of Hampden; his task was easier than that of Hampden, and the solution he wrought, which an interval of three thousand miles of ocean practically dictated, was more thorough." The writer laments the estrangement of Americans from England. "England's sternest, coldest, most critical censors, I have found among descendants of the old settlers; surely those retain something of ancient Puritan bitterness. The source of estrangement I am inclined to trace largely to the fact that the average American reads no history but United States history, and that he can scarcely be said to study." A strife on the ocean. Vast misapprehension as to the true character of the American Revolution no doubt prevails: the English Radical whose words have been both sides of quoted puts the case none too strongly. A high American authority1 declares that the American Revolution was not a quarrel between two peoples, but a strife between two parties in one people, Conservatives and Liberals. These parties existed in both countries; the battle between them took place not only on the fields of America, but in the British Parliament also, some of the fiercest engagements in the latter arena. The strife took place on both sides of the water with nearly equal step, and was essentially the same on both sides; so that if, at the close of the French War, all the people of Great Britain had been transported to America, and all the people of America to Great Britain, and put in control of British affairs, the American Revolution and the contemporary British Revolution might 1 Hon. Mellen Chamberlain, in Winsor: Narrative and Critical History of America, VI, Chap. I. have gone on just the same, and with the same final result. For a long time both peoples had had a common history; but in the reaction at the Restoration, the British race in England passed again under the power of prerogative, exchanging it in 1688 for the domination of a Parliament representing only the rich and high-placed, by no means the mass of the nation. In Great Britain, therefore, the struggle was to recover what had been lost. The emigrants to New England, on the contrary, left behind institutions which were monarchical, both in Church and State, and revived ancient institutions which were democratic. They fought, therefore, to preserve what had been retained, not to recover what had been lost, and drew with them into the contest the rest of America. Ability and pro-American This view of the character of our Revolutionary War is so unfamiliar that it is worth while to illustrate it with some fulness. As to the embarrassments which the King and his number of ministers underwent from a powerful op- advocates. position, in their attempts to coerce America, the latest historian of the eighteenth century makes out a strong case. From the first, the immense influence of Pitt, soon to be Earl of Chatham, then the most powerful of subjects, was on the side of America. We have seen him justify, with all his eloquence, the resistance to the Stamp Act, seconded by Lord Camden, who also had great influence. At the time of the tea duty, there was in Parliament a strong section supporting the Americans, and outside of Parliament a still more democratic party who kept the country in alarm through fierce political agitation; all which, as was truly said by Lord North, lured on America and blocked the efforts of the ministry.1 To be sure, the opposition were divided among themselves. Dean Tucker and Adam Smith favored letting the colonies go.2 Burke and Chatham, on the other hand, wished to retain them, but insisted upon a repeal of all coercive and aggressive laws. Again, Chatham always maintained that the American cause was essentially that of the Whigs. No taxation without representation "is the common cause of the Whigs on the other side of the Atlantic and on this"; he extolled the Americans as "Whigs in principle and heroes in conduct," and openly wished them success. Others of that party, however, like Grenville, declared that the American cause was anti-Whig, because, refusing the jurisdiction of Parliament, its supporters sought to extend the power of the King. It must be admitted that some of the ammunition of the American champions was drawn from Tory arsenals, and this circumstance naturally tended to alienate from them Whigs who were strict constructionists. The difference tended to America were disappear as the contest proceeded: the conquered. Whigs generally became pro-American, fearing that the conquest of those with whom they sympathized in America would also establish absolutism in England, - an opinion expressed by Chatham, Fox, Horace Walpole, and Burke.1 Fear for English liberty if Nor were the Whigs ever in full sympathy with the Radicals. English Radicalism was born in 1769, in the time of the Wilkes disturb Position of 1 Lecky: XVIIIth Century, III, pp. 403, 404. 8 Ibid., p. 587. 2 Ibid., p. 421, etc. 4 Ibid., pp. 589, 590. ances. Then began the agitation for parliamentary reform, a matter which the Whigs took up but slowly, differing among themselves. Burke, for instance, though he taught the fundamental Whig doctrine, that Sovereign, Lords, and Commons must be regarded as trustees of the people, and although he advocated the publication of the discussions of Parliament and other advanced measures, was yet stubbornly against "levelling doctrines," opposing all attempts to lower the suffrage, to abolish rotten boroughs, to add to shire-representation, to modify in any way the framework of Parliament. "The machine is well enough to answer any good purpose, provided the materials were sound." And again: "Our representation is as nearly perfect as the necessary imperfection of human affairs and of human creatures will suffer it to be." 1 As to parliamentary reform, he was in opposition to the elder and the younger Pitt, both of whom favored it, and he was far away on many points from the "Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights," who demanded thorough government of, by, and for the people. In opposing, as he did later in life, the French Revolution, he only carried out his earlier principles. The Radicals had no friendship for him. Mrs. Macaulay, their ablest writer, said of his "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents," that it contained "a poison sufficient to destroy all the little virtue and understanding of sound policy left in the nation; and that it was peculiarly fitted to divert the nation from organic and truly useful reforms to a revival of aristocratic faction." 2 1 Lecky: XVIIIth Century, III, p. 222. 2 Ibid., p. 224. all which, as was truly said by Lord North, lured on America and blocked the efforts of the ministry.1 To be sure, the opposition were divided among themselves. Dean Tucker and Adam Smith favored letting the colonies go.2 Burke and Chatham, on the other hand, wished to retain them, but insisted upon a repeal of all coercive and aggressive laws. Again, Chatham always maintained that the American cause was essentially that of the Whigs. No taxation without representation "is the common cause of the Whigs on the other side of the Atlantic and on this"; he extolled the Americans as "Whigs in principle and heroes in conduct," and openly wished them success. Others of that party, however, like Grenville, declared that the American cause was anti-Whig, because, refusing the jurisdiction of Parliament, its supporters sought to extend the power of the King. It must be admitted that some of the ammunition of the American champions was drawn from Tory arsenals, and this circumstance naturally tended to alienate from them Whigs who were strict conFear for Eng structionists. The difference tended to disappear as the contest proceeded: the conquered. Whigs generally became pro-American, fearing that the conquest of those with whom they sympathized in America would also establish absolutism in England, an opinion expressed by Chatham, Fox, Horace Walpole, and Burke.1 lish liberty if America were Nor were the Whigs ever in full sympathy with the Radicals. English Radicalism was born in 1769, in the time of the Wilkes disturb Position of 1 Lecky: XVIIIth Century, III, pp. 403, 404. 8 Ibid., p. 587. 2 Ibid., p. 421, etc. 4 Ibid., pp. 589, 590. |