_London, July 2, 1774._
The letters sent over to the Massachusetts by Dr. Franklin, have
produced a duel between Mr. _Whateley_, the banker, brother to the late
secretary to the treasury, and _John Temple_, esq. in which the former
was dangerously wounded. This has led the doctor to inform the public,
that both the gentlemen are totally ignorant and innocent as to the
transaction and its circumstances about which they fought. He declares
that he alone was the person who obtained and transmitted to Boston the
letters in question and says—“Mr. W. could not communicate them, because
they were never in his possession; and for the same reason they could
not be taken from him by Mr. T.” The doctor justifies his own conduct,
and concludes with telling the world, he “thought it his duty to
transmit them to his constituents.” But if they were sent over to be
communicated to a few confidential gentlemen only, instead of being
addressed to the speaker of the assembly, or one of the committee
appointed to correspond with him, with orders to lay them before the
house, how were they _transmitted to his constituents_? There is
something mysterious in this business, which it is apprehended will not
bear a discovery at present. It is suspected that the letters were
procured out of some public office; and that Mr. Temple is not so
perfectly ignorant of all circumstances as the doctor’s language seems
to express.
[Jan. 29, 1774.] The merits of the petition, presented some time ago by
the doctor as agent for the Massachusetts, praying for the removal of
the governor, came on to be heard before the privy council. It is
reported, that Mr. _W——_, wandering from the question before their
lordships, poured forth such a torrent of virulent abuse on Dr.
_Franklin_ as scarce ever before took place in judicial proceedings. His
reproaches appeared to some present to be incompatible with the
principles of law, truth, justice, propriety and humanity. And it was
thought it would have redounded more to the honor of their lordships,
had they seemed to enjoy less the lashes which the doctor underwent; and
had they expressed their dissatisfaction by reducing the orator to the
remembrance of the exalted characters before whom he uttered such
language. The petition was dismissed, and the doctor is displaced from
the office of deputy post-master general for the colonies. The
philosopher may recollect in some future day the liberties taken with
him before the privy-council on the twenty-ninth of January, and take
ample revenge on British ministers and courtiers.
[March 7.] A message from his majesty, on account of the late
disturbances in America, was presented to both houses. Particular
mention was made of the outrage committed by the people at Boston.
Matters are now brought to a crisis, and ministry are bent upon
vigorous, sperited measures. To prevent opposition from the merchants,
the public papers were filled with writings on the subject, which
painted the misconduct of the colonies in the strongest colours, and
urged in particular the impossibility of the future existence of any
trade to America, if this flagrant outrage on commerce, as it is
pronounced, went unpunished. These, with other endeavors, had the
proposed effect. The resentment against the Americans became as high and
as strong as could be desired, within the house; but the storm was to be
directed against the _Massachusetts_. The minister, in debate, stated
that the opposition to the authority of parliament had always originated
in that colony; and that that colony had always been instigated to such
conduct, by the irregular and seditious proceedings of Boston. It was
become necessary therefore to begin with that town. He had forgot, or
would not mention, that the violent opposition to the stamp act
originated in Virginia.
[Mar. 14.] Leave was given to bring in a bill “for the immediate removal
of the officers concerned in the collection of the customs from Boston,
and to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping of
goods, wares and merchandises at Boston, or within the harbor thereof.”
At the first introduction of the bill it was received with general
applause. Mr. _Bollan_, however petitioned to be heard for the
Massachusetts council, and in behalf of himself and other inhabitants of
Boston. The commons refused to admit his petition, though a few days
back they had received one from him as agent for the council. The lords
were actually hearing him on a petition, as a person duly qualified. On
the third reading of the bill another petition was presented in the name
of several natives and inhabitants of North America; which insisted
strongly on the injustice of the act, and its tendency to alienate the
affections of America; and expressly declared, that the attachment of
America could not long survive the justice of Great-Britain. The
minority members maintained that the bill stood simply as a proscription
of one of the greatest trading towns in the British dominions from the
use of their port, and from all the commerce by which thousands obtained
their bread. “Have we not (say they) given an extent of power to his
majesty to prevent the port of Boston from ever being reinstated, if the
king should think proper? A fine is laid; the trade is prohibited until
it is paid; and when the fine is paid, the town may be as far from
recovering her trade as ever. The act provides, that the crown must have
satisfaction, and that the laws of trade and revenue should be obeyed.
There is a sting in this. The act, under pretence of an indemnity to the
East-India Company, is meant to enforce the submission to taxes. America
will see this; and the cause of Boston will be made the cause of all the
colonies. They are all as guilty as Boston. Not one has received the
tea; some have destroyed it, others sent it back.” But all opposition
was ineffectual; for the projected measures of government were
immutable. The bill passed; and was carried up to the house of lords,
where it was warmly debated, but, as in the house of commons, passed
without a division.
[March 31.] It received the royal assent.
The Boston port bill formed only one part of the coercive plan proposed
by ministry. A bill was soon brought in for “the better regulating the
government of the Massachusetts Bay.” The purport of it was, to alter
the constitution of the province, to take the whole executing power out
of the hands of the democratic part, and to vest the nomination of
counsellors, judges, and magistrates of all kinds, including sheriffs,
in the crown, and in some cases in the king’s governor, and all to be
removeable at the pleasure of the crown.
In the debates it was asked of ministry, whether the colonies already
regulated nearly in the manner proposed by the bill, were more
submissive to the right of taxation than the Massachusetts. It was
justly argued, the disorder lay much deeper than the forms of
government; that the people throughout the continent were universally
dissatisfied; and that the uneasiness and resistance was no less in the
royal governments than in any other. Mr. _Bollan_ again made an effort
in favor of his province; but the commons refused to receive his
petition. The ministry having carried the preceding bill, prepared
another, without which, it was said, the scheme would be entirely
defective.
[April 21.] Lord _North_ presented the third bill “for the impartial
administration of justice in the cases of persons questioned for any
acts done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of
riots and tumults in the _Massachusetts Bay_.” This bill provided, that
in case any person was indicted in that province for murder, or any
other capital offence, and it should appear to the governor that the
fact was committed in the exercise or aid of magistracy, in suppressing
tumults and riots, and that a fair trial could not be had in the
province, he should send the person so indicted, &c. to any other
colony, or to Great-Britain to be tried. The charge on both sides was to
be paid out of the customs. The minority opposed this bill with great
vehemence. They insisted that having no sort of reason for impeaching
the tribunals of America, the real intention was to set up a military
government, and provide a virtual indemnity for all the murders and
capital outrages which might be committed by the barbarous hands of
authority. From the impossibility of prosecuting in Great-Britain, they
strenuously maintained that this was holding out encouragement for all
kinds of lawless violence. Colonel _Barre_’s speech upon the occasion,
commanded the attention of the whole house, and closed admirably, with
“You have changed your ground. You are becoming the aggressors, and
offering the last of human outrages to the people of America, by
subjecting them in effect to military execution. Instead of sending them
the olive branch, you have sent the naked sword. By the olive branch, I
mean a repeal of all the late laws, fruitless to you and oppressive to
them. Ask their aid in a constitutional manner, and they will give it to
the utmost of their ability. They never yet refused it when properly
required. Your journals bear the recorded acknowledgments of zeal with
which they have crontributed to the general necessities of the state.
What madness is it that prompts you to attempt obtaining that by force,
which you may more certainly procure by requisition. They may be
flattered into any thing, but they are too much like yourselves to be
driven. Have some indulgence for your own likeness; respect their sturdy
English virtue; retract your odious exertions of authority; and remember
that the first step toward making them contribute to your wants, is to
reconcile them to your government.”
The publications of the day quote an old member rarely in opposition, as
having closed his speech with these remarkable words—“I will now take my
leave of the whole plan. You will commence your ruin from this day. I am
sorry to say, that not only the house has fallen into this error, but
the people approve of the measure. The people, I am sorry to say it, are
misled. But a short time will prove the evil tendency of this bill. If
ever there was a nation running headlong into ruin it is this.” It is
much questioned by many, whether the member did not mistrake in
saying—The people. The same natives of America who petitioned against
the Boston port-bill [May 2.] renewed their endeavours by a petition
against these two bills.—It was pointed with an uncommon energy and
spirit; and strongly indicated the effects that these bills would
produce in the place where they were intended to operate. It was
admitted to lie on the table, and had no other notice taken of it.
Both bills were opposed in the house of lords, and the minority entered
on each a very strong protest. On both however in each house, the number
of the minority continued all along very low and inadequate. Mr.
_Bollan_ applyed for a hearing in the house of lords upon the last bill,
but was refused. He has stood up in defence of the rights and liberties
of the Massachusetts, when no other of the numerous advocates of the
colonies, out of parliament, have appeared to check the torrent of the
most grievous proceedings against them, in like manner, by their
learning and fortitude.
Upon the first of the two bills, the protesting lords _Richmond_,
_Portland_, _Abingdon_, _King_, _Effingham_, _Ponsonby_, _Rockingham_,
_Abergavenny_, _Leister_, _Craven_ and _Fitzwilliam_, dissented among
other reasons, “because definitive legal offence, by which a forfeiture
of the charter is incurred, has not been clearly stated and fully
proved, neither has notice of this advers proceeding been given to the
parties effected; neither have they been heard in their own
defence—because all the judges are to be nominated, not by the crown,
but by the governor; and all except the judges of the superior court,
are to be removable at his pleasure, and expressly without the consent
of that very council, which is to be nominated by the king; the sheriff
is made changeable by the governor and council, as often and for such
purpose as they shall think expedient, whereby the governor and council
are intrusted with powers, with which the British constitution has not
trusted his majesty and privy council, and have the means of returning
such a jury in each particular case, as may best suit with the
gratification of their passions and interests, so that the lives and
properties of the subject are put into their hands without control.” The
protesting lords took occasion to mention concerning the Boston
port-act, “that, unexampled on the records of parliament, it had been
entered on the journals of the house as voted _nemine dissentiente_, and
had been stated in the debate of the day, to have been sent to the
colonies as passed without a division in either house, and therefore as
conveying the uncontroverted universal sense of the nation; and that an
unfair advantage had been taken, on the final question for passing the
penal bill, of the absence of those lords who had debated it for several
hours, and strongly dissented from it on the second reading, the period
on which it is most usual to debate the principle of a bill.”
On the second bill, the protesting lords _Richmond_, _Fitzwilliam_,
_Ponsonby_, _Rockingham_, _Portland_, _Craven_, _Leister_, and
_Manchester_, dissented among other reasons “because the bill amounts to
a declaration, that the house knows no means of retaining the colonies
in due obedience, but by an army rendered independent of the ordinary
course of law in the place where they are employed; because the bill
seems to be one of the many experiments toward an introduction of
essential innovations into the government of the empire.” They said,
“The authority given by this bill to compel the transportation from
America to Great-Britain, if any number of witnesses at the pleasure of
the parties prosecuting and prosecuted, without any regard to their age,
sex, health, circumstances, business or duties, seems to us so
extravagant in its principle, and so impracticable in its execution, as
to confirm us further in our opinion of the spirit which animates the
whole system of the present American regulations.”
[May 20.] His majesty gave his assent to both bills.
The session was drawing near to the usual time of recess, and the
greater number of the members were retired into the country. In this
situation a bill was brought into the house of lords, “For making more
effectual provision for the government of the province of _Quebec_, in
North-America.” It passed through that house with little if any
observation. When it came down to the house of commons, it met with a
very different reception. The principal objects of the bill were, to
ascertain the limits of the province, which were extended far beyond
what were settled as such by the king’s proclamation of 1763—to form a
legislative council for all the affairs of the province, except
taxation, which council was to be appointed by the crown, and the office
to be held during pleasure, and his majesty’s Canadian Roman Catholic
subjects were to be entitled to a place in it—to establish the French
laws and a trial without jury in civil cases, and the English laws, with
trial by jury in criminal—and to secure to the Roman Catholic clergy,
except the regulars, the legal enjoyment of their estates, and of their
tythes from all who were of their own religion. The minority insisted,
that the Protestant religion, by this establishment, enjoyed at best no
more than a toleration. “The popish clergy,” they said, “have a legal
parliamentary right to maintenance, the protestant clergy are left to
the king’s discretion. Why are not both put at least on an equal
footing, and a legal support provided for both?” The minority was
uncommonly small; nevertheless the bill produced much greater uneasiness
and discontent out of doors, than any of those for punishing the old
colonies. The present policy of it is, among other things, to gain,
through the influence of the priests, the assistance of the laity in
subjugating the other provinces.
[June 22.] It received the royal assent, when his majesty went to the
house, at the close of the session; the business of which being ended,
the ministry entertained the most sanguine expectations that the
submission throughout America would be immediate, and that complete
obedience and tranquility would be secured. The speech from the throne
expressed similar sentiments. The triumphs and mutual congratulations of
all who have supported the ministerial plan, within doors and without,
are unusually great. These may be owing, not a little, to the assurances
that governor Hutchinson has repeatedly given to many, that if the
parliament would but act with resolution, and adopt spirited measures, a
speedy submission would take place without any call for fighting.
By the Quebec act, the total revenue of the province is consigned, in
the first instance, to a warrant from the lord of the treasury, for the
purpose of pensioning judges during pleasure, and the support of a civil
list totally unlimited. The first lord of the treasury, without controul
of parliament, is therefore in actual possession of the revenues of one
American province, under the authority of an act of parliament, with no
other obligation expressed, than in general to defray the expences of
the administration of justice, and to support civil government. The
residue, as in the tea act, is to be reserved for the disposal of
parliamentary despotism committed into the hands of the crown and its
minister; for the crown of Great-Britain is constituted as absolute in
the province, under an act of parliament, as any despot that ever
existed in the world. Hence is inferred what ministers would do through
all America, did they possess the power.[108]
Your present governor, general Gage, has been appointed as the most
proper person to see to the execution of the laws which have been passed
respecting both the colony and its capital; when he has settled matters,
and established order and due submission to the power of parliament, Mr.
Hutchinson is to return and resume the chair. The last, since his
arrival, has been graciously received; his influence with ministry will
continue, till events convince them that they have been greatly mistaken
in relying upon his judgment on American subjects. A commission during
pleasure has passed the great seal, granting to general Gage full power
and authority, where he shall see cause, to pardon and remit all
treasons, murders, felonies, crimes, and misdemeanors whatsoever, and
all fines or penalties whatsoever incurred in the Massachusetts.