Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
GALLOWAY’S PLAN OF UNION
O S , , Joseph Galloway moved and James Duane, John
Jay, and Edward Rutledge supported, a resolution envisaging two measures:¹
approval of a Plan of Union² between Great Britain and the colonies and
adoption of a petition to the King for redress of colonial grievances.
The plan provided for a “grand council” of the thirteen old continental col-
onies to be elected every three years by the Assemblies of the several colonies,
in “proportions” left blank by Galloway, to meet “once in every year, if they
shall think it necessary and oftener if occasion should require...,” and the ap-
pointment of a “President General” by the King to “hold his office during the
pleasure of the King....”
Each of the participating colonies was to “retain its present constitution
and powers of regulating and governing its own internal police in all cases
whatever”; but the power to legislate in all matters concerning “the general po-
lice and affairs of the colonies, in which Great-Britain and the colonies or any
of them, the colonies in general, or more than one colony, are in any manner
concerned,” was to be lodged jointly in Parliament and the Grand Council. Ei-
ther of these bodies could initiate such legislation, but it would not be valid
without the assent of the other.³
In his pamphlet, A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and
the Colonies, published a few months after the close of the Congress,⁴ Galloway
stated that three objections were made to his plan: () “The delegates did not
come with authority to consent to a political union between the two coun-
tries”; () “the members of the grand council would be corrupted, and betray
the interest of the colonies”; and () the plan “deprived the colonial legislatures
of a part of their rights.”⁵
Probably other reasons contributed to the rejection of the plan, the most
obvious of which is the provision in the plan that the several colonial Assem-
blies should “choose members for the Grand Council in the following propor-
tions.”⁶ Galloway left the “proportions” blank, but they would have to be filled
in to complete the plan, thus reopening the extremely ticklish and potentially
disruptive question of whether each colony should have but a single vote, and,
if not, how many votes each colony was to have. Furthermore, statements in
the Candid Examination indicate that Galloway envisaged deferment of other ac-
tion to secure redress until his plan was considered and acted upon by the King
or Parliament or both,⁷ a course utterly unacceptable to most members of the
Congress.⁸
In the Candid Examination, Galloway wrote with particular bitterness of the
Congress’ having expunged from its minutes all record of his “resolve, Plan,
and rule [resolution], referring them to further consideration,” which, he be-
lieved, was part of a “malevolent” effort to smear him as a tool of Lord North.⁹
There was, however, nothing exceptional in the Congress’ expunging the
plan and proceedings concerning it from its minutes. All of the rejected mo-
tions known from diaries and notes of debates are missing from the journals of
the Congress, having probably been expunged by the committee chosen shortly
before the Congress rose “to revise the minutes of the Congress.”¹⁰
GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE CROWN
A in Chapter , the Congress’ Statement of Rights and
Grievances included three grievances against the Crown: () abridging the
right of the colonists “to assemble, consider of their grievances and petition the
King”; () “keeping a Standing army in these colonies, in time of peace, with-
out the consent of the legislature in which such army is kept”; and () exercis-
ing “legislative power in several colonies by a council appointed during plea-
sure by the crown.”
Grounds for the first two complaints are described in Chapters and of
this book. The explanation of the third is apparently as follows.
All of the royal colonies had a Council acting both as an advisory body to
the Governor and as an Upper House of the Legislature. In all of these, except
Massachusetts before , the Council, usually of around twelve members,
was appointed by the King or the Crown-appointed Governor pursuant to an
order (mandamus) from the King.¹
The commission from the King appointing the Governor to office author-
ized him to suspend councilors for “just cause.” It also directed him, in case
the Council were reduced to fewer than seven by “suspension...or other-
wise,” to appoint “as many Persons out of the Principal Freeholders, Inhabi-
tants thereof as will make up the full Number of Our said Council to be seven
...untill either they shall be confirmed by Us, or that by Nomination of Oth-
ers by Us...Our said Council shall have seven or more Persons in it.”² In-
structions from the King added the further direction that councilors were to be
persons of “good life, well affected to our government, of good estates and of
abilities suitable to their employments.”³
Labaree Royal Government (p. ) states that councilors “normally served for
life,” and I have found no evidence to the contrary. But the royal mandamus
for the appointment of councilors said nothing as to tenure,⁴ and the King him-
self, as distinguished from the Governor, could, if he so willed, dismiss a coun-
cilor with or without “just cause,” i.e., at the pleasure of the Crown.⁵
There were occasional conflicts over various bills in all the royal colonies
between the Crown-appointed Council and the elected Assembly. But, on the
whole, relations between the two Houses had been tolerably amicable except
in the Carolinas and Georgia, where they had, from time to time, fought bit-
terly over various issues.⁶
The most protracted of these conflicts stemmed from resolutions of the
South Carolina Assembly (Commons House) at the close of the November–
December, , session of the Legislature “That the Public Treasurer do ad-
vance the sum of ten thousand five hundred Pounds Currency out of any
money in the Treasury to be paid into the Hands of Mr. Speaker...[and six
other named members of the Assembly] who are to remit the same to Great
Britain, for the support of the just and Constitutional Rights and Liberties of
the People of Great Britain and America” and “That this House will make pro-
vision to reimburse the Public Treasurer the said sum.”⁷
The money to be paid pursuant to this resolution was to be sent by the re-
cipients to the Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights in England toward
payment of the debts of the popular John Wilkes, who was battling to be seated
as a member of the British House of Commons to which he had been repeatedly
elected for Middlesex County.⁸
The treasurer having obeyed the order, the Assembly included in its next
appropriation bill an item to repay him. The Council rejected the bill on the
ground that a bill to indemnify the treasurer was in effect a bill for the appro-
priation of public funds and that it was the right and duty of the Council to
refuse to pass a bill including so improper an item as financing Wilkes.⁹ Bills
repeating this item were passed by the Assembly at every session from
through , and consistently rejected by the Council.¹⁰
The conflict over this issue was intensified by the character of membership
of the Council in South Carolina.
The instructions to Governors of the royal colonies, quoted earlier in this
appendix, stated that councilors of the colony were to be chosen from the
“Principal Freeholders, Inhabitants thereof.”
In most of the colonies, the Council was of this character; but in South Car-
olina (for reasons not clear) most of those appointed to the Council were per-
sons who were in the colony only because of holding some Crown office there
other than their councilorship,¹¹ and recently a number of Crown officers who
were not resident freeholders had been appointed councilors in North Car-
olina and Georgia.¹²
The seeming intention to have the Crown dominate the Council in the
royal colonies was further indicated by a clause of the Massachusetts Regulat-
ing Act of . This provided explicitly that members of the Massachusetts
Council (previously elected, but thereafter to be appointed by the Crown) were
to hold office only “for and during the pleasure of his Majesty...,”¹³ thus dis-
abling the King, even if he wished, from granting them commissions on “good
behavior” tenure.
In light of these developments, it is understandable that members of the
Continental Congress feared that in all the royal colonies, the Council, instead
of being a legislative body representing the principal resident landowners of the
colony, comparable to the British House of Lords, was to be made a mere crea-
ture of the Crown.¹⁴
THE SUFFOLK COUNTY RESOLVES
T adopted by the convention of Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, in September, , acknowledges George III to be
“our rightful sovereign” and as such “justly entitled to the allegiance...of the
English colonies in America.”
The second states the duty, “by all lawful ways” to “preserve these civil and
religious rights and liberties for which, many of our fathers fought, bled and
died; and to hand them down entire to future generations.”
The third and fourth denounce the recent Boston Port Act and Massachu-
setts Regulating Act as “gross infractions of those rights to which we are justly
entitled by the laws of nature, the British constitution and the charter of this
province,” and declare that these acts should “be rejected as the attempts of a
wicked administration to enslave America.”
The fifth and sixth declare that “no regard” be paid to the courts of the
province as established under the Massachusetts Regulating Act and that the
county “will support and hold harmless” all sheriffs and other officers who re-
fused to execute orders of these “unconstitutional” courts.
The seventh recommends that Collectors of taxes retain all taxes collected
by them pending orders from “the proposed provincial Congress,” and the six-
teenth calls for the assembling of the proposed congress on October .
The eighth declares that persons who refused to resign their commissions
as members of the Crown-appointed Council under the recent Massachusetts
Regulating Act be considered as “incorrigible enemies to the country.”
The eleventh advises that militia officers appointed by the royal Governor
be supplanted by officers elected by the towns from among persons “who have
evidenced themselves the inflexible friends to the liberties of the people” and
that all persons qualified for military service “use their utmost diligence to ac-
quaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and do, for that pur-
pose, appear under arms at least once a week.”
The twelfth declares that “we are determined to act merely upon the de-
fensive so long as such conduct may be vindicated by reason and the principles
of self-preservation, but no longer,” and the nineteenth provides for securing
help from all parts of the province “should our enemies by any sudden ma-
noeuvres render it necessary to ask the aid and assistance of our brethren....”
The thirteenth recommends that if any person “conspicuous in contending
for the violated rights and liberties of their countrymen” were seized, the
people should “seize and keep in safe custody every servant of the present
tyrannical and unconstitutional government throughout the...province un-
til the persons so apprehended be...restored safe and uninjured to their re-
spective friends and families.”
THE SOLEMN LEAGUE
AND COVENANT
O M , , a Boston town meeting chose a committee, headed by
Samuel Adams, to take into consideration the Boston Port Act. At a subse-
quent meeting May , the town instructed this committee “to prepare a Pa-
per, to be carried to each Family in the Town...[agreeing] not to purchase
any Articles of British Manufactures that can be obtained amoung ourselves &
that they will purchase Nothing of, but totally desert those who shall Counter-
work the Salutary Measures of the Town.” Furthermore, the meeting in-
structed the Boston standing Committee of Correspondence, also headed by
Adams, “to communicate the Non Consumption Agreement aforesaid to
other Towns in the province.”¹
These resolutions of May obviously were intended to encourage home
industry but not to ban the consumption of all articles of British manufacture.
The Boston Committee of Correspondence nevertheless sent a circular letter,
dated June , to towns throughout the province, enclosing a form of agree-
ment, with a covering letter proposing “a solemn league” to be formed by se-
curing the signatures of “all adult persons of both sexes” to the enclosed “form
of covenant.”
The proposed covenant bound the subscribers “to suspend all commercial
intercourse with...Great Britain until the said act for blocking up the said
harbor [of Boston] be repealed and a full restoration of our charter rights be
obtained”; not “to buy, purchase or consume...any goods, wares or mer-
chandizes which shall arrive in America from Great Britain aforesaid, from
and after the last day of August next ensuing”; and, “after this covenant has
been offered to any person and they refuse to sign it,” to “withdraw all com-
mercial connexions with them forever, and publish their names to the world.”²
The proposed covenant, known as the Solemn League and Covenant,³ was
objectionable to the merchants of the province, Whig and Tory alike, because
it called for stoppage of all imports from Great Britain, rather than only those
competing with home industry, and because of the early cut-off date, Au-
gust , specified in the covenant.⁴ Even if a merchant immediately wrote his
suppliers in Great Britain canceling all orders for goods, much, if not most, of
the goods reaching Massachusetts after August would have been shipped
before notice of cancellation could reach Great Britain. Consequently, even
the most cooperative merchants would be severely penalized by having goods
arrive after the deadline, which the covenant would forbid them to sell. Yet it
was approved by several Massachusetts county conventions⁵ and adopted by
many inland towns of the province.⁶
However, the important Boston town meeting of June and , discussed
in Chapter , though expressing confidence in the “upright Intentions” of the
Boston Committee of Correspondence and approval of its “honest Zeal,”
passed no resolution approving the covenant which the Committee had circu-
lated throughout the province.⁷
Following this meeting the Committee of Correspondence of Salem, next
to Boston the most important commercial town in the province, wrote a com-
mittee at Falmouth (now Portland, Maine) on July , recommending suspen-
sion of all “measures for a cessation of commerce with Great Britain, till we
know the result of the deliberations of the grand american congress...be-
cause we do not find any of the southern colonies or even Boston itself intend
to pursue active measures till then....”⁸ At least seven other Massachusetts
towns took similar action.⁹
Thus, in large measure, Massachusetts rejected the covenant and fell in line
with the other colonies in deferring adoption of a general non-importation
and non-consumption agreement pending action by the Continental Congress
scheduled to meet in September.
WHO FURNISHED THE
INFORMATION ABOUT
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE CONGRESS?
T who furnished the British Ministry with the information
concerning the proceedings in the First Continental Congress mentioned by
John Pownall to Thomas Hutchinson, referred to in Chapter , has not been
and perhaps never will be answered. There is some evidence pointing to John
Jay; but for reasons discussed later in this appendix, I believe he was not the
source of the Ministry’s information.*
On February , , Franklin wrote from London to his friend Joseph
Galloway in Pennsylvania that “it is whisper’d here by ministerial People that
yourself and Mr. Jay of New York are Friends of their Measures, and give them
private Intelligence of the Views of the Popular or Country Party in America.
I do not believe this; but I thought it a Duty of Friendship to acquaint you with
the Report.”¹
The same day William Lee, a London merchant, formerly of Virginia, wrote
his brother Francis Lightfoot Lee in Virginia, “Jay, one of the delegates from
New York to the last Congress, has by letter betrayed its secrets to administra-
tion here.”² But he gave no evidence to support this accusation.
Many years later () the Reverend John Vardill, in a statement to the
“Commissioners...for enquiring into the losses and services of the American
Loyalists,” stated that he had “furnished Government with much and valuable
information by an exterior correspondence with Congress leaders” named by
him,³ two of whom, Jay and James Duane, were members of the First Congress.
* Herbert Alan Johnson, John Jay, – (Albany: New York State American Bicentennial
Commission, ). [B.W.S.]