L

CHAPTER XVIII

THE FINAL ISSUE, 1775-1776

ORD CHATHAM'S Bill, by describing the power of the State of Great Britain in the Empire as a power of "superintendence," inevitably precipitated a second debate, in the second session of Congress, which began on May 10, 1775, concerning the character and extent of the power of the Imperial State in the Empire. Lord North's Proposals, by providing for a Parliamentary determination, having in some respects the form of an adjudication, of the amounts of the contributions of the respective Colonies to the Imperial defence (and hence providing, by necessary implication, for Parliamentary adjudication of all the rights of the Colonies), inevitably precipitated a second debate concerning the respective functions of the King and the Parliament in the Empire. These were the two fundamental questions, if the British Empire was a political organism.

Before reaching the consideration of these questions, however, there had to be a second discussion and settlement of the preliminary question-whether the British Empire was a political organism, or State, from which withdrawal of any of the Member-States was impossible except upon dissolution by mutual consent, or whether it was a mere Alliance of States, from which one or more might secede at any time.

It has already been noticed that, at the first session of the Congress, this question had been strenuously debated, and that, as the result, the majority had been in favor of the Federal-Imperialist view, in which it was necessarily

implied that the British Empire was a State. In the recess between the first and the second sessions of Congress, however, the anti-Imperialist or Secessionist minority had shown themselves quite unreconciled to the view of the majority. The most pronounced anti-Imperialist utterance of John Adams was made during this recess, shortly before the news of Lord Chatham's Bill could have reached America. When that news arrived, it evidently cut the ground from under the feet of this minority. Lord Chatham's Bill was virtually an adjudication of the whole dispute between the Colonies and Great Britain, by the one man in whom the Colonies possessed absolute confidence, and who was recognized as the greatest statesman of his day.

Jefferson has borne witness to the profound effect which the Bill had upon the thought of America. On May 7, 1775, he wrote to Dr. Wm. Small:

When I saw Lord Chatham's Bill, I entertained high hope that a reconciliation could have been brought about. The difference between his terms and those offered by Congress might have been accommodated, if entered on by both parties with a disposition to accommodate.

In the Address to Governor Dunmore from the House of Burgesses of Virginia, of June 12, 1775,-in answer to Lord North's Proposals,-which Jefferson, in his Autobiography, says that he drafted, it was said:

There was, indeed, a plan of accommodation offered in Parliament which, though not entirely equal to the terms we had a right to ask, yet differed but in a few points from what the General Congress had held out. Had Parliament been disposed sincerely, as we are, to bring about a reconciliation, reasonable men had hoped that by meeting us on this ground, something might have been done. Lord Chatham's Bill on the one part, and the terms of Congress on the other, would have

formed a basis for negotiations which a spirit of accommodation on both sides might, perhaps, have reconciled. It came recommended, too, from one whose successful experience in the art of government should have insured it some attention from those to whom it was intended. He had shown to the world that Great Britain, with her Colonies united under a just and honest government, formed a power which might bid defiance to the most potent enemies.

Upon the reassembling of Congress for the second session, there were two elements of the situation which made for unanimity, -the appreciation of the fact that the Colonies could not hope to succeed if they were divided among themselves, and the influence of Lord Chatham's opinion in favor of the Federal-Imperialist majority. The result was a partial yielding on both sides, which brought the anti-Imperialists into substantial accord with the Federal-Imperialists, and which led the latter to take an enlarged and more correct conception of the character of the Federal Empire. The circumstances of the yielding of the anti-Imperialist party to the general views of the Federal-Imperialists are narrated by Jefferson and were as follows:

On June 23, 1775, Congress appointed a committee to prepare a Declaration on Taking up Arms. The first draft, prepared by John Rutledge, was unsatisfactory to Congress, and the report was recommitted and Jefferson and Dickinson added to the committee. Jefferson prepared a draft, but it was not satisfactory to the committee, and finally, by their request, Dickinson wrote a draft incorporating some parts of Jefferson's, which was accepted by the committee and by Congress. Jefferson in his Autobiography says of his draft:

It was too strong for Mr. Dickinson. He still retained the hope of reconciliation with the Mother Country, and was unwilling it should be lessened by offensive statements. He was

so honest a man, and so able a one, that he was greatly indulged even by those who could not feel his scruples. We therefore requested him to take the paper, and put it in a form he could approve.

Jefferson, in his draft, said:

Our forefathers established civil societies with various forms of constitution. To continue their connection with the friends whom they had left, they arranged themselves by charters of compact under the same common King, who thus completed their powers of full and perfect legislation, and became the link of union between the several parts of the Empire. Some occasional assumptions of power by the Parliament of Great Britain, however unacknowledged by the constitution of our Governments, were finally acquiesced in through warmth of affection.

Dickinson appended to Jefferson's draft a query whether "it might not be proper to take notice of Lord Chatham's Plan, mentioning his great abilities."

In the Declaration drafted by Dickinson, as finally adopted by Congress, it was said:

Our forefathers effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike nations of barbarians. Societies or Governments, vested with perfect Legislatures, were formed under Charters from the Crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the Colonies and the Kingdom from which they derived their origin. Towards the

close of the late war, it pleased our Sovereign to make a change in his counsels. From that moment the affairs of the British Empire began to fall into confusion. . . Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project [of subduing and plundering the Colonies], and, assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.

But why enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that Parliament can of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us, or is subject to our control or influence; but on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours.

At the same time that this conversion of the anti-Imperialists to the general principles of the Federal-Imperialists occurred, a decided change occurred in the views of the Federal-Imperialists. The anti-Imperialists had evidently insisted that, if the British Empire was a political organism, or State, under a Constitution, the matter of money contributions of any part of the State to the defence and welfare of the whole State could not be excepted out of the matters over which the Imperial State, as the Central Government, had power, and the FederalImperialists had evidently been unable to answer this proposition. The anti-Imperialists had evidently insisted, also, that if the British Empire was a State composed of States, there was no reason why the subordinate Member-States should not unite or federate among themselves in any way not inconsistent with their subordination to the Imperial State which might be best in their own interests; and the Federal-Imperialists had evidently assented to this proposition. When this point was reached, it evidently became clear to both parties that the real question at issue was whether the British Empire was a Federal Empire or a Unitary State, and that no settlement was possible except one which went to the root of the matter and settled that question once for all.

That this change of view on the part of the FederalImperialists regarding the matter of the money contri