USA > Pennsylvania > Luzerne County > Wilkes-Barre > A history of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania : from its first beginnings to the present time, including chapters of newly-discovered early Wyoming Valley history, together with many biographical sketches and much genealogical material. Volume I > Part 98
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103
For a portrait of Lord Shelburne see page 609, post.
581
December 5, 1761, till 1774, and for Calne from 1774 till 1790, when, in consequence of a disagreement with his patron, he no longer sought re- election.
When Barré took his seat in the House of Commons on the 5th of December, 1761, Pitt had resigned from the Cabinet and Lord Bute (see note, page 530) had become the most influential of the Ministers. Bute quickly and unhesitatingly usurped the chief management of public affairs in the Cabinet, and the sole direction of the House of Lords- thereby provoking the jealousy and resentment of the King's veteran Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, who theretofore had distributed the patronage of the Crown. Bute carefully cultivated the friendship of George Grenville (mentioned on page 532), who was a malcontent, hated the war and was unfriendly to Pitt, who, he said, had brought division and unhappiness into his (Grenville's) family. He seemed even to look upon Pitt's marriage to his sister as an injury to himself.
About a month before the meeting of Parliament in the Autumn of 1761 it was found that the Government had not a single speaker in the House of Commons upon whom it could rely. There was literally no- body who would venture to withstand the eloquence and invective of Pitt, who, driven out of the Cabinet, was now in the ranks of the Opposition. The recollection of Pitt as an adversary-his scorn, his satire and his vehemence-still rankled in the breast of many a victim. Bute expected much of George Grenville. A message was sent to hurry him from Wotton. Every flattery was blandished upon him. He was far too valu- able a servant to the King to be allowed to retire from active politics. He was offered the leadership of the House of Commons and the office of Secretary of State for the Northern Department. The leadership he accepted forthwith, but the Secretaryship he declined at that time- consenting, however, some seven months later, to take it. Before the meeting of Parliament the adhesion of another powerful supporter was secured in the person of Charles James Fox, whose services were pur- chased by the promise that, at an early date, his wife should be made a · peeress. The negotiations with Fox were conducted by Lord Shelburne, who was then perhaps the most sincere friend possessed by Bute. He was seriously convinced of the necessity of peace among the warring factions, and was much more consistent than Bute in its pursuit.
Such was the condition of affairs when Barré entered upon his career in the House of Commons. Much was expected during that session. Scarcely ever had matters of greater importance been placed before Parliament. In the Commons the Government was supported by a large majority, but it was for the most part "a timid and dull herd." Pitt's eloquence awed them. His sarcasm scared them. None dared to enter the lists against him.
Barré, however, within five days after he had taken his seat and only a few days before the Christmas recess, broke the spell. He attacked Pitt with great fierceness of language. He overwhelmed him with abuse and his measures with reproaches. Pitt was a profligate Minister, the execration of the people of England, asserted Barré. "There he would stand, turning up his eyes to Heaven, that witnessed his perjuries, and laying his hand in a solemn manner on the table-that sacrilegious hand, that had been employed in tearing out the bowels of his mother country." Pitt maintained a haughty but discreet silence. Fox and a
582
few others applauded the speech, but the Members of the House, gener- ally, were disgusted. It was too savage, even for bitter partizans. Horace Walpole was a witness of the incident. As he approached the House the tones of a new voice struck upon his ear, and as he passed the door the figure of a new speaker stood before his eyes. The House -which for the previous few years had scarcely ventured on a great debate, and which Pitt had tamed into such absolute submission that, as Walpole himself had once remarked, a "No !" was as likely to be heard from the House of Commons as from an old woman-presented a scene of the most violent confusion. Walpole describes Barré as being, at that time, a swarthy, massive, middle-aged man, of a military figure ; a bullet, lodged loosely in his cheek, distorted his face and imparted a savage glare to his right eye. But, unprepossessing as was his appearance, Walpole admits that his diction was both classic and eloquent. "The harsh chord which Barré first struck, however, never ceased to vibrate. Through his Parliamentary career his speeches were marked by re- morseless severity."
For some time after his first display in the House Barré does not seem to have been a frequent speaker. A second attack on Pitt in 1762 received the most marked disapproval, and Barre's voice was almost drowned by the shuffling, talking and coughing of his audience. In all probability this was the last act of hostility which he displayed towards Pitt, as a rapid change in the relation of parties was soon to effect a union that remained unaltered till death. In March, 1763, by appoint- ment of Prime Minister Bute, Barré became Adjutant General of the British forces, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and a month or so later he was appointed Governor of Stirling Castle-the two posts being worth £4,000 a year. At nearly the same time Lord Shelburne became President of the Board of Trade. About this period the posi- tion of Bute had become most embarrassing. Fox, his ablest supporter -hated in the House of Commons, and in wretched health-was grad- ually withdrawing to his old friends. Bute had ventured to impose an unpopular tax. The city of London remonstrated, mobs were appre- hended, and, as Bute had already suffered too much violence at the hands of the people not to dread a personal encounter, he resigned his office and was succeeded by George Grenville, previously mentioned.
One of the first acts of the Grenville Administration was the arrest under a "General Warrant" of John Wilkes, and his prosecution (fully described on page 532, et seq.). There was just then, as previously in- timated, considerable popular dissatisfaction with the Government, but prior to the Wilkes episode there had been no tangible question upon which public opposition could, with any plausibility, unite. The pros- ecution of Wilkes and the legality of General Warrants supplied the want. During the Summer of 1763 Lord Shelburne resigned his office and joined the Opposition, and when Parliament met in November (see page 538) Shelburne, carrying Barré with him, had entered into a close and, as it proved, a lasting alliance with Pitt. Wilkes' privilege as a Member of Parliament almost at once occupied the attention of both Houses, and although neither Shelburne nor Barré took any part in the debates on the various questions which arose in their respective Houses in connection with this mixed subject, they voted against the Govern- ment. To the King, who considered that officers of the army were also
583
politically servants of the Crown, this was an unpardonable offense, and he immediately determined on making an example. Barré was relieved of his office as Governor of Stirling Castle, and both he and Shelburne were dismissed from the army. (See page 611.)
Elliot, in his article, "Colonel Barré and his Times," previously referred to, says :
"There is no act in the reign of George III which is so difficult to excuse as the dis- missal of officers for their votes in Parliament. It clearly shows either that the King completely misunderstood the English Constitution, or that he deliberately intended to destroy it. Even in those days, when political purity was at its lowest ebb, when boroughs were put up for sale, and when the votes of Members were bought by scores, there was yet a certain veil drawn over the infamy of the corruption. The old theory of the Constitution was maintained. The constituencies were supposed to represent the people, the Members were supposed to represent the constituencies, and the House of Commons was supposed to be a disinterested body of gentlemen deliberating for the good of the nation. This was a fiction, no doubt, but it was a very useful one, and went far to attach the people to the forms of a Constitution in itself excellent. If a Frenchman had told an Englishman in 1763 that he was governed by a dozen great Lords and a few Court favorites, he would have considered his nation insulted and the Frenchman a fool. But in fact, though this was not generally admitted, it was very nearly the case. It was left for George III to say boldly what most Englishmen had shrunk from saying. He avowedly considered every Member of the House of Commons who drew a public salary his own particular representative. In his own words, those who voted against the Court had deserted him, and must be punished."
During the session of Parliament which followed the dismissal of Barré from the army his reputation as a speaker rose rapidly higher and higher. The times were such as to afford great opportunites for a bold and clever man to earn distinction. The question of the legality of General Warrants redivided parties, and offered opportunities for new alliances. Barré seized the occasion to evince his new attachment to Pitt and to excuse his past conduct, and a reconciliation having been effected between the two men in February, 1764, their political attach- ment only ceased with Pitt's death some fourteen years later. As Pitt gradually withdrew from public life his place, to a certain extent, was filled by Barré. The latter had all the bitterness of invective and a great deal of the fire and declamation of the older statesman. He pos- sessed the power of making himself feared, and he was feared.
The treaty of peace between France and England, executed at Versailles in February, 1763, made a great change in the condition of England in America. The connection of the English Colonies in America with the mother country was very peculiar, and embraced many of those inconsistencies between law and practise which are the result of great individual independence and a general disposition to decentraliza- tion. The doctrine that Colonies, in matters of commerce, should be completely subordinate to the mother country, was in 1764 as generally accepted in England as in France. The Colonies of England were not to compete with English home industries. They were to buy nothing except in the English markets. They were to sell nothing except in the English markets. This was the theory of the commercial system which bound together England and its American Colonies at the begin- ning of the year 1764 ; and the law was in accordance with the theory. Customs were imposed at the American ports, Vice Admiralty Courts sat to try offenses against the custom-laws, and there was a nominal revenue collected as the fruits of the system. While high duties were imposed in the continental ports of America, a large part of them were never paid. By law no tea might be sold in America except what had been imported from England. In fact, however, the importation of English
584
. tea into America declined, while the consumption of tea by the Colonists rapidly increased. As previously mentioned, officers of customs were appointed ; "but," says an English writer, "everybody knew that what made the place of an officer of customs so lucrative to him was his con- nivance at its breach." Smuggling was openly maintained along the Atlantic coast by the Colonies, and it is stated that, to collect a revenue of £2,000 in America in 1764, it cost England the sum of £8,000.
The time had clearly come-in the judgment of the British Govern- ment-for some change in the laws of trade; but, unfortunately for those in authority, the change decided upon was connected with another and a fatal circumstance. It was determined to tax America for the purpose of raising funds to help pay the debt of the late war and to meet the expense of the military defense of the Colonies. In March, 1764, upon the introduction of his annual budget, Prime Minister Grenville brought forward certain "Declaratory Resolves" with reference to the more effective enforcement of the old laws governing the importation of sugar and molasses into the Colonies, and to the tightening and extending of the old "Navigation Acts." At the same time he announced that he would, the next year, propose a direct tax upon the Colonies in the form of an Act requiring revenue stamps to be used on the principal sorts of documents employed in America in legal and mercantile business. "Loud and fierce was the indignation of New England over this revival of the 'Molasses Act.' Even without the 'Stamp Act' it might very likely have led that part of the country to make armed resistance."
In the beginning of February, 1765, the "Stamp Bill for the Ameri- can Colonies" was introduced in the House of Commons. It met with very little opposition. Shelburne was absent from the House of Lords, and Pitt from the House of Commons. Barré was the single champion of any considerable mark who did battle for the Colonies; and he was very active in his opposition to the Bill. In a speech, perhaps the best of his many fine speeches on America, he commenced a course of oppo- sition to the Administration which he consistently pursued to the term- ination of the Revolutionary War. Early in the debate on the Stamp Bill Charles Townshend,* after discussing the advantages which the American Colonies had derived from the late war, asked the question : "And now will these American children, planted by our care, nourished up to strength and opulence by our indulgence, and protected by our arms, grudge to contribute their inite to relieve us from the heavy weight of that burden under which we lie?" This called to his feet Isaac Barré, who said }:
"They planted by your care! No, your oppressions planted them in America ! They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated, unhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable ; and, among others, to the cruelties of a savage foe the most subtle and, I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any people on the face of God's earth ! And yet, actuated by principles of true Englsh liberty, they met all hardships with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own country from the hands of those who should have been their friends. They nourished up by your indulgence ! They grew by your neglect of them. As soon as you began to care about them, that care was exercised in sending per- sons to rule them in one department and another, who were, perhaps, the deputies of deputies to some Members of this House, sent to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions and to prey upon them-men whose behavior, on many occasions, has caused the blood of those Sons of Liberty to recoil within them-men promoted to the highest
* Younger brother of George Townshend (mentioned on page 578), and at this time Paymaster General of the British forces. From his political instability he was called "The Weathercock."
t See Gordon's "History of the United States."
585
seats of justice, sonie who, to my knowledge, were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own.
"They protected by your arms ! They have nobly taken up arms in your defense ; have exerted a valor-amidst their constant and laborious industry-for the defense of a country whose frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your emolument. And believe me-remember I this day told you so-the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany them still. But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I do not at this time speak from motives of party heat. What I deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However superior to me in general knowledge and experience the respectable body of this House may be, yet I claim to know more of America than most of you, having seen, and been conversant in, that country. The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the King has ; but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated. But the subject is too delicate ; I will say no more."
These sentiments were thrown out so entirely without premedita- tion-so forcibly and so firmly-that the whole House sat awhile amazed, intently looking without answering a word. The Stamp Bill was pend- ing in the House of Commons between three and four weeks, at the end of which time it was passed-the largest number of votes which had been given against it in any stage of its progress not having amounted to fifty. It was concurred in by the House of Lords, where it appears to have met no resistance, and March 22, 1765, it received the royal assent. Benjamin Franklin-then in London, where he had been for some five months as agent for Pennsylvania-wrote to Charles Thom- son (mentioned on page 354) at Philadelphia : "The sun of Liberty is set ; you must light up the candles of Industry and Economy." Mr. Thomson answered : "I was apprehensive that other lights would be the consequence, and I foresee the opposition that will be made !"
The Stamp Act* was not to go into operation until the first of the following November. Concerning it the editor of "The Public Papers of George Clinton," mentioned on page 30, ante, states in his "Intro- duction":
"It provided that all instruments in writing-including all commercial and legal documents, newspapers, etc .- were to bear stamps, ranging in price from three pence to £10, and were to be purchased from the agents of the British Government. Without these stamps notes of hand were valueless, suits at law out of the question, marriages nullified, transfers of real estate and inheritances invalid. No one in England foresaw the slightest opposition to the Act. Otis in Massachusetts, Franklin of Pennsylvania, Knox from Georgia and Fitch, Governor of Connecticut, were of opinion that the Col- onies would peaceably accept the situation. *
* * The most prominent statesmen in Europe regarded the Americans as the best-natured and easiest-going people of the world. For years and years the Colonists had submitted to aggressions upon their rights and privileges and accepted rigorous taxation as a matter of course, and apparently seemed perfectly willing to receive nothing in return-not even protection."
The expression, "Sons of Liberty," made use of by Barré in his speech, fell flat and unnoticed in England; but three months later it was established as a familiar phrase in every patriot home in America. Notes of Barré's speech were taken by Jared Ingersoll,t of Connecticut, who, during its delivery, sat in the gallery of the House. He immedi- ately sent home a report of the speech which was published in The New London Gazette and then reprinted in other newspapers, and thus the name of the "Sons of Liberty"-which the eloquent defender of the resisting Colonists had given to them-was soon on every lip. Men who had severed old established social relations and connections, abandoned the comfortable luxuries which they had grown to regard as part of their lives, and become settlers in a new country to battle with
* For the full text of the Stamp Act see Larned's "History for Ready Reference," V : 3183.
+ Mentioned on pages 395, 405 and 483. In October, 1764, Jared Ingersoll, Samuel Wyllys (mentioned on page 283) and other Connecticut citizens had sailed for England from New London. Ingersoll re- turned home in July, 1765, with the appointment of Stamp Distributer for Connecticut.
586
internal discord and natural obstacles-which required iron courage, firmness and no little independence-were in no mood for unjust and tyrannical government. And so the alarm was sounded, and the people in various localities began to form secret societies-called the "Sons of Liberty" *- solemnly pledged to resist the obnoxious Stamp Act. Treasonable resolves were handed about with great privacy in the city of New York, but no one had the courage to print them. John McCurdy -a Scots-Irish gentleman of education and wealth, a shipping merchant, resident in Lyme, New London County, Connecticut-being in the city, asked for them, and with much precaution was permitted to take a copy. He carried it home to his intimate friend, the Rev. Stephen Johnson, pastor of the Congregational Church at Lyme. Johnson, indignant at the serene composure of Governor Fitch and his associates, and vexed and grieved with the temper of the people of Connecticut-who seemed quite indifferent and inattentive to the consequences that might arise from an enforcement of the Stamp Act-determined if possible to arouse them to a better way of thinking. He wrote a fiery article, designed to bring the community to a sense of the public danger. It was printed in The New London Gazette, and pointed toward unqualified rebellion in case an attempt should be made to enforce the Stamp Act. Other articles of a similar character soon followed, while pamphlets, no one knew whence, fell, no one knew how, into conspicuous places.
On the 14th of August, 1765, Boston witnessed an outbreak such as she had never experienced before. At daybreak the people saw suspended from the STAMP ACT "Liberty Tree"t an effigy of Andrew Oliver, the Stamp Distributer for Mas- sachusetts, accompanied by emblems of Lord Bute and Prime Minister Gren- ville. That night an "amazing multi- tude," bearing these effigies on a bier, passed down the main street of Boston and tramped through the State House crying "Liberty ! Liberty !" "Prop- erty!" and "No Stamps !" The effigies were then burned ; the house in which it was thought the stamps were to be stored was torn down; the residence of Stamp Distributer Oliver was broken into and many of its furnishings were destroyed, while he was * See page 482. last paragraph, and pages 548 and 549.
+ In many towns and villages at that period all notices, bulletins and other written or printed matter issued by the Sons of Liberty were posted on a particular tree, selected for the purpose and named the "Liberty Tree." Sometimes a tall pole, specially erected, took the place of a tree and was designated as the "Liberty Tree." There the citizens gathered, read the bulletins, discussed the latest public events, listened to political harangues and sang patriotic songs. The following is an authentic account of the dedication of an immense elm as a "Liberty Tree" by the Sons of Liberty in Providence, Rhode Island, July 25, 1768.
"A large concourse of people assembled, and an animated discourse was delivered, from the Summer- house which had been erected in the tree, by Silas Downer, a graduate of Harvard and a rising lawyer, after which the people in the Summer-house laid their hands on the tree, and the orator pronounced aloud these words : 'We do therefore, in the name and behalf of all the true Sons of Liberty in America, Great Britain, Ireland, Corsica, or wheresoever they are dispersed throughout the world, dedicate and solemnly devote this tree to be a Tree of Liberty ! May all our councils and deliberations under its venerable branches be guided by wisdom and directed to the support and maintenance of that liberty which our renowned forefathers sought out and found under trees and in the wilderness. May it long flourish, and may the Sons of Liberty often repair hither to confirm and strengthen each other. When they look to- ward this sacred elm may they be penetrated with a sense of their duty to themselves, their country and their posterity. And may they, like the house of David, grow stronger and stronger, while their enemies, like the house of Saul, grow weaker and weaker. Amen !' "
The following stanzas are from a poem entitled "Liberty Tree," written by the famous Thomas Paine and published in The Pennsylvania Magazine in 1775.
587
forced to resign his office .* Twelve days later a crowd gathered around a bonfire in front of the State House ; the records of the Vice Admiralty Court were collected and tossed into the flames; the house of the Comptroller of Customs at the port of Boston was turned inside out. Thomas Hutchinson, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, found him- self obliged, on the night of August 26th, to flee for his life, and when he returned to the city-after order was restored-found his house had been pillaged of money, plate, valuable manuscripts and books.
In May information came from London to Philadelphia that, at the instance of Benjamin Franklin (still in London), John Hughes,t of Philadelphia, had been appointed Stamp Distributer for Pennsylvania. Early in September Mr. Hughes wrote to Dr. Franklin as followst :
"The flame of rebellion is got to a high pitch among the North Americans, and it seems to me that a sort of frenzy, or madness, has got such hold of the people of all ranks that some lives will be lost before this fire is put out. I am at present much perplexed what course to steer, for, as I have given you reason to expect I would put the [Stamp] Act in execution, I cannot, in point of honor, go back, until something or other is done by the people to render it impossible for me to proceed. * * When it is known I have received my commission I fancy I shall not escape the storm of Presbyterian rage. My doom will soon be known ; but whether I may live to inform you, is yet in the womb of Futurity. By Gov. [William] Franklin's letters, and by my last, you will see that Mr. Cox has resigned the Stamp Office for New Jersey. * * I shall be exceedingly obliged to you, if it is consistent with your judgment, to recommend my son Hugh for Mr. Cox's successor. My son is married and settled in New Jersey, and has a good estate, both real and personal."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.