The Council versus Andrew Oliver

    746. From Sir Francis Bernard, 13 November 1770

    747. From Sir Francis Bernard, 15 November 1770

    748. From Lord Hillsborough, 15 November 1770

    749. From Andrew Oliver, 16 November 1770

    To underscore that he only agreed, on the day after the Massacre, to the removal of the troops to Castle William in order to avoid further bloodshed, Hutchinson asked Andrew Oliver to make a private record of his recollection of the tumultuous Council meeting on 6 March, an account independent of the official minutes of the Council. Hutchinson sent Oliver’s account, along with other documents, to Bernard, Hillsborough, and John Pownall to clarify his role in the decision, since he did not wish to be seen as interfering with the disposition of the king’s troops. Although it was never intended for publication, Oliver’s account was printed in England and copies of that edition appeared in Boston in the fall of 1770. The Council had previously amended its minutes to eliminate references to the threat of a general uprising throughout eastern Massachusetts to drive out the troops. Thus, it was alarmed and angered to see this suppressed material reappear in Oliver’s private account. Council members charged him with disloyalty and deliberate misrepresentation.

    746. From Sir Francis Bernard

    Hampstead Novr 13 1770

    No 48

    Dear Sr, I am much pleased with your conduct in surrendering the Castle, which upon many accounts was managed in the best manner possible. I always saw that this would happen some time or other & endeavoured to stave it off as long as possible. But the proceedings of the faction in March last quite stopt my mouth: and ever since those advices arrived the cry has been for taking the Castle into the King’s hands. Genl. Amherst told me some days since that it ought to have been done a long while ago.1

    With regard to the faction, this alteration has been long due. But I was induced to desire that it might not take place cheifly upon account of the many persons who had the comfort of their lives resting upon that establishment. I pity them heartily & especially Phillips, whose improper behaviour does not abate the sensibility of my feeling for him upon this occasion.2

    I communicated your Letter to my Lord Hillsborough the day after I received it,3 & enlarged upon the hardship of these people & particularly Phillips, being turnd out of a comfortable livelyhood which they had depended upon for life. He said you had wrote to the same purpose:4 He agreed with us, & said he thought something should be done for them, but asked whence is the money to come? I cant at present answer that question: but I will consider of it & see what can be done. At least I will put into his hands a memorial in behalf of Phillips when I can find an opportunity to edge it in with a prospect of success.

    But least an application which cannot pretend to be authorized by the party should be objected to, I would recommend that you would advise & assist Phillips to address a Petition to the King himself, & that you recommend it to my Lord Hillsborough, giving testimony to such parts of it as may want. But you should leave it to his Lordship to present it or not as he shall think fit; & not put him under the necessity of delivering it against his own opinion. I will do all I can to bring it forward. I am Sr. &c.,

    SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 4, 8:145–46); at foot of letter, “His Excellency Govr Hutchinson.”

    747. From Sir Francis Bernard

    Hampstead, Nov 15, 1770

    No 49

    Dear Sir, I now proceed to the other Part of your Letters which I have not before answered— Lord H & Mr P cannot believe that the Copies of Letters which you mention came out of their Office: however an Enquiry will be made.1 If any particular Letters which could be had no where else could be discovered it might afford Means of Detection: but I doubt of there being such. I think you need be under no Apprehension for your Letters: the Impropriety of exposing Governor’s Letters is now well understood; & last Session it was admitted on both Sides; & Copies of Letters were not desired by the Opposition. But Copies of such Papers as were laid before Parliament are as easily obtained as ever.

    I do not remember that you put a Question to me concerning your Salary: I cannot now look over all your Letters to find a single Paragraph, as you dont point out the Time in which such Letter was wrote. If you & the Commissioners are satisfied with the same Explanation of the Order, execute it accordingly, & receive Your Salary to March last & I dare say no Exception will be taken to it.2

    I am sorry your Mind was so agitated when you wrote your late Letters, chiefly upon Account of your private Letter to Lord H which has greatly disappointed him; & it is well, if it has not worse Effects. There is such a Propensity to avoid Business which will give Trouble, that every thing which will tend to it is laid hold of. I wish your Letter maynt be applied to such a Purpose. It is apparent that the Intention has cooled since the Receipt of your Letter.3

    In a former Letter I wrote only upon Phillips’ Account, who is certainly the cheif Object of a Compensation; tho I am well aware that there are others who want Releif besides him.4 But an Encrease of the Charge & the Number of the Objects must be avoided, as tending to prevent any Releif, being procured. I have thought that a Letter from Lord H to Genl Gage to recommend to him to make Provision for such of them as he can Employ may be of Service; & I will mention it. I still think a Petition from Phillips to the King may be of use: but you must assist him in preparing it.

    The Manner of settling the Command of the Castle so as to make it dependent upon the Government is of great Consequence & must have due Consideration. In the mean time you have happily done the Business so as to prevent any Ill use being made of it in Parliament, where you know this Question has been agitated & will be again.

    The Ministry will have a large Majority in Parliament: on the first day the Party in Opposition in both Houses made a poor hand of it & did not chuse to divide the House; & indeed there was scarce any Question to make a Division upon. But then it must be considered that Geo Greenville was just dead, & Lord Chatham was gone into the Country upon the Occasion.5 But the Opposition will have Power enough to keep continually seizing the Ministry so as to make them afraid of doing many things which ought to be done. The procuring a Lord Keeper (Mr De Grey) is an happy Removal of a great Difficulty.6

    I am much obliged to you for your Care in my Sons Business.7 I am &c.,

    SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 4, 8:150–51); at foot of letter, “His Excelly Govr Hutchinson.”

    748. From Lord Hillsborough

    Whitehall, 15th November 1770

    (No. 43.)

    Sir, I have received & laid before the King your Dispatches Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27,1 & I have the satisfaction to acquaint you, that the Attention you have shewn to His Majesty’s Commands relative to Castle William, & the prudent & cautious measures concerted between you & Col Dalrymple for conducting that important service, have met with the King’s entire Approbation, & correspond with the Spirit & Intention of that Order.

    The Resolution carried by so great a Majority of the Assembly to proceed to Business at Cambridge, & the Representation you make of the good disposition of the Council, are proofs that the Enemies of the public Tranquillity are losing their Influence in the General Court, & induces a hope that the Disorders which have so long prevailed in the Colony of Massachuset’s Bay are drawing to a Period.

    I think I may venture to assure you that since Sr Francis Bernard’s Correspondence no Copies of Letters which have come to my Office have been made public which can be productive of any inconvenience to you, & it is the Resolution of the King’s Servants to withstand as far as in them lies all such public communication. I am &ca.2

    Hillsborough

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/759, ff. 292–93); at head of letter, “Governor Hutchinson.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/765, ff. 189–90); at head of letter “(No. 43) Govr. Hutchinson.”

    749. From Andrew Oliver

    Friday Evening 16 Novemr. 1770—

    Dear Sir, I found Mr. Cotton at my house when I came home. He tells me the Court expects to rise to morrow, so that whether their business be done or not, the fault will be laid upon you, if they are not [up?], if you are not there.1

    After having my Petition before them ever since the 29th. of Oct they have this day accepted a Report drafted by Mr. Bowdoin, wherein they have taken notice of what you said upon the Subject at the first opening of the Court, as well as after they had passed their censures upon me.2 Mr Cotton tells me that it was said at the Board, unless they took notice of it in this way, they should be obliged to remonstrate to you upon it.

    I think it would be best for you to be at Cambridge as early as may be: if you can satisfy yourself with regard to the bills that may be laid before you; the Court may possibly rise before night. Your affectionate Brother & most humble Servant,

    Andw Oliver

    RC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:452); at foot of letter, “Honle T. Hutchinson Esqr.”

    Andrew Oliver, circa 1758. By John Singleton Copley. Andrew Oliver was the brother-in-law, close friend, and political ally of Thomas Hutchinson. He served as a member of the Council from 1746 to 1765, as secretary of the province from 1756 to 1771, and as lieutenant governor from 1771 until his death in 1774. Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution

    Proceedings of His Majesty’s Council of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, Relative to the Deposition of Andrew Oliver, Esq. Members of the Massachusetts Council sought to sanitize official records of their meeting on the day following the Boston Massacre. Angry and embarrassed, the Council hoped to punish secretary Andrew Oliver after his private record of the session (written at Hutchinson’s request) was published in London, since it suggested the colony was on the brink of armed rebellion. Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Published by Edes & Gill, 1770