Hutchinson habitually included material in his private letters to John Pownall, secretary to the Board of Trade, that he did not mention in his public letters to the secretary of state. Yet even here a note of caution intrudes. Hutchinson softened his characterization of Samuel Adams in the second version of this letter, gave a more detailed description of the steps that would be necessary to appeal the verdict in the case of John Robinson’s assault on James Otis Jr., and appended an explanation of the Superior Court’s fault-finding with the form of the royal pardon for Ebenezer Richardson.

    884. To John Pownall

    Version 1

    Boston

    Dear Sir, I inclose to you Sir Francis Bernard’s News papers that you may see and communicate where it may be proper.

    Such a correspondence between the House and their Agent will keep us in a perpetual flame.1 The heads of the Party here are not without apprehensions that printing their Letters to their Agent which refer to his Letters to them may be of prejudice to him but they are forced to take every measure to keep up the spirit of opposition here. The House never ordered these Letters to be published but the Clerk, who drew the Letters, and who draws most of the seditious pieces in the Newspaper, inserted these amongst the rest.2 I doubt whether there is a greater Incendiary in the King’s dominions or a man of greater malignity of heart, or who less scruples any measures, ever so criminal, to accomplish his purposes; and I think I do him no injustice when I suppose he wishes the destruction of every Friend to Government in America. This is the man who is of the Committee, and the instar omnium,3 with which the Agent corresponds & from which he takes his directions in the recess of the Court. The Doctrine advanced, in these Letters, of Independance upon Parliament and even upon the King, to whom they deny the Right of supporting or even instructing his Governor, must rouze the people of England & they will sooner or later express their indignation. I see the principle spreading every day & the silence in England is construed to be a tacit acknowledgment or acquiescence. It cannot as they threaten be expressly acknowledged for but it may and as soon as we think our selves strong enough will be openly asserted and all attempts to secure our dependance openly resisted.

    In the last paper you will see an Account of a Verdict against Mr Robinson for Two thousand pounds sterling damage in an Action of Assault and Battery brought by Mr Otis.4 From the best account I can get of the Trial, had Mr Otis assaulted Mr Robinson, in the same manner after receiving the like insult and abuse, the Jury would not have given him a shilling. An appeal lies to the Superior Court which is to be held the 27th. of next month. I hope the Trial will be continued to March Term and that a better Jury will not give exorbitant damages. If they should there will be no remedy but by an Appeal to the King in Council. Actions of this nature depend altogether upon Evidence. Whether such an Appeal may not bring on a new Colonial dispute I wish for your opinion how to steer this whole business most for the King’s Service. No special bail has been required. Let Otis recover what he may he can have no fruit from his judgment unless Robinson appears & continues in the Province after judgment upon the appeal to the Superior Court. If there should be another extravagant verdict the question is whether its best for Robinson to keep out of the reach of an Execution or to satisfy it and carry his cause before the King in Council in order to reverse the Judgment in whole or in part. If any provision could be made for him in any other Colony I think it will be safest and attended with the least troublesome consequences if he keeps clear of this Province unless he has a good chance for reversing the Judgment upon his appeal to the King in Council.

    I fear you [. . . .]

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:437–38).

    Version 2

    Boston [early] August 1771

    Dear Sir, I inclose to you Sir F. Bernards Newspapers that you may see what sort of a Correspondence is carried on between the House & their Agent. The Clerk of the House is the reputed writer of the illiberal & seditious pieces in the News Papers & furnishes these Letters to serve the same purpose though he knows their Agent cannot be pleased with it. This Doctrine of Independance must sooner or later become a serious Affair & the same spirit which denied the Authority of Parliament to make Laws now denies the Authority of the King to give Instruction to his Governor. I have so often wrote my Sentiments of the Danger of suffering such Doctrine, in any parts of the Legislature especially, to pass without notice that I need not repeat them.

    In the paper of the last date you will see an account of a Verdict for Two thousand pounds sterling damages in an Action brought by Mr Otis for an Assault & Battery by Mr Robinson Commissioner of the Customs. Both parties have appealed to the Superior Court. It is not impossible that a Jury there may have as little regard to Law & Evidence as they seem to have had here. Robinson may appeal to the King in Council but the Charter provides that the Judgment shall be first satisfied & security given to refund in case the Judgment shall be reversed. Besides, will there be no difficulty in the taking cognizance of an Action of this nature which depends wholly upon Evidence? Has not an Appeal in an Action of the same nature5 been dismissed? There is however this difference that, by our Charter, all personal Actions without distinction when the value exceeds three hundred pounds Sterling are subjected to an Appeal. I will endeavour that the Action may be continued at the Superior Court to another term. As Mr Robinson is now in England he will be able to judge whether it is advisable for him to return for by keeping out of the Province he may prevent the Judgment having any Effect no special Bail being given. If it be thought best to bring it before the King in Council he may as well be here as not for the money must be paid & if the Appeal is not claimd in 14 days after judgment it cannot be received.

    Neither the Judges nor the Attorney General are clear in the discharge of [Richardson]6 without some further evidence of His Majesty’s [pardon]. We have no precedent upon record in this Province. They say that if there was no other Exception to the form of the Instrument yet it is no more than a Warrant to insert the name of [Richardson] in a [pardon]7 which it does not appear to them ever has been done. If a Copy could be procured of the pardons attested I hope it may be sufficient. I am not acquainted in what manner pardons are passed for such persons, whose sentences are respited in the several Counties in England but if it be usual to insert the names of such persons in the [Newgate pardons] I wish to be furnished with a Certificate that it is so. It is a hard case upon this poor fellow to ly so long in a horrid goal but I can do no more for him than I have done & it is compassion which moves me to ask this further favour from you. I am with great regard & esteem Sir Your obliged & most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:210–11). SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/246, ff. 13–14); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson Rd. 13th Sept.”; at foot of letter, “Inclosures 1. A Boston Gazette of July 22d. 1771. 2. Do. Do. 29th. 3. Do. August 1st.”

    885. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 9 August 1771

    (No 10)

    My Lord, By the June Packet I have the honour of the Duplicate of your Lordship’s Letter No 8 the Original not yet arrived.1 I have also a Circular Letter from your Lordship of the 5th. June advising the Birth of a Prince that morning an Event which causes joy to all His Majestys faithful Subjects.2

    I am happy in having His Majesty’s Approbation of my Endeavours for His Service and am enabled more cheerfully to attend to the Duties of my Station, to guard against every fresh Attempt to raise new disturbance, and to seize every Occasion for promoting Order and a due submission to Government. I have the honour to be most respectfully My Lord Your Lordships most humble and most Obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/760, ff. 275–76); at foot of letter, “Rt. Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough”; docketed, “Boston 9th. August 1771. Govr. Hutchinson. Rx 13th. Septemr. (No. 10.) D——16.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:211). SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 210–11); docketed, “Boston Augt. 9. 1771. Governor Hutchinson. (No 10) Rx 13th September.”