Volume 15 — PROPHETIC VOICES CONCERNING AMERICA. A MONOGRAPH. (continued 2)

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of Nature.… Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded.”[377]

Here is foretold nothing less than that our system of government is to embrace the whole continent of North America.

9. This series may be concluded by other words, general in character, but deeply prophetic, showing a constant sense of the unfolding grandeur and influence of the Republic.

The first is from the concluding chapter of the work last cited, and in harmony with the Preface:—

“A prospect into futurity in America is like contemplating the heavens through the telescopes of Herschel. Objects stupendous in their magnitudes and motions strike us from all quarters, and fill us with amazement.”[378]

Thus, also, he writes to Thomas Jefferson, November 15, 1813:—

“Many hundred years must roll away before we shall be corrupted. Our pure, virtuous, public-spirited, federative Republic will last forever, govern the globe, and introduce the perfection of man.”[379]

Then, again, in a letter to Hezekiah Niles, 13th February, 1818:—

“The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?”[380]

The prophetic spirit which filled the “visions” of youth continued in the “dreams” of age. Especially was he constant in foreseeing the widening reach of the great Revolution he had helped at its beginning; and this arrested the attention of his eloquent eulogist at Faneuil Hall.[381]

MARQUIS DE MONTCALM, 1758, 1759.

If I enter the name of the Marquis de Montcalm on this list, it is because prophetic words have been attributed to him which at different periods have attracted no small attention. He was born near Nismes, in France, 1712, and died at Quebec, 14th September, 1759, being at the time commander of the French forces in Canada. As a soldier he was the peer of his opponent, Wolfe, who perished in the same battle, and they have since enjoyed a common fame.

In 1777, amidst the heats of our Revolutionary contest, a publication was put forth by Almon, the pamphleteer, in French and English on opposite pages, entitled “Letters from the Marquis de Montcalm, Governor-General of Canada, to Messrs. De Berryer and De la Molé, in the Years 1757, 1758, and 1759,” and the soldier reappeared as prophet.

The first letter is addressed to M. de Berryer, First Commissioner of the Marine of France, and purports to be dated at Montreal, 4th April, 1757. It contains the copy of an elaborate communication from “S. J.” of Boston, proposing a scheme for undermining the power of Great Britain in the Colonies by free trade with France through Canada, and predicting that “all our colonies in less than ten years will catch fire.”[382] In transmitting this letter Montcalm did little more than indorse its sentiments; but in his second letter to the same person, dated at Montreal, 1st October, 1758, he says:—

“All these informations, which I every day receive, confirm me in my opinion that England will one day lose her colonies on the continent of America; and if Canada should then be in the hands of an able governor who understands his business, he will have a thousand opportunities of hastening the event: this is the only advantage we can reap for all it has cost us.”[383]

In the third letter, addressed to M. Molé, First President of the Parliament of Paris, and dated at the camp before Quebec, 24th August, 1759, on the eve of the fatal battle in which both commanders fell, Montcalm mounts the tripod:—

“They are in a condition to give us battle, which I must not refuse, and which I cannot hope to gain.… The event must decide. But of one thing be certain, that I probably shall not survive the loss of the Colony.[384] … I shall at least console myself on my defeat, and on the loss of the Colony, by the full persuasion that this defeat will one day serve my country more than a victory, and that the conqueror, in aggrandizing himself, will find his tomb the country he gains from us.[385]… All the English Colonies would long since have shaken off the yoke, each province would have formed itself into a little independent republic, if the fear of seeing the French at their door had not been a check upon them.[386]… Canada, once taken by the English, would in a few years suffer much from being forced to be English.… They would soon be of no use to England, and perhaps they would oppose her.”[387]

At once, on their appearance, these letters played an important part in the “high life” of politics. The “Monthly Review”[388] called them “genuine.” The “Gentleman’s Magazine”[389] said that “the sagacity of this accomplished general was equal to his bravery,” and quoted what it characterized as a “remarkable prediction.” In the House of Lords, 30th May, 1777, during a debate begun by Lord Chatham, and flashing with great names, Lord Shelburne said that they “had been discovered to be a forgery”;[390] but Lord Mansfield, the illustrious Chief Justice, relied upon the letters, “which he insisted were not spurious.”[391] In another important debate in the House of Lords, 5th March, 1778, Earl Temple observed that “the authenticity of those letters had been often disputed; but he could affirm that he saw them in manuscript, among the papers of a minister now deceased, long before they made their appearance in print, and at a time when American independency was in the contemplation of a very few persons indeed.”[392] Such was the contemporary testimony; but the pamphlet shared the fate of the numerous brood engendered by the war.

Oblivion seemed to have settled on these letters, when their republication at Gibraltar, as late as 1858, by an author who treated them as genuine,[393] attracted the attention of Thomas Carlyle, who proceeded to make them famous again, by introducing them as an episode in his Life of Frederick, sometimes called “the Great.” Montcalm appears once more as prophet, and the readers of the career of the Prussian monarch turn with wonder to the inspired Frenchman, with “his power of faithful observation, his sagacity and talent of prophecy, so considerable.”[394] Then, quoting a portion of the last letter, the great author exclaims at different points: “Prediction first”; “This is a curiously exact prediction”; “Prediction second, which is still more curious.”[395]

If the letter quoted by Carlyle were genuine, as he accepted it, (also as it was evidently accepted by Lord John Russell,)[396] and as the family of Montcalm seem to believe, it would indicate for the soldier all that was claimed by his descendant, when, after speaking of his “political foresight,” he added that it “was proved by one of his letters, in which he made a remarkable prophecy concerning the American Revolution.”[397] Certainly,—if the letter is not an invention; but such is the present impression. On the half-title of the original pamphlet, in the Library of Harvard University, Sparks, whose judgment is of great weight, has written: “The letters are unquestionably spurious.” Others unite with him. It is impossible to read the papers in the “Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society,” already quoted, and the pungent note of Henry Stevens, in his “Bibliotheca Historica,” under the title of the much-debated pamphlet, without feeling, that, whatever may have been the merits of Montcalm as a soldier, his title as a prophet cannot be accepted. His name is introduced here that I may not omit an instance which has attracted attention in more than one generation.

DUC DE CHOISEUL, 1767, 1768.

Another Frenchman in this far-sighted list was the Comte de Stainville, afterwards Duc de Choiseul, born 28th June, 1719, and died 8th May, 1785. His brilliant career as diplomatist and statesman was preceded by a career of arms with rapid promotion, so that at the age of forty he became lieutenant-general. Meanwhile he was ambassador at Rome and then at Vienna, the two pinnacles of diplomatic life. In 1758 he became Minister of Foreign Affairs, also duke and peer; then Minister of War, and of the Marine; but in 1766 he resumed the Foreign Office, which he held till 1770, when he was disgraced. The King could not pardon the contempt with which, although happy in the smiles of Madame de Pompadour, the Prime-Minister rejected the advances of her successor, the ignoble Du Barry; and he was exiled from court to live in his château of Chanteloup, in the valley of the Loire, where, dispensing a magnificent hospitality, he was consoled by a loving wife and devoted friends.

He had charm of manner rather than person, with a genius for statesmanship recognized and commemorated in contemporary writings. Madame du Deffant speaks of him often in her correspondence, and depicts him in her circle when Franklin was first presented there. Horace Walpole returns to him in letters and in his memoirs, attributing to him “great parts,” calling him “very daring, dashing, and whose good-nature would not have checked his ambition from doing any splendid mischief.”[398] The Abbé Barthélemy, in his “Travels of Anacharsis,” portrays him under the character of Arsame. Frederick of Prussia, so often called the Great, hailed him “Coachman of Europe.” And our own historian Bancroft, following Chatham, does not hesitate to call him “the greatest minister of France since Richelieu.”

The two volumes of Memoirs purporting to be written by himself, and printed under his eyes in his cabinet in 1778, were accidental pieces, written, but never collected by him, nor intended as memoirs.[399] In the French treasure-house of these productions they are of little value, if not unworthy of his fame.

Besides a brilliant and famous administration of affairs, are several acts not to be forgotten. At Rome his skill was shown in bringing Benedict the Fourteenth to a common understanding on the bull Unigenitus. Through him in 1764 the Jesuits were suppressed in France, or were permitted only on condition of fusing with the secular clergy. But nothing in his career was more memorable than his foresight and courage with regard to the English Colonies. American Independence was foreseen and helped by him.

The Memoirs of Choiseul have little of the elevation recognized in his statesmanship, nor are they anywhere prophetic. Elsewhere his better genius was manifest, especially in his diplomacy. This was recognized by Talleyrand, who, in a paper on the “Advantages to be derived from New Colonies,” read before the Institute toward the close of the last century, characterized him as “one of the men of our age who had the most forecast of mind,—who already in 1769 foresaw the separation of America from England, and feared the partition of Poland”; and he adds that “from this epoch he sought to prepare by negotiations the cession of Egypt to France, that on the day our American colonies should escape from us, he might be ready to replace them with the same productions and a more extended commerce.”[400]

Bancroft, whose work shows unprecedented access to original documents, recognizes the prevision of the French minister at an earlier date, as attested by the archives of the French Foreign Office. In 1766 he received the report of a special agent who had visited America. In 1767 he sent Baron de Kalb, afterwards an officer in our Revolution,—sparing no means to obtain information, and drawing even from New England sermons, of which curious extracts are preserved among the State Papers of France.[401] In August of this year, writing to his plenipotentiary at London, the Minister says with regard to England and her Colonies: “Let her but attempt to establish taxes in them, and those countries, greater than England in extent, and perhaps becoming more populous, having fisheries, forests, shipping, corn, iron, and the like, will easily and fearlessly separate themselves from the mother country.”[402] In the next year Du Châtelet, son of her who was the companion of Voltaire and the French translator of Newton, becomes his most sympathetic representative. To him the Minister wrote, 15th July, 1768: “According to the prognostications of sensible men, who have had opportunity to study the character of the Americans, and to measure their progress from day to day in the spirit of independence, this separation of the American Colonies from the metropolis sooner or later must come.… I see all these difficulties, and do not dissemble their extent; but I see also the controlling interest of the Americans to profit by the opportunity of a rupture to establish their independence.”[403] Again he wrote, 22d November, 1768: “The Americans will not lose out of their view their rights and their privileges; and next to fanaticism for religion, the fanaticism for liberty is the most daring in its measures and the most dangerous in its consequences.”[404] That the plenipotentiary was not less prompt in forecast appears in a letter of 9th November, 1768: “Without exaggerating the projects or the union of the Colonies, the time of their independence is very near.… Three years ago the separation of the English Colonies was looked upon as an object of attention for the next generation; the germs were observed, but no one could foresee that they would be so speedily developed. This new order of things, this event which will necessarily have the greatest influence on the whole political system of Europe, will probably be brought about within a very few years.”[405] The Minister replied, 20th December, 1768: “Your views are as subtle as they are comprehensive and well-considered. The King is perfectly aware of their sagacity and solidity, and I will communicate them to the Court of Madrid.”[406]

These passages show a persistency of view, which became the foundation of French policy; so that the Duke was not merely a prophet, but a practical statesman, guided by remarkable foresight. He lived long enough to witness the National Independence he had foretold, and to meet Franklin at Paris, while saved from witnessing the overthrow of the monarchy he had served, and the bloody harvest of the executioner, where a beloved sister was among the victims.

ABBÉ RAYNAL, 1770-1780.

Guillaume Thomas François Raynal, of France, was born 11th March, 1711, and died 6th March, 1796, thus spanning, with his long life, from the failing years of Louis the Fourteenth to the Reign of Terror, and embracing the prolonged period of intellectual activity which prepared the Revolution. Among contemporary “philosophers” his place was considerable. But he was a philosopher with a cross of the adventurer and charlatan.

Beginning as Jesuit and as priest, he somewhat tardily escaped the constraints of the latter to employ the education of the former in literary enterprise. A long list of acknowledged works attests the activity of his pen, while others were attributed to him. With these avocations, yielding money, mingled jobbing and speculation, where even the slave-trade, afterwards furiously condemned, became a minister of fortune. In the bright and audacious circles of Paris, especially with Diderot and D’Holbach, he found society. The remarkable fame which he reached during life has ceased, and his voluminous writings slumber in oblivion, except, perhaps, a single one, which for a while played a great part, and by its prophetic spirit vindicates a place in our American gallery.

Only the superficial character of this work appears in its title,—“Philosophical and Political History of the Establishments and of the Commerce of the Europeans in the two Indies,”[407] being in six volumes. It was a frame for pictures and declamations, where freedom of thought was practically illustrated. Therefore it was published without the name of the author, and at Amsterdam. This was as early as 1770. Edition followed edition. The “Biographie Universelle” reports more than twenty regular and nearly fifty pirated. At least twelve editions of an English translation saw the light. It was translated, abridged, and reprinted in nearly all the languages of Europe. The subject was interesting at the time, but the peculiar treatment and the open assault upon existing order gave the work zest and popularity. Though often vicious in style, it was above the author in force and character, so that it was easy to believe that important parts were contributed by others. Diderot, who passed his life in helping others, is said to have supplied nearly a third of the whole. The work at last drew down untimely vengeance. Inspired by its signal success, the author, in 1780, after the lapse of a decade, put forth an enlarged edition, with frontispiece and portrait, the whole reinforced with insertions and additions, where Christianity and even the existence of a God were treated with the license already applied to other things. The Parliament of Paris, by a decree dated May 21, 1781, handed the work to the public executioner to be burned, and condemned the author in person and goods. Several years of exile followed.

The Revolution in France found the Abbé Raynal mellowed by time, and with his sustaining philosophers all dead. Declining active participation in the great conflict, he reappeared at last, so far as to address the President of the National Assembly a letter, where he pleaded for moderation and an active government. The ancient assailant of kings now called for “the tutelary protection of the royal authority.” The early cant was exchanged for recant.

The concluding book of the enlarged edition of his famous work contains a chapter entitled “Reflections upon the Good and the Evil which the Discovery of America has done to Europe.”[408] A question of similar import, “Has the Discovery of America been hurtful or useful to the Human Race?” he presented as the subject for a prize of twelve hundred livres, to be awarded by the Academy of Lyons. Such a question reveals a strange confusion, inconsistent with all our prophetic voices, but to be pardoned at a time when the course of civilization was so little understood, and Buffon had announced, as the conclusion of science, that the animal creation degenerated on the American Continent. In his admirable answer to the great naturalist, Jefferson repels with spirit the allegation of the Abbé Raynal that “America has not yet produced one good poet, one able mathematician, one man of genius in a single art or science.”[409] But he does not seem aware that the author in his edition of 1780 had already beaten a retreat from his original position.[410] This is more noteworthy as the edition appeared before the criticism.

It was after portraying the actual condition of the English Colonies in colors which aroused the protest of Jefferson that the French philosopher surrendered to a vision of the future. In reply to doubts, he invokes time, civilization, education, and breaks forth:—

“Perhaps then it will be seen that America is favorable to genius, to the creative arts of peace and of society. A new Olympus, an Arcadia, an Athens, a new Greece, on the Continent, or in the archipelago which surrounds it, will give birth, perhaps, to Homers, Theocrituses, and, above all, Anacreons. Perhaps another Newton will rise in the new Britain. It is from English America, no doubt, that the first ray of the sciences will shoot forth, if they are to appear at last under a sky so long clouded. By a singular contrast with the ancient world, where the arts passed from the South toward the North, in the new we shall see the North enlighten the South. Let the English clear the land, purify the air, change the climate, meliorate Nature; a new universe will issue from their hands for the glory and happiness of humanity.”[411]

Then, speculating on the dissensions prevailing between the Colonies and the mother country, he announces separation, but without advantage to the European rivals of England:—

“Break the knot which binds the ancient Britain to the new; soon the Northern Colonies will have more strength alone than they possessed in their union with the mother country. That great continent, set free from all compact with Europe, will be unhampered in all its movements.… The colonies of our absolute monarchies, … following the example of the English colonies, will break the chain which binds them shamefully to Europe.”[412]

The New World opens before the prophet:—

“So everything conspires to the great dismemberment, of which it is not given to foresee the moment. Everything tends to that,—both the progress of good in the new hemisphere, and the progress of evil in the old.

“Alas! the sudden and rapid decline of our morals and our strength, the crimes of kings and the woes of peoples, will render even universal that fatal catastrophe which is to detach one world from the other. The mine is prepared beneath the foundations of our rocking empires.… In proportion as our peoples are growing weak and all succumbing one to another, population and agriculture are increasing in America. The arts transported by our care will quickly spring up there. That country, risen from nothing, burns to figure in its turn upon the face of the globe and in the history of the world. O posterity! thou wilt be more happy, perhaps, than thy sad and contemptible ancestors!”[413]

The edition of 1780 exhibits his sympathies with the Colonies. In considering the policy of the House of Bourbon, he recognizes the grasp of the pending revolution. “The United States,” he says, “have shown openly the project of drawing to their confederation all North America”; and he mentions especially the invitation to the people of Canada. While questioning the conduct of France and Spain, he adds:—

“The new hemisphere is to detach itself some day from the old. This great disruption is prepared in Europe by the fermentation and the clashing of our opinions,—by the overthrow of our rights, which made our courage,—by the luxury of the court and the misery of the country,—by the everlasting hate between the effeminate men, who possess all, and the strong, even virtuous men, who have nothing to lose but life. It is prepared in America by the growth of population, of agriculture, of industry, and of enlightenment. Everything tends to this scission.”[414]

In a sketch which follows are pictured the resources of “the thirteen confederate provinces” and their future development. While confessing that the name of Liberty is sweet,—that it is the cause of the entire human race,—that revolutions in its name are a lesson to despots,—that the spirit of justice, which compensates past evils by future happiness, is pleased to believe that this part of the New World cannot fail to become one of the most flourishing countries of the globe,—and that some go so far as to fear that Europe may some day find its masters in its children, he proceeds to facts which may mitigate anxiety.[415]

The prophetic words of Raynal differ from others already quoted. Instead of letters or papers buried in secrecy or disclosed to a few only, they were open proclamations circulated throughout Europe, and their influence began as early as 1770. A prompt translation made them known in England. In 1777 they were quoted by an English writer pleading for us.[416] Among influences coöperating with the justice of our cause, they were of constant activity, until at last France, Spain, and Holland openly united with us.

JONATHAN SHIPLEY, BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH, 1773.

Not without heartfelt emotion do I write this name, never to be mentioned by an American without a sentiment of gratitude and love. Such goodness and ability, dedicated so firmly to our cause, make Shipley conspicuous among his contemporaries. In beauty of character and in prophetic spirit he resembles Berkeley. And yet biographical dictionaries make little mention of him, and in our country he is known chiefly through the friendship of Franklin. He was born about 1714, and died 9th December, 1788.

His actual preferments in the Church attest a certain success, arrested at last by his sympathy for us. At an early day John Adams spoke of him as “the best bishop that adorns the bench.”[417] And we learn from Wraxall, that it was through the hostility of the King, that, during the short-lived Coalition Ministry, Fox was prevented from making him Archbishop of Canterbury.[418] But his public life was better than any prelacy. It is impossible to read his writings without discovering the stamp of superiority, where accuracy and clearness go hand in hand with courage and truth.

The relations of Franklin with the good Bishop are a beautiful episode in our Revolutionary history. Two men, one English and the other American, venerable with years, mingled in friendship warm as that of youth, but steady to the grave, joining identity of sentiment on important public questions with personal affection. While Franklin remained in England, as Colonial representative, watching the currents, he was a frequent guest at the Englishman’s country home; and there he entered upon his incomparable autobiography, leaving behind such pleasant memories that afterwards the family never walked in the garden “without seeing Dr. Franklin’s room and thinking of the work that was begun in it.”[419] One of the daughters, in a touching letter to him, then at his own home in Philadelphia, informed him of her father’s death,[420] and in reply to his “dear young friend,” he expressed his sense of the loss, “not to his family and friends only, but to his nation, and to the world,” and then, after mentioning that he was in his eighty-fourth year and considerably enfeebled, added, “You will, then, my dear friend, consider this as probably the last line to be received from me, and as a taking leave.”[421]

This brief story prepares the way for the two productions illustrating his service to us. The first has the following title: “A Sermon preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, at their Anniversary Meeting in the Parish Church of St. Mary-le-Bow, on Friday, February 19, 1773.” Of this discourse several editions appeared in London, New York, and Boston.[422] Lord Chatham, after confessing himself “charmed and edified” by it, wrote: “This noble discourse speaks the preacher not only fit to bear rule in the Church, but in the State; indeed, it does honor to the Right Reverend Bench.”[423] Franklin, coupling it with another of his productions relating to America, wrote: “Had his counsels in those pieces been attended to by the Ministers, how much bloodshed might have been prevented, and how much expense and disgrace to the nation avoided!”[424]

This discourse was from the text, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.”[425] After announcing that “perhaps the annals of history have never afforded a more grateful spectacle to a benevolent and philosophic mind than the growth and progress of the British Colonies in North America,” the preacher becomes prophet, and here his words are memorable:—

“The Colonies in North America have not only taken root and acquired strength, but seem hastening with an accelerated progress to such a powerful state as may introduce a new and important change in human affairs.”[426]

Then picturing the Colonies as receiving “by inheritance all the improvements and discoveries of their mother country,”—commencing “their flourishing state at a time when the human understanding has attained to the free use of its powers, and has learned to act with vigor and certainty,” and being in such a situation that “they may avail themselves not only of the experience and industry, but even of the errors and mistakes of former days,” the prophet proceeds:—

“The vast continent itself, over which they are gradually spreading, may be considered as a treasure yet untouched of natural productions that shall hereafter afford ample matter for commerce and contemplation. And if we reflect what a stock of knowledge may be accumulated by the constant progress of industry and observation, … it is difficult even to imagine to what height of improvement their discoveries may extend.”[427]

The prophet opens another vista: “And perhaps they may make as considerable advances in the arts of civil government and the conduct of life.” Then, exhibiting the excellences of the British Constitution with its “equal representation,” which he calls “the best discovery of political wisdom,” and inquiring anxiously if they “must rest here, as in the utmost effort of human genius,” the preacher becomes again prophetic:—

“May they not possibly be more successful than their mother country has been in preserving that reverence and authority which is due to the laws,—to those who make, and to those who execute them? May not a method be invented of procuring some tolerable share of the comforts of life to those inferior useful ranks of men to whose industry we are indebted for the whole? Time and discipline may discover some means to correct the extreme inequalities of condition between the rich and the poor, so dangerous to the innocence and the happiness of both.”[428]

Beautiful words! And in the same spirit the prophet discerns increasing opportunities of progress:—

“The diversity of new scenes and situations, which so many growing states must necessarily pass through, may introduce changes in the fluctuating opinions and manners of men which we can form no conception of. And not only the gracious disposition of Providence, but the visible preparation of causes, seems to indicate strong tendencies towards a general improvement.”[429]

To a spirit so elevated the obligations of duty are the same for nations as for individuals, and he nobly vindicates the duty of the Christian preacher “to point out the laws of justice and equity which must ultimately regulate the happiness of states as well as of individuals,” and which he declares “are no other than those benevolent Christian morals which it is the province of this Society to teach, transferred from the duties of private life to the administration of public affairs.”[430] Then again he declares amazement, in which all but hardened politicians will unite, at seeing “how slowly in all countries the principles of natural justice, which are so evidently necessary in private life, have been admitted into the administration of public affairs.” And, in the same spirit, he announces:—

“A time, I doubt not, will come, in the progressive improvement of human affairs, when the checks and restraints we lay on the industry of our fellow-subjects and the jealousies we conceive at their prosperity will be considered as the effects of a mistaken policy, prejudicial to all parties, but chiefly to ourselves.”[431]

Then, after presenting it as “a noble effort of virtuous ambition … to make our country great and powerful and rich, not by force or fraud, but by justice, friendship, and humanity,” this remarkable sermon concludes with calling attention to “the plain good rules so often repeated to us in Scripture,” which “lie before the eyes of men like medicinal herbs in the open field.”[432]

In the course of his remarks, the preacher lets drop words often quoted since, and doubtless considered much in conversation with Franklin. After setting forth that the Colonies had “been trusted in a good measure with the entire management of their affairs,” he proceeds to say: “And the success they have met with ought to be to us an ever-memorable proof that the true art of government consists in not governing too much.”[433]

In similar spirit the good Bishop came to the defence of Massachusetts, in the crisis which followed the nullification of the Tea-Tax,—as witness an able pamphlet, printed in 1774, entitled “A Speech intended to have been spoken on the Bill for altering the Charters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.” In this most vigorous production, reported by Franklin as “a masterpiece of eloquence,”[434] where he pleads for reconciliation, after announcing that England had drawn from the Colonies, by commerce, “more clear profit than Spain has drawn from all its mines,”[435] he says: “Let them continue to enjoy the liberty our fathers gave them. Gave them, did I say? They are coheirs of liberty with ourselves; and their portion of the inheritance has been much better looked after than ours.”[436] Then again: “My Lords, I look upon North America as the only great nursery of freemen now left upon the face of the earth.”[437] And yet once more: “But whatever may be our future fate, the greatest glory that attends this country, a greater than any other nation ever acquired, is to have formed and nursed up to such a state of happiness those Colonies whom we are now so eager to butcher.”[438] Thanks, perpetual thanks, to the good friend who stood so well by our country in its beginning, and discerned so clearly its exalted future!

DEAN TUCKER, 1774.

In contrast with Shipley was his contemporary, Josiah Tucker, also of the Church, who was born 1712, and died 4th November, 1799.

The contrast is more curious, when it is considered that Tucker, like Shipley, was for the peaceful separation of the Colonies from the mother country; but the former was biting and cynical, while the latter was sympathetic and kind. The former sent forth a succession of criticisms as from the tub of Diogenes, while the latter, with genial power, vindicated America and predicted its future. The former was a carping censor and enemy of Franklin; the latter, his loving friend.

Tucker was rector of a church in Bristol and Dean of Gloucester, and he announces that he had “written near three hundred sermons, and preached them all again and again”;[439] but it was by political essays that he made his name known and became a conspicuous gladiator.

Here it is easy to recognize industry, facility, boldness. He was not afraid to speak out, nor did he shrink from coping with those who commanded the public attention,—joining issue directly with Burke, “in answer to his printed speech, said to be spoken in the House of Commons on the 22d of March, 1775,”[440] being that famous masterpiece, on “Conciliation with America,” so much read, so often quoted, and so highly placed among the efforts of human genius. The Dean used plain language, charging the great orator with excelling “in the art of ambiguous expressions,” and at all times having one general end in view, “to amuse with tropes and figures and great swelling words,” and hoping, that, while emulating the freedom of Burke in examining the writings and opinions of others, he should do it “with more decency and good manners.”[441] More than once the Dean complains that the orator had classed him by name with what he called “court vermin.”[442]

As early as 1766, in the heats of the Stamp Act, he entered the lists by an unamiable pamphlet, entitled “A Letter from a Merchant in London to his Nephew in North America, relative to the Present Posture of Affairs in the Colonies.” Here appears the vigorous cynicism of his nature. The mother country is vindicated, and the Colonies are told that “the complaint of being unrepresented is entirely false and groundless,” inasmuch as every member of Parliament, when once chosen, becomes “the equal guardian of all,” and “our Birminghams, Manchesters, Leeds, Halifaxes, &c., and your Bostons, New Yorks, and Philadelphias are all as really, though not so nominally, represented as any part whatsoever of the British Empire.”[443] In the same spirit he ridiculed the pretensions of the Colonists, putting into their mouths the words: “What! an Island! a spot such as this to command the great and mighty Continent of North America! Preposterous! A Continent, whose inhabitants double every five-and-twenty years! who, therefore, within a century and an half will be upwards of an hundred and twenty millions of souls! Forbid it, Patriotism, forbid it, Politics, that such a great and mighty Empire as this should be held in subjection by the paltry Kingdom of Great Britain! Rather let the seat of empire be transferred; and let it be fixed where it ought to be, namely, in Great America!”[444] And then declaring “the calculations themselves both false and absurd,” taunting the Colonists with inability to make the mother country “a province of America,” and depicting the evils that will ensue to them from separation, he announces, that, “having been surfeited with the bitter fruits of American Republicanism, they will heartily wish and petition to be again united to the mother country.”[445]

As the conflict approached, the Dean became more earnest and incessant. In 1774 he published a book entitled “Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects,” of which the third was a reprint of the “Letter from a Merchant in London,” and the fourth was a new appeal, entitled “The True Interest of Great Britain set forth in regard to the Colonies, and the only Means of Living in Peace and Harmony with them,”—“including Five different Plans for effecting this Desirable Event.”[446] Here he openly proposed separation, and predicted its advantage to England. On general grounds he was persuaded that extensive colonies were an evil rather than an advantage, especially to a commercial nation, while he was satisfied of a present alienation on the part of America, which it would be unprofitable, if not perilous, to combat. England was in no mood for such truth, and the author was set down as madman or quack. Evidently he was a prophet.

A few passages will show the character of this remarkable production.

“It is the nature of them all [colonies] to aspire after independence, and to set up for themselves as soon as ever they find that they are able to subsist without being beholden to the mother country.”[447]

True enough, and often said by others. In dealing with the different plans the Dean shows originality. To the idea of compulsion by arms he exclaimed: “But, alas! victory alone is but a poor compensation for all the blood and treasure which must be spilt.”[448] The scheme numbered Fourth was nothing less than “to consent that America should become the general seat of empire, and that Great Britain and Ireland should be governed by viceroys sent over from the court residences either at Philadelphia or New York, or at some other American imperial city,”—to which the indefatigable Dean replies:—

“Now, wild as such a scheme may appear, there are certainly some Americans who seriously embrace it; and the late prodigious swarms of emigrants encourage them to suppose that a time is approaching when the seat of empire must be changed. But, whatever events may be in the womb of Time, or whatever revolutions may happen in the rise and fall of empires, there is not the least probability that this country should ever become a province to North America: … unless, indeed, we should add one extravagance to another, by supposing that these American heroes are to conquer all the world; and in that case I do allow that England must become a province to America.”[449]

Then comes the Fifth Scheme, which was, “To propose to separate entirely from the North American Colonies, by declaring them to be a free and independent people, over whom we lay no claim, and then by offering to guaranty this freedom and independence against all foreign invaders whatever.”[450] And he proceeds to show that by such separation the mother country would not lose the trade of the Colonies. His unamiable nature flares out in the suggestions, that, “the moment a separation takes effect, intestine quarrels will begin,” and that, “in proportion as their factious republican spirit shall intrigue and cabal, shall split into parties, divide and subdivide, in the same proportion shall we be called in to become their general umpires and referees,”[451] while his confidence in the result is declared: “And yet I have observed, and have myself had some experience, that measures evidently right will prevail at last”; therefore he had “not the least doubt” but that a separation would take place “within half a century.”[452] Though seeing the separation so clearly, he did not see how near at hand it then was.

The Dean grew more earnest. Other pamphlets followed: for instance, in 1775, “An Humble Address and Earnest Appeal, … whether a Connection with or a Separation from the Continental Colonies of America be most for the National Advantage and the Lasting Benefit of these Kingdoms.” Here he says openly:—

“My scheme, which Mr. Burke, in his last speech, of March 22, 1775, is pleased to term a childish one, is, To separate totally from the Colonies, and to reject them from being fellow-members and joint partakers with us in the privileges and advantages of the British Empire, because they refuse to submit to the authority and jurisdiction of the British legislature,—offering at the same time to enter into alliances of friendship and treaties of commerce with them, as with any other sovereign, independent state.”[453]

Then, insisting that his scheme “most infallibly cuts off all the present causes of dispute and contention between the two countries, so that they never can revive again,”[454] he establishes that commercial intercourse with the Americans would not cease, inasmuch as it cannot be shown that they “will no longer adhere to their own interest when they shall be disunited from us.”[455]

Among subsequent tracts was one entitled “Cui Bono? or, An Inquiry, What Benefits can arise either to the English or the Americans, the French, Spaniards, or Dutch, from the Greatest Victories or Successes in the Present War? Being a Series of Letters addressed to Monsieur Necker, late Controller-General of the Finances of France. London, 1782.” Here was the same ardor for separation, with the same bitter words for the Colonies.

Tardily the foresight of the Dean was recognized, until at last Archbishop Whately, in his annotations upon Bacon’s Essay on Honor and Reputation, commemorates it as an historic example. According to him, “the whole British nation were in one particular manifestly puzzle-headed, except one man, who was accordingly derided by all.” Then mentioning the dispute between the mother country and her colonies, he says: “But Dean Tucker, standing quite alone, wrote a pamphlet to show that the separation would be no loss at all, and that we had best give them the independence they coveted at once and in a friendly way. Some thought he was writing in jest; the rest despised him, as too absurd to be worth answering. But now, and for above half a century, every one admits that he was quite right, and regrets that his view was not adopted.”[456] Unquestionably this is a remarkable tribute. Kindred to it was that of the excellent Professor Smyth, who, in exhibiting the “American War,” dwells on “the superior and the memorable wisdom of Tucker.”[457]

The bad temper shooting from his writings interfered, doubtless, with their acceptance. His spirit, so hostile to us, justified his own characterization of himself as “the author of these tracts against the rebel Americans.” As the war drew to a close, his bad temper still prevailed, heightened by antipathy to republicanism, so that, after picturing the Colonies, separated at last from the mother country, as having “gained a general disappointment mixed with anger and indignation,”[458] he thus predicts their terrible destiny:—

“As to the future grandeur of America, and its being a rising empire under one head, whether republican or monarchical, it is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that ever was conceived, even by writers of romance. For there is nothing in the genius of the people, the situation of their country, or the nature of their different climates, which tends to countenance such a supposition.… Above all, when those immense inland regions beyond the back settlements, which are still unexplored, are taken into the account, they form the highest probability that the Americans never can be united into one compact empire, under any species of government whatever. Their fate seems to be—a disunited people till the end of time.”[459]

Alas! But evidently the Dean saw the future of our continent no better than the Ministry saw their duty with regard to it.

Unlike in spirit was Matthew Robinson, a contemporary friend of America, whose able and elaborate tracts[460] in successive editions are now forgotten, except so far as revived by the notice of Professor Smyth.[461] His vindication of the Colonies, at the time of the Boston Port Bill, was complete, without the harshness of Tucker, and he did not hesitate to present the impossibility of conquering them. “What expectation or probability,” he asks, “can there be of sending from hence armies capable to conquer and subdue so great a force of men defending and defended by such a continent?”[462] Then, while depicting English mastery of the sea, he says: “We may do whatever a fleet can. Very true; but it cannot sail all over North America.”[463] The productions of this enlightened author cannot have been without effect. Doubtless they helped the final acknowledgment of independence. When will the “Old Mortality” appear, to discover and restore his monument?

The able annotator of Lord Bacon was too sweeping, when he said that on the great American question all England was wrong, “except one man.” Robinson was as right as the Dean, and there were others also. The “Monthly Review,” in an article on the Dean’s appeal for separation, said: “This, however, is not a new idea. It has frequently occurred to others.”[464] Even Soame Jenyns, a life-long member of Parliament, essayist, poet, defender of Christianity, while upholding the right to tax the Colonies, is said to have accepted the idea of “total separation”:—

In a better spirit, and with affecting earnestness, John Cartwright, once of the Royal Navy, and known as Major from his rank in the Nottinghamshire Militia, followed the Dean, in 1774, with a series of letters collected in a pamphlet entitled “American Independence the Interest and Glory of Great Britain,” where he insists upon separation, and thenceforward a friendly league, “that the true and lasting welfare of both countries can be promoted.”[466] In enforcing his conclusion the author says: “When we talk of asserting our sovereignty over the Americans, do we foresee to what fatal lengths it will carry us? Are not those nations increasing with astonishing rapidity? Must they not, in the nature of things, cover in a few ages that immense continent like a swarm of bees?”[467] Then again: “We may, indeed, by means of fleets and armies, maintain a precarious tyranny over the Americans for a while; but the most shallow politicians must foresee what this would end in.”[468] Then, in reply to the Dean: “’Tis a pity so able a writer had not discovered that the Americans have a right to choose their own governors, and thence enforced the necessity of his proposed separation as a religious duty, no less than a measure of national policy.”[469] Cartwright continued at home the conflicts of principle involved in our War of Independence, and became an English Reformer. Honor to his name!

DAVID HARTLEY, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1785.

Another English friend was David Hartley. He was constant and even pertinacious on our side, although less prophetic than Pownall, with whom he coöperated in purpose and activity. His father was Hartley the metaphysician, and author of the ingenious theory of sensation, who predicted the fate of existing governments and hierarchies in two simple sentences: “It is probable that all the present Civil Governments will be overturned”; “It is probable that the present forms of Church Government will be dissolved.”[470] Many were alarmed. Lady Charlotte Wentworth asked the prophet when these terrible things would happen. The answer was: “I am an old man, and shall not live to see them; but you are a young woman, and probably will see them.”[471]

The son was born in 1729, and died at Bath in 1813. During our Revolution he sat in Parliament for Kingston-upon-Hull. He was also the British plenipotentiary in negotiating the Definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States. He has dropped out of sight. The biographical dictionaries afford him a few lines only. But he deserves a considerable place in the history of our Independence.

John Adams was often austere, and sometimes cynical, in his judgments. Evidently he did not like Hartley. In one place he speaks of him as “a person of consummate vanity”;[472] then, as “talkative and disputatious, and not always intelligible”;[473] and in still another place remarks, “Mr. Hartley was as copious as usual;”[474] and when appointed to sign the Definitive Treaty, “It would have been more agreeable to have finished with Mr. Oswald.”[475] And yet, when writing most elaborately to the Comte de Vergennes on the state of affairs previous to the final campaign, he introduces opinions of Hartley at length, saying that he was “more for peace than any man in the kingdom.”[476] Such testimony may well outweigh the other expressions, especially as nothing of the kind appears in the correspondence of Franklin, with whom Hartley was much more intimate.

The “Parliamentary History” is a sufficient monument for Hartley. He was a frequent speaker, and never missed an opportunity of pleading our cause. Although without the immortal eloquence of Burke, he was always clear and full. Many of his speeches seem written out by himself. He was not a tardy convert, but began as “a new member” by supporting an amendment favorable to the Colonies, 5th December, 1774. Then, in March, 1775, he brought forward “Propositions for Conciliation with America,” which he sustained in an elaborate speech, where he avowed that the American question had occupied him for some time:—

“Though I have so lately had the honor of a seat in this House, yet I have for many years turned my thoughts and attention to matters of public concern and national policy. This question of America is now of many years’ standing.”[477]

In this speech he acknowledges the services of New England at Louisburg:—

“In that war too, Sir, they took Louisburg from the French, single-handed, without any European assistance: as mettled an enterprise as any in our history; an everlasting memorial of the zeal, courage, and perseverance of the troops of New England. The men themselves dragged the cannon over a morass which had always been thought impassable, where neither horses nor oxen could go; and they carried the shot upon their backs. And what was their reward for this forward and spirited enterprise,—for the reduction of this American Dunkirk? Their reward, Sir, you know very well: it was given up for a barrier to the Dutch.”[478]

All his various propositions were negatived; but he was not disheartened. Constantly he spoke,—now on the Budget, then on the Address, and then on specific propositions. At this time he asserted the power of Parliament over the Colonies, and he proposed, on the 2d November, 1775, that a test of submission by the Colonists should be the recognition of an Act of Parliament enacting “that all the slaves in America should have the trial by jury.”[479] Shortly afterwards, on the 7th December, 1775, he brought forward a second set of “Propositions for Conciliation with America,” where, among other things, he embodied the test on slavery, which he put forward as a compromise; and here his language belongs not only to the history of our Revolution, but to the history of Antislavery. While declaring that in his opinion Great Britain was “the aggressor in everything,”[480] he sought to bring the two countries together on a platform of human rights, which he thus explained:—

“The act to be proposed to America, as an auspicious beginning to lay the first stone of universal liberty to mankind, should be what no American could hesitate an instant to comply with, namely, that every slave in North America should be entitled to his trial by jury in all criminal cases. America cannot refuse to accept and to enroll such an act as this, and thereby to reëstablish peace and harmony with the parent state. Let us all be reunited in this, as a foundation to extirpate slavery from the face of the earth. Let those who seek justice and liberty for themselves give that justice and liberty to their fellow-creatures. With respect to the idea of putting a final period to slavery in North America, it should seem best that when this country had led the way by the act for jury, that each Colony, knowing their own peculiar circumstances, should undertake the work in the most practicable way, and that they should endeavor to establish some system by which slavery should be in a certain term of years abolished. Let the only contention henceforward between Great Britain and America be, which shall exceed the other in zeal for establishing the fundamental rights of liberty to all mankind.”[481]

How grand and beautiful!—not to be read without gratitude! The motion was rejected; but among the twenty-three in its favor were Fox and Burke.

During this same month the unwearied defender of our country came forward again, declaring that he could not be “an adviser or a well-wisher to any of the vindictive operations against America, because he thought the cause unjust; but at the same time he must be equally earnest to secure British interests from destruction”; and he thus prophesies:—

“The fate of America is cast. You may bruise its heel, but you cannot crush its head. It will revive again. The New World is before them. Liberty is theirs. They have possession of a free government, their birthright and inheritance, derived to them from their parent state, which the hand of violence cannot wrest from them. If you will cast them off, my last wish is to them, May they go and prosper!”[482]

Again, on the 10th May, 1776, he vindicated anew his original proposition; and here again he testifies for peace and against slavery:—

“For the sake of peace, therefore, I did propose a test of compromise, by an acceptance, on the part of the Colonists, of an Act of Parliament which should lay the foundation for the extirpation of the horrid custom of slavery in the New World.… My motion was … simply as an act of compromise and reconciliation; and, as far as it was a legislative act, it was still to have been applied in correcting the laws of slavery in America, which I considered as repugnant to the laws of the realm of England, and to the fundamentals of our Constitution. Such a compromise would at the same time have saved the national honor.”[483]

All gratitude to the hero who at this early day vowed himself to the abolition of slavery! Hartley is among the first of Abolitionists, with hardly a predecessor except Granville Sharp, and in Parliament absolutely the first. Clarkson was at this time fifteen years old, Wilberforce sixteen. Only in 1785 Clarkson obtained the prize for the best Latin essay on the question, “Is it right to make men slaves against their will?”[484] It was not until 1791 that Wilberforce moved for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the slave-trade. It is no small honor for one man to have come forward in Parliament as an avowed abolitionist, while at the same time a vindicator of our independence.

Again, on the 15th May, 1777, Hartley pleaded for us:—

“At sea, which has hitherto been our prerogative element, they rise against us at a stupendous rate; and if we cannot return to our old mutual hospitalities towards each other, a very few years will show us a most formidable hostile marine, ready to join hands with any of our enemies.… I will venture to prophesy that the principles of a federal alliance are the only terms of peace that ever will and that ever ought to obtain between the two countries.”[485]

On the 5th of June, three weeks afterwards, the “Parliamentary History” reports briefly:—

“Mr. Hartley went upon the cruelties of slavery, and urged the Board of Trade to take some means of mitigating it. He produced a pair of handcuffs, which he said was a manufacture they were now going to establish.”[486]

Thus again the abolitionist reappeared in the vindicator of our independence. On the 22d June, 1779, he brought forward another formal motion “for reconciliation with America,” and, in the course of a well-considered speech, denounced the ministers for “headstrong and inflexible obstinacy in prosecuting a cruel and destructive American war.”[487] On the 3d December, 1779, in what is called “a very long speech,” he returned to his theme, inveighing against ministers for “the favorite, though wild, Quixote, and impracticable measure of coercing America.”[488] These are only instances.

During this time he maintained relations with Franklin, as appears in the “Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution,” all of which attests a desire for peace. In 1778 he arrived at Paris on a confidential errand, especially to confer with Franklin. On this occasion John Adams met him and judged him severely. In 1783 he was appointed a commissioner to sign the Definitive Treaty of Peace.

These things belong to history. Though perhaps not generally known, they are accessible. I have presented them for their intrinsic value and prophetic character, but also as the introduction to an unpublished letter from Hartley, which I received some time ago from an English friend, who has since been called away from important labors. The letter concerns emigration to our country, and the payment of the national debt. The following indorsement explains its character:—

“Note. This is a copy of the material portion of a long letter from D. Hartley, the British Commissioner in Paris, to Lord Sydenham, January, 1785. The original was sold by C. Robinson, of 21 Bond Street, London, on the 6th April, 1859, at a sale of Hartley’s MSS. and papers, chiefly relating to the United States of America. It was Hartley’s copy, in his own hand.

“The lot was No. 82 in the sale catalogue. It was bought by J. R. Smith, the London bookseller, for £2 6s. 0d.

“I had a copy made before the sale.

“Joseph Parkes.

“London, 18 July, ’59.”

The letter is as follows:—

“My Lord,—In your Lordship’s last letter to me, just before my leaving Paris, you are pleased to say that any information which I might have been able to collect of a nature to promote the mutual and reciprocal interests of Great Britain and the United States of America would be extremely acceptable to his Majesty’s government.… Annexed to this letter I have the honor of transmitting to your Lordship some papers and documents which I have received from the American ministers. One of them (No. 5) is a Map of the Continent of North America, in which the land ceded to them by the late treaty of peace is divided by parallels of latitude and longitude into fourteen new States.

“The whole project, in its full extent, would take many years in its execution, and therefore it must be far beyond the present race of men to say, ‘This shall be so.’ Nevertheless, those who have the first care of this New World will probably give it such directions and inherent influences as may guide and control its course and revolutions for ages to come. But these plans, being beyond the reach of man to predestinate, are likewise beyond the reach of comment or speculation to say what may or may not be possible, or to predict what events may hereafter be produced by time, climates, soils, adjoining nations, or by the unwieldy magnitude of empire, and the future population of millions superadded to millions. The sources of the Mississippi may be unknown; the lines of longitude and latitude may be extended into unexplored regions; and the plan of this new creation may be sketched out by a presumptuous compass, if all its intermediate uses and functions were to be suspended until the final and precise accomplishment, without failure or deviation, of this unbounded plan. But this is not the case; the immediate objects in view are limited and precise; they are of prudent thought, and within the scope of human power to measure out and to execute. The principle, indeed, is indefinite, and will be left to the test of future ages to determine its duration or extent.

“I take the liberty to suggest thus much, lest we should be led away to suppose that the councils which have produced these plans have had no wiser or more sedate views than merely the amusement of drawing meridians of ambition and high thoughts. There appear to me to be two solid and rational objects in view: the first is, by the sale of lands nearly contiguous to the present States, (receiving Congress paper in payment according to its scale of depreciation,) to extinguish the present national debt, which I understand might be discharged for about twelve millions sterling.…

“It is a new proposition to be offered to the numerous common rank of mankind in all the countries of the world, to say that there are in America fertile soils and temperate climates in which an acre of land may be purchased for a trifling consideration, which may be possessed in freedom, together with all the natural and civil rights of mankind. The Congress have already proclaimed this, and that no other qualification or name is necessary but to become settlers, without distinction of countries or persons. The European peasant, who toils for his scanty sustenance in penury, wretchedness, and servitude, will eagerly fly to this asylum for free and industrious labor. The tide of emigration may set strongly outward from Scotland, Ireland, and Canada to this new land of promise.

“A very great proportion of men in all the countries of the world are without property, and generally are subject to governments of which they have no participation, and over whom they have no control. The Congress have now opened to all the world a sale of landed settlements where the liberty and property of each individual is to be consigned to his own custody and defence.… These are such propositions of free establishments as have never yet been offered to mankind, and cannot fail of producing great effects in the future progress of things. The Congress have arranged their offers in the most inviting and artful terms; and lest individual peasants and laborers should not have the means of removing themselves, they throw out inducements to moneyed adventurers to purchase and to undertake the settlement by commission and agency, without personal residence, by stipulating that the lands of proprietors being absentees shall not be higher taxed than the lands of residents. This will quicken the sale of lands, which is their object.

“For the explanation of these points, I beg leave to refer your Lordship to the documents annexed, Nos. 5 and 6,—namely, the Map, and Resolutions of Congress, dated April, 1784. Another circumstance would confirm that it is the intention of Congress to invite moneyed adventurers to make purchases and settlements, which is the precise and mathematical mode of dividing and marking out for sale the lands in each new proposed State. These new States are to be divided by parallel lines running north and south, and by other parallels running east and west. They are to be divided into hundreds of ten geographical miles square, and then again into lots of one square mile. The divisions are laid out as regularly as the squares upon a chessboard, and all to be formed into a Charter of Compact.

“They may be purchased by purchasers at any distance, and the titles may be verified by registers of such or such numbers, north or south, east or west: all this is explained by the document annexed, No. 7, namely, The Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of locating and disposing of lands in the Western Territory. This is their plan and means for paying off their national debt, and they seem very intent upon doing it. I should observe that their debt consists of two parts, namely, domestic and foreign. The sale of lands is to be appropriated to the former.

“The domestic debt may perhaps be nine or ten millions, and the foreign debt two or three. For payment of the foreign debt it is proposed to lay a tax of five per cent. upon all imports until discharged, which, I am informed, has already been agreed to by most of the States, and probably will soon be confirmed by the rest. Upon the whole, it appears that this plan is as prudently conceived and as judiciously arranged, as to the end proposed, as any experienced cabinet of European ministers could have devised or planned any similar project.

“The second point which appears to me to be deserving of attention, respecting the immense cession of territory to the United States at the late peace, is a point which will perhaps in a few years become an unparalleled phenomenon in the political world. As soon as the national debt of the United States shall be discharged by the sale of one portion of those lands, we shall then see the Confederate Republic in a new character, as a proprietor of lands either for sale or to let upon rents. While other nations may be struggling under debts too enormous to be discharged either by economy or taxation, and while they may be laboring to raise ordinary and necessary supplies by burdensome impositions upon their own persons and properties, here will be a nation possessed of a new and unheard-of financial organ of stupendous magnitude, and in process of time of unmeasured value, thrown into their lap as a fortuitous superfluity, and almost without being sought for.

“When such an organ of revenue begins to arise into produce and exertion, what public uses it may be applicable to, or to what abuses and perversions it might be rendered subservient, is far beyond the reach of probable discussion now. Such discussions would only be visionary speculations. However, thus far it is obvious, and highly deserving of our attention, that it cannot fail becoming to the American States a most important instrument of national power, the progress and operation of which must hereafter be a most interesting object of attention to the British American dominions which are in close vicinity to the territories of the United States; and I should hope that these considerations would lead us, inasmuch as we value those parts of our dominions, to encourage conciliatory and amicable correspondence between them and their neighbors.”

This private communication, now for the first time seeing the light, is full of prophecy, or of that remarkable discernment and forecast which mark the prophetic spirit, whether in announcing “the future population of millions superadded to millions,” or in the high estimate of the National Territory, destined to become in a few years “an unparalleled phenomenon in the political world,” “a new and unheard-of financial organ of stupendous magnitude.” How few at home saw the Public Lands with as clear a vision as Hartley!

GALIANI, 1776, 1778.

Among the most brilliant in this extending list is the Abbé Galiani, the Neapolitan, who was born 1728, and died at Naples 1787. Although Italian by birth, yet by the accident of official residence he became for a while domesticated in France, wrote the French language, and now enjoys a French reputation. His writings in French and his letters have the wit and ease of Voltaire.

Galiani was a genius. Whatever he touched shone at once with his brightness, in which there was originality as well as knowledge. He was a finished scholar, and very successful in lapidary verses. Early in life, while in Italy, he wrote a grave essay on Money, which contrasted with another of rare humor suggested by the death of the public executioner. Other essays followed; and then came the favor of the congenial pontiff, Benedict the Fourteenth. In 1760 he found himself at Paris as Secretary of the Neapolitan Embassy. Mingling with courtiers officially, according to the duties of his position, he fraternized with the liberal and adventurous spirits who exercised such influence over society and literature. He was recognized as one of them, and inferior to none. His petty stature was forgotten when he conversed with inexhaustible faculties of all kinds, so that he seemed an Encyclopædia, Harlequin, and Machiavelli all in one. The atheists at the Thursday dinner of D’Holbach were confounded while he enforced the existence of God. Into the questions of political economy occupying attention at the time he entered with a pen which seemed borrowed from the French Academy. His “Dialogues sur le Commerce des Blés” had the success of a romance: ladies carried this book on Corn in their work-baskets. Returning to Naples, he continued to live in Paris through his correspondence, especially with Madame d’Épinay, the Baron d’Holbach, Diderot, and Grimm.[489]

Among later works, after his return to Naples, was a solid volume—not to be forgotten in the History of International Law—on the Duties of Neutrals, where a difficult subject is treated with such mastery, that, more than half a century later, D’Hautefeuille, in his elaborate treatise, copies from it at length. Galiani was the predecessor of this French writer in the extreme assertion of neutral rights. Other works were left at his death in manuscript, some grave and some humorous; also letters without number. The letters preserved from Italian savans filled eight large volumes; those from savans, ministers, and sovereigns abroad filled fourteen. His Parisian correspondence did not see the light till 1818, although some of the letters may be found in the contemporary correspondence of Grimm.

In his Parisian letters, which are addressed chiefly to that clever individuality, Madame d’Épinay, the Neapolitan abbé shows not only the brilliancy and nimbleness of his talent, but the universality of his knowledge and the boldness of his speculations. Here are a few words from a letter dated at Naples, 12th October, 1776, in which he brings forward the idea of “races,” so important in our day, with an illustration from Russia:—

“All depends upon races. The first, the most noble of races, comes naturally from the North of Asia. The Russians are the nearest to it, and this is the reason why they have made more progress in fifty years than can be got out of the Portuguese in five hundred.”[490]

Belonging to the Latin race, Galiani was entitled to speak thus freely.

In another letter to Madame d’Épinay, dated at Naples, 18th May, 1776, he had already foretold the success of our Revolution. Few prophets have been more explicit than he was in the following passage:—

“Livy said of his age, which so strongly resembled ours, ‘Ad hæc tempora ventum est, quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus,’—‘We are in an age when the remedies hurt at least as much as the vices.’[491] Do you know how matters stand? The epoch has come of the total downfall of Europe, and of transmigration to America. Everything here is falling into rottenness,—religion, laws, arts, sciences,—and everything is going to be rebuilt anew in America. This is no joke; nor is it an idea drawn from the English quarrels; I have said, announced, preached it, for more than twenty years, and I have always seen my prophecies fulfilled. Do not buy your house, then, in the Chaussée d’Antin; you must buy it in Philadelphia. My trouble is, that there are no abbeys in America.”[492]

This letter was written some months before the Declaration of Independence.

In another, dated at Naples, 7th February, 1778, the Abbé alludes to the great numbers of English men and women who have come to Naples “for shelter from the American tempests,” and adds, “Meanwhile the Washingtons and Hancocks will be fatal to them.”[493] In still another, dated at Naples, 25th July, 1778, he renews his prophecies in language still more explicit:—

“You will at this time have decided the greatest revolution of the globe,—namely, if it is America which is to reign over Europe, or if it is Europe which is to continue to reign over America. I would wager in favor of America, for the reason, merely physical, that for five thousand years genius has turned opposite to the diurnal motion, and travelled from East to West.”[494]

Here again is the idea of Berkeley which has been so captivating.

ADAM SMITH, 1776.

In contrast with the witty Italian is the illustrious philosopher and writer of Scotland, Adam Smith, who was born 5th June, 1723, and died 17th July, 1790. His fame is so commanding that any details of life or works would be out of place. He was thinker and inventor, through whom mankind was advanced in knowledge.

I say nothing of his “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” constituting an important contribution to the science of Ethics, but come at once to his great work of political economy, entitled “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” which first appeared in 1776. Its publication marks an epoch described by Mr. Buckle, when he says that Adam Smith, “by the publication of this single work, contributed more towards the happiness of man than has been effected by the united abilities of all the statesmen and legislators of whom history has preserved an authentic account.”[495] The work is full of prophetic knowledge, and especially with regard to the British Colonies. Writing while the debate with the mother country was still pending, Adam Smith urged that they should be admitted to Parliamentary representation in proportion to taxation, so that their representation would enlarge with their growing resources; and here he predicts nothing less than the transfer of empire:—

“The distance of America from the seat of government, the natives of that country might flatter themselves, with some appearance of reason too, would not be of very long continuance. Such has hitherto been the rapid progress of that country in wealth, population, and improvement, that, in the course of little more than a century, perhaps, the produce of American might exceed that of British taxation. The seat of the empire would then naturally remove itself to that part of the empire which contributed most to the general defence and support of the whole.”[496]

In these tranquil words of assured science the great author carries the seat of government across the Atlantic.

Did Adam Smith in this remarkable passage do more than follow a hint from our own prophet? The prophecy of the great economist first appeared in 1776. In the course of 1774, and down to April 19, 1775, John Adams published in the “Boston Gazette” a series of weekly articles, under the signature of “Novanglus,” which were abridged in Almon’s “Remembrancer” for 1775, with the following title: “History of the Dispute with America, from its Origin in 1754 to the Present Time.” Although this abridged edition stops before the prophetic passage, it is not impossible that the whole series was known to Adam Smith. After speculating, as the latter did afterwards, on the extension of the British Constitution and Parliamentary representation to the outlying British dominions, our prophet says:—

“If in twenty years more America should have six millions of inhabitants, as there is a boundless territory to fill up, she must have five hundred representatives. Upon these principles, if in forty years she should have twelve millions, a thousand; and if the inhabitants of the three kingdoms remain as they are, being already full of inhabitants, what will become of your supreme legislative? It will be translated, crown and all, to America. This is a sublime system for America. It will flatter those ideas of independency which the Tories impute to them, if they have any such, more than any other plan of independency that I have ever heard projected.”[497]

Thus plainly was John Adams precursor of Adam Smith.

In 1784 these papers were reprinted from the “Remembrancer,” by Stockdale, in London, bearing the same title, substantially, as before, “History of the Dispute with America, from its Origin in 1754,” with the addition, “Written in the Year 1774, by John Adams, Esq.” The “Monthly Review,” in a notice of the publication, after speaking of “the inauspicious system of American taxation,” says, “Mr. Adams foretold the consequence of obstinately adhering to it, and the event hath too well verified his predictions. They were, however, predictions which required no inspiration.”[498] So that his wise second-sight was recognized in England much beyond the prevision of Adam Smith.

The idea of transferring the seat of government to America was often attributed to Franklin by Dean Tucker. The former, in a letter, as early as 25th November, 1767, reports the Dean as saying, “That is his constant plan.”[499] In one of his tracts, the Dean attributes it not only to Franklin, but also to our people. With strange exaggeration he says: “It has been the unanimous opinion of the North Americans for these fifty years past, that the seat of empire ought to be transferred from the lesser to the greater country,—that is, from England to America, or, as Dr. Franklin elegantly phrased it, from the cock-boat to the man-of-war.”[500] It is impossible to say how much of this was from the excited brain of the Dean.

RICHARD PRICE, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1784.

A true and solid ally of our country at a critical period was Dr. Price, dissenting clergyman, metaphysician, political writer, and mathematician, who was born in Wales, 23d February, 1723, and died in London, 19th April, 1791.

His earliest labors were “A Review of the Principal Questions and Difficulties in Morals,” by which he was recognized as a metaphysician, and “Observations on Reversionary Payments,” by which he was recognized as an authority on a large class of financial questions. At the same time his sermons were regarded as excellent. Amidst these various labors he was moved to enlist as a pamphleteer in defence of the American Colonies. This service, prompted by a generous devotion to just principles, awakened grateful sentiments on both sides of the ocean.

The Aldermen and Common Council of London marked their sympathy by voting him the freedom of the city in a gold box of fifty pounds value. The American Congress sent him a different testimonial, officially communicated to him, being a solemn resolution declaring “the desire of Congress to consider him a citizen of the United States, and to receive his assistance in regulating their finances.”[501] In reply, under date of 18th January, 1779, while declining the invitation, he offered “assurances that Dr. Price feels the warmest gratitude for the notice taken of him, and that he looks to the American States as now the hope and likely soon to become the refuge of mankind.”[502] Franklin and Adams contracted with him relations of friendship. The former, under date of 6th February, 1780, wrote him: “Your writings, after all the abuse you and they have met with, begin to make serious impressions on those who at first rejected the counsels you gave”;[503] and 24th October, 1788, he wrote to another: “Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price.”[504] The latter, in correspondence many years afterwards, recorded the intimacy he enjoyed with Dr. Price, “at his own house, at my house, and at the houses and tables of many friends.”[505]

The first of his American tracts was in 1776, being “Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America.” The sale of sixty thousand copies in a few months shows the extensive acceptance of the work. The general principles so clearly exhibited are invoked for America. Occasionally the philosopher becomes prophet, as when he predicts the growth of population:—

“They are now but little short of half our number. To this number they have grown, from a small body of original settlers, by a very rapid increase. The probability is that they will go on to increase, and that in fifty or sixty years they will be double our number, and form a mighty empire, consisting of a variety of States, all equal or superior to ourselves in all the arts and accomplishments which give dignity and happiness to human life.”[506]

Nothing less than “a vast continent” seems to him the sphere of this remarkable development, and he revolts at the idea of this being held “at the discretion of a handful of people on the other side of the Atlantic.”[507] In the measures which brought on the war he saw “the hand of Providence working to bring about some great ends.”[508] And the vast continent was to be dedicated to Liberty. The excellent man saw even the end of Slavery. Speaking of “the negroes of the Southern Colonies,” he said that they “probably will now either soon become extinct or have their condition changed into that of freemen.”[509] Years and battle intervened before this precious result.

This production was followed in 1777 by “Additional Observations on the Nature and Value of Civil Liberty, and the War with America,”—to which was added “Observations on Public Loans, the National Debt, and the Debts and Resources of France.” In all this variety of topics, his concern for America breaks forth in the inquiry, “Must not humanity shudder at such a war?”[510] And he sees untold loss to England, which, with the Colonies, “might be the greatest and happiest nation that ever existed”; but without them “we are no more a people; … our existence depends on keeping them.”[511] This patriotic gloom is checked by another vision:—

“These measures have, in all probability, hastened that disruption of the New from the Old World, which will begin a new era in the annals of mankind, and produce a revolution more important, perhaps, than any that has happened in human affairs.”[512]

Thus was American Independence heralded, and its influence foretold.

Constantly sympathizing with America, and impressed by the magnitude of the issue, his soul found another utterance, in 1778, in what he called “The General Introduction and Supplement to the Two Tracts on Civil Liberty, the War with America, and the Finances of the Kingdom.” Here again he sees a vision:—

“A great people, likely to be formed, in spite of all our efforts, into free communities, under governments which have no religious tests and establishments. A new era in future annals, and a new opening in human affairs, beginning, among the descendants of Englishmen, in a new world. A rising empire, extended over an immense continent, without bishops, without nobles, and without kings.”[513]

After the recognition of Independence and the establishment of peace, Dr. Price appeared with another tract: “Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution and the Means of making it a Benefit to the World.” This was in 1784. And here he repeated the exultation of an earlier day:—

“With heartfelt satisfaction I see the revolution in favor of universal liberty which has taken place in America,—a revolution which opens a new prospect in human affairs, and begins a new era in the history of mankind.… Perhaps I do not go too far, when I say, that, next to the introduction of Christianity among mankind, the American Revolution may prove the most important step in the progressive course of human improvement.”[514]

Thus announcing the grandeur of the epoch, he states that it “may produce a general diffusion of the principles of humanity,” and may lead mankind to see and know “that all legitimate government consists in the dominion of equal laws, made with common consent,” which is another expression of the primal truth of the Declaration of Independence. Then, referring to the “community or confederacy” of States, he says, “I can almost imagine that it is not impossible but that by such means universal peace may be produced, and all war excluded from the world”; and he asks, “Why may we not hope to see this begun in America?”[515] May America be true to this aspiration! There is also a longing for Equality, and a warning against Slavery, with the ejaculation, in harmony with earlier words, “Let the United States continue forever what it is now their glory to be, a confederation of States, prosperous and happy, without lords, without bishops, and without kings.”[516] In the midst of the bloody conflict this vision had appeared, and he had sought to make it a reality.

His true friendship for our country and his devotion to humanity, with the modesty of his nature, appear in a letter to Franklin, 12th July, 1784, communicating a copy of the last production. After saying that “it is intended entirely for America,” the excellent counsellor proceeds:—

“I hope the United States will forgive my presumption in supposing myself qualified to advise them.… The consciousness which I have that it is well intended, and that my address to them is the effusion of a heart that wishes to serve the best interests of society, helps to reconcile me to myself in this instance, and it will, I hope, engage the candor of others.”[517]

The same sentiments which proved his sympathies with our country reappeared with fresh fires at the outbreak of the French Revolution, arousing, in opposition, the immortal eloquence of Burke. A discourse “On the Love of our Country,” preached at the Old Jewry, 4th November, 1789, in commemoration of the English Revolution, with friendly glances at what was then passing across the Channel, prompted the “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” The personal denunciation which is the beginning of that remarkable performance is the perpetual witness to the position of the preacher, whose prophetic soul did not hesitate to accept the French Revolution side by side with ours in glory and in promise.

GOVERNOR POWNALL, 1777, 1780, 1783.

Among the best friends of our country abroad during the trials of the Revolution was Thomas Pownall, called by one biographer “a learned antiquary and politician,” and by another “an English statesman and author.” Latterly he has so far dropped out of sight that there are few who recognize in him either of these characters. He was born 1722, and died at Bath 1805. During this long period he held several offices. As early as 1745 he became secretary to the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. In 1753 he crossed the ocean. In 1755, as Commissioner for Massachusetts Bay, he had a share in the negotiations with New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, in union with New England, which resulted in the confederated expedition against Crown Point. He was afterwards Governor of Massachusetts Bay, New Jersey, and South Carolina, successively. Returning to England, he was appointed, in 1762, Comptroller-General of the army in Germany, with the military rank of colonel. He sat in two successive Parliaments until 1780, when he passed into private life. Hildreth gives a glimpse of his personal character, when, admitting his frank manners and liberal politics, he describes his habits as “rather freer than suited the New England standard.”[518]

Pownall stands forth conspicuous for championship of our national independence, and especially for foresight with regard to our national future. In both these respects his writings are unique. Other Englishmen were in favor of independence, and saw our future also; but I doubt if any one can be named who was his equal in strenuous action, or in minuteness of foresight. While the war was still proceeding, as early as 1780, he openly announced, not only that independence was inevitable, but that the new nation, “founded in Nature and built up in truth,” would continually expand; that its population would increase and multiply; that a civilizing activity beyond what Europe could ever know would animate it; and that its commercial and naval power would be found in every quarter of the globe.[519] All this he set forth at length with argument and illustration, and he called his prophetic words “the stating of the simple fact, so little understood in the Old World.” Treated at first as “unintelligible speculation” and as “unfashionable,” the truth he announced was “neglected where it was not rejected, but in general rejected as inadmissible,” and the author, according to his own language, “was called by the wise men of the British Cabinet a Wild Man, unfit to be employed.”[520] But these writings are a better title now than any office. In manner they are diffuse and pedantic; but they hardly deserve the cold judgment of John Adams, who in his old age said of them that “a reader who has patience to search for good sense in an uncouth and disgusting style will find in those writings proofs of a thinking mind.”[521]

He seems to have written a good deal. But the works which will be remembered the longest are not even mentioned by several of his biographers. Rose, in his Biographical Dictionary, records works by him, entitled “Antiquities of the Provincia Romana of Gaul”; “Roman Antiquities dug up at Bath”; “Observations on the Currents in the Atlantic Ocean”; “Intellectual Physics”; and contributions to the “Archæologia”: nothing more. To this list Gorton, in his Biographical Dictionary, adds briefly, “besides many political tracts,” but without particular reference to the works on America. This is another instance where the stone rejected by the builders becomes the head of the corner.

At an early date Pownall comprehended the position of our country, geographically. He saw the wonderful means of internal communication supplied by its inland waters, and also the opportunities of external commerce afforded by the Atlantic Ocean. On the former he dwells, in a Memorial drawn up in 1756 for the Duke of Cumberland.[522] Nobody in our own day, after the experience of more than a century, has portrayed more vividly the two vast aqueous masses,—one composed of the Great Lakes and their dependencies, and the other of the Mississippi and its tributaries. The Great Lakes are described as “a wilderness of waters, spreading over the country by an infinite number and variety of branchings, bays, straits, &c.”[523] The Mississippi, with its eastern branch, called the Ohio, is described as having, “as far as we know, but two falls,—one at a place called by the French St. Antoine, high up on the west or main branch”; and all its waters “run to the ocean with a still, easy, and gentle current.”[524] The picture is completed by exhibiting the two masses in combination:—

“The waters of each respective mass—not only the lesser streams, but the main general body of each going through this continent in every course and direction—have, by their approach to each other, by their interlacing with each other, by their communication to every quarter and in every direction, an alliance and unity, and form one mass, a one whole.”[525]

And he remarks, that it is thus seen

“how the watery element claims and holds dominion over this extent of land: that the great lakes which lie upon its bosom on one hand, and the great river Mississippi and the multitude of waters which run into it, form there a communication,—an alliance or dominion of the watery element, that commands throughout the whole; that these great lakes appear to be the throne, the centre of a dominion, whose influence, by an infinite number of rivers, creeks, and streams, extends itself through all and every part of the continent, supported by the communication of, and alliance with, the waters of Mississippi.”[526]

If these means of internal commerce were vast, those afforded by the Atlantic Ocean were not less extensive. The latter were developed in the treatise on “The Administration of the Colonies,” the fourth edition of which, published in 1768, is now before me. This was after the differences between the Colonies and the mother country had begun, but before the idea of independence had shown itself. Pownall insisted that the Colonies ought to be considered as parts of the realm, entitled to representation in Parliament. This was a constitutional unity. But he portrayed a commercial unity also, which he represented in attractive forms. The British Isles, and the British possessions in the Atlantic and in America, were, according to him, “a grand marine dominion,” and ought, therefore, by policy, to be united into one empire, with one centre. On this he dwells at length, and the picture is presented repeatedly.[527] It was incident to the crisis in the world produced by the predominance of the commercial spirit already beginning to rule the powers of Europe. It was the duty of England to place herself at the head of this great movement:—

“As the rising of this crisis above described forms precisely the object on which Government should be employed, so the taking leading measures towards the forming all those Atlantic and American possessions into one empire, of which Great Britain should be the commercial and political centre, is the precise duty of Government at this crisis.”[528]

This was his desire. But he saw clearly the resources as well as the rights of the Colonies, and was satisfied, that, if power were not consolidated under the constitutional auspices of England, it would be transferred to the other side of the Atlantic. Here his words are prophetic:—

“The whole train of events, the whole course of business, must perpetually bring forward into practice, and necessarily in the end into establishment, either an American or a British union. There is no other alternative.”[529]

The necessity for union is enforced in a manner which foreshadows our National Union:—

“The Colonial Legislature does certainly not answer all purposes,—is incompetent and inadequate to many purposes. Something, therefore, more is necessary,—either a common union amongst themselves, or a one common union of subordination under the one general legislature of the state.”[530]

Then, again, in another place of the same work, after representing the declarations of power over the Colonies as little better than mockery, he prophesies:—

“Such is the actual state of the really existing system of our dominions, that neither the power of government over these various parts can long continue under the present mode of administration, nor the great interest of commerce extended throughout the whole long subsist under the present system of the laws of trade.”[531]

Recent events may give present interest to his views, in this same work, on the nature and necessity of a paper currency, where he follows Franklin. The principal points of his plan were: That bills of credit, to a certain amount, should be printed in England for the use of the Colonies; that a loan-office should be established in each Colony, to issue bills, take securities, and receive the payments; that the bills should be issued for ten years, bearing interest at five per cent.,—one tenth part of the sum borrowed to be paid annually, with the interest; and that they should be a legal tender.[532]

When the differences had flamed forth in war, then the prophet became more earnest. His utterances deserve to be rescued from oblivion. He was open, almost defiant. As early as 2d December, 1777, some months before our treaty with France, he declared, from his place in Parliament, that “the sovereignty of this country over America is abolished and gone forever”; that “they are determined at all events to be independent, and they will be so”; and that “all the treaty that this country can ever expect with America is federal, and that, probably, only commercial.” In this spirit he said to the House:—

“Until you shall be convinced that you are no longer sovereigns over America, but that the United States are an independent, sovereign people,—until you are prepared to treat with them as such,—it is of no consequence at all what schemes or plans of conciliation this side the House or that may adopt.”[533]

The position taken in Parliament he maintained by writings; and here he depicted the great destinies of our country. He began with “A Memorial to the Sovereigns of Europe,” published early in 1780, and afterwards, through the influence of John Adams, while at the Hague, abridged and translated into French. In this remarkable production independence was the least that he claimed for us. Thus he foretells our future:—