These preliminary remarks are elicited from a review of the life of the subject of this biographette, whose father was among the persecuted Quakers of New England, and was compelled to fly from Connecticut to New Jersey in consequence of his religious tenets. It is an inconsistency of human nature that when those who have suffered by religious persecution from superior force obtain the reigns of power, they often become the persecutors of all who will not succumb to their authority and dogmatical notions. In the biography of Charles Carroll the reader has recognised one example. Under the administration of the “Cambridge Platform,” commenced by the ecclesiastical convention of New England in 1646, and completed in 1648, a sterner policy was pursued towards the Quakers than against the Roman Catholics. On this “Platform” the municipal and legislative regulations were based for about sixty years. In 1656, the legislature of Massachusetts passed a law prohibiting every master of a vessel from bringing a Quaker into the colony under a penalty of one hundred pounds. The next year a law was passed by the same body, inflicting the most barbarous cruelties upon the members of this sect, such as cutting off their ears, boring their tongues with a hot iron, &c., unless they would desist from their mode of worship and doff their straight coats and ugly bonnets. In 1669, a law was passed banishing them on pain of death, and four of them who refused to go were executed. Some historians have endeavoured to excuse this cruelty on the ground that the Quakers provoked their persecutors by promulgating their doctrines too boldly. This reason is too far-fetched, and shrinks at once from the scrutiny of charity and justice. No apology can be found until we can convert the baser passions of human nature into virtues. By recurring to the ignorance, bigotry and fanaticism of that period, we can readily discover why such a course was pursued, but this affords no healing balm for the mind of a true philanthropist. We can only regret the past and rejoice that charity has so far triumphed as to restore men to a degree of reason that has paralyzed persecution unto blood for opinion’s sake—one of the happy traits of a free and liberal government.
To avoid the penalties of the “Platform” and the dangers of Indian incursions, Aaron Hewes and Providence his wife, the parents of the subject of this narrative, took up their residence near Kingston, New Jersey, where they lived peacefully and died happily. When they crossed the Housatonic river in their flight, they were so closely pursued by the savages that Providence was severely wounded in the neck by a bullet from one of their guns.
Joseph Hewes, their son, was born at the residence of his parents near Kingston, in 1730. After receiving a good education in the Princeton school, he commenced his commercial apprenticeship in the city of Philadelphia. After completing this he entered into the mercantile business and soon became an enterprising and successful merchant. For several years he spent his time alternately at Philadelphia and New York, and during that period was extensively engaged in the shipping business.
He was a man of a lively disposition, penetrating mind and industrious in all his undertakings. He was fond of social intercourse, convivial parties, and sometimes joined in the dance. His figure was elegant, his manners polished, his countenance intelligent and attractive, and his whole course highly honourable and just.
At the age of thirty he located at Edenton, North Carolina, and was soon after called to a seat in the assembly of that province. He became a substantial and useful member, but made no pretensions to oratory. He was a faithful working man, a correct voter, and was uniformly in the assembly until elected to Congress.
When the revolutionary storm commenced, Mr. Hewes was among those who pledged their lives, fortunes and honours to support the cause of equal rights. He was a member of the Congress of 1774, and was placed upon the important committee appointed to report the rights of the American colonies, the manner they had been infringed and the best means of obtaining their restoration. From this fact, and from the report of the committee, we may infer that Mr. Hewes was possessed of a clear head, a sound and deliberate judgment, and understood well the principles of constitutional law and chartered privileges.
The report of this committee is a lucid and elaborate document. By referring to the declaration of independence the reader will learn the features of its first part—by referring to the instructions from the primary convention of the delegates of Pennsylvania, in the biography of James Smith, the nature of the second part will be seen. The preliminary means of obtaining redress are fully set forth in the following extract. After reciting the injuries of the mother country, the report proceeds,
“Therefore we do, for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we represent, firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue, honour and love of our country, as follows:
First. That from and after the first day of December next, we will not import into British America, from Great Britain or Ireland, any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever, or from any other place any such goods, wares or merchandise as shall have been exported from Great Britain or Ireland; nor will we, after that day, import any East India tea from any part of the world, nor any molasses, sirups, coffee, or pimento from the British plantations or from Dominico, nor wine from Madeira or the West Indies, nor foreign indigo.
Second. We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.