Boston Opposes Independent Salaries for the Judges

    1039. To Lord Dartmouth, 30 October 1772

    1040. To Lord Dartmouth, 3 November 1772

    1041. To William Sanford Hutchinson, 3 November 1772

    1042. To John Wentworth, 7 November 1772

    1043. To [Sir Francis Bernard], 10 November 1772

    Part of Charles Townshend’s intentions for his duties on trade was to generate a fund sufficient to pay crown officers in the colonies rather than have them continue to be dependent on colonial assemblies for their salaries. Townshend’s sudden death and uncertainty over how much money the new duties would generate during the nonimportation crisis led to a slow, colony-by-colony, office-by-office implementation of the plan. Hutchinson, while still chief justice, often complained of the insufficient salaries provided by the Massachusetts General Court, and there were indeed times when the assembly withheld payment when it was unhappy with the court’s decisions. Lord Hillsborough, at last convinced of the need for higher salaries, persuaded his fellow ministers to provide £400 for the chief justice and £200 each for the four associate justices. Hutchinson initially underestimated the depth of opposition to these salaries paid by the crown, thinking it was merely an issue Samuel Adams had seized upon to keep alive the flame of opposition, which Hutchinson believed at that time was waning. The town of Boston first met on 28 October and dispatched a message to Hutchinson to ask if the rumor of crown salaries was true. Hutchinson gave a dismissive answer, saying such an issue was not a proper subject for a town meeting. The town then met again to petition the General Court to reassemble to consider the subject. Hutchinson again refused, prompting the town to establish the Boston Committee of Correspondence in order to spread Boston’s view among the other Massachusetts towns.

    1039. To Lord Dartmouth

    Boston 30 October 1772

    (No 3)

    My Lord, The Ships bound to London being detained by contrary winds, I am able to transmit to your Lordship an Address to me from the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in the language and sentiment of the News papers which have so much inflamed the minds of the people, together with my answer to it.1 What further irregular proceedings the disturbers of the peace of the Town and Province will be able to effect is uncertain. It is my duty to endeavour to counteract them by all means in my power. I am with very great respect My Lord Your Lordship’s most humble and most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 236–37); at foot of letter, “Rt Honorable the Earl of Dartmouth &ca.”; docketed, “Boston. 30th. Octr. 1772 Govr. Hutchinson (No. 3) Rx 6. Decr.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:401); at head of letter, “White & Callahan”; at foot of letter, “Rt Hon. Earl of Dartmouth.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, f. 273); docketed, “Boston 30th: October 1772. Govr. Hutchinson. (No. 3) Rx 6. Decr.”; at end of letter, “Inclosures. 1—Address to the Govr. from the Freeholders & Inhabitants of the Town of Boston. 2. the Govrs: Answer.” Enclosures to RC: Town of Boston to TH, 28 October 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 238–39); TH to the Town of Boston, 30 October 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 240–41).

    1040. To Lord Dartmouth

    Boston 3 Nov. 1772

    (No 4)

    My Lord, Having acquainted your Lordship in my Letter No 3 with part of the proceedings of the Town of Boston,1 I shall now transmit copy of a second Address to me together with my Answer upon the receipt of which I am informed they have appointed a large Committee to write circular letters to all the Towns in the Province to unite in measures upon the important occasion.2 I have not been able to obtain a copy of their whole proceedings and they are not yet made publick. I immediately prorogued the Court and sooner than I otherwise should have done to shew them that I would not give the least encouragement to their unwarrantable doings there being no Law to support Towns in transacting any other business than what is of publick concernment to the Town, but the Inhabitants of Boston like the Livery of London have been for a long time used to concern themselves with all the Affairs of Government.3

    This Meeting was brought on with an intention to raise a general flame. I am not apprehensive of such an immediate consequence. In common times I should have refused any other Answer than to acquaint them that the purpose for which they assembled was not lawful, but I thought it best to shew my disapprobation without irritating them as well as without giving them room to hope I would be intimidated to a compliance. I have the honour to be My Lord, Your Lordship’s most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 247–48); at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Dartmouth &ca”; docketed, “Boston 3d. Novembr. 1772 Governor Hutchinson (No. 4) Rx. 15th. Decembr.” DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/895, ff. 5–6); at head of letter, “Duplicate”; at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Dartmouth”; docketed, “Massachusets. Duplicate of a Letter No. 4 from Govr. Hutchinson to the Earl of Dartmouth, dated Novr. 3. 1772,—relative to the proceedings of a Town meeting at Boston. P.p. 3, Read April 29. 1773.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, f. 274); docketed, “Boston November 3d. 1772. Govr Hutchinson (No 4.) Rx 15 December”; at end of letter, “Inclosures. No 1. Answer to the Town Meeting 2. Boston Gazette.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:402); at foot of letter, “Rt Honl Earl of Dartmouth.” SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 43, 1:151); docketed, “Thos: Hutchinson to the Earl of Dartmouth.” SC (Houghton Library, Sparks 10, 4:26); at end of letter, “[P.p. 3. Read Apr. 29 1773] no inclosure filed.” (brackets in original); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson To Lord Dartmouth 3 Novr. 1772.” Enclosures to RC: TH to the Town of Boston, 2 November 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 249–50); Boston Gazette, 2 November 1772, pp. 1–2 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 251–52).

    1041. To William Sanford Hutchinson

    Boston 3 Nov 1772

    Dear Billy, I have received only two short letters from you since you left us.1 Your brothers & sisters have received none and they all think they are neglected. Surely you might have found one leisure evening. Whilst I was in London next to hearing from my friends the greatest pleasure was writing to them. Let me intreat you not to suffer an indisposition to the use of your pen become habitual to you.

    I am anxious to hear of your arrival at Edinburgh and of your employment there, and whether you are likely to make any improvements that may be advantageous to you thro’ life. If you neglect improving the spring youll find no fruit in summer nor at harvest time. Be more particular and circumstantial when you write in what relates to you and let me know how you spend your time.

    We are preparing for our winter residence. Your brother Elisha goes to house keeping in a day or two and your Aunt & Peggy & I make all the family besides the Servants which is now left together.2

    Remember my Son how much the comfort of your father’s life depends on the good report which he hears of his children. I am your affectionate father,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:401).

    1042. To John Wentworth

    Boston 7 Nov. 1772

    Dear Sir, Your obliging letter of the 16th of Octo has opened to me a scene to almost evry part of which I was before a perfect stranger.1 Mr Livius came to NEng. either in the same ship with my Nephew Mr Rogers or about the same time & they had been acquainted in Engld.2 I considered Mr Rogers rather as a son than a nephew & upon his recommendation of Mr Livius as a man of fortune family & learning & his friend & desiring he might introduce him I shewed him all the civilities I could whilst he remained in Boston but I was so much engaged in publick business that I had no opportunity of further acquaintance with him than what I obtained by Table conversation when I thought he discovered a knowledge both of men & books & an inclination to employ his talents in publick service. In the course of a year or two I believe I had two or three letters from him of mere civility after which when the Superior Court sat at York he came over from Portsm. and upon a very advantageous character given me of him by Mr Parker who has always had a large share of my esteem3 I not only took notice of him in Court but asked him to dine & to spend an evening with the Judges who were all pleased with his conversation and that year or the next I called with Judge Oliver at his house & spent a quarter of an hour as we passed through Portsmouth. Soon after he wrote me 2 or 3 Letters upon the subject of the dispute between the Kingdom & the Colonies & I think it was from those Letters that I was informed he was the author of several of the speculations in favor of government which had appeared a little before in our News Papers.4

    I do not remember any other correspondence between us but I am sure there never was any relative to the Affairs of your Province nor did I ever know any thing more of his personal disputes than what I had heard without any attention that he and his lady had been refused admittance to the Assembly which I thought rather an affair which took its rise from the women than from the men and I wholly disregarded it.

    I had heard also that by misfortunes his estate was much lessened. Thus matters stood with me relative to Mr Livius when he came unexpected into my house last spring & informed me he had taken his passage for England in a Vessel then ready to sail and wished if I had any commands to be the bearer of them. I expressed my surprize & inquired the reason. He informed me that he could not continue any longer in New Hampshire every thing there was in the hands of a particular connexion that by opposing some particular measures in Council he had made himself so obnoxious that he not only could be of no consequence in publick but that his private affairs also were much affected by it, that he had no design to hurt the Governor by going to England & I rather suppozed that he might have expectations of obtaining something in England & residing there. I was just then making up a packet to Mr John Pownall & I find by my book of letters that I wrote to him “Mr Livius a Gentleman of the Council of NHamp with whom I have been acquainted ever since his arrival from England wishing to be the bearer of a Letter to you I could not refuse him.”5 This is all I wrote to Mr Pownall concerning him and I never mentioned him to any other person and if I had then known what you have now wrote to me I should have excused my self from sending any letters by him.

    Soon after his arrival in Engld. a Gentleman wrote me that Mr Livius had represented your administration in such a light as if true could by no means be justified.6 I knew his representations ought not to make any impression until you had an opportunity of making answer to them but as it might be of service to have the earliest advice I thought myself bound in some way or other to communicate to you what I had received. It appears by your Letter that you have a more full account than I could give you for I never heard of the Memorial you mention nor of any step he has taken since he has been in Engld. except the above hint.

    Thus Sir I have given you the history of all that ever passed between me & Mr Livius & I have been the more particular because I wish to convince you that whatever he might think of my disposition to serve him yet he had no reason to think I was dispozed to encourage him in any attempts to your prejudice. I must confess that having known him in affluence I pitied him when I heard of his approaches towards indigence, and its probable, though I do not remember it, I may have told him I should be glad to serve him as far as was in my power and that this may have caused him to write, in such manner as it has been suggested to you that he has done, to his friends in NHampshire.

    I see a paragraph concerning him in our News Papers which I should suspect like many other extracts of Letters to be forged here if I know of any end which could be answered by it.7 Theres no way of discovering who publishes such articles.

    Its happy for the Kings Servants in the Colonies that Lord Hillsboro is succeeded by a Nobleman of so amiable a character as that of Ld Dartmouth. If God should raise up Moses or inspire any person now living with the same Spirit and give the same evidence of a divine authority I think it would have no effect upon our sons of Liberty nor upon such of the sons of Levi as abet them and who are as much disposed to rebellion as Korah and his Company of old.8 They made use of the groundless but general prejudice against Ld Hillsboro to strengthen the opposition to government. When they find the same measures pursued by his successor & that no countenance can be shewn to their principles of Anarchy I flatter my self the body of the people will be sensible that the cause can not be supported & that we shall return to a state of government & order.

    I wish you may long enjoy that esteem which you so justly merit from your Province & am with very great regard Your Excellency’s faithful & most obedient humble Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:402–04); at end of letter, “His Excell Govr Wentworth.”

    1043. To [Sir Francis Bernard]

    Boston 10 Nov 1772

    Dear Sir, The inclosed Newspapers will give you the proceedings of a Town meeting which has issued in a Committee of correspondence in order to procure instructions from the other Towns to their members upon the Subject of the Judges Salaries.1 You may judge of this Committee by their Chairman who is but just now discharged from his Guardian and is still once in a few days as mad as ever the effect of strong drink.2 They have besides Young Molineux the Justice Greenleaf lately dismissed & some others not much better.3 I foresee but one difficulty likely to happen to me when the Court meets. Its probable they will make a grant to the Judges as usual and it may be of a larger Sum. All the official advice which I have yet received is from a copy of Lord Hillsboroughs letter to the Lords of the Treasury signifying His Majestys pleasure for making out the Warrants. If I should receive no further advice or if there should be no Instruction not to consent to any grant made by the General Court I shall be somewhat at a loss what is expected from me. I have wrote to My Lord Hillsborough in a private Letter so long ago as the 27. April that the last grant to the Judges was to the first of Jany. last. These Warrants are to commence the 5 of July so that for half a year they will be without any Salary. The grant of the Court has always been for the year past. If I should refuse to assent to it I think they will never make any other Grant for the deficient half year. Its pity the Warrants did not look back to the first of January when their last Salary expired.

    Every thing is so uncertain here that there is no determining upon any measure but pro re natâ.4 At present I think that if the difficulty continues it will be best at the end of the Session instead of a prorogation to make a long adjournment to the beginning of April.5 The January mail no doubt will be here before that time or I can hear from you by other opportunities. When it is certain that the Warrants are actually signed by the King I dont see how I can assent to a Grant from the Court for a Salary after the Salary from the Crown commences without a special Instruction even if there should be no express signification of His Majestys pleasure to the contrary unless some unforeseen incident should make it necessary. If the Assembly shall obstinately refuse any provision for the half year as I suppose they will may not the Judges depend upon its being granted by the Crown? Can no way be found to obtain an addition of 50£ to the puisné Judges?6 They are very much disheartened. Their rank is above the Admiralty Judges. Everybody takes notice of the disparity. By a letter from Mr Robinson it looks as if an exchange between him and Mr Sewall was impracticable. If any other provision be made for Sewall what need of any appointment for Halifax?7 There never was a cause tried there and it will be no burden upon Halifax if appeals ly to the Boston Judge and its easier for Canada to carry their Appeals to Boston than to Halifax. If 600£ can be saved there 200£ may better be afforded in addition to the common law Judges here.

    I will confine this Letter to this Subject. I am Dear Sir Your faithful humble Servant,

    You mention Mr Lanes taking out the Warrants.8 We hear nothing further. If they lay for want of the fees which I suppose cannot be great I could wish to know it.

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:405–06).

    1044. To Lord Sandwich

    Boston 12 Novemb. 1772

    My Lord, When I did my self the honour of writing to your Lordship the [blank in MS] of May I had no hopes of prevailing with any person fit for the post to accept of a Commission for Inferior Judge of the Vice Admiralty.1 In conversation with Mr. Thomas Oliver of Cambridge in this Province upon the subject, I found him not averse to it, and his character stands so well that I should have given him the preference to any person I know of, if I could have made my choice through the Province.2 He was designed by his education for a Civilian but having a competent fortune in the West Indies never went into the practice of the Law; and although he is a near Relation to the City Patriots of the same name, he has ever been an advocate for the cause of government and I have reason to think will continue steady in the same cause.3 Governor Bernard made him a Justice of Peace and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Militia. As there are no emoluments he must be induced by views of being in some degree more serviceable to the Publick and of doing himself honour by the Commission.

    I will desire Sir Francis Bernard to wait upon your Lordship to know your pleasure. I am most respectfully My Lord Your Lordships most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, ADM 1/3820, ff. 305–06a); at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Sandwich”; docketed, “12 Nov 1772 Govr. Hutchinson Recd. 3 Feby 1773.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:408); at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Sandwich.”

    1045. To Lord Dartmouth

    Boston 13th. November 1772

    No 6

    My Lord, Having received a letter from Mr Goldthwait Commanding Officer of Fort Pownall and of a Regiment of Militia in the Eastern part of the Province I take the liberty to cover a copy as an addition to the state of that Country which I have already sent.1 Upon a review of your Lordship’s directions I find that I have not fully complied with them, having made no mention of my opinion upon the steps proper to remove the difficulties which have hitherto obstructed the regulation of the settlements there.

    The inducement to people to flock from the settled parts of this Province and New Hampshire and to prefer the Seacoast and Islands and Rivers there to the inland parts of either Province is the profit which arises from the Pine and Oak Timber which, being near the Sea, is purchased of the Settlers for transportation to Europe or for the supply of the Inhabitants of Boston Portsmouth &ca. A very great quantity has been carried to England and the King has paid no inconsiderable sum as a bounty for bringing away his own Timber without his license.2

    As the settlers increase this mischief increases. A restraint therefore from further settling seems to be the first step necessary and this would effectually be made if all Timber cut there, wheresoever carried, was made liable to a forfeiture; but this would take away the present means of support from a thousand or fifteen hundred families and make most of them, for some time, miserable, and would also be sensibly felt by the Seaport Towns of both Provinces which have their principal supply of fewel from this Country. The Assembly, I think without any good reason have repeatedly refused their aid in order to restrain these unjustifiable settlements and there is no prospect of their agreeing to such measures as may answer His Majesty’s purpose. It seems therefore necessary for the preservation of His Majesty’s interest the Country should be subject to His sole direction. To effect this an offer may be made of the Lands West of Merrimack River which were taken from this Province by the new boundary with New Hampshire in 17373 as an equivalent for the Country East of Kennebeck. Or the absolute property of the Country West of Penobscot may be vested in the Province provided all claim be relinquished to the Country East of Penobscot and if the line of the Province of Main might be allowed to run from the head of Newichewanock River North West instead of North two degrees West, as I conceived it ought to run until His late Majesty in Council otherwise determined,4 this would not, being added to the Lands West of Penobscot, make more than an Equivalent for the Lands East and would make the proposal more likely to be accepted. In the Grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges the line upon the Seacoast is said to be Northeastward when the course of the Seacoast, which was then well known, is Northeast, and the plain intent of the Patent seems to be a Tract of 120 Miles square &, that being the length upon the Sea, upon this construction the other three sides would be equal.5

    I cannot answer for a compliance with any proposals whatsoever but one advantage will arise from them. A refusal will facilitate and render unexceptionable a Parliamentary consideration the only remaining step which will be absolutely necessary and which the repeated refusal to take proper care of this Country may, alone, be sufficient to justify.

    I represented the last year to the Earl of Hillsborough a difficulty which arose in the proceedings of the Governor and Council as a Court of Probate, by force of the Charter; and a Court for matters of divorce &ca, by force of the Province Law, it being made a question whether the Governor is to be considered as an integral part of the Court or meerly as Primus inter pares and it appeared to His Lordship to be a matter which deserved consideration and he informed me that His Majesty had thought fit to order that it should be referred to His Privy Council.6 I have caused execution for alimony in a cause of divorce a mensa et toro, in which I differed in opinion from the whole Council present, to be stayed ever since.7

    The Business of Council as a Court for judiciary proceedings having increased since my administration it is become very necessary that this point should be settled. I must therefore renew my request to your Lordship that I may know His Majesty’s pleasure upon this matter that I may govern myself accordingly. I have the honour to be My Lord Your Lordships’s most humble and most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 254–55); at foot of letter, “Rt. Honble. the Earl of Dartmouth &ca”; docketed, “Boston 13 Novembr. 1772 Governor Hutchinson (No. 6) Rx 19 Decembr.” DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/895, ff. 9–10); at head of letter, “Duplicate”; at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Dartmouth”; docketed, “Massachusets. Duplicate of a Letter No. 6 from Govr. Hutchinson to the Earl of Dartmouth, dated Novr. 13. 1772, relative to the difficulties, which have obstructed the regulation of the Settlements in the eastern parts of the province of Massachusets Bay;—and the power of the Governor in the Court of Probate. P.p. 5. Read April 29. 1773.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:408–10); at head of letter, “Calef”; at foot of letter, “Rt Hon the Earl of Dartmouth.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 276–80); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson; Boston 13th. Novr. 1772 (No. 6) Rx 19th. Decr.”; at end of letter, “Inclosure. Copy of a Letter from Mr. Goldthwait to Govr. Hutchinson of 12th. Oct. 1772. Massachusett’s Gazette of the 12th. of November 1772.” Enclosures to RC: Thomas Goldthwait to TH, 12 October 1772 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 256–57); Boston Weekly News-Letter, 12 November 1772, pp. 1–2 (National Archives UK, CO 5/761, ff. 258–59).

    1046. To John Pownall

    Boston Novr. 13th. 1772

    Dear Sir, The restless Faction in this Town have pleased themselves with hopes of fresh disturbances from the Salaries proposed for the Judges of the Superior Court, & the usual first step has been taken, a Town-Meeting. Hitherto they have fallen much short of their Expectation & even in this Town, have not been able to revive the old spirit of mobbing, & the only dependence left, is to keep up a Correspondence through the Province by Committees of the several Towns, which is such a foolish Scheme that they must necessarily make themselves ridiculous. Of late in order to intimidate, they have been very frequent in their Hints of the lawfulness of Assassination, Poisining, &ca. which without answering their purpose in any degree, has caused some who are not of the most hardened sort to forsake them. Some of the worst of them one would not choose to meet in the dark, & three or four at least of their Corresponding Committee are as black-hearted fellows as any upon the Globe. Strange that a Government which, within a Century, was so pure as to suffer no person to be free of their Commonwealth who was not one of their Church-Members should now take for their Leaders, Men who openly condemn all Religion, & should join Deacons & Atheists in one Trust, & that they should be instigated to this by some of the Clergy who make the highest pretences to Devotion & yet the Spirit of political Party produces all this! I can have no doubt of your Continuance in the same Character in which I used to direct your Letters, but wish, when you have leisure to know it under your Hand. I am &c.,

    SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/246, f. 24); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson JP.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:412); at head of letter, “Calef”; at foot of letter, “Mr Secry Pownall.”

    1047. To Unknown

    Boston 13th Novemb 177[2]


    Dear Sir, In a Letter which I had the honour to receive from Lord Sandwich the last spring he proposed to me to name a person for Provincial or Inferior Judge of the Admiralty.1 I could not then think of a proper person who would accept of it. I now find that Colo Oliver of Cambridge is not averse to it and I do not know of any person better qualified. By this ship I have mentioned his name to Lord Sandwich & have wrote to his Lordship that I would pray Sir F. Bernard to know his pleasure upon it.2 The fees for the Comission Colo Oliver will write to his kinsman the Alderman & City member to furnish. Judge Russells Comission included New Hampshire & I hope this will also for there will be no business here whilst the Supreme Court is held here.3 The Registers Comission is for both Provinces & Rhode Island but there is a Judge appointed in England at Rhode Island otherwise I should have hoped that Colony would have been included also as it had been formerly.

    I acquainted Lord Sandwich when I answered his letter with the threats of some of our Liberty Lawyers to bring an action against the Marshal if he committed any man to the County Goal by execution from the Court & I find all executions run to take into custody & not to commit to prison.3 As Commissioner of the special Court of Vice Admiralty for trial of Pirates I always in the Warrant issued in the Kings name for apprehending a supposed Pirate or in a special Mittimus after examination have required the Keeper to receive him & never was disobeyed but I find some wish to bring the matter before a Jury.4

    A Clause in an Act of Parlt making all the Goals in the Plantations the King’s Prisons as well for persons committed by authority of His Majestys Courts of Vice Admiralty as by any other legal authority would remove all doubt & save a great deal of trouble.

    I forgot to tell you that Colo Olivers Estate having suffered by the hurricane he is going to Antigua intending back early in the spring. The Comission or Warrant you will send under my cover. I am Dear Sir Your faithful & most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:411).

    1048. To Lord Dartmouth

    Boston 26th Novemb. 1772

    (No 7)

    My Lord, A small Scooner sailed from Boston to Chatham, a Town upon Cape Cod, on Saturday evening the 14th. Instant with five persons on board and, the next day, was met with at the mouth of the harbour, where she was bound, by another Vessel and then had only one man on board who, being examined, declared that on the passage they met with a Pirate in a large Scooner, who had murdered the other four men which sailed from Boston and plundered the Vessel, he that remained having concealed himself. This, for some time, was received by people in general as a satisfactory account, but it appeared to me so improbable that, as a Commissioner for the Trial of Piracies Murders &ca upon the High Seas, I issued my warrant to apprehend him and, upon examination, there appeared such ground of suspicion of guilt that I have committed him to goal & appointed a time for his trial.1

    There has been but one trial which has occasiond any charge since the present Commission. The Council then refused to advise to the payment of any part of the charge out of the Province Treasury. Commodore Hood thereupon undertook to pay it as an Admiralty charge. Unless Admiral Montagu will undertake in the present case of which I have no assurance, I know no other way of providing for it.

    The Council for this Province have always been members of the Court until the Present Commission. I never knew any inconvenience from their being in the Commission and there was this convenience, they considered the trials, in which they sat as Judges, as part of the concerns of the Province and always advised to payment of the charge out of the Province Treasury and I have reason to think that, if the Commission was renewed and they were restored, they would do the like again. The Office of Surveyor General being superseded by that of the Commissioners of the Customs I think it would be very proper that they should be in the Commission and in that case, the Collectors of the several ports perhaps may not be necessary.

    If it should not be thought proper to renew the Commission and include the Council in it, it seems absolutely necessary that some directions should be given with respect to the charge of apprehending pirates & felons upon the High Seas and of carrying on a prosecution against them, otherwise there will be danger of such great Offenders escaping punishment, through the neglect of duty in Officers when they find they cannot be paid the charges they must necessarily be at. The only case of this nature which has hapn’ed was but a few days before Governor Bernard left the Province, and I have reason to think that he did not by Letters acquaint the then Secretary of State with the difficulty which I have now mentioned. I am very respectfully My Lord Your Lordship’s most humble & most obedient Servant,

    RC (National Archives UK, CO 5/762, ff. 4–5); at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Dartmouth”; docketed, “Boston 26 Novembr 1772 Governor Hutchinson (No. 7) Rx. 12 January 1773 The printed votes of the Freeholders inclosed in this Letter was laid before Parliament, there not being time to have it copied.” DupRC (National Archives UK, CO 5/895, ff. 11–12); at head of letter, “Duplicate”; at foot of letter, “Rt Honble. the Earl of Dartmouth”; docketed, “Massachusets. Duplicate of a Letter No. 7 from Govr. Hutchinson To the Earl of Dartmouth, dated Novr. 26. 1772, relative to the trial of Pirates, and the expediency of making the Members of the Council Commissn. for such trials. P.p. 6. Read April 29. 1773.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:419–20); at head of letter, “Bristol”; at end of letter, “Rt Hon Earl of Dartmouth.” SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/768, ff. 280–82); docketed, “Boston 26th. November 1772. Govr: Hutchinson. (No. 7.) Rx. 12th. Janry’ 1773.”; at end of letter, “Inclosures. The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston. Massachuset’s Gazette of 19th. Novr. 1772. Do. of 26th: Novr. 1772.” Enclosures to RC: Boston Weekly News-Letter, 19 November 1772, pp. 1–2 (National Archives UK, CO 5/762, ff. 6–7); Boston Weekly News-Letter, 26 November 1772, pp. 1–2 (National Archives UK, CO 5/762, ff. 8–9).

    1049. To Sir Francis Bernard

    Boston 30 Nov. 1772

    Scooner Bristol

    Dear Sir, The Vessels being detained by a spell of Easterly winds I will add a few lines to what I wrote you the beginning of October upon the Subject of Castle William.1 Since Dalrymple sailed I have had three different Comanding Officers and am every day expecting a fourth Colo Leslie.2 I wrote to the General that I wished he would omit any formal Comission or Appointment of Phillips as Fort Major but he wrote me that he had orders to do it & did not conceive that I had given him any sufficient reason for delaying it. This does not seem to be yet known but it will be & I am at a loss what to say to the faction which I silenced before.

    The Barracks it is agreed must be rebuilt. I find all the Regiments wish to be upon the Main rather than upon the Island & it would be in evry respect better. I dont know that the owner of the land upon the point would dispose of it but if he would I think your place would be as good or much the same.3 In that case an Establishment for the Castle of a Fort Major or chief Officer by any other name at 150£ per Annum a Store keeper & Gunner at £70 a Signal man & Returning Officer at 55 or 60£ & four Quarter Gunners or inferior Officers by other names at 30£ & two more at 25£ each including provisions all which amounts to but 425£ per annum & 75£ more added for fire wood would make 500£. Thirty or at most forty men with a Sergeant to be detached every week from the Regiment by rotation would be a sufficient number & occasion no more expence than if they had remained in their quarters & whilst upon the Island they should be under the command of the chief Officer of the Fort. Instead of causing any additional expence I am sure it will make a saving to the Crown and it will remove all the cavils of the disaffected party here & in England. By having the Regiment on the main it will stop the mouths of those saucy fellows who brag of having drove them to the Island & of keeping them there in a sort of prison and the original design of sending the Regiment may be in a good measure answerd when they are upon the Main but cannot be while they continue upon the Island for it must take many hours before they could cross the water and come to the Town. I could mention more advantages from this plan & I know of no disadvantage.

    For my self I have nothing more in view than the quiet it will give me by silencing the people who charge me with a violation of their Charter in dismembering Castle Island from the rest of the Province and the pleasure of now & then making a visit there in the character of a Governor. In this late dismal present I am really at a loss what my business is when I come there and the Officers and Men seem as much at a loss as I do myself. I send this letter as you desire I would all your letters under Mr Secretary Pownalls cover and I send it open hoping for the benefit of his opinion as well as yours upon the Subject. I do not mention it in a publick letter to the Secretary of State because I remember the Earl of Hillsborough always considered this business of the Castle as a matter of some delicacy & recommended to me to use great discretion in whatsoever related to it. If therefore it be thought best that no publick mention should be made of it I must go on as I have done & obviate any new difficulties in the best manner I am able. I am Dear Sir Your faithful & affectionate Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:421–22).

    1050. From John Wentworth

    Portsmo. 4th. December 1772.

    Dear Sir, I beg leave to return your Excellency my best thanks for the obliging Explanation in your Letter of the 7th. November of the Degree of Intercourse Mr. Livius had with you; I have since received Letters from some Friends in London, and I think it a Piece of Justice to acquaint your Excellency that Mr. Livius publickly boasts of his Intimacy with you;—One in particular, who had some Conversation with him, writes Me, “He says he is intimate with Governor Hutchinson, who has wrote him since he has been in this Country.”1 To Me who knows the Man Nothing he says appears strange.

    Permit Me to observe on what you mention of Mr. Livius’s being the Author of some speculations in favour of Government, that his Practices were quite the Reverse of such Theory;—He was a principal Abbettor in the Disturbances here at the Time of the Stamp Act, and the bitterest Enemy Mr. Meserve then had in all his Troubles.2 In his station of Judge of the inferior Court he exercised the most glaring Partiality, and has been guilty of a great Variety of Misdemeanours & Male-Practices in the Province;—Even Mr. Rogers, to whom he owed his Introduction to you, has been used exceedingly ill by him; And notwithstanding the series of Male-Conduct for which he has been remarkable here I am well informed by Letters by the last ships from London that he has had Address enough to engage some Gentlemen in your Government so much in his favour as to countenance, not a little, his Pursuits against Me; But a short time will discover what Credit they will gain by espousing his Cause.

    My best Wishes are always offerred for your Health & Happiness, and believe Me, sir, it would afford Me the most sensible Pleasure to see the People of your Government entertain a proper sense of your Disposition and Abilities to promote the true Interests of the Province.

    I am much obliged by your Excellency’s friendly Wishes for the Esteem of this Province toward Me;—Hitherto it has been my good Fortune to have succeeded in executing all the King’s Commands without Disquiet, which Mr. Livius charges as a Crime in Me, very unexpectedly. I have the Honour to be with great Regard & Esteem, Dear Sir, your most obedient humble servant,


    RC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:544–47); at foot of letter, “His Excellency Governor Hutchinson”; endorsed, “From J Wentworth 1772.”

    1051. To Richard Jackson

    Boston 8 Dec 1772

    Dear Sir, One of my neighbours & friends being about to make up a Packet for his son an amiable young Gentleman now in London I have desired him to cover a Pamphlet which the restless faction in this Town have Published that it may be delivered to you free of Postage which most certainly it is not worth.1 Miserable as it is you will see the shifts to which they are drove not one of these alledged grievances having any appearance of grievance except what arises from misrepresentation or the gloss which they have given to them. This attempt to raise a new disturbance will fail. They nevertheless succeed in their unwearied endeavours to propagate the doctrine of Independence upon Parliament and the mischiefs of it every day increase. I believe I have repeatedly mentioned to you my opinion of the necessity of Parliamt’s taking some measures to prevent the spread of this doctrine as well as to guard against the mischiefs of it. It is more difficult now than it was the last year & it will become more & more so every year its neglected until it is utterly impracticable. If I consulted nothing but my own ease & quiet I would propose neglect & contempt of every affront offered to Parliament by the little American Assemblies but I should be false to the King & betray the Trust he has reposed in me.

    I hope you will have a few minutes which may be spared for a short letter which Mr Pownall will find room for in my Packet which comes by every Mail. I am with the greatest truth Dear Sir Your obliged & faithful humble Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:428); at foot of letter, “Mr Jackson.” Contemporary printings: New England Chronicle, 29 June 1775; Boston Gazette, 3 July 1775; Massachusetts Spy, 12 July 1775; Norwich Packet, 24 July 1775; Remembrancer for the Year 1776, part 2, p. 60 (all part of first paragraph only).