, the colonieswould not recognizethe power of Parliament, thereforeGreat Britain's choice was simple: "Quarrel perpetually-orto separatepeacefully. Surrenderthe disobedientColonies entirely up ... Or to become their Tributaries and Vassals?,,29 Tuckerwas not a man to equivocate! Although Fred Hinkhouse, in his survey of the reaction of the British pressto the eventsleadingto the AmericanRevolution,quotesa few articles favorable to his views, Tucker was well aware that they were anathemato the party in power, its opponents,and the public in general.Nevertheless,as we shall seelater in this volume,he persistedin his efforts.30 Combine the ideas of Pownall and Tucker, mix well, and you have AmericanIndependencethe Interest and Glory of Great Britain written by John Cartwright. Cartwright, more famousfor his lifelong battle for parliamentary reform, was born in 1740Y He joined the navy at the age of eighteenand was on inactive duty in London at the time of the BostonTea Party. The passageof the CoerciveActs (seechapter6) and the publication of Tucker's True Interest ofBritain impelled him to proposea solution to the problem of Anglo-American relations. American Independenceappearedoriginally as a seriesof ten anonymousletters addressedto Parliament from March 20 to April 14, 1774. Cartwrightbeganhis first Letter by statingthat his aim was to "establish a principle of lasting union betweenour colonies and the mother country" and to avoid the "mutual jealousy,animosity, and strife" that would result from the ministerialpolicy.32 He thenposedtwo questions:Doesthe British Parliamenthave sovereignty overAmerica and does it have a right to tax the colonists?With a brief review of English constitutionalismculminating with Locke's emphasison life, liberty, and property, Cartwright emphatically answeredthe secondquestionin the negative.Obviously, Parliament had no right to tax (take away the property of) colonists who were not representedin it, were too far away from Englandto sendrepresentatives, and, evenif they did, would be too few to protectcolonial interests.33 In the secondLetter, Cartwright tackled the thornier questionof parliamentary sovereignty over the colonies. But here, too, he was adamant: "Parliamenthath not the rights of sovereigntyover his Majesty'sAmerican subjects."He reachedthis unorthodoxconclusionbecausehe claimedthat sovereigntylies in the people and the Americanshad establishedgovern-

16

CHAPTER 2

mentsof their own, which madethem "no longer dependentcolonies;they are independentstates.,,34 In the third Letter, Cartwright explainedthat if Parliamentrenouncedits sovereigntyover the colonies,they would voluntarily join with the mother country in a "family union" and pay their fair shareof imperial expenses?5 If not, GreatBritain would be "an over-grownempire" andmust eventually "fall to pieces.,,36 In the fourth Letter, Cartwrightagaindismissedthe possibility of American representationin Parliament and answeredthe charge of American ingratitude by pointing out how the colonies had benefitedBritish commerceand industry.37He reiteratedthat colonieswere entitled to their independence"whenever they shall think proper to demandit." He did not disapprove,however, if conditions such as were found in the West Indies made it expedientfor these colonists to acceptparliamentarysovereignty voluntarily.38 The fifth Letter repeatedCartwright's hope for an Anglo-American union before our minister could "pull down upon our devotedheadsthe mighty ruins of an over-grown empire.,,39He remindedhis readersof the bloody demiseof ancientempiresbut felt Great Britain could avoid their fate becauseof its "perfect constitution." Nor did he fear that a rising Americanempirewould threatenGreat Britain;on the contrary,they would strengtheneachother.4o The sixth Letter offered Britons only two choices: "relinquish at once our claims to sovereignty,or fix on their [the Americans]neck with strong hand the galling yoke of slavery"; no middle course was possible. Cartwright predictedthat the secondchoice "must finally be ineffectual" and end in attacks on Great Britain by its Europeanrivals.41 In this Letter, Cartwright madehis first referenceto Dean Tucker'swritings. Though he differed strongly with Tucker on the conceptof parliamentarysovereignty, Cartwrightheartily agreedthat Americamustbe independent. 42 Lettersseven,eight, and nine consistof a detailedrefutationof Tucker's political assumptionswith copiousquotationsfrom his works. He concurred with Tucker that the economicmaturity of the coloniesmadetheir independence inevitable and that economic ties betweenthe two nations would remain firm. However, he disagreedwith Tucker on the questionof complete independence,identifying closely with Pownall in advocatinga dominion-like arrangement.He lastly complimentedTucker for stumblingon the correct solution to the American problem, even though for the wrong 43 reasons. In the tenth Letter, Cartwright suggestedthe text of a parliamentaryact,

PRACTICAL IDEALISTS OR WISHFUL THINKERS? 17

which would statethat the colonies"are all held and declaredto be free and independentstates."Another clause of the act would provide that Parliamentand the colonial legislatureswould sign a treaty in order that a firm brotherly and perpetualleaguemay be concluded betweenGreat Britain and them for their mutual commercialbenefit, and their joint security againstall other kingdoms and states,as well as for the preservationof the warm affection and harmonywhich ought everto subsist betweena mothercountryand her offspring.44 The tie binding the two countriestogetherwas to be the king, "the father of the three millions of happy subjectsinsteadof reigning joint tyrant over so many discontentedslaves,or losing by revolt so many of his people.,,45 Cartwright painted a glowing picture of a prosperousAnglo-American union as opposedto a ramshackleempire wracked by internal dissension and foreign wars. He concludedhis Letter with the warning: Americans "must either be our deadly foes, or our steadfastfriends.--GreatBritain, takethy choice!,,46 Theseten Letters were reprinted in pamphletform, which was distributed to all membersof Parliament.A secondedition appearedin 1775 with two additionalLetters(in which he summarizedthe argumentsand conclusionsof his original pamphlet)anda lengthyPostscript.47 Cartwright noted that he had been termed"a traitorous fomentor of rebellion" but predictedthat his proposalfor American independencewould soon prove to be in the best interestsof Great Britain.48 After he recapitulated his rationale for American independence,Cartwright concludedhis Postscript with a detailed draft of a bill to grant American independence and to form "The GreatBritish Leagueand Confederacy."His plan was for Britain to ally itself with eighteenindependentAmerican statesand remain in complete control of foreign and military policy.49 He, like Pownall, envisionedan orderly processof American westwardsettlement,with new independentstatesbeing formed and joining the Confederacyas soon as they reacheda populationof fifty thousand.Ultimately, he foresaw a total of at leastthirty-six statesextendingall the way to the Mississippi River.50 Cartwright was so sureof the soundnessof his proposalsthat he concluded by expressinghis willingness to approachthe king, alone if necessary,and "to proposethem in the most earnestmanner;contentshouldthey be found to fail or evento fall short ... to be brandedas a traitor.,,51 In his Postscript, Cartwright had differed with Lord Chatham(Pitt) becauseof the latter's insistenceupon parliamentarysovereigntyover America and referred in passing to Burke's speechon American taxation.52 Cartwright was so dismayed by this speechthat he felt it necessaryto

18

CHAPTER 2

addressa separateLetter to Burke to refute his argumentthat Parliament had the right (though it should not exerciseit) to tax the colonies. It was Cartwright's admiration for Burke's abilities and eloquencethat impelled this attempt to convert Burke to his views. He denied Burke's contention that a constitutionof the British empire existedor that Parliamenthad any sovereigntyover America. Cartwright declared,"where there is no such participation [in Parliament]no subjectionis due" and Americanswere not, and could not be, representedin Parliament. The Declaratory Act was, therefore,unjustified and certainly in 1775 "a flight of madnessnot to be accountedfor.,,53 (Seechapter3.) Cartwright comparedAmerica to a youthful apprenticewho probably would have eventuallyexpecteda partnership(albeit a junior one) but who might, becauseof ill-usage,be provokedinto settingup a completelydifferent establishment.He felt that Americahadnot as yet reachedthis stageand his proposals.The alternative(and this neverwould if Parliament accepted was written before news of Lexington and ConcordreachedGreat Britain) was war in which Great Britainwould "wade up to the eyesin blood" and "finally terminatein the independenceof America." He castigatedBurke, when his speechwas published,for not omitting "all erroneous,fallacious and fatal doctrines" such as the conceptof an "imperial parliamentwith boundlesspowers." He challengedBurke to "lay aside every party prejudice" and fight for the true interestsof America.54 Cartwright endedhis missive to Burke with a lyrical comparisonof a young man (Great Britain) gently wooing a damsel(America) who would becomehis lovely wife and partnerand hopedthat Burke would "merit and attain the nameof patriot" by his efforts to bring this "marriage"to fruition. 55 Parliament,as might be expected,paid as little attentionto Cartwright as it did to Tucker or Pownall. As he had pledgedin his Postscript, Cartwright turned to the king and, in 1777, Cartwright presentedhim an addresscontaining the proposalfor an imperial union. He hopedthat GeorgeIII might be "wise enough and good enough to pay attention to it" as it could lead to "happinessand peace.,,56Unfortunately,the king paid no more attentionto it than did the membersof Parliament.Cartwright remainedconsistentto his principles.In 1775,he was appointeda major of the Nottinghamshiremilitia in which he servedfaithfully for seventeenyears.However,in the following year, when Admiral Lord Howe requestedhim to be one of his lieutenants for the Americancampaign,Cartwright, despitehis love for the navy and the opportunityfor rapid promotion,reluctantlyrefused.His reason,as he wrote Lord Howe, "thinking as I do on the most unhappy contestbetweenthis kingdom and her colonies, it would be a desertionfrom my principles ... were I to put myself in a situation that might probably causeme to act a

PRACTICAL IDEALISTS OR WISHFUL THINKERS? 19

hostile part againstthem.,,57Moreover, Cartwright, when invited to enter the naval serviceof the United States,refusedon the groundsthat "nothing could absolve a man from the duty he owed his own country.,,58 John Cartwright spent the remainderof his long and productive life doing his duty to his countryby spearheading the causeof parliamentaryreform. Notes 1. The major sources on Pownall's life include John A. Schultz's Thomas Pownall-British Defenderof American Liberty and the older Charles A.W. Pownall volume, ThomasPownall. 2. ThomasPownall, The Administration of the British Colonies, 5th ed., contains the full text of this proposal.Hereafterreferredto asAdministrationofColonies. 3. Albert H. Smyth, ed., The Writings ofBenjaminFranklin, III, pp. 358-366. 4. CharlesFrancis Adams, ed., The Works ofJohn Adams,IV, p. 21. Adams still wrote effusively aboutPownall in 1817. Seevol. X, pp. 241-243. 5. T. Pownall,AdministrationofColonies, I, p. 10. A more detailedanalysisof this work may be found in G.H. Guttridge'sarticle in the William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., XXVI (January 1969): 31-46, and the chapterby John Shy, "Thomas Pownall, Henry Ellis, and the Spectrumof Possibilities,1763-1775"in Anglo-AmericanPolitical Relations,1675-1775,ed. A.G. Olsonand R.M. Brown, pp. 155-186. 6. T. Pownall,AdministrationofColonies,I, p. 40. 7. Ibid., p. 166. 8. Ibid., p. 252. 9. Ibid., II, pp. 64-