The joint ministry of Lord Chatham and the Duke of Grafton had been notoriously unstable. Even after Chatham’s retirement in 1768 for reasons of health, one could never be quite sure whether he would rise from his sickbed to unleash rhetorical bombast at what he believed to be the mistaken policies of his former allies. Deep divisions within the government concerning American policy, from Chatham and Lord Camden on one side to less conciliatory figures such as Lord Hillsborough and Lord Mansfield on the other, prevented the ministry from agreeing on a formula that would successfully assert the supremacy of Parliament. Meanwhile, Francis Bernard, and Thomas Hutchinson after him, languished without clear instructions. In the end, the government could not withstand the storm of controversy surrounding the refusal by the House of Commons to seat John Wilkes as the duly elected member from Middlesex. In January 1770, Grafton resigned, succeeded briefly by Charles Yorke, before the premiership settled finally on the shoulders of Frederick, Lord North, who remained as leader through the American Revolution.
Pall Mall Jan. 10th 1770
Dear Sir, We are now come to the Opening of Parliament: hitherto Nothing has transpired concerning what is to be done on the Business of America; & it is probable that no certain System has been settled on that Subject. It is generally beleived that the American Ministry is much divided upon American Affairs; & probably they may be postponed, in the hope of greater Unity soon prevailing. The Opening of the Session seems to flatter such Expectation; as more than one Member of the Cabinet has divided with the Opposition. However the Ministry have showed themselves very strong in both Houses; a full Trial having been made of the Power of both Parties.
I was in the House of Lords yesterday till 9 at night when the last Speaker was up. The Address was moved by the Duke of Ancaster & seconded by Lord Dunmore.1 Lord Chatham then rose & in a Speech not very long proposed 3 Amendments of the Address. 1st the soft’ning the Word unwarrantable applied to the Measures taken by the Americans against the Trade of Great Britain. 2. To strike out an Epithet which implied a Commendation of the late Peace. 3. That in that Part of the Adress which answered his Majesty’s Recommendation of avoiding Heats & Animosities should be inserted, “that they saw with Concern a General Alarm & Ill humour prevailing throughout the Nation upon Account of the House of Commons having declared a Member whom they had expelled incapable of sitting in the House & thereby deprived the People of their right of free Election, & would enquire into the same.”2 The two first were made Subjects of Declamation only, the third was fought thro’ all the Weapons. The Speakers were thus ranged.
Duke of Ancaster
Earl of Chatham
E of Dunmore. second
Earl of Cholmandely.
E of Denbeigh
E of Shelburne
E of Pomfret
D of Grafton
D of Richmond
E of Sandwich
For the 1st Amendment it was said that unwarrantable must mean illegal; & to declare any Proceedings illegal before they were enquired into was a hasty Condemnation. To this it was answered by some that the Proceedings of the Americans were so well known that the Expression was rather soft than aggravated; one Lord said that if the Word Rebellious had been used it would not have been too much. The second Amendment was rather attended to with Declamation than Argument, as it was only a Subject for the former.
The 3rd Amendment was seriously debated. It was proposed by the first Mover as a Matter of the highest Importance & demanding the Interposition of the grand Hereditary Council of the Kingdom Nation; that the House of Commons by declaring a Man incapable of being elected who was eligible by Law, had broke thro the Constitution, & had by a Resolution of their House only, made a new Law, which was the sole Business of the whole Legislature & thereby had violated the Rights of the King the Lords & the Body of the People constituents of that House. That this Proceeding had alarmed the whole People of England from the Lands End to Berwick which had been testified by Petitions signed by all the honest Freeholders in the Kingdom. That unless something was done to appease the People the utmost Confusion must be expected. That no Body was so proper to interpose in so great a Service as the House of Lords.5
To this it was answered that the Determination upon which this Uneasiness was supposed to arise was undoubtedly the Business belonging to the House of Commons, to whom for above 100 Years past the Judgement of the Qualifications of their own Members solely belonged; that, if they did wrong there was no Appeal from them. For if the House of Lords was to interfere they would commit a certain Violation on the Rights of the Commons in order to remedy what was with great Uncertainty charged upon them. And one Lord (Ld M), applying to the Times, observed that if the Lords should join with the People to run down the House of Commons, they might expect that the House of Commons would make Use of the same Agents to run down the House of Lords.6
Indeed when Lord Mansfield had spoke the Argument seemed to be at an End: He so clearly showed that the Right of the House of Commons to judge solely of the Election & Eligibility of their own Members had been acknowledged for above 150 Years, that the Lords could not enter into a Question of it without violating the Priviledges of the Commons. And as it was impossible that the House of Commons should submit to the Lords interfering with the Exercise of their undoubted Priviledge, it must end in a Breach between the two Houses, which might make a Dissolution necessary: And if the People were so fermented, as the Lords on the other Side said Nothing worse could happen to the Nation. But for his Part he was not so apprehensive of the impending Danger as the Lords for the Amendment appeared to be. Let everyone do his Duty; Let the King be firm & steady; Let the two Houses mind their own Business & do it; and let all preserve a Confidence in one another, and he should be under no Fear for the Consequences of the groundless Clamour which had been propagated among the People.
It is not easy to express with what Attention my Lord M was heard & approved: & yet Lord C—m chose to reply to him.7 As Lord M had left little Room for Argument, Lord C was obliged to make it up with Declamation & Passion, which left the reasoning of Lord M unimpeached, & greatly disappointed the Expectation of the Hearers. Lord Sandwich followed Lord C, & first observed of Lord M, that when that learned Lord stood up, he was allways prepared to hear Reason & Argument & to receive Conviction; that he should not have beleived there was a Lord in the House who was not convinced of the Truth of what he had laid down, if it had not been contradicted by the Lord who spoke last; whose Manner of speaking was so far from convincing, that he owned he seldom understood what he meant or could apply what he said to the Question in Debate. As to their extravagant Accounts of the People’s Uneasiness he knew the Falsity of it. He lived in the Middle of England & knew of 10 Counties lying about him who had not petitioned. Could the Alarm which was said to run from the Lands End to Berwick jump over 10 Counties & yet continue its Course? If every honest Freeman had signed Petitions it must follow that there was not one honest Freeholder in the Counties of Northhampton Huntingdon &c. He then rallied the Manner in which Petitions had been obtained by sending Orators & Lawyers from Town to Town like Mountebanks to frighten People with Evils which did not exist. In Short the whole Speech was highly entertaining & really closed the Debate tho two Lords spoke afterwards. Upon putting the Question whether the Address should pass as first proposed, the Numbers without [with?] Proxies were pro. 89. con. 36. The Numbers, without Proxies the Majority was much greater ^100^. This was ended about 10 oclock.
The same Matter was agitated in the House of Commons upon a Question varied only to suit that House. The Debate lasted till near two o’clock in the Morning, when they divided, for the Address at first proposed 254, con 138. I can’t undertake to give you an Account of that Debate but will mention two or three Occurrences which passed there. Col B in the heat of speaking said the K had alienated the Affections of his People.8 Lord N said in plain Words the Assertion was false.9 B endeavoured to palliate the Expression; Another Member held him to the Words. But they were not censured in the Manner they should have been. Col B produced the late Speech of Lord Botetourt & treated it with Severity endeavouring to turn some of the strange Expressions it contains to a Charge against the Ministry.10 Lord Barrington (tho he did not speak on the Subject of Debate) rose & vindicated his Friend Lord B in such a Manner as did Honor to his Ability & Humanity.11
The Marquis of G who had voted for Wilkes Expulsion & Disqualification at the last Session now disclaimed his former Act & said he had altered his Opinion & now thought that the Proceedings in the House on that Occasion were wrong.12 This is accounted for by an Offence the Duke of R has taken, on two Justices being appointed in Leicestershire, where ^he^ is Lord Lieutenant, without his Concurrence. But this made doubtful by another Son of the Dukes voting with the Ministry in this Question.13
Mr Dunning Sollicitor general who was heretofore Council for Wilkes & has upon that Account heretofore declined meddling with political Matters, now avowed his Party & voted with the Minority.14
I should have mentioned before that the Duke of Northumberland voted with the Minority, either from some private Resentment, or to court the popular Party in Middlesex or at least temporise with them.15 You will see the whole List of the Minority of Peers in the Gazetteer. These are all the Defections from Ministry that have yet appeared: their Numbers seem to be very little diminished.
It must be expected that some Removals will follow; One great Officer especially, it is expected will be dismissed. His Removal has been talked of for 6 Months; two or three Months ago, it was said, it was very near being effected; but Means were found to prevent it. Mr York was then & is now talked of to succeed him.16 You must consider all this as ^nothing more than^ common Conversation, of which you will find a great deal more in the Newspapers.
But it is allowed by all that the Number which the Ministry have counted in each House are no Sign of a Change of Administration any further than in 2 or 3 Offices; and that may contribute to produce resolution & Unanimity where it may happen to be wanting. It is upon this Account perhaps that there is no great Hurry in bringing on the American Business. However the Papers relating to the Combination against the Trade of Great Britain are got ready to be laid before the two Houses when they shall be called for. But the first great Business entered upon will probably be the Petitions to the King for dissolving the Parliament, which will, it is said, be laid before the two Houses by a Message.17 The Consideration of this will undoubtedly make warm Work. And if the Ministry gains as great a Victory on this Subject as they did on the like Dispute they will surely hold their Ground.
Enough of Politics for one Time. You will communicate this Rhapsody only to Freinds who will make no improper Use of it. I am Sir &c.
(Postscript to No. 14 to Lt Govr Hutchinson)
P. S. Jan. 16
Since the former Date 2 Lords of the Bedchamber the Duke of Manchester & the Earl of Coventry have resigned;18 the Earl of Huntingdon Groom of the Stole is removed;19 Lord Mansfield has declined taking the great Seal;20 Lord Bristol is made Groom of the Stole;21 Mr York has had 3 Days to consider of his taking the great Seal, which is out today. All this makes an Arrangement in a Paper of today very possible probable; Mr York Lord Chancellor; Lord Mansfield Lord President, Lord Gower Privy Seal.22 If this takes Place the Ministry will be very firm, & all will come to rights. Mr Thurloe is made Sollicitor General in the Room of Mr Dunning.23 I hear now that Mr York has accepted. Yesterday the House of Lords adjourned for another Week not without Debate & Division, the Numbers were 52–18.
SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 4, 8:34–42, 43–44); at foot of letter, “The Honble Lt. Govr Hutchinson.”
Boston 13 Jan. 17691
My Dear Sir, This Vessel being detained by contrary winds I can acquaint you further than I could do when I wrote before with the effect of my late orders. I think the party in opposition to Government are most dejected. It is a favorable circumstance that some of their Correspondents in England who used to encourage them to go on now tell them they have gone too far & they shall not be able to support them. I have made that part of My Lord H. Letter which relates to the Association of the Merchants as publick as possible & I hear today that the person who has always acted as their chairman has expressed himself in such terms as shew that he is tired of his part.2
I ever was of opinion that the source of all our disorder was an apprehension that the united opposition of the Colonies would bring Parliament to any terms & that whenever it appeared that at all events Parliament would maintain its authority this opposition would subside. Upon the present prospect it lowers & every possible means is now used to persuade rather than to compel to persevere in this opposition.
But whenever Parliament shall determine to make a trial of its strength I should think it best with great deference that it should be upon some point altogether unexceptionable. If therefore the Duties in the late Act so far as has been proposed or wholly should be repealed nothing could be more proper than an Act declaring the offence and the penalties of combinations to resist or defeat the operation of Acts of Parliament that remain in force, for it must strike every common understanding that such combinations are absurd & contrary to the fundamental principles of Government.3 The great difficulty is to provide some method for an impartial trial of offences against such an Act. The Act would at least be a Test for a conformity to it under the present constitution of all the Colonies all Judges & Juries being sworn to go according to Law could be refused or neglected upon no other principle than because the Kingdom & the Colonies are two distinct Governments & the Parliament is not the supreme Authority of the whole. Let the Attorney General & other Officers of the Crown to whom it appertains be required to see that evry offence against this Act be vigorously prosecuted & if any Colony shall refuse to adopt it every measure to cause the return of such colony to a due subjection must be justified & a new method of trying Offences against it may be absolutely necessary. If at the same time the Colonies could be convincd that a further extension of the Revenue Laws was not intended. I cannot but hope that all will end well.4 After all I have said we are still liable to all the disorders of a State very near approaching to Anarchy for until the Council can be brought to alter their sentiments the confederate merchants will be under no restraint except what depends upon advices from England & a mere rumour may raise them again. If the Council would have joind with me I should long ago have tried whether we had not interior strength to suppress them. But if the present combination was intirely at an end, I think it absolutely necessary the sense of the nation should be publickly to prevent the like hereafter and indeed whenever government is feeble every attempt of this nature is to be guarded against in the first place & should be crushed in embrio.
If you think any thing I have wrote deserves My Lord Hillsboroughs notice you will be pleased to communicate it.
AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 26:431–32). Contemporary printings: Remembrancer for the Year 1775, 1st ed., pp. 120–21 (all except the first paragraph); Boston Gazette, 19 June 1775; New England Chronicle, 22 June 1775; Norwich Packet, 26 June 1775.
Jan. 13. 1770
Dear Sir, In my former Letters I told you that you stood fair in my Lord Hillsborough’s good Opinion. He has since told me that he intended to appoint you Governor as soon as he could with Propriety supersede me. The two Preliminaries were making a Provision for me, & the Council determining upon the Assembly’s Complaint against me, without which the superseding me might be supposed to be in Consequence of that Complaint.1 I acquainted him today that my Business at the Treasury was determined, and would soon be finished in form. And as to the Complaint, if the Council would hear it summarily, that might be determined as soon. Upon which my Lord assured me that as soon as that was over he would immediately appoint you Governor.
My Lord is as well disposed towards Mr Oliver, & is ready to appoint him Lt Govr, if we could but tell how to make a Satisfaction for the Loss of the Secretary’s Office: for my Lord absolutely declares against any valuable Consideration being given for Mr Oliver’s Resignation or even permitting it to be done without his Knowledge.2 The only Way that has been thought of to make Mr Oliver Amends, has been to get the Annuity granted to you as Cheif Justice, which must expire upon your taking the Government, assigned to Mr Oliver as Lieut Govr.3 My Lord H approves the Thing, & will urge it at a proper Time to the D of G; & I will upon a signal for proper Time endeavour to enforce it with my Lord North.4 The cheif Difficulty apprehended is the great Frugality professed at the Treasury, which I have experienced myself; On the other hand it must be remembered that Mr O is a Creditor of that Board of some standing.5 I have closely attended to these Matters & have the Pleasure to say I meet with all the good Will I could wish.
You will expect to hear what is done with Respect to me. It was some time after I arrived before my Subject was brought upon the Carpet. My Friends L H & L B had fully persuaded themselves that I should have a Pension of 1000 pds a Year.6 But when Lord H came to talk with the Duke of G, the latter applied the 1000 pds only to the time I continued Governor, & said that the Sum of the standing Pension was yet to be settled: He proposed 600 pds; L H pressed for 800. In this uncertain State it lay for several Weeks, untill the Duke went into Suffolk to spend his Christmas. The Day after, Mr Bradshaw acquainted me that it was impracticable to find time for a Reconsideration of this Matter before the Duke went out of Town;7 & added that he had allready Authority to make out a Warrant for 600 pds a year from the first of Decr; that he would perfect this Warrant if I pleased, or would delay it till the Duke came to Town again in Hopes of procuring an Addition to the Sum. I was quite alarmed at the Prospect of this Business being carried into the Time of the sitting of the Parliament; & immediately determined to accept the Offer; & the Warrant was completed before the D returned. Soon after his Return, an Order was issued for 500 pds to be paid to me for the half Year ending at Decr 1, from whence the Pension commenced. My Friends in general disapprove of this nice Frugality in a Case where, they say, the Honor of the Crown was so much concerned. But they acquit the D of Ill Will towards me which I am assured he is far from having. It is rather imputed to an Apprehension that a larger Sum would incur Censure in the public Papers; tho in Truth whoever would censure the Grant of 1000 pds would equally condemn one of 600. For my own Part I am quite easy about it & have no doubt but, by having the Disposal of my time Situation & manner of living, I shall make a Pension of 600 pds as valuable as a Place of 1000. However I intend to convert my Pension to a Place as soon as I can & have allready wrote to the D for that Purpose. For Notwithstanding my Attachment to America I have no Desire to return thither, untill the Disputes with Great Britain are determined. I send you herewith a Letter to authorise you to grant a Leave of Absence to my Son in the Name of the King & tested by you.8 I sollicited this sometime ago & have got this Business put in the Right Channel. I would not have him made acquainted with this: But it will be of Use, if it shall be thought advisable to send him to England. I am much obliged to you for your Care of him: I shall write on this Subject to Lady B. I am &c.
SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 4, 8:44–47); at foot of letter, “The Honble Lt Govr Hutchinson.”
1 For the breakup of the nonimportation agreements in New York and Philadelphia, see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 479–81.
2 For suits against Bernard, Gage, and the customs commissioners, see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 482 and 486.
3 For taxing the salaries of the customs commissioners, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 488.
4 For the resolutions and petition, see JHR, 45:168–73.
5 Robert Eccleshall and Graham Walker, eds., Biographical Dictionary of British Prime Ministers (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 58.
6 Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 143–44, 147–48.
7 For the message to disperse, see No. 509, below.
8 Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 177–79.
9 For allowing TH discretion concerning the place for convening the General Court, see No. 507, below.
10 For TH’s disapproval of sending troops to Boston, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 276.
11 Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 202–04. See also Nos. 534–36, below.
12 TH History, 3:197.
13 TH History, 3:198.
14 A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston (Boston: Edes & Gill and T. & J. Fleet, 1770).
15 For Hutchinson’s letter asking to be removed from consideration, see No. 560, below.
16 Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 222–26, 238–39.
17 For the House’s message and the prorogation, see JHR, 46:194–95.
18 For Hillsborough’s receipt of the news and response, see No. 579, below.
19 For TH’s doubts regarding his ability to transfer the prisoners, see No. 700, below.
20 For the Order in Council, see No. 649, below.
21 For the message of the House, see JHR, 47:63–71.
22 TH History, 3:21–23.
23 Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 264–66.
1 For Secretary of State Lord Hillsborough’s letter of instructions, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 451.
2 Lieutenant-Colonel William Dalrymple (see BD) was commander-in-chief of His Majesty’s forces at Boston. TH had previously requested the removal of the main guard (stationed directly opposite the Town House) during the meeting of the General Court. The troops’ presence had been a source of complaint during the last session of the legislature.
1 For Mauduit’s previous letter, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 452.
2 The Boston News Letter for 4 January, the Boston Post-Boy for 8 January, and the Essex Gazette for 9 January 1770 all printed an excerpt from the third paragraph of Mauduit’s letter No. 452 beginning with the words “The great end of all Government . . .” and ending with “. . . want of Imployment” with the omission of the following sentence: “But alas the great question now is, not what is it we ought to do, but what is it we can do? and the great Business of an opposition is to prevent a Minister from doing any thing; and then to abuse him for doing nothing.” There is also the significant substitution of the word “trade” for the final word “Imployment.” The passage was titled “An Extract from a Merchant in London to His Correspondent in Boston, Dated November 4, 1769.”
3 In all likelihood, TH is referring to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (known as the New England Company after 1770), which had an English and American board. Incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1649, the society listed among its most lasting accomplishments the printing of John Eliot’s Algonquian Bible in 1663. Mauduit was involved with several dissenting charities.
4 Further description below in the letter suggests these initials stand for, among the laymen, Thomas Boylston (1721–1728), who had been active as a member of the Committee of Merchants enforcing the nonimportation agreement but had been noted in John Mein’s Boston Chronicle as nevertheless receiving imported goods; William Phillips Sr. (1722–1804), who had chaired the merchants’ meeting that extended the agreement; Thomas Flucker (see BD); and Harrison Gray (1711–1794), the treasurer of the province. The clergymen alluded to can be tentatively identified in order as Charles Chauncy (1705–1787), minister of the First Church in Boston; Samuel Cooper (1725–1783) of the Brattle Street Church; Samuel Mather (1706–1785) of the Bennet Street Church; and Simeon Howard (1733–1804) of the West Church, a political moderate who did indeed become a trustee for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England.
5 The bracketed words appear in TH’s cipher in the MS.
6 The letters “C” and “E” in this sentence may suggest “Clergy” and “English” constitution.
7 “Latet anguis in herba,” Latin, meaning “a concealed snake in the grass.”
8 Matthew Griswold (1714–1799) was deputy governor of Connecticut from 1769 through 1784.
1 For Hillsborough’s letter, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 451.
2 At the close in July of its last session, the General Court had passed a series of resolves challenging the supremacy of Parliament and petitioning for the removal of Governor Francis Bernard (JHR, 45:80–82, 85–87).
3 The Dft contains four lines following this sentence, crossed out but clearly legible: “What influence this measure will have upon the combination of the Merchants I am at a loss to determine. I would rather hope that it may tend to convince them that what they call legal and constitutional is illegal & contrary to any.” The rest of the paragraph is crossed out too thoroughly to be legible.
1 For the compliance of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York with the Quartering Act of 1765, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 489.
2 Interlined material appears at the bottom of the page. TH is alluding to the fighting that took place along the western border of Massachusetts with New York at Nobletown in July 1766 (Papers of Francis Bernard, 3:200–09).
1 None of TH’s surviving letters written during the fall or early winter of 1769 explicitly mention this concern.
2 For plans to move the main guard, see No. 494, above.
3 Material interlined without mark for position.
4 A letter by “Vindex,” whom Harbottle Dorr also believed to be Samuel Adams, appeared in the Boston Gazette, 8 January 1770.
1 TH’s promotion from acting governor to governor was by no means certain. Bernard was his chief advocate with Lord Hillsborough, the secretary of state for the colonies.
2 Before becoming a commissioner of customs, John Temple had been surveyor general of the northern customs district.
3 By “His brother and he,” TH meant Temple and his brother-in-law John Fenton.
4 Justice of the Peace Benjamin Pickman Sr. took a deposition from Sampson Toovey alleging Bernard’s involvement in corruption at the Salem Custom House. Benjamin Pickman Jr. looked into the matter for TH to see if the deposition had been falsified. See TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 444, 467, and 472.
5 Thomas Flucker believed himself to have been libeled by John Temple and John Fenton, the suspected authors of a satirical publication called A Dialogue between Sir George Cornwell . . . and Mr. Flint (Boston, 25 January 1769). In the Dialogue, Mr. Flint points out the characters of the various members of the government party, including TH. Flucker, who is mocked for putting on pompous airs after his marriage to an extremely wealthy widow, Hannah Waldo (1726–1785) threatened legal action but apparently did not proceed. See TH Correspondence, 2: No. 390.
6 George Meserve was stamp distributor for New Hampshire before he resigned the position during the Stamp Act riots. He was made collector of customs at Portsmouth, a post reportedly worth £600, as compensation for his loss of income as stamp distributor. Thus, Andrew Oliver, who had also resigned the same post in Massachusetts and had his house attacked, was the only sufferer in the Stamp Act riots for whom some compensation had not been made.
7 MS is blotted.
8 Mr. Pelham was probably Charles Pelham (1748–1829) of Newton, brother of the engraver Peter Pelham. Frank Bernard was the governor’s son, who was suffering from mental instability; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 457.
1 The Suffolk County Grand Jury had indicted Bernard, Gage, and the customs commissioners for libeling the province in letters sent to England and subsequently published in Boston in the summer of 1769; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 482.
1 On the night of 9 January, the House of Lords debated the substance of their address in response to the king’s speech at the opening of Parliament. “A Short Sketch of the Debate in the House of Lords, January 9, 1770” appeared in the Gentlemen’s Magazine for January 1770, closely mirroring Bernard’s account. General Peregrine Bertie, 3rd Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven (1714–1778), seconded by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore (1730–1809), moved the address on behalf of the administration.
2 Bernard is making a reference to the refusal of the House of Commons to seat John Wilkes while he was in prison despite his repeated election by Middlesex voters.
3 The other speakers for the ministry included William Feilding, 6th Earl of Denbigh (1719–1800); William Talbot, 1st Earl Talbot (1710–1782); George Fermor, 2nd Earl of Pomfret (1722–1785); Edwin Sandys, 2nd Baron Sandys (1726–1797); the Duke of Grafton (see BD); Lord Mansfield (see BD); John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich (1718–1792); and Thomas Thynne, 3rd Viscount Weymouth (1734–1796), created Marquess of Bath in 1789.
4 Lord Chatham moved to amend the address, seconded by George James Cholmondeley, 4th Earl of Cholmondeley (1749–1827), later created Marquess in 1815. Other speakers included Lord Shelburne (see BD); Lord Temple (see BD); Lord Camden (see BD); Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond (1735–1806); and George Lyttleton, 1st Baron Lyttleton (1709–1773).
5 Lord Chatham alluded to the widespread petitioning movement of the previous summer calling for the resignation of the ministry and new elections.
6 The abbreviation “LM” refers to Lord Mansfield.
7 Lord Chatham replied to Lord Mansfield in the debate, urging that the Lords had both a right and a responsibility to intervene if the Commons acted unconstitutionally.
8 Bernard referred to Colonel Isaac Barré (see BD).
9 Bernard referred to Lord North (see BD).
10 Norborne Berkeley, 4th Baron Botetourt (circa 1717–1770), governor of Virginia, had implied in a speech to the Virginia Assembly on 7 November 1769 that he had the king’s assurance of the repeal of all the Townshend Acts.
11 Bernard referred to Lord Barrington (see BD).
12 The reversal of John Manners, Marquis of Granby (1721–1770), on Wilkes’s position in Parliament would lead to Granby’s resignation as commander-in-chief of forces and master general of ordnance.
13 John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland (1696–1779), was lord lieutenant of Leicestershire and father of the Marquis of Granby. Another son, Lord George Manners-Sutton (1723–1783), was a member of Parliament for Grantham.
14 John Dunning, 1st Baron Ashburton (1731–1783), was solicitor general since 1768, but his apostasy led to his dismissal.
15 Bernard referred to Hugh Percy, 1st Duke of Northumberland (circa 1714–1786).
16 Charles Yorke (1722–1770), attorney general during Lord Rockingham’s administration, briefly became lord chancellor on 17 January 1770 following intense persuasion by George III after the dismissal of Lord Camden. Yorke had previously vowed never to take office under the Duke of Grafton, and overcome with shame, died three days later, some thought by his own hand.
17 Concerning the petitions, see note 5, above.
18 Bernard referred to George Montagu, 4th Duke of Manchester (1737–1788), and George William Coventry, 6th Earl of Coventry (1722–1809).
19 Bernard referred to Francis Hastings, 10th Earl of Huntingdon (1729–1789).
20 Bernard meant that Lord Mansfield refused to become lord chancellor, the head of the administration.
21 Bernard referred to Frederick Augustus Hervey, 4th Earl of Bristol (1730–1803) and bishop of Cloyne.
22 Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Marquess of Stafford (1721–1803), known as Earl Gower from 1754 through 1786, was an adherent of the Duke of Bedford and soon became a key member of the administration of Lord North.
23 Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow (1731–1806), became solicitor general after John Dunning (see note 14, above).
1 Despite the fact that TH wrote 1769 in his letterbook, this letter has been assigned to January 1770 based on internal evidence.
2 Most probably, TH meant Hillsborough’s letter, TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485, which informed TH that the actions of the merchants had been referred to the Privy Council.
3 Here TH proposed something akin to the Declaratory Act, which accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act. If Parliament would repeal all the Townshend Duties including tea, it should be accompanied by a new law declaring combinations to undermine the acts of Parliament (like the nonimportation agreements) illegal.
4 TH believed tensions between the mother country and her colonies would relax if Parliament promised to pass no more revenue-producing legislation in America while still successfully finding a way to assert its supremacy.
1 Before the General Court was prorogued, it made a formal complaint to remove Bernard that had yet to be heard before the Privy Council; see Papers of Francis Bernard, 5: Appendix 6, for the text.
2 TH long contemplated that his brother-in-law Andrew Oliver would succeed him as lieutenant governor, although the post carried no emoluments with it as long as the governor resided in the province; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 391.
3 TH had been granted a salary of £200 a year for his post as chief justice to be drawn from revenue generated by the Townshend Duties; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 408.
4 Lord North would soon succeed the Duke of Grafton as first lord of the treasury.
5 The Treasury had long promised Andrew Oliver some compensatory reward for his sufferings during the Stamp Act crisis.
6 “My Friends LH and LB” refers to Lord Hillsborough and Lord Barrington.
7 Thomas Bradshaw (1733–1774) was secretary to the Treasury from 1767 through 1770 and confidential “man of business” to the Duke of Grafton.
8 The governor’s son Frank administered the Massachusetts naval office, recording the entrance and departure of ships in the habor, and would need permission to leave his post.
1 Concerning the pirate Thomas Austin, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 490. He was presumably apprehended by Colonel Josiah Quincy (1710–1784).
2 A letter from TH to Lord Hillsborough, dated 1 January 1770, concerning William Marshall is calendared but not printed in this volume.
3 The Boston Gazette for 22 January 1770 reported on these efforts at “persuasion.” See also Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 144–47, and Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 167.
4 William Phillips showed TH a “minute” of the committee’s transactions with his sons, an action that was later presented by the opposition as if TH had, in some way, approved his sons’ response. Although theoretically TH might have been more effective protecting other importers once his sons were no longer involved, such turned out not to be the case (TH History, 3:192; Archer, Enemy’s Country, p. 171).
1 For the communication of this news, see No. 494, above.
2 Concerning the removal of the Main Guard, see also No. 494, above.
1 These letters are TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 422 and 431, respectively.
2 TH Correspondence, 2: No. 422, contains TH’s initial distribution list for TH Original Papers.
3 In TH Correspondence, 2: No.422, TH professed his ignorance of British party divisions and asked Jackson to correct his distribution list if any of the choices were inappropriate.
4 TH had long hoped that the merchants’ nonimportation agreement and their efforts to enforce it would be declared illegal; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 420.
5 For Lord Camden’s resignation, see No. 501, above.
1 Bernard provided a full account of the debate on the Address of the Lords in response to the king’s speech in No. 501, above.
2 For those letters, see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 445 and 454, respectively.
3 Hillsborough’s order to prorogue the General Court was contained in TH Correspondence, 2: No. 451.
1 TH’s nephew Nathaniel Rogers was one of those importers who had begun to sell his goods despite the recent resolutions of the merchants’ meeting. See Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 147–48, and Archer, Enemy’s Country, pp. 160–61.
1 Dateline appears at the end of the letter.
2 Unable to persuade the Council to join with him in denouncing the actions of the merchants’ meetings and their committees of inspection, TH at last decided to act on his own. Upon receiving his messages, the merchants reaffirmed the legality of their actions and duly ignored the acting governor’s warning (Boston Gazette, 29 January 1770).
1 Lord Hillsborough’s order was so late in arriving that Williams had already left his home in Hatfield to attend the meeting of the General Court. For the late arrival of the order to prorogue, see No. 494, above.
2 Latin, meaning “May God avert the ill omen.”
3 Williams apparently joined with many patriots in regarding the commissioners of customs, who had been established at about the same time as the Townshend duties, as a needless provocation and additional expense.
4 “If the Grand Seignior wants Bashaws,” that is, if the sultan of the Ottoman Empire needs pashas or underlings. The use of the word expresses Williams’s contempt for Francis Bernard.
5 The “one instance,” the looting of TH’s house in 1765, was reimbursed by the General Court in 1766.
6 Jonathan Ashley Jr. (1739–1787) was a selectman and representative from Deerfield. He was later imprisoned as a loyalist. Jonathan Bliss (1742–1822) was a representative from Springfield in 1768 and 1769. He accompanied the British on the march to Concord in 1775, emigrated to New Brunswick in 1776, and became that province’s attorney general and later chief justice. Both men were appointed justices of the peace by TH in 1770.
7 The Reverend Samuel Todd (1717–1789) was chosen selectman at the first meeting of the freeholders of Lanesborough in 1765. He was an evangelical minister in present-day North Adams from 1766 though 1778 and was representative from that region to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention in 1779. Woodbridge Little (1741–1813) graduated from Yale in 1760 and preached briefly at Lanesborough before becoming a lawyer in 1764. He was indeed appointed justice of the peace by TH in 1770 and became a prominent government party spokesman in western Massachusetts. He fled to New York in 1775 but was forcibly returned to Pittsfield, where he took an oath of allegiance in 1777 and later served as a representative to the General Court. Joseph Bennet (b. 1720) of Coventry, Rhode Island, was one the early settlers of Lanesborough during the late 1760s. The extended interlineation was written in the margin and marked with a cross for insertion here.
1 This excerpt from TH’s letterbook appears to be a fragment or draft of another letter. Perhaps he had second thoughts about the advisability of mentioning William Phillips and John Hancock by name and revised the original. It appears to have been written soon after the merchants’ meeting on 23 January. The fragment seems to presume that the recipient had a certain familiarity with some of the principal merchant leaders, and the closing allusion to his thirty years of government service suggests the intended recipient might have been Sir Francis Bernard.
1 TH first described these renewed efforts of enforcement in the postscript to his letter to John Pownall, No. 504, above. The town meeting was restricted to meetings for certain specified legal purposes, and only those who met the property requirement might technically be admitted. The merchants’ meetings had gradually transformed themselves into a new entity, called the Body of the Trade, open to all and much larger than the town meeting itself. It wielded considerable popular authority (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 143–44).
2 For Thomas Young, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 326.
3 TH gave a similar reason for allowing his sons to acquiesce to the demands of the committee of inspection in his letter to John Pownall, No. 504, above.
4 TH’s message to the meeting was No. 509, above. The meeting’s response was printed in the Boston Gazette, 29 January 1770.
1 This earlier report was contained within No. 496, above.
2 TH gave slightly different versions of his sons’ acquiescence to the merchants’ demands in his letters to John Pownall, No. 504, and to Thomas Gage, No. 512, above.
3 The DupRC reads “contest” not “contention.”
4 The DupRC omits “in the meeting.”
5 The message to the Body of the Trade was No. 509, above.
6 The DupRC omits the phrase “I am told that.”
7 The DupRC omits the phrase “Entred into here.”
8 Concerning the offer of the Scotch merchant, see Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 147–48.
1 Curiously, TH does not mention in his letter that John Bernard, son of the governor, was one of the merchants being proscribed as a violator of the nonimportation agreement.
2 An account of the meeting between TH and the committee of inspection, together with the final agreement of his sons, is included in the Boston Gazette, 22 January 1770.
3 The text of TH’s message, No. 509, above, together with the meeting’s reply was printed in the Boston Gazette, 29 January 1770. The same newspaper also recorded the summoning of the justices of the peace.
1 TH meant the American Board of Customs Commissioners.
2 The letter has not been found.
1 The text of this petition is in Bowdoin-Temple Papers, MHS Colls., 6th series (1897), 9:161–64. William Bollan presented the petition to the House of Commons in March under his own signature. See No. 541, below.
1 Bernard’s letters 6–9 are TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 459, 462, 463, and 464, respectively.
2 By this time, TH knew that the General Court’s petition for Bernard’s removal had been largely disregarded.
3 TH had been making an effort to encourage several of his most loyal supporters from the western part of the province to attend the next session of the General Court in mid-March.
4 TH clarified the meaning of this sentence in the final paragraph of this letter: he hoped that when people judged his performance as acting governor, they would remember how much the governor’s sphere of action was limited by the Massachusetts Charter.
5 Just before leaving the province, Bernard suspected TH of attempting to set some distance between his future actions and Bernard’s past conduct. See TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 379, 380, and 381. TH appeared anxious to assuage any lingering hurt feelings.
6 In TH Correspondence, 2: No. 450, dated 4 November 1769, Bernard mentioned proposing to Hillsborough that the Massachusetts governorship should be enlarged and accorded a salary suitable to “a person of rank,” and that under such circumstances TH would be content to remain as chief justice as long as the salary was augmented to £500. In that way, TH, though not appointed Bernard’s successor, would not appear to be neglected or rebuked.
1 Bernard described the debate in his letter to TH, No. 501, above.
2 I.e., custody of the Great Seal would be held jointly by a commission of judges, some of whose initials Bernard has listed incorrectly: Allen Bathurst (1684–1775), 1st Baron, was known as Lord Bathurst from 1712 until 1772 when he became the 1st Earl, and was lord chancellor from 1771 through 1778; Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe (1705–1778), judge, was chief baron of the exchequer from 1772 through 1778; Sir Richard Aston (1717–1778) was a judge; and Sir John Eardley Wilmott (1709–1792) was chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas.
3 John Cust (1718–1770), 3rd Baronet, Speaker of the House from 1761 through 1770.
4 Fletcher Norton (1716–1789), 1st Baron Grantley, Speaker from 1770 through 1780.
5 Nevertheless, the majority in favor of the administration was much smaller than the previous division on the same subject on 9 January 1770.
6 Actually, the Duke of Grafton had told the king on 22 January that he would resign on the 28th. The king had dismissed Lord Camden as lord chancellor on 17 January, so there was no “head of the law.” The Marquis of Granby, master of ordnance, also resigned on the 17th, leaving the army without a head.
7 Lord Chatham had brought the Duke of Grafton into office, and bridging the differences between Chatham, even after his resignation, and the other ministers had, at last, proved impossible. Lord Camden was Lord Chatham’s “intimate friend.”
8 “Mr. Greenville,” meaning George Grenville, who had been both first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer.
9 Colonel Isaac Barre, vice-treasurer under Chatham, had resigned from the ministry shortly after Chatham and Shelburne and gone into opposition.
10 For the Earl of Denbigh’s participation in the previous debate on 9 January, see No. 501, above.
11 “He” in this sentence pertains to Lord Camden.
12 For Lord Weymouth, see also No. 501, above. Wilkes had written an inflammatory introduction to a letter he had secretly obtained, written by Viscount Weymouth as secretary of state to the justices of the peace in Surrey, urging them to make early application for the use of force in the suppression of rioters. This breach of privilege was one of the reasons given for Wilkes’s expulsion from the House.
1 Concerning James Boies’s efforts at paper manufacturing, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 417.
1 William Tyng (1737–1807), a future loyalist, was sheriff of Cumberland County from 1768 through 1775.
2 In 1769, Tyng had married Elizabeth, the daughter of Alexander Ross, a Scot residing in Falmouth.
1 TH’s last letter to Gage was No. 512, above.
1 In early December 1769, Boston merchants had begun a campaign to limit the fees charged by the Custom House and the Naval Office to those specified by Massachusetts law. See TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 465 and 483. In the remainder of this letter, Bernard lays out his legal reasoning for why such an effort should be disregarded by the courts.
2 Nathaniel Taylor preceded Frank Bernard as deputy naval officer. He was included in the Massachusetts Banishment Act of 1778.
3 Latin, meaning “unwilling to pursue,” a formal declaration that the prosecutor is dropping the charges against the accused.
4 15 Car. II, c. 7, was “An Act for the Encouragement of Trade,” one of the principal Navigation Acts.
5 Mass. Acts and Resolves, 1:34–35.
6 7&8 Will. III, c. 22, was “An Act for Preventing Frauds and Regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade.”
7 Benjamin Pemberton (1696/97–1782) kept a tenacious hold on the lucrative post since Governor Jonathan Belcher’s time until 1766, when he was persuaded to share the office with Frank Bernard, the governor’s son.
8 “An Act in Addition to, and in Explanation of Two Acts, Referring to the Regulation of Fees, etc.” (JHR, 1:220).
9 Robert Auchmuty, judge of the Vice Admiralty Court, and Jonathan Sewall, attorney general (for both, see BD).
1 Bernard’s last letter describing the ministerial crisis was No. 518, above.
2 I.e., the king’s support for Lord North.
3 Meaning the ministry would support the repeal of only the duties on paint, lead, and glass but not tea.
4 See Lloyd’s Evening Post, 8 January 1770, and Middlesex Journal, 8 February 1770. For “Full of sound, etc.,” see Macbeth, act V, scene 5.
5 To print proceedings in the House of Lords would be punishable by imprisonment. The newspaper has not been identified.
6 Pownall’s letter has not been found.
1 Letters No. 11 and 13 were TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 473 and 490. TH’s letter No. 1 of 1 January 1770 has not been found. TH Correspondence, 2: No. 486, was the missing letter No. 12 that contained further information on the libel prosecutions against Bernard, Gage, and the commissioners.
2 TH Correspondence, 2: No. 473, covered a copy of a letter from the Boston merchants inviting the merchants at Salem to join with them in the extended form of the nonimportation agreement.
3 TH Correspondence, 2: No. 473, described the lawsuits against customs officers for excessive fees.
4 TH Correspondence, 2: No. 490, also described the efforts to tax the salaries of the customs commissioners.
5 In TH Correspondence, 2: No. 490, TH recommended not attempting to collect the Greenwich Hospital duty from Massachusetts fishermen because the duty had not been enforced for a long time.
6 This change of offices is described in greater detail in No. 518, above.
1 By the Mutiny Act, TH meant the Quartering Act of 1765, to which both New York and Massachusetts vehemently objected. The act establishing the American Board of Customs Commissioners was an important part of Charles Townshend’s American reforms.
2 The revised version of the letter makes clear that TH’s source was New York lawyer and councilor William Smith Jr.; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 286.
3 The Townshend duty on tea was accompanied by the Indemnity Act, which allowed a 25 percent drawback of duties paid when the tea entered England so long as it was re-exported to the colonies. The intent was to lower the cost of tea to consumers in America, allowing the East India Company to compete better against smuggled tea (Labaree, Boston Tea Party, pp. 20–21).
4 Councilor John Erving was reputed to be a smuggler (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 30–32, 47–48).
5 This paragraph was written on a separate sheet (f. 439) and marked for insertion at this point.
6 TH had previously contemplated a Test Act, whereby colonial officeholders would need to take an oath acknowledging the supremacy of Parliament; see No. 502, above.
7 For more on 25 Geo. 2, c. 6, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 275n.
8 For the suppression of the Land Bank in which TH was a principal actor, see TH Correspondence, 1:66–67, Nos. 3 and 192.
9 The Currency Act of 1751 (25 Geo. 2, c. 53) forbade further emissions of currency in the New England colonies. See also TH Correspondence, 2: No. 275n.
10 TH gave his opinions on an American Parliament like that of Ireland (“the N Y scheme of general government”) in his letter to Bernard; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 438.
11 Here TH suggested that Parliament provide the colonies with a common penal code, since punishments varied widely from one jurisdiction to another.
1 In TH Correspondence, 2: No. 286, William Smith Jr. described the formula by which the New York Assembly had grudgingly complied with the letter, if not the spirit, of the Quartering Act. The other colonies complied more readily.
2 For Hawley’s denial of the right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies, see TH History, 3:190.
3 “Veniente occurrite morbo,” Latin, meaning “Oppose a distemper at its first approach.”
4 In a much-noted speech in the House of Commons on 14 January 1766 occasioned by the repeal of the Stamp Act, Chatham made a distinction between Parliament’s powers of taxation and legislation, the second being a permissible use of its power over the colonies, the first not. See TH Correspondence, 2: No. 305.
5 Molineux’s followers equated him with Pascal Paoli (1725–1807), the leader of the Corsican Revolution and an international symbol for the rise of independence and democracy during the later eighteenth century.
6 By instructions, TH meant the petition the council sent to Bollan; see No. 516, above.
7 The Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights was formed on 20 February 1769 to aid John Wilkes’s efforts to be reinstated in Parliament. The society called for the reform of the House of Commons based on “full and equal representations of the people,” the elimination of excise taxes, and no taxation for America without its consent (Arthur H. Cash, John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006], p. 295).
8 TH dispatched a copy of the council’s action to John Pownall in No. 516, above.
9 If the Council could continue to meet without the governor present, it was no longer acting as an arm of the executive assisting the governor but had resumed its role as the upper house of the legislature, despite the fact that the General Court had been prorogued.
10 The “Letter to the King,” first published on 19 December 1769, was one of a series of letters intended to embarrass the administration of the Duke of Grafton written by the pseudonymous polemicist Junius in the London Public Advertiser from 21 January 1769 through 21 January 1772. The letters, filled with vituperation and invective, generally aroused curiosity and amusement among the political classes, except for the “Letter to the King,” which strayed too far into lèse-majesté. The Boston News Letter reprinted the “Letter to the King” on 8 February 1770.
1 TH’s letter No. 1, dated 10 January, was No. 498. Letter No. 2, also dated 10 January, was No. 499, both above.
2 For Hillsborough’s suggestion, rather than order, to convene the General Court at Cambridge, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485.
3 I.e., the duties on paper, paint, and glass but not the duty on tea.
4 Lord North.
5 Bernard’s last letter was No. 523, above.
6 Sir Fletcher Norton was the recently appointed Speaker; see No. 518, above.
7 After their July petition to the king to remove Sir Francis Bernard, the General Court failed to supply their agent Dennys De Berdt (see BD) with supporting evidence for their charges, prompting him to request an extension.
8 Oliver’s letter has not been found.
1 Arthur Savage (1731–1801), brother of the Boston insurance broker Samuel Phillips Savage, became comptroller of customs at Falmouth in 1755. After his life was threatened in 1771, he returned to Boston, later embarking with the British troops in March 1776. He died in England.
2 The letter has not been found.
3 The type of vessel was not further identified.
4 TH had already given his opinion on this subject to William Tyng; see No. 520, above.
1 TH probably made this statement based on a letter from Francis Bernard dated 8 December (TH Correspondence, 2: No. 484). He had not yet received an earlier letter from Bernard (TH Correspondence, 2: No. 475), which was more skeptical about the removal of the duty on tea. The order in which the letters were received is explained in No. 530, below.
2 William Molineux had begun to take a leading role in popular demonstrations (Deposition of William Jackson, National Archives UK, CO 5/759, ff. 42–43).
3 Theophilus Lillie (1730–1776) was a shopkeeper and importer who incurred the special enmity of the committee of inspection by publishing a stout defense of his liberty to trade in the Boston Chronicle, 15 January 1770.
4 Ebenezer Richardson (b. 1718), a principal informant and later an employee of the Boston customs service, was evidently one of Lillie’s neighbors (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 38–40, 45, 61, 62, 149).
5 Christopher Seider (1759–1770). His funeral procession on 26 February was purportedly the largest ever seen in Boston. For more complete accounts of the demonstration outside Lillie’s shop and Seider’s death, see TH History, 3:193–94, as well as Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 173–79, and Archer, Enemy’s Country, pp. 179–81.
6 John Ruddock (1713–1772) was a shipbuilder, selectman, and justice of the peace.
7 TH first mentioned his sons acceding to the agreement in No. 504, above.
1 For the lack of resolution within the cabinet, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 484.
2 The AC reads, “they are to be called a party.”
3 The basis on which TH made this prediction is explained in the notes to the previous letter, No. 528, above.
4 For Hillsborough’s letter granting TH discretion over the site of the meeting of the General Court, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485.
5 The AC reads, “to remove them.”
6 Concerning the Main Guard, see No. 494, above.
7 TH also described the shooting of Christopher Seider by Ebenezer Richardson in the previous letter, No. 528, above.
8 The AC omits the phrase “the measures of.”
1 For Bernard’s letter No. 13, dated 8 December 1769, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 484. Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12 are Nos. 464, 475, 476, and 477, respectively.
2 TH described the demonstration at Lillie’s store and the death of Christopher Seider in the preceding two letters: Nos. 528 and 529, above.
3 TH believed the funeral was modeled on that of William Allen (1748–1768), an innocent bystander pursued and killed by soldiers in the St. George’s Fields Massacre, 10 May 1768, after John Wilkes had been committed to prison (TH History, 3:194).
4 The speeches made by councilors Royall Tyler and John Erving were not found.
5 Dalrymple had ordered soldiers stationed at the house of Nathaniel Rogers, TH’s nephew (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 170).
6 John Bernard, the governor’s son, was an importer.
7 By order of Lord Hillsborough, the meeting of the General Court had been prorogued until 14 March; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 451.
8 Frank Bernard, the governor’s eldest son, had been under treatment for a mental disorder since the summer.
9 The pamphlet or handbill has not been found. His sons may have obtained it from a member of the family of councilor James Pitts, a relation by marriage of the Bowdoins and Ervings.
10 John Temple was suspected previously of leaking information on the internal workings of the American Board of Customs Commissioners.
11 Hillsborough had granted TH this discretion in TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485.
12 The Massachusetts charter prevented the governor from removing either sitting councilors or justices of the peace without a vote of the Council, a provision that had limited both Bernard and Hutchinson in their struggles with the opposition.
13 Justice John Ruddock had committed Ebenezer Richardson to jail; see No. 528, above.
14 By “T. of B.,” TH meant the town of Boston. He still expected some parliamentary rebuke for its resolutions of 4 October 1769. See TH Correspondence, 2: No. 421.
1 Hillsborough’s instructions were conveyed in TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485.
2 By Court House, TH meant the Town House (the place where the General Court met). The Main Guard stood opposite on King Street.
3 In an earlier draft of the letter written before TH decided to convene the legislature at Cambridge, TH wrote the following instead of the preceding paragraph: “I shall meet with little or no trouble on account of the Troops and the discontent which sitting at Cambridge at this season of the year will occasion in the minds of the members must I think outweigh any advantage from the resentment shewn at the behaviour of the Town of Boston. Had I received His Majestys Commands to carry the Court out of Boston as a mark of the Royal resentment for the undutiful or disloyal behaviour of the Inhabitants this would have fallen with weight upon them but any thing short of that in these licentious times will have but little effect. As your Lordship is pleased to leave it to my discretion I have thought it most prudent not to alter the place of the General Courts meeting. The other part of your Lordships direction not to concur in the Election of any Councillors who shall have been active parties in the illegal combination I shall carefully observe. If your Lordship had extended your direction to all who are favourers of them, as I doubt whether I shall ever have any but such offered to me for my consent and I must be without a Council if I should strictly conform to them” (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 26:448–49). Otherwise the draft and the letter are virtually identical.
4 The AC reads, “your Lordship’s opinion in giving my consent to the choice of Councillors who have been active parties in the illegal combinations.”
5 The AC omits “If.”
6 The earlier draft reads, “This I had repeatedly done before and have no reason to expect any success from this renewal of it.”
1 The petition of the Massachusetts House of Representatives for the removal of Francis Bernard as governor.
2 Dennys De Berdt was agent for the Massachusetts House.
3 Bernard referred to the repeal of the Townshend duties, the first three articles being the duties on paper, glass, and paint; the whole act would include the duty on tea.
1 The SC omits the phrase “since dead a fourth dangerously wounded.”
2 Samuel Gray, Crispus Attucks, and James Caldwell were the first victims of the Massacre to die. Samuel Maverick died by the following morning. A musket ball passed through the arm of Edward Payne (1722–1788), merchant, and lodged in the door post of his shop. What is purportedly that ball is now part of the collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
3 For the message of the town meeting, see BTR, 18:1–4.
4 Maurice Carr (1730–1813) was lieutenant-colonel of the 29th Regiment.
5 The SC reads, “to consent.”
6 Benjamin Caldwell (1737–1820) was captain of HMS Rose stationed in Boston Harbor.
7 Councilors James Russell of Charlestown and Samuel Dexter of Dedham.
8 For the exact language in which the advice of the council was communicated, see No. 535, above.
9 The secretary, Andrew Oliver.
1 For the text of the circular letter promising repeal, see Bernard Papers, 5:263–64.
2 For William Beckford, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 395n.
3 For Alexander Mackay, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 348n.
4 For George Grenville, see BD.
2 Thomas Goldthwait (see BD) was commandant of Fort Pownall and the licensed truckmaster of the Indian trade in Maine.
3 LM, Lawful Money, meaning Massachusetts currency.
4 Great confusion surrounded the eastern boundary of the District of Maine. The French regarded the Kennebec River as the border between Acadia and Massachusetts, while the British claimed it was the Penobscot. Although the River St. Croix constitutes the modern boundary between Maine and Canada, that name was not commonly used by British settlers. Following the expulsion of the French, both Massachusetts and the newly established Council of Nova Scotia claimed the territory east of the Penobscot, in part because of confusion over the location of the St. Croix. Eager to assert its claim, the Massachusetts General Court had granted (but the Crown had not approved) titles to land bordering Passamaquoddy Bay, the mouth of the modern St. Croix. Among those speculating in land along the shores of the Passamaquoddy were Francis Bernard, John Pownall, Richard Jackson, and Benjamin Franklin.
1 Hillsborough refers to No. 496, above.
2 In No. 513, above, TH recounted his efforts to disperse the merchants’ meeting of the previous day.
1 This letter was probably written on either Wednesday, 7 March or 14 March. In No. 543, below, TH indicated that Robinson would deliver that letter to him, so 7 March is the more likely date.
2 Robinson proposed going to England in October 1769; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 448. When he departed on 16 March, he carried with him Dalrymple’s version of events, together with Andrew Oliver’s reconstruction of the Council meetings on 6 March and twenty-eight depositions sympathetic to the soldiers, which eventually were published in England as A Fair Account of the Late Disturbances at Boston (London: B. White, 1770).
3 A Massacre witness claimed seeing two guns fired from the second floor of the Custom House, thus implicating the commissioners in the event. The witness also alleged one of the shooters was a tall man with a handkerchief over his face. Robinson was well known for his unusual height (Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 212, 295–98). Edward Manwaring, an employee of the customs service in Quebec City and on the Gaspeé Peninsula before coming to Boston in 1767, was charged based on the evidence of his French servant boy Charles Bourgatte. Manwaring was eventually acquitted and Bourgatte punished for perjury (Hinderaker, Boston’s Massacre, p. 217).
4 No other record remains of a meeting at Andrew Oliver’s with the customs commissioners.
1 Stephen DeBlois (1799–1790) and his two sons, Gilbert (1725–1791) and Lewis (1727–1799) were all merchants. Lewis, who returned from London 30 April, was the courier the letter in question. Stephen remained in Boston during the Revolution, while his sons emigrated with the British fleet in 1776 and had their property confiscated.
2 For Lord North’s introduction of a bill to repeal the Townshend duties, see No. 533, above.
3 William Bollan’s petition on behalf of the Council is printed in the Bowdoin-Temple Papers, MHS Colls., 6th series (1897), 1:161–64.
4 The lord mayor was William Beckford.
5 The Privy Council officially dismissed the charges against Bernard on 7 March, calling them “groundless, vexatious and scandalous” (Nicolson, “Infamas Govener,” p. 206).
1 Captain Thomas Preston (1722?–1798?) of the 29th Regiment commanded the soldiers who were sent to relieve the lone sentry besieged by the crowd outside the Custom House.
2 Colonel Josiah Quincy (1710–1784) of Braintree was a justice of the peace and father of Josiah Quincy Jr.
3 The commissioners of customs and Vice-Admiralty Court Judge Robert Auchmuty.
4 Gage had ordered the 64th and 65th Regiments to Halifax in July.
5 TH’s letter to Gage was No. 536, above.
6 Benjamin Caldwell was captain of the Rose.
7 John Robinson had sought to go to England since his brawl with James Otis in October; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 448.
8 The so-called Battle of Golden Hill took place in New York on 19 January 1770, when scores of soldiers clashed with townspeople after soldiers removed a liberty pole a few days before. The Boston Gazette for 19 February 1770 reported the incident.
1 The chief skirmish took place on 2 March at John Gray’s ropewalk. The other incidents are detailed in Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 182–84.
2 The justices of the peace who heard Preston’s testimony were Richard Dana and John Tudor.
3 The AC, which appears to be a rough draft of this letter to Hillsborough with different paragraphing and minor variations, omits the previous three sentences. It picks up with “all the selectmen. . . .” However, the Dft does include these sentences. By this date, Samuel Maverick had succumbed to his wounds, but Patrick Carr, the fifth victim, was still alive.
4 MS is torn.
5 The words from this point until the end of the paragraph do not appear in the AC.
6 The sentence “The Soldiers themselves had also in many instances been very abusive” did not appear in the Dft, TH’s letterbook copy of this letter.
7 MS is torn.
8 The words from this point until the end of the paragraph, as well as the four following paragraphs, are not included in the AC, with the exception of the sentence beginning “Both Colonel Dalrymple and I . . . ,” which concludes the second succeeding paragraph.
9 When news of the Glorious Revolution arrived in Boston in 1689, the inhabitants rose up and seized Sir Edmund Andros, the governor of the Dominion of New England, and sent him in irons to England.
10 At this point, TH included a paragraph in the Dft that reads, “My friends say I could have done no Act of Government after my refusal. Whether I had been prevented by being compelled to withdraw to the Castle or in any other way it would have been of infinitely mischievous consequence at this time.”
11 The letter to Gage was No. 536, above.
12 In the RC printed here, TH, perhaps believing he was painting too bleak a picture, cut two paragraphs from the Dft: “I have represented to your Lordship that the authority of Government is gone in all matters wherein the Controversy between the Kingdom and the Colonies is concerned, There cannot be plainer proof of it than I have now given your Lordship. The King by his General orders a part of his Troops to Boston. The people oppose it, and they declare they will by force compell these Troops to leave that place where they are posted which if executed would be levying War against the King and one Species of High Treason. The great proportion by far of the Members of every branch of the Legislature or executive Power join in supporting the people in this measure and the few which remain are obliged to submit and unless the Troops were capable of maintaining the post by their own strength.
“In the present case every member of the Council the Justices of the Peace of Boston and divers of other Towns every Select Man of Boston all the Representatives of the Town who were in Town, the Colonel of the Boston Regiment besides other Officers and principal Inhabitants of the Town, and then the Town in a body when two or three thousand were present made their application to me to effect the Removal of the Troops and the temper was spreading for the next day application was made to me by the Town of Roxbury and although a great proportion of those who joined in application made for the Removal of Troops would not have dared to join in open opposition to them yet I know of none who would have joined in defending them. The written applications to me do not express by what means they would effect a Removal but many of the Committees of the Town declared to me when I was in Council that the people were determined to do it by their superior numbers and force and divers gentlemen of the Council declared they knew it also and I have strong evidence that I would have been secured immediately upon my refusal to comply with the advice of Council. I have not the command of the military of the Town. A military watch has been kept up for divers nights under a [illegible] although I sent for the Chief Officer of the Regiment who ordered it and had applied to me for directions and I refused to allow it and [illegible] a Large Committee of the Town told me to my face it should be [illegible] kept up until the Troops were all at the Castle. The contempt it would be impossible at this time to punish or to prevent the continuance of it. The body of the people being thus united and determined that the Troops shall not remain. The few who disapprove the measure dare not appear against it.” Joseph Jackson (1706–1790) was colonel of the Boston Regiment.
13 MS is torn.
1 It is not clear whether the following letter was an addendum to another or indeed whether it was ever sent. In TH’s letterbook, it immediately precedes a draft of the letter to Lord Hillsborough, No. 544, above.
2 Thomas Flucker had failed to be reelected to the Council in 1769 because of his opposition to the patriots.
1 For TH’s letter to Gage, see No. 536, above.
2 It is hard to imagine a more temperate and measured response to the Massacre by Gage but his use of the word “requisition” stung TH, who had gone through such agonies and contortions of logic to avoid the appearance that he had ordered the king’s troops to the Castle; see No. 549, below.
1 “Nil sibi conscrire,” Latin phrase loosely translated as “to have a conscience free from guilt.” “Nil desperandum,” Latin phrase paraphrased from Horace meaning “Never despair.”
2 New Hampshire.
3 Samuel Watts Sr. (1697–1770) was judge of the Suffolk County Court of Common Pleas and a member of the Council from 1742 through 1762.
4 There had been some discussion the previous winter that Nathaniel Rogers might become the new secretary, if Andrew Oliver became lieutenant governor.
5 John Wentworth, governor of New Hampshire; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 490.
1 At the last moment, TH elected to follow Bernard’s and Hillsborough’s advice to convene the General Court at Cambridge, a decision that would cause much controversy over the ensuing years; see No. 530, above.
2 For TH’s friends and political allies Israel Williams of Hatfield and Timothy Ruggles of Hardwick, see BD.
3 Most likely John Murray (1720–1794) of Rutland, a future mandamus councilor and loyalist absentee.
4 Ironically, by the time this letter was received in England, TH had already been appointed governor.
5 When Patrick Carr succumbed to his wounds nine days after the Massacre, the death toll stopped at five.
6 Samuel Gray may have been an active promoter of the riot, even though his hands were in his pockets when he was shot. Crispus Attucks was in the forefront of those confronting the soldiers. James Caldwell stood in the midst of the crowd. Samuel Maverick and Patrick Carr may truly have been bystanders (Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 198–99).
7 Edward Payne was wounded in the arm standing on the doorstep of his house with fellow merchant George Bethune (1720–1785), later appointed a justice of the peace by TH and a future loyalist exile, and Harrison Gray Jr. (1741–1830), clerk to his father and another future loyalist.
8 Gage’s letter to TH was No. 546, above. TH’s response was No. 549, below.
1 For Gage’s use of the word “requisition,” to which TH took such exception, see No. 546, above.
2 For TH’s response to the delegation from the town meeting, see No. 534, above.
3 Samuel Adams. See Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 207.
4 “He” in this instance refers to Dalrymple. At least one highly placed observer interpreted Dalrymple’s actions on 6 March as an attempt to curry favor with the people in the event he should be appointed governor to succeed Bernard. See Henry Hulton, p. 143. For the possibility of Dalrymple as governor, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 477.
5 The message in question was No. 535, above.
6 The proposal was contained in No. 546, above.
7 This is the language Hillsborough used in November when instructing TH to prorogue the meeting of the General Court; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 451.
8 Both Justices Cushing and Trowbridge were ill, so the patriots pressed TH to make temporary appointments to allow the trials against Preston and the soldiers to proceed right away at the March sitting of the Superior Court (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 216).
9 TH apparently sent a draft version of this letter to Andrew Oliver with the note, “The L G prays the S to look over the inclosed & note on a piece of paper any thing he sees exceptionable or wanting.” Oliver responded as follows: “May it no[t] be proper P. 1,—about two thirds down the Page after saying—‘I found Colo. Dalrymple’—to add—‘in the Council chamber’?
“Did Colo. D. express his readiness to remove all the Troops, while the Towns Comittee were present, in case you desired it? If so, You might possibly get it out of some of them. I think Deacon Tudor was one of them—I intend to sound Mr. Hubbard upon it in the morning. Perhaps Edes & Gill may assert it to morrow.
“I see nothing improper in the Draft: but inasmuch as You have entered thus far into the Motives of your Co[nduct] it would be very material to ascertain the foreme[ntioned] Fact, if you can be furnished with proper Evide[nce]” (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:462).
1 It was not clear if this letter was sent or to whom. TH described it as an addition to what he wrote on 12 March. The two people he wrote on that day were Bernard and Hillsborough, but letterbook placement suggests there was a third unknown recipient as well. This letter presumes a familiarity with specific members of the Council and their politics, making it unlikely it was intended for Hillsborough. Since the docketing says “Copy to Sr F. Bernard,” perhaps the best guess is that it was intended for the unknown recipient of 12 March. In TH’s letterbook, this letter and the following fragment appear immediately following his letter to Bernard of 18 March, No. 548, above.
2 Whether Royall Tyler stated that he had foreknowledge of a concerted uprising to remove the troops would eventually become one of the key points at issue among the various accounts of the Massacre and the consequent Council meeting once those reports arrived in Britain. Tyler was supported in the warning by the opinions of James Pitts and Samuel Dexter.
3 Andrew Oliver, secretary of the province, initially supported TH’s contention that he lacked the power to order the removal of the troops, but by the end of the afternoon urged him to join with the majority of the Council in expressing to Dalrymple a “desire” to transfer them to Castle William.
1 Caesar’s decision to lead his legions across the River Rubicon launched him on an irrevocable course toward civil war.
1 The letters to Hillsborough and Bernard, both dated 12 March, were Nos. 543 and 544, above.
2 A committee of the town composed of James Bowdoin, Samuel Pemberton, and Joseph Warren prepared A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston, published by Edes & Gill and T. & J., Fleet accompanied by ninety-six depositions. Copies of the Narrative were sent to England to counteract the government party and military versions of the event that accompanied John Robinson.
3 Among the selectmen, both John Ruddock and Samuel Pemberton were justices of the peace and heard a number of the depositions that accompanied the Short Narrative.
4 “Ex parte,” Latin, in this instance means evidence taken from one side of the dispute without the other being present or having the ability to cross-examine witnesses.
5 TH believed that the Massachusetts charter did not give him any authority to stop the proceedings without the support of the Council.
6 Boston was the county seat of Suffolk County.
7 JHR, 46:99–102.
1 Lord Chatham was referring to the dismissal of Lord Camden as lord chancellor; see No. 518, above.
2 Patrick Hume-Campbell, 3rd Earl of Marchmont (1708–1794).
3 William Beckford, the lord mayor, presented a remonstrance from the livery companies of London to the king on 14 March, complaining that “a secret and malign influence” deprived the people of their rights and demanding a dissolution of Parliament to remove the king’s evil ministers. George III rebuked Beckford, saying the remonstrance was disrespectful to himself, injurious to Parliament, and irreconcilable with the constitution.
4 Sir Edward Blackett (1719–1804), 4th Baronet, and Sir Thomas Clavering (1719–1794), 7th Baronet.
5 The joint address to the king deplored the language of the city’s remonstrance and the “perversion” of the right of petition while attempting to overturn the principles of the constitution.
1 TH referred to his letter to Bernard of 18 March, No. 525, above.
1 TH informed Lord Hillsborough of his message to the merchants’ meeting, as well as the submission of his sons to the demands of the committee of inspection in No. 513, above.
2 No letter from TH to Hillsborough describing only the submission of his sons has survived. Perhaps Bernard meant No. 504, above.
3 Bernard detailed these arrangements for Andrew Oliver’s compensation in No. 503, above. They would need the approval of Lord North, who had succeeded the Duke of Grafton as first lord of the treasury.
4 Bernard also described the financial concessions he had made in No. 503, above.
5 The Massachusetts General Court had granted Mount Desert Island in Maine to Bernard in 1762. His son Frank had shared the income of the Massachusetts Naval Office with Benjamin Pemberton since 1766.
6 The Privy Council had dismissed the complaint of the Massachusetts General Court against Bernard on March 7. The pamphlet that Bernard wanted inserted into the House Journal was Copy of the Complaint of the House of Representatives of Massachuset’s-Bay, against Sir Francis Bernard: With Sir Francis Bernard’s Answer (Boston, 1770).
7 The others governors against whom complaints were presented were Robert Melville (1723–1809), governor of Grenada from 1763 through 1771 (complaint dismissed on 5 January 1770), and, possibly, Cadwallader Colden, lieutenant governor of New York (matter resolved on 10 November 1769) (W. L. Grant and James Munro, eds., Acts of the Privy Council of England: Colonial Series, 1613–1783, 6 vols. [London: Published by the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, 1909–1912], 5:215–16, 221–28). The editors are indebted to Colin Nicolson for this information.
1 Hillsborough was responding to TH’s frustration at the limited means at his disposal to respond to the merchants’ meetings expressed in No. 513, above.
2 For the first news of the dismissal of charges against Bernard, see No. 555, above.
3 For the remonstrance and the king’s reply, see No. 533, above.
1 For Hillsborough’s letter to TH, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485. TH’s response was No. 531, above.
2 Samuel Adams, town clerk William Cooper, and Joseph Warren, who were dining at John Temple’s, led a group of angry townsmen who burst into the Superior Court demanding that the Massacre trials proceed forthwith. Afraid to hold fast to its initial decision to hear the cases in June, the Superior Court adjourned until April. See TH History, 3:205.
3 Timothy Ruggles of Hardwick was one of TH’s strongest political allies.
4 Perhaps Elijah Williams (1712–1771) of Deerfield and Simeon Strong (1736–1805) of Hadley, lawyer, farmer, and future member of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, are meant here. TH’s good friend Israel Williams had been turned out of the Council in 1766.
5 Samuel Adams and Joseph Warren.
6 TH meant that any councilors appointed by the crown under a new charter would soon become as detested as the commissioners of customs.
7 By Judge Goffe, TH meant Edmund Trowbridge.
8 Jonathan Sewall, the attorney general, after drawing up the indictments against Preston and the soldiers at the behest of the grand jury, made himself notably absent from Boston and busied himself with the inferior courts at Charlestown and Ipswich, thus leaving Solicitor General Samuel Quincy to prosecute the Massacre trials (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 219).
1 Samuel Adams, the leader of the town delegation, made this statement (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 207).
2 Andrew Oliver, the secretary; Benjamin Caldwell, captain of the Rose; Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Carr of the 29th; and Dalrymple of the 14th were the four crown officers who met with TH independently from the Council; see No. 545, above.
3 See No. 548, above, for an assessment of the involvement of each Massacre victim in the event.
4 The letter was not found.
1 Gage’s letter to TH, No. 546, above, distressed TH by implying he had “required” the removal of the troops.
2 For TH’s sentiments on the disposition of the troops, see No. 549, above.
3 Presumably this letter was No. 552, above.
1 JHR, 46:99–102.
2 The depositions taken by the town were appended to its Short Narrative. For the letter of the House to their agent Dennys De Berdt, see JHR, 46:114. Bowdoin wrote to Bollan on 27 March describing the Massacre and telling him he would soon receive a printed copy of the pamphlet. He urged Bollan to send to Boston copies of any competing accounts and to urge the removal of troops from the province. See Bowdoin-Temple Papers, MHS Colls., 6th series (1897), 1:167–69.
3 See No. 557, above, for the town’s efforts to force the hand of the Superior Court.
4 The four civilians indicted for allegedly firing into the crowd from the second floor of the Custom House were Edward Manwaring (see No. 540, above); Thomas Greenwood, a waiter at the Boston Custom House; Hammond Green, the son of the Custom House messenger; and John Munro, who lodged at the same house as Manwaring and had provided him an alibi. The evidence against Manwaring was extremely weak, and the others may have been charged to pressure them to testify against Manwaring (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 218).
5 The patriots were very eager to establish a connection between the commissioners and the Massacre, hoping that they too, like the soldiers, might be expelled from the town (Henry Hulton, p. 287). As it was, Charles Paxton went to stay with friends in Cambridge, and Henry Hulton and William Burch fled first to Hulton’s country house in Brookline before going to Governor John Wentworth’s in New Hampshire, not returning until the end of April.
6 In the past, the patriots had exploited inconsistencies between the Quartering Act of 1765, which applied only to America, with the English Mutiny Acts. See, etc.
7 TH struck from the receiver’s copy the following words that appear in his letterbook: “and must humbly pray that I may be excused I may be allowed to resign my Office of Lieutenant Governor.”
1 Frank Bernard, the governor’s eldest son. For the letter of the council, see No. 560, above.
2 The House adopted the Short Narrative to serve as its own account; see No. 560, above.
3 Robert Auchmuty, judge of the vice-admiralty court; John Adams; and Josiah Quincy Jr., all served as counsel to Preston.
4 Presumably James Pitts delivered the hint. For rumors of Robinson’s presence at the Massacre, see No. 540, above.
5 The boy was Charles Bourgatte, Edward Manwaring’s French servant, who was later charged with perjury (Zobel, Massacre, p. 298).
6 Manwaring was apprehended on a warrant issued by Richard Dana, one of the most active patriot justices of the peace (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 212).
7 For Hulton’s and Burch’s trip to New Hampshire, see No. 560, above.
8 It is not clear what word TH intended in the space left blank.
1 For Gage’s letter, see No. 559, above.
2 Gage had provided in his letter No. 559, above, a summary of the events of the Massacre as he understood them. In the following paragraph, TH recorded his additions and corrections.
3 Richard Dana was the popular justice.
4 For the Council’s letter, see No. 561, above. Councilor John Erving was James Bowdoin’s father-in-law.
5 This final sentence was not included in the AC.
1 For the lord mayor’s feast, see No. 553, above.
2 For the debate in the Lords concerning the address to the king about the civil list, see also No. 553, above.
3 John Pownall, secretary to the Board of Trade.
4 For TH’s countermanding of the order to Richard Jackson, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 407.
5 As well as managing the effort for TH to succeed him, Bernard also promoted Andrew Oliver as a candidate to replace TH as lieutenant governor; see No. 555, above.
1 Hood’s letter of 24 March was not found.
2 Ultimately, it was the far more troublesome 29th, not the 14th, Regiment that left the province first.
3 TH may have been misinformed. Hulton and Burch were at Portsmouth and did not return until the end of April (Henry Hulton, p. 145).
1 Hood’s letter of 30 March was not found.
2 TH meant his provincial salary as acting governor.
3 For the death of Charles Yorke, see No. 501, above. For Sir Fletcher Norton, see No. 518, above. Norton became Speaker of the House, not lord chancellor.
1 For TH’s instructions, dated 23 November 1768, to Palmer to pay the fees for the commission, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 345.
2 For Bernard’s proposal concerning how to fund Oliver’s salary, see No. 555, above.
3 TH received £200 from money generated by the Townshend duties as a supplement to his salary as chief justice. When the General Court learned of the supplement, it ceased to pay his regular salary. Presumably the next chief justice would encounter similar difficulties in receiving a salary from the province.
4 The Rhode Island Assembly appears from the record to have appointed a committee to investigate the fees of the Custom House and Naval Officer in September 1769 but not to have enacted any legislation; see John Russell Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 10 vols. (Providence, R.I.: A. C. Greene and Brother, 1856–1865), 6:598. For Bernard’s thoughts on the fees charged by the Massachusetts Naval Office, see No. 522, above.
1 Presumably Bowdoin’s letter to Bollan of 27 March; see No. 560, above.
2 Presumably No. 552, above, was one of these letters. A second letter, TH to John Pownall, 26 March 1770, was not found.
1 During his last session with the Massachusetts General Court, Francis Bernard had insisted that voting the governor’s salary, according to royal instructions, should be the first order of business for the House. See TH Correspondence, 2: No. 379.
2 For TH’s instructions to the House, see JHR, 46:149–50. The House eventually voted a portion of his salary on 26 April.
3 Previously, Hawley had made statements challenging the supremacy of Parliament. If he did indeed make such a claim, it would be an even more radical step to propose obstructing the king’s will and pleasure (TH History, 3:190).
4 Thanks to some timely illnesses among the justices, TH was able to put off the arraignment of Preston and the soldiers until 7 September. Preston’s trial itself did not begin until 24 October.
5 For the putative removal of the 14th, see No. 564, above.
6 The annual elections for the new General Court would take place in late May; councilor James Pitts wanted to know whether TH’s instructions to meet the Court in Cambridge included the next assembly as well.
7 TH had not heard this opinion directly from Jackson but only secondhand through Francis Bernard; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 476. A notice in the Boston Gazette, 9 April 1770, expressed skepticism that Jackson would hold such views. Immediately above it, the Boston Gazette reported a rumor (correct in this instance) that TH had written to England seeking to be excused from appointment as governor.
1 John Tutte (d. 1775) was chief clerk in the Office of Trade and Plantations.
1 The resolves passed by the General Court in July 1769 had questioned the supremacy of Parliament; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 385.
1 The hint was contained in No. 556, above.
2 The transfer of the allowance to Oliver was part of a plan suggested to Hillsborough by Francis Bernard; see No. 503, above.
3 For the appointment of Rogers as secretary, see No. 566, above.
1 These letters from FB were Nos. 503, 518, 522, 523, and 526, respectively, above.
2 The Boston Evening-Post for 23 April placed on its front page an extract from a letter from London expressing disappointment that Parliament had not repealed the duty on tea and urging nonimportation be continued. The Boston Gazette for the same day also printed the same letter and reported that a merchants’ meeting on 17 April reaffirmed continuing commitment to nonimportation and adjourned until 25 April. The committee of inspection, in most cases, insisted that any newly arrived spring goods be shipped back to England. The names of those merchants refusing to comply would be published.
3 Since Thomas Cushing, the Speaker of the House, had fallen ill, the House chose John Hancock in his place. When TH vetoed that choice, it elected Colonel James Warren (1726–1808) of Plymouth. Warren, the husband of Mercy Otis Warren, would become president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and paymaster general of the Continental Army.
4 TH continued in office as chief justice as long as he was still acting governor and not governor in his own right.
5 The one letter from Jackson that survives from this period is No. 506, above.
6 Walter Logan was Bernard’s friend and agent. See TH Correspondence, 2: No. 394.
1 This action would have been in accord with the official instructions sent to Bernard, a source of contention during his last tumultuous meeting of the General Court. See TH Correspondence, 2: No. 379.
2 TH also described the resolutions of the merchants’ meeting in the previous letter, No. 572, above, to Bernard.
2 TH also described the merchants’ resolutions in No. 572, above, to Bernard.
1 Peter Oliver’s willingness to speak out when other justices were intimidated by the weight of popular opinion contributed to his appointment as TH’s successor as chief justice once TH became governor in his own right.
2 TH meant the decision of the merchants’ meeting was not yet known. The end of this sentence from “or such as” was not included in the AC.
1 TH first described the incident in No. 528, above.
2 Here TH was summarizing the contents of his letters Nos. 503, 518, 523, and 526, above.
3 In the AC, this phrase reads, “without this measure.”
4 In the AC, this phrase reads, “The only inconvenience.”
1 TH had previously expected the removal of the 14th Regiment, not the 29th; see No. 564, above.
1 Hillsborough’s letter No. 507, above, mentioned the insults to the troops. His second letter was dated 17 February, No. 524, above.
2 Bernard wrote to TH on 7 March, No. 537, above, but no letter from either John or Thomas Pownall written in either late February or early March has survived. TH’s description of his efforts to disperse the merchants’ meeting of the previous day were contained in No. 512, above.
3 This presumably was the vote on 28 February for an inquiry into the king’s Civil List (and the various pensions it included, which were often used as a means to build support for the ministry in the House of Commons). The motion was defeated by a vote of 262 to 175, or a majority of 97 (Parliamentary Debates, 5:253).
1 Letter No. 5 was No. 544, above, reporting the news of the Boston Massacre.
2 The town of Boston brought cases of libel against Gage and Bernard for their letters to British officials that became public the previous spring; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 482. “Noli prosequi,” Latin, meaning “I will not pursue,” was a formal statement by the prosecutor that he was abandoning the indictment.
1 These letters are dated 18 January and 17 February, Nos. 507 and 524, respectively, above.
2 Hillsborough’s letter, No. 507, above, included a copy of the king’s speech, which urged Parliament to enact firm measures against the associations for nonimportation in the colonies. Political upheaval in Parliament prevented the ministry from enacting any of those proposals.
3 William Molineux was attempting to revive the use of the Manufactory House for spinning to promote the domestic production of textiles as a response to nonimportation. Because of Molineux’s previous political conduct, TH vetoed the measure; see JHR, 46:192.
4 Hillsborough’s message of 18 February approved TH’s attempt to disperse the merchants’ meeting on 23 January; see No. 509, above.
5 In his letter No. 524, above, Hillsborough approved TH’s plan to omit fishermen from the six shilling Greenwich Hospital Duty.
6 The province had begun to tax the salaries of the commissioners; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 488.
7 Samuel Adams was clerk of the House of Representatives.
8 For the letter previously informing Lord Hillsborough of the House’s reluctance to proceed to business, see No. 560, above.
9 In the AC, this phrase reads, “would endanger a Dissolution.”
10 Angered by TH’s veto of Molineux’s plans for the revival of the Manufactory House, the House responded to a message TH had sent it about a riotous attack on a customs official in Gloucester by composing a remonstrance that called TH’s actions in attempting to clear the Manufactory House for use by British regulars in 1768 as “against law.” TH enclosed the remonstrance with this letter and prorogued the General Court (JHR, 46:194–95). The message of the House can be found at JHR, 46:178–81, and TH’s answer at JHR, 46:194–96.
11 Probably Nicholas Boylston (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, p. 152).
1 Robinson carried letters from TH to both Bernard and Hillsborough, dated 12 March, Nos. 543 and 544, respectively, above, but Bernard’s statement about their day of arrival is mistaken. The letter to Hillsborough, as well as a letter from William Dalrymple, Thomas Preston’s account of the Massacre, and Andrew Oliver’s version of the Council meeting of 6 March, are all docketed as received at the office of the secretary of state on 21 April.
2 “Felo de se,” Latin, meaning “a felon against himself,” or suicide.
3 Captain John Porteous commanded the guard at an execution in Edinburgh in 1736; when some spectators were killed, Porteous was tried, convicted, and reprieved but subsequently lynched; see Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 216.
4 Presumably these are minutes of transactions in the House of Commons.
5 Bernard meant that TH’s commission was proceeding through the various steps of bureaucratic preparation.
1 Bernard’s letter No. 21, dated 7 March, No. 537, above, recounted Lord North’s motion for the partial repeal of the Townshend duties.
2 TH was referring to Bernard’s answer to the remonstrance of the Massachusetts House asking for his removal as governor; see Copy of the Complaint of the House of Representatives of Massachuset’s-Bay, against Sir Francis Bernard: With Sir Francis Bernard’s Answer (Boston, 1770). By “Report,” TH meant the final determination of the Privy Council in Bernard’s case; see No. 541, above.
3 Gilbert DeBlois, a leading importer who had once been part of the merchants’ committee, became the particular focus of patriot ire and was obliged to reship his goods (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, p. 151).
4 The persons whose names were left out have not been identified but may well have been leading members of the opposition.
5 The king’s speech at the opening of Parliament and the addresses of each house in response had indicated that Parliament would take a firm line in quashing the nonimportation associations of colonial merchants.
6 TH could mean either Benjamin Greene or Francis Green, either Thomas or Nicholas Bolyston, and George or Nathaniel Bethune. All were merchants who had run afoul of the nonimportation agreement (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, p. 155).
7 For TH’s message on the riot in Gloucester and the General Court’s remonstrance, see No. 580, above, and TH History, 3:203–04.
8 Thomas Goldthwait, a loyal supporter of TH, had been truckmaster at Fort Pownall, controlling the province’s trade with the Indians in Maine. Thomas Hubbard (1702–1773), a longtime member of the House for Boston and subsequently a member of the Council, was treasurer of Harvard College and the previous commissary general before Cushing’s election. The office eventually fell to Edward Sheafe (1711–1771) of Charlestown.
9 The Court chose Jerathmiel Bowers of Taunton (see TH Correspondence, 1: No. 172n) to be one of two notaries for the ports of Freetown and Dartmouth on 30 March (JHR, 46:119). TH so objected to Bowers’s politics he vetoed him (as Francis Bernard had repeatedly done) when he was elected to the Council a month later.
10 TH believed that William Molineux, Thomas Young, John Hancock, William Phillips, William Cooper, and Samuel Adams effectively controlled the town.
11 John Rowe and John Hancock were both extremely wealthy merchants who TH warned might be exposed to suits for civil damages if they continued to support nonimportation.
12 By assemblies in England, TH was referring to the petitioning movement of the preceding summer, as well as the remonstrance of the London livery companies.
13 Henry Hulton owned a country house in Brookline. Robert Auchmuty, the vice-admiralty court judge, owned a house in Roxbury, a convenient meeting point between Boston and Brookline.
14 James Bridgham (1706/07–1776), graduate of Harvard College in 1726, was minister at Brimfield. Lady Bernard presumably came to know the family when she was taking the waters at nearby Brookfield, Massachusetts. His son Ebenezer (b. 1744/45), who was a crockery merchant, witnessed the Massacre and was an inspector of loyalist forces during the war.
1 Hood’s letter to TH was not found but must have included an offer to convey messages to England via a naval vessel.
2 Hillsborough’s message to TH of 18 January, No. 507, above, urged TH to find a way of ending insults to the troops.
3 The Lydia, one of John Hancock’s vessels, was filled with imported goods being shipped back to England; see No. 582, above.
1 Lord Barrington.
2 Lord Shelburne, who hitherto urged not antagonizing the colonies.
3 The first public account of the Massacre to appear in London was a reprint of the report in the Boston Gazette for 12 March 1770, printed in the London Chronicle for 24 April, but an account more favorable to the soldiers, based on Thomas Preston’s account and a letter from William Dalrymple, appeared in the Public Advertiser on 28 April. A Fair Account (which incorporated Thomas Preston’s statement, Andrew Oliver’s version of the 6 March Council meeting, and the twenty-eight depositions favorable to the soldiers) evidently did not appear until after the Short Narrative was already in circulation, since the first deposition it contains is numbered ninety-seven. (There were ninety-six depositions in the Short Narrative).
4 The Boston Gazette for 12 March included a paragraph alluding to the testimony of Charles Bourgatte (although not by name) and surmised on that basis that the assault on Otis, the death of Christopher Seider, and the Massacre were all orchestrated by the commissioners of customs.
1 The province refused to provide any carriage for baggage or quarters en route (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 229).
1 TH’s last letter to Gage was actually dated the 25th; see No. 578, above.
2 TH’s letter to Hillsborough, dated 12 March, No. 544, above, left Boston with John Robinson on 16 March.
3 The grievance was meeting in Cambridge rather than Boston.
1 This advice apparently came from Thomas Pownall (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 150–51). See also No. 607, below.
2 Neither the merchant nor the carpenter has been identified.
3 William Allen was the innocent victim of the soldiers in the St. George’s Field Massacre; see No. 530, above.
1 Lieutenant-Colonel John Burgoyne had learned from a friend that someone in the colonies had placed a large order for cap badges, not intended for the regular army or any colonial militia. The order was later cancelled (Zobel, Boston Massacre, p. 229). “Vim vi repellere licet,” was a Latin maxim stating a principle of Roman law, “it is lawful to repel force with force.”
1 This letter would have been No. 582, above.
2 Charles Chauncy, long-time minister of the First Church, and Samuel Cooper, minister of the Brattle Street Church, were both overseers of Harvard College, where the General Court would meet during its session in Cambridge.
3 Opposing TH were councilors Samuel Danforth, John Erving Sr., and Royall Tyler. Supporting him were Thomas Hubbard, Harrison Gray, and Isaac Royall.
4 Bernard’s letter No. 22 was No. 541, above.
5 TH’s message to Hood was No. 583, above.
6 On 1 May, a small gathering of merchants eager to end nonimportation took place at the British Coffee House. They dispersed after Dr. Thomas Young delivered a threatening message from the leaders of the Body of the Trade (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, p. 154).
7 The Body of the Trade met on 28, 29, and 30 April.
1 TH gave a similar account of the meeting in No. 589, above.
1 This letter was not found but must have pertained to Jackson’s continuing interest in speculation in undeveloped Maine lands. He had previously purchased land together with Francis Bernard, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Pownall, and others at the mouth of the St. Croix River in territory disputed by Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. See Papers of Francis Bernard, 1:337–38; 2:72–74, 143–44, 231, 289–99; 3:6, 64, 84–86, 86–89, 102, 118, 123, 146–47, 169, 229, 319, 321n.
2 Samuel Waldo (1723–1770), son of the victor of Louisbourg, continued to develop his father’s lands in Maine between the Penobscot and Muscongus Rivers by actively recruiting German settlers. Thomas Flucker was his brother-in-law.
3 Jackson’s January letter, received after the missing one from February, was No. 506, above.
4 TH also mentioned the same inquiry from James Pitts in No. 568, above.
5 The statement about Jackson was reported in the Boston Gazette, 9 April 1770. TH evidently presumed that John Temple was the author of an anonymous letter on the preceding page concerning the recent activities of the customs commissioners.
1 The Corporation comprised the president and fellows of Harvard College. John Winthrop (1714–1779), Harvard College graduate in 1732, an astronomer and mathematician, enjoyed a reputation second only to Benjamin Franklin as America’s foremost scientist. He was acting president of Harvard in 1769, and as Hollis professor would have been an influential voice within the Corporation. The protest of the Corporation, dated 3 May, can be found in National Archives UK, CO 5/759, f. 196. See also TH to the Corporation, 11 May 1770 (calendar only).
2 The Old College at Harvard burned on the night of 24 January 1764, destroying much of the college’s library. See TH Correspondence, 1: Nos. 53 and 65.
3 TH discussed the meeting of the Overseers in his letter to Hillsborough dated 3 May, No. 590, above.
4 The paragraph quoted here pertained to the mysterious order for four thousand military badges; see No. 588, above.
5 TH believed that the order for cap badges might pertain to a sudden interest in adding a company of grenadiers to the provincial militia; see No. 595, below.
6 For the movement of the 29th to New York, see No. 585, above.
1 John Hancock, John Rowe, and William Phillips were three of the wealthiest patriot merchants in Boston.
2 TH’s distinction was only partly accurate. Although the petitioning movement of the previous summer did indeed primarily seek the removal of the Duke of Grafton’s administration, some groups like the Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights aimed at a broader reform in parliamentary representation but did not contest the power of Parliament itself.
1 The General Court had passed a series of bold resolves the past summer; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 382.
2 This complaint was among the items in the remonstrance presented to TH on 23 April; see No. 580, above.
3 Rumors circulated that TH would soon succeed Bernard as governor.
1 Gage’s previous letters were dated 28 and 30 April, Nos. 585 and 588, above.
2 Gage had inquired about cap badges ordered in England by someone from the colonies; see No. 588, above.
1 TH’s recent letters to Bernard were Nos. 582, 589, and 592, above. The letters to Hillsborough and Pownall were Nos. 590 and 593, respectively, above.
2 Presumably St. Petersburg, Russia, a circuitous route to England, but confirmed by the Boston Gazette, 29 October 1770.
3 Legal action against excess fees charged by the Custom House and the Naval Office had begun in early December 1769. See TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 465 and 473. The governor’s son Frank shared in the profits of the Massachusetts Naval Office. Bernard had written TH his legal opinion on the challenge in No. 522, above.
4 Lady Bernard and her children were preparing to join her husband in England. Frank Bernard had been showing signs of mental illness, and John Bernard was nearly bankrupt. TH attempted to arrange naval transport for her with Commodore Hood; see No. 583, above.
5 Boston chose as its members James Bowdoin, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock.
1 TH’s sons, Thomas Jr. and Elisha, were forced in January to store their imported goods under the supervision of the merchants’ committee; see No. 504, above.
1 It is not clear whether TH understood at the time he was writing this letter how large a role Pownall played in urging that imported goods be reshipped to Boston; see No. 587, above, and No. 607, below. He would not yet have heard of the leading role taken by Pownall in the parliamentary debates of 8 and 9 May criticizing the conduct of the ministry and defending Massachusetts Bay.
2 “Sic volumus,” Latin, meaning “We will it thus.”
3 For TH’s veto of Hancock and the others, see No. 580, above.
1 Robert Wilsonn (see BD), TH’s London friend and agent, was evidently a member for his ward of the Common Council, London’s governing body, and distinguished himself by supporting the ministry rather than joining William Beckford, the lord mayor, and many of the livery companies in their support of John Wilkes.
2 Chatham and Camden both declared Parliament had the right to legislate for, but not to tax, the colonies.
1 TH’s letter to Hillsborough was No. 513, above.
2 The card from Bernard was not found.
3 For the response of Parliament to the remonstrance of the London livery companies, see No. 563, above.
4 For the possibility of TH succeeding Bernard, see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 450 and 464.
5 TH asked to be excused from consideration for the governorship in No. 560, above.
6 The 14 May addendum was not included in the AC.
1 Hillsborough’s letter No. 33 was No. 539, above.
2 Shortly before Bernard prorogued his final session with the General Court, the House adopted a set of resolutions, one of which declared that no one was obliged to obey laws passed by a body in which he was not represented (TH History, 3:172–73). The Council, which continued to meet despite the prorogation, sent its own petition to its agent, William Bollan, but when he attempted to present it before Parliament, he was denied, since the Council meeting on its own, outside of a legislative session, without the governor present, could not be considered a legal body. Bollan eventually presented the complaint as his own petition, but it failed to generate much notice; see No. 541, above.
3 Concerning TH’s veto of two councilors, see No. 596, above.
1 TH communicated this news to Bernard in No. 554, above, which Bernard immediately passed on to Lords Hillsborough and North.
2 The letter of appointment was No. 571, above.
3 The governors of Rhode Island were elected annually and had little executive power. Real power lay with the colony’s General Assembly.
4 This exchange took place on 26 April. See Parliamentary Debates, 5:308–09.
5 This effort was the occasion of Thomas Pownall’s long speech examining the lack of clarity in royal instructions concerning the command of regular troops within a colony; see Parliamentary Debates, 5:312–24.
6 On 9 May, the North ministry withstood several resolutions critical of its handling of North American affairs, including a pledge not to tax the colonies, which was defeated by a majority of 197 to 99. See Parliamentary Debates, 5:332–36.
7 FW, the parliamentary reporter, has not been identified.
1 The Boston Gazette for 30 April 1770 carried the following paragraph: “Last week Mr. IMPORTER ROGERS, of the CABAL, and another Sensitive Plant of the Imitating Order (a Man of Thubstance to pay for the Fat Ducks) set out as Charge D’fairs for the City of New York.” Harbottle Dorr identified the “Man of Thubstance” as Andrew Faneuil Phillips. Rogers, it was presumed, came to New York to persuade the merchants there to abandon nonimportation. For an account of the burning of the effigy, see Boston Gazette, 21 May 1770.
2 Charles Ward Apthorp (1729–1797) was born in Boston, the son of a prosperous military contractor Charles Apthorp (1698–1758). After marrying a woman from New York, the son moved there and became a member of the Governor’s Council from 1763 through 1783. His property in Massachusetts was confiscated as an absentee loyalist. The Apthorp Farm in Bloomendale, an eighteenth-century suburb of New York, occupied the land from present-day 89th to 99th Streets and from Central Park to the Hudson River.
3 Oliver DeLancey (1718–1785) was a merchant, military contractor, and member of one of New York’s two dominant political families (the other being the Livingstons). In 1768, he was at least temporarily allied with Isaac Sears and the Sons of Liberty, although he opposed nonimportation. He later raised a loyalist regiment, and his land was confiscated.
4 Shelter Island is located in between the two forks of eastern Long Island.
5 At their meeting on 14 May, the Philadelphia merchants, under heavy pressure from the artisan community, decided to postpone a final decision until 5 June to allow time to send inquiries to Boston and New York (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763–1776 [New York: Atheneum, 1968], 219).
6 Isaac Sears (1730–1786) was a successful privateer in the French and Indian War turned merchant. He became a leading figure in the New York Sons of Liberty and a key participant in the “Battle of Golden Hill,” where he and his followers contested the removal of a liberty pole, injuring a number of British regulars.
7 David Van Horn[e] (1715–1775) was a New York merchant with Boston business connections and privateering interests during the French and Indian War; though he eventually cast his lot with the patriots, he had been part of a committee of merchants who attempted to mitigate violence following the New York Stamp Act riots (Virginia D. Harrington, The New York Merchant on the Eve of the Revolution [Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, 1964], 326, 350). Ebenezer Pemberton, TH’s friend and clergyman (see BD), was minister of a Presbyterian church in New York before arriving in Boston in 1754.
1 TH’s cover letter to Wanton was not found. Most probably the packet contained TH’s letters of 28 February to Bernard and Hillsborough, Nos. 530 and 531, respectively, above, in which he described the death of Christopher Seider. In those letters, he expressed considerable frustration with the Council’s unwillingness to support any action against the continuing demonstrations outside the homes and shops of the importers, mentioning several councilors by name and enclosing transcripts of their remarks. The same letters also made clear that Hillsborough had granted TH discretion not to convene the General Court at Cambridge if he thought otherwise. TH had since presented the choice of Cambridge as “His Majesty’s pleasure.” Therefore, the contents of these letters would cause him considerable embarrassment if they fell into the wrong hands.
2 Newport’s support of nonimportation had been at best half-hearted. Rumors were rife by early May of frequent and open violations. The merchants of Newport voted a formal end to nonimportation on 26 May (CSM Pubs., 19:236).
3 When the news of Newport’s final defection spread, Boston and other towns responded with declarations of nonintercourse with Rhode Island.
1 These are the famed instructions of the Town of Boston written by Josiah Quincy Jr. (For the text, see Portrait of a Patriot, 6:53–61.) TH thought the instructions so significant he included a copy in TH History 3: Appendix R. For the protest of the Corporation of Harvard College against the use of their facilities by the General Court, see No. 592, above.
2 The text of the address of the Corporation can be found in CO 5/759, f. 196.
3 John Hancock had offered to convey returned goods aboard one of his ships free of charge; see No. 582, above.
4 In the DupRC, this word is “damage.”
5 In the AC, this phrase reads, “to keep up this pact now.”
6 In the DupRC, this phrase reads, “I will neglect nothing which is within my power but this is very little more than a negative upon Elections.”
1 For Quincy’s instructions from the Town of Boston, see the preceding letter, No. 605, above.
2 Thomas Lundin (d. 1781) assumed the title Lord Drummond in 1760 and came to America in 1768 to protect his family’s claims to land in East Jersey. He later initiated a last-minute effort to reconcile the colonies and Great Britain in 1775. James Robertson (1717–1788), lieutenant-colonel of the 60th Regiment and barracks master at New York, was later promoted to major general and civil governor of New York from 1779 through 1783. For the movement of the 29th to New York, see No. 585, above.
1 Presumably Thomas Pownall; see No. 587, above.
1 On the afternoon of 18 May, Owen Richards, the same tidewaiter who had been involved in the Lydia affair, seized the schooner Martin from New London. Later that evening a crowd accosted him in Dock Square and tarred and feathered him in front of the Custom House before parading him around town. Meanwhile, another group carted away the contraband from the Martin (Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 229–31).
2 Richard Dana chaired both the justices of the peace and the town committee assigned to prepare the inflammatory instructions (written by Quincy).
3 These events are described in No. 603, above.
2 The assurances from Bernard came in TH Correspondence, 2: No. 484. Letters TH received from John Pownall written in fall 1769 do not mention TH’s prospects to succeed to the governorship. No letters from Benjamin Franklin written around the same time were found.
3 TH’s letter expressing this wish was No. 560, above.
4 Chatham made a distinction between Parliament’s powers of taxation and legislation, which TH commented on in the same letter to Bernard, No. 525, above.
5 TH meant that after the repeal of the Stamp Act, Charles Townshend devised his duties in a way that reflected a distinction between internal and external taxation, last made by Benjamin Franklin in testimony before the Commons in February 1766, but which many in the colonies no longer regarded as significant.
6 Captain James Smith was commander of HMS Mermaid on station in Boston. Benjamin Caldwell, captain of the Rose, assisted at the deliberations following the Boston Massacre.
1 Gage’s letter of 18 May was not found.
2 Concerning the puzzling order for badges, see Nos. 588 and 595, above.
3 William Rawle (1721?–1789) was a “celebrated maker of military accoutrements” in the Strand. He subsequently appeared before the secretary of state’s office testifying that “a Gentleman he understood to be an agent of the People of Boston, whose name he could not recollect” placed the order in the fall. Rawle delivered a pattern for the badges but never received permission to proceed. The gentleman had complained of “hardships put upon the Americans” and “seemed to imply an intention of resistance” (“Information of Mr. Rawle Regarding Pattern for Military Uniforms and Supplies for Troops,” 10 February 1770, National Archives UK, CO 5/88, ff. 38–39).
4 For an account of Rogers’s reception in New York, see No. 603, above.
5 The letter to Rogers was not found.
6 For the strong reaction against the London remonstrance, see No. 563, above.
1 For the tarring and feathering of Owen Richards, see No. 608, above.
2 The justices promised to inquire into the incident; see also No. 608, above.
3 Councilors John Erving Sr. and James Pitts.
4 John Temple. The unnecessary flight of the commissioners was the subject of the anonymous letter in the Boston Gazette, 9 April 1770, which TH attributed to Temple; see No. 591, above.
5 Any goods that had received a rebate of duties on export might be subject to confiscation upon reentry into Britain. The same problem arose with sending back the tea in 1773. The purpose of the law was to prevent fraud in exporting and reexporting the same goods over and over again to obtain the drawback (Smith, Writs Case, p. 106; Thomas C Barrow, Trade and Empire: The British Customs Service in Colonial America, 1660–1775 [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967], pp. 149–51).
6 The Philadelphia merchants had discussed alterations in the agreement and voted on 14 May to send to Boston to ask for the opinions of the merchants there.
7 For Rogers’s treatment in New York, see No. 603, above.
8 Robert Auchmuty was one of the three lawyers defending Captain Preston.
9 Colonel Thomas Goldthwait was truckmaster at Fort Pownall. There were several merchants in Boston in 1770 named John Brown[e].
10 For the address of the College Corporation, see No. 592, above.
11 Josiah Quincy Jr. was the author of the instructions of the Town of Boston to its representatives.
12 Dr. Thomas Young.
13 The Treason Act of Henry VIII allowed for offenders to be tried in London in the criminal court there known as Old Bailey. Richard Dana chaired the committee that reported Quincy’s instructions.
14 Timothy Ruggles and Daniel Oliver (1743–1828) were both chosen as representatives from Hardwick in 1770.
15 Eliphalet Pond (1705–1795) represented Dedham in the General Court in 1761 and 1765. He was appointed colonel of the Suffolk County militia in 1773 and signed the Farewell Address to TH, but later recanted the action, Boston Gazette, 12 September 1774.
16 This was the second meeting of Boston merchants eager to end nonimportation, but they were no more successful than the previous attempt (Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, pp. 155–56).
17 TH’s assessment of the Philadelphia merchants’ position is not quite accurate; see note 6, above.
18 Presumably Francis Greene or Joseph Green.
19 For John Ruddock, see No. 528, above.
20 Again, either Francis Greene or Joseph Green and Nicholas Boylston.
21 Bernard’s card of 19 March was not found.
22 For TH’s letter on the District of Maine, see No. 613, below.
1 Quincy’s instructions in TH’s mind went much further than any preceding document to advocate a “general revolt” to royal authority (TH History, 3:209).
2 It is not clear whether TH meant the blank to be filled with the words “four” or “five.” The constitutional function of the town meeting was to elect representatives, choose local officers, and manage the ongoing expenses of the town.
1 Samuel Adams was the clerk of the House of Representatives.
2 The timbering settlement of Machias was located on the coast in the extreme eastern part of the District of Maine about forty miles from the St. Croix River, the putative border with Nova Scotia.
3 Charles Cushing (1734–1810) was appointed sheriff of Lincoln County by Francis Bernard in 1760 and continued in that office through 1780.
1 John Penn (1729–1795) was governor of Pennsylvania from 1763 through 1771 and again from 1773 through 1776.
2 The meeting of merchants eager to renew importations was described in No. 611, above.
3 The letter from the Philadelphia merchants inquired about the depth of commitment to nonimportation at Boston; see also No. 611, above.
1 The meeting was described in No. 611, above.
2 TH made his inquiry to Penn in the preceding letter, No. 614, above.
1 Robert Jameson (1741–1816) arrived in Boston in 1759 from Drumoak, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. The editors are indebted to Donald Friary for this information.
2 A North Briton, meaning a Scot.
3 “Nemine contradicente,” Latin, meaning “no one contradicting.”
4 These are the words in the Vulgate spoken by Christ on the Cross: “fiat voluntas tua,” Latin, meaning “thy will be done.”
1 To protest the meeting of the General Court at Cambridge, the Reverend Charles Chauncy (for whom see No. 495, above) gave the traditional Election Day sermon in Boston, apparently at the request of Dr. Thomas Young.
2 JHR, 47:6–7.
3 George Leonard Jr. (1729–1819) of Norton, Harvard College graduate of 1748, later served in the first US Congress and became chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. James Gowen (1715–1781) of Kittery was later appointed to the York County Court of Common Pleas by TH. James Humphrey (1711–1798) of Weymouth and Stephen Hall Jr. (1704–1786) of Medford both sometimes followed the political lead of Samuel Adams and John Hancock.
4 For TH’s opinion of Jerathmiel Bowers, see No. 582, above.
5 Artemas Ward (1727–1800) of Shrewsbury, Harvard College graduate of 1748, later commanded the American forces laying siege to Boston before George Washington’s arrival and afterward served in both the Massachusetts and U.S. Houses of Representatives. Thomas Sanders Jr. (1729–1774) of Gloucester, Harvard College graduate of 1748, was a prosperous merchant and farmer.
6 Joseph Gerrish (1708–1776) of Newbury was vetoed by Bernard but declined to serve in the Council when elected in 1770.
7 Timothy Ruggles and John Worthington were both strong government party men from the central and western parts of the province. For Worthington, (see BD).
8 Peter Oliver, Edmund Trowbridge (Goffe), and Thomas Flucker all had served previously on the Council but failed to be reelected because of their government party loyalties.
9 Andrew Oliver (the secretary), Edmund Trowbridge (Goffe), and Joseph Lee (1711–1802) of Cambridge, Harvard College graduate of 1729, judge of the Middlesex County Court of Common Pleas, and a future mandamus councilor, were all part of the delegation urging TH to accept more patriots into the Council.
10 William Phillips chaired the meetings of the merchants that enforced the extension of the nonimportation agreement.
11 TH accepted Thomas Cushing as Speaker of the House but not as commissary general; see No. 580, above.
12 TH would not yet have received Hillsborough’s order of 26 April ordering him to delay execution of the sentence of Preston until the king had time to review the transcript of the trial.
13 Fort Hill was a promontory on the southeastern part of the town that was fortified in the seventeenth century but since abandoned.
1 Initially, the Superior Court was due to meet on 13 March. Soon after he drew up the indictments against Preston and the soldiers, Attorney General Jonathan Sewall left town. Justices John Cushing and Edmund Trowbridge then announced they were sick. The town of Boston pressed TH to appoint special justices so the trials could proceed, which he refused to do. After the trial of Ebenezer Richardson, the court adjourned until 29 May. On that day, only Justices Cushing and Benjamin Lynde were present; Peter Oliver had fallen from his horse, and Trowbridge was still ill. Attempting to meet again on 31 May with only two justices present, the court adjourned. After that action, the earliest the trials could be heard would be 28 August when the court next met in Boston (Zobel, Boston Massacre, pp. 217–31).
2 The AC does not include the postscript.
1 For the overturning of the merchants’ decision, see No. 611, above.
2 For the letter from the Philadelphia merchants, see also No. 611, above.
3 TH’s letter to Penn was No. 614, above.
1 Based on the way in which TH numbered his letters, this letter must have been written after 1 June and before 8 June. It appears in the letterbook immediately after TH’s letter to Cadwallader Colden, 2 June, No. 619, above.
2 These letters would be Nos. 553, 555, and 563, respectively, all above.
3 For TH’s letter of 8 September 1769, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 406.
4 TH’s letter to Jackson that was enclosed within the letter to Bernard appears in TH Correspondence, 2: No. 407. TH’s previous arrangements with both Jackson and Palmer for taking out and paying for the commission are described in TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 344 and 345.
5 Words missing from the AC here and below due to a torn MS have been supplied from the Boston Gazette, 8 January 1776.
6 TH’s letter to Hillsborough requesting not to be appointed governor was No. 560, above.
7 TH recovered from nervous exhaustion by a similar method in spring 1767; see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 259–61.
8 TH wrote to both Hillsborough and Bernard on 12 March, Nos. 543 and 544, respectively, above. These letters left Boston with Robinson on 16 March and arrived in London on 21 April.
1 Palmer’s letter to TH was No. 569, above.
2 Lord Dunmore was the new governor of New York. TH informed Hood of this plan in his letter of 8 June, No. 623, below.
3 John Worthington, a government party member of the House.
4 For Hillsborough’s order to TH to meet the General Court in Cambridge, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 485.
5 TH addressed these topics in his letter to Pownall of June 8, No. 624, below. For William Rawle and the caps, see Nos. 588 and 610, both above. For the sale of Fort Hill, see No. 617, above.
1 TH vetoed Hancock and Jerathmiel Bowers; see No. 617, above.
2 Bernard had previously vetoed Artemas Ward, Thomas Sanders, and Joseph Gerrish, but TH accepted them into the Council; see also No. 617, above.
3 These messages and counter-messages consume most of the record of the session; see JHR, 47:6–7, 12–13, 15–16, 18–24.
4 For the means by which TH was able to delay the trials, see No. 618, above.
5 For the dismissal of charges against Bernard, see No. 556, above.
1 For these arrangements, see No. 621, above.
1 Samuel Stillman (1738–1807), pastor of the First Baptist Church, gave the sermon before the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company on 4 June. The text was later printed as A Sermon Preached to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in Boston, New-England, June 4, 1770 (Boston: Edes & Gill, ).
2 The first excerpt was apparently taken from No. 610, above, pertaining to the alleged order of four thousand cap badges from William Rawle, a military supplier in London.
3 For the sale of land on Fort Hill, see No. 617, above.
4 For TH’s suggestion of a royal commission, see No. 548, above.
5 This is a now obsolete spelling of the word “policy.”
6 In 1664, Charles II dispatched Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick as a royal commission to seize Manhattan from the Dutch and hear complaints against the various New England colonies involving land disputes, Indian affairs, and religious persecution. The arrival of the commission, replete with judicial powers, struck great fear in Massachusetts for the loss of its charter, although that did not actually occur until the establishment of the Dominion of New England twenty-two years later.
1 TH’s letter No. 13 was dated 12 April, No. 568, above, and described the failure of the previous assembly to vote any salary for TH as acting governor or for the judges.
2 Hillsborough’s letter appointing TH governor was dated 14 April, No. 571, above.
3 Accepting TH’s decision to refuse the governorship, Bernard was relying on earlier letters stating TH could be more effective as chief justice. His previous royal salary for that post was £200.
4 Although the writ of habeas corpus is generally used to compel a prisoner to be brought to trial, it can also be used to transfer the accused from the prison of an inferior court to a superior one. Since Preston was already under the jurisdiction of the colony’s highest court where he was, it is not clear that Bernard’s suggestion would apply.
5 TH had told the Council that he had heard Jackson opposed colonial assemblies meeting in a colony’s principal town; see No. 568, above.
6 Jackson was appointed counsel, not comptroller, to the Board of Trade in April 1770 (House of Commons, s.v. Richard Jackson).
1 TH’s letter No. 6, No. 560, above, contained his request to be excused from the consideration for the governor’s post. No. 7, No. 573, above, concerned the reshipment of recently arrived goods to Great Britain as part of the continued enforcement of the nonimportation agreement. The letter of 21 April, No. 575, above, conveyed the news of the conviction of Ebenezer Richardson for the murder of Christopher Seider.
1 Given the content of the letter, Commodore Samuel Hood was the likely recipient.
2 Captain James Smith of the Mermaid.
3 James, Patrick, and John McMasters had long defied the nonimportation agreement. Their store and homes had been attacked. Patrick had been driven out of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, when he attempted to sell goods there. A similar thing happened to another family member in Marblehead, and they were warned to leave the province. On 6 June, they petitioned TH for protection (Petition of James, Patrick, and John McMasters, 5 June 1770, CO 5/759, ff. 271–72, docketed, “In Lt. Govr. Hutchinson’s to Mr. Pownall of 19 Aug. 1770”). On 19 June, Patrick McMasters was seized, placed in a cart with a barrel of tar and a bag of feathers, and taken to King Street, where he fainted. As he was recovering in a nearby house, he vowed to leave Boston and never return. He was carted to the Roxbury town line, frightened but unharmed. (For 19 June, ff. 271–72, docketed, “In Lt. Govr. Hutchinson’s to Mr. Pownall of 19 Aug. 1770”). James, Patrick, and Daniel McMasters (the youngest of the four brothers) all subsequently sought refuge in the Castle (Boston Evening-Post, 25 June 1770). Banishment as a penalty for importers represented an escalation in the intensity of enforcement, permissible perhaps in this case because the victims were Scots and, therefore, perceived as outsiders.
1 The letter would have been No. 579, above, written shortly after the news of the Boston Massacre was known in London.
2 The Prussian officer was not identified.
1 The RC adds “the printing them” at this point.
2 The Council also protested sitting in Cambridge. TH responded to the Council, who transmitted his response to the House. The House then reiterated its position. This second response was initially sent to the Council but later to TH as well. The whole exchange was printed in the Boston Evening-Post, 18 June 1770.
3 The House requested an adjournment on 15 June; see JHR, 47:37.
4 The RC instead reads, “I am satisfied.”
5 TH’s letter to Cadwallader Colden was No. 619, above. Colden’s response was not found.
1 TH’s letter to Penn and Colden were Nos. 614 and 619, respectively, above.
2 Colden’s letter was not found.
3 The address of the Council on 12 June was printed in the Boston Evening-Post, 18 June 1770. Harrison Gray, Thomas Hubbard, and James Russell (1715–1798) of Charlestown opposed the address. Russell was the brother of Chambers Russell and had been a member of the Council since 1761. John Temple’s relations by marriage on the Council were John Erving, James Pitts, and James Bowdoin, now restored to a seat on the board.
1 This policy would be consonant with TH’s letter to [Samuel Hood], No. 627, above.
1 For James Murray, see TH Correspondence 2: No. 492.
1 TH’s letter No. 19, No. 607, above, contained the hint that Thomas Pownall wrote to Boston merchants urging them to reship, rather than store, goods that were imported contrary to the agreement, thus hoping to place additional pressure on British merchants and manufacturers. Thomas’s brother John was undersecretary of state for the American Department.
1 TH received these instructions from Hillsborough in No. 579, above.
2 TH was concerned for the safety of Captain Preston; see No. 636, immediately below.
1 These orders were contained in Hillsborough’s letter of 26 April, No. 579, above, which TH had recently received.
2 These sentences are paraphrases from Bernard’s letter of 28 April, No. 582, above, written immediately after receipt of the news of the Boston Massacre.
3 The source of this quotation was not found.
1 Stephen Greenleaf (see BD).
2 The enclosed letter prompted TH’s response to James Murray, No. 633, above.
1 Those orders were contained in No. 637, above.
2 London friends had arranged for “The Case of Captain Thomas Preston” to appear in the London Public Advertiser on 28 April. The same version of the account was reprinted in a supplement to the Boston Evening-Post, 23 June 1770.
1 In his letter No. 15, No. 582, above, TH described his veto of Hancock as Speaker and the dismissal of Thomas Goldthwait from his post as truckmaster at Fort Pownall.
2 A Latin legal phrase, meaning “as often as the occasion arises.”
3 John Preble (1742–1787), the son of Jedidiah Preble, the original commander of Fort Pownall from 1759 through 1763, did indeed succeed Goldthwait as truckmaster, although just for a year before Goldthwait was restored (JHR, 46:118).
1 The messages of both the House and Council were printed in the Boston Evening-Post, 18 June 1770; see No. 629, above.
2 John Temple was related by marriage to the Bowdoin, Erving, and Pitts families.
3 The message from the Council, written by James Bowdoin, challenged whether the Crown could give instructions to the governor that conflicted with the charter. It also argued that since the purpose of the royal prerogative was to promote the public good, any exercise of the prerogative not conducive to the public good would be void.
4 Massachusetts responded by issuing boycotts against New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Virginia after merchants in those colonies made modifications to the nonimportation agreement. It was not yet clear what Pennsylvania and New York would do.
5 John Hancock is most likely the person intended by “H______.” John Mein referred to him as “Johnny Dupe” because he so readily followed Samuel Adams’s political lead (Boston Chronicle, 23–26 October 1769).
6 Councilor John Erving’s two sons were John Jr. and George, both of whom ultimately became loyalists (along with their father). John Temple eventually became the first British consul-general to the United States.
7 Thomas Young, William Cooper, William Molineux, James Pitts, and Samuel Adams were all leading patriots whom TH would have been happy to see investigated by a royal commission.
8 Henry Hulton, one of the customs commissioners, recounted the attack on his Brookline farm in Henry Hulton, pp. 145–46.
9 James Bowdoin and James Pitts evidently made this extraordinary and rather nonsensical accusation.
10 The wife of William Burch, another commissioner, was with Hulton at the time of the attack.
11 Thomas Oliver (1734–1815), Harvard College graduate of 1753, owned a house in Dorchester before moving to Cambridge in 1766. He was a member of the mandamus council and the last lieutenant-governor appointed by the Crown. (He was no relation to Andrew Oliver.)
12 John Porter was comptroller general and arrived with the customs commissioners in 1767 (Henry Hulton, p. 48n).
13 James Bowdoin. An article by “Honestus” on the third page of the Boston Gazette, 26 June 1770, criticized the commissioners for their failure to hold meetings for fear of popular demonstrations and resentment, and mocked John Porter’s claim (unsupported by witnesses) that he was assaulted by several men at night. See also No. 643, below.
14 Another article on the back page of the same issue of the Boston Gazette ridiculed Charles Paxton. TH was assuming John Fenton wrote the article under the direction of John Temple; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 390.
15 Paxton is once again intended.
16 “Dabit deus his quoque finem,” Latin from the Aeneid, book 1, line 199, meaning “God will also give an end to these things.”
1 Hillsborough’s letter No. 35, No. 571, above, informed TH of his appointment as governor. Letter No. 36, No. 579, above, acknowledged receipt of the first news of the Boston Massacre.
2 This was perhaps TH’s interpretation of a letter Lord Shelburne wrote to Francis Bernard in 1766; see Papers of Francis Bernard, 3:224–25.
3 See No. 627, above, for the need for at least one ship to be present in the harbor. For Captain Smith, see also No. 627, above.
4 No. 579, above, contained an order to delay executing the sentences of Preston and the soldiers if they were to be found guilty.
5 The same letter also contained instructions to order the attorney general to drop the indictments against Bernard, Gage, and the others for libeling the town of Boston in their reports sent to England.
6 The messages are printed in JHR, 47:49–55.
1 TH and the House remained deadlocked on the issue of its refusal to do business in Cambridge. Twice they had asked to be adjourned, and twice TH had refused, stating that he anticipated receipt of important news from England, presumably in response to the Massacre (JHR, 47:38, 44).
2 The “Gentleman of Candour” was most probably Joseph Hawley.
3 The source of the anecdote about Belcher has not been found.
4 I.e., his commission as governor.
5 Williams had stated Todd’s name correctly in his letter, No. 510, above, suggesting him for the Berkshire Court of Sessions.
1 Hillsborough’s letter of 26 April, No. 579, above, was the first communication TH received after the arrival in Great Britain of the news of the Boston Massacre.
2 TH’s letter of No. 560, above, asked that he be removed from consideration for the governorship.
3 Either John Temple or James Bowdoin. Both were members of the same family and both had clashed openly with Francis Bernard.
4 There had been an attack on the house of Henry Hulton, one of the customs commissioners, on 19 June. William Burch, another commissioner, and his family also sought shelter at the Castle after the attack (Henry Hulton, p. 196).
5 James Bowdoin was Temple’s father-in-law, and James Pitts was the brother of Bowdoin’s wife. They both alleged that Hulton engineered the attack on his own house in order to justify fleeing to the Castle; see No. 640, above.
6 John Porter, the comptroller general of customs, claimed to have been assaulted; see No. 640, above.
7 In other words, Bowdoin and Erving agreed to the proclamation in the hope of learning about what they thought had been a staged attack on Hulton’s house.
8 John Temple was the one commissioner who had opposed the actions of all the rest.
RC (Massachusetts Historical Society, Israel Williams Papers).
1 In his letter dated 21 June, No. 635, above, TH informed Gage that he had instructed the attorney general to enter a plea of noli prosequi in the cases of Bernard, Gage, and other royal officials for libeling the province.
2 In his letters dated 22 and 23 June, Nos. 636 and 638, respectively, above, TH reported rumors that Captain Preston might be lynched.
1 William Molineux (see BD).
1 The Council records pertained to the tarring and feathering of Owen Richards in May and the petition of the McMasters brothers in late June. The proclamation, printed in the Boston Evening-Post for 2 July 1770, offered a reward of £50 for the apprehension of those persons who had threatened Henry Barnes, an importer in the town of Marlborough, with arson, as well as tarring and feathering, if he did not desist.
1 TH requested to be removed from consideration for the governor’s post in No. 560, above.
2 TH evidently expressed this sentiment to Williams on several occasions; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 466.
3 “Dedimus,” short for “dedimus postestatem,” was a commission to a judicial officer to take a deposition, or in this case swear in the new officers in Berkshire County. Williams requested the dedimus lest the validity of the officers’ commissions be called into question, should the ministry elect to supersede TH with a new governor.
1 These letters were respectively Nos. 580, 590, 601, 605, 608, and 613, above.
2 Although TH mentioned Goldthwait’s failure to win reelection in No. 613, above, TH first wrote Bernard a fuller account of the subject on 28 April, No. 582, above. Bernard subsequently told TH in a letter dated 23 June, No. 639, above, that he communicated that account to Hillsborough. In the same letter, Bernard also mentioned Hillsborough’s reservations about John Preble, Goldthwait’s successor.
1 Bernard was alluding to the tarring and feathering of Owen Richards on 18 May, an event TH described in No. 611, above.
2 The letter was not found.
3 TH first mentioned the rumor to Bernard in No. 607, above. In No. 634, above, Bernard reported that the rumor had reached Lord North through an anonymous source.
4 The loose paper was not found.
1 In No. 645, above, Gage advised removing Preston and the soldiers to the Castle to avoid their being lynched.
2 The right-hand column on the third page of the Boston Gazette for 9 July 1770 summarized two letters from London. Harbottle Dorr identified the author of the first letter as William Bollan and the second as Thomas Pownall (Massachusetts Historical Society, Dorr Collection). Catharine Macaulay (1731–1791), the author of the eight-volume History of England from the Accession of James 1 through the Revolution (1763–83), was a prominent supporter of John Wilkes and a friend to the colonies.
3 By depositions, TH meant those appended to The Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston, compiled by a committee of the town led by James Bowdoin. Evidently, The Fair Account had not yet been published by 14 May, although “The Case of Thomas Preston” had appeared on 28 April.
1 See No. 651, above
2 Presumably the letter was from Samuel Waldo; see No. 591, above. Once the commissioners had taken refuge at the Castle, speculation began concerning where they might relocate. Amboy, the capital of New Jersey, would have been more centrally located and perhaps less hostile to their presence. Bernard’s appointment to the American Board of Customs Commissioners never took place.
3 TH referred here to the comptroller in charge of receiving the fees for his commission as governor. William Palmer paid the £400 fee.
4 Actually, TH’s letters arrived with John Robinson on April 21; see No. 581, above.
5 Robert Linzee (1731–1804) became commander of the sloop HMS Viper in 1768, which often carried messages from Boston to Halifax. On 3 October 1770, he was made post captain and took command of the Romney, Hood’s flag ship.
6 TH detained the Mermaid during the previous month, not wanting Boston to be without at least one Royal Navy vessel; see No. 627, above.
1 TH first alluded to the return of Captain Andrew Gardner, who had carried the town of Boston’s account of the Massacre to London, in No. 651, above. Gardner returned with letters from Bollan, Pownall, and Macaulay.
2 Stephen Sayre (1736–1818) was an American merchant living in London and close political associate of John Wilkes, therefore at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Lord Hillsborough. In 1775, Sayre was accused of taking part in an alleged plan to kidnap George III. He left England in 1777 to serve as a U.S. diplomat in Prussia and Russia.
3 The General Court stood prorogued until 25 July 1770 when it would meet again in Cambridge.
4 Amelia Bernard and her family had still not embarked for London.
1 TH’s letterbook copy is dated 13 July and includes the underscored material below, which was omitted from the RC.
1 Gage first advanced the idea of removing the accused soldiers to the Castle in No. 645, above. TH’s response was No. 651, above.
1 Those letters were Nos. 634 and 639, respectively, above.
2 Bernard’s last letter was No. 650, above.
3 No letter from John Pownall on this subject has been found.
1 TH’s last letter to Hood was No. 652, above.
1 It is not clear which letter from Sir Francis Bernard TH was quoting.
2 TH’s letter to Colden was No. 619, above. Colden’s response to that letter was not found.
3 In the Remembrancer, this phrase appears as “he certainly has a strange aversion.”
4 In the Remembrancer, this phrase reads, “as well as preventing them destroying the mother country.”
1 Letter No. 29 was No. 602, above.
2 TH wrote two versions of this letter in his letterbook. They are essentially the same with minor variations except that in the one marked “not sent” he included at this point the following material: “I never murmur at disappointments. The state of the nation I have no doubt was sufficient reason for the Ministrys not pushing our Affairs the last session. It is however unfortunate. I have wrote you largely on what you call my Irresolution.”
3 Here also, the version “not sent” includes material cut from the final letter: “I have wrote you so particularly before upon this Subject that I need not now enlarge as something must have been determind before now. I am told that even Temples connexions have not been pleased with the report of a new appointment as they had no chance for such as they would have chose. Temple himself would not be long content with any body besides himself.” Here by “report of a new appointment,” TH meant rumors of someone appointed to be governor of Massachusetts instead of him.
4 TH’s letter to Hillsborough was No. 622, above.
5 The Tweed had been assigned to carry Lord Dunmore, New York’s new governor, across the Atlantic and return with Lady Bernard and her family.
1 Captain Robson commanded the vessel that carried Robinson to England together with accounts of the Massacre by TH, William Dalrymple, and Captain Thomas Preston (Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, 21 June 1770).
2 TH first reported this rumor to Bernard in No. 640, above.
3 Presumably TH meant Thomas Young and William Molineux. Ballad was possibly John Ballard (1715?–1794), wharfinger and proprietor of the British Coffee-House. He was prominent in the attack on Patrick McMasters, see No. 627, below.
1 These letters would be Nos. 617, 620, and 621, respectively, above.
2 Among the reforms in the Massachusetts constitution Bernard and Lord Hillsborough were considering was replacing the elected Council with one appointed by the Crown.
3 TH and Bernard differed concerning the legality of removing the soldiers to the Castle. Bernard first advanced a writ of habeas corpus as sufficient legal justification in No. 625, above.
4 TH explained in his letter of No. 620, above, that he did not put a stop to the payment of the fees for his commission, so the process could go forward.
5 “General Gage’s information” pertained to a rumored order from Massachusetts for military cap badges made in London; see No. 621, above.
1 TH wrote to Penn and Colden on 26 May and 2 June, Nos. 614 and 619, respectively, above. Their responses have not been found, but TH summarized Colden’s answer in Nos. 629 and 630, above.
2 The unanimous vote of the House was recorded in JHR, 47:62.
3 TH made his request for direction in No. 641, above.
4 TH and Bernard had previously discussed the idea of a royal commission, see No. 548, above.
5 I.e., commencement day at Harvard College.
6 Councilor John Erving Sr.
1 The text of TH’s speech can be found in JHR, 47:58–61.
1 Mackay’s letter was not found.
1 TH’s letter to Hillsborough was No. 663, above.
2 According to Harbottle Dorr, Councilors Harrison Gray, Thomas Hubbard, and James Russell had all voted to proceed to business. See Boston Evening-Post, 18 June 1770, Massachusetts Historical Society, Dorr Collection.
1 In other words, TH’s salary as governor would begin once the king appointed him, not after Hillsborough returned to issue the commission.
2 TH first alerted his superiors to the sale of land on Fort Hill in Nos. 617, 621, and 622, above.
1 Ebenezer Silliman (see BD).
2 TH’s sons Thomas and Elisha hoped to recommence selling tea after the expiration of the original nonimportation agreement on 1 January 1770. Not only were they forced to desist, but they had to agree to store newly arrived tea as well. See No. 504, above.
3 Silliman evidently offered to dispose of some tea in Connecticut, since its sale was forbidden in Boston.
1 For Barlow Trecothick, see TH Correspondence, 1: No. 81.
1 TH evidently assumed that both John Temple and John Robinson would need to be replaced and that the board would be strengthened by the addition of two local members if it moved to New York.
1 TH prorogued the House until 5 September. The abrupt adjournment prevented the Council from acting on Bowdoin’s address.
2 John Worthington of Springfield, Timothy Ruggles of Hardwick, and John Murray of Rutland were all staunch government party men who chose not to attend a session of the legislature they believed would be dominated by the opposition. Murray (1720–1794) was a future mandamus councilor and loyalist exile to St. John, New Brunswick.
3 TH began the session by urging the House to proceed to business. Their refusal can be found in JHR, 47:63–71. TH’s response is at JHR, 47:73–78.
4 In his response, TH singled out the House’s use of the word “impudent” when referring to Hillsborough’s order to rescind its circular letter in June 1768. The House preferred to regard the order to rescind as the mere motion of one of the king’s ministers and not an order from the Crown itself; see JHR, 47:73.
5 Quo warranto proceedings, initiated in cases of abuse or neglect of governmental privileges, led to the revocation of the first Massachusetts charter under Charles II. That Thomas Cushing, Speaker of the House, discounted the notion that the repeated refusal of the House to proceed to business would result in similar punishment arose during conversation at the home of Edmund Trowbridge, whom TH habitually called Goffe, his surname at birth.
6 James Bowdoin married the daughter of John Erving Sr. John Temple married the daughter of James Bowdoin. Thus, Temple, whom TH blamed as the source of much disruption, was the “grandson” of John Erving Sr.
7 TH, since he was acting governor, declined to preside at the Massacre trials, leaving the job to Benjamin Lynde Jr. Lynde, who of all the judges on the Superior Court appeared the most alarmed by threats of violence, continued to serve first as acting chief justice, and then as chief justice in his own right, for three years.
8 Perhaps a copy of No. 538, above, which contained a full description of conditions east of the Penobscot.
1 TH’s letters Nos. 17 and 18 would have been Nos. 629 and 641, respectively, above.
2 Hillsborough’s letter of 6 July, No. 649, above, enclosed an Order in Council mandating the transfer of Castle William to royal control.
1 The dispute that first broke out in 1766 over the rights of Massachusetts settlers to land sold them by the Stockbridge Indians within territory claimed by New York remained unresolved.
2 Thomas Flucker, an important government party ally and large landowner in Maine, would soon become secretary of the province.
3 For TH’s final agreement to his appointment as governor, see No. 622, above.
4 The letter to this point is in WSH’s hand. The final sentence, closing, and address are in TH’s hand.
5 TH noted that the legislature made no provisions for troops at Castle William in No. 654, above.
1 The message of the House can be found at JHR, 47:63–71.
2 TH’s response is at JHR, 47:73–78.
1 Letter No. 26, dated 2 July, No. 646, above, concerned an alleged meeting at the home of William Molineux to discuss forcible resistance to any landing of British troops in Boston after their withdrawal to Castle William.
2 The notice appeared in the Boston Gazette, 16 July 1770. Since Francis Bernard, together with a number of prominent British investors, had sought grants of land in the vicinity, the founding of a new town there would be of particular interest.
3 The grant to Bernard, made by the General Court in 1762, of Mount Desert Island still was not confirmed by the Privy Council. The president of the Council in 1770 was Granville Leveson-Gower (1721–1803), 2nd Earl Gower, who favored a hardline toward the American colonies and was a political adherent of the Duke of Bedford.
4 For TH’s letter to Bernard No. 24, see No. 630, above.
1 Rogers’s wife, Elizabeth, was a cousin of John Wentworth (1737–1820), governor of New Hampshire.
2 Edmund Quincy IV (1703–1788) did not share the political leanings of his nephew Josiah Quincy Jr.
3 Here the manuscript changes from TH’s hand to that of WSH.
4 Thomas Flucker did become secretary of the province instead of TH’s brother Foster.
5 TH in his response to the address from the House was quoted in Edes & Gill’s Boston Gazette for 6 August 1770 as saying, “Every order from the secretary of state must be supposed as coming immediately from the Crown.”
6 TH ordered Richard Draper, the official government printer, to change the word “immediately” to “mediately” when his response appeared in the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, the official paper of record, on 9 August. Nevertheless, an anonymous piece (said by Harbottle Dorr to have been written by Samuel Adams) appeared in the Boston Gazette, 13 August 1770, challenging the notion that any ministerial order could be said to come immediately from the king.
7 Andrew Belcher (1706–1771), Harvard College graduate of 1724, was the eldest son of Governor Jonathan Belcher, who obtained for him the post of register of vice admiralty in 1740. From 1759 to 1765, he deputized William Story to actually carry out his duties.
8 The Latin phrase “communibus annis,” when translated into English, would mean “in ordinary years.”
9 For John Cotton, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 303n. For Sir Edward Hawke, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 281n. The letter to Hawke appears in the calendar dated 14 August 1770.
1 Gage received letters instructing him to place Castle William under royal control at the same time TH received similar instructions; see No. 649, above.
2 Thomas Harley (1730–1804) was a member of Parliament for London and lord mayor in 1768; he was active in suppressing the rioting in support of John Wilkes. Still smarting from the royal rebuke to their remonstrance of 23 May 1770, the citizens of London were in no mood to see their leaders present an obsequious address on the occasion of the birth of a royal princess. When on 28 May the lord mayor’s procession passed through the Temple Bar, the gates were shut against Harley and his carriage attacked. Once he had fled on foot, the crowd reopened the gates for the rest of the procession.
1 Rogers’s sister Sarah was the daughter of TH’s sister Lydia Hutchinson Rogers.
2 Brigadier William Brattle (see BD), one of whose many occupations was as a lawyer, was considered by some to have been a candidate for the same vacancy on the Superior Court that TH himself filled in 1760. A member of the Council, Brattle spent most of the 1760s as a sharp critic of Governor Francis Bernard and TH, but he had recently split with Bowdoin and come over to the government party. For TH’s reply to the House, see No. 677, above.
1 TH’s last letter to Gage was No. 668, above; only one letter from Gage during the intervening period, that of 12 August, No. 678, above, was found.
2 TH alluded to the transfer of Castle William to royal control.
3 For Philip Stephens, first secretary to the Admiralty Board, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 412n.
1 TH last wrote to Hood on 24 July 1770 (calendar only). Hood’s letters to TH were not found. Mr. Murray was not positively identified but is most likely to have been James Murray, a government party justice of the peace. Captain Benjamin Caldwell commanded HMS Rose.
2 Hillsborough’s letter was No. 626, above.
3 To this point, the letter was written by WSH; the remainder is in TH’s hand.
4 For an account of the mobbing of Alderman Harley, see No. 678, above.
5 James Gambier (see BD) would succeed Samuel Hood as commodore of the North American Station.
6 TH provided the most complete account of the death of his nephew Nathaniel Rogers in No. 677, above.
1 Royal governors habitually arrived and departed on transport provided by the Royal Navy. The Tweed was being held in reserve to transport Lord Dunmore, Virginia’s newly appointed governor.
2 The commissioners of customs dispatched Benjamin Hallowell, comptroller of customs, to London to report on the Liberty riot; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 420.
3 Captain Sir George Collier (1738–1795), later vice-admiral, was commander of HMS Tweed in 1770.
4 Timothy Ruggles of Hardwick (see BD) was a staunch government party ally in the House. Grey Cooper was a member of Parliament and undersecretary of the treasury, a key member of Lord North’s administration; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 263n.
5 In 1770, Benjamin Hallowell superseded John Temple, who had long been at variance with his fellow customs commissioners. Temple and Bernard had conducted a bitter feud since Temple first charged Bernard of being complicit in corruption with James Cockle, collector at Salem, in 1764. See TH Correspondence, 1: No. 72n.
6 Since the publication of John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in 1768, which acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament but denied its right to tax the colonies, some colonial theorists suggested that royal charters granted by the king to his American subjects at the time of their settlement exempted them from the authority of Parliament. The reform of the Massachusetts charter by an act of Parliament would be a clear assertion of parliamentary sovereignty and be certain to engender further controversy.
1 William Parker (1703–1781) of Portsmouth was judge of probate as well as the vice-admiralty court in New Hampshire. He wrote TH a long letter on 20 August 1770 (calendar only) for advice concerning the administration of a bankrupt estate with creditors in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The New Hampshire creditors stood to gain three times more per pound of debt than the Massachusetts creditors. Should the same rate apply to all, or should there be a separate administration of the estate in each province? The details of the case need not concern us here. TH’s response is included because of his reflections in the penultimate paragraph on Massachusetts politics.
2 “Plene admnistravit” is a plea entered by an executor that he has not had in his possession any assets of the deceased. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.
3 Parker alluded to long-delayed royal assent to legislation dividing New Hampshire into counties; see No. 688, below.
4 The contents of the packet have not been identified but may have been letters sent by the customs commissioners identifying James Otis Jr. as particularly active in opposing the execution of their duties. Rumors of the contents of these letters prompted the brawl between Otis and John Robinson in September 1769. Robinson did not finally depart for England until shortly after the Boston Massacre.
5 Peter Livius (1739–1795), born of German parents in Portugal, became a member of the governor’s council in New Hampshire in 1765 and a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. He attempted to force the removal of Governor John Wentworth in 1771 but lost his seat on the bench instead. He read law at the Middle Temple, received honorary degrees from Harvard and Oxford, and became a fellow of the Royal Society. In August 1776, he became chief justice of Quebec but was later dismissed for secret correspondence with the American military.
1 TH’s previous letter to Gage was No. 681, above.
2 TH’s most complete account of the death of Nathaniel Rogers was No. 677, above.
3 TH to Philip Stephens, 4 August 1770 (calendar only).
1 Francis Bernard’s No. 30 was No. 625, above.
2 TH alluded to William Molineux, Thomas Young, Samuel or perhaps his brother William Cooper, and Samuel Adams as leading members of the opposition.
3 Gage’s letter was not found.
4 Gage suggested transferring the prisoners to the Castle in No. 645, above. TH replied that he thought the plan illegal in No. 651, above.
5 On the temerity of Lynde and Goffe (i.e., Trowbridge), see No. 671, above.
6 The threat to Peter Oliver was not found.
7 TH originally intended that the General Court should reconvene at Cambridge on 5 September 1770. The date was later moved back to 26 September.
1 Hillsborough’s letter No. 37 was No. 626, above.
2 Gage’s letter to TH was No. 678, above.
3 TH’s reply to Gage was No. 681, above.
1 Parker’s letter to TH was dated 20 August 1770 (calendar only). TH’s reply to Parker was No. 684, above.
1 For Patrick McMasters and his treatment, see No. 627, above.
2 New York merchants concluded a canvass in favor of importing on 9 July 1770 and two days later sent orders for all goods except tea and other articles on which a duty was charged.
1 The packet contained Hillsborough’s letter No. 649, above, ordering the immediate transfer of Castle William to royal control.
1 Benjamin Day (1710–1808), together with Worthington, was also a representative from Springfield.
2 For Timothy Ruggles and John Murray, see No. 548, above.
3 The “rump” was all that remained of Parliament after Thomas Pride purged it in December 1648 of members opposed to the execution of Charles I.
4 For the time allotted to TH to reconsider his decision about withdrawing his name from consideration as governor, see No. 661, above.
1 Hillsborough’s instructions were contained in No. 649, above.
2 From this point to the end of the letter, the Dft reads instead, “I told Colonel Dalrymple I had no doubt of my being obliged to commit the Custody & Government of this Fort & Island to such person as His Majesty immediately or mediately should direct to receive it, but that it appeared to me most regular that it should be done by Commissions from the Governor superseding the Commissions of the present Officers, otherwise those persons who are watching every opportunity to charge Administration with the least Irregularity would say this Fort & Island though plainly included within the bounds of the Charter, by force of an Order from His Majesty, were cut off from the Province.
“I have no doubt of the Royal Authority to give the General of His Forces power to command and order them in every Colony, but I should doubt whether a Commission to command the Militia of this Province granted by any other person than the Governor could consist with the Charter. The Authority to the Governor over Forts is just the Same as over the Militia. This Fort was erected and has been repaired by such authority, at the Expence of the Government, I speak of the works, most of the Artillery & Stores being the Gift of the Crown. My Instructions from time to time have been to proceed in a legal constitutional way and I am sure this is most agreeable to His Majesty’s pleasure. Colonel Dalrymple thought there was weight in the Observations I made, but it was a point of some Delicacy and we both agreed to state the matter to you for your consideration, as neither of us could see any material inconvenience from delaying the Execution of this Order a few days. In the meantime it will not be divulged. I would send you the Province Charter but as it has been prefixed to every Impression of the Laws it may, no doubt, be obtained at New York. I am sure you will understand me as aiming at a compliance with His Majestys orders in a way that is most unexceptionable and which shall fully agree with the Royal Intention.
“I had wrote thus far intending to delay exchanging the Garrison until I had received an Answer—but upon weighing the matter I feared I should not be able to justify the delay & went to Town from Milton to order the Exchange.”
1 Major John Phillips (1716–1785), Harvard College graduate of 1736, was appointed by Thomas Pownall to command of the Castle in 1759. After the intercession of both TH and John Temple on his behalf, Phillips was eventually commissioned fort major of Castle William in 1772.
2 William Burbeck [or Burbank] (1716–1785) soon received a civilian appointment in the Royal Artillery at the Castle. He was, however, a member of the Sons of Liberty and an alleged participant in the Boston Tea Party. At the outbreak of hostilities, he fled Castle William and helped to direct the American artillery during the siege of Boston.
3 William Salisbury (1731–1821) of Braintree, according to family tradition, was a friend of TH, and despite the fact that they parted ways politically, allegedly rowed him to a waiting British warship when TH left for England in 1774. Salisbury later served with the American forces at the Castle during the war (Elon Galusha Salisbury, The Salisburian: Historical, Biographical and Genealogical Records of the House of Salisbury [Phelps, N.Y.: Flintside Press, 1921], 1:38–39).
4 The letter forwarded to Hillsborough was No. 695, below.
1 Perhaps TH is referring to the twenty-eight depositions taken by Lieutenant-Colonel William White that accompanied John Robinson to England and were included in A Fair Account of the Late Unhappy Disturbance in Boston. See Hinderaker, Boston’s Massacre, p. 17. TH may not have known the identities of the persons heard by the Committee on Plantation Affairs on 26 June 1770: Captain James Scott (1746-1809), captain of Hancock’s vessel Lydia; Ebenezer Bridgham; Benjamin Hallowell Jr.; and John Robinson.
1 These letters would be Nos. 692 and 693, above.
2 TH expressed this concern in No. 693, above.
3 Hillsborough expressed his view that preventing the despoiling of the lands east of the Penobscot was the responsibility of Massachusetts Bay in No. 649, above.
4 For John Preble, see No. 639, above.
1 The letter was No. 694, above.
1 TH previously acknowledged Francis Bernard’s letter No. 30, No. 625, above, on 28 August; see No. 686, above. Bernard’s letters Nos. 31 through 34 were Nos. 634, 639, 650, and 656, respectively, above. Letter No. 35, dated 20 July (calendar only), was a private letter concerning Bernard’s efforts to obtain the reversion of the Naval Office for his son John. Letters No. 36 and 37 were Nos. 661 and 666, respectively, above.
2 Thomas Goldthwait was both truckmaster and commander of Fort Pownall at the mouth of the Penobscot River in Maine. Earlier in the spring, the House replaced Goldthwait with John Preble as truckmaster; see No. 639, above.
3 “Toties quoties” is a Latin legal phrase meaning “as often as the thing shall happen.”
4 The Order in Council was contained in No. 649, above, and was forwarded by Thomas Gage express from New York.
5 Major John Phillips commanded the provincial garrison at the Castle.
6 James Pitts raised the question in the Council.
7 Samuel Adams accused TH of violating the charter.
8 TH’s brother Foster Hutchinson gave this warning.
9 Francis Bernard took refuge at the Castle in the midst of the Stamp Act riots in August 1765 (Papers of Francis Bernard, 2:319).
10 The meeting of the Body of the Trade held the evening of 13 September 1770 was preoccupied by the question of trying to prevent Philadelphia from defecting from the nonimportation agreement (Boston Gazette, 17 September 1770).
11 The General Court reconvened in Cambridge on 26 September.
12 The Boston representatives were predicting that the House would once again refuse to proceed to business as they had in previous sessions.
1 For Benjamin Day, see No. 691, above.
1 The letterbook copy of TH’s letter to Gage No. 692, above, is marked “not sent,” but it did propose that TH as governor would grant Dalrymple a commission as commander of the Castle.
2 The southern fortification was not identified.
1 Francis Bernard wrote TH on 20 July (calendar only) concerning his efforts to obtain the reversion of the Naval Office for his second son, John, a merchant, since his older son, Frank (the present deputy), was disabled by mental illness.
2 Bernard previously persuaded Benjamin Pemberton, the serving naval officer, to accept an annual payment to make Frank Bernard his deputy; see No. 566, above.
3 TH enclosed Andrew Oliver’s version of the Council meeting of 6 March in his letter to Sir Francis Bernard, No. 543, above. Captain Scott of John Hancock’s ship Lydia arrived 13 September, bringing with him a copy of A Fair Account. The Boston Gazette printed Oliver’s narrative as an extract from that publication on 24 September 1774.
4 TH responded on 28 August that he doubted the legality of Bernard’s scheme to transfer Preston to Castle William advanced in No. 621, above.
5 TH outlined his plans for how to respond to a guilty verdict for Preston in his letter to Gage No. 694, above, and enclosed a copy of that letter to Hillsborough in No. 696, above.
1 In his letter No. 694, above, TH proposed that if Preston were to be found guilty, his counsel should move for an arrest of judgment while the evidence of the case was transmitted to England in the hope that a royal pardon would arrive before the court reconvened in the spring.
2 For the meeting of the committee of the Privy Council, see No. 694, above.
1 Gage’s letter of the 17th, No. 699, above, was a response to No. 693, above.
2 Captain John Montresor (1736–1799) was an engineer and cartographer with extensive experience in North America, dispatched by Gage to see what improvements were necessary at Castle William.
1 For the treatment of McMasters, see No. 627, above.
1 William Brattle had recently become disaffected from the majority of the Council led by James Bowdoin and began to renew his ties with TH and other members of the government party, in whose camp he would remain until he left Boston, together with General William Howe’s army, in March 1776.
2 John Erving Sr., well known as a smuggler, often sided with the patriots in the Council until this time. James Bowdoin married the sister of John Erving Jr., his Harvard roommate. John Temple married Bowdoin’s daughter, thus making Temple John Erving Sr.’s grandson.
3 James Bowdoin and James Pitts. The “pale and lean Cassius” was not identified.
4 Andrew Oliver’s record of the Council meeting of 6 March identified Royall Tyler as claiming to have certain knowledge of militia being raised in the countryside to drive all British troops from Boston after the Massacre.
5 For Stephen Sayre, see No. 653, above.
6 The Reverend Doctor Samuel Cooper was pastor of the Brattle Street Church and a leading patriot who corresponded with key figures in London.
7 TH still had not received any part of the supplemental grant he had been promised out of the income of the Townshend duties, despite being derided as a “pensioner” and having his regular salary cut off by the General Court.
8 In his letter No. 650, above, Francis Bernard proposed a number of reforms in the Massachusetts provincial government and solicited TH’s opinion.
9 John Brock was granted a pension by the General Court, as were John Phillips and Stephen Hall, the chaplain of Castle William in June 1771 (Mass. Acts and Resolves, 18:534–38). For William Burbeck [or Burbank], see No. 693, above.
10 Gage’s 17 September letter to TH, No. 699, above, laid out the formula by which Dalrymple would command the Castle.
1 The text of TH’s speech can be found in JHR, 47:80–82.
2 It took several months for TH to ascertain which of his letters were contained in this packet; see TH to Sir Francis Bernard, 16 February 1771 (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:120–21).
1 Neither letter from Pownall was found. TH last wrote Pownall on 29 August, No. 689, above.
2 TH made mention of the arrival of a new “budget of letters” in his 28 September letters to Bernard and Hillsborough, Nos. 704 and 705, respectively, above.
3 As one of the first acts of the session, the General Court voted on 29 September to set aside the following Wednesday as a day of “prayer and humiliation.” TH believed that in doing so, the General Court was adopting the style of the Puritan-dominated Long Parliament of 1641 (JHR, 47:83).
1 Badly advised or foolish (OED).
1 The letter of 5 June 1770 is calendared but not printed in this edition. In his letter of No. 591, above, TH mentioned alluding in Council to a “friend of the Colonies” whose opinion it was that the legislature should not meet in the chief commercial town of a colony. TH made the statement based on a letter from Francis Bernard written in 1769; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 476.
2 The letter in question was TH Correspondence, 2: No. 407.
3 In TH Correspondence, 2: No. 345, TH instructed William Palmer to remit the necessary money to Jackson on demand.
4 TH raised these questions in the final paragraph of his letter No. 591, above.
1 Whately’s letter of 28 May was not found.
1 TH’s letters to Hillsborough Nos. 19 through 22 were Nos. 654, 663, 674, and 679, respectively, above.
2 Here Hillsborough signaled his continuing commitment to far-reaching revision of the Massachusetts Charter; a draft of such legislation, prepared by his office, was now now well advanced.
3 Hillsborough wrote in No. 571, above, advising him of his appointment as governor, Andrew Oliver as lieutenant governor, and Nathaniel Rogers as secretary. TH’s letter No. 22, No. 679, above, informed him of the death of Nathaniel Rogers and the need to appoint a new secretary.
1 Christ Church on Cambridge Common, an Anglican mission founded by the Reverend East Apthorp, opened its doors in 1761.
2 Bernard’s agent was Walter Logan; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 394. David Phips (1724–1811) of Cambridge, a wealthy landowner, colonel of the militia, and future loyalist, was the son of Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips.
3 Thomas Oliver (1734–1815) of Cambridge, Harvard College graduate of 1753, was unrelated to Daniel and Peter Oliver but became a mandamus councilor and later lieutenant governor after the death of Andrew Oliver.
4 Joseph Lee (1711–1802) of Cambridge, Harvard College graduate of 1729, became a warden of Christ Church from 1772 through 1774, married a daughter of David Phips, and became a mandamus councilor.
1 Letters Nos. 28 through 32 were Nos. 659, 662, 669, 671, and 677, respectively, above.
2 Bernard communicated this information in No. 661, above.
3 Benjamin Hallowell, the former comptroller, was made part of the American Board of Custom Commissioners, while his brother Robert (1739–1816), who was previously collector at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, succeeded his brother as comptroller at Boston. The two men are often confused.
4 Thomas Flucker.
5 TH’s brother Foster Hutchinson.
6 For Sir Edward Hawke, see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 281 and 463. For Philip Stephens, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 463.
1 Oliver was expecting to see Charles Paxton, commissioner of customs, at the home of Nathaniel Hatch (1723–1784) of Dorchester, Harvard College graduate of 1742, who would become a mandamus councilor and loyalist exile. On 4 October, the Council first discussed Oliver’s private account of its meeting the day after the Massacre. The “exceptionable” part of Oliver’s record concerned Royall Tyler’s alleged statement that gentlemen of property and standing in the countryside had preconcerted a plan to raise the militia to drive the troops from Boston. Oliver presented a petition to the board on 5 October, justifying his conduct and requesting permission to defend himself in person and call witnesses on his behalf. Caldwell and Dalrymple gave depositions on Oliver’s behalf on 9 October (Proceedings of His Majesty’s Council of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, Relative to the Deposition of Andrew Oliver, Esq; Secretary of the Said Province, Concerning What Passed in Council in Consequence of the Unhappy Affair of the 5th of March 1770 (Boston: Edes & Gill, ), pp. 1, 12–13, 19–22).
2 TH in his opening address to the legislature had mentioned “Other Affairs of an interesting Nature, which had not yet come to our Knowledge and which may be determined before we can have another Opportunity of acting upon them.” This was presumably an allusion to ongoing proceedings in the Privy Council in response to the Boston Massacre and previous provocative statements by the General Court (JHR, 41:80). The House had asked for further explanation, Hutchinson refused, and a committee was appointed to draft a remonstrance (JHR, 41:84–88).
1 TH first advanced the idea a royal commission to inquire into North American affairs in No. 548, above.
2 TH had enclosed with his 4 August letter to Bernard, No. 671, above, a copy of a strongly worded message from the House, written by Samuel Adams, criticizing TH for violations of the charter and asserting their right to challenge misuse of the royal prerogative.
3 The message of the House described in the previous note was part of an extended debate between TH and the General Court concerning the governor’s right to convene the legislature anywhere other than Boston. TH believed that he had gained the upper hand in the argument (at least logically), but Bernard forewarned that many English readers would find the argument too tedious to follow.
1 TH had proposed John Cotton (his wife’s half-brother) for the soon-to-be-vacant post of registrar of the Massachusetts Vice-Admiralty Court in his letter to Sir Francis Bernard of 12 August, No. 677, above, without knowing that Bernard also sought it for his son John.
2 Bernard had recently obtained the reversion of the Massachusetts Naval Office for John Bernard, since his oldest son, Frank, the current holder of the office, seemed to be suffering some form of mental instability.
3 Bernard was reminding TH that he would soon be governor in his own right and able to reward Cotton, who at the moment was the mere deputy secretary of the House of Representatives.
1 In No. 706, above, TH suggested retaining the provincial storekeeper at Castle William with the understanding that Dalrymple should have access to whatever he needed in an emergency.
1 No private letter from Hillsborough dated 3 August has been found. Bernard Bailyn theorized that Hutchinson took the received copy of this letter with him when he went to England in 1774, Bailyn, Ordeal, 167.
2 The letter from Pownall has not been found.
3 Here TH expressed the hope that separate commissions for each councilor would not be necessary, since the expense might be too high for some potential councilors, who might, therefore, refuse the office.
1 The remainder of this paragraph was cancelled by TH.
2 A court of chancery follows looser, and ideally more expeditious, rules than a common law court and has the power to order remedies other than damages, such as writs and injunctions to enforce specific performance.
3 No. 649, above, contained an Order in Council to place Castle William under royal control.
4 TH referred to the decision of the New York merchants to recommence importing on 11 July 1770.
5 Here TH reverted to a familiar theme of his judicial career: reconciling provincial statutes and English common law. Such an act as he suggested would have, as he saw it, the additional benefit of forcing the colonists into acknowledging the authority of Parliament.
6 The Court of the King’s Bench was, together with the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of the Exchequer, one of the three highest common law courts of appeal.
7 The preceding paragraph is a response to the missing letter from Lord Hillsborough mentioned in n. 1, version 1, above. TH provided a summary of that letter in his diary for 14 March 1778: “I shewed him [Thomas Oliver] a private letter from Lord Hillsborough in 1770, in which he says he is extremely glad that I parted from those apprehensions which induced me to decline accepting the government; and he assured me he had never heard I declined it, and seemed surprized: asked the reasons? I gave them, ____ the prospect of increasing difficulties, and a desire to apply myself to the most agreeable office I ever sustained____that of Chief Justice, in which I thought I had done good, and had been very little abused for it. He complimented me by saying no one ever gave more general satisfaction; said it was impossible, after being thus drawn into the government, I should ever be left to suffer.” Diary & Letters, 2:192.
8 The postscript appears at the bottom of the second folio of the letter (f. 442).
1 The vote occurred on 9 October 1770; see JHR, 47:89–90.
1 Letters Nos. 33 and 34 were Nos. 686 and 688, respectively, above.
2 Benjamin Hallowell, the newly appointed commissioner of customs, would soon return to Massachusetts.
3 The phrase is drawn from a longer passage in Horace, epistle 20, line 16: “ridebit monitor non exauditus, ut ille/qui male parentem in rupes protrusit asellum/ iratus: quis enim invitum servare laboret?” Hor. It translates as, “Your monitor, from whom you turned away your ear, will then have his laugh, like the man who in anger pushed his stubborn ass over the cliff: for who would care to save an ass against his will.” The friends of government in Boston are here compared by Bernard to the owner of the ass. He further underscored the idea that they themselves needed to act by alluding to the story of Hercules and his encounter with a wagoner, who was reluctant to put his shoulder to the wheel of his own cart when it was stuck in the mire.
4 Bernard regarded the repeated refusal of the General Court to proceed to business as sufficient grounds for the forfeiture of the charter; see No. 661, above.
5 A Latin phrase that translates as “whenever it should occur or be necessary.”
1 Although this letter bears no specific date within the month of October, in TH’s letterbook it follows immediately after No. 718, above.
2 This Latin phrase translates as “with other conditions remaining the same.”
3 During the last two years of the Protectorate (1658–59), Cromwell established the Other House or Upper House, a second chamber of Parliament to replace the House of Lords, which had been abolished in 1649.
1 Gage wrote to TH on 30 September and again on 8 October, Nos. 708 and 717, respectively, above, concurring with TH’s suggestion to retain the provincial storekeeper at Castle William.
2 According to No. 672, above, Hillsborough was about to set out for Ireland in early August, but the content of that letter does not match the description here. Perhaps the matter was addressed in the missing private letter from Hillsborough, dated 3 August, that was mentioned in No. 718, above. TH also received assurance about the date on which his salary would begin from Sir Francis Bernard; see No. 666, above.
3 Concerning these depositions, see Nos. 694 and 701, above.
1 This letter is a response to No. 709, above.
2 For the letter to Francis Bernard, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 406. For the enclosed letter to Jackson, see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 407.
3 The letter to Palmer is TH Correspondence, 2: No. 345.
1 Francis Bernard’s letter No. 38, No. 675, above, concerned the granting of land by the Massachusetts legislature for a new township at Machias in Maine. Letter No. 39 (9 August 1770, calendar only) concerned Bernard’s anxiety over his personal liability in having endorsed a note of hand by the near-bankrupt William Story.
2 TH remarked on Logan’s faithfulness in a private letter to Bernard, 17 October 1770 (calendar only), concerning Story’s bankruptcy and the note of hand.
3 Hillsborough’s instructions were contained in No. 649, above.
4 The secretary, a royal appointee, could not be dismissed by the General Court, but they could express their displeasure over his account of the proceedings in Council on 6 March by failing to vote him his salary.
5 The House’s message to TH can be found in JHR, 47:94, and his response in JHR, 47:100.
6 For William Burbeck (or Burbank), whom TH appointed storekeeper at Castle William, see No. 704, above.
7 For William Salisbury, promoted from serjeant to gunner, see also No. 704, above. It was the responsibility of the gunner of Castle William to make careful note for the Naval Office of all ships entering or clearing the harbor.
8 Latin, meaning “between us.”
9 A group of Boston merchants had begun legal proceedings against excess fees charged by the Naval Office and Custom House in December 1769. The two offices performed very similar functions; see TH Correspondence, 2: Nos. 465, 473, and 483.
10 The statute of praemunire punished those trespassing on the prerogative of the Crown. Offenders risked death, but TH had previously suggested loss of civil privileges (voting, holding office, and access to the courts) as suitable penalties for those colonists who challenged royal authority; see TH Correspondence, 2: No. 400.
11 Justices of the Peace Richard Dana and John Ruddock were both staunch patriots; see Nos. 528 and 611, above.
12 Bernard added both Robert Auchmuty and James Murray to the list of justices of the peace for Suffolk County in the hope that some magistrates might be willing to authorize regular troops to use force against civilians according to the provisions of the Riot Act. Justice of the Peace Samuel Gillam was indicted for murder after reading the Riot Act to the crowd assembled in St. George’s Field in London on 10 May 1768.
13 TH discussed the story of Rome’s twelve disobedient colonies, recounted in the 27th and 29th books of Livy, in his draft treatise of a “Dialogue between an American and European Englishman”; see TH Correspondence, 2: appendix 2.
14 TH first suggested the idea a royal commission to settle North American affairs in No. 548, above.
15 The complex relation of parliamentary statute, common law, and laws drafted by colonial assemblies was an important topic of No. 718, above.
16 The injustice to English creditors done by Americans’ absconding laws was raised in TH’s recent correspondence with William Parker, judge of probate, and the Vice Admiralty Court in New Hampshire; see No. 684, above.
17 Both Bernard and TH regarded the argument that the colonies were subject only to their own charters and not to the authority of Parliament as a logical absurdity; see No. 683, above.
18 The “late order of His Majesty in Council” decreed the transfer of Castle William to royal authority; see No. 649, above.
19 Concerning the town of Boston’s efforts to sell land on Fort Hill to prevent it being made into a royal bastion, see No. 622, above.
20 Just prior to receiving news of the Glorious Revolution in England, the citizens of Boston seized Fort Hill together with Sir Edmund Andros, governor of the Dominion of New England, appointed by James II.
1 These were evidently the words of Henry Cromwell, fourth son of the lord protector, to John Thurloe, secretary to the council of state; see DNB, 13:154.
1 These messages can be found at JHR, 47:94, 100.
1 The letter and its enclosures have not been found. Perhaps the enclosures were the depositions first mentioned in No. 694.
2 Perhaps this letter was No. 717, above, or a similar letter from Gage written to Dalrymple mentioned in the same letter.
1 This letter was No. 717, above.
2 The manuscript continues in TH’s hand from this point.
3 Riotous behavior often accompanied the celebration of Pope’s Day, 5 November, in Boston.
4 The Order in Council of 6 July 1770 was generally regarded as a response to these seeming “excesses” by the patriots.
1 The Council resolved on 24 October that Oliver was guilty of “breach of trust” and had “injured and abused its members.” They also dispatched a copy of their proceedings to their London agent William Bollan (JHR, 47:267). The House received the Council’s report on 25 October; see JHR, 47:115.
2 Oliver presented a third petition to the Council on 29 October, objecting to the way his testimony was summarized by the board (JHR, 47:12–13).
3 William Brattle chaired the committee deliberating on Oliver’s petitions and the evidence he presented (JHR, 47:268, 270–72).
4 TH continued to refuse to divulge the contents of Lord Hillsborough’s letter (No. 649, above) communicating the Order in Council of the same day.
1 The case went to the jury on Monday, 29 October, which announced its verdict the following day. Therefore the preceding Friday was the 27th.
2 The “cause” was Captain Preston’s trial for murder. The Old Bailey was the chief criminal court in London.
3 Robert Treat Paine would sum up the argument for the prosecution. Robert Auchmuty concluded for the defense.
1 For the missing, misdated letter, see No. 728, above.
2 “Ex necessitate rei” is Latin legal terminology meaning “from the necessity of the thing,” often used to excuse an otherwise irregular or objectionable procedure.
3 TH referred to the depositions that were appended to A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre, prepared by a committee of the town of Boston.
4 Although TH thought the trial of the soldiers might take place in a fortnight, it did not actually begin until 27 November.
1 It was Samuel Drowne in the Short Narrative who testified that he saw the flashes of two guns fired from the second floor of the Custom House. He did not testify at Preston’s trial, where his evidence would not have been relevant, but he did at the trial of Manwaring.
2 James Bowdoin was a leading member of the committee appointed by the town meeting to take depositions from witnesses and compile the Short Narrative.
3 Here TH referred to an attested manuscript copy of the proceedings of the Council made by John Cotton, the deputy secretary, which he enclosed in his letter No. 734, below. The House later ordered the same material to be printed in pamphlet form on 6 November, as Proceedings of His Majesties Council Relative to the Deposition of Andrew Oliver, Esq. (Boston: Edes & Gill, 1770).
4 James Bowdoin’s “Narrative” was the Short Narrative.
1 For the proceedings of the Council against Andrew Oliver, see No. 733, above.
2 No. 733, above, was apparently sent under cover of this letter to Hillsborough. This postscript was not included in the AC.
1 The discrepancy between the printed depositions attached to the Short Narrative and the evidence given at the trial is mentioned in No. 731, above.
2 For Barlow Trecothick’s letter, see No. 668, above. For Governor Thomas Pownall’s letter, see No. 726, above.
3 Hillsborough had sent explicit orders directing TH to delay executing the sentence, pending application for a royal pardon, if Preston was found guilty in No. 579, above.
1 For the amended language as approved by the Council, which tended to downplay the threat of an armed effort to expel the troops, see A Fair Account, p. 53.
2 TH mentioned requesting an account of the meeting and enclosing it in his letter No. 543, above.
3 The resolves of the Council condemning Andrew Oliver can be found in JHR, 47:267.
4 TH’s account here of his words to the Council corresponds closely with the language attributed to him in the Council’s report of its proceedings against Oliver (JHR, 47:270–71).
5 TH expressed his concern over the unauthorized publication of Oliver’s account of the meeting in No. 700, above.
6 Those non-Council members present at the meeting were Lieutenant-Colonels William Dalymple and Maurice Carr, as well as Benjamin Caldwell, captain of HMS Rose.
7 James Bowdoin evidently observed to Thomas Flucker that Andrew Oliver’s deposition had diminished the intended impact of the Short Narrative when it was printed in Britain.