Opinions on the supremacy of parliament, and its right to
tax the colonies.... The stamp act.... Congress at New
York.... Violence in the towns.... Change of
administration.... Stamp act repealed.... Opposition to the
mutiny act.... Act imposing duties on tea, &c. resisted in
America.... Letters from the assembly of Massachusetts to
members of the administration.... Petition to the King....
Circular letter to the colonial assemblies.... Letter from
the earl of Hillsborough.... Assembly of Massachusetts
dissolved.... Seizure of the Sloop Liberty.... Convention at
Fanueil Hall.... Moderation of its proceedings.... Two
British regiments arrive at Boston.... Resolutions of the
house of Burgesses of Virginia.... Assembly dissolved....
The members form an association.... General measures against
importation.... General court convened in Massachusetts....
Its proceedings.... Is prorogued.... Duties, except that on
tea, repealed.... Circular letter of the earl of
Hillsborough.... New York recedes from the non-importation
agreement in part.... Her example followed.... Riot in
Boston.... Trial and acquittal of Captain Preston.
{1763}
The attachment of the colonies to the mother country was never
stronger than at the signature of the treaty of Paris.[178] The union
of that tract of country which extends from the Atlantic to the
Mississippi, and from the gulf of Mexico to the north pole, was deemed
a certain guarantee of future peace, and an effectual security against
the return of those bloody scenes from which no condition in life
could afford an exemption.
[Footnote 178: After the expulsion of the French from
Canada, a considerable degree of ill humour was manifested
in Massachusetts with respect to the manner in which the
laws of trade were executed. A question was agitated in
court, in which the colony took a very deep interest. A
custom house officer applied for what was termed "a writ of
assistance," which was an authority to search any house for
dutiable articles suspected to be concealed in it. The right
to grant special warrants was not contested; but this grant
of a general warrant was deemed contrary to the principles
of liberty, and an engine of oppression equally useless and
vexatious, which would enable every petty officer of the
customs to gratify his resentments by harassing the most
respectable men in the province. The ill temper excited on
this occasion was shown by a reduction of the salaries of
the judges; but no diminution of attachment to the mother
country appears to have been produced by it.]
This state of things, long and anxiously wished for by British
America, had, at length, been effected by the union of British and
American arms. The soldiers of the parent state and her colonies had
co-operated in the same service, their blood had mingled in the same
plains, and the object pursued was common to both people.
While the British nation was endeared to the Americans by this
community of danger, and identity of interest, the brilliant
achievements of the war had exalted to enthusiasm their admiration of
British valour. They were proud of the land of their ancestors, and
gloried in their descent from Englishmen. But this sentiment was not
confined to the military character of the nation. While the excellence
of the English constitution was a rich theme of declamation, every
colonist believed himself entitled to its advantages; nor could he
admit that, by crossing the Atlantic, his ancestors had relinquished
the essential rights of British subjects.
The degree of authority which might rightfully be exercised by the
mother country over her colonies, had never been accurately defined.
In Britain, it had always been asserted that Parliament possessed the
power of binding them in all cases whatever. In America, at different
times, and in different provinces, different opinions had been
entertained on this subject.
In New England, originally settled by republicans, habits of
independence had nourished the theory that the colonial assemblies
possessed every legislative power not surrendered by compact; that the
Americans were subjects of the British crown, but not of the nation;
and were bound by no laws to which their representatives had not
assented. From this high ground they had been compelled reluctantly to
recede. The Judges, being generally appointed by the governors with
the advice of council, had determined that the colonies were bound by
acts of parliament which concerned them, and which were expressly
extended to them; and the general court of Massachusetts had, on a
late occasion, explicitly recognised the same principle. This had
probably become the opinion of many of the best informed men of the
province; but the doctrine seems still to have been extensively
maintained, that acts of parliament possessed only an external
obligation; that they might regulate commerce, but not the internal
affairs of the colonies.
In the year 1692, the general court of Massachusetts passed an act,
denying the right of any other legislature to impose any tax whatever
on the colony; and also asserting those principles of national
liberty, which are found in Magna Charta. Not long afterwards, the
legislature of New York, probably with a view only to the authority
claimed by the governor, passed an act in which its own supremacy, not
only in matters of taxation, but of general legislation, is expressly
affirmed. Both these acts however were disapproved in England; and the
parliament asserted its authority, in 1696, by declaring "that all
laws, bye laws, usages, and customs, which shall be in practice in any
of the plantations, repugnant to any law made or to be made in this
kingdom relative to the said plantations, shall be void and of none
effect." And three years afterwards, an act was passed for the trial
of pirates in America, in which is to be found the following
extraordinary clause: "Be it farther declared that, if any of the
governors, or any person or persons in authority there, shall refuse
to yield obedience to this act, such refusal is hereby declared to be
a forfeiture of all and every [_sic_] the charters granted for the
government and propriety of such plantations."
The English statute book furnishes many instances in which the
legislative power of parliament over the colonies was extended to
regulations completely internal; and it is not recollected that their
authority was in any case openly controverted.
In the middle and southern provinces, no question respecting the
supremacy of parliament, in matters of general legislation, ever
existed. The authority of such acts of internal regulation as were
made for America, as well as of those for the regulation of commerce,
even by the imposition of duties, provided those duties were imposed
for the purpose of regulation, had been at all times admitted. But
these colonies, however they might acknowledge the supremacy of
parliament in other respects, denied the right of that body to tax
them internally.
Their submission to the act for establishing a general post office,
which raised a revenue on the carriage of letters, was not thought a
dereliction of this principle; because that regulation was not
considered as a tax, but as a compensation for a service rendered,
which every person might accept or decline. And all the duties on
trade were understood to be imposed, rather with a view to prevent
foreign commerce, than to raise a revenue. Perhaps the legality of
such acts was the less questioned, because they were not rigorously
executed, and their violation was sometimes designedly overlooked. A
scheme for taxing the colonies by authority of parliament had been
formed so early as the year 1739, and recommended to government by a
club of American merchants, at whose head was sir William Keith,
governor of Pennsylvania. In this scheme, it was proposed to raise a
body of regulars, to be stationed along the western frontier of the
British settlements, for the protection of the Indian traders; the
expense of which establishment was to be paid with monies arising from
a duty on stamped paper and parchment in all the colonies. This plan,
however, was not countenanced by those in power; and seems never to
have been seriously taken up by the government until the year 1754.
The attention of the minister was then turned to a plan of taxation by
authority of parliament; and it will be recollected that a system was
devised and recommended by him, as a substitute for the articles of
union proposed by the convention at Albany. The temper and opinion of
the colonists, and the impolicy of irritating them at a crisis which
required all the exertions they were capable of making, suspended this
delicate and dangerous measure; but it seems not to have been totally
abandoned. Of the right of parliament, as the supreme legislature, of
the nation, to tax as well as govern the colonies, those who guided
the councils of Britain seem not to have entertained a doubt; and the
language of men in power, on more than one occasion through the war,
indicated a disposition to put this right in practice when the
termination of hostilities should render the experiment less
dangerous. The failure of some of the colonies, especially those in
which a proprietary government was established, to furnish, in time,
the aids required of them, contributed to foster this disposition.
This opposition of opinion on a subject the most interesting to the
human heart, was about to produce a system of measures which tore
asunder all the bonds of relationship and affection that had subsisted
for ages, and planted almost inextinguishable hatred in bosoms where
the warmest friendship had long been cultivated.
{1764}
The unexampled expenses of the war required a great addition to the
regular taxes of the nation. Considerable difficulty was found in
searching out new sources of revenue, and great opposition was made to
every tax proposed. Thus embarrassed, administration directed its
attention to the continent of North America. The system which had been
laid aside was renewed; and, on the motion of Mr. Grenville, first
commissioner of the treasury, a resolution passed without much debate,
declaring that it would be proper to impose certain stamp duties in
the colonies and plantations, for the purpose of raising a revenue in
America, payable into the British exchequer. This resolution was not
carried into immediate effect, and was only declaratory of an
intention to be executed the ensuing year.[179]
[Footnote 179: Belsham.]
Other resolutions were passed at the same time, laying new duties on
the trade of the colonies, which being in the form of commercial
regulations, were not generally contested on the ground of right,
though imposed expressly for the purpose of raising revenue. Great
disgust, however, was produced by the increase of the duties, by the
new regulations which were made, and by the manner in which those
regulations were to be executed. The gainful commerce long carried on
clandestinely with the French and Spanish colonies, in the progress of
which an evasion of the duties imposed by law had been overlooked by
the government, was to be rigorously suppressed by taxes amounting to
a prohibition of fair trade; and their exact collection was to be
enforced by measures not much less offensive in themselves, than on
account of the object to be effected.[180]
[Footnote 180: Belsham. Minot.]
Completely to prevent smuggling, all the officers in the sea service,
who were on the American station, were converted into revenue
officers; and directed to take the custom house oaths. Many vexatious
seizures were made, for which no redress could be obtained but in
England. The penalties and forfeitures, too, accruing under the act,
as if the usual tribunals could not be trusted, were made recoverable
in any court of vice-admiralty in the colonies. It will be readily
conceived how odious a law, made to effect an odious object, must have
been rendered by such provisions as these.
{1765}
The resolution concerning the duties on stamps excited a great and
general ferment in America. The right of parliament to impose taxes on
the colonies for the purpose of raising a revenue, became the subject
of universal conversation, and was almost universally denied.
Petitions to the King, and memorials to both houses of parliament
against the measure, were transmitted by several of the provincial
assemblies to the board of trade in England, to be presented to his
majesty immediately; and to parliament, when that body should be
convened. The house of representatives of Massachusetts instructed
their agent to use his utmost endeavours to prevent the passage of the
stamp act, or any other act levying taxes or impositions of any kind
on the American provinces. A committee was appointed to act in the
recess of the general court, with instructions to correspond with the
legislatures of the several colonies, to communicate to them the
instructions given to the agent of Massachusetts, and to solicit their
concurrence in similar measures. These legislative proceedings were,
in many places, seconded by associations entered into by individuals,
for diminishing the use of British manufactures.[181]
[Footnote 181: Minot.]
The administration, perceiving the opposition to be encountered by
adhering to the vote of the preceding session, informed the agents of
the colonies in London that, if they would propose any other mode of
raising the sum required[182], their proposition would be accepted,
and the stamp duty laid aside. The agents replied that they were not
authorised to propose any substitute, but were ordered to oppose the
bill when it should be brought into the house, by petitions
questioning the right of parliament to tax the colonies. This reply
placed the controversy on ground which admitted of no compromise.
Determined to persevere in the system he had adopted, and believing
successful resistance to be impossible, Mr. Grenville brought into
parliament his celebrated act for imposing stamp duties in America;
and it passed both houses by great majorities, but not without
animated debate. So little weight does the human mind allow to the
most conclusive arguments, when directed against the existence of
power in ourselves, that general Conway is said to have stood
alone[183] in denying the right claimed by parliament.
[Footnote 182: 100,000_l_. sterling.]
[Footnote 183: Mr. Pitt was not in the house; and Mr.
Ingersoll, in his letter, states that Alderman Beckford
joined General Conway. Mr. Belsham, therefore, who makes
this statement, was probably mistaken.]
This act excited serious alarm throughout the colonies. It was
sincerely believed to wound vitally the constitution of the country,
and to destroy the most sacred principles of liberty. Combinations
against its execution were formed; and the utmost exertions were used
to diffuse among the people a knowledge of the pernicious consequences
which must flow from admitting that the colonists could be taxed by a
legislature in which they were not represented.
The assembly of Virginia was in session when the intelligence was
received; and, by a small majority, passed several resolutions
introduced by Mr. Henry, and seconded by Mr. Johnson,[184] one of
which asserts the exclusive right of that assembly to lay taxes and
impositions on the inhabitants of that colony.[185]
[Footnote 184: See note No. III, at the end of the volume.]
[Footnote 185: Prior documents. Virginia Gazette.]
On the passage of these resolutions, the governor dissolved the
assembly; and writs for new elections were issued. In almost every
instance, the members who had voted in favour of the resolutions were
re-elected, while those who had voted against them were generally
excluded.
The legislatures of several other colonies passed resolutions similar
to those of Virginia. The house of representatives of Massachusetts,
contemplating a still more solemn and effectual expression of the
general sentiment, recommended a congress of deputies from all the
colonial assemblies, to meet at New York the first Monday in October.
Circular letters communicating this recommendation, were addressed to
the respective assemblies wherever they were in session. New Hampshire
alone, although concurring in the general opposition, declined sending
members to the congress; and the legislatures of Virginia and North
Carolina were not in session.[186]
[Footnote 186: Minot.]
In the meantime, the press teemed with the most animating exhortations
to the people, to unite in defence of their liberty and property; and
the stamp officers were, almost universally, compelled to resign.
[Sidenote: Congress at New York.]
At the time appointed, the commissioners from the assemblies of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, the three lower counties on the Delaware, Maryland, and
South Carolina assembled at New York; and, having chosen Timothy
Ruggles, of Massachusetts, their chairman, proceeded on the important
objects for which they had convened. The first measure of congress was
a declaration[187] of the rights and grievances of the colonists. This
paper asserts their title to all the rights and liberties of natural
born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain; among the most
essential of which are, the exclusive power to tax themselves, and the
trial by jury.
[Footnote 187: See note No. IV, at the end of the volume.]
The act granting certain stamp and other duties in the British
colonies was placed first on the list of grievances. Its direct
tendency they said, was, by taxing the colonists without their
consent, and by extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, to
subvert their rights and liberties. They also addressed a petition to
the King, and a memorial to each house of parliament.
These papers were drawn with temperate firmness. They express,
unequivocally, the attachment of the colonists to the mother country;
and assert the rights they claim in the earnest language of
conviction.
Having, in addition to these measures, recommended to the several
colonies to appoint special agents, with instructions to unite their
utmost endeavours in soliciting a redress of grievances; and directed
their clerk to make out a copy of their proceedings for each colony,
congress adjourned.[188]
[Footnote 188: Minot. Prior documents.]
To interest the people of England against the measures of
administration, associations were formed for the encouragement of
domestic manufactures, and against the use of those imported from
Great Britain. To increase their quantity of wool, the colonists
determined to kill no lambs, and to use all the means in their power
to multiply their flocks of sheep. To avoid the use of stamps,
proceedings in the courts of justice were suspended; and a settlement
of all controversies by arbitration was strongly recommended.
[Sidenote: Violence in the large towns.]
While this determined and systematic opposition was made by the
thinking part of the community, some riotous and disorderly meetings
took place, especially in the large towns, which threatened serious
consequences. Many houses were destroyed, much property injured, and
several persons, highly respectable in character and station, were
grossly abused.
While these transactions were passing in America, causes entirely
unconnected with the affairs of the colonies, produced a total
revolution in the British cabinet. The Grenville party was succeeded
by an administration unfriendly to the plan for taxing the colonies
without their consent. General Conway, one of the principal
secretaries of state, addressed a circular letter to the several
governors, in which he censured, in mild terms, the violent measures
that had been adopted, and recommended to them, while they maintained
the dignity of the crown and of parliament, to observe a temperate and
conciliatory conduct towards the colonists, and to endeavour, by
persuasive means, to restore the public peace.
{1766}
Parliament was opened by a speech from the throne, in which his
majesty declared his firm confidence in their wisdom and zeal, which
would, he doubted not, guide them to such sound and prudent
resolutions, as might tend at once to preserve the constitutional
rights of the British legislature over the colonies, and to restore to
them that harmony and tranquillity which had lately been interrupted
by disorders of the most dangerous nature.
In the course of the debate in the house of commons, on the motion for
the address, Mr. Pitt, in explicit terms, condemned the act for
collecting stamp duties in America; and avowed the opinion that
parliament had no right to tax the colonies. He asserted, at the same
time, "the authority of that kingdom to be sovereign and supreme in
every circumstance of government and legislation whatever." He
maintained the difficult proposition "that taxation is no part of the
governing, or legislative power; but that taxes are a voluntary gift
and grant of the commons alone;" and concluded an eloquent speech, by
recommending to the house, "that the stamp act be repealed,
_absolutely_, _totally_, and _immediately_."
The opinions expressed by Mr. Pitt were warmly opposed by the late
ministers. Mr. Grenville said, "that the disturbances in America were
grown to tumults and riots; he doubted, they bordered on open
rebellion; and, if the doctrine he had heard that day should be
confirmed, he feared they would lose that name to take that of
revolution. The government ever them being dissolved, a revolution
would take place in America." He contended that taxation was a part of
the sovereign power;--one branch of legislation; and had been
exercised over those who were not represented. He could not comprehend
the distinction between external and internal taxation; and insisted
that the colonies ought to bear a part of the burdens occasioned by a
war for their defence.
[Sidenote: Stamp act repealed.]
The existing administration, however, concurred in sentiment with Mr.
Pitt, and the act was repealed; but its repeal was accompanied with a
declaratory act, asserting the right of Great Britain to bind the
colonies in all cases whatsoever.
The intelligence of this event was received in America with general
manifestations of joy. The assertion of the abstract principle of
right gave many but little concern, because they considered it merely
as a salve for the wounded pride of the nation, and believed
confidently that no future attempt would be made to reduce it to
practice. The highest honours were conferred on those parliamentary
leaders who had exerted themselves to obtain a repeal of the act; and,
in Virginia, the house of Burgesses voted a statue to his majesty, as
an acknowledgment of their high sense of his attention to the rights
and petitions of his people.
Though all the colonies rejoiced at the repeal of the stamp act, the
same temper did not prevail in all of them. In the commercial cities
of the north, the regulations of trade were nearly as odious as the
stamp act itself. Political parties too had been formed, and had
assumed a bitterness in some of the colonies, entirely unknown in
others. These dispositions were not long concealed. The first measures
of Massachusetts and of New York demonstrated that, in them, the
reconciliation with the mother country was not cordial.
The letter of secretary Conway, transmitting the repeal of the act
imposing a duty on stamps, enclosed also a resolution of parliament
declaring that those persons who had suffered injuries in consequence
of their assisting to execute that act, ought to be compensated by the
colony in which such injuries were sustained. This was chiefly in
Massachusetts. The resolution of parliament was laid before the
general court of that province, by governor Bernard, in a speech
rather in the spirit of the late, than the present
administration;--rather calculated to irritate than assuage the angry
passions that had been excited. The house of representatives resented
his manner of addressing them; and appeared more disposed to inquire
into the riots, and to compel those concerned in them to make
indemnities, than to compensate the sufferers out of the public purse.
But, after a second session, and some intimation that parliament would
enforce its requisition, an act of pardon to the offenders, and of
indemnity to the sufferers, was passed; but was rejected by the King,
because the colonial assembly had no power, by their charter, to pass
an act of general pardon, but at the instance of the crown.[189]
[Footnote 189: Minot.]
In New York, where general Gage was expected with a considerable body
of troops, a message was transmitted by the governor to the
legislature, desiring their compliance with an act of parliament
called "the mutiny act," which required that the colony in which any
of his majesty's forces might be stationed, should provide barracks
for them, and necessaries in their quarters. The legislature postponed
the consideration of this message until the troops were actually
arrived; and then, after a second message from the governor,
reluctantly and partially complied with the requisitions of the act.
At a subsequent session, the governor brought the subject again before
the assembly, who determined that the act of parliament could be
construed only to require that provision should be made for troops on
a march, and not while permanently stationed in the country.[190] The
reason assigned for not furnishing the accommodations required by the
governor, implies the opinion that the act of parliament was
rightfully obligatory; and yet the requisitions of the mutiny act were
unquestionably a tax; and no essential distinction is perceived
between the power of parliament to levy a tax by its own authority,
and to levy it through the medium of the colonial legislatures; they
having no right to refuse obedience to the act. It is remarkable that
such inaccurate ideas should still have prevailed, concerning the
controlling power of parliament over the colonies.
[Footnote 190: Minot. Prior documents. Belsham.]
In England it was thought to manifest a very forbearing spirit, that
this instance of disobedience was punished with no positive penalties;
and that the ministers contented themselves with a law prohibiting the
legislature of the province from passing any act, until it should
comply, in every respect, with the requisitions of parliament. The
persevering temper of Massachusetts not having found its way to New
York, this measure produced the desired effect.
Two companies of artillery, driven into the port of Boston by stress
of weather, applied to the governor for supplies. He laid the
application before his council, who advised that, "in pursuance of the
act of parliament" the supplies required should be furnished. They
were furnished, and the money to procure them was drawn from the
treasury by the authority of the executive.
{1767}
On the meeting of the legislature, the house of representatives
expressed in pointed terms their disapprobation of the conduct of the
governor. Particular umbrage was given by the expression "_in
pursuance of an act of parliament_." "After the repeal of the stamp
act, they were surprised to find that this act, equally odious and
unconstitutional, should remain in force. They lamented the entry of
this reason for the advice of council the more, as it was an
unwarrantable and unconstitutional step which totally disabled them
from testifying the same cheerfulness they had always shown in
granting to his majesty, of their free accord, such aids as his
service has from time to time required."[191] Copies of these messages
were transmitted by governor Bernard to the minister, accompanied by
letters not calculated to diminish the unpleasantness of the
communication.
[Footnote 191: Minot.]
The idea of raising revenue in America, was so highly favoured in
England, especially by the landed interest, that not even the
influence of administration could have obtained a repeal of the stamp
act, on the naked principle of right. Few were hardy enough to
question the supremacy of parliament; and the act receding from the
practical assertion of the power to tax the colonists, deeply wounded
the pride of the King, and of the nation.
The temper discovered in some of the colonies was ill calculated to
assuage the wound, which this measure had inflicted, on the haughty
spirit of the country; and is supposed to have contributed to the
revival of a system, which had been reluctantly abandoned.
Charles Townshend, chancellor of the exchequer, said boastingly in the
house of commons, "that he knew how to draw a revenue from the
colonies without giving them offence."[192] Mr. Grenville eagerly
caught at the declaration, and urged this minister to pledge himself
to bring forward the measure, at which he had hinted. During the
sickness and absence of lord Chatham, the cabinet had decided on
introducing a bill for imposing certain duties on tea, glass, paper,
and painter's colours, imported into the colonies from Great Britain;
and appropriating the money in the first instance, to the salaries of
the officers of government. This bill was brought into parliament, and
passed almost without opposition.
[Footnote 192: Belsham.]
The friends of America, in England, had distinguished between internal
and external taxation; and the same distinction had been made in the
colonies. But the discussions originating in the stamp act, while they
diffused among the colonists a knowledge of their political rights,
had inspired also more accurate ideas respecting them.
These duties were plainly intended, not to regulate commerce, but to
raise revenue, which would be as certainly collected from the
colonists, as the duties on stamps could have been. The principle of
the two measures was the same. Many of the Americans were too
intelligent to be misguided by the distinction between internal and
external taxation, or by the precedents quoted in support of the
right, for which parliament contended. This measure was considered as
establishing a precedent of taxation for the mere purpose of revenue,
which might afterwards be extended at the discretion of parliament;
and was spoken of as the _entering wedge_, designed to make way for
impositions too heavy to be borne. The appropriation of the money did
not lessen the odium of the tax. The colonists considered the
dependence of the officers of government, on the colonial legislature,
for their salaries, as the best security for their attending to the
interests, and cultivating the affections of the provinces.[193] Yet
the opinion that this act was unconstitutional, was not adopted so
immediately, or so generally, as in the case of the stamp act. Many
able political essays appeared in the papers, demonstrating that it
violated the principles of the English constitution and of English
liberty, before the conviction became general, that the same principle
which had before been successfully opposed, was again approaching in a
different form.
[Footnote 193: Prior documents.]
{1768}
The general court of Massachusetts, perceiving plainly that the claim
to tax America was revived, and being determined to oppose it,
addressed an elaborate letter to Dennis de Berdt, agent for the house
of representatives, detailing at great length, and with much weight of
argument, all the objections to the late acts of parliament. Letters
were also addressed to the earl of Shelburne and general Conway,
secretaries of state, to the marquis of Rockingham, lord Camden, the
earl of Chatham, and the lords commissioners of the treasury. These
letters, while they breathe a spirit of ardent attachment to the
British constitution, and to the British nation, manifest a perfect
conviction that their complaints were just.
Conclusive as the arguments they contained might have appeared to
Englishmen, if urged by themselves in support of their own rights,
they had not much weight, when used to disprove the existence of their
authority over others. The deep and solemn tone of conviction,
however, conveyed in all these letters, ought to have produced a
certainty that the principles assumed in them had made a strong
impression, and would not be lightly abandoned. It ought to have been
foreseen that with such a people, so determined, the conflict must be
stern and hazardous; and, it was well worth the estimate, whether the
object would compensate the means used to obtain it.
[Sidenote: Petition to the King.]
The assembly also voted a petition to the King, replete with
professions of loyalty and attachment; but stating, in explicit terms,
their sense of the acts against which they petitioned.
A proposition was next made for an address to the other colonies on
the power claimed by parliament, which, after considerable debate, was
carried in the affirmative; and a circular letter to the assemblies of
the several provinces, setting forth the proceedings of the house of
representatives, was prepared and adopted.[194]
[Footnote 194: See note V, at the end of the volume.]
To rescue their measures from the imputation of systematic opposition
to the British government, the house, without acknowledging the
obligation of the mutiny act, complied with a requisition of the
governor to make a farther provision for one of the King's garrisons
within the province. The governor, soon afterwards, prorogued the
general court with an angry speech, not calculated to diminish the
resentments of the house directed against himself; resentments
occasioned as much by the haughtiness of his manners, and a persuasion
that he had misrepresented their conduct and opinions to ministers, as
by the unpopular course his station required him to pursue.[195]
[Footnote 195: Minot.]
The circular letter of the house of representatives of Massachusetts
was well received in the other colonies. They approved the measures
which had been taken, and readily united in them. They, too,
petitioned the King against the obnoxious acts of parliament, and
instructed their several agents to use all proper means to obtain
their repeal. Virginia transmitted a statement of her proceedings[196]
to her sister colonies; and her house of Burgesses, in a letter to
Massachusetts, communicating the representation made to parliament,
say, "that they do not affect an independency of their parent kingdom,
the prosperity of which they are bound, to the utmost of their
abilities, to promote; but cheerfully acquiesce in the authority of
parliament to make laws for the preserving a necessary dependence, and
for regulating the trade of the colonies; yet they cannot conceive,
and humbly insist, it is not essential to support a proper relation
between the mother country, and colonies transplanted from her, that
she should have a right to raise money from them without their
consent, and presume they do not aspire to more than the right of
British subjects, when they assert that no power on earth has a right
to impose taxes on the people, or take the smallest portion of their
property without their consent given by their representatives in
parliament."[197]
[Footnote 196: Prior documents.]
[Footnote 197: In this letter the house of Burgesses express
their opinion of the mutiny act in the following terms: "The
act suspending the legislative power of New York, they
consider as still more alarming to the colonies, though it
has that single province in view. If parliament can compel
them to furnish a single article to the troops sent over,
they may, by the same rule, oblige them to furnish clothes,
arms, and every other necessary, even the pay of the
officers and soldiers; a doctrine replete with every
mischief, and utterly subversive of all that's dear and
valuable; for what advantage can the people of the colonies
derive from choosing their own representatives, if those
representatives, when chosen, be not permitted to exercise
their own judgments, be under a necessity (on pain of being
deprived of their legislative authority) of enforcing the
mandates of a British parliament."]
On the first intimation of the measures taken by Massachusetts, the
earl of Hillsborough, who had been appointed to the newly created
office of secretary of state for the department of the colonies,
addressed a circular to the several governors, to be laid before the
respective assemblies, in which he treated the circular letter of
Massachusetts, as being of the most dangerous tendency, calculated to
inflame the minds of his majesty's good subjects in the colonies, to
promote an unwarrantable combination, to excite an open opposition to
the authority of parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the
constitution.[198]
[Footnote 198: Prior documents.]
His first object was to prevail on the several assemblies openly to
censure the conduct of Massachusetts; his next, to prevent their
approving the proceedings of that colony. The letter, far from
producing the desired effect, rather served to strengthen the
determination of the colonies to unite in their endeavours to obtain a
repeal of laws universally detested. On manifesting this disposition,
the assemblies were generally dissolved;--probably in pursuance of
instructions from the crown.
When the general court of Massachusetts was again convened, governor
Bernard laid before the house of representatives, an extract of a
letter from the earl of Hillsborough, in which, after animadverting in
harsh terms on the circular letter to the colonies, he declared it to
be "the King's pleasure" that the governor "should require the house
of representatives, in his majesty's name, to rescind the resolution
on which the circular letter was founded, and to declare their
disapprobation of, and dissent from, that rash and hasty proceeding."
This message excited considerable agitation; but the house, without
coming to any resolution on it, requested the governor to lay before
them the whole letter of the earl of Hillsborough, and also copies of
such letters as had been written by his excellency to that nobleman,
on the subject to which the message referred.
The copies were haughtily refused; but the residue of the letter from
the earl of Hillsborough was laid before them. That minister said,
"if, notwithstanding the apprehensions which may justly be entertained
of the ill consequence of a continuance of this factious spirit, which
seems to have influenced the resolutions of the assembly at the
conclusion of the last session, the new assembly should refuse to
comply with his majesty's reasonable expectation, it is the King's
pleasure that you immediately dissolve them."
This subject being taken into consideration, a letter to the earl was
reported, and agreed to by a majority of ninety-three to thirteen, in
which they defended their circular letter in strong and manly, but
respectful terms; and concluded with saying, "the house humbly rely on
the royal clemency, that to petition his majesty will not be deemed by
him to be inconsistent with a respect to the British constitution as
settled at the revolution by William III., and that to acquaint their
fellow subjects involved in the same distress, of their having so
done, in full hopes of success, even if they had invited the union of
all America in one joint supplication, would not be discountenanced by
their gracious sovereign, as a measure of an inflammatory nature. That
when your lordship shall in justice lay a true state of these matters
before his majesty, he will no longer consider them as tending to
create unwarrantable combinations, or excite an unjustifiable
opposition to the constitutional authority of parliament; that he will
then truly discern who are of that desperate faction which is
continually disturbing the public tranquillity; and that, while his
arm is extended for the protection of his distressed and injured
subjects, he will frown upon all those who, to gratify their own
passions, have dared to attempt to deceive him."[199]
[Footnote 199: Prior documents.]
[Sidenote: Legislature of Massachusetts dissolved.]
A motion to rescind the resolution on which their circular letter was
founded, passed in the negative, by a majority of ninety-two to
seventeen; and a letter to the governor was prepared, stating their
motives for refusing to comply with the requisition of the earl of
Hillsborough. Immediately after receiving it, he prorogued the
assembly, with an angry speech; and, the next day, dissolved it by
proclamation.[200]
[Footnote 200: Minot.]
While the opposition was thus conducted by the legislature with
temperate firmness, and legitimate means, the general irritation
occasionally displayed itself at Boston, in acts of violence denoting
evidently that the people of that place, were prepared for much
stronger measures than their representatives had adopted.
[Sidenote: Seizure of the sloop Liberty.]
The seizure of the sloop Liberty belonging to Mr. Hancock, by the
collector of the customs, occasioned the assemblage of a tumultuous
mob, who beat the officers and their assistants, took possession of a
boat belonging to the collector, burnt it in triumph, and patrolled
the streets for a considerable time. The revenue officers fled for
refuge, first to the Romney man of war, and afterwards to Castle
William. After the lapse of some time, the governor moved the council
to take into consideration some measure for restoring vigour and
firmness to government. The council replied "that the disorders which
happened were occasioned by the violent and unprecedented manner in
which the sloop Liberty had been seized by the officers of the
customs." And the inhabitants of Boston, in a justificatory memorial,
supported by affidavits, insisted that the late tumults were
occasioned, principally, by the haughty conduct of the commissioners
and their subordinate officers, and by the illegal and offensive
conduct of the Romney man of war.[201]
[Footnote 201: Minot. Prior documents.]
The legislature however did not think proper to countenance this act
of violence. A committee of both houses, appointed to inquire into the
state of the province, made a report which, after reprobating the
circumstances attending the seizure, to which the mob was ascribed,
declared their abhorrence of a procedure which they pronounced
criminal; desired the governor to direct a prosecution against all
persons concerned in the riot; and to issue a proclamation offering a
reward to any person who should make discoveries by which the rioters
or their abettors should be brought to condign punishment.
This report, however, seems to have been intended, rather to save
appearances, than to produce any real effect. It was perfectly
understood that no person would dare to inform; or even to appear, as
a witness, in any prosecution which might be instituted. Suits were
afterwards brought against Mr. Hancock and others, owners of the
vessel and cargo; but they were never prosecuted to a final
decision.[202]
[Footnote 202: Minot.]
This riot accelerated a measure, which tended, in no inconsiderable
degree, to irritate still farther the angry dispositions already
prevalent in Boston.
The governor had pressed on administration the necessity of stationing
a military force in the province, for the protection of the officers
employed in collecting the revenue, and of the magistrates, in
preserving the public peace. In consequence of these representations,
orders had already been given to general Gage to detach, at least, one
regiment on this service, and to select for the command of it, an
officer on whose prudence, resolution, and integrity, he could rely.
The transactions respecting the sloop Liberty rendered any attempt to
produce a countermand of these orders entirely abortive; and, probably
occasioned two regiments, instead of one, to be detached by general
Gage.[203]
[Footnote 203: Minot.]
It seems to have been supposed that a dissolution of the assembly of
Massachusetts would dissolve also the opposition to the measures of
administration; and that the people, having no longer constitutional
leaders, being no longer excited and conducted by their
representatives, would gradually become quiet, and return to, what was
termed, their duty to government. But the opinions expressed by the
house of representatives were the opinions of the great body of the
people, and had been adopted with too much ardour to be readily
suppressed. The most active and energetic part of society had embraced
them with enthusiasm; and the dissolution of the assembly, by creating
a necessity for devising other expedients, hastened the mode of
conducting opposition at least as efficacious, and afterwards
universally adopted.
At a town meeting of the inhabitants of Boston, a committee was
deputed for the purpose of praying the governor to convene another
general assembly. He replied that no other could be convened until his
majesty's commands to that effect should be received. This answer
being reported, the meeting resolved "that to levy money within that
province by any other authority than that of the general court, was a
violation of the royal charter, and of the undoubted natural rights of
British subjects.
"That the freeholders, and other inhabitants of the town of Boston
would, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, take all legal and
constitutional measures to defend all and singular the rights,
liberties, privileges, and immunities, granted in their royal charter.
"That as there was an apprehension in the minds of many of an
approaching war with France, those inhabitants who were not provided
with arms should be requested duly to observe the laws of the
province, which required that every freeholder should furnish himself
with a complete stand."
But the important resolution was "that, as the governor did not think
proper to call a general court for the redress of their grievances,
the town would then make choice of a suitable number of persons to act
for them as a committee in a convention, to be held at Faneuil Hall in
Boston, with such as might be sent to join them from the several towns
in the province."
These votes were communicated by the select men, in a circular letter
to the other towns in the province, which were requested to concur,
and to elect committee men, to meet those of Boston in convention.
[Sidenote: Convention assembles in Boston.]
The measure was generally adopted; and a convention met, which was
regarded with all the respect that could have been paid to a
legitimate assembly.[204]
[Footnote 204: Minot.]
[Sidenote: Its moderation.]
The country in general, though united on the great constitutional
question of taxation, was probably not so highly exasperated as the
people of Boston; and the convention acted with unexpected moderation.
They disclaimed all pretensions to any other character than that of
mere individuals, assembled by deputation from the towns, to consult
and advise on such measures as might tend to promote the peace of his
majesty's subjects in the province, but without power to pass any acts
possessing a coercive quality.
They petitioned the governor to assemble a general court, and
addressed a letter to the agent of the province in England, stating
the character in which they met, and the motives which brought them
together. After expressing their opinions with temper and firmness on
the subjects of general complaint, and recommending patience and order
to the people, they dissolved themselves, and returned to their
respective homes.[205]
[Footnote 205: Minot.]
[Sidenote: Two regiments arrive.]
The day before the convention rose, the two regiments which had been
detached by general Gage arrived, under convoy, in Nantasket road. The
council had rejected an application of the governor to provide
quarters for them, because the barracks in the castle were sufficient
for their accommodation; and, by act of parliament, the British troops
were not to be quartered elsewhere until those barracks were full.
General Gage had directed one regiment to be stationed in Boston; but,
on hearing a report that the people were in a state of open revolt, he
gave additional orders, which left the whole subject to the discretion
of the commanding officer; who was induced, by some rash threats of
opposing the disembarkation of the troops to land both regiments in
that place. The ships took a station which commanded the whole town,
and lay with their broad sides towards it, ready to fire, should any
resistance be attempted. The troops landed under cover of their
cannon, and marched into the common with loaded muskets and fixed
bayonets;[206] a display of military pomp, which was believed by the
inhabitants to have been intended for the purpose either of
intimidation, or of irritation.
[Footnote 206: Gazette.]
The select men, as well as the council, having refused to provide
quarters for the troops, the governor ordered the state house to be
opened for their reception; and they took possession of all the
apartments in it, except that which was reserved for the council. The
people were filled with indignation at seeing the chamber of their
representatives crowded with regular soldiers, their counsellors
surrounded with foreign troops, and their whole city exhibiting the
appearance of a garrisoned town. With the difference of manners
between the soldiers and the inhabitants, and the strong prejudices
reciprocally felt against each other, it is not wonderful that
personal broils should frequently occur, and that mutual antipathies
should be still farther increased.[207]
[Footnote 207: Minot.]
While these measures were pursuing in America, every session of
parliament was opened with a speech from the King, stating that a
disposition to refuse obedience to the laws, and to resist the
authority of the supreme legislature of the nation, still prevailed
among his misguided subjects in some of the colonies. In the addresses
to the throne, both houses uniformly expressed their abhorrence of the
rebellious spirit manifested in the colonies, and their approbation of
the measures taken by his majesty for the restoration of order and
good government.
To give a more solemn expression to the sense of parliament on this
subject, the two houses entered into joint resolutions, condemning the
measures pursued by the Americans; and agreed to an address, approving
the conduct of the crown, giving assurances of effectual support to
such farther measures as might be found necessary to maintain the
civil magistrates in a due execution of the laws within the province
of Massachusetts Bay, and beseeching his majesty to direct the
governor of that colony to obtain and transmit information of all
treasons committed in Massachusetts since the year 1767, with the
names of the persons who had been most active in promoting such
offences, that prosecutions might be instituted against them within
the realm, in pursuance of the statute of the 35th of Henry VIII.[208]
[Footnote 208: Belsham. Prior documents.]
{1769}
The impression made by these threatening declarations, which seem to
have been directed particularly against Massachusetts, in the hope of
deterring the other provinces from involving themselves in her
dangers, was far from being favourable to the views of the mother
country. The determination to resist the exercise of the authority
claimed by Great Britain not only remained unshaken, but was
manifested in a still more decided form.
[Sidenote: Resolutions of the house of Burgesses of Virginia.]
Not long after these votes of parliament, the assembly of Virginia was
convened by lord Botetourt, a nobleman of conciliating manners, who
had lately been appointed governor of that province. The house took
the state of the colony into their immediate consideration, and passed
unanimously several resolutions asserting the exclusive right of that
assembly to impose taxes on the inhabitants within his majesty's
dominion of Virginia, and their undoubted right to petition for a
redress of grievances, and to obtain a concurrence of the other
colonies in such petitions. "That all persons charged with the
commission of any offence within that colony, were entitled to a trial
before the tribunals of the country, according to the fixed and known
course of proceeding therein, and that to seize such persons, and
transport them beyond sea for trial, derogated in a high degree from
the rights of British subjects, as thereby the inestimable privilege
of being tried by a jury from the vicinage, as well as the liberty of
summoning and producing witnesses on such trial, will be taken from
the party accused."
An address to his majesty was also agreed on, which states in the
style of loyalty and real attachment to the crown, the deep conviction
of the house of Burgesses of Virginia, that the complaints of the
colonists were well founded.[209]
[Footnote 209: Gazette. Prior documents.]
[Sidenote: Assembly dissolved.]
Intelligence of these proceedings having reached the governor, he
suddenly dissolved the assembly. This measure did not produce the
desired effect. The members convened at a private house, and, having
chosen their speaker, moderator, proceeded to form a non-importing
association, which was signed by every person present, and afterwards,
almost universally throughout the province.[210]
[Footnote 210: Gazette. Prior documents.]
From the commencement of the controversy, the opinion seems to have
prevailed in all the colonies, that the most effectual means of
succeeding in the struggle in which they were engaged, were those
which would interest the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain
in their favour. Under the influence of this opinion, associations had
been proposed in Massachusetts, as early as May 1765, for the
non-importation of goods from that country. The merchants of some of
the trading towns in the other colonies, especially those of
Philadelphia, refused, at that time, to concur in a measure which they
thought too strong for the existing state of things; and it was laid
aside. But, in the beginning of August, it was resumed in Boston; and
the merchants of that place entered into an agreement not to import
from Great Britain any articles whatever, except a few of the first
necessity, between the first of January 1769, and the first of January
1770; and not to import tea, glass, paper, or painter's colours, until
the duties imposed on those articles should be taken off. This
agreement was soon afterwards adopted in the town of Salem, the city
of New York, and the province of Connecticut; but was not generally
entered into through the colonies, until the resolutions and address
of the two houses of parliament which have already been mentioned,
seemed to cut off the hope that petitions and memorials alone, would
effect the object for which they contended.[211]
[Footnote 211: Minot.]
[Sidenote: Measures against the importation of British goods.]
The proceedings of the house of Burgesses of Virginia had been
transmitted to the speakers of the several assemblies throughout the
continent. In the opinion of the neighbouring colonies, the occasion
required efficacious measures; and an association, similar to that
which had been formed by their elder sister, was entered into by
Maryland, and the Carolinas. The inhabitants of Charleston went so far
as to break off all connexion with Rhode Island and Georgia, which had
refused to adopt the non-importation agreement. This vigorous measure
was not without its influence; and those provinces, soon afterwards,
entered into the association.[212]
[Footnote 212: Gazette. Prior documents.]
In Portsmouth in New Hampshire, where governor Wentworth possessed
great influence, some repugnance to this measure was also discovered;
but, being threatened with a suspension of their intercourse with the
other colonies, the merchants of that place concurred in the general
system.
All united in giving effect to this agreement. The utmost exertions
were used to improve the manufactures of the country; and the fair
sex, laying aside the late fashionable ornaments of England, exulted,
with patriotic pride, in appearing dressed in the produce of their own
looms. Committees chosen by the people superintended importations; and
the force of public opinion went far to secure the agreement from
violation.
[Sidenote: General court in Massachusetts.]
The necessities of government requiring a supply of money, the general
court of Massachusetts was again convened. The members of the former
house of representatives were generally re-elected, and brought with
them the temper which had occasioned their dissolution. Instead of
entering on the business for which they were called together, they
engaged in a controversy with the governor concerning the removal of
the ships of war from the harbour, and of the troops from the town of
Boston, to which they contended, his power, as the representative of
the crown was adequate.
The governor, ascribing this temper to the influence of the
metropolis, adjourned the general court to Cambridge; but this measure
served to increase the existing irritation. The business recommended
to them remained unnoticed; their altercations with the governor
continued; and they entered into several warm resolutions enlarging
the catalogue of their grievances, in terms of greater exasperation
than had appeared in the official acts of any legislature on the
continent.[213]
[Footnote 213: Prior documents. Minot.]
[Sidenote: It is prorogued.]
Not long after the passage of these resolutions, the house explicitly
refused to make the provision required by the mutiny act for the
troops stationed in Massachusetts; upon which, the legislature was
prorogued until the first of January.[214]
[Footnote 214: Minot.]
The committees, appointed to examine the cargoes of vessels arriving
from Great Britain, continued to execute the trust reposed in them.
Votes of censure were passed on such as refused to concur in the
association, or violated its principles; and the names of the
offenders were published, as enemies to their country. In some cases,
the goods imported in contravention of it, were locked up in
warehouses; and, in some few instances, they were re-shipped to Great
Britain.
[Sidenote: Administration resolved on a partial repeal of duties.]
Not long after the strong resolutions already noticed had been agreed
to by parliament, while their effect was unfolding itself in every
part of the American continent, an important revolution took place in
the British cabinet. The duke of Grafton was placed at the head of a
new administration. He supported, with great earnestness, a
proposition to repeal the duties imposed for the purpose of raising
revenue in the colonies; but his whole influence was insufficient to
carry this measure completely. It was deemed indispensable to the
maintenance of the legislative supremacy of Great Britain, to retain
the duty on some one article; and that on tea was reserved while the
others were relinquished.
Seldom has a wise nation adopted a more ill judged measure than this.
The contest with America was plainly a contest of principle, and had
been conducted entirely on principle by both parties. The amount of
taxes proposed to be raised was too inconsiderable to interest the
people of either country. But the principle was, in the opinion of
both, of the utmost magnitude. The measure now proposed, while it
encouraged the colonists to hope that their cause was gaining strength
in Britain, had no tendency to conciliate them.
[Sidenote: Circular letter of the earl of Hillsborough.]
In pursuance of this resolution of the cabinet, a circular letter was
written by the earl of Hillsborough to the several governors,
informing them "that it was the intention of his majesty's ministers
to propose, in the next session of parliament, taking off the duties
on glass, paper, and painter's colours, in consideration of such
duties having been laid contrary to the true spirit of commerce; and
assuring them that, at no time, had they entertained the design to
propose to parliament to lay any further taxes on America for the
purpose of raising a revenue."[215]
[Footnote 215: Prior documents.]
This measure was soon communicated in letters from private individuals
in England to their correspondents in Massachusetts. The merchants of
Boston, apprehensive that an improper opinion concerning its operation
might be formed, resolved that the partial repeal of the duties did
not remove the difficulties under which their trade laboured, and was
only calculated to relieve the manufacturers of Great Britain; and
that they would still adhere to their non-importation agreement.[216]
[Footnote 216: Minot.]
The communication of the earl of Hillsborough to the several
governors, was laid before the respective assemblies as they convened,
in terms implying an intention to renounce the imposition, in future,
of any taxes in America. But this communication seems not to have
restored perfect content in any of the colonies.
The Virginia legislature was in session on its arrival, and governor
Botetourt laid it before them. Their dissatisfaction with it was
manifested by a petition to the King re-asserting the rights
previously maintained; and by an association, signed by the members as
individuals, renewing their non-importation agreement, until the duty
on tea should be repealed.[217]
[Footnote 217: Gazette.]
Yet several causes combined to prevent a rigid observance of these
associations. The sacrifice of interest made by the merchants could be
continued only under the influence of powerful motives. Suspicions
were entertained of each other in the same towns; and committees to
superintend the conduct of importers were charged with gross
partiality. The different towns too watched each other with
considerable jealousy; and accusations were reciprocally made of
infractions of the association to a great extent. Letters were
published purporting to be from England, stating that large orders for
goods had been received; and the inconvenience resulting from even a
partial interruption of commerce, and from the want of those
manufactures which the inhabitants had been accustomed to use, began
to be severely and extensively felt. In Rhode Island and Albany, it
was determined to import as usual, with the exception of such articles
as should be dutiable. On the remonstrances of other commercial
places, especially of Boston, these resolutions were changed; and the
hope was entertained that the general system on which the colonies
relied, would still be maintained.
[Sidenote: New York recedes in part from the non-importation
agreement.]
These hopes were blasted by New York. That city soon manifested a
disposition to import as usual, with the exception of those articles
only which were subject to a duty. At first, the resolution thus to
limit the operation of the non-importation agreement, was made to
depend on its being acceded to by Boston and Philadelphia. These towns
refused to depart from the association as originally formed, and
strenuously urged their brethren of New York to persevere with them in
the glorious struggle. This answer was communicated to the people, and
their opinion on the question of rescinding, or adhering to, was taken
in from their respective wards. This determination excited the most
lively chagrin in New England and Philadelphia. Their remonstrances
against it were, however, ineffectual; and the example was soon
followed throughout the colonies.[218]
[Footnote 218: Minot. Prior documents. Gazette.]
The people of New York alleged, in justification of themselves, that
the towns of New England had not observed their engagements fairly;
and that the merchants of Albany had been in the practice of receiving
goods from Quebec. But no sufficient evidence in support of these
assertions was ever produced.
{1770}
[Sidenote: March.]
[Sidenote: Riot in Boston.]
About this time a circumstance occurred, which produced the most
serious agitation. The two regiments stationed in Boston, to support,
as was said, the civil authority, and preserve the peace of the town,
were viewed by the inhabitants with very prejudiced eyes. Frequent
quarrels arose between them; and at length, an affray took place in
the night, near the gates of the barracks, which brought out captain
Preston, the officer of the day, with a part of the main guard,
between whom and the townsmen blows ensued; on which some of the
soldiers fired, and four of the people were killed.
The alarm bells were immediately rung, the drums beat to arms, and an
immense multitude assembled. Inflamed to madness by the view of the
dead bodies, they were with difficulty restrained from rushing on the
29th regiment, which was then drawn up under arms in King street. The
exertions of the lieutenant governor, who promised that the laws
should be enforced on the perpetrators of the act, and the efforts of
several respectable and popular individuals, prevented their
proceeding to extremities, and prevailed on them, after the regiment
had been marched to the barracks, to disperse without farther
mischief. Captain Preston, and the soldiers who had fired, were
committed to prison for trial. On the next day, upwards of four
thousand citizens of Boston assembled at Faneuil Hall; and, in a
message to the lieutenant governor, stated it to be "the unanimous
opinion of the meeting, that the inhabitants and soldiers can no
longer live together in safety; that nothing can rationally be
expected to restore the peace of the town, and prevent farther blood
and carnage, but the immediate removal of the troops; and they
therefore most fervently prayed his honour that his power and
influence might be exerted for their instant removal."
The lieutenant governor expressed his extreme sorrow at the melancholy
event which had occurred; and declared that he had taken measures to
have the affair inquired into, and justice done. That the military
were not under his command, but received their orders from the general
at New York, which orders it was not in his power to countermand.
That, on the application of the council for the removal of the troops,
colonel Dalrymple, their commanding officer, had engaged that the
twenty-ninth regiment, which had been concerned in the affair, should
be marched to the castle, and there placed in barracks until farther
orders should be received from the general; and that the main guard
should be removed, and the fourteenth regiment laid under such
restraints, that all occasions of future disturbance should be
prevented. This answer was voted to be unsatisfactory; and a committee
was deputed to wait on the lieutenant governor, and inform him that
nothing could content them but an immediate and total removal of the
troops.
This vote was laid before the council by Mr. Hutchinson, who had
succeeded Mr. Bernard in the government of the province. The council
declared themselves unanimously of opinion "that it was absolutely
necessary for his Majesty's service, the good order of the town, and
the peace of the province, that the troops should be immediately
removed out of the town of Boston."
This opinion and advice being communicated to colonel Dalrymple, he
gave his honour that measures should be immediately taken for the
removal of both regiments. Satisfied with this assurance, the meeting
secured the tranquillity of the town by appointing a strong military
watch, and immediately dissolved itself.
[Sidenote: Trial of captain Preston and the soldiers.]
This transaction was very differently related by the different
parties. Mr. Gordon, whose history was written when the resentments of
the moment had subsided, and who has collected the facts of the case
carefully, states it in such a manner as nearly, if not entirely, to
exculpate the soldiers. It appears that an attack upon them had been
pre-concerted; and that, after being long insulted with the grossest
language, they were repeatedly assaulted by the mob with balls of ice
and snow, and with sticks, before they were induced to fire. This
representation is strongly supported by the circumstances, that
captain Preston, after a long and public trial, was acquitted by a
Boston jury; and that six of the eight soldiers who were prosecuted,
were acquitted, and the remaining two found guilty of manslaughter
only. Mr. Quincy, and Mr. John Adams, two eminent lawyers, and
distinguished leaders of the patriotic party, defended the accused,
without sustaining any diminution of popularity. Yet this event was
very differently understood through the colonies. It was generally
believed to be a massacre, equally barbarous and unprovoked; and it
increased the detestation in which the soldiers were universally held.