The April Session of the General Court

    965. To Lord Hillsborough, 10 April 1772

    966. To Unknown, [10 or later] April 1772

    967. To William Palmer, 11 April 1772

    968. From Lord Hillsborough, 18 April 1772

    969. To William Tryon, 26 April 1772

    970. To Lord Hillsborough, 27 April 1772

    971. To Lord Hillsborough, 27 April 1772

    972. To William Palmer, 28 April 1772

    973. To Thomas Scammell, 28 April 1772

    974. To Unknown, 28 April 1772

    For several months, Hutchinson sought to separate John Hancock from Samuel Adams by implying that he might cease in the future to veto Hancock’s election to the Council in return for more moderate behavior. In his opening message to the General Court, Hutchinson hinted broadly that if the House would stop petitioning to move the Court to Boston as a matter of right, but plead instead for the relocation merely as matter of convenience, he believed he might allow it. A response drafted by John Hancock supplied the satisfactory words, but it failed to garner sufficient support, and Samuel Adams inserted language into the House’s message that continued to dispute the king’s right, through his royal governor, to summon the Court to meet wherever he wished. At the next town meeting, Hancock then moved for an inquiry into the town’s finances, which would spotlight Adams’s deficiencies as a tax collector. Eventually, other leading patriots saw that Adams’s debt to the town was considerably reduced and made good the rest out of their own pockets. It should be noted that John Hancock made the largest single contribution to defraying the debt: £266 out of a total amount of £1072 (Catherine Barton Mayo, Additions to Thomas Hutchinson’s “History of Massachusetts Bay” [Worcester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society, 1949], p. 43).

    965. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 10. April 1772

    (No. 23)

    My Lord, I am now to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship’s circular Letters the first dated the 5th Febry. the other the 8th.1 That, dated the 5th. advises of the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Hesse, the other of Her Royal Highness the Princess Dowager of Wales. Every good Subject and, especially, every good Servant of the Crown must feel the repeated melancholy Providences which grieve so good a King and Master; and they are ungrateful to Heaven, if they are insensible of its favour in continuing the health of His Majesty, upon whose life the publick happiness so much depends. A proper notice has been taken of those Events, by a general appearance of the Crown Officers, & others in publick posts in decent mourning.

    The letter of the 5th inclosed an additional Instruction from His Majesty with regard to the passing of Laws relative to the attachment of Lands Goods &ca belonging to persons who have never resided in the Province. I am sorry it is not in my power to cause this Instruction to have the designed Effect in this Province. Such a Law has been in force almost from the Charter, but it was temporary and revived from time to time until the year 1758 when from an apprehension that such an Instruction as I have now received would be given one time or other, it was thought advisable to make it a perpetual Law.

    It is in the 380th page of the last edition of the Provincial Laws in 1759.2

    I have also duplicate of your Lordship’s letter No 13. I have not received No 12, neither the January nor February mail being arrived.3

    The Assembly met the 8. instant at Cambridge. The Speech I made to them I will inclose. That part, which relates to removing them to Boston, I formed as near as I could to what I conceived to be His Majesty’s pleasure. If I had said nothing to them of their denying the King’s Authority to instruct the Governor, I think they would have asked me to carry them to Boston and assigned no other reason than the convenience of it, but then their former remonstrance would have remained in full force and they would have triumphed as having carried their point. They now say, that if they ask me; and assign no other reason than the convenience, it will be giving up the point.4 I shall be ready to remove them when they desist. I do not expect it this Session, but I cannot contend with them upon better ground, and I hope I shall not have occasion to give your Lordship any further trouble upon the Subject. I have let them know upon what terms they may come to Boston, and when they find that I will not depart from them, I think, they will comply with them in the next Session, and if they should not, after so fair an offer, I am not apprehensive of any disagreeable consequences.

    The Attorney General laid a Bill before the Grand Jury against the Printer of the seditious Libel mentioned in my Letter No 17 and I am sorry that I must acquaint your Lordship they returned Ignoramus not for want of evidence but because they judged it no Offence.5 They were packed for the purpose and the principal of them well indoctrinated in the principles upon which some late Juries have given their Verdicts upon Trials for Libels in England. In general the manner of constituting Grand Juries has not been exceptionable. When there is a strong party against Government it is liable to this corruption and abuse.

    The Trial of the persons who assaulted the Comptroller of the Customs at Casco Bay does not come on till July.6 The packets to the Governors were forwarded immediately. I have the honour to be with great respect My Lord Your Lordship’s most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 82–83); at foot of letter, “Rt. Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough”; docketed, “Boston 10th. April 1772. Govr. Hutchinson. (No. 23) Rx 30th. May.” DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/894, ff. 194–95). AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:315–16). SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 232–34); docketed, “Boston 10th, April 1772 Govr: Hutchinson. (No. 23.) Rx. 30th May”; at foot of letter, “Inclosed. Boston Newspaper of April 9. 1772.” SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 43, 1:138); docketed, “Thos: Hutchinson to Earl of Hillsborough Boston April 10th: 1772”; excerpt of fourth paragraph only. SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 10, 4:21); at head of letter, “Extract 10 Aprl. 1772 from Govr. Hutchinson To Lord Hillsbro.”; at foot of letter, “O.o. 42. Read 29 July 1772”; docketed, “Ext. Govr. Hutchinson To Lord Hillsbro 10 Apr. 1772 Abuses of Grand Juries”; excerpt of fifth paragraph only. Enclosure to RC: Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, 9 April 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, f. 84).

    966. To Unknown1

    Boston April [10 or later]2 1772

    Dear Sir, The news of Sir F. Bernard’s indisposition has reached us very lately and since the last Vessell sailed for England. As he does no business until he recovers his health which I fear will be but slowly, I hope you will indulge me with the liberty of troubling you sometimes with some of those Affairs which I should have mentioned to him if he had continued in London and he could have attended to business as heretofore. They will generally if not always be such as concern the Publick and not my private interest. In my Letters to him I have repeatedly mentioned to him the hard case of the Commanding Officer at Castle William when the Garrison was exchanged.3 He has been ever since intirely out of business. If anything could be done for him it would please the people much and which I think will have most weight with you, it would be a very humane & kind deed to a man whose livelihood was taken from him for the sake of the publick Service. Captain Phillips was obliged to Governor Pownall for the command of the Castle and he always had a good opinion of him. Before I knew Sr F B. had declined attending any business I wrote to him by this Vessel and desired him to represent the case of a printer Mr. Green who has been employed by the Commissioners of the Customs and has been assiduous in the Service of Government and by those has made himself obnoxious, lost all his other business as a printer and now by an order from the Treasury the Commissioners are required to employ one Mr. Flemming.4 He is in the utmost distress and says his Family must starve. But this is not all, it hurts his Majestys Service and our enemies triumph and take encouragement to persevere when they see or hear of any one being deserted who has been a friend to Government as well as of any being promoted who has joined with them in their measures for distressing Government. Mr. Flemming had been a Sufferer as well as Green and the Commissioners had given him the supply of their Stationary ware which Green used to have and it was ungenerous in this way to seek for the remainder of the business. It is too small an affair to trouble My Lord Hillsborough with or else for the reasons I have mentioned to you I would have asked his Lordships interposition. If you will give yourself the trouble to inform either of the Secretaries of the Treasury of the Circumstances of the Case, I think Green cannot fail of relief. He assures me he owes above 300£ in London for Articles to enable him to supply the Commissioners great part of which will ly upon his hands and be of no use. You will see by the inclosed News papers that I have met the Assembly. Mr. Hancock moved in the House to address the Governor to carry the Court to Boston and to assign no reason except the Convenience of sitting there but this was opposed by his Collegue Adams and carried against the motion by three or four voices only.5 The same motion was made in Council but opposed by Mr. Bowdoin who is and has been for several years the principal supporter of the opposition to Government. It would be to no purpose to Negative him for he would be chose into the House and do more mischief there than at the Board. I see no prospect of my receiving such an answer to my Speech as will justify my removing the Court to Boston. To concede to their absurd principles would encourage them to take the whole Authority of Government into their hands they must therefore be content to meet in some other place than Boston untill they desire me to remove them thither for such reasons only as will justify me in doing of it. I have so little to ask of them that no great mischief can arise from their being out of humour and by the best information I can get from the Country Towns this dispute will not cause any great dissatisfaction there, the probability is that there will be a considerable change of members another year from their dislike to the Conduct of the present House. I am &c.,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:313–15); in EH’s hand.

    967. To William Palmer

    Boston 11 April 1772

    This is the first opportunity I have had of acknowledging your favours of 21 Jan 7 Feb & 2d March.1 The things sent for my daughter are acceptable to her & she prays me to present her thanks to Mrs Palmer for her trouble.2 The Books not ashore I cannot find what Parlt. will finally do upon the Tea Act. I suppose I have letters from Ld H upon that subject by the Jan & Feb mails with are yet missing.

    However I have so much confidence in you that I acquiesce in what you have done or may do in the joint concern knowing that you intend our joint interest & if you should be mistaken I cannot find fault. The Dutch importation which now comes by way of NYork & Philad. still keeps down the price of Teas. We are in no danger of any considerable loss except when there shall be a great fall of the price in England & a large stock upon hand here for it is not practicable to vend a quantity suddenly here as in England. For other monies in your hands it is not very necessary to say any thing till I make you farther remittance? If Mr Tutte defers the chapel furniture much longer the minister will grieve & think I shall disappoint him.3 When there is no Vessel upon sailing & you have occasion to write Mr Pownall will oblige me by covering a letter by the packet & in such case one or two of the last news papers will be acceptable.4 I am Sir Your most humble Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:317); at head of letter, “Mr W Palmer.”

    968. From Lord Hillsborough

    Whitehall 18th. April 1772

    Sir, I have recd. your Letters Ns. 20 & 21, & have laid them before the King.1

    I am sorry to find that the Chief Justice has thought it necessary to retire from public Business as his Conduct always appeared to me in a favourable Light. The King has the fullest Confidence in your Choice of the Persons that are to succeed him & to supply the other Vacancies upon the Bench. It is unnecessary for me to say any thing with regard to the Merit of Mr. Oliver, and the Character you give of the other Gentlemen leaves no Room to doubt of their fitness for the Office you have conferr’d upon them.

    I have always considered the State of the Eastern Country as deserving a very serious Consideration, and I lament that I have it not in my Power to give you for the present any Instruction that may enable you to check the lawless Settlements that are making in that Country, to which the Legislature of Massachuset’s Bay appears to have given so little Attention.

    I fear it will be impossible to do any thing effectual in this Business without the Aid of Parliament; and any Interposition of that sort in the present Session has been prevented not only by the great Variety of other important Matters that have been the Subject of Deliberation, but also from the Want of the Reports of those Persons who have been appointed by the Lords of the Treasury to make a particular Survey of that District.2 I am &c.,

    Hillsborough

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/765, ff. 223–24); at head of letter, “Govr. Hutchinson. (No. 15).” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 74–75); at head of letter, “(No. 15.) Govr. Hutchinson.”

    969. To William Tryon

    Boston 26 April 1772

    Sir, I was uncertain how your recommendation and my Letter would be received by my Assembly. They have conducted with more propriety than I expected. Their Committee attended me to know whether I was willing to take any part in a Treaty concerning the Line. I let them know upon what terms only I could be concerned consistent with the dignity of the Royal Commission and they immediately framed a Bill exactly agreable to my proposal, which being reported passed into an Act or Law without any opposition. After a long course of illiberal treatment they have shewn that they have more real confidence in me than they have ever placed an any of my predecessors.

    I will inclose a Copy of the Act.1 If the proposal be agreable to you I should think Hartford or Middleton in Connecticut would be most convenient to meet in. They are about half way between New York and Boston. For the time I will mention when I cannot conveniently attend. By the Constitution I must meet an Assembly the last Week in May, the business of which will be more than usual and take up the time between that and the begining of July. The 15 July is the Commencement. Being at the head of the Overseers of the College it would not be pleasing to the people if I should be absent.2 After that to the 10th. of August I know of no impediment. I have nothing to hinder me till Christmas, but one of the Commissaries who is a practiser in the Law and has great business says he shall suffer much if he is absent from the tenth of August to the last of Septemr.3 These hints may, perhaps, be going far enough until I know your sentiments upon the plan and, if you approve of it, the place and times at which you can most conveniently be present. I have the Honor to be, Your Excellency’s most obedient Servant,

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 142–43); at foot of letter, “His Excelly Govr. Hutchinson Tryon.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:318–19); at foot of letter, “His Excell Gov Tryon.”

    970. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 27th. April 1772

    (No 24)

    My Lord, Since the date of my last I have the honour of your Lordship’s letter No 12. When I know His Majesty’s pleasure upon the points referred to the Privy Council I shall carefully conform to it.1

    The Assembly have gone through their business with more decency and propriety than any Assembly has done for seven years past. Their answer to my speech I take to have been occasioned by an unwillingness to recede from what they have publickly advanced and I think I shall hear no more of such strange doctrines & frivolous arguments in support of them.2

    The controversy with New York and the proposal made by Mr Tryon have had a very proper and unexpected consideration. A Committee of both Houses desired to know whether it would be agreeable to me to take any part in settling this controversy. I acquainted them that I would do them any service in my power consistent with my character as their Governor. They thereupon framed a bill, which is since passed into a law, appointing Commissaries to treat with Commissaries from New York at such time and place as Governor Tryon and I shall agree upon, and to determine upon a line of jurisdiction, the Governors being present, and if this line shall be consented to by the Governors and ratified and confirmed by His Majesty it shall at all times hereafter, without any further act or doings of the Assembly, be the boundary line between the two Provinces.

    After all the illiberal treatment I have received for so many years together, this is a greater mark of real confidence than I have known any Assembly to place in a Governor. I have made no concessions to occasion it. I shall immediately write to Governor Tryon and I hope in the course of the Summer we shall finish this long subsisting controversy.3

    In the choice of their Officers the Assembly have dropped Mr Goldthwait as Truckmaster. It was not from opposition to government but other prejudices. He was in town and being sensible that it would be to no purpose to negative the person chose in his stead who was more agreeable to him than any body else they would have chose he wished I would not do it.4 The place is of no value, the allowance being only 5 per cent upon what is negotiated. The sum negotiated last year did not amount to £500. sterling. The Indians are almost extinct.

    They have supplied their Treasury also in the manner I recommended to them and by this measure I have kept off any dispute about the exceptionable clause in their Tax Acts. I now know of nothing but that which is likely to occasion any trouble.

    They made their grants to their Agents but had no expectation of my consenting to them.

    They could not be prevailed upon to make any addition to the Salaries of the Judges of the Superior Court and I think there is no room to hope that any Assembly will give what is adequate to their Services.

    As soon as the Laws which have passed can be printed I will transmit them with remarks according to my Instructions.

    I have issued Writs for a new Assembly to meet at Cambridge the 27th of May which, I hope, will so demean themselves as that I may be justified in removing them from Cambridge to Boston. Many of the late Representatives were well satisfied with remaining at Cambridge but it keeps the Town of Boston in ill humour. I have the honour to be most respectfully My Lord Your Lordship’s most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 85–86); at foot of letter, “Rt. Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough”; docketed, “Boston 27 April 1772 Governor Hutchinson (No. 24) Rx 3 June.” DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/894, ff. 196–97); at head of letter “Duplicate (No. 24)”; docketed “Massachusets Duplicate of a Letter No. 24 from Govr. Hutchinson to the Earl of Hillsborough, dated Apr. 27, 1772 relative to the transactions of the late Assembly particularly with regard to the controversy between Masschusets & New York on a boundary line between those Colonies. Read July 29th. 1772. O.o. 43.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:320–21); at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 235–37); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson. Boston, 27th. April, 1772. (No. 24.) Rx 3d. June.”; at foot of letter, “Inclosed Boston Newspaper of 27 April 1772.” Enclosure to RC: Boston Evening-Post, 27 April 1772 (two copies) (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 87–90).

    971. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 27 April 1772

    Private

    My Lord, In a private letter which I took the liberty to write to your Lordship the 30th of March I mentioned the depressed state of the Justices of the Superior Court. Their Salaries are 120£ per annum. An attempt was made in the last Session to increase them to 150£.1 It may possibly succeed in another Session but that would be much short of the necessary encouragement. There are no Officers in the Province so meanly paid. A thought has occurred to me which its probable may answer to every good purpose proposed without any great burden to the Crown. A Gentleman who is called a Son of Liberty & was zealous for enlarging their Salaries said among other things that if the House should refuse to do it no possible exception could be taken to the King’s providing for them as he had done for the Governor.2 I submit it to your Lordship whether there would be an impropriety in a Warrant upon the Commissioners of the Customs founded upon the insufficiency of the Sum which had been annually granted by the Assembly for the support of the Justices of the Superior Court, and requiring them to pay annually to each of the puisne Justices such sum as together with the sum granted by the Gen. Assembly should amount to £250. sterling and to the Chief Justice such sum as together with the Sum granted by the Assembly shall amount to £400. or to such other Sum as may be thought proper.

    I dare not make my self responsible for the reception such a Warrant would meet with but I think it not improbable that they would grant to all but the Chief Justice the Sum proposed and prevent the Warrant from having effect and I believe they would make an addition to the Salary of the Chief Justice. They are paid annually. The last Grant was made to the first of January last. I have the honour to be with the greatest respect My Lord Your Lordships most obliged faithful humble Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:322).

    972. To William Palmer

    Boston 28 April 1772

    Sir, I shall inclose a Speech I made to the Assembly their Answer & my Reply.1 If the proprietors of the Gent Magazine or the London Chronicle think it worth while to republish them they may possibly be of some service to me in England. I think they have put an end to the Controversy here. I wish you would send me the London Chronicle from time to time as they come out, the postage here is no more than a single letter. I am Sir Your most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:323); at foot of letter, “Mr Wm Palmer.”

    973. To Thomas Scammell

    Boston 28th. April 1772

    Copy

    Sir, I should more seasonably have answered your Favour of the 2d. Instant, if I had not been much engaged, in the public business of the Province. The discoveries you have made may be of great use, but I fancy that farther East, the Pine Trees are more numerous. The State of that part of the Country, has been one subject of my Correspondence, with the Secretary of State, for two years past. It will be to no good Purpose, to say any thing more than I have done to my Assembly, I rather think it will alarm the Mill Owners, and cause them the sooner to make havock of the pine Timber. Until you make report of the State of the Country to your Employers, there is no prospect of any Measures to put a Stop to these Invaders of his Majesty’s Property. Such Measures must be taken in England, I am, Sir your most humble Servant,

    DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 97–98); at foot of letter, “Thomas Scammell Esq.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:323).

    974. To Unknown

    Boston 28 Apr 1772

    Dear Sir, I think we have so divided the Faction that it must be something very unfortunate which can unite them again. I should be ashamed of labouring a point so self evident as I have done in my Speech at the close of the Assembly if there had not been a necessity of removing the prejudices which are upon the minds of the body of the people from the plausible messages of the House & of the Council also in former Sessions.1 I am told that it has had its effect upon the Members also & that Mr Hancock upon hearing it declared the controversy to be over. The Distemper of the late times has brought not only into the House but the Council the lower order of the people from whom nothing liberal can be expected. If it was not for that I should hope we were upon the eve of being not only as quiet but as decent & polite as any of our Neighbours. I am sure we already bear frequent seizures & prosecutions for breaches of the Acts of Trade which they will not submit to at Philad. nor NYork & although we have some Importers of Dutch Tea I have no doubt that where one Chest comes from Holland direct or through any foreign port more than 5 are sent here what had been first imported at Philad. & [New] York.

    I had an intimation from Sr F B that an exchange might be made of the Eastn. Country for an equal extent of Territory either on NYork or NHampshire side.2 The former I should think most likely to succeed if they dont patent out the whole Territory before any thing can be proposed & I know the principal men there never liked the extent of that Province 300 miles distant from the Capital which is the case of some of their settlements upon Conn[ecticu]t River. I hope for some new Members in the Court next year in whom I can confide. If I should not be disappointed I intend to mention it to them privately the beginning of the year & by the Winter Session may have time to know how these proposals are received in England. The Assembly has conducted so strangely with respect to that Eastern Country that if it had been separated by an Act of Parlt without any equivalent I think they would & must have been silent. One of the principal Settlers being in Town a few days ago I let him know my opinion that sooner or later they would either be ousted of their Lands or subjected to a Quit rent at least equal to that of N Hampshire. The latter he seemd to think no hardship. I am &ca.,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:319).

    975. To Lord Sandwich

    Boston May 1772

    My Lord, I humbly thank your Lordship for the honour done me by your Letter of the 16th of January, and for your most obliging offer of the Marshalls Office at South Carolina or at Halifax.1 The long passage of the packett caused that your Lordships Letter did not come to my hands until very lately otherwise I should have answered it sooner.

    The person I recommended to your Lordship has a family here and the emoluments of those Offices being very small it would be to his ruin to remove to either place.

    As the Judge of the new Court of Admiralty resides at Boston there will be little or no business for an inferior Court in the same place, especially seeing the charges will be more in the inferior Court, the Judge of the other Court not being allowed to take any fees; I doubt therefore whether I shall find any person to recommend to your Lordship who will be willing to pay the charge of a Commission. I know of no inconvenience likely to happen if there should be no appointment made: The Judge of the new established Court most certainly will not act in two capacities.2

    I am apprehensive of some ill consequences from a doubt which has been lately started of the authority of the Court of Admiralty over the prisons established by the Laws of the province. As the Lawyers to generally countenance the lose principles of Government which have taken place in most of the Colonies they are endeavouring to persuade persons apprehended by the Marshall to make resistance and if they are overpowered & committed to Prison to bring their Actions for damages which must be tried by a Jury. I have no apprehensions of difficulty from a Writ of Habeas Corpus the Judges before whom it must be brought being well principled. I submit to your Lordship whether any provision be necessary to be made by Parliament for removing all grounds of dispute in the Colonies upon a point of this importance.

    Having, a few years ago, ventured upon the publication of a short History of the province I beg leave to present to your Lordship a set of the Volumes by the hands of my youngest Son who is passing through London in his way to the University of Edinburgh. My distance from the press prevented me from correcting in this second edition some of the inaccuracies of the first.3 I have the honour to be most respectfully My Lord Your Lordships most humble & most Obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:324–25); in WSH’s hand.