Separating the Eastern Country
795. To Lord Hillsorough, 22 January 1771
796. To Sir Francis Bernard, 23 January 1771
797. To Israel Williams, 23 January 1771
798. To John Pownall, 24 January 1771
799. To Thomas Whately, 25 January 1771
800. From Thomas Goldthwait, 29 January 1771
During the summer of 1770, both Secretary of State Lord Hillsborough and Francis Bernard began work on plans to revise the constitution of Massachusetts in order to make the province more amenable to royal control. A key part of the program concerned the need, as they saw it, for a royally appointed council. Letters asking for Hutchinson’s opinion on the subject arrived at a tense moment when Castle William was being transferred to royal control. Hutchinson hesitated to endorse the idea and put off answering the inquiry until mid-October. Hutchinson’s lukewarm response drew an angry letter from Bernard, blaming Hutchinson for the failure of the plan (No. 742, above), although the cabinet’s unwillingness to proceed with constitutional reform probably had more to do with the Falkland Island Crisis and its own tenuous hold on power than anything Hutchinson had said. By late January 1771, Hutchinson had clearly received Bernard’s letter and was at pains to excuse himself for not having advocated sterner measures in October. He now suggested an alternate approach to parliamentary legislation abolishing the election of the Council by the House, as well as other ways Parliament might exert its authority and express its disapproval of the excesses of the Massachusetts General Court and the Boston town meeting. Perhaps removing the lands east of the Penobscot from Massachusetts control, where the General Court had repeatedly refused to act to block illegal settlements and depredations to the king’s timber, could be a timely reminder of parliamentary supremacy?
Boston 22d Jany. 1771.
My Lord, The Disorders in the Colonies do not seem to have been caused by the defects in the forms or constitutions of Government. They have not prevailed in the several Colonies in proportion as one Colony has been under a more popular form of Government than another. They must be attributed to a cause which is common to all the Colonies, a loose, false and absurd notion of the nature of Government which has been spread by designing artful men, setting bounds to the supreme authority, and admitting parts of the Community, and even individuals to judge, when those bounds are exceeded, and to obey or disobey accordingly.
Whilst this principle universally prevails in any Community, be the form of Government what it may or rather let it have what name it will, for it must be a name only, there can be no interior force exerted, and disorder and confusion must be the effect.
When this principle prevails through any distinct part of a Community, and there is no apprehension of force from the supreme authority of the whole, or from any power exterior to such parts, the effect is the same in those distinct parts, as it is in the whole Community when the principle universally prevails there.
Measures for reforming the constitution of any people under such circumstances will probably be ineffectual and tend to increase their disorders.
The Colonies were under these circumstances when I wrote my first private letter to your Lordship. There was a general opinion prevailing that they had it in their power to distress the Kingdom by withdrawing their Commerce from it, and that there was not the least danger of any compulsory measures to cause obedience to any Acts or Orders respecting them. In this Colony there was room to hope for a change of circumstances, but it was uncertain and probably at a distance.
They had just felt the shock of that most fortunate stroke which freed the Castle from any dependance upon the people, and kept the harbour and Town of Boston under the Command of The King’s Ships, but the effects did not appear; I was striving for a just decision in the case of the Soldiers, and not without hopes, but far from being certain of success. There was a prospect of the dissolution of the confederacies against importation, tho’ several of the Colonies appeared to be more resolute and confirmed. There was also an expectation of a rupture between Great Britain and France or Spain or both, which would tend to shew the people their dependance upon the Kingdom, and the reasonableness of their submission to the supreme authority of it.
I was not insensible of the peculiar defects in the constitution of this Province, and I have complained of the Council as being under undue influence, and casting their weight into that scale which had much too great a proportion before; but I was doubtful myself, and I found some judicious persons in whom I could confide to be doubtful also whether whilst the body of the people continued in the state they were then in, such Councillors as should be appointed by the Crown would dare to undertake the trust, or if they should do it, whether the people in general would not refuse to submit to their authority, and I feared the consequences of either would more than countervail the advantages which would arise merely from an alteration in the constitution if accomplished.1
To this state of our Affairs and a mind influenced by it, I beg your Lordship to attribute that want of determination which appeared in my private Letters, and not to any degree of unwillingness to trust with your Lordship my real sentiments upon any occasion whatsoever.
The change in the temper of the people has been brought about sooner and to a greater degree than any body could expect, and we seem now to be as well prepared either to receive such a change in the Constitution as we probably shall be at any time hereafter, or if it shall be thought more eligible to defer it, we may probably remain in tolerable good order until such time as shall be judged more convenient, provided something is done in the mean time which shall discover the resentment of the Kingdom against our avowed principles, and the practices consequent upon them, and which shall give us cause to imagine that farther measures are to be taken with us. Such resentment has been every where expected. If omitted we shall go back to our former Disorders.
That wise step of changing the Garrison at the Castle began our cure. In the heighth of our confusion a Citadel upon Fort Hill seemed also to be necessary.2 I now think the same end is answered without it as would have been with it. It may however not be improper for The King to have the actual possession of that spot, either by erecting at a small expence a Warehouse or Magazine for stores, or by making some kind of inclosure to restrain from encroachments, and yet not prevent the Inhabitants from using the place to walk and air themselves in as they now frequently do. There is a vote of the Town for selling it. I will watch their motions, and if any thing farther is attempted will take public notice of it. If no farther advances are made for securing the good behaviour of the Town there certainly will be no receding. To depart suddenly from what has been done at the Castle &ca. would be very dangerous.
Every Act of Parliament carried into execution in the Colonies tends to strengthen Government there. A firm persuasion that Parliament is determined at all events to maintain its supreme authority is all we want; few or none are now so weak as to question their power to do it. If Acts were passed more or less to controul us, every session we should soon be familiarized to them, and our erroneous opinions would die away, and peace and order would revive.
An act to enable The King to alter the bounds of the Province by His Commission, the Charter notwithstanding, by making the Province of Main and country East of it, a distinct and separate Province, & to annex or not annex, as His Majesty may think fit, New Hampshire to the Massachusets, or to separate the Country East of Penobscot, and annex it to Nova Scotia, might either be kept as a rod over us, and a security for our good behaviour, until the King’s Pleasure should be determined; or if it should be executed immediately, it would shew a just resentment against the province for countenancing the intrusions in the Eastern Country, whereby The King’s Timber is exposed to waste and havoc, and it would be a striking instance of the power and authority of Parliament.3
The Act would be executed, for nobody would risque their property, or be concerned in any judicial proceedings relative to it, under a jurisdiction assumed contrary to an Act of Parliament, seeing such proceedings sooner or later will be deemed a nullity.
If no exception be taken to the vesting such a discretionary power in the Crown, perhaps it may be thought expedient whenever the Charter and case of the Province comes under consideration, instead of expressly declaring that the power of electing Councillors by the Assembly shall determine and cease, to enable His Majesty by His Royal Order or Declaration to determine it, and to appoint a Council instead thereof as he may think proper.
The late Act permitting the issuing Bills of Credit at New York was extremely well adapted to maintaining the authority of Parliament; and others of the like nature might be mentioned as convenient to be passed here.
I hope to receive your Lordship’s directions concerning the Two Officers at the Castle, which I thought necessary for His Majesty’s Service to continue in pay, and which is all the expence I have occasioned since the withdraw of the Garrison.4
I took the liberty to mention to your Lordship the case of Capt. Phillips the late Commanding Officer at the Castle.5 He is without support for himself and family, and is by far the greatest sufferer of any belonging to the late Garrison; his place being worth between two and three hundred pounds sterling a year.
I hope the rest of the Garrison being scattered abroad will never occasion any charge to the Crown. He presses me very hard, and though his removal was absolutely necessary, and I did my duty, yet as I was the immediate instrument, his case affects me more sensibly; and this is all which moves me to apply in his behalf, having no sort of connexion with him. I could not refuse his request to transmit to your Lordship his petition to The King, but I let him know it must be presented or suppressed, just as your Lordship should think fit. As it respected his Military Post I was in doubt of the Propriety of his Address to His Majesty in Council but if those words are necessary I have authority from him to pray they may be added.
I am taking every Measure in my power consistent with the honour of Govt. to reconcile Civil and Military, Whigs and Tories, & we begin to be sensible that it must be a very bad Constitution indeed which is not preferable to the savage State we have been in for some Years past. I have &ca.,
SC (National Archives UK, CO 5/246, ff. 1–4); docketed, “Govr. Hutchinson. Boston 22d Janry. 1771. (Private) Rx 30th. March.”; at end of letter, “Inclosures. 1st. Petition of John Philips late Capt. Lieut. of the Garrison of Castle William in the Harbour of Boston. 2d. A Boston Gazette.” AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:98–101); at head of letter, “Private”; in WSH’s hand, except for the last lines beginning with “I was in doubt of the Propriety.”
Boston 23d January 1771
(No 54)
Ackworth
Dear Sir, I had great reason to doubt when I wrote my private Letters to Lord H. whether a sufficient number of proper persons could be found who would act as Councillors under a Royal Commission or if they had taken the trust upon them whether there would not have been a general agreement of the People to refuse submission.1 Some of the most judicious persons & cheif friends to government verily beleived a new Council would refuse. They were persons who might keep themselves secure when all the Officers of Government would have been distressed and these speculative persons though well wishers could have afforded no aid. I am very sure that if your last plan had been pursued and all the present Council had been appointed by the King a great part and I think the major part would have refused if affairs had continued in the state they were then in. At present some of them and I cannot say how many would refuse.
The happy turn in favour of Government I could not foresee. I wished for a delay rather than to lay the design aside. No disadvantage can arise from the delay. Any plan may better be carried into execution now than if our Affairs had continued in the same state.
Some notice must be taken of us. In a Letter some time ago from Gen. Gage he hinted that he thought it not impossible the Castle might be put under the pay of the Province again.2 I believe he wrote his own conjecture only. You know that it would be convenient for me if it did not hurt the cause of Government but it would be a fatal stroke to the Authority of Government and I think there can be no danger of it nor of the altering the Rendezvous of the Ships. Would it be thought improper in an Act of Parliament to impower the Crown to appoint a Council instead of the present or to make such alteration in that particular branch as the Crown may think fit any thing in the charter to the contrary notwithstanding? The execution of this power or authority both as to time and manner being then in the Crown I think some advantage may be made of it. I rather think exceptions would be made against such a discretionary power being placed in the Crown by an Act of Parliament least it should be urged as a precedent. Something I repeat it must be done this Session to shew the sense Parliament has of our past conduct. Even a declaration that their forbearance is owing to our returning to order is better than nothing, though on the part of the Assembly it has been done with a very ill grace. Col. Chandler called upon me yesterday from Worcester.3 I will give you his homely Expression. If Parliament dont give us a flogging we shall be as rampant as ever. You know he was many years Sheriff.
I have inclosed to My Lord Hillsborough a Petition from Phillips but left it with his Lordship to deliver or not just as he pleases.4 I hope it will meet with success. His family most certainly will be in great distress. Burbeck & Salisbury I doubt not the General will have orders to pay.5 It would be hard it should fall upon me. I never could have supported my plan of obviating the Exceptions to the delivering the command of the Garrison to the Kings Troops if I had not retained a general Command and retained the Custody of all Stores and I must have one and ought to have had more than one Officer for that purpose. And as for Salisbury the whole check upon Shipping would have been at an end if I had not kept him. As you know the necessity and I could have no motive but the Kings service if nothing has been done I must beg you to explain. I have seen a Letter by the last packet which shews a determined design to have taken advantage in Parliament of any slip I might have made in executing this Order about the Castle.6
The Baptists have made a little stir & complain of being oppressed but in general they have all the liberty which can consist with a legal establishment for maintaining publick Worship without which we should be worse than we are. No Baptist in principle is obliged to pay to Ministers upon the Establishment. All who attend a Baptist Minister are not exempt. If they should be the Congregations would be broke to pieces in all parts of the Province.
The Baptists have had general Meetings and were about chusing an Agent to go to England which would have been a troublesome business & I diswaded them from it. One of their Grievances arose from a Law of the Province in May 1768 Chapter 4th to enable the Assessors of Ashfield to tax all original Rights in whose hands so ever they be for building a Meeting House as settlement and support of a Minister.7 The Conditions of the Grant were that the Grantees should settle a Minister and build a Meeting House, so far the case is within the Reason of Tythes in England, if Baptists will purchase the Rights they must take them with the Encumbrances but the holding the Rights for the constant support of a Minister is not made a condition of the Grant and militates with the general Law which exempts the Estates of Baptists. They have applied to the Gen. Court to Repeal this Law and have encouragement that it may be done another Session but it is uncertain. The three years since it past will not expire till June. I sent for Mr Stillman one of the Baptist Ministers a moderate man and advised him to write to their Agent in England to wait upon Mr Pownall & acquaint him with these circumstances and to desire the Law might be disallowed.8 I told him I would write to you and had no doubt the thing might be done without any noise. I suppose you would have not passed it if you had considered the force of the word Support and that it militated with the general Law in favour of Baptists. I have no doubt it was artfully slipped in by one of the Hampshire Representatives.9
Something must be done about the Eastern Country immediately or it will be all taken up. There never will be so good an opportunity to annex it to Nova Scotia or to make that with the Province of Main a distinct Government. It may be considered as derelict when my Speech to the Court and these proceedings are considered but this I write under the seal of secrecy.10 No Measure would more evince the power of Parliamt. So far as concerns the annexing the Country East of Penobscot there can be no Objection.
If anything farther occurs I shall write again. I am Dear Sir Your most faithful humble Servant,
AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:103–05); at end of letter, “Sir F. Bernard”; in WSH’s hand. Contemporary printing: Boston Gazette, 28 August 1775 (first three paragraphs only).
Boston 23 Jan 1771
Dear Sir, I am two Letters in your debt. I will now only answer the last because you seem most to Require it, the first I mention that you may know I received it.1
As to the Intestate. It had always been the practice in this Province where a man died leaving brothers & sisters children for the children to take according to the share the parents of each stock would have had and in this case they took as representatives and the parents whom they represented being nearer of kin than Uncles or Aunts they were excluded, but when Mr Allen died leaving a large estate I found the authorities were the other way for although when one or more brothers or sisters were living in that case if those were stocks of children of deceased brothers or sisters such stocks would take as Representatives of their deceased parents yet when all the brothers & sisters were dead their children were then according to the words of the Statute to be considered as equally of kin everyone in equal degree. I therefore ordered no more to the single child of Mrs. Wheelwright Mr Allen’s sister than to each of six children of Mr Allens brother. This being a novelty Wheelwright appealed but after a full hearing my decree was affirmed by the Governor & Council.2 It was not known at that time but soon after before Distribution was actually made an old Uncle & Aunt appeared & laid in their claims and they being in equal degree with the Nephews & Neices were each admitted for a single share & upon an Appeal this was also affirmed. It is undoubted Law & directly in point.
I like yours inclosed.3 The heroes of liberty are some of them seeking a reconciliation. I think it advisable therefore to suspend everything irritating at present but shall make no concessions having made no advances and consistent with my duty to the Crown I cannot give up what belongs to it.
When the last Packet came away the Commission lay waiting for an Opportunity direct.
I have people about me while I am writing & pray you would excuse my obliterations. Your Recommendations will always have weight & I will take the most convenient Opportunities to comply with them. I am Dear Sir Your Affectionate humble Servant,
PS To save you the trouble of a distinct Answer to your first Letter I will only put you in mind in a Postscript of the Old Grecian Sage, I forget which, who when pressed upon the same Subject in early life always answered It is too soon. In advanced life It is too late.4
RC (Massachusetts Historical Society, Israel Williams Papers); endorsed, “23. Jany. 1771.”
Boston 24th Jany 1771
ackworth &
Dear Sir, I am now to thank you for your favour of the 15 Novr. by the Pacquet.1
I am glad you approve of my moderation. When it is accompanied with steadiness I think it always better than violence in political controversies. I wish to have your sentiments upon every Affair as often as I can. In that of the Castle I was under great difficulties to steer so as not to come short of the Kings Orders on the one hand and yet shun giving a handle to the Opposers of Government here and in England to charge me with quitting all Command of the Fortress on the other. I think they are silenced here and unless Facts are misrepresented they must likewise be so in England. I am expecting further directions concerning the Fort. I retain the Rooms which have always been kept by the Governor for his immediate use. I do not take upon me to order any thing which relates to the Regiment but every thing which relates to the Fortress Artillery Amunition Stores &c. I order as I did before, and place such other persons besides the Regiment as appears to me to be necessary. Capt. Phillips the late commanding Officer is in great distress. I wish something could be done for him to give him bread. He is well known to Gov. Pownall and was always attached to him.
In one of your Letters you suppose something very decisive will be done by Parliament unless a favorable issue in the case of Preston & the Soldiers should cause any alteration of proposed measures. This issue has been as favorable as possible. I am now anxious least Parliament should pass over all our affronts contempts & Insults without notice. This would be extremely dangerous in some way or other the power of Parliament must be evinced. In my Letter of the 5th December I took notice of the Eastern Country.2 If nothing more be done than lopping of the Territory East of Penobscot and placing it under new Jurisdiction it will convince us what Parliament can do when it is determined. I only wish to see its Authority out of dispute. All other points would soon be settled. Besides some actual exertion of power I think the extravagant Doctrines advanced by the Council & House since the last Session of Parliament implying Independance upon the Kingdom cannot pass without proper Animadversions.3 I mention this to you in confidence. I am with very great regard & Esteem Dear Sir faithful & Affectionate humble Servant,
AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:107–08); in WSH’s hand. Contemporary printings: Boston Gazette, 28 August 1775; Massachusetts Spy, 6 September 1775; Essex Journal, 15 September 1775.
Boston 25th January 1771
Ackworth
Dear Sir, Just as the last Vessel was coming to sail I sent a line to you to tell you that I had desired the Master Capt. Jarvis to leave at the New England Coffee house directed to you the printed Trial of the Soldiers charged with the Murder of a number of the Inhabitants &c. I had not time to express my condolence with you upon the death of your Honorable and very valuable friend Mr. Grenville.1
We in America who are Servants of the Crown consider the Ministers of State as the Mesne between us and the Ld. Paramount. We are always alike atached to Ministers without any sort of concern in your party disputes. When they go out we retain an esteem and honour for their virtues and are under no prejudices because they are in the opposition to those who succeed them. You will easily conceive that in such a situation I revere such a Character as Mr Grenville. I think I should have done it if I had been in England & engaged with either of the parties in opposition to him. I wish you may find as valuable a friend to fill his place in your esteem and affections. You wish to hear how our Affairs stand from time to time. We have not been so quiet these five years. Our Incendiaries of the lower Order have quite disappeared. A Doctor Young whose name has often appeared in the News papers has taken passage for North Carolina.2 He may have a chance among the Regulators there. I hope many of the most flaming Zealots who have been at the head of Affairs see their mistake. They say that this change will divert Parliament from shewing their Resentment for past Offences. I tell them that it may cause a more moderate chastisement but that it is impossible they should wholly escape.
I find the best way of treating them is to make no concessions, to avoid all taunts & irritating language & to despise their calumnies.
We had a late very full Assembly of Gentlemen & Ladies. The Civil & Military were mingled together. Commissioners of the Customs & heads of the Sons Liberty are Subscribers upon the same paper. I set my name at the head rather too late in life for sake it a coalition. How long it will hold I cannot tell. I will try to make it last as long as I can. I am with sincere regard & Esteem Dear Sir Your Most Obedient & humble Servant,
AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:106–07); at end of letter, “Thomas Whately Esq at Mr Wm Whatelys Banker in Lombard Street”; in WSH’s hand.
Fort Pownall. Jany. 29. 1771
Honored sir, I arrived here on the 4 instant after a tedious passage of 17 days from Boston. The next morning after I arrived I sent off an officer & 12 men to Machias to apprehend the Rioters.1 I was obliged to authorize an officer of the Fort who has had some experience in the business of a Sheriff as Mr. Chadwick our deputy sheriff is not yet return’d from the westward & it is 84 miles from hence to Pownalboro’ where Mr. Cushing the High sheriff lives2 & at this season of the year exceeding difficult to pass & repass, therefore everything in this part of the province must go into confusion, if in the absence of a sheriff, a private person cannot be substituted to apprehend high offenders.
However I wou’d not be understood to do it of choice, as it cannot be supposed that one new in an office wou’d be so likely to take every regular step as one who has experience in it; but the circumstances of this Country at present are such that sometimes its absolutely necessary. And in regard to the legality of it; altho I woud pay the greatest defference to Judge Olivers opinion I am not clear in it that he is right in this.3 He allowed that it was the practise in England occasionally to substitute a private person. I believe it is practised also in new places within this province where a sheriff or constable cannot be got & it appears to me that a Justice of the peace is impowr’d to do it by law of the province passed in the tenth year of King William entitled an act enabling sheriffs constables &c. to require aid &c. Wherein it is enacted That any of his Majesty’s Justices of the peace for the preservation of the same &c Shall in the absence of a sheriff deputy sheriff or constable require any person to apprehend an offender &c.
However whether I did right or did wrong I cou’d not do otherwise without letting such an offence pass too long unnoticed & it seem’d to me there was a necessity of doing something immediately to preserve the peace of this part of the province & tho Mr. Lowder didn’t succeed as I cou’d have wisht & the rioters escaped justice for the present as you’l see by the inclosed papers I hope it will have a good effect: for I believe they are now convinced by the Governments taking this affair in hand that they are not out of the reach of law & that they are not to go on in this lawless manner; & as Mr. Lowder reports they offer to surrender themselves to justice if I’d go myself to Machias to examine into it.4 I think it will be expedient for me to go there & if your Excellency is of the same mind I shall prosecute this purpose as soon as I hear from you, & I shall be glad of your Excellencys opinion respecting the propriety of making an officer in absence of a sheriff.
In the mean time I shall send to Machias & let them know that its my intention to come down my self & hear the parties & do justice according to the best of my Knowledge.
Machias is above a hundred miles from hence therefore it will take some time & be attended with some expence.
If there be any material news from England I hope you’l please to let me know. I am Honored Sir your dutiful & most obedient servant,
Tho Goldthwait
RC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 25:465–66); addressed, “To His Excellency Govr. Hutchinson Commandr. in chief of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Boston”; endorsed, “Colo Goldthwait Fort Pownall Jany 29. 1771.”
Boston 30 Jan. 1771
(55)
Ackworth
Dear sir, This Vessel being detained some days by the unsettled weather I am able to acquaint you that upon Mr Burch & Paxtons intimating to me that they wishd to have a capable person to fill Mr Reeve’s Place of first Clerk I mentiond to them Mr Saml Mather my sisters son who hapned to be here on a visit from Canada where he has resided ever since Quebec was taken & has been a Justice of Peace there five or six years & is well spoken of by every body.1 I wishd him to return to Canada but his mothers fondness being an only son inclines him to remain here. Mr Reeve had some other place or he could not have lived & the Commissioners say that 80£ the present Salary is by no means equal to the trouble.
I must beg you to deliver the inclosed to Lord North of whom I have asked his approbation of the appointment & an additional Salary.2 Gen. Amherst first sent him to Quebec to act as a Comissary but he was unfortunately superseded by a person sent out as he says by Mr Welbore Ellis before Sir Jeffrys appointment was known. Gen. Murray I have heard had a very good opinion of him & that the present Governor Colo Carleton thinks favorably of him.3
The Comissioners are fond of it as it will tend to take off the Opposition which has been made by the Ministers of the Town. His father dined a few day ago at my house in company with Hulton & there was great civility. You know he has been as violent as any except Chauncy.4
It seems some of the Clerks have warrant from the Treasury. As no appointment was made when Mr Reeve was removed5 the Commissioners think the Lords of the Treasury will leave those inferior Officers to the Board as it is said they do to the Board of Comissioners in England. I am Dear Sir Your faithful & most Humble Servant,
AC (Massachusetts Archives, SC1/series 45X, 27:109); at foot of letter, “Sr F Bernard.”