The Return of the General Court to Boston

    990. To Lord Hillsborough, 15 June 1772

    991. To John Pownall, 15 June 1772

    The General Court had not met in Boston since March 1769. Thomas Hutchinson stubbornly defended the king’s right to summon the Court any place in the province he saw fit. The House just as stubbornly claimed such an order was a misuse of the royal prerogative and, that according to the Charter, the Court could properly meet only in Boston. Both parties appeared ready at the beginning of the previous session to compromise the issue, but Samuel Adams was able to muster just enough votes to defeat the plan. After the May elections, however, although the Court began its session in Cambridge, face-saving measures on both sides allowed the Court to return to Boston after 15 June.

    990. To Lord Hillsborough

    Boston 15 June 1772

    (No. 28)

    My Lord,1 Being dissatisfied with the Answer of the House of Representatives to my Speech I desired an Explanation of some part of it which they thought irregular or as they express themselves unparliamentary in me and peevishly refused to explain themselves. I thought it necessary to repeat the Resolution which I had declared to former Houses to adhere to my Instructions. After continuing the Court sitting ten days I found it to be the express declaration of the Members in general, when they were out of the Court, that they had no double intention and that they intended to avoid in their answer to my Speech whatsoever might be construed to be a denial of my obligations to observe His Majesty’s Instructions. This opinion spread through the Province and an apprehension was prevailing that I had deceived them and never really intended to remove the Court to Boston.

    I thereupon thought it proper to lay before the Council an Extract from your Lordships Letter of the 3 July 1771 together with all the Messages which had passed between me and the House and required their opinion and advice upon their Oaths as Councillors whether consistent with His Majestys Inst[ructions to me]2 I could remove the Court to Bost[on. This was] at a General Council. In the[ir debates they] considered this point, whe[ther the House had] ceased to dispute the King’s Authority and they were all of opinion that they had and thereupon unanimously they declared their further opinion that consistent with my Instructions I might remove the Court to Boston.

    My Intention in this mode of proceeding was to shew the People of the Province the strict regard I paid to His Majesty’s Instructions and to strengthen me in resisting any future attempts to induce me to depart from them in other Instances, and I have thought it for His Majesty’s Service3 to remove the Court to Boston where it is to meet to morrow after an absence of more than three years. I have the honour to be most respectfully, My Lord, Your Lordships most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 126–27); at foot of letter, “Rt. Honble. the Earl of Hillsborough”; docketed, “Boston 15th. June 1772. Governor Hutchinson (No. 28) Rx 21st. July.” Dft (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:517–18); docketed, “Letter June 15 1772.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:344); at head of letter, “By McFarland No 28 Fletchers Vessel.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 245–46); docketed, “Boston June 15th. 1772 Governor Hutchinson. (No. 28.) R. 21st. July”; at foot of letter, “Inclosures 1. Extract of a Letter from the Earl of Hillsborough to Govr. Hutchinson dated July 3d. 1771. 2. Messages passing between Governor Hutchinson & the House of Assembly. 3. A Minute of the Council.” Enclosures to RC: TH to the General Court, 28 May 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, f. 128); Council to TH, 30 May 1772 (ff. 128–29); TH to the Council, 30 May 1772 (f. 129); House to TH, undated (f. 129); TH to the House, 30 May 1772 (f. 130); TH to the House, 3 June 1772 (ff. 130–31); Council minutes, 13 June 1772 (ff. 132–33); Lord Hillsborough to TH, 3 July 1771 (ff. 134–35).

    991. To John Pownall

    Boston, 15th June 1772.

    Dear Sir, It may not be amiss to give you a more circumstantial Account of my Removal of the Court to Boston than was proper in a publick Letter to My Lord Hillsborough. Before the Court met the Speaker [and] Mr. Hancock came to me to inquire upon what terms I would consent to their return to Boston.1 I let them know that if there was any thing in their Address or Message which tended to a Denial of the King’s Authority to give Instructions to the Governor I would not consent to it. The frivolous Objections which former Houses had made that the Governor had a right to move the Court only in Cases of necessity because Boston was the best place and all power was vested in the Governor for the publick Good & the like, if to save appearances they would insist upon inserting them I could pass them by as not worth regarding. They encouraged me they would comply with my proposal if Mr. Adams did not prevent it against whose Art & Insidiousness I cautioned them.

    I formed my Speech so as to avoid obliging them, being a new House, to take notice of any thing which had passed in former Assemblies.2 The Council proposed to the House a Committee of both Houses to prepare a joint Address or Answer, which not being agreed to, they prepared a separate Address as decent as I could expect and, for form sake only, I took into Consideration their Request. The Answer of the House was drawn by Mr. Adams in a coarse illiberal Stile which I should not much regard but, knowing it came from him,3 I suspected he had a Reserve and, after I had complied with their Request, would take the first occasion to observe that the House had declared that when I first removed the Court, which I told them I did by the King’s Order, I was under no necessity of doing it. My Zeal to maintain the Authority of the King’s Instructions led me, by a Message, to desire an Explanation.4 This was improved by the Faction to raise the Resentment of the whole House as suspecting them of Duplicity and calculated to bring them to an explicit Submission to a point which I had only required a former House to desist from disputing, and they with a general Voice declared their Expressions to be sufficiently plain and would give no other Answer to my Inquiry. This led me to give the Reason of my Question & to declare that whilst the King’s Authority to instruct the Governor was disputed, I did not intend to remove the Court. This was on the 3d of June.5 I soon discovered that the Members universally declared that whatever the person who drew the Message had in his thoughts they had nothing more in theirs than that they could not see any Necessity for my convening them at this time at Cambridge and that except in a Case of necessity as some contagious Distemper or the like the publick Good required that I should have convened them at Boston. This Declaration had spread a general Opinion through the Province that the House had no Design to dispute the Instruction and that, notwithstanding my professions, I never had intended to remove them to Boston. The Friends of Government in general, pressed me to some Expedient. I gave them no Encouragment & kept the Court sitting ten Days the House attending to their ordinary Business without any Motion for a Reply to my last Message to them. The Council expecting a further Answer to their Address, which I had promised to take into Consideration, I gave Notice for a General Council on the 13th of June and, having gone through the other Business of Council before I gave my Answer, I caused the whole Matter to be laid before them, and, upon a full Consideration of it, required their Opinion & Advice upon their Oaths whether consistent with His Majesty’s Directions to me I could remove the Court to Boston. Fourteen were present & they, every one, gave their Voices that I might. By this Formality I have manifested to the people of the Province my strict regard to the King’s Instructions & it will strengthen me in my Adherence to them upon other points which I am yet to contest and which I can do to greater Advantage at Boston, where I can see the Members at all times, than at any other place, unless it be made the seat of Government, for the other Business of the Province will not admit of my constant Absences.6 I shall be happy if in this Affair I may have His Majesty’s Approbation.

    You see I accepted Hancock who has for many Months gone as far with the party as has been necessary to prevent a total Breach & no farther, & his Refusal to accept the place was not from any Resentment for former Negatives but from an Apprehension that he should shew to the people he had not been seeking after it.7 The Measure will have good Consequences & end in wholly detaching him from them or lessening his Importance if he should put himself into their Hands again.

    Give me leave to convey to you the grateful Acknowledgements of the poor Family at Plymouth in this province relieved by your kind Interposition in behalf of the unfortunate person who was Prisoner in Lancaster Castle.8 I am &c,

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/246, ff. 21–22); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson private. JP Esq.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:342–43); at foot of letter, “Jno Pownall Esq.”