Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

On the 18th of February, 1774, the whole House of Representatives waited on the governor with second petition, for the removal of the chief justice, who had rendered himself incapable, by accepting a salary from the crown, at whose will he also held his place. They say; "Your Excellency will please to consider, that this House is well acquainted with the general sense of their constituents in this matter; and we can now assure you, that the continuance of the chief justice in his place will increase the uneasiness of the people without doors, and endanger the public tranquillity. We therefore earnestly entreat your Excellency, that, while we are in this instance employing the powers with which we are intrusted in promoting the tranquillity and good order of government, ‘we may,' agreeably to your declaration in your speech to both Houses, find that you are ready to give your consent to a request of the House intended for that and other great and important purposes'; and that your Excellency will immediately take every step for the removal of the chief justice from the Superior Court."

The governor returned them a positive denial, accompanied with a curious piece of equivocation. The House had prayed, that he would take the advice of his Majesty's Council upon their petition, conformable to the charter. To which he answers, That, though he was by charter to act with the advice and assistance of his Council, yet the summoning of the Council was in his discretion. Thus was the protective provision of the charter effectually evaded.

This is a full and fair state of the proceedings in and respecting the province of the Massachusetts Bay, from the year 1762 to 1774.

The candid reader will judge what causes of discontent have been given them, and whether they have

operated beyond their natural bounds. If they have been particularly unquiet, they have also been particularly irritated and injured. Imagining ourselves in their situation will, I believe, prevent us from severely censuring their conduct.

It is manifest, that they have constantly expressed their complaints in petitions conceived in the most measured language of subordination and respect. That they have repeatedly acknowledged the supreme legislative authority of Parliament. That the only instance in which they seem to have questioned it, was in a mere speculative dispute, purposely provoked by the governor. That the constant subject of their complaints has been the having their money taken from them without their consent; the substituting a dependent judge, bribed by being paid out of the forfeitures, to determine in all causes of revenue, by the rules of the civil law, and without a jury; and the violation of their security in the due administration of government and of justice, by rendering the governor and judges totally dependent on the crown. That their wish has been to return to the state in which they were before the passing these laws and sending these instructions, and not to become independent of Great Britain. This appears, not only from their repeated and authentic declarations, but from Governor Hutchinson's letters. "The enemies of government" (so is he pleased to style the Council, the House of Representatives, and the people,) "gave out, that their friends in Parliament were increasing, and all things would be soon on the old footing; in other words, that all acts imposing duties would be repealed, the Commissioners' Board dissolved, the customs put on their old footing, and illicit trade be carried on with little or no hazard." The malignity of this reflection upon the people, will plainly

[blocks in formation]

appear from the following declaration of Governor Bernard, whose testimony in their favor will hardly be questioned. "I do not pretend," says he, "that this province is entirely free from the breach of those laws " (of trade), "but only that such breach, if discovered, is surely punished." What more can be said of the best country upon earth? Yet Governor Hutchinson does not scruple to charge them with having been all smugglers, and to throw an odium upon their struggling for their rights by the imputation of their sole object being to renew that illicit trade with impunity.

It must also appear from their proceedings, that their great crime has been their constancy in petitioning for redress of grievances; which has been attempted to be repressed, even by the most unjustifiable means of refusing them an agent to vindicate them when misrepresented, and support their complaints. While this common right of justice is denied them, persons are notoriously hired here to load them in the public papers with every species of opprobrium, falsehood, and abuse. There are two things which deserve the most particular attention. First, That whenever affidavits were taken on the part of the people, they were taken in public, with summonses to all persons concerned to attend, and cross-examine the witnesses; on the contrary, those which were obtained by the governor and commissioners, accusing the people, were made in secret, the persons accused unapprized and totally ignorant of the proceedings, they were transmitted in secret, and the injured persons, by mere accidents, and after they had operated to their hurt, had an opportunity of seeing and refuting them. The instances on both sides will be found in the affidavits taken on the seizure of the sloop Liberty, and the riot, and in Mr. Oliver's affidavit, and the narrative of the town, respecting the massacre on the 5th of March. Secondly, That the chief

and almost only continual witnesses against the people are the Governors Bernard and Hutchinson; the former of whom has long labored under an accusation upon oath of gross corruption in his office; the latter has been detected in the basest plot against their liberties; and both are at open enmity with the people, having been petitioned against by their representatives, as universally odious. How far the representations of men so circumstanced can be presumed fair and impartial, or deserve credit, must be left to the candid to determine.

We have seen their petitions either intercepted, or treated with a contemptuous silence, or answered with the severest censures. Seven years' supplication has brought no relief. And now, to fill up the measure of their misfortunes, their port is stopped up, their charter is to be subverted, and a lawless army let loose upon them. They have been tried, condemned, and punished, unheard and unapprized of the whole proceeding. They are left to weep over their apprehensions, realized in the utter subversion of their liberties. This accumulation of calamities is heaped upon them, because high and strong resentments, as they naturally must, have followed severe and reiterated injuries; because discontent has arisen from disappointed and despised complaints, and violence from insulted discon

tent.

Whoever will take the trouble of reading, in the history of this most meritorious and unhappy people, the unparalleled hardships with which they purchased those liberties we have now torn from them, and view the deplorable, the desperate situation to which they are now reduced; however obdurate, however prejudiced he may be, he must think, at least, one human tear may drop, and be forgiven.

LETTERS TO DEAN TUCKER.

The Reverend Josiah Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, was a man of learning and talents, but somewhat wayward in his temper, and far from conciliatory in the tone of his writings. He is said to have been faithful in the discharge of his parochial duties, and to have published some creditable treatises on theology; but his thoughts and studies were chiefly turned to political and commercial subjects, upon which he wrote several tracts. It was for this reason that Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, who was not on the best terms with his Dean, used to say, that "the Dean's trade was religion, and religion his trade." In a letter to Dr. Hurd, he likewise said; "I have not seen the Dean since his return; and hope I shall not, till the ebullition of his German ferment be well over," alluding to some tract of his on naturalization, in which he supported with zeal a scheme for the settling of Germans in England.

He published several pamphlets on the colonial controversy, in which it was allowed that the general principles of trade, and the commercial interests of Great Britain, were discussed with ability. He had a plan peculiar to himself, which he took great pains to enforce. It is thus described in his own words, namely; "To separate totally from the colonies, and to reject them from being fellow members and joint partakers with us in the privileges and advantages of the British empire, because they refuse to submit to the authority and jurisdiction of the British legislature." This project he defended with great pertinacity, notwithstanding the ridicule it drew upon him from various quarters, and the violence with which it was attacked through the press, and even in Parliament. He triumphed at last, though not in the way most pleasing to himself; for it was not his purpose to benefit the colonies by a separation, but to relieve the mother country from what he considered a troublesome and unworthy appendage.

Dean Tucker's plan is largely unfolded in a pamphlet, which he published in 1775, called "An Humble Address and Earnest Appeal," wherein he recommends an act of Parliament, and suggests that it should be drawn up as follows.

« ZurückWeiter »