-

What were the reasons for this astonishing change of front? Whatever they were, they were not such as to command the assent of all the members of the Whig party. For, at this sudden change of front, not a few of the men who had acted with the Whigs refused to follow the party any longer, and themselves became Tories. What, then, did these new Tories say to their old associates, respecting the new direction taken by the Whig party? "It cannot be," said they, "that you have thus entered upon this long repudiated measure for Independence, because you really think that the objects for which we began the agitation and have thus far conducted it, cannot be obtained within the empire. All our demands are on the point of being granted. Our great friends in Parliament-Chatham, Camden, Burke, Conway, Barré, and the rest, continually send us word that complete success is in sight; that if we will but hold on to our plan of agitation for larger rights inside the empire, retaining our allegiance, they can help us; that if we run up the flag of separation, of independence, we shall at once discredit them, and destroy all their power to be . of any further use to us; that these political demands of ours have thus far been made by us after the method of our English ancestors, who, in cases of need, have roughly acquired an increase of political privilege, doing this as loyal subjects with weapons in their hands, and even enrolled as troops, never in the spirit of treason, never for the rejection of allegiance, never for the dissolution of national unity; that, even now, Lord North is quite ready to grant all our terms; that though the king still holds out against any concession, even he will have to yield to the people and to Parliament; that commissioners will soon be on their way hither to negotiate with us, and to concede to us that measure of local self-government which we have hitherto proclaimed as our sole object in the controversy; that by persisting a little longer in the line of action upon which we have hitherto conducted the whole movement, we shall certainly win for ourselves every political advantage we have ever professed to desire, and shall become a group of great, free, self-governing colonies within the British Empire. But as separation from the empire is not called for by any requirement of political safety, so our present resort to it would show either that we are fickle in opinion, or that we are political hypocrites-as our enemies have always charged us with being-and that, under all our disavowals of the purpose or the wish for Independence, we have been treacherously working with that very object all the time in view."

1 For example, Daniel Dulany of Maryland.

VI

The purpose of this paper will perhaps be sufficiently accomplished if, in addition to what has now been brought forward. touching the personal character of the Loyalist party, and the strength of its argumentative position, attention is invited to three errors closely connected with the subject, and still prevalent in popular expositions of it.

First, it is an error to represent the Tories of the American Revolution as a party of mere negation and obstruction. They did deny, they did attempt to obstruct; but they also had positive political ideas, as well as precise measures in creative statesmanship, to offer in the place of those ideas and measures of their fellow-colonists to which they made objection, and which they would have kept from prevailing if they could.

Secondly, it is an error to represent the Tories of the American Revolution as a party opposed either to any reform in the relations of the colonists with the mother-country, or to the extension of human rights and liberties here or elsewhere. From the beginning of the agitation, they clearly saw, they strongly felt, they frankly declared, that the constitutional relations of the colonies with the mother-country were in a crude state, were unsatisfactory, were in need of being carefully revised and reconstructed. This admission of theirs, they never recalled. Quite aside from the question of its legality, they doubted the expediency, under modern conditions, of such an exertion of parliamentary authority as the ministry had forced into life. Upon these points, there was substantial agreement between all Americans; namely, that there was a wrong, that there was a danger, that there should be a reform. It was chiefly as to the method and the process and the scope of this needed reform, that Americans broke asunder into two great opposing parties. The exact line of cleavage between these two parties, together with the tone and the spirit characteristic of each party, may now be traced with precision in the history of the Congress of 1774.

Within that body, the Tory party, both as regards its political ideas and its conscientiousness, was represented by Joseph Galloway, who, indeed, had permitted himself to be made a delegate, in the hope of inducing the Congress to adopt such measures as would commit the American people to reform through reconciliation, rather than to reform through separation. Then it was that he brought forward his celebrated plan for curing the political

evils which all Americans complained of, and for preventing their recurrence. This was simply a scheme for what we should now call home-rule, on a basis of colonial confederation, with an American parliament to be elected every three years by the legislatures of the several colonies, and with a governor-general to be appointed by the crown. The plan came very near to adoption. The member who introduced it was himself a man of great ability and great influence; it was supported in debate by James Duane, by John Jay, and by Edward Rutledge; it was pronounced by the latter to be "almost a perfect plan"; and in the final trial it was lost only by a vote of six colonies to five. Could it have been adopted in Congress and outside, the disruption of the British Empire would certainly have been averted for that epoch, and, as an act of violence and of unkindness, would, perhaps, have been averted forever; while the thirteen English colonies would have remained English colonies, without ceasing to be free.1

Thirdly, it is an error to represent the Tories of our Revolution as composed of Americans lacking in love for their native. country, or in zeal for its liberty, or in willingness to labor, or fight, or even to die, for what they conceived to be its interests. As was most natural, the party which succeeded in carrying through the Congress of 1774 such measures and methods of political reform as, in fact, led to civil war, and, finally, to American Independence, took for itself the name of the patriotic party, its members being commonly called "patriots." Beyond question, the Whig party was a patriotic party; but it is not now apparent that those Americans who failed in their honest and sacrificial championship of measures which would have given us political reform and political safety, but without civil war and without an angry disruption of the English-speaking race, can justly be regarded as having been, either in doctrine, or in purpose, or in act, an unpatriotic party.

1

MOSES COIT TYLER.

Although Galloway's plan was regularly introduced into the Congress, and regularly debated there, and regularly voted on, yet, after it was rejected, all reference to it was swept from the records. It is not mentioned in the Journals of that Congress. The last few sentences in the above paragraph have been transferred by me from a book of mine on Patrick Henry, 102.

THE FIRST CASTILIAN INQUISITOR

IT is perhaps natural that a certain school of modern writers should seek to exonerate the Holy See from responsibility for the Spanish Inquisition, grounding its arguments on the efforts. of successive popes to assert the right to hear appeals from the sentences of the Holy Office and on the hesitancy of Sixtus IV. to grant to Ferdinand and Isabella the decree for which they asked for the foundation of the institution. The former point I expect to discuss in some detail hereafter, as its history is curious and somewhat complicated. The latter is simple and easily disposed of, especially with the aid of a hitherto unedited bull of Sixtus IV. from the Vatican archives, appended hereto.

What Ferdinand and Isabella wanted was not simply the Inquisition, which they could have had for the asking; they insisted on an inquisition in which the officials should not be, as elsewhere, nominated by the Dominican or Franciscan Provincial, but should be selected by the crown and hold their positions at its pleasure. The Castilian monarchs had always manifested extreme jealousy of the encroachments of the Church and had succeeded better than most other mediaval sovereigns in maintaining their independence. Especially was this the case with Ferdinand and Isabella, who more than once vindicated their supreme authority within their dominions with a vivacity savoring of little respect for the traditional claims of the Vicar of Christ. Nothing could have been further from their policy than to admit, within the lately pacified kingdoms of Castile and Leon, officials clothed with the tremendous powers of the Inquisition and at the same time wholly independent of the royal authority. Ferdinand, in fact, had already had an experience of the kind in his ancestral dominions of Aragon which he was not likely to forget or to wish to see repeated in Castile. In Aragon the papal Inquisition had existed since the thirteenth century, and one of the inquisitors was the Dominican Fray Juan Cristóbal de Gualbes, noted for his fervid eloquence both as a preacher and a popular orator. When, in September, 1461, the heir-apparent, Carlos Prince of Viana, whom the affectionate Catalans reverenced as Santo Carlos,

In

perished, as was believed, of poison administered at the instigation of his step-mother, Queen Juana Henriquez, to obtain the succession of the crown for her darling son Ferdinand, and she came with indecent haste to rule Catalonia as regent, Fray Gualbes was one of those who stood forward to defend the popular rights. the troubles which speedily followed Queen Juana's tyrannical acts, Gualbes made himself conspicuous by writing and preaching that King Juan II., her husband, had forfeited the throne by disregarding his coronation-oath given to a free people and especially by his cruel persecution of his son Carlos. The Catalans were wrought to such a fervor of resistance that they successively bestowed the crown on Pedro of Portugal and René of Anjou, and only the opportune deaths, first of Pedro and then of René's son Jean de Lorraine, enabled Ferdinand to succeed his father.1 Gualbes' office shielded him from Ferdinand's wrath, but the latter never forgot the lesson. When the Inquisition of Castile was founded by the appointment, September 27, 1480, of the Dominicans Fray Juan de San Martín and Miguel de Morillo as inquisitors, he took care to tell them in their commission that if they misbehaved they would forfeit not only their position but all their temporalities and their personal rights as Spanish subjects. Moreover, when, in 1483, he obtained from Sixtus IV. the remodelling of the Aragonese Inquisition on the Castilian pattern, he gratified his ancient grudge by procuring from the pope the dismissal of Gualbes, who was denounced in the papal brief as a son of iniquity, incapable, in consequence of his demerits, of holding the office of inquisitor and even of preaching.2 It is easy to understand Ferdinand's insistence on having the officials of the new Inquisition dependent on the crown, and the papal yielding to so serious an innovation can only be explained by the desire of the Holy See to effect at last what had repeatedly been previously attempted in vain.

Many efforts had in fact been made since the thirteenth century to introduce the Inquisition in Castile, but they had all failed. Up to the fifteenth century this may probably be attributed to the tolerant temper of the people, their lack of interest in spiritual matters, and their jealousy of foreign interference. After the massacre of the Jews, however, in 1391 and the forced conversion of the survivors by wholesale, there was a marked increase of the persecuting spirit, directed first against the remnants of the Aljamas, or Jewish communities, and then against the conversos,

1 Zurita, Añales de Aragon, Lib. XVII., cap. xxvi., xlii.; Lib. XVIII., cap. xxxii. 2 Ripoll, Bullar. Ord. FF. Prædicat., III. 622.