1769.] OUTRAGES AT BOSTON. 311 1769. The members complained that they could not discuss the public affairs with freedom, being surrounded with an armed force. The governor told them he had no authority over the ships in the port or the troops in the town. The place of assembling was removed to the town of Cambridge. The two authorities continued hostile, and the Assembly was prorogued. Sir Francis Bernard was recalled to England; and a lieutenant-governor, Hutchinson, an American, remained in authority. Then commenced a series of outrages on the part of the leaders of the non-importation agreement, which was disgraceful to the cause which would have had far better argument in moderation. Obnoxious persons were tarred and feathered. At a public dinner "strong halters, firm blocks, and sharp axes, to such as deserve them," was one of the toasts.* These excesses, which are slightly passed over by the historian of the American Revolution, elicited the following remarks from lord Chatham, strenuous as he was in contending for the right of America to be untaxed by Great Britain. His words are not reported in the Parliamentary History, but they are given in a letter from Mr. Johnson, Agent for Connecticut.t "I have been thought to be, perhaps, too much the friend of America. I own I am a friend to that country. I love the Americans because they love liberty, and I love them for the noble efforts they made in the last war. But I must own I find fault with them in many things; I think they carry matters too far; they have been wrong in many respects. I think the idea of drawing money from them by taxes as ill-judged. Trade is your object with them, and they should be encouraged. But (I wish every sensible American, both here and in that country, heard what I say,) if they carry their notions of liberty too far, as I fear they do, if they will not be subject to the laws of this country, especially if they would disengage themselves from the laws of trade and navigation, of which I see too many symptoms, as much of an American as I am, they have not a more determined opposer than they will find in me." We have now reached the period of lord North's administration. On the 5th of March, 1770, on the House of Commons proceeding to take into consideration the petition of the Merchants of London trading to North America, the First Lord of the Treasury, in a temperate speech, moved the repeal of such portions of the Act of 1767, as laid duties upon glass and other articles, omitting any mention of tea. "I cannot propose," he said, "any further repeal than what it was my intention to promise them. The Americans, by their subsequent behaviour, have not deserved any particular indulgence from this country." Upon this principle, many a mistaken policy has been persisted in, out of pure defiance of the excesses which that policy has provoked. "We will not be driven to repeal, by any threats held out to us," said the minister. He anticipated no larger revenue than 12,0007. a year from the tea duties, but he would not give up the right to tax America which was asserted in the preamble of the Act imposing the duties. There was much discussion upon the particular point in dispute; but colonel Barré took a broad view of the whole question: "For three years we have seen nothing but the folly and absurdity of succeeding administrations. If the former erred, they had the sense of the nation with them; they acted Bancroft, vol. iii. p. 342. Note of Mr. Jared Sparkes, in his edition of Franklin's Works. 312 REPEAL OF DUTIES, EXCEPT THAT ON TEAS. [1770. upon a system. We are now proceeding upon no system at all: what we do carries nothing with it but monuments of our tyranny and folly.. Why suffer these discontents to rankle in the minds of your American subjects? I suspect we are not safe behind this peace. With your colonies discontented, what would be your condition if a war should break out? Could you depend upon receiving their support? With their minds soured, they might, perhaps, go further: they might take you at an unlucky moment, and compel you to come into their terms." The proposition of lord North was carried by a majority of sixty-two. Franklin, writing to a friend in America, says of this result, "I think the repeal would have been carried, but that the ministry were persuaded by governor Bernard, and some lying letters, said to be from Boston, that the associations not to import were all breaking to pieces; that America was in the greatest distress for the want of the goods; that we could not possibly subsist any longer without them, and must, of course, submit to any terms Parliament should think fit to impose upon us. The ministerial people gave out, that certain advices were received of our beginning to break our agreements; of our attempts to manufacture proving all abortive, and ruining the undertakers; of our distress for want of goods, and dissensions among ourselves, which promised the total defeat of all such kind of combinations, and the prevention of them for the future, if the government were not urged imprudently to repeal the duties. But now that it appears, from late and authentic accounts, that agreements continue in full force, that a ship is actually returned from Boston to Bristol with nails and glass (articles that were thought of the utmost necessity), and that the ships, which were waiting here for the determination of Parliament, are actually returning to North America in their ballast, the tone begins to change." 1770.1 ENCOUNTER WITH THE MILITARY AT BOSTON. 313 On the same day that the British Parliament was voting against the repeal of the tea-duties, the people of Boston were fighting with British soldiers in their streets. The story of this conflict has been related as if, as is generally the case, there were not egregious faults on both sides. "At the cry of innocent blood shed by the soldiery, the continent heaved like a troubled ocean," writes Mr. Bancroft.* There was a quarrel between a soldier and some workmen at a rope-walk. The soldier challenged one to fight in the good old English fashion of fisty-cuffs; was beaten; and came back with some of his companions for revenge. A general scuffle ensued, and the troops were driven to their barracks. Sunday intervened; but on Monday, the 5th of March, the troops, who had been stimulating each other, came forth in the evening, and offering some insults to the townsmen, there was a serious tumult. This was at length quieted. The more prudent of the citizens cried "Home, home;" but many boys remained, daring the soldiers, and calling them "lobsters." They at last surrounded a sentinel; and captain Preston, the captain of the day, ordered the main guard to turn out. The captain, a corporal, and six men marched to the rescue of the sentinel. They began to load; and then a party of the townsmen passed along the front of the soldiers, and struck their muskets with sticks. They dared the guard to fire, calling them "lobster scoundrels." One of the soldiers received a blow with a stick thrown at him, and he shot a mulatto. Two other persons were killed, and eight wounded. A warrant was issued against Preston, who surrendered himself, and the soldiers were committed to prison. With great good sense governor Hutchinson and the colonel in command removed all the troops from the town. The affray was called " a massacre." When Preston was tried for murder a few months afterwards, no counsel dared undertake his defence; till John Adams, a rising advocate, devoted to the popular cause, but more devoted to his duty, accepted a brief; and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The high-minded barrister became the President of the United States. Two of the soldiers were found Guilty of Manslaughter. On the 9th of May, Burke brought forward a motion for inquiry into the late disorders in America. On that occasion George Grenville made his last speech in Parliament, he dying in the following November. His concluding words, in giving his assent to Burke's motion, were solemn and prophetic: "If, by the neglect of his ministers, our beloved sovereign should leave his crown to his successor diminished and dishonoured, then, sir, let those who brought the misery upon us, rise up severally and say, 'I was the man who formed those incompetent plans; I was the man who advised this plan and that plan; I was the man to whom all these fatal consequences are owing.' When the American colonists came to know that the British Parliament had repealed all the duties laid by the Act of 1767, except that on tea, the spirit which had prompted the non-importation agreements was somewhat allayed. The citizens of New York determined by a large majority to resume importations from England; and many orders were despatched in July for every kind of merchandise but tea. Other provinces were indignant with the New Yorkists. Massachusetts maintained a position of sullen defiance. "American Revolution," vol. iii. p. 386. 314 RENEWAL OF THE CONFLICT REGARDING WILKES. (1770 The jurymen of Boston had manifested that in the discharge of their duty, in the trial of captain Preston and the soldiers, they were not to be influenced by popular clamour. The conduct of John Adams showed how high-minded were many of those opponents of an obstinate policy, who, in parliamentary language were usually called rebels. "The language we hold," said colonel Barré, "is little short of calling the Americans rebels: the language they hold is little short of calling us tyrants-rebels on one side, tyrants on the other." It was thus that the men of England and the men of America were mutually inflamed. Although, for two or three years, there was in America an apparent calm—a deceptive absence of violence which looked like peace— the time was rapidly approaching when the exhortation of Mr. Wedderburn, in 1770, before he became lord North's solicitor-general, would be looked upon as a prophecy: "How, sir, will it hereafter sound in the annals of the present reign, that all America-the fruit of so many years' settlement, nurtured by this country at the price of so much blood and treasure-was lost to the Crown of Great Britain in the reign of George III.?"* Whilst there is a lull in this trans-atlantic tempest, let us revert to our domestic affairs— petty in their details, but very significant in their tendencies. On The parliamentary conflict on the question of the Middlesex election was not likely to drop after the great debates on the Address at the opening of the Session of 1770. Mr. Sheriff Townsend, in his place in the House of Commons on the 7th of February, declared, upon going into a Committee of Ways and Means, that it was not his intention to pay the Land-tax. He would state the case as on the part of the freeholders of Middlesex. Their lawful representative, Mr. Wilkes, was kept out of the House by force and violence. Mr. Luttrell was not their representative. Lord North told the worthy sheriff that if any demand upon him was illegal, the law would relieve him. He refused to pay the tax; his goods were distrained; he brought an action against the collector; and lord Mansfield having charged the jury that the question was no other than whether there was a legislative power in this country, the jury found for the defendant. The declaration of Mr. Townsend was an indication of the prevailing temper of the citizens of London. the 14th of March, the lord mayor and sheriffs, a few aldermen, and a great number of the common council, exercising the ancient right of the City to present addresses to the king in person, arrived, with an immense concourse of people at St. James's. The address, remonstrance, and petition offered on this occasion, prayed for the dissolution of Parliament, and the removal of evil ministers; spoke of "secret and malign influence" which had deprived the people of their dearest rights; and declared that the present House of Commons did not represent the people. The king's answer was "deemed by some to have been uncommonly harsh."+ His majesty said, "I shall always be ready to receive the requests, and to listen to the complaints, of my subjects: but it gives me great concern to find that any of them should have been so far misled, as to offer me an Address and Remonstrance, the contents of which I cannot but consider as disrespectful to me, injurious to my Parlia ment, and irreconcileable to the principles of the constitution." A debate "Cavendish Debates," vol. ii. p. 30. 1770.] REMONSTRANCE OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 315 took place the next day in the House of Commons, upon a motion for an Address to his majesty that he would direct a copy of this paper and his answer to be laid before them. The lord mayor (Beckford), alderman Trecothick, and sheriffs Townsend and Sawbridge, boldly defended the language of the Remonstrance. Lord North told them that they would be rentembered as the John Lilburns and Dr. Sacheverells of their day. Burke called to the memory of the House the words of lord Falkland, "Peace! peace!" The Commons, by a large majority, agreed upon an Address to the king; having resolved that "to deny the legality of the present Parliament, and to assert that the proceedings thereof are not valid, is highly unwarrantable." The general opinion was, that the lord mayor and sheriff's courted commitment.* On the 23rd of May, the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council, presented a second Remonstrance to the king at St. James's. Walpole says, "it had been drawn up by lord Chatham, or formed on one of his late speeches." They lamented that his majesty had been advised to lay the weight of his displeasure upon the citizens of London. "We are deeply concerned that what the law allows, and the constitution teaches, hath been misconstrued by ministers, instruments of that influence which shakes the realm into disrespect for your majesty." They demanded "a full, free, and unmutilated Parliament." They concluded by saying," we offer our constant prayers to Heaven that your majesty may reign, as kings only can reign, in and by the hearts of a loyal, dutiful, and free people." The king's answer conveyed no change of opinion on the proceedings of the City: “I should have been wanting to the public as well as to myself, if I had not expressed my dissatisfaction at the late Address. My sentiments on that subject continue the same." The king had no sooner spoken his answer, writes Walpole, "than, to the astonishment of the whole court, Beckford, the lord mayor, desired leave to say a few words. This was totally unprecedented. Copies of all intended harangues to the sovereign are first transmitted privately to court, that the king may be prepared with an answer. On this occasion the king was totally at a loss how to act. He was sitting in ceremony on his throne, and had no means to consult, no time to consider, what to do. Remaining silent and confounded, Beckford proceeded." + The words said to be uttered by the lord mayor are engraved in letters of gold under his monument in the Guildhall of London. distinguished record, it may be proper here to give them : Having this "Most gracious Sovereign,- Will your majesty be pleased so far to con descend as to permit the mayor of your loyal city of London to declare in your royal presence, in behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your majesty's displeasure would at all times affect their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them with inexpressible anxiety and with the deepest affliction. Permit me, sire, to assure your majesty, that your majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate to your majesty's person and family, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your crown. We do, * Chatham Correspondence," vol. iii., p. 429. |