erty, except the proceedings be duly ordered by some authorized Congress or Committee.1

Not only were their estates declared confiscate, but many Loyalists, whose influence or action was feared, were confined to private houses, and some were sent to jails and to the "Simsbury Mines."

Sabine estimates that as many as twenty thousand Tories took up arms against the Rebels, during the war; and among their leaders were the able General Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, William Stark, of New Hampshire, Sir John Johnson, Beverly Robinson, and Oliver De Lancey, of New York.

After the war, some of the Legislatures continued their hostility to the banished Tories, and refused them their rights or property; many were then forced to settle and cultivate New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; and by them Upper Canada was peopled.

A general amnesty would have been not only graceful, but politic.

A Board of Commissioners was appointed by Parliament, in 1783, to inquire into the circumstances, etc., of the Loyalists or Tories. It sat till 1789; but before 1784, two thousand and sixty-three claimants appeared, and their claims amounted to over £7,000,000 sterling.

The Commission had awarded £201,750 for £534,705 claimed.

In the end, some $40,000,000 were claimed, and some fifteen and a half millions of dollars were paid by England to the Loyalists of America. Pecuniarily, therefore, they fared better than the Whigs, whose losses and sacrifices were as great, but who got no money payment for them. ' Sabine, p. 84.

1 American Archives.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

INDEPENDENCE TALKED ABOUT.

THE IDEA-PATRICK HENRY'S POSITION-SAMUEL ADAMS'S POSITION-THEY OPPOSE CENTRALIZATION-LETTER TO ARTHUR LEE-WASHINGTON'S POSITION, 1774-GENERAL GREENE'S POSITION, 1775-THE KING'S SPEECH-NEW HAMPSHIRE INDEPENDENT— THOMAS PAINE" COMMON SENSE" THE COLONIES CONSENT.

It is not easy to see distinctly, how early in history, the idea of Independence took shape in the popular mind. To a few clear heads, self-government seemed from the first the only true theory of society; and in 1763, Patrick Henry, of Virginia, took the boldest positions, and advocated principles destructive to the existing theory and practice of Government. This man, with the outside manners and appearance of a working farmer, had within a nature as fervent as Luther's, a mind as clear as Williams's, a courage as bold as Putnam's, and an eloquence like Otis's, which carried along in its irresistible course, all who came within its influence. Until inspired with the Gospel of Liberty, his nature had lain dormant, and in his undertakings, as a farmer and merchant, he had failed. He was poor, without influence or respect; for he had acquired neither money, land, slaves, nor reputation; and he was nigh thirty years old, when he undertook, as a lawyer, to plead the cause of the people, against the claims of the Clergy before the Virginia Courts.

To most lawyers, the case seemed hopeless. But Henry, commencing in his plain, unaffected way, gradually rose in dignity, warmth, eloquence, and power, till his opponents fled the court, and judges and jury decided in his favor, without a moment's hesitation,

At this time he laid down such positions as this: That between the King and the People, there was a reciprocity of duties; and that Government was a conditional compact, which, if violated by one party, implied the reciprocal discharge of the other.

This broad doctrine was well received by the people, and it is clear that the idea of subjection to the will of a King was inconsistent with it. Henry did not falter, but stood by his principle, and went whither it carried him, till in 1773, before the attack at Lexington, he saw plainly that we must strike for Independence, and in his impassioned way had declared-"We must fight!" He saw that the Aristocracy, who grasped and controlled the government and power of England, would not yield the right to tax the Colonies without a struggle; and to him and a few others, it was only a question of time, when the struggle should begin.

Another man stood side by side with him in the front rank. This was SAMUEL ADAMS, one of the first, most able, intrepid, and indefatigable of the friends of liberty in Massachusetts. As early as 1743, he asserted that it was RIGHT to resist the supreme magistrate, in order to preserve the Commonwealth; and this doctrine he lived to put in practice. He was called by his enemies "Samuel the Publican," because he had been a Tax Collector. In this office he seems to have been a defaulter, which is the only suspicion ever urged against him. Whatever it was, it was forgotten in the glory and purity of his riper years. Among the patriots of the Revolution, none was more incorruptible than he, and even Governor Hutchinson, whom he overthrew, was obliged to say-in reply to the question, Why he was not bought with an office ?-that his obstinacy and inflexible honesty of character could not be conciliated by any office whatever.

He devoted a long and active life to the advocacy of the principles of Liberty and Justice, rather than to the accumulation of money; so he lived simply, and died

poor, but crowned with respect and honor. Among the men who initiated and carried forward the doctrines of individual liberty, no one united in himself so completely the three capacities which make up the man-to Thinkto Speak and to Act-as Samuel Adams. As a writer, Hutchinson asserts he began very poorly; but by practice he came to be one of the clearest, most able, and forcible. As a speaker he was bold, manly, and vigorous; and as an actor, he possessed a practical talent and a knowledge of men, which enabled him to organize masses, and to carry out his plans. In the darkest hours preceding and during the Revolutionary struggle, he was undismayed; he stood like a rock, for he stood upon principles which were eternal. In short, in the true sense, he was a Democrat.

There is no doubt that he early saw that Independence -Self-government-was the only cure for the evils that the Colonies labored under; but he was slow to speak, except to those he knew could hear it. In 1769, when reproached in town-meeting, that certain measures tended toward shaking off the dependence upon Great Britain, he said boldly in his speech

But

"Independent we are, and independent we will be !" The crowd shouted their assent, but the leaders then, and the property-men, trembled, and held back. Adams never doubted it must come to that, and at home and abroad he stood by this principle, till Washington and Jay, Sherman and Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison, and the whole Congress of the United Colonies, stood by it too.

He opposed the Constitution as at first prepared, and for the same reason that Patrick Henry did. They both foresaw the dangers of CENTRALIZATION, of gathering all power into one hand, with a standing army to enforce it; and he strenuously resisted some of its provisions, and asserted the Rights of the STATES. He finally acceded to it, after some changes; but Henry did not. He op

posed it persistently in the Virginia Legislature, but was beaten. Adams and Henry were right; they truly foresaw the danger-it is the one which has introduced despotism and corruption, and has ruined nations.

The following extract from a letter, from a gentleman in London to a gentleman in Boston, will serve to show the state of feeling existing in England, and the dangers which the wise so early foresaw :

London, April 27, 1774.-The stroke may first be felt in Boston; but that man who does not perceive it meant against the whole line of Colonies, must be blind indeed. Trust me, the views of the Administration are to subdue and enslave you." 1

*

The quarrel went on with increasing heat, and it was becoming evident that force, not reason, must decide it. Samuel Adams wrote, April 14, 1774, to Arthur Lee in England: "Their opposition grows into a system. They are united and resolute; and if the British Administration and Government do not return to the principles of moderation and equity, the evil which they profess to aim at preventing by their rigorous measures, will the sooner be brought to pass, viz., the entire separation and independence of the Colonies. It requires but a small portion of the gift of discernment for any one to foresee that Providence will erect a mighty empire in America. * ** And that we shall be respected in England exactly in proportion to the firmness and strength of our opposition."

But there is sufficient evidence that at that time the idea of Independence was vague, and had taken shape in few minds; and those few were careful to whom they expressed so rash a notion.

The first Congress (1774), in their address to the people of Great Britain said: "You have been told we are seditious, impatient of government, and desirous of independency. Be assured that those are not facts but calumnies."

1 American Archives, vol. v.