a Briton at the moment when the American hath advanced upon us, may not tend to encourage that spirit which has already gone too far by seeming to cast a doubt on the justice of the British cause." He himself did not agree with this opinion, and meant to express his own, though he expected to meet with but little approval in England and a great deal of disapproval in America. It appeared to him that neither side to the impending quarrel knew exactly what it wanted, So far as England was concerned "if we are to treat there must be some line to which our negotiations must have reference; if we are to fight there must be some line which shall bound and be the end of

our victories." After all the years that had passed, and the discussions which had taken place, men in England had not arrived at any agreement as to a line of action on which they could unite.

Those in America who have held the language and the doctrines that there is no line between sovereign power, . . . and no power at all ... have driven a people already half mad to utter desperation and have given source to all the evils which Great Britain and America must experience. . . . I wish the Government of this country to define its own rights and, standing on that sure ground, to acknowledge those of others. I wish the people of America, as they love liberty, so to honour true government, which is the only basis on which real liberty can stand and in that line to see peace. In support of this, and to that cause is the following tract, written in this dreadful crisis, dedicated.

Having recognised that the time had gone by when friction might have been removed by the colonists sending members to Parliament he proceeds to explain the distinction between national and provincial government;1 he expresses his disbelief that the colonists as yet intended to aim at independence by establishing the former for themselves, and he denied that Great Britain desired to interfere with the provincial government of the colonies by their inhabitants. But so much jealousy and suspicion had arisen that each party to the dispute had put forward arguments beyond what was really intended. Those he called "advanced fortified posts beyond the boundary," when that was determined such posts could be withdrawn. Where was the boundary to be? The colonists, he thought, should perform their duty of "aid and service"

1 Vol. ii. p. 34.

to the supreme Government in return for the protection they receive from and within its empire. They should be free to act and trade within it, and they had a right to be governed in domestic affairs by their own laws and to raise their own internal taxes which went to meet local expenses. But he emphasises "an essential difference between internal and external taxes," the latter being levied, in the form of Customs duties, as the colonial contribution for Imperial purposes and defence. From them the "colonists never did, in form and as of right, till the year 1768 claim such exemption." Their doing it then was ascribed by Pownall, in a speech already quoted from,' to the desire to retaliate on England for Townshend's Act of 1767. When Parliament sought to overstep the line between the two kinds of taxation and prescribe both as of its own authority, the colonists drew back and refused to pay either, and thus things came first to a deadlock and eventually to separation. Pownall's hope was that compromise and agreement might be reached by England abandoning the claim to internal taxation, and by the colonies withdrawing their objection to the Customs. That would bring both parties back to the positions they had occupied in peace for over a century "the old boundaries are known and are those of peace,—any new ones must be set in blood."

A postscript mentions that he had just received documents relating to the proceedings at the Philadelphia Congress in September; he found that there too it had been desired to draw a line of demarcation, but it was a very different one to his. It required England to waive all power of punishing treason even if it were condoned locally. The colonists claimed what they described as "an exclusive right of internal legislation." Pownall did not object to the expression, but he did deny that it excluded the power of Parliament in all cases whatsoever. Next came a colonial demand that England should renounce all power of taxation both internal and external. That he would not admit for a moment. England was further called on to cease the regulation of the colonial trade, though it was admitted by her opponents that "this power of regulation is the only bond that can hold us together." Parliament, he said, could not renounce this

1 See ante, p. 215.

power without risking the dissolution of the Empire. He would be no party to it. But he repeated what he had often said before that the colonial statutes of trade needed revision and that the colonies ought to be represented in Parliament. Great Britain was also told that she must repeal several of her Acts, especially those about the troops in America. Pownall said that he, "almost alone and unsupported," had endeavoured in Parliament to modify those Acts, but he declared that where the defence of the whole Empire against hostile attacks from without, or against subversion from within, was concerned, the King's right to supreme military control was absolute and necessary. Any requisition, therefore, of repeal, in such case of repeal, becomes a demand on Great Britain to lay down her arms, to surrender at discretion, to receive such terms as shall be dictated to her."

66

The colonists had found no better friend in Parliament than this man, but these demands by the Philadelphia Congress went far beyond anything he thought they were entitled to and made him angry. It was evident to him that the extreme men on the other side had captured what is now called in that country "the machine," and were bent on running it off the rails.

The new Parliament met on November 30, 1774; the King's speech mentioned "that a most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience to the law still prevails in the Province of Massachusetts Bay," but the question was not discussed till after the close of the year.

CHAPTER XI

LAST SIX YEARS IN PARLIAMENT

1775-1780

ON January 19, 1775, a number of despatches from the English Governors in America were laid before Parliament, each man's report to the home Administration was that his Province was out of hand. There were several to this effect from General Gage in Boston, and the latest received from him, dated November 2, 1774, said of Massachusetts "The whole country is in a ferment, many parts of it, I may say, actually in arms and ready to unite. . . . Great Britain had never more occasion for wisdom, firmness and unanimity."1

On the next day Lord Chatham made a strong speech in the Lords denouncing the Government, which he said had falsely charged the Americans with desiring independence when all they sought was the enjoyment of liberty and the security of property. He moved that, as a measure of conciliation, the British troops should be forthwith removed from Boston. During the next month there were long and frequent debates both in the Lords and in the Commons on the crisis in America. A letter from Gage, written on January 18, arrived on February 20, and gave a better account; he thought the people were quieting down after the excitement caused by the Congress in Philadelphia. When this letter was laid before the House on the day it was received, Lord North rose and announced that "if the Americans would propose to Parliament any mode by which they would engage to raise, in their own way and by their own grants, their share of contribution to the common defence," there would 1 Hansard's Parl. Hist. xviii, 105.

be an end of the whole dispute. This he put in the form of a resolution, and he announced that if this were carried by the House, and agreed to by the colonies as furnishing a settlement, England would refund to each colony the net sums received in the past from the new taxes which would be dropped in the future. This announcement came as a bolt from the blue; it was utterly unexpected, no one appears to have had any idea it was coming except Pownall. The conversation with him which Franklin recorded after that dinner at Richmond which was mentioned in the last chapter shews that he had rightly gauged Lord North, had known how the Prime Minister's mind was influenced by Gage's despatches, and had only made terms for supporting the Government when he was supporting his own opinions in so doing.

So soon as Lord North sat down after giving this shock to the House, Pownall rose. He described himself as having been a steady advocate for the rights of British subjects in America ever since the Congress at Albany twenty years before this time. He had there seen, being on the spot, the origin of this crisis in colonial affairs; he had since then watched its growth till the present situation had arisen. This ought to have been dealt with long ago, but he disclaimed any desire to recall the neglect of Ministries in the past, men with whom he had never had any connection, "having stood and being determined to remain unconnected with all parties. Speaking my own private sentiments, looking to things and not to men, I act from my own principles." Those he claimed that he had fully made known, both by his speeches within the House and by his publications outside it. He said he had thought his labour vain and all to no purpose; in the last Session he had expressed his intention of taking no further part in debate. But he now did so because "on the point of taxation this resolution goes to everything that can, or ought to be, proposed, and is, if rightly understood and accepted as it ought to be, a fair and just preliminary that must lead to peace." He believed that men of influence and property would see that this measure was the only one by which the safety of both countries could be firmly and permanently established. He considered that this action of Government was all that could be expected, and he ended by hoping that these resolutions