DID GREAT BRITAIN OFFER THE AMERICAN COLONIES A REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT?

BY THE LATE PROF. N. CROSS.

Read before the Tennessee Historical Society.

In the Hon. R. B. Rhett's speech, delivered at the Hibernian Hall in the city of Charleston, S. C., June 21, 1850, and contained in the Republican Banner and Nashville Whig for July 27, 1850, the speaker, in commenting on the supposed grievances of South Carolina, finds a parallel to these grievances in the condition of the American Colonies at the commencement of the Revolution, and asserts as an historical fact that "Great Britain offered them (the Colonies) a representation in the British Parliament." The object of this little essay is to inquire whether this assertion is historically true or a historical fiction-an exaggerated accommodation of a little truth to sustain a weak cause.

It is well known that the British Ministry under Rockingham and Lord North, sustained by a large majority in Parliament, maintained the legislative supremacy of the British Parliament over the colonies; while the colonies and a small but very respectable minority in Parliament denied this supremacy and considered the exercise of it as an usurpation, not only justifying but demanding the most determined resistance. As power over the purse has been appropriately termed the instrument of freedom or slavery, the great principle contended for by the colonies, to which all others were subordinate or collateral, was that they could not be taxed without their consent and by their own legislature, which was tersely expressed in the phrase of the day, by "taxation and representation," or "no taxation without representation." The British Ministry, regardless of petitions and remonstrances, passed the stamp act and other acts, imposing duties on articles imported into the colonies, all of which, it is true, were repealed except the duty on tea; but the repeal was accompanied with a declaratory act arrogating the offensive doctrine of legislative supremacy. A haughty ministry

demanded submission; the colonies, an acknowledgment of their inherent and inalienable rights. With a view to extricate the ministry from the embarrassments in which they were placed, Lord North, in 1775. after asserting the principle that every part of the empire is bound to bear its share of the service and burden in the common defense, proposed that if any province would offer any sure means of contributing this share, this offer should be accepted; which of course amounted to nothing more than that Parliament should suspend the right to tax that particular colony. The debates in Parliament on this and other questions relating to America, are contained in the Parliamentary Register, a copy of which in 10 vols. 8vo. extending from November 29, 1774, to June 3, 1778, is in the Library of the Nashville University.* The celebrated Mr. Wilkes, the Lord Mayor of London, stated in Parliament, in justification of the resistance of the Colonies, that when Calais belonged to England it was not taxed till it had two representatives or burgesses in the House of Commons. He had heard of a proposition, but unfortunately not from a minister, which he thought would reconcile all differences, and that was that an American Congress should be convened in the spring, which should appoint deputies to meet with Parliament and determine upon some just principle the quotas that each of the colonies should contribute for the support of the Empire.

Sir Wm. Maque, in the course of a speech which he delivered on the vexed question of the American Colonies, alluded to the fact that it had been suggested somewhere that the colonies should be represented in the British Parliament, and that this would probably give satisfaction and be the means of settling the unhappy differences then existing. This, moreover, Sir William believed the colonies would not accede to, as the Resolution of their Congress (believed to be the first congress held in September, 1774), repudiated the idea, as from local and other considerations it would be inexpedient for the Colonies to be represented in the British Parliament. He thought, therefore, that nothing but a free and unmixed legislature elected by them

*I have examined the debates with some care, and find only the following facts that have any bearing upon the question under consideration.

selves, and that held their meetings amongst them, would meet their approbation.

I have also examined the continuation of Hume's History of England, embracing the period when such a proposition would have been made to the colonies, if made at all, but have found no allusion to any measure of the kind. In the enumeration moreover of the acts of "pretended legislation," in our Declaration of Independence, to which the King of Great Britain had given his assent, one was "for suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases, whatsoever."

It would seem, then, in view of the facts hastily enumerated above, that though the idea of colonial representation in Parliament was spoken of in debate, and opinions uttered in regard to its expediency and inexpediency, nothing was ever done or said that could authorize Mr. Rhett to affirm that Great Britain offered the Colonies a representation in the British Parliament. As the body, when it has for a long time been pampered with highly seasoned food, loses all relish for ordinary condiments, so the mind, under the influence of real or imaginary grievances, may become so distempered as to be incapable of all just discrimination, and prepared to view everything through a magnifying or diminishing medium, as the bias of the moment may require. Thus an incidental suggestion or allusion in debate becomes a formal and solemn enactment of the British Parliament, and the supposed rejection of this 'supposed enactment a Revolutionary precedent to justify a supposed necessity for dissension. Under similar influences, it may be presumed, we have seen that another more distinguished South Carolinian (John C. Calhoun) travestied the history of Tennessee during her transition from the condition of a territory to that of a State, representing her as quietly acquiescing when Congress remanded her back into the territorial condition, though neither Congress remanded nor did she wait for authority to set up for herself—and all to make a precedent for the imitation of our golden and somewhat ambitious young sister, California.

P. S.--I deem it but fair to state that there is a chasm or interval of 33 years between the Parliamentary debates and Parliamentary Register (1741 to 1774), and that some offer of representation in Parliament may have been made to the Colonies.

The stamp act was passed March 22, 1764, and repealed March 18, 1765. In the continuation of Hume it is stated when the colonies in a petition to Parliament claimed exemption from taxation, except by their own legislature, their petition was not even permitted to be read, and not a voice was heard in its behalf. Manchester and other considerable cities in England, it was said, were taxed without being represented. The Charters, moreover, of Pennsylvania, and some of the other colonies, expressly reserved to Parliament the right of taxation. It would seem hardly probable under these circumstances that an offer of representation was ever made by Parliament.

The Resolution of the Congress of 1774, before mentioned, was probably framed because of the debates in Parliament & intended to show that they took higher ground, viz., that they would consent to be taxed only by their own representatives and on their own soil.

ORIGIN OF THE NAME HARPETH.

BY THE LATE EDW. D. HICKS.

Read before the Tennessee Historical Society.

As to the origin of the name "Harpeth," given to several streams which flow through Williamson and Davidson counties, Tennessee, I first call attention to what purports to be an explanation given in a description of Williamson County on page 996 of "Resources of Tennessee," published by the Bureau of Agriculture, 1874, as follows: "The name of Harpeth originated from two celebrated highwaymen, named from their size Big Harp and Little Harp. They had their headquarters on Big Harpeth, and from thence ravaged the settlements far and near; and the name was synonymous for all that was terrible and murderous. They defied all forces sent against them for many years, but at last were caught, and, as is done even now on the frontiers, had justice summarily dealt them by having their heads cut off." I find the name spelled Harpath in a "Topographical Description of the Western Territory of North America, by Capt. Gilbert Imlay," the first edition of which, in octavo, appeared in London, 1792; the second in 1795, and the third with considerable additions, in 1797. This last edition I have before me, and is the earliest book on Tennessee which I have seen. On page 73, and also on a map facing 512, dated London, 1795, from surveys of Genl. Danl. Smith and others, the spelling is Harpath.

In the journal of Francis Bailey, subsequently President of the Royal Astronomical Society, England, who came to Nashville from Natchez by land, I find on page 407 "Sunday July 30, 1797, about an hour after sunset came to Harpath river." Imlay, Genl. Smith and Baily were all accomplished, educated gentlemen and scholars.

The river had been named certainly as early as 1784, as shown by the manuscript diary of Liscomb, in possession of the Tennessee Historical Society, and probably several years earlier. I