It cannot continue the century; if it does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man; it does not deserve a serious refutation.

The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. At the same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the Colonies by her laws, by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation, in manufactures, in everything, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their

4

Gentlemen, Sir (to the Speaker), I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom, against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear this liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest. I came not here armed at all points, with law cases and acts of Parliament, with the statute-book doubled in dog'sears, to defend the cause of liberty; if I had, I myself would nave cited the two cases of Chester and Durham.5 I would

4 George Grenville who had answered Pitt's last speech. 5 A borough, or as we might inexactly say a village or town, had a right to choose members to Parliament, generally two. Many of the boroughs were ludicrously small; in some instances the houses had actually disappeared and the votes were cast by persons brought in to do the bidding of some landed aristocrat who held the title to the lands on which once, in years gone by, there were houses and people.

6

have cited them to have shown that, even under any arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham? He might have taken a higher example in Wales; Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated. I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman; I know his abilities. I have been obliged to his diligent researches. But for the defense of liberty upon a general principle, upon a constitutional principle, it is a ground on which I stand firm; on which I dare meet any man.

The Parliamentary History of England, Vol. XVI, pp. 98 ff. London, 1813.

QUESTIONS

How important did Pitt consider the principle involved in the Stamp Act? How could Pitt argue that while England could legislate for the Colonies she could not tax them? What line did Pitt draw between taxation and legislation? What historical origin did he name for the power of taxation by Parliament? Did he think America in any sense was represented in Parliament? What do you think was meant by virtual representation? (One might argue with some justice that people are virtually represented if someone is chosen from among them to speak and vote in the legislative body, when if in choosing that person only a small or even insignificant portion had the actual right to vote for such a representative. By this phrase, virtual representation, the Englishmen tried to justify their own system, in which a large proportion of the people had no actual representation in the sense that they had the suffrage.) What defects did he believe rested in the system of representation?

6 Grenville again is referred to. He had argued that Parliament had taxed the little semi-independent border states of Chester and Durham (palatinates) before they were entirely amalgamated with England and before they had representatives in Parliament.

XII

THE LOYALISTS IN THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION

In one sense the American Revolution can be considered a contest in the Colonies between two parties, the Loyalists or Tories, and the supporters of the Revolution. The fact that owing to superior political skill the latter party in 1775 seized control of the governments of the thirteen Colonies should not blind us to the fact that the Colonists were very far indeed from being unanimous in the support of the Revolution. In every Colony there were very many people who resisted the Revolution in their Colonies politically as long as they could, and supported the British army wherever they were able. The following is an estimate of the importance, numbers, and composition of the Loyalist party.

As preliminary to some examination of the argumentative value of the position taken by the Loyalist party, let us inquire for a moment, what recognition may be due to them simply as persons. Who and what were the Tories of the American Revolution? As to their actual number, there is some difficulty in framing even a rough estimate. No attempt at a census of political opinions was ever made during that period; and no popular vote was ever taken of a nature to indicate, even approximately, the numerical strength of the two opposing schools of political thought. Of course, in every community there were Tories who were Tories in secret. These could not be counted, for the good reason that they could not be known. Then, again, the number of openly avowed Tories varied somewhat with variations in the prosperity of the Revolution. Still further, their number varied with variations of locality. Throughout the entire struggle, by far the largest number of Tories was to be found in the Colony of New York, particularly in the neighborhood of its chief city. Of the other middle Colonies, while there were many Tories in

New Jersey, in Delaware, and in Maryland, probably the largest number lived in Pennsylvania — a number so great that a prominent officer in the Revolutionary army described it as the "enemies' country." Indeed, respecting the actual preponderance of the Tory party in these two central Colonies, an eminent champion of the Revolution bore this startling testimony: "New York and Pennsylvania were so nearly divided-if their propensity was not against us that if New England on one side and Virginia on the other had not kept them in awe, they would have joined the British." Of the New England Colonies, Connecticut had the greatest number of Tories; and next, in proportion to population, was the district which was afterwards known as the State of Vermont. Proceeding to the Colonies south of the Potomac, we find that in Virginia, especially after hostilities began, the Tories were decidedly less in number than the Whigs. In North Carolina, the two parties were about evenly divided. In South Carolina. the Tories were the more numerous party; while in Georgia their majority was so great that, in 1781, they were preparing to detach that Colony from the general movement of the rebellion, and probably would have done so, had it not been for the embarrassing accident which happened to Cornwallis at Yorktown in the latter part of that year.

After the question of number, very properly comes that of quality. What kind of people were these Tories, as regards intelligence, character, and standing in their several communities?

And here, brushing aside, as unworthy of historical investigators, the partisan and vindictive epithets of the controversy many of which, however, still survive even in the historical writings of our own time--we shall find that the Loyalists were, as might be expected, of all grades of personal worth and worthlessness; and that, while there was among them, no doubt, the usual proportion of human selfishness, malice, and rascality, as a class they

were not bad people, much less were they execrable people, as their opponents at the time commonly declared them to be.

In the first place, there was, prior to 1776, the official class, that is, the men holding various positions in the civil and military and naval services of the government, their immediate families and their social connections. All such persons may be described as inclining to the Loyalist view in consequence of official bias.

Next were certain colonial politicians who, it may be admitted, took a rather selfish and an unprincipled view of the whole dispute, and who, counting on the probable, if not inevitable, success of the British arms in such a conflict, adopted the Loyalist side, not for conscience' sake but for profit's sake, and in the expectation of being rewarded for their fidelity by offices and titles, and especially by the confiscated estates of the rebels, after the rebels themselves should have been defeated, and their leaders hanged or sent into exile.

As composing still another class of Tories, may be mentioned probably a vast majority of those who stood for the commercial interests, for the capital and the tangible property of the country, and who, with the instincts natural to persons who have something considerable to lose, disapproved of all measures for pushing the dispute to the point of disorder, riot, and civil war.

Still another class of Loyalists was made up of people of professional training and occupation - clergymen, physicians, lawyers, teachers - a clear majority of whom seem to have been set against the ultimate measures of the Revolution.

Finally, and in general, it may be said that a majority of those who, of whatever occupation, of whatever grade of culture or of wealth, would now be described as conservative people, were Loyalists during the American Revolution. And by way of concession to the authority and force of truth, what has to be said respecting the