removal of Lord Chatham as incapable of business. Chatham refused to give way, but after a time resigned for a short time, so that the Seal, being in Commission, might be affixed to the grant. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Home Secretary raised any objections. Then, not being able to retrieve his losses, Lord Bottetort obtained the post of Governor of Virginia. He went to Virginia, became a popular governor, and died there.

There was also, especially among the southern aristocracy, the jealousy felt by men armed with expert knowledge of local conditions and certainly with position as leaders of the community, for the new officials sent out from England, and the contemptuous condescension too often shown by the newlyarrived islanders for the colonial magnate. We all know how the touchy offended dignity of George Washington wrecked the last hopes of peace by his refusal to receive overtures for conciliation because they were not addressed to him by his military title given to him by Congress. I take an example from another State where a more genuine cause of offence was given.

A family named Pinckney came from Bishop Auckland in Durham in 1692 and settled in South Carolina. In 1752 Charles Pinckney, the representative of the family, was the most prominent lawyer in the State. He had been born in the colony, and had married Eliza Lucas, the daughter of the Royal Governor of Antigua. "Chief Justice Graeme dying," (Eliza Pinckney, by E. H. Ravenel, published by John Murray, 1896) "Governor Glenn appointed Mr. Pinckney to succeed him. The appointment was generally approved and no doubt was entertained of its confirmation by the King, George II. But in the meantime it became necessary for the English ministers to provide a place for one of their adherents, Peter Leigh, and they began to look round for a good position for him. Mr. Pinckney had at the moment held the office and performed the duties of Chief Justice of the Colony for about a year, but by some oversight his commission had not yet received the royal assent." Possibly he had not paid George's mistresses. "The ministers took advantage of the omission to supersede Mr. Pinckney, and conferred the position upon Leigh, setting aside the Governor's nomination." Omit all the matter of

prejudice in the telling, the barnacle growth which fastens on the bottom of such a story, and there yet remains a gross insult to the colony and to the man and his connections which goes far to account for the fact that the Pinckneys, from being loyal subjects, turned to lead South Carolina in the later struggle against the British Parliament.

Yet men like this, resentful though they might be, were not in the first instance leaders of revolution. When the revolt ripened they ceased to lead; for their own safety they followed; in the end they were dragged into many actions of which they could not have approved. The true leaders of revolution, whose actions such men as the Pinckneys found themselves compelled to support, were of the same stamp as always lead the victorious minority in a revolution, men like Robespierre and similar firebrands of the later Revolution in France, men who sought refuge from failure in law, journalism and school teaching, by agitation for the destruction of the social state which refused them. Aided by a flow of language, of oratory, of unnecessary adjectives, of what an eighteenth-century contemporary, speaking of the admired periods of the great spouters of the British Parliament, not inaptly called a diarrhoea of words, they made use, to guide public opinion to violence, of the cant phrases of freedom, and laid down imaginary legal authority for the use of force against law.

Three of such men were very prominent in influencing common opinions-James Otis, a lawyer, of Boston; Samuel Adams, a hopeless failure in all his other attempts to learn and labour truly to get his own living, a leader of the gang of smugglers who, disguised as Indians, threw the East India Company's tea into Boston Harbour; and Patrick Henry, an obscure and unsuccessful lawyer of the backwoods of Virginia. Such men represent the Have-nots of all time against those who have. They made the revolution.

In their programme of violence they were supported by the pulpit invective of the dissenting preachers of the North. For instance, during the riots in consequence of the Stamp Act, when the officials and customs officers had to flee for safety to the ships, Dr. Mayhew, one of their pastors, writes Whately to George Grenville (Grenville Papers, Vol. III.), preached on a text out of Galatians: "I would they were even cut off

which trouble you. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty." These men very early sought for complete independence, and I believe, myself, although of course he never told a lie, that George Washington also very early saw and welcomed separation as a necessary result of the revolt. The only great body that stood for unity and compromise were the merchants on both sides, but the difficulty of obtaining for them a middle course under the existing system of monopoly was so great as to preclude any united influence. So time went on and peace lay further away.

But no revolution can succeed without a war-cry, which must have some apparent resemblance to historical truth. Unfortunately, by imposing a direct tax which fell not on one trade or one section of the people but on all at all times, in addition to the stringent tightening of the customs action, the British ministry gave the unprincipled agitators the opportunity to raise a very effective war-cry: No taxation without representation. The real grievance on both sides was the unlimited smuggling and the effect on trade of the customs regulations for its suppression. Treated as the main issue the need for a peaceful continuance of the enormous trade between the islands and the American continent would probably have brought about a compromise satisfactory to both; but the lawyer agitators were able to put common sense to one side and to fix attention, as the chief point of dispute, upon the barren technicality of the acknowledged principle that those taxed should be in some way represented in the authority which laid on the taxes. As, said they, they were in no way able to be so represented, the British Parliament had no right to lay on them any taxes. Here was a clear-cut issue of two absolutely irreconcilable views which could be solved only by force or by surrender on one side or the other. At the outset there was an opening for such surrender, for the more moderate men were willing to make a distinction between internal taxes and the customs regulations which had been so weakly enforced. The authority of Parliament, said Franklin in his examination before the Committee of the House of Commons, was never disputed in laying duties on commerce. But when later on such duties were laid, the demagogues ignored the distinction, and went on with the use of violence.

vii. The American Colonies-Geographical Position and Distribution of Population." No taxation without representation" is one of those concise phrases which contain more inaccurate thought than whole volumes of history. But before making any observations on the false issues suggested in those few words, one must consider the physical frame in which the American colonies owed obedience to the British Crown.

Any attempt to enforce order, to uphold authority, to regulate commerce, or to establish international relations with this melting pot of races and religions, of aristocrats and populists, of loyalists and revolutionaries, of Papists and persecuting varieties of Protestants, of idealists and practical men of business, of privileged landowners and deported wastrels, was made difficult in the highest degree by the geographical position which from first to last dominated the struggle.

To the north of the British colonies until 1763 had lain the French colony of Canada, which, in spite of the disproportion of population, some eighty-thousand French to a million and a half of its Southern neighbours, was considered as a perpetual menace, social, political and theological, and led the British colonies to adhere to their island rulers for protection. The desire for independence, and the curb of Canada which checked it, was seen by close observers, French, British, American and others, long before the inevitable conflict matured. Montesquieu, Argenson, and Turgot, Vergennes in 1763, Peter Kühne in 1748, and William Burke in 1760, pointed to the strong likelihood of separation. John Adams in 1755 (Works, I., 23, quoted in Social and Economic Forces in American History, Harper, 1913) looks in the same direction. "If," he says, we can remove the turbulent Gallicks, our people, according to the exactest calculation, will in another century become more numerous than England itself. Should this be the case, since we have, I may say, all the naval stores of the nation in our hands, it will be easy to obtain the mastery of the seas." (Here he left out the personal element and the strength of tradition.) "Then the united forces of all Europe will not be able to subdue us."

The Indian tribes still threatened danger in the forest deserts, of the Western borders; West of the Mississippi River and the Alleghany mountains the French and Spaniards threatened and

intrigued; and to the South-east, one of the great factors in the revolution, lay the islands of the West Indian archipelago, British, French, Spanish, Danish, Dutch, mixed in the tropical seas, of which the navigation was controlled by the trade winds, requiring close attention and good seamanship on the part of the British Navy for the safeguarding of their islands and the convoying of their valuable merchandise. Throughout the American contest, and more especially when France, Spain and Holland join the war, these West Indian islands are a perpetual distraction to the British forces, the trade winds regulating in a most inconvenient manner the movements of the Navy.

Surrounded, except on the seas, by the various nationalities, the British colonies, with their backs to the Alleghanies, lay, for a distance from North to South of some seventeen hundred miles or so, along the Atlantic seaboard, a coast pierced with many long rivers, having tortuous channels, fed by a great number of small creeks, the shore fringed with a variety of islands. The settlements clung to the sea, and were filled up from the sea, the isolated settlers passing inland for the most part only to settle on the lands on the banks of the navigable rivers.

A good example of the hardships of emigration and the course of settlement is given in the Journal of Alexander Chesney, edited from a manuscript in the British Museum by E. Alfred Jones (Ohio State University Bulletin, Vol. XXVI., Number 4, 1921), one of many American loyalists in the revolution. Born in Ireland, he went in 1772 with his father, mother, and seven other children from Antrim to South Carolina, where several of his kinsmen were already settled. After a passage of seven weeks and three days they arrived in Charleston Harbour, where they were quarantined on Sullivan's Island for another seven weeks on account of smallpox. Then they went by wagon to a house which is now Winnsborough, on Jackson's Creek, where they had a hundred acres of land surveyed, built a cabin, and cleared some of the land. Being invited to settle on the Pacolet River, some sixty miles up country, Alexander, as there was no road, walked there on foot, enquiring for the house of a blacksmith on Sandy River, "about twenty miles off, which was nearly the first house I called at "; thence to Ned Neils on