and such a vital wound will be given to the peace of this great country, as time itself cannot cure, or eradicate the remembrance of.

"But I have done. I was involuntarily led into a short discussion of this subject, by your remarks on the conduct of the Boston people, and your opinion of their wishes to set up for independency. I am well satisfied that no such thing is desired by any thinking man in all North America. On the contrary, that it is the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and tranquillity upon constitutional grounds may be restored, and the horrors of civil discord prevented."

The language of Washington in this last letter, respecting the ulterior designs of his countrymen, naturally leads us to inquire what were the predominant sentiments of the American statesmen on this point. More especially is it important to ascertain the views with which the first congress assembled; whether they regarded themselves as an independent parliament, or whether they simply designed to consult for the interest of their constituents, subject to the legislative control of the parent government. Upon this subject, the industrious and untiring editor of Washington's writings has bestowed a singular degree of research, which has brought to light some very interesting details regarding the notions of the American patriots, and the country at large, upon the subject of independence.

"It is not easy to determine," says this accomplished author,* "at what precise date the idea of independence was first entertained by the principal persons in America. English writers, arguing from the conduct of the colonists, have commonly charged them with secretly harbouring such designs at a very early period. This is not probable. The spirit and form of their institutions, it is true, led them to act frequently as an independent people, and to set up high claims in regard to their rights and privileges, but there is no sufficient evidence to prove, that any province, or any number of prominent individuals, entertained serious thoughts of separating entirely from the mother country, till very near the actual commencement of the war of the revolution.

"Gordon relates the following anecdote of a conversation, said to have taken place in the year 1759, between Mr. Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden, and Dr. Franklin, but he cites no authority. For all what you Americans say of your loyalty,' observed Mr. Pratt, 'I know you will one day throw off your dependence upon this country; and, notwithstanding your boasted affection to it, will

* Appendix to Sparks's Writings of Washington, vol. ii. p. 496.

set up for independence.' Franklin answered, No such idea is entertained in the mind of the Americans; and no such idea will will ever enter their heads, unless you grossly abuse them.' Very true,' replied Mr. Pratt, that is one of the main causes I see will happen, and will produce the event."

6

"As early as the year 1774, Dr. Franklin began to talk of a total emancipation,' or independence. And Mr. Wirt represents Patrick Henry, as uttering the same sentiment anterior to the meeting of the first continental Congress. Yet the manner in which it was received by his hearers indicates that it was to them a novel and unexpected doctrine; at the word independence, the company appeared to be startled, for they had never heard any thing of the kind before even suggested.'

Washington, in his letter to Captain Mackenzie, denies, in very strong terms, that such was the design of any person, so far as his knowledge extended. No man, perhaps, was better informed on the subject by mingling in the society of others; and it may hence be confidently inferred, that the topic of independence was not openly broached by the members of the first Congress, even in their private discourse among themselves. That he and his immediate friends had no such object in view is manifest from a clause in the Fairfax County Resolves, passed on the 18th of July preceding, at a public meeting over which he presided. It is there stated as a cause of complaint, that the British ministry are artfully prejudicing our sovereign, and inflaming the minds of our fellow-subjects in Great Britain, by propagating the most malevolent falsehoods, particularly that there is an intention in the American colonies to set up for independent states.' It was the opinion of Washington, and of the framers of these resolves, that the colonies had the power, by withholding their support of British commerce, to inflict so much distress on the people of Great Britain, as to rouse the government to a sense of the colonial wrongs, and produce a speedy change in their measures. And it was moreover supposed, that spirited resolutions, showing the almost universal sense of the people, that the acts of the British parliament in regard to them were oppressive and unjust, would tend to hasten so desirable a result. Such were, no doubt, the views entertained by all classes of people, and the motives actuating them in the primary movements of the Revolution.

"The subject being somewhat curious, as well as interesting in

* Gordon's History of the American Revolution, vol. i. p. 136. Memoir of Josiah Quincy, jun., p. 250.

Life of Patrick Henry, p. 94.

its historical aspect, I thought it not amiss to obtain the impressions of Mr. Madison, who could not fail to have a vivid recollection of the popular feeling and principal events in Virginia at the period in question, and to know the sentiments of the political leaders. The following is an extract from his letter, dated January 5th, 1828.

"You wish me to say whether I believe that at the beginning of the Revolution, or at the assembling of the first Congress, the leaders of that day were resolved on independence. I readily express my entire belief, that they were not; though I must admit that my means of information were more limited than may have been the case with others still living to answer the inquiry. My first entrance on public life was in May, 1776, when I became a member of the convention in Virginia, which instructed her delegates in Congress to propose the Declaration of Independence. Previous to that date I was not in sufficient communication with any under the denomination of leaders, to learn their sentiments or views on that cardinal subject.

"I can only say, therefore, that so far as ever came to my knowledge, no one of them ever avowed, or was understood to entertain a pursuit of independence, at the assembling of the first Congress, or for a considerable period thereafter. It has always been my impression, that a re-establishment of the colonial relations to the parent country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the real object of every class of the people, till despair of obtaining it, and the exasperating effects of the war, and the manner of conducting it, prepared the minds of all for the event declared on the 4th of July, 1776, as preferable, with all its difficulties and perils, to the alternative of submission to a claim of power at once external, unlimited, irresponsible, and under every temptation to abuse, from interest, ambition, and revenge. If there were individuals who aimed at independence, their views must have been confined to their own bosoms, or to a very confidential circle.'

"It was the belief, before the meeting of the Congress, particularly of the more cautious and moderate, that petitions to the king and parliament by a body of representatives assembled from all parts of the colonies, would be respected, and in the end procure redress. They, on the contrary, who, like Washington, had no confidence in the success of this measure, looked forward to the probable issue of arms, but still without any other anticipations than, by a resolute vindication of their rights, to effect a change in the conduct and policy of the British government, and restore

the colonies to their former condition." It was not till these petitions were rejected with a show of indifference, if not of contempt, that the eyes of all were opened to the necessity of unconditional submission, or united resistance. From that time the word independence was boldly pronounced, and soon became a familiar sound to the ears of the whole people.

"On the 10th of November, 1775, Mr. Richard Penn, who had been governor of Pennsylvania, and had left Philadelphia in the preceding July, was examined before the House of Lords, while the petition from Congress, which had been brought over and presented by Mr. Penn, in conjunction with the agents for the colonies, was under discussion. The following questions and answers occur in the examination.

"Question. Are you personally acquainted with many of the members of Congress?

"Answer. I am acquainted with almost all the members of Congress.

"Question. Do you think they levy and carry on this war for the purpose of establishing an independent empire?

"Answer. I think they do not carry on the war for independency. I never heard them breathe sentiments of that nature.

"Question. For what purpose do you believe they have taken up arms?

"Answer. In defence of their liberties.*

"It is a curious fact, that the ministers had at this moment in their hands two intercepted letters, written by Mr. John Adams in Congress, which expressed sentiments quite at variance with the testimony of Mr. Penn. These letters were dated on the 24th of July, only two weeks later than the petition to the king, taken to England by Mr. Penn, which was approved in Congress on the 8th. They were intercepted in crossing the ferry at Newport, and sent on board Admiral Graves's fleet, whence they found their way to Lord Dartmouth. The originals are now in the State Paper Office. One of these letters was from Mr. Adams to his wife, in

which he said:

"The business I have had on my mind has been as great and important as can be intrusted to one man, and the difficulty and intricacy of it are prodigious. When fifty or sixty men have a constitution to form for a great empire, at the same time that they have a country of fifteen hundred miles in extent to fortify, millions to arm and train, a naval power to begin, an extensive commerce

* Parliamentary Debates, November, 1775.

to regulate, numerous tribes of Indians to negotiate with, a standing army of twenty-seven thousand men to raise, pay, victual, and officer, I really shall pity those fifty or sixty men.'

"The other letter was to James Warren, at that time speaker of the Massachusetts Assembly, and contained the following declarations:

“We ought to have had in our hands a month ago the whole legislative, executive, and judicial power of the whole continent, and have completely modelled a constitution; to have raised a naval power and opened all our ports wide; to have arrested every friend to government on the continent, and held them as hostages for the poor victims in Boston; and then opened the door as wide as possible for peace and reconciliation. After this, they might have petitioned, and negotiated, and addressed, if they would. Is all this extravagant? Is it wild? Is it not the soundest policy?'

"With sentiments like these, coming from a prominent member of Congress, it is no wonder that the ministry should be puzzled to reconcile the doctrines and assertions of the petitions to the king, in which that body express their loyalty, and desire an opportunity of evincing the sincerity of their professions, by every testimony of devotion becoming the most dutiful subjects and the most affectionate colonists.' No charge of insincerity, however, can attach to Mr. Adams. It is well known that he had little sympathy with the party who insisted on this last petition, and that he and others yielded to their associates, with the view of preserving peace and harmony within the walls of Congress, as the only means of ultimate union and success. At this stage of affairs, they hoped nothing from petitions, and anticipated a remedy of evils from no other sources, than strong and determined measures on the part of the representatives of the people. Whatever may have been the opinions or wishes of other members of Congress, it is hardly possible, that Mr. Adams could have written the above letters without looking forward at least to the possibility of a speedy separation, and an independent form of government. The fact of their being in the hands of the ministry when the petition came under the notice of parliament, may serve as a key to some of the proceedings on the subject.

"In tracing this matter farther, we shall find the opinions of Washington, Madison, and Penn, in regard to a scheme of independence among the colonists anterior to the beginning of the Revolution, confirmed by other testimony of the highest order. In a letter which Dr. Franklin wrote to his son, dated March 22,