The sun., 1903-12-06

Great Britain. 1t Ia manifest that most o
our school histories OF the United States
| will have to be rewritten, for the majo
part of them fail to recognize the momentoui
truth which the work before us must bt
held to have established. Tie fact Ia that
the adopters OF the Declaration OF indie.
pendenoe were nearer to right conception
OF the situation than have been their do.
scendants for several generations. They
were justified in placing on George III
almost the sole responsibility for the war
The members Of the Continental Congress
did we'll to change materially Jehfersona
original draft Of the Declaration. We
refer to their conversion Of the paragraph
addressed to the people OF Great Britain from
a bitter impeachment to friendly and
pathetic remembrance. jefferson had en-
larged upon what he pronounced the duty
of forgetting the love which the colonists
formerly entertained for their unfeelins
brethren in England His fellow delegates
were better informed and more sagacious
than he. They absolved their fellow sub
jects In Great Britain Of completely in the
hostile proceedings Of Parliament that
could not even pretend to represent them
and that notoriously was a mere tool Of
George III. The change was highly polite
in view Of passing events, and 1t ought to
have saved future generations from an at
titude toward the British people that in
the light of present knowledge is seen to
have been unreasonable. Touching this
point, our author says:
Under the amending touch OF Con-
gress, the Declaration Of Independence
assumed and kept the shape Of an in
dictment against the King The trainers
Of that indictment did not act in ignorance.
Eager readers Of history, with an especial
fondness for its dry and legal aspects.
they had all been nurtured on the doctrine
that the King could do no wrong, and that,
when an account had to be exacted. his
Ministers were answerable, But they we're
not nditing treatise on the theory OF the
British Constitution. They we're contend
ing for their lives and fortunes against a
practical abuse Of that Constitution which
those English writer's who, more than
others. are careful to weigh their words.
have denounced with the most telling
vehemence. Mr.. Lecky, stating the case
shortly but comprehensively, relates how
George III. habitually declined to call into
his counsels any statesman resolute and
conscientious enough to insist that the
policy of the country should be directed
by its responsible Minister'S instead Of
being dictated by an irresponsible sovereign.
At a notable crisis which occurred later
on in this very war the King refused to
dismiss North, Wedderburn and Sand
wich and to place the administration in
the hands of Chatham and Rockingham.
That refusal is declared by Mr.. Lecky--a
Judge who charges with rare impartiality
and as rule gives light sentences-to
be as criminal as any of the acts which
brought Charles I. to the soanrold. The
author also of that Short History Of the
English People which, to their advantage,
the English people have found time to
read. devotes an uncomplimentary page
to the Government that held Office con-
tinuouely for fourteen years after the re-
tiremeut OF Chatham in i7eS. Mr.. Green
there says that the influence Of the King
WAS predominant in the Cabinet from the
first and was supreme in the later and more
disastrous days, when North had gone
to the Treasury. George was. in fact,
sole Minister during the eight years that
followed. and the shame OF the darkest
hour Of English history lies wholly at his
door,
1t is indeed, pronounced at this day an
act Of superfluity to adduce any further
proof Of the assertion that, during our
Revolutionary War. the King was his own
Prime Minister, and as autocratic Prime
Minister as Whitehall had ever seen.
1T would be- says our author. @pedantry
to multiply authorities. There are none
on the other side. II learned men. writing
securely in their libraries o century after
date, cannot rest rain the expression Of their
righteous Indignation, is it a matter for
wonder that the American colonists, be-
tween two great campaigns, with the Kings
sword al their throats, and his German
mercenaries and Indian allies almost at
the threshold Of their homes. should have
spurnet the conventionalities of the law
books and arraigned the monarch, instead
of casting blame upon the nation? Save
and except for the system of personal
government, which George III. had labori-
ously built up ever since 1900, Americans
and Englishmen would not have been
slaughtering each other in 1915. The Kings
policy caused the war; the King kept 1t
going long after everybody except himself
WAS weary of it: and in 1882 that war was
terminated. against his will, by nothing
except peremptory injunction from the
English people, who, il they had been
properly represented in Parliament, would
have brought 1t to an end long before" :"
VI.
1t is doubtless true that, as the Revolu-
tionary War went forward, aud, as their
sacrifices and suferings increased, the
Colopists took less and less count Of the
distinction between the two political parties
at Westminster and also of the distinction
between the King on the one hand
and the British nation on the other.
They gradually came 10 regard Britain
az one integral and formidable foe; and
the character in which she presented her
self at their doors was not such as to COM
mnnd their sympathiee. Charles Fox,
Burke. Conway. Barre, the Duke Of Rich
mond and their eloquent and statesman
like speeches were a long way of; while
Gen. Burgoyne with his Brunswickers
and his red Indians, was very near al hand.
People who we're occupied in striving to
repel British armies and in rebuilding
towns which British fleets had burned,
were left with very little leisure to interest
themselves about party distinctions in