Two Versions of an Unsent Letter to Lord Dartmouth

    1142. To [Lord Dartmouth], 2 September 1773

    1143. To Lord Dartmouth, 6 September 1773

    Hutchinson made two drafts of his letter No. 26 to Lord Dartmouth. No addressee for the first draft was recorded in his letter book, yet the content makes clear he was addressing Lord Dartmouth. In the first, he sought to know the resolution of a matter long-pending before the Privy Council: whether the governor possessed a veto over the Council’s decisions when acting as a court in matters of divorce and remarriage. He was also eager to refute the assertion that, during his debate with the House and Council the previous winter, he had somehow forced the House to make a public declaration of their independence of Parliament when they would have preferred not to. He eliminated some of the self-justifying language in his second version of the letter and added one or two items of recent news, perhaps to dilute the impact of what he was already aware was a sensitive issue with Lord Dartmouth. The second version was also marked “not sent.” In Lord Dartmouth’s letter of 2 December 1773, he mentions he had not received No. 26, although Nos. 27 and 28 had arrived. Hutchinson later explained the vessel departed before he completed the letter and, therefore, he included the content of No. 26 in his letter No. 27, dated 16 September, below, although a comparison of Nos. 26 and 27 indicates little that he discussed in either version of No. 26 made it into No. 27. For his explanation of the confused numbering, see TH to Dartmouth, 13 March 1774, calendared but not printed.

    1142. To [Lord Dartmouth]

    Boston 2d Sept. 1773

    not sent

    My Lord, I have of late in Several cases of divorce differed in opinion from the Majority of the Council, a decree has notwithstanding been entered by order of the Council and I doubt not the parties so decreed to be divorced have Married or will Marry to others. This Matter was referred to the Privy Council. I must repeat my request to your Lordship that I may have directions for my conduct in such cases for if such a decree made by the Council the Governor not assenting shall be deemed irregular, if they could be prevented no other way I would withdraw or put an end to their meeting before it could be perfected.1 The declarations made by the House of Representatives that they were forced against their inclinations to contest the Supreme authority of Parliment although they are not true, may as I concieve be improved to advantage. I shall very industriously avoid giving them any handle for reassuming the subject.2 They must be sensible that if of themselves they shall voluntarily and unnecessarily reassume it they will confute their own declarations. I therefore think it Probable that they will avoid it another Session though it will be with reluctance. I am however not wholly without my doubts for they have not always been so carefull to preserve a consistency in their proceedings as they ought to have been. In a late journey to the remote parts of the Province I was surprised to find the flame which had been spread universally so soon and so generally extinguished and if it was not for the fewel Scattered from time to time by some of the Inhabitants of Boston I should hope there would be no danger of its being Soon enkindled again. I have the honour to be My Lord Your Lordships most humble and most obedient Servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:538); in MH’s hand.

    William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth, 1777. By Nathaniel Hone. Dartmouth became secretary of state for the colonies in August 1772. Benjamin Franklin described him as a “truly good man” who “wishes sincerely a good understanding with the colonies.” Anxious to avoid a rupture with America, he rebuked Hutchinson for initiating a constitutional debate with the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1773. Nevertheless, it fell to his lot to carry out the coercive measures passed by the North administration in the wake of the Boston Tea Party. He resigned as secretary of state in 1775 to take up the less controversial office of Lord Privy Seal. Courtesy of the Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire

    1143. To Lord Dartmouth

    Boston 6 Sep 1773

    (No 26)

    Not sent

    My Lord, Nothing very remarkable has occurred since the date of my Letter No 25.1 Two of the Representatives of Boston were at the head of 2 or 300 people who made an attempt to revive with pomp the celebration of the 14th of Aug. but there being very few persons of any note of the company their cause seems to have been rather disserved.2 A feeble effort has been made to intimidate or discourage the Justices of the Superior Court but without success. A person who has been most active in encouraging tumults was returned a Jury man & was giving as a reason for his not serving the Judges Grants of Salaries from the Crown but was silenced by the Court. Several persons who are called high Sons of Liberty were also returned as has been usual of late upon the Grand Jury & they presented a very improper address to the Court of which they refused to take any notice & I do not find that either of these proceedings are generally approved of.3

    In a late journey to the remote parts of the Province I was surprized to find the flame which had spread so universally so soon & so generally extinguished. I attribute the change more to the falsity of the Resolves & the extravagance of the measure than to any alteration in the principles of the people. I have many letters from principal persons in this Province as well as from Gentlemen of the first character in other Colonies expressing their detestation of the late doings of the Assembly.

    I have already acquainted your Lordship that the declaration made by the Assembly that they were compelled against their inclination to contest the authority of Parliament was meer pretence. They may however I conceive be improved to advantage. I shall industriously avoid giving them any handle for reassuming the Subject. I think it probable that they will avoid a voluntary reassumption lest it should confute their own assertion. I am however not without my doubts for they have not always been so consistent in their actions as they ought to have been.

    It is proper I should acquaint your Lordship that the Council go on making decrees in matters of divorce & in cases of Wills & Administration whensoever there is the voice of the majority present altho the Governor does not assent. If this practice should finally be disapproved of great inconveniences may be caused by it. It is probable several persons thus divorced either have been or will be married to other persons. I have the honour to be My Lord Your Lordship’s most humble & most obedient servant,

    AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:537).