Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
PETITION TO THE KING AND
OTHER STATE PAPERS
OF THE CONGRESS
I
the Congress pushed through a large num-
ber of measures including a resolution of thanks “to those truly
noble, honourable and patriotic advocates [in Great Britain] of civil
and religious liberty, who have so generously and powerfully, tho’ un-
successfully, espoused & defended the cause of America, both in and
out of parliament”;¹ a Petition to the King; a circular letter to the in-
habitants of St. John’s (present-day Prince Edward Island), Nova Sco-
tia, Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida; and an address to the in-
habitants of the province of Quebec.
The most important of these papers was the Address (later called
Petition) to the King submitted to the Congress on October , by a
committee consisting of Lee, John Adams, Henry, Johnson, and John
Rutledge.²
As with the Statement of Rights, the proposed Address gave rise to
much debate.
On the very day (October ) the committee was chosen, two pro-
posals for instructions as to statements to be included in the Address
were warmly contested.
The first, moved by Jay, was that the committee be instructed to in-
clude an offer to pay for the tea destroyed at Boston. He was supported
by his New York colleagues Duane and Low, Ross and (with the proviso
that the offer be made conditional on repeal of the Boston Port Act)
Pendleton. But Lee and Henry, Gadsden (who had written Samuel
Adams in June that Charlestonians were trusting the Bostonians’
“Firmness...not [to] pay for an ounce of the damn’d Tea”),³ Lynch,
both Rutledges, Goldsborough, Ward, and John Adams opposed the
motion, and it was defeated unanimously when Jay failed to muster the
support of a majority even of the New York delegates.⁴
The second, moved by Duane, was that the committee be instructed
to include in the Address a statement affirming that the colonies, “zeal-
ous for the safety and glory of the British Empire, will readily concur in
any plan consistent with constitutional Liberty for drawing forth the
united Councils, Aid and Strength...of his Majesty’s Dominions
whenever it shall be found necessary.”⁵
Lee moved to amend this declaration to include a statement that,
since one of the reasons given by Parliament for taxing the colonies was
the necessity of defending them, and since “North America is able, will-
ing and, under Providence, determined to defend, protect and secure it-
self, the Congress do most earnestly recommend to the several colonies,
that a militia be forthwith appointed and well disciplined, and that it be
well provided with ammunition and proper arms.”⁶
Lee’s proposed amendment was warmly supported by Henry, who
said that “a preparation for Warr is Necessary to obtain peace; that
America is not Now in a State of peace; that all the Bulwarks of Our
Safety, of Our Constitution are thrown down; that We are Now in a
State of Nature; that We ought to ask Ourselves the Question should
the planns of Nonimportation & Nonexportation fail of Success, in that
Case arms are Necessary & if then...[why] are We to hesitate provid-
ing them Now whilst in Our power.” Sherman and Dyer of Connecti-
cut and Lynch also supported Lee.
But Harrison opposed the proposed amendment on the ground that
it would “tend only to irritate, whereas Our business is to reconcile,”
and he was supported by his colleagues, Pendleton and Bland, both
Rutledges, Duane, Low, and Hooper of North Carolina.⁷
The resolution finally adopted (October ) instructed the commit-
tee to state the following: “Whereas the parliamentary taxes on Amer-
ica have been laid, on pretence of defraying the expenses of...de-
fending, protecting, and securing the Colonies that they do assure his
Majesty that...the [colonial] militia, if put upon a proper footing
would be amply sufficient for their defence in time of peace; that they
are desirous to put it on such a footing immediately; and that in case of
war the colonies are ready to grant supplies for raising any further forces
that may be necessary.”⁸
On October , another debate arose, this time over a motion by an
unidentified member for an instruction to the committee on the Ad-
dress to the King apparently to state that harmony between the colo-
nies and Great Britain would be restored if the colonial grievances aris-
ing since the late war () were redressed.⁹
The motion was supported by Read of Delaware,¹⁰ but was strongly
opposed by Lynch on the ground that it would “leave some of the worst
acts in force
—the Rice being enumerated, the Hatt Act, the Act for ex-
tending Land in America to the payment of Debts,¹¹ the Act of [ and
] Wm. & Mary & the th [th] George nd extend[ing] the power of
Jurisdiction of Admiralty invidiously,¹² the Governor or the Crown ap-
pointing Councillors to act as Legislators in the respective Colonies,¹³
. . . all of them Grievances to be remonstrated against.”¹⁴
So far as his objections to the motion concerned the power of colo-
nial admiralty courts, Lynch was supported by his colleague, John Rut-
ledge, who pointed out that these had been unduly “extended before
[as well as after] the year ,” a grievance conceded by him to be “the
most enormous of any Whatever...as...destroying all privileges in
the destruction of trial by jury.”¹⁵ Biddle of Pennsylvania and Edward
Rutledge also opposed the proposed limitation.¹⁶
John Adams, while not denying that extension of the power of colo-
nial admiralty courts was a major grievance, supported the motion on
the ground that it “does not imply that We are to submit to all preced-
ing Acts, but [only] that We shall by such repeal be in the State We were
in as to harmony.”¹⁷
This brought Low of New York to his feet in opposition to the motion
because “it is not sufficiently explicit that We ought to speak out, com-
plains of being misapprehended, etc....,”¹⁸ meaning apparently that
the motion was calculated to mislead the King by giving assurance that
the colonists would be satisfied with withdrawal of the objectionable
British measures taken since , whereas in fact they would not be.
Various amendments were proposed,¹⁹ one of which was adopted,²⁰
but no copy of this amendment or of the original motion has been
found. All we have is the text of the amended motion as adopted, which
instructs the committee “to assure his majesty, that in case the colonies
shall be restored to the state they were in at the close of the late war, by
abolishing the system of laws and regulations for raising a revenue in
America, for extending the powers of courts of admiralty, for the trial of
persons beyond the sea for crimes committed in America, for affecting
the colony of the Massachusetts bay, and for altering the government
and extending the limits of Canada, the jealousies [distrusts], which
have been occasioned by such acts and regulations of parliament, will
be removed and commerce again restored.”²¹
The resolution for the instruction to limit the appeal for redress to
grievances arising since the late war was carried (October ) by only
a very narrow margin: Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, Con-
necticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island voted yes; South Car-
olina, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware no; the Penn-
sylvania delegation, equally divided, cast no vote.²²
South Carolina’s dissent presumably was from confining the pro-
test to British measures adopted since “the close of the late war.”²³ No
evidence has been found as to the reason or reasons for the dissent of
Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware or how the divided Pennsylvania
delegation lined up.
On October , the committee submitted to the Congress a draft of
the proposed address. No copy has been found, but evidently it was un-
satisfactory since it was “re-committed,”²⁴ and John Dickinson (who
had recently been elected to the Pennsylvania House and promptly
chosen as one of its delegates to the Congress)²⁵ was added to the com-
mittee.²⁶ A new draft, apparently prepared chiefly by him,²⁷ was sub-
mitted a few days later and promptly adopted.²⁸
What changes were made is unknown. Many years later, Dickinson
wrote that they were merely to eliminate “language of asperity,”²⁹ and
no evidence to the contrary has come to light. Probably one of the
changes in phraseology was to call the document “Petition,” rather than
“Address.” In the previous resolutions of Congress, the proposed docu-
ment was uniformly referred to as an Address³⁰ to the King, whereas
the document adopted used the more deferential word “Petition.”³¹
The Petition to the King was adopted on October , signed by all
but five of the members of the Congress,³² and sent to the London
Agents of the colonies for presentation to him.³³
The most striking feature of the Petition to the King (as it was now
usually called)³⁴ was its declaration, “We wish not a diminution of the
prerogative....Your royal authority over us...we shall always care-
fully and zealously support and maintain.”³⁵
This statement by the Congress strongly confirms the repeated de-
nial by practically all the Whig leaders that they were seeking complete
independence of British rule.³⁶ For the royal prerogative unquestionably
included control over the foreign relations of the entire empire; the right
to use the colonies as bases for military operations against the French,
Spanish, and other foreign possessions in America; the authority of the
King in Council to review and reverse on points of law the decisions of
highest courts of all the colonies³⁷ and to disallow all acts passed by
the legislatures³⁸ of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and all the royal colonies,
including Virginia and Massachusetts.³⁹ Furthermore, the Whigs had
not challenged a long-standing instruction from the King to all colonial
Governors forbidding them to assent “to any law wherein the natives or
inhabitants” of his colony “are put upon a more advantageous footing
than those of this kingdom” and that “no duties shall be laid in the
province...under your government upon British shipping or upon the
product or manufacturers of Great Britain....”⁴⁰
This instruction, which had been well observed,⁴¹ secured the access
of British ships and goods into the already vast and steadily expanding
colonial market, free from local legislation banning or discriminating
against them. In the case of foreign countries, British ships and goods
often were, and might at any time be, excluded or severely discrimi-
nated against; in the colonies they were at all times sure of a free, open
market.⁴² In short, the habitual assertion of British politicians and pub-
licists that if Parliament could not tax the colonies or at least effectively
restrict their trade with foreign countries for the benefit of British mer-
chants, the British people would have no compensation for the cost of
protecting the colonies, simply was not true.
The circular letter to the inhabitants of St. John’s, Nova Scotia, Geor-
gia, and the Floridas, prepared by a committee composed of Cushing,
Lee, and Dickinson, merely enclosed copies of the printed proceedings
of the Congress accompanied by a recommendation that “the measures
contained in the enclosed papers...be adopted with all the earnest-
ness that a well directed zeal for American Liberty can prompt.”⁴³
The more expansive address to the inhabitants of Quebec drafted
by this same committee was adopted after debate and revision just be-
fore Congress rose on October ,⁴⁴ with an accompanying resolution
that the address be translated into French, printed and distributed
through the agency of the delegates from New Hampshire, Massachu-
setts, and New York.⁴⁵
This address pointed out to the people of Quebec the iniquity of the
British government’s denial to them of the most basic rights enjoyed by
the people of Great Britain
—“having a share in their own government
by their representatives chosen by themselves”; trial by jury; the writ of
habeas corpus; holding land “by the tenure of easy rents and not by
rigorous and oppressive services”; freedom of the press. It also invited
them to join the “federation” designed to secure these rights to all the
British subjects in America and to send representatives to another con-
tinental congress,⁴⁶ which, as brought out later in the chapter, was to be
held the following May.
Fearing that the British government might try to “lay hold of as
many delegates as possible and have them carried to England and tried
as rebels,”⁴⁷ the Congress resolved on October , that “seizing or at-
tempting to seize any person in America, in order to transport such per-
son beyond the sea for trial of offences committed within the body of a
county in America...ought to meet with resistance and reprisal.”⁴⁸
The immediate cause of the fear prompting this resolution presum-
ably was the receipt of an affidavit of Samuel Dyer, recently returned
from England, relating that he had been seized in Boston and shipped
to England for having allegedly tried to induce British soldiers to de-
sert.⁴⁹ In London, the government closely examined him to try to ob-
tain incriminating evidence against Whig leaders in Boston, but he had
been released when (quoting Secretary of State Lord Dartmouth) “there
did not appear to be, in the opinion of the King’s Law Servants, the
least shadow of ground for detaining him....”⁵⁰
On the same day (October ) it passed the resolution as to reprisal,
the Congress chose a committee consisting of Galloway, McKean, John
Adams, and Hooper “to revise the minutes of the Congress.”⁵¹ If, as
seems probable, the committee’s chief mission was to eliminate every-
thing that might be used as evidence to charge any particular member
of the Congress with treason, the committee carried out its duty with
impressive efficiency; nothing remains in the revised minutes ( Journals)
of the Congress that would not equally implicate every member of the
Congress except Dickinson, a latecomer, and Randolph, Rhoads, Har-
ing, and Goldsborough, who, as noted in Chapter , did not sign the
Association.⁵² Galloway and Duane, who tried to absolve themselves,⁵³
were in no better state than the rest on the record.
On October , the Congress recognized that further united action
might be required even before the non-exportation agreement was to
go into effect, by resolving that “it will be necessary that another Con-
gress should be held on the tenth day of May next, unless the redress of
the grievances we have desired be obtained before that time. And we
recommend that the same be held at the city of Philadelphia, and that
all the Colonies in North-America chuse deputies, as soon as possible,
to attend such Congress.”⁵⁴
Finally, on October , after adopting a vote of thanks to the Penn-
sylvania House “for their politeness to this Congress,” the Congress dis-
solved itself.⁵⁵
A well-known letter of Governor Cadwallader Colden of New York
to Lord Dartmouth, soon after the Congress rose, implies that the Vir-
ginia, Maryland, and New England delegations, supported by some of
the members from South Carolina, constituted a bloc against which the
other delegations could make little headway.⁵⁶ But the notes of debates
in the Congress give little indication of a division into blocs. The only
known vote showing the line-up by colonies
—the vote of October on
the motion to include in the Address to the King only grievances aris-
ing since
—does not support Colden’s view. Maryland and South
Carolina, far from supporting the Virginia and the New England dele-
gations, voted against them.⁵⁷ Furthermore, though we do not know the
line-up in the five-to-five vote (October ) on a motion to concede some
authority of Parliament to regulate trade (discussed in Chapter ), we
know that Massachusetts and Rhode Island lost their votes on this
motion because their delegates were equally divided,⁵⁸ thus proving that
on this question, at least, there was no solid bloc of New England votes.
Judging from the importance of their committee appointments, Lee
of Virginia and Johnson of Maryland (both of whom had long taken
leading parts in opposing objectionable British measures in their re-
spective colonial Assemblies) were the leaders in the Congress.⁵⁹ Lee
was a member of all four of the most important committees
—Statement
of Rights, the Association, Address to the King, and Memorial to the
colonists
—and Johnson of all but the last.⁶⁰
Lee’s leadership also is indicated by the records of debates, in which
he is more frequently referred to than any other member.⁶¹ Johnson is re-
ferred to less frequently, but John Adams’ well-known diary entry char-
acterizing various members of Congress singled out Johnson for particu-
lar commendation, as being “sensible and learned” and having “a clear
and cool head [and] an extensive knowledge of trade as well as law.”⁶²
Even though the Congress’ plan to secure redress of colonial griev-
ances by exerting commercial pressure on British merchants and man-
ufacturers failed, the significance of the Congress in the history of the
American Revolution can hardly be exaggerated.
In the first place, its resolution for another congress to be held
May , , laid the basis for the assembling of a second intercolonial
congress after the outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord⁶³
at least a month earlier than would otherwise have been possible
—
a month of critical importance in the Second Continental Congress’
preparations for war.
The First Congress also paved the way for united action in the Sec-
ond more rapidly than would otherwise conceivably have been pos-
sible. As the Connecticut delegates wrote to Governor Trumbull in
their letter of October , , quoted in Chapter , it had given the
delegates from the twelve colonies, each having “particular provincial
rights and interests to guard and secure,” the opportunity “to become
so acquainted with each one’s situations and connexions as to be able
to give an united assent to the ways and means for affecting what all are
ardently desirous of.”⁶⁴
This was particularly important in influencing the attitude of dele-
gates from the other colonies toward Massachusetts. Many outside
Massachusetts, even of those most devoted to the Whig cause, were re-
pelled by the supposed object of Whigs in Massachusetts to become
completely independent of British rule. By their temperateness at the
Congress, the Massachusetts delegates were able to convince their fel-
low members that the people of Massachusetts were not fanatics bent
on independence; that their objects were the same as those of colonial
Whigs in general; and that, therefore, in backing Massachusetts, the
members from other colonies were supporting a common cause.
But most important of all was the resolution for enforcement of the
non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption provisions of
the Congress’ Association by local committees. When war came, these
committees formed a preestablished network of local enforcement agen-
cies which were invaluable in implementing the war measures adopted
by the Second Continental Congress.⁶⁵
The formation of these committees will be described in due course.
But, before proceeding to the reception in the several colonies of the
resolutions of the First Congress, we turn to developments in Massa-
chusetts during the summer of , and their repercussions in Great
Britain.
DEVELOPMENTS IN
MASSACHUSETTS
:
MAY–
SEPTEMBER, 1774
B
as the new Governor of Massachu-
setts, General Thomas Gage, Commander-in-Chief of the British
Army in North America, reached Castle William at the mouth of
Boston harbor on May , . Four days later, Gage proceeded to
Boston and officially succeeded Thomas Hutchinson as Governor of
Massachusetts.¹
Gage’s responsibilities included enforcement of the Boston Port Act,
which was to take effect June first,² enforcement of the Massachusetts
Regulating Act, which was to take effect at various dates beginning July
first,³ and execution of his instructions from the Crown (described in
Chapter ). These instructions required him to shift the place of meet-
ing of the Massachusetts (“General Court”) Legislature⁴ to Salem from
its customary place of meeting at Boston and to prosecute for treason
the leaders of the opposition to the landing of the British East India
Company’s tea at Boston.⁵
To support Gage in executing the new acts and his instructions, a
squadron of British warships was already stationed at Boston when he
arrived, and four British infantry regiments were sent from the British
Isles, reaching Boston at various times between June and July .⁶
Gage had no difficulty in closing the Port of Boston and in removing
the Legislature to Salem,⁷ where it sat until dissolved by him on June ,
for having passed the resolution calling for an intercolonial congress
(described in Chapter ).⁸