On the tenth of April, Massachusetts was selected for censure; and Bedford, notwithstanding the sudden death of a son, who left infant children, and one of the loveliest women in England a heart-broken widow to weep herself to death for sorrow, came to the house of lords to move an address that the king in council would declare the Massachusetts act of amnesty null and void. The ministry contended truly that the motion was needless, as the act would be rejected in the usual course of business. "Perhaps we had best look into the Massachusetts charter before we come to a decision," said one of the administration. "No!" cried Lord Townshend; "let us deliberate no longer; let us act with vigor now, while we can call the colonies ours. If you do not, they will very soon be lost for ever."

1767.

April. 66

Lord Mansfield spoke in the same strain, descanting 'upon the folly and wickedness of the American incendiaries," and drawing an animated picture of the fatal effects to England and to the colonies which the “deplorable event of their disjunction must produce."

All that he said carried conviction to the house of lords, and hastened the event which he deprecated. In the six hours' debate, the resistance of New York and Massachusetts had been so highly colored that Choiseul began to think the time for the great American insurrection was come. He resolved, therefore, to send an emissary across the Atlantic, and selected for that purpose the brave and upright Kalb. A Protestant and a German, son of a peasant who dwelt in the old land of the Franks, not far from Erlangen, he had gained in the service of France an honorable name and the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel. His written instructions, dated on the twenty-second of April, enjoined him, after preliminary inquiries at Amsterdam, to go to the English colonies; to ascertain their wants, in respect of engineers and artillery officers, munitions of war and provisions; the strength of their purpose to withdraw from the British government; their resources in troops, citadels, and intrenched posts; their project of revolt, and their chiefs.

"The commission which I give you," said Choiseul, “is

difficult, and demands intelligence. Ask of me the means which you think necessary for its execution; I will furnish you with them all." In October, Kalb sailed from London; and, after a terrible passage of a hundred and nine days, he landed at Philadelphia, bringing to his work close observation, cautious judgment, and industry, but not the sagacity which could measure the movement of a revolution.

On the other hand, his employer suffered his hopes to run ahead of realities; for a Frenchman could not compute the power of Anglo-American forbearance; but, from this time, Choiseul sought in every quarter accurate accounts of the progress of opinion in America, alike in the writings of Franklin, the reports current among the best-informed merchants, and in New England sermons, from which curious extracts are to this day preserved among the state papers of France. His judgment on events, though biassed by national hatred, was more impartial and clear than that of any British minister who succeeded Shelburne.

1767.

We are arrived at the last moment in American affairs, when it still seemed easy to postpone revolu- April. tion; and must pause to ask after the points in issue. As yet they were trifling. The late solemn deliberation of the peers was but a frivolous cavilling on the form of a royal veto.

The people of Massachusetts, seeing a disposition to mar its charter and use military power in its government, needed more than ever an agent in England. Bernard insisted that no one should receive that appointment without his approval, and repeatedly negatived the dismissal of the last incumbent. But Shelburne held that the right of nomination should rest essentially with the representatives, so that this dispute could not become serious while he remained in the ministry.

The lieutenant-governor, in spite of his want of an election, had taken a seat in the council, pleading the charter as his warrant for doing so; but the attorney-general in England, to whom the case was referred, was of opinion that "the right could not be claimed by virtue of any thing contained in the charter or the constitution of the province.'

Bernard gave out that, by the use of his veto, he would

always keep places open in the council for Hutchinson and Oliver. The menace was a violation of the spirit of the constitution; its only effect was to preserve two perpetual vacancies in the council.

The council itself Bernard advised to alter from an elective body to one of royal nomination. The change would have been an act of aggression, and an unwarranted breach of faith; for no council had more uniformly shown loyalty than that of Massachusetts. Hutchinson at heart disapproved of the measure which from personal motives he advocated. The perfidious advice would be harmless, if England would only respect the charter which nearly a century's possession had confirmed.

1767. April.

There remained no grounds of imminent variance except the navigation acts, the billeting act, the acts restraining industry, and the slave-trade.

To the slave-trade Virginia led the opposition. Towns at the north, especially Worcester, in Massachusetts, protested against the system; but opinion through the country was divided; and complaints of the grievance had not been made in concert.

The restraints on manufactures, especially of wool and iron, were flagrant violations of natural rights; but they were not of recent date, and, as they related to products of industry which it was still the interest of the people to import, were in a great degree inoperative and unobserved.

By the billeting act, Great Britain exposed its dignity to the discretion or the petulance of provincial assemblies. There was no bound to the impropriety of parliament's enacting what those legislatures should enact, and accompanying the statute by a requisition from the throne. Is the measure compulsory and final? Then why address it to assemblies which are not executive officers? Does it not compel obedience? Then the assemblies have a right to deliberate, to accept in whole or in part, or to reject. And, indeed, the demand of quarters and provisions, without limitation of time or of the number of troops, was a reasonable subject for deliberation. Such was the opinion of the very few in England who considered the question on its merits,

and not as a test of authority. Besides, no province had refused to comply with the spirit of the act. A slight modification, leaving some option to the colonies, would have remedied this disagreement.

The navigation acts were a source of just and ever increasing discontent. But no public body in America had denied their validity; nor was there any reluctance to subordinate American commerce to the general interests of the empire; the relaxations which America most desired were very moderate, relating chiefly to intercourse with the West Indies, and the free export of such of its products as Great Britain would not receive. The illicit trade was partly owing to useless laws, but more to the prevailing No 1767. corruption among the servants of the crown. practical question existed, except that which Otis had raised, on the legality of the writs of assistance first issued by Hutchinson; and the attorney and solicitor general of England confirmed his opinion that they were not warranted by law.

April.

"In America," said the calm Andrew Eliot, of Boston, "the people glory in the name, and only desire to enjoy the liberties of Englishmen." "Nothing could influence us to desire independence but such attempts on our liberties as I hope Great Britain will be just enough never to make. Oppression makes wise men mad."

To tranquillize America, no more was wanting than a respect for its rights, and some accommodation to its confirmed habits and opinions. The colonies had, each of them, a direction of its own and a character of its own, which required to be harmoniously reconciled with the motion impressed upon it by the imperial legislature. But this demanded study, self-possession, and candor. The parliament of that day esteemed itself the absolute master of America; and, recognising no reciprocity of obligations, it thought nothing so wrong as thwarting its will. A good system would have been a consummate work of deliberative wisdom; the principle of despotic government acted with more speed and uniformity, having passion for its interpreter, and a statesman like Townshend to execute its impulses.

The committee of American merchants and friends to the colonies, with Trecothick at its head, interposed with Townshend; but he answered: "I do not in the least doubt the right of parliament to tax the colonies internally; I know no difference between internal or external taxes; yet, since the Americans are pleased to make that distinction, I am willing to indulge them, and for that reason choose to confine myself to regulations of trade, by which a sufficient revenue may be raised." "Perhaps the army," rejoined Trecothick, "may with safety be withdrawn from America, in which case the expense will cease, and then there will be no further occasion for a revenue." "I will hear nothing on that subject," such was Townshend's peremptory declaration; "the moment a'resolution shall be taken to withdraw the army, I will resign my office and have no more to do in public affairs. I insist it is absolutely necessary to keep up a large army there and here. An American army, and consequently an American revenue, are essential; but I am willing to have both in the manner most easy to the people."

1767. May.

On the thirteenth of May, Townshend came to the house of commons, in the flush of his reputation and the consciousness of his supremacy. When the resolutions for the stamp act were voted, parliament was unenlightened. Now it had had the experience of taxing America, and of repealing the tax through fear of civil war. What is done now cannot easily be revoked. A secret consciousness prevailed that a great wrong was about to be inflicted. The liberty and interests of America were at issue; and yet the doors of the house of commons were, by special order, shut against every agent of the colonies, and even against every American merchant.

Townshend opened the debate with professions of candor and the air of a man of business. Exculpating alike Pennsylvania and Connecticut, he named, as delinquent colonies, Massachusetts, which had invaded the king's prerogative by a general amnesty, and, in a message to its governor, had used expressions in derogation of the authority of parliament; Rhode Island, which had postponed, but not refused