chap. V.} 1763. Feb. |
This text is part of:
[83]
on the king's pleasure alone for their appointment to office, their continuance in it, and the
amount and payment of their emoluments; so that the corps of persons in the public employ might be a civil garrison, set to keep the colonies in dependence, and to, sustain the authority of Great Britain.
The charters were obstacles, and, in the opinion of Charles Townshend, the charters should fall, and one uniform system of government1 be substituted in their stead.
The little republics of Connecticut and Rhode Island, which Clarendon had cherished, and every ministry of Charles II.
had spared, were no longer safe.
A new territorial arrangement of provinces was in contemplation; Massachusetts itself was to be restrained in its boundaries, as well as made more dependent on the king.
This arbitrary policy required an American standing army, and that army was to be maintained by
1 This part of the scheme was not at once brought out. The evidence of its existence in idea is, therefore, not to be found in the journals of parliament; but see Alnon's Biographical Anecdotes of most Emninent Persons, II. 83: ‘To make a new division of the colonies;’ ‘to make them all royal governments.’ See also Chas. Townshend's speech in the House of Commons, on the third of June, 1766; ‘It has long been my opinion,’ &c. &c. See also the communication from Governor Wentworth, of New Hampshire, to Dr. Langdon, as narrated in Gordon's American Revolution, i. 142-144. Compare also Richard Jackson to Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, 18 Nov. 1766. Charles Townshend ‘has often turned that matter, the alteration of the constitutions in America, in his thoughts, and was once inclined that way.’ This can hardly refer to any other moment than Townshend's short career as first lord of trade. Compare, further, the letter of Governor Bernard to Halifax, of 9 November, 1764, where the idea of these constitutional alterations is most fully developed, and where it is said, ‘This business seems only to have waited for a proper time.’ See, too, the many letters from the colonies, just before the peace, strongly recommending the changes. Lieut. Gov. Colden's paper on the same subject. So, too, the queries of the Rev. Dr. Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, sent, in 1760, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Seeker to Johnson. R. Jackson to Hutchinson, 13 Aug. 1764, and Hutchinson to Jackson, 15 October, 1764, relate to the same subject. The purpose against Rhode Island and Connecticut was transmitted through successive ministries till the Declaration of Independence.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1860.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.