Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
“men appointed to alarm the country upon such occasions got over by stealth as
early as they [could] and took different routes,” “Andrews Letters” . Revere
wrote Belknap Jan. , , that William Dawes was one of the messengers, Goss
Revere I . I have found no contemporary evidence supporting this statement, but
have found none discrediting it. (For later statements as to Dawes, Holland (Dawes
passim.)
Evidence of the messengers’ successful activity is given in Chapter , and a state-
ment by Lieut. William Sutherland Apr. , , and a letter by an unidentified
writer dated April , identify Revere as one of them, Sutherland and Stiles Diary
. Furthermore, the fact, established by contemporary evidence, e.g., Clark Naval
Doc. I , , that Revere had often acted as messenger for the Boston Whig lead-
ers would have made him a natural choice to act as a messenger on this occasion.
Chapter
The progress of the Mass. Committee of Safety’s message of April , , from
the committee of one town to another
—Worcester, Mass., Brooklyn, Norwich,
New London, Lyme, Saybrook, Killingworth, East Guilford [now Madison],
Guilford, Branford, New Haven, and Fairfield, Conn.; New York City; New
Brunswick, N.J.; Philadelphia; Annapolis, Md.; and Williamsburg, Va. (April
)
—Scheide “The Lexington Alarm” , –. A second account of April th,
dated Wallingford, Conn., April , reached Williamsburg May , and George-
town, S.C., May , Force II –.
The committee’s message of April , , Scheide “The Lexington Alarm” .
Joseph Palmer, a leading Whig of Braintree, who, together with John Adams and
Ebenezer Thayer, represented Braintree in the First Mass. Congress, was the
town’s sole representative to the Second. Adams wrote James Warren, March ,
, that Palmer “is the best man they [Braintree] have,” Adams Works IX .
There is a “Biographical Sketch of Gen. Joseph Palmer” in The New Englander III
() –.
The Essex Gazette’s estimate of “ or Men” was apparently correct. On April
, , Lieut. John Bourmaster, commander of the transport Empress of Russia,
wrote, “I conducted all the Boats of the Fleet (as well Men a War as Transports) to
the back part of Boston where I received the Grenadiers and light Infantry
amounting to Officers and Men and Landed them on a point of Marsh...,”
W. & M.Q. X () . The name of the writer is known from Clark Nav. Doc.
, . Some other estimates were lower, e.g., Evelyn .
Gen. Gage to Gov. Jonathan Trumbull April , , says, “about two hundred
armed men [were observed] drawn up on a green” at Lexington; and Major John
Pitcairn wrote Gage Apr. , “I observed drawn up upon a Green, near of the
Rebels,” French Gage’s Informers . But Thomas Rice Willard, who was looking
out of a window in a house near Lexington Green, swore in an affidavit dated Apr.
, that “about an Hundred of the Militia of Lexington” were on the green when
the British came up, Journals Cont. Cong. II .
A letter from Col. Smith to Gage Apr. , , adds to the destroyed items
mentioned in the Gazette, “some gun powder and musquet-balls, with other small
articles thrown into the river,” M.H.S. Proc. XIV () . He also added that
“we...were informed, when at Concord, that some cannon had been carried
[away] three days before, which prevented our having an opportunity of destroy-
ing so much as might have been expected at our first setting off.”
The Gazette’s figure of , men is more than the estimate in the diary for Apr.
, , of Lieut. Frederick Mackenzie of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers which states,
“The whole of the King’s troops did not exceed ,” Mackenzie I . Based on
various scattered statements, I think the correct figure is about ,. Whether
there were ,, ,, or , seems unimportant.
Frank W. Coburn, who made an extensive study of the casualties suffered by the
Americans, gives forty-nine killed, forty-two wounded, and five missing, Coburn
Battle .
The Gazette here lists ten men from Lexington
—Robert Munroe, James Parker,
Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Caleb Harrington, Isaac Muzzy, John
Brown, John Raymond, Nathaniel Wyman, and Jedediah Munroe
—as killed. The
Gazette stated that eight were killed on the green at Lexington; the other two pre-
sumably were killed later. Among the nine listed as wounded at Lexington was
“Prince Easterbrooks (a Negro-Man).” Thus, both in the Boston Massacre (Cris-
pus Attucks) and on the day of Lexington and Concord, a black was among the
casualties.
The British official figures of losses are killed, wounded, and missing,
Coburn Battle .
Essex Gazette Apr. , ; reprinted with perfect accuracy in Clark Naval Doc. I
–; and, with modernized capitalization and a few other unimportant
changes (as usual with Force), in Force II –. Many interesting additional de-
tails based on contemporary accounts, such as that Apr. was a cold, sunny day,
with a brisk east wind, are given in Murdock “Concord” –.
Gage’s account is based, sometimes word for word, on five eyewitness accounts of
the day: Col. Lord Percy April , , and Lieut. Col. Smith April , M.H.S.
Proc. XIV () –n.; Maj. Pitcairn and Capt. Walter Sloane Laurie April
, French Gage’s Informers –, –; and Lieut. William Sutherland April ,
Sutherland –.
In making the curious statement that Pitcairn ordered the troops not “to fire nor
even attempt it without orders,” Gage repeated what Major Pitcairn had written
to him April , , French Gage’s Informers . I do not understand what Pitcairn
meant by “nor even attempt it.”
As brought out earlier in this chapter, the British and American versions differed
as to the number of men on Lexington Green, the former, about , the latter
about .
Capt. Laurie to Gage April , , has interesting additional details concerning
the engagement at the bridge near the village of Concord, same –.
It is curious that the Americans made no effort (so far as is known) to overwhelm
and capture the three companies under Capt. Lawrence Parsons that had
marched beyond the bridge.
Neither Gage nor the Gazette gave an estimate of the number of Americans en-
gaged in the course of the day. Coburn estimates that “about thirty-seven hundred
and sixty Americans” were engaged, Coburn Battle –. Mackenzie estimated
“not less than , ...towards the latter part of the day,” Mackenzie I .
Col. Lord Percy took the road to Charlestown, rather than the route through
Cambridge by which he had come, thereby avoiding the risk that the bridge across
the Charles at Cambridge had been removed or destroyed, Barker’s and Macken-
zie’s diaries for Apr. , , Barker ; Mackenzie . The ferrying of the troops
from Charlestown to Boston, Admiral Samuel Graves to Philip Stephens Apr. ,
Clark Naval Doc. I .
Gage to Gov. Trumbull April , , enclosing the account quoted in the text,
Force II –. Gage’s letter was in reply to a letter of Trumbull (April ) stat-
ing that “by the best intelligence that we have yet been able to obtain, the late
transaction was a most unprovoked attack upon the lives and property of His
Majesty’s subjects; and...such barbarities have been committed as would dis-
grace even barbarians....Be so good, therefore, as to explain yourself upon this
most important subject, so far as is consistent with your duty to our common Sov-
ereign...,” same .
Gage wrote from Boston to Lord Barrington April , , “The whole Country
was Assembled in Arms with Surprising expedition, and Several Thousand are
now Assembled about this Town, threatening an Attack, and getting up Artil-
lery...,” Gage II .
Percy to Gen. Edward Harvey Apr. , , as to the conduct of the Americans,
Perc y –.
First Appendix (Introduction)
The rule laid down by the Crown from to that acts passed by Legisla-
ture of the royal colonies amending an act approved by the Crown must contain
a clause suspending operation of the amending act until it was approved by the
Crown was, so far as I know, not formally changed. But the rule was in practice
disregarded. The Crown approved scores of acts passed by Legislatures of the
royal colonies from to which, though amending existing acts approved
by the Crown, did not contain a suspending clause.
Order of the Privy Council Dec. , , sustaining the decision of the Virginia
Council (the highest court in Va.) in favor of the validity of the Two-penny Act of
in a suit for additional salary brought by the Reverend John Camm, Smith
Appeals –. In the Virginia Council followed its decision in the Camm
case in another similar suit, same –.
The unsuccessful revival by colonial Anglican clergymen in of the movement
for the establishment of one or more Church of England bishoprics in the colonies
is described in an appendix to Chapter .
The unsuccessful effort of British customs officers to secure general writs of as-
sistance in colonies other than Mass. and N.H. is described in an appendix to
Chapter .
The settlement by compromise of the controversy over the Kayaderosseras land
grant is described in letters of Aug. , , from Gov. Sir Henry Moore of N.Y.
and Sir William Johnson to Lord Hillsborough, N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII , .
:
The Indian Treaties of Hard Labor and Lochaber of and clearing In-
dian title to large areas west of the Alleghenies and south of the Ohio River and
the opening of these areas to settlement, Jensen Founding – and sources cited
therein; Alden Southern Frontier –. For a map showing the territory in Vir-
ginia and present West Virginia covered by these treaties, Abernethey Western
Lands .
The controversy in over Crown control of colonial judges stemming imme-
diately from a Crown order for payment by the Crown of the salaries of the judges
of the Mass. Superior (Supreme) Court is described in Chapter .
Continuing enforcement of, and controversy over, the White Pine Acts after ,
Mayo John Wentworth –; Malone Pine Trees passim. A statement in by John
Wentworth, Surveyor-General of the King’s Woods in North America since ,
describing the excessive restrictiveness of the White Pine Acts which his office re-
quired him to enforce, is quoted in Knollenberg Origin .
The continuing contribution of the American Act of to colonial discontent is
brought out in several later chapters of this book.
Second Appendix (Introduction)
There is a good statement of the extreme Tory creed in the address to the King
of the Crown-appointed members of the Massachusetts Council, July , ,
“We...beg leave in humble Address to approach the Throne...,chearfully ac-
quiescing in the wisdom and goodness of Parliament and acknowledging its Author-
ity to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” Matthews “Mass. Royal Council” –.
My preference for the term To r y is strengthened by the fact that loyalists did not
come into general use until after the war. The earliest use of the term loyalist that
I recall having seen is in a diary of Stephen Kemble of N.J. Jan. , ,
“Kemble” . To r y was still used, for example, by Tory Daniel Leonard, as well as
by Whig John Adams, in their famous newspaper debate of –, Novanglus
and Massachusettensis (Adams) and (Leonard).
The colonial pamphlets and other publications mentioned in the text are dis-
cussed in Chapter .
Those familiar with recent publications bearing on the Assemblies of the thirteen
colonies know there is considerable conflict of opinion as to whether or not the As-
semblies were truly representative of the people of the several colonies. I believe
from my own study of the question that in general they were.
For example, following the British victories at Brooklyn and New York City more
than inhabitants of the City and County of New York signed a statement,
dated Oct. , , declaring their allegiance to George III, Dawson New York City
–, thereby now classifying themselves as Tories no matter what their former
status might have been.
Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris to Silas Deane Oct. , , concerning To-
ries, quoted in the text, Deane Papers I .
Studies of loyalism before include Flick Loyalism in N.Y. (); Van Tyne Loy-
alists (); Stark Loyalists of Mass. (); Egerton Loyalists (); Harrell Loyalism
in Va. (); Jones Loyalists of N.J. () and Loyalists of Mass. (); De Mond Loy-
:
alists in N.C. (); Siebert Loyalists of Pa. () and at least seventeen other books
or articles by Siebert; articles on loyalists of various colonies cited under “Sec-
ondary Works, Political” relating to these colonies in Gipson Guide. Tyler Lit. Hist.
of Am. Revolution (), Davidson Propaganda, Lundin N.J. () –, and Laba-
ree Conservatism – also have valuable material on loyalism.
The recent studies on loyalists referred to in the text are Wright Loyalists ();
Commager and Morris Spirit of Seventy-Six () –; Nelson American Tory
(); Smith Loyalists and Redcoats () and “American Loyalists” () –;
Brown King’s Friends () and “Loyalists” () –; Callahan Flight ();
and Benton Whig-Loyalism (). Brown’s footnotes and bibliography give a wide
coverage of the literature in the field. Also, valuable articles on loyalism in particu-
lar colonies are cited by colony in Gipson Guide under “Secondary Works, Political.”
Studies of the loyalists are in progress today as brought out in a recent study of the
loyalist emigration to Canada in Fellows “Loyalist Source Material in Canada”
–. Two valuable articles recently published are Fingerhut “Loyalist Claims”
– and Smith “Loyalists” –.
A considerable number of colonists had valuable contracts for various supplies
for the British troops and navy in the colonies and for masts, yards, spars, and
bowsprits for the British navy in Great Britain.
There is an admirable statement of the position described in the text by one of
those holding these views in Bryan Fairfax to George Washington July and Aug.
, , Hamilton Letters to Washington V –.
Col. William Stephens Smith (later the son-in-law of John Adams) to George
Washington Aug. , , concerning the impending fate of many New York
“Tories,” quoted in the text, same .
“Novanglus” (John Adams) in the Feb. , , issue of the Boston Gazette as to one
Tory to nineteen Whigs in Mass., Novanglus and Massachusettensis , with the edito-
rial note in Adams Papers II .
John Adams to Jedediah Morse Dec. , , concerning the percentage of loy-
alists, quoted in the text, same . To similar effect, Adams to Thomas McKean
Nov. , , and McKean’s reply of Jan. , , M.H.S. Coll. IV () .
Phineas Bond, a resident of Pa. before the war and British consul in Philadelphia
after the war, wrote in of the loss of inhabitants “occasioned by the war” as
“perhaps little short of , men,” and then proceeded to discuss the emigra-
tion of the loyalists, American Historical Association Annual Report I () .
This statement can and has been interpreted as an estimate that perhaps almost
, loyalist families left the colonies (e.g., Brown King’s Friends ) but Bond
may have meant losses from all causes.
Nelson’s estimate of the percentage of loyalists, quoted in the text, Nelson Ameri-
can Tory .
Smith’s estimate of the percentage of loyalists, quoted in the text, Smith “Loyal-
ists” , .
Brown’s estimate of the percentage of loyalists quoted in the text, Brown King’s
Friends vi, , –. (Palmer Age of the Democratic Revolution , estimates that
loyalist emigrés constituted about . percent of the population of the colonies,
but gives no estimate of the percentage of the colonists classifiable as loyalists.)
:
Of the loyalist claimants in Va., are identified as American born, as of
British birth, of other European countries, and the nativity of is not identi-
fied, Brown King’s Friends .
Of the loyalist claimants in Mass., are identified as American born, as
of British birth, of Irish, of other European countries, and the nativity of is
not identified, same .
Statement as to influence of Va. planters’ debts on weakness of loyalism in Va.,
Harrell Loyalism in Virginia, –, –. The quotation is at p. .
Gipson’s suggestion similar to Harrell’s, Gipson British Empire X – Tate
“Coming of the Revolution in Virginia” –, Evans “Planter Indebtedness”
–, and Brown Virginia – have valuable evidence or discussions, or
both, relating to planter indebtedness and its possible relationship to the weakness
of loyalism in Va.
Virginians owed almost half of the nearly million pounds sterling, principal and
interest, payable by the colonists to British merchants at the close of the Revolu-
tionary War, Evans “Planter Indebtedness” . Evidence that many Virginians
were very heavily in debt to British merchants and that the pressure for payment
became exceptionally severe following a British credit crisis in , same –;
Mays Pendleton I –, –, –, ; Rosenblatt “Significance of
Credit in the Tobacco Trade” –. The crisis is described in Sheridan
“British Credit Crisis and the Colonies” –.
Brown’s suggested explanation of the relative weakness of loyalism in Va., quoted
in the text, Brown King’s Friends .
Refusal of the Virginia Council to concur, or concurrence by a bare majority in
bills, or resolutions passed by the House of Burgesses in over forty instances from
to , Va. Legislative Council Journals III – passim.
Examples of divisions apparently of serious importance between the House of
Burgesses and the Council: the controversy over the issue of additional paper
money in and proposed removal of the capital from Williamsburg in ,
same , . The vote in the House on the latter, one of the few recorded votes
of the House, had been for removal, against, Va. Journals (for –) .
The statement in the text as to the families of members of the Council is based on
attendance at Council meetings from May , , to March , , in Va. Leg-
islative Council Journals III – passim and April , , to June , , in
Va. Executive Council Journals VI – passim. For example, those attending the
meeting of the Council March , , at which the House bill for removing the
capital was rejected, were William and Thomas Nelson, William Byrd, Philip
Ludwell Lee, John Tayloe, Robert Carter, and John Page, all of outstanding Vir-
ginia families, Va. Legislative Council Journals III , .
Gov. Francis Bernard of Mass. to Lord Barrington May , , Barrington–Bernard
Corresp. and Hutchinson Hist. of Mass. III speak of the division into parties
in . See also Brennan Massachusetts –. Very few votes of either the Mass.
House of Representatives or the Mass. Council are recorded; but votes on two
seemingly unrelated bills before the Mass. House in are recorded, and the
alignment in both was so nearly the same as to indicate a division along party
lines, Mass. Journals XXXVIII Part –, –.
:
The journals of the Mass. House do not give votes for and against the protests of
the Mass. House in June and November, , against British taxation of the col-
onies, Mass. Journals XLI –, . The only record of the vote on any bill or mo-
tion in the House from June, , through March, , on a motion in Feb.,
, to grant Thomas Hutchinson an additional salary as Chief Justice, carried
to , same . Comparison of this vote with the vote on the bills in re-
ferred to in note discloses that the alignment of members in differed ma-
terially from that in , and James Otis, reputed leader of the so-called “coun-
try” or anti-Hutchinson, party in , was among those voting in favor of the
additional salary to Hutchinson in .
The joint protest of the Va. House and Council incorporated in a Petition to the
King, a Memorial to the House of Lords, and a Remonstrance to the House of
Commons, adopted Dec. , , is in Va. Journals (for –) –. The
Council’s concurrence, also on Dec. , is in Va. Legislative Council Journals III .
The protest of the Mass. House against British taxation of the colonies was
adopted Nov. , , Mass. Journals XLI . I have found no evidence of the
names of the members voting for or against the protest. The protest, incorporated
in a joint petition of the Mass. Council and House to the British House of Com-
mons, is not in the Journals, but is printed in Bowdoin–Temple Papers –. (There
is a garbled version of the petition and an erroneous editorial note concerning it
in Bradford Mass. Papers –.)
The influence of Thomas Hutchinson in securing a vote first by the Council and
then by the House in favor of basing the colony’s protest on the ground that British
taxation of the colonies infringed merely a “privilege” previously enjoyed by the
people of Massachusetts, Knollenberg Origin –, , with sources cited
therein, and Hutchinson to Henry Seymour Conway, Mass. Arch. XXVI (Mass.
Journals XLI ), was based on a claim of “right,” M.H.S. Proc. XX ––.
The draft of the protest initially adopted by the House, Oct. , , and
Mauduit n.
In studying Hutchinson’s remarkable career as a politician and loyalist leader, I
have found the typed copies of a mass of Hutchinson’s correspondence in the
Massachusetts Historical Society and the writings of Malcolm Freiberg described
in my table of books, articles, and dissertations cited, the most valuable sources of
information. The sketches of Hutchinson in D.A.B.; Shipton Harvard Graduates
VIII –; Hosmer Hutchinson; the third volume of Hutchinson Hist. of Mass.,
with the supplement in Mayo Additions; and Hutchinson Diary throw much addi-
tional light on the life and character of this remarkable man.
Hutchinson retained his appointive offices of Chief Justice and judge of probate
until he became Acting Governor on Bernard’s return to England in . The
following year he acceded to the Governorship in which capacity he served until
. The Massachusetts charter gave the Governor absolute power to appoint all
officers (hundreds of them) of the provincial militia, to reject the person elected
Speaker of the House of Representatives and those elected to the Council, and to
veto all bills passed by the House and Council; and the power, with the advice and
consent of the Council, to appoint all sheriffs, justices of the peace, and judges of
the provincial courts, Mass. Acts I –.
:
There is a sketch of John Robinson in D.A.B. and additional information con-
cerning him in Mays Pendleton, traceable by references to Robinson and his estate
in the index, same II .
The members of the committee of the House of Burgesses to draft the protest
against British taxation of the colonies were Peyton Randolph (“Mr. Attorney”),
Richard Henry Lee, Landon Carter, George Wythe, Edmund Pendleton, Ben-
jamin Harrison, Archibald Cary, and John Fleming, Va. Journals (for –) .
A letter of Aug. , , from Bryan Fairfax to George Washington stating that
many who attended a recent meeting of freeholders of Fairfax County had re-
mained silent, though opposed to some of the strongly Whiggish resolutions
adopted at the meeting, suggests that if there had been a leader of stature and in-
fluence to speak for their point of view, they might have openly opposed them,
Hamilton Letters to Washington V –.
Appendix (Chapter )
George Grenville’s diary for March and , , recording his talks with the
King concerning appointment of the Governor of Cork, Grenville III , . The
Duke of Northumberland was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Grenville’s diary for March , Apr. , and Apr. , , recording his talks with
the King, pressing the appointment of “Mr. Duff” (probably Alexander Duff, later
third Earl of Fife) and Registrar to the Order of the Thistle, same , , –.
James Stuart Mackenzie was Lord Privy Seal for Scotland.
The Duke of Cumberland’s undated statement concerning negotiations in April,
, for a change of Ministry, Rockingham I –; Duke of Newcastle to John
White June , , reporting what Cumberland and Lord Albemarle had told
him, Newcastle –; Cumberland wrote that until Apr. he had not seen the King
in private for over a year, Rockingham I .
There is a full account of the muddle (Apr. –May , ) over omission of
George III’s mother, Dowager Princess of Wales, from among those described in
the Regency Bill of as eligible for the regency, in Horace Walpole to Horace
Mann May and explanatory editorial notes, Lewis Walpole XXII –. The
Regency Bill as enacted is Geo. III ch. (). See also Walpole to Lord Hert-
ford May and , Toynbee Walpole VI –, –.
Walpole to Lord Hertford May , , as to setting fire “the old stubble of the
Princess and Lord Bute” and in effect having “the worst of North Britons published
by Act of Parliament!” same –. The rumors concerning Bute and the
Princess and their dissemination in the July , , issue of John Wilkes’ North
Briton are discussed in Knollenberg Origin –.
The Regency Bill as passed in the House of Lords amended in the House of Com-
mons to include the Princess as one eligible for regent and the House of Lords ac-
ceptance of the amendment, May and , , Walpole to Mann May , and
editorial notes, Lewis Walpole XXII . Report and covering letter of Grenville
to the King May , reporting the day’s debate on the bill in the House of Com-
mons, Grenville III – and notes on –.
:
Newcastle to John White June , , relating Cumberland’s report of a talk with
Lord Northumberland on May , Newcastle .
Newcastle to White June , , reporting Cumberland’s account of his talk with
the King on May and the latter’s complaint of the Ministry, same –; Cum-
berland to Duke of Grafton May , Grafton . An undated memorandum of the
King written after the death of Cumberland on Oct. , , gives a long list of
actions of Grenville that had offended him, Geo. III I –.
William Pitt and Lord Temple gave a number of reasons for declining, but ap-
parently the chief one was that Cumberland would not assure them the King
would cease consulting Bute, Walpole to Mann May , , Lewis Walpole XXII
; Mrs. Grenville’s “Fragments” dated May , Grenville III ; Newcastle to
White June , Newcastle .
Newcastle to White June , , reporting accounts by Cumberland and Albe-
marle of their talk with Pitt and Temple May , same –; various correspon-
dents May –, Grafton –; Grenville III ; “Fragments” in Mrs. George
Grenville’s hand, May , same ; Walpole to Hertford May , Toynbee Wal-
pole VI .
“The points agreed upon” by Grenville, Lord Chancellor (Lord Northington), the
Duke of Bedford, President of the Council, and Secretaries of State Lords Halifax
and Sandwich to be laid before the King “as indispensably necessary...for car-
rying on the public business,” May , , Grenville III .
Grenville diary for May , , describing the King’s particular distress over the
demand for the dismissal of Mackenzie, same . A memorandum of Lord
Egmont, May , explains that the King considered that he would be dishonored
by dismissing Mackenzie because when he gave Mackenzie the place of Lord
Privy Seal for Scotland “he promised that he would never take it from him,” Geo.
III I .
The King yielded to the ultimatum on May , , saying to Grenville, “I see I
must yield. I do it for the good of my people,” Grenville’s diary for May ,
Grenville III .
The Duke of Bedford’s complaints and threat at his audience with the King June
, , Bedford’s memorandum of June , Bedford III –, and the King to
Lord Northington June , Geo. III I . According to Bedford, the King gave no
answer other than “declaring Lord Bute was not consulted, and that he had never
done me ill offices with the King,” Bedford III –. To same effect, Walpole to
Mann June , Lewis Walpole XXII .
The King to Northington June , , telling of his “indignation” over Bedford’s
“so very offensive a declaration,” Geo. III I .
The King to Cumberland June , , asking him to try again to form a new
Ministry, same.
Cumberland’s vain effort (June –) to persuade Pitt and Temple to form a new
Ministry, Newcastle to White June , , Newcastle –; Walpole to Mann
June , Lewis Walpole XXII –; Cumberland–Pitt Corresp. June –, Pitt
II –; many documents of the King and others June –, Geo. III I –,
Grenville III –, Bedford III –, and Grafton –; Gilbert Elliot’s undated
:
memorandum covering June –, Jucker Jenkinson –; Cumberland to
Albemarle June , Rockingham I –.
Pitt was willing to take office if Temple would become First Lord of the Treasury,
Cumberland to Albemarle June , , Rockingham I –; Charles Town-
shend to Lord Townshend July , Grenville III .
Temple refused to take office because of “the difficulty of forming a proper plan
with regard to the House of Commons” and for an undisclosed reason of “a ten-
der and delicate nature,” Grenville’s diary June , , same –. The diffi-
culty about the Commons
—Pitt’s ill health making his attendance there uncer-
tain
—is explained in Newcastle to White June , Newcastle ; guesses as to the
reason of “a tender and delicate nature” are in Walpole to Mann June , and
George Onslow to Newcastle June , Lewis Walpole XXII , n.
Walpole wrote Mann July , , “Cumberland has persuaded the Opposition
to...form a ministry. Without Mr. Pitt they were unwilling, but, pressed,...they
have submitted...,” same ; also Albemarle to Newcastle June , and New-
castle to Duke of Portland July , same n. Newcastle to White, undated, but ap-
parently soon after July , Newcastle –; Newcastle’s memorandum of June ,
Rockingham I –.
Appendix (Chapter )
By the act of and William III ch. , passed in . Lawrence Gipson’s state-
ment as to the Act of quoted in the text, Gipson British Empire XIII ()
–. Gipson quotes in support of his views a statement in Coke’s Institutes:
“The power and jurisdiction of parliament is so transcendent and absolute, that it
cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds [p. ].” But
Coke also wrote, “when an act of parliament is against right and reason...the
common law will controul it and adjudge such act to be void,” Corwin “Higher
Law” ; also on Coke’s statements same n.
The proceedings of Parliament from Dec. , , to March , , collected
in Stock Proceedings II – passim, with respect to the proposed Statute of Frauds
of give no indication of any intention of dealing with the question of whether
or not Parliament was bound by any constitutional limitations in legislating for
the colonies. The discussion dealt exclusively with implementing the enforcement
of English regulation of colonial trade, which was generally recognized as being
within the scope of Parliament’s authority.
The Act of ( and William III ch. ) is entitled “An act for preventing frauds,
and regulating abuses in the plantation trade.” The preamble recites, “Whereas
notwithstanding diverse acts made for the encouragement of the navigation of this
kingdom, and for the better securing and regulating the plantation trade...great
abuses are clearly committed . . . For remedy whereof for the future...Be it en-
acted,” etc. All the other sections of the act, as well as section , quoted in the text,
deal primarily with means of enforcing the regulation of colonial navigation and
trade.
Gipson’s statement as to colonial acceptance of the principle set forth in the Act
of , Gipson Brit. Empire XIII .
: