Struan, Andrew David (2010) 'Judgement and Experience'? British politics, Atlantic connexions and the American Revolution. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1845/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] ‘JUDGEMENT AND EXPERIENCE’? BRITISH POLITICS, ATLANTIC CONNEXIONS AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Andrew David Struan, MA, MPhil Department of History Faculty of Arts University of Glasgow Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctorate of Philosophy ©Andrew Struan 2010 2 ABSTRACT In one of his publications, the politician and merchant Anthony Bacon asked if ‘some honest Persons, of plain Understanding, and of tolerable Judgement and Experience, could be engaged, at the Government’s Expence, to make the general Tour of North America’. This person, he thought, would be able to forge a connexion between the metropolitan centre and the far-flung reaches of America and improve the relationship between mother country and colony by increasing the level of understanding of the other on both sides of the Atlantic. Bacon appreciated that this lack of knowledge of their American brethren meant that British politics and politicians were often working with limited, or biased, information when formulating imperial policy. This thesis analyses the ways six MPs with significant American connexions operated throughout the imperial crises of the 1760s and 1770s. It establishes that these men operated at the highest levels of British politics at this time and sought to create themselves as the predominant experts on the American colonies. In the debates on the nature of the British Empire throughout the 1760s and 1770s, these men were at the forefront of the political mind and, at least until the hardening of opinions in the 1770s, had an impact on the way in which the colonies were governed. More than that, however, this work has shown that – contrary to much earlier belief – the House of Commons in the later eighteenth century was not working in ignorance of the situation in the Americas: rather, there were a small but significant number of men with real and personal connexions to, and knowledge about, the colonies. As the imperial grounds shifted through the 1770s, however, even the most well-versed of these ‘American MPs’ began to appear to have suffered some disconnection from the colonial viewpoint. This thesis takes into account the Atlantic and imperial networks under which these MPs worked and formed their political theories and opinions. In addition, it seeks in some way to bring the politics of the American Revolution into the fold of Atlantic History and to assess the ways in which those with the greatest experience of working in the peripheries of empire sought to reshape and reorganise its structure from the metropole after the close of the Seven Years War. 3 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................6 THE SIXTEEN...................................................................................................................................7 HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ATLANTIC WORLD........................................10 THESIS LAYOUT.............................................................................................................................21 THE SIX..........................................................................................................................................23 CHAPTER I.................................................................................................................................35 GOVERNING AN EMPIRE: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND AMERICA.........................................35 THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND AMERICA.....................................................................................38 ‘ERRORS IN AMERICAN POLITICKS IN 100 PLACES’: MPS AND COLONIAL ISSUES.......................41 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................74 CHAPTER II...............................................................................................................................76 LOSING AN EMPIRE: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND AMERICA.................................................76 ‘BOSTON, BLOODY BOSTON!’.......................................................................................................79 ‘A UNIVERSAL PRESCRIPTION’: CONTROLLING MASSACHUSETTS...............................................86 ‘AS FROM THE THRONE OF HEAVEN’: THE QUEBEC ACT.............................................................93 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................98 CHAPTER III............................................................................................................................102 TRUTHS WHICH SHOULD BE KNOWN: THE POLITICAL TEXTS OF BACON AND POWNALL......102 ‘BRINGING THE CONTENDING PARTIES TO REASON’: THE WORKS OF ANTHONY BACON.........103 ‘ALL THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM’: THE WORKS OF THOMAS POWNALL........................................120 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................142 CHAPTER IV............................................................................................................................144 AN EMPIRE OF LIBERTY? THE BRITISH ATLANTIC WORLD.....................................................144 ‘THE RULE OF CONDUCT ON THIS OCCASION’............................................................................149 ATLANTIC ARGUMENTS; OCEANIC UNION..................................................................................157 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................160 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................162 APPENDIX I..............................................................................................................................166 APPENDIX II............................................................................................................................177 COMMITTEE OF LONDON MERCHANTS (WRITTEN BY TRECOTHICK) TO THETOWN OF NORWICH, 4 DECEMBER 1765...................................................................................................177 APPENDIX III...........................................................................................................................178 4 SPEECH BY POWNALL IN HOUSE OF COMMONS (8 FEBRUARY 1769).....................................178 APPENDIX IV...........................................................................................................................181 SPEECH BY BURKE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS (25 MARCH 1774).............................................181 APPENDIX V............................................................................................................................183 LETTER FROM POWNALL TO GRENVILLE (14 JULY 1768) AND GRENVILLE’S REPLY (17 JULY 1768)............................................................................................................................................183 APPENDIX VI...........................................................................................................................187 BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................189 ARCHIVAL SOURCES..................................................................................................................189 PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES....................................................................................................189 MONOGRAPHS............................................................................................................................193 ARTICLES AND ESSAYS..............................................................................................................198 UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS.................................................................................................201 INTERNET RESOURCES..............................................................................................................201 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The composition of this type of project naturally causes a great number of debts on my part, and these are debts which I can not really repay in kind but can hope they are ones for which I can make some type of amends. Firstly, I would like to thank the Department of History at the University of Glasgow for having supported, educated and enlightened my thoughts for almost a decade of undergraduate and postgraduate learning and research. The friendly atmosphere helped make the department my home-from-home, while the staff provided a provoking and challenging atmosphere in which to work. I am indebted to both the Department and the Faculty of Arts for providing numerous research grants to enable research in London and elsewhere. Similarly, I remain thankful to all the staff at the British Library and National Archives for answering my seemingly endless stream of questions and queries. In particular, my supervisors – Dr Lionel Glassey and Professor Simon Newman – have been invaluable to my intellectual and academic growth. Consistently supportive and friendly, they have provided me with the very best example of scholars and one which I hope – with time – I might in some small way replicate. I thank them for their guidance and their suggestions on my work. My family have been tremendously supportive over the past few years. They accepted that they had lost me to the world of eighteenth-century politics and might never get me back, suffered in silence with my seemingly random stream-of-consciousness outbursts on the British Empire over the dinner table, and continued to show me love even as I became a muttering and crazed social recluse during the writing-up and completion of this work. Similarly, to my friends, I say thank you. Marc Alexander and Robyn Bray in particular have provided so much academic and social support over the past four or five years, and have allowed me to avoid the pitfalls of postgraduate loneliness and despair. I will be eternally grateful for having them constantly available to complain over the most minor and trivial of points and for providing a consistently critical voice at the back of my head. Lastly, to Derek, I can say nothing more than thank you from the very deepest part of my heart. I could not have considered even beginning this project without you – thank you. 6 INTRODUCTION ‘Unhappily England,’ commented a nobleman after the defeat of the British army at Yorktown, ‘bankrupt in genius as well as other resources does not offer one man […] capable of preserving the Empire. An exuberancy of declamatory eloquence is to be found in either House of Parliament. But an individual where experience, judgement, integrity, sound discretion unite is not the produce of this season’.1 The members of the House of Commons, certainly, generally had little personal acquaintance with the American colonies, and only five American-born MPs sat between 1763 and 1783.2 As the great crises between Great Britain and British America in the 1760s and 1770s erupted into full-scale warfare, leading ministers were forced to try to comprehend both the nature of the American grievances and, perhaps more importantly, how to deal with them. To what extent, therefore, did MPs during this critical time have connexions with, or knowledge of, the American colonies? Similarly, how did the members that sat in the House come to know America and what were their impressions of this new England across the Atlantic? In addition, did the men with any significant knowledge of the colonies find their political careers aided or hindered by it, and to what extent did this information affect the alliances they made and their general political trajectory? Finally, how did these ‘American MPs’ view the British Empire – to what extent did they, for example, adhere to the idea of an eighteenth century ‘Atlantic World’ in which Britain and her various American colonies (including the West Indies) were connected through bonds of language, culture, sovereignty and liberty? The main purpose of this thesis, then, will be to examine the above questions. In order to do this, the dissertation will examine several MPs with significant American connexions through the 1760s and 1770s. In his book, England in the Age of the American Revolution, Sir Lewis Namier established a list of sixteen MPs with, as he classed it, ‘acquaintance with the American colonies’. 3 These men were the foremost experts on colonial issues and served in the House of Commons during much of the American Revolution; they were active and keen politicians and participated in many of the great Parliamentary debates of the 1 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Reports of the Manuscripts of the Marques of Lothian (London: HMSO, 1905), p. 412. Quoted incorrectly in P. Mackesy, The War for America, 1775-1783 (London: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), pp. 516-17. 2 L. Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution (London: Macmillan and Co., 1930), p. 230. 3 Ibid., pp. 229-33. 7 period. Their importance as a group, however, has as yet been somewhat ignored by historians. Most of the work on them thus far was conducted by Namier in the 1920s and included in his ‘The House of Commons and America’ chapter. This chapter’s work is decidedly unfinished (Namier himself admits that it is the zekher lekhurban of the book)4 and is classed as ‘interesting but less important’ by Bellot and given almost no consideration by Pease in his review.5 Almost eighty years on, this unfinished chapter must now occasion some modern attention and study. The Sixteen The sixteen MPs are an odd collection of soldiers, merchants, civil servants, and colonial agents and representatives. Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barré had served extensively in the Americas as a soldier and maintained an active and engaged interest in the colonies throughout his parliamentary career. Richard Jackson (nicknamed ‘the omniscient Jackson’) was the agent for Connecticut and assistant-agent for Massachusetts and was a friend of Edmund Burke and Benjamin Franklin, with whom he carried on a prolonged and somewhat verbose correspondence, published and annotated by Carl van Doren in 1947.6 Charles Garth was the agent for South Carolina. Edmund Burke was the agent for New York as well as a key historical figure and prolific writer. Thomas Pownall had been Lieutenant-Governor of New Jersey and Governor of Massachusetts, and he wrote extensively on the issues raised by the imperial crisis of the 1760s and 1770s and on the idea of ‘Empire’. Thomas’s elder brother, John Pownall, although serving in Parliament for a very short period of time (from November 1775 to May 1776), is also listed by Namier as one of the leading and influential American ‘experts’ in the House of Commons due to his position as Secretary to 4 ‘Pious Jews in Eastern Europe, when building a new house, leave one place unfinished; it is called in Hebrew ‘zekher lekhurban’ (‘the memorial of destruction’), and commemorates the destruction of the Temple. I [Namier] had concluded my researches for the rest of this book, but not on the complex subject of the Colonial agents, when the Arab attack in Palestine, in August 1929, compelled me to relinquish my historical studies earlier than I had planned, and to take up work in the Jewish Agency for Palestine. After that I could do no more than complete the parts for which the material was ready; this unfinished chapter has to be the zekher lekhurban of my book’. Ibid., p. 251. 5 H.H. Bellot, ‘[Review of] England in the Age of the American Revolution’, p. 678 and T. Pease, ‘[Review of] England in the Age of the American Revolution’, American Historical Review, XXXVI No. 3 (April 1931), pp. 583-85. 6 C. Doren, The Letters and Papers of Benjamin Franklin and Richard Jackson, 1753-1785 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1947). 8 the Board of Trade and Plantations. These men, in Namier’s view, were the most learned and knowledgeable in Westminster regarding American affairs and American policies.7 There was, however, a sub-group of men ‘less prominent as experts on America, but not unimportant’ listed by Namier.8 These men were mainly merchants, traders and soldiers who had served or worked in, or traded extensively with, the American colonies. There were two merchants: Anthony Bacon, who traded extensively with the southern colonies and published several pamphlets on the relations between Britain and the Americas; and John Sargent, who also worked as a ‘special agent’ for New York. Admiral Sir Charles Hardy served extensively in the Americas with the Royal Navy and was Governor of New York from 1755 to 1757. William Harvey and William Amherst had served in the Americas during the Seven Years War. These ‘secondary’ MPs in Namier’s list are more problematic than his original men, and there seems to be little reason for the inclusion of some of them as distinguished ‘American’ MPs. Whereas Bacon was a prominent member of the Commons who published work on the American problems and made several recorded speeches in the chamber, other MPs have left no discernable trail or record in the available sources.9 It seems unclear, therefore, why certain of these men were listed by Namier among the leading ‘American’ MPs when others, who were perhaps more prominent and had more influence throughout the period of the American Revolution were mentioned but are effectively ignored in this original list. For example, William Henry Lyttelton or Alexander Mackay, who had both served in the Americas (as Governor of South Carolina and Jamaica, and as a military officer, respectively), served as MPs for much of the 1760s and 1770s and spoke often in the House regarding American affairs and policies. The final five MPs in the original sixteen are the least controversial. They are simply in the list because they were born in the Americas: John Huske and Paul Wentworth were born in New Hampshire; Barlow Trecothick was probably born at sea, but was raised in Boston; and Henry Cruger and Staats Long Morris in New York. Again, some of these men are more important for this study than others: Trecothick was an influential member of Rockingham’s group while Wentworth never actually got to sit in the House – he was brought in by Administration for Saltash in 1780, but the dissolution was announced before he could take 7 Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution, pp. 229-30. 8 Ibid., p. 229. 9 L. Namier and J. Brooke, The History of Parliament The House of Commons, 1754-1790 (London: three vols, Secker and Warburg, 1985), II. 35-6: Bacon, Anthony (c. 1717-1786). 9 his seat and he came bottom of the poll at the following general election.10 Nevertheless, there seems little reason to argue with Namier’s logic in including these American-born MPs (perhaps with the exception of Wentworth, who never truly served in the Commons). Although Namier lists these sixteen MPs at the start of the chapter as the most significant, the rest of the chapter discusses several other MPs with similar qualifications and qualities. There are sections on the West Indians, naval and army officers, merchants and traders, and land speculators. All-in-all, there are well over 60 MPs with noteworthy connexions with the Americas between 1760 and 1780: this figure includes West Indians such as Rose Fuller and all army and naval officers who served in the Americas, as well as notable merchants who had significant interests in, or involvement with, the American colonies. While several of these men were important, some of them had little or nothing to say in the House of Commons about the American crises, or indeed anything else. Nevertheless, there remains a core few men with significant documentary evidence to support historical analysis. For the purpose of this study, we shall look at six MPs who were listed by Namier as being heavily involved with, and knowledgeable about, the Americas. These MPs are: Anthony Bacon; Isaac Barré; Edmund Burke; Richard Jackson; Thomas Pownall; and Barlow Trecothick. Each of these MPs has been chosen as the main focus of this work for several reasons. They were all active and vocal in the House of Commons and sat for most, if not all, of the period of the American Revolution (c. 1760-1780). More than that, their speeches and correspondence are largely intact (for example, Edmund Burke’s correspondence has been published several times in multiple volumes) and available to the historian for analysis. Perhaps of most importance, however, is the fact that each of these men held strong opinions on the nature of Empire and the ‘imperial crisis’ in the eighteenth century, and several of them shared these opinions, ideas and suggestions through pamphlets and other publications. There also exists for these men some secondary source work on which to begin and base my own research: Pownall, for example, has a biography and several articles written about him and his ideals, while works on Edmund Burke abound.11 10 D.H. Watson, Barlow Trecothick and other Associates of Lord Rockingham during the Stamp Act Crisis, 1765-1766 (unpublished MA dissertation: University of Sheffield, 1957) and Namier and Brooke, The House of Commons, III. pp. 623-24: Wentworth, Paul (d. 1793). 11 J.A. Schutz, Thomas Pownall: British Defender of American Liberty. A Study of Anglo-American Relations in the Eighteenth Century (California: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1951); J.A. Schutz ‘Thomas Pownall’s