peached honour, like Amherst, serves to explain the jealousy of the Colonial Assemblies. But here again, what was to prevent some kind of compromise? If the English had enforced, if necessary by Act of Parliament, the necessity of Governors residing in their provinces, and if their commissions had been for a term of five or six years, not to be renewed except on the express petition of the Colonial Assembly, in all probability the question of a salary might have been settled. Then again, undoubtedly, the Governors were right when they urged that, in the interests of the Crown, their position in the filling up of offices and posts should be strengthened. Surely there were enough jobs open for a Minister in England without the Colonies being further flooded with the scum of English corruption. Years before the Board of Trade had very wisely recommended1 that Colonial appointments should, as far as possible, be given as rewards to well-deserving colonials, but nothing effectual had been done in this direction, and the people were never encouraged to look up to the Royal Governor as the fountain of honour. While the English Government showed such little respect and trust in their officers, how could it expect them to obtain the respect and trust of the people? In the state of things which had come about, it was of the utmost importance to secure the services of the most capable men possible for the post of Governor. And yet no sense of this seems to have dawned on English politicians.

There was one other matter of extreme difficulty, in which something might have been attempted. No one who was not blinded by prejudice could doubt of the splendid fighting material shown by America during the late war with France. Whoever has observed the extreme attraction exercised over the minds of a militia by regular troops must admit that, if wise precautions had been taken, and all risk avoided of appearing to act against the constitutional rights of the Colonies, it might have been possible to attach to the service of the Crown a Colonial army, which might have rendered 11715. N. Y. Doc., Vol. V.

the immediate course of history very different. Any project to use an American army against American liberties would undoubtedly have failed, but had moderation ruled in politics, the presence of a loyal American army might have been a force, making for British interests, the importance of which could not be exaggerated. So far was the British Government from attempting this that by a most unwise regulation 1 1753. all commissions in the royal Army above the rank of

1

Captain took precedence of all commissions in the Colonial 1757. service. And when this rule was modified by the policy of

Pitt, Colonial officers, however senior, were still counted inferior to all regular officers of the same rank. It was rules such as these that would have lost to England the services of Washington, but for the wisdom of Braddock and Forbes in offering him staff appointments. Moreover, the effect of such rules was greatly aggravated by the supercilious attitude generally assumed by the British officers. Most lamentable, from this point of view, was the death, at the ill1758. fated attack on Ticonderoga, of the gifted and beloved Lord Howe, the Marcellus of British interests in America. When one contrasts his untimely end with the manner in which his brother was carefully preserved to be the Empire's executioner, one recognises that the stars in their courses were fighting against Great Britain.

1 MSS. in R. O.

CHAPTER VII✩

G. Gren

THE moral of the American despatches being two-fold, the Policy o weakness of the Executive and the need of a fixed American ville. revenue, Grenville completely disregarded the first, which was by far the more pressing of the two, and embarked with a light heart on the course, which was to end with the coming into being of a new great world State.

Before, however, entering upon this melancholy chapter of English history, we may note some other suggested solutions of the American difficulty. William Knox, who had been in America and had acted as agent for Georgia, and who, afterwards became Under Secretary of State, was convinced that the evil arose largely from the want of balance in the American Constitution, afforded in England by the House of Lords. He desired therefore-and Governor Bernard seems to have shared the wish-the creation of an American aristocracy; but in fact, aristocracies, like the college lawns admired by the American tourist, cannot be brought into sudden life. An aristocracy in name only is the weakest of social bulwarks, and any such attempt in America would have been almost certainly foredoomed to failure. A more dangerous suggestion must be noted. It was thought that the wings of the more unruly Colonies might be clipped by the setting up of a uniform government over the different Provinces. Any attempt to thrust, from outside, a hard and fast Constitution on all the Colonies, any scheme, which did not allow for their differences in history and character, would have aroused at least as much opposition, and been fraught with as serious consequences, as was the attempt directly to tax them. A more serious proposal deserves detailed notice. A variety of writers, from a variety of reasons, ranging from the strict Grenvillite Knox, to the liberal Pownall, and including the

2

master economist whose fame was to eclipse the ephemerioi of party politics, advocated the admission of American representatives to the House of Commons, as the only way out of the imbroglio. The position of Governor Bernard was peculiar.1 Deeply impressed with the weakness and impotence of the Colonial Government, recognizing that their springs were so relaxed that they "never can recover their tone again by any power of their own," and that "the weak patchwork government of the country had no power to defer separation one hour after the people had resolved on it," he therefore proposed that Colonial representatives should be admitted to the British Legislature for the purpose of considering and forming a new American Constitution, that then, being functi officio, they should permanently withdraw. The proposal is mainly noteworthy as throwing light on the character of Bernard. Adams honestly believed that Bernard,3 Oliver, and Hutchinson were in solemn league against the liberties of America. In fact, rightly or wrongly, the English officials in America considered themselves to be acting in strict self-defence. So far from wishing to interfere with other people's landmarks, they honestly believed that the ground was slipping from under their feet. Bernard seems to have been pompous, narrow and unsympathetic, but his letters show him to have been a man of strict legality. Be this as it may, the proposal had little in it of an encouraging character, but, if we consider the more general proposal, will the verdict be more favourable? Inasmuch as, writing in 1766, Franklin said, "the time has been when the Colonies would have esteemed it a great advantage as well as honour to be permitted to send members to Parliament . . . the time is now come when they are indifferent about it . . . though they might accept it if offered them, and the time will come when they will certainly refuse it"; it is clear that, if such a scheme could ever have been carried into successful effect, it should have been after the

1 Select letters on Trade and Government of America.

2 Works, Vol. II., Diary, Nov. 1774.

3 Bernard was Governor from 1760 to 1769. He succeeded Pownall (1757-1760). 4 Works, Vol. IV., Letter, Jan. 6, 1766.

Treaty of Paris in 1763. Grenville himself had no objection to American representation, and his follower Knox was, as we have seen, its strenuous advocate. But would it really have made for peace and amity? One thing is clear. The Americans were far too clever to assent, on the grounds silently held by most of its English advocates. If the main object was that the sheep should be sheared according to constitutional precedent, they would not have followed meekly into the pinfold. The real question was-was or was not England prepared to treat these Englishmen beyond the seas on the full footing of political and commercial equality? If she was, well and good, constitutional difficulties would soon find their remedy. But if she was not, to tantalise a high-spirited people with a semblance of power would have only served to aggravate the situation. It must be remembered also, that if intelligent interest in public affairs be a sign of civilisation, the Colonies, at least the New England provinces, had far outstripped the Mother country, and would have felt nothing but disgust for the state of things prevailing in England. Franklin had lived for some years in England, and had come into intimate relations with all that was best in English society, but hear Franklin on a general election.1 "In short, the whole venal nation is now at market, and will be sold for about two millions, and might be bought... by the very devil himself." Had there been American representatives in Parliament, one of two things would have happened. Either they would have themselves fallen victims to corruption, which was the view held by John Adams, in which case they would have formed a kind of provincial cohort in the party of the King's friends, or else, and this is what I expect would have happened, they would have maintained their independence and stood aloof, in grim and sullen isolation, from the squalid intrigues of English political life. Consider the risk of a dozen American Wilkeses, who were themselves sincere Wilkites. In my humble judgment the whole proposal illustrates the fundamental fallacy 1 Works, Vol. VII., Letter, March 13, 1768.

2 Works, IV., Novanglus, p. 139.