1774] QUINCEY IN LONDON. 361 such a coercive measure should have passed, and no steps have been taken by a powerful force to affirm throughout the colonies the claim of supremacy put forth by parliament, is one of the glaring proofs of the fatuity of lord North's administration. At an early stage of the dispute, a policy to remove the evils declared to have been caused by the home government was not only possible on the part of the provinces, but it could have been clearly set forth, had the desire of maintaining the relationship been sincere. Such demand, however, was never made, and those most zealous in fomenting the disturbance were careful that none should be formulated. That which they had at heart, the independence of the colonies, could not be advanced as a constitutional remedy; it was safer for them to persevere in continuous agitation, negatively assailing the attempts of the parent state to re-establish the old feeling which had prevailed before France was driven from the continent. Consequently, there was never an affirmative declaration of the constitutional reforms they desired. Even at a late period, ministers would have welcomed any proposition on almost any principle; provided only that it promised a satisfactory settlement, which would have quieted the discontent and been acceptable to the king. Their opinions. were drifting in all directions, hopelessly seeking for some definite policy they could advocate and act upon. At this time Quincey, then prominent in Massachusetts' politics, arrived in London. He subsequently represented in his account of his interview with lord North, that he had been sent for by the minister. The truth is, he came somewhat unexpectedly into lord North's presence. One Mr. Williams had written to the latter, stating that such a person was from Boston, and asked if it would be agreeable if the writer would bring Quincey to wait upon him. The next morning, Williams called; North conceived that it was to obtain a reply to his letter, and when Williams was admitted, he brought Quincey into the room with him. Quincey had here a full opportunity to lay the American view before lord North. He professed the old story that there was a general desire for reconciliation; but the people of Massachusetts felt certain that they had been wrongly represented, evidently referring to Hutchinson as the delator; and Quincey conceived that three or four persons on the part of the kingdom, and as many on the part of the colony, might easily settle the matter. Lord North replied, that he had been moved by no information or misrepresentation; he had judged by the acts and doings of the colonists themselves, of which he had received authentic narratives, denying the authority of parliament over the colonies; he presumed that this was evidence which could not be gainsaid. That authority could never be abandoned. If he himself should yield the point, he would expect his head to be brought to the block. Quincey made no reply on this point; he alluded to the proceedings of congress, and expressed the opinion that they would terminate in a non-importation agreement. He had no proposition to make, no suggestion to offer, and the inference is that he waited upon lord North to learn, if he possibly could, the designs of the British ministry for the coming year. The presence of Quincey in London has this importance, that if there had been any true desire for reconciliation, as he strongly declared, he had the opportunity in an informal way of submitting the remedy in general terms. If any hope for the re-establishment of the old relations had really been felt, some principle, which made the adjustment of the quarrel possible, could have been discussed, so that its future acceptance might have been assured. Quincey's nominal cause for being in England was his health; the desire to gain information, and obtain news of what was happening, may be ascribed as the true motive. Parliament re-assembled in January, but no business was undertaken during that month, although there was much to call for active measures. Chatham had appeared in the house of lords, and asked the recall of the troops from Boston. He condemned what he called the fatal acts of last session, while he prophesied the hour of danger would come 1775] FRANKLIN'S ASSURANCES. 363 with all its horrors. He declared that "no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the general congress at Philadelphia." It is this praise which has obtained for this congress its extraordinary reputation; he found, however, but eighteen supporters. A feeling had begun to prevail in England that the end in view of the American provinces was separation from the mother conntry. Chatham had spoken to Franklin on the subject. Franklin's reply was that he had travelled from one end of the continent to the other, and had never heard any person, drunk or sober, express the least desire for the separation; yet at this very time, Franklin was assuring Quincey, whom he met in London, of his earnest desire for "total emancipation." * Chatham fell into the trap of believing Franklin's assurances. As he saw no possibility of the disruption of the empire, he continued with his accustomed vigour to assail the policy followed by the ministry in the American troubles. He acted as if his attack were against the political existence of the government. Imperilled as their position was by their want of statemanship and absence of all purpose, Chatham had no remedy to offer but that the troops should be withdrawn. from Boston, and every restraint removed from the prevailing agitation. He never looked upon the colonial loyalists as deserving of the slightest attention. It is impossible for him not to have heard of the persecution to which they were subjected for the assertion of their opinions. I do not think that a passage in his speeches can be quoted in which he shewed sympathy with the large number, however scattered and without organization, whose crime, with those amongst whom they lived, was devotion to the mother country. In the house of commons, the petition from congress was introduced. It had been confided to Bollan, Franklin, and Arthur Lee, who submitted the request that they should be heard by counsel at the bar of the house; but the request was * Life by J. Wild Sparks, p, 372. refused, on the ground that congress was a body not recognized by law. In February, lord North brought in his promised bills, as if the spirit of revolt in America could be averted by a vote of the house. The first bill was, to prevent the commerce of the colonies being directed to any other country than Great Britain and the West Indies, and to deny them the right of fishing on the banks of Newfoundland. Three days afterwards, with his majority, he carried an address to the throne, declaring that Massachusetts was in a state of rebellion, sustained in the other colonies by combinations contrary to law, and that the support of parliament would be pledged to subdue it. Although the aggressiveness of these acts evinced a spirit of extreme hostility, no steps were taken for their enforcement, or that they should in any way obtain political vitality. Lord North could not bring himself to act; he heard various opinions in different directions, and they created a chaos in his mind. His nature was prone to indecision; and he was averse constitutionally to all business which exacted labour and thought. He could, however, when he braced himself up for effort, form a just and fair view of any situation, whatsoever its complications. His abilities were admitted. He had, unfortunately for himself and the nation, formed opinions irreconcilable with his relations with the king. paralysed in the discharge of his duty, by his convictions not being in accord with the line of policy his political position entailed upon him. During this trouble, lord North went much into society. Lord Hillsborough met him in February, in the height of the dissatisfied feeling of the house of comAll he could talk of was, the Pantheon and Almacks; not one word could be obtained from him on the subject of the trouble in America. Except lord Dartmouth, who was a man of strong religious convictions, and of a serious character, the ministers all went constantly into the grand monde, sat up late and rose late. Accordingly, in this bustle of amusement no progress was made in the formation of a policy mons. 1775] DISREGARD OF THE ROYALISTS. 365 to extricate the country from the formidable dissensions, which were to end in the dismemberment of the empire. Wonder must arise that the ministry, having carried their extreme measures, should have stopped short at the establishment of their parliamentary majority, and that no plan of operations was determined, to attain the results which these measures threatened. It was not possible for North to suppose that paper enactments would be a source of terror to the provinces, which were beginning to feel a sense of their power and strength, and where the population was each month advancing with great strides towards an organized resistance to sustain the position they had assumed. What could have been expected from the motion carried by the government: that when provision had been made for a payment by the colonies of their proportion of the national expenditure affecting the provinces, all taxes except those levied for the regulation of commerce should cease, and the amount obtained by these means should be applied to the credit of the proportion of revenue payable by the colonies? The writers, who in describing these events make the charge of tyranny against the mother country, may dwell on the imposition of taxes, as if the amount obtained was to be applied to imperial purposes. No contemporary writer of authority makes this accusation; the objection against any taxation was that it had been imposed independently of the colonial legislatures. As to the tax applied to tea, by which there was a positive saving to the consumer, even this act was represented as a national wrong; it was its imposition in any form which formed the grievance; in other words, it was a representative act of the supremacy of parliament. As was the case with Chatham, the loyalists never appear to have been regarded by public opinion in England as deserving of consideration. Consequently they were left unprotected throughout the whole extent of the country, except within the limits of Boston. Peter Oliver wrote with some bitterness in November, 1775: "We are shamefully neglected, I mean the friends of government. If only 10,000 troops could have |