AMERICAN REPRESENTATION

23

whose name is not given, a remonstrance on the subject of the Stamp Act, which he ventured to characterise as neither equitable nor practicable at that particular moment.

I do not mean to dispute the reasonableness of America contributing to the charges of Great Britain when she is able; nor, I believe, would the Americans themselves have disputed it at a proper time and season. But it should be considered that the American Governments themselves have in the prosecution of the late war contracted very large debts, which it will take some years to pay off, and in the meantime occasion very burdensome taxes for that purpose only. For instance this Government, which is as much beforehand as any, raises every year 37,500l. sterling for sinking their debt, and must continue it for four years longer at least before it will be clear.1

It was Mr. Bernard's opinion, consequently, that no such tax ought to have been even contemplated until that period had elapsed.

2

In the same letter, which is a long one, the Governor discussed the subject of American representation. 'He had been informed by his private correspondents,' says his son, that the measure of a permanent American representation was inadmissible in England; he therefore recurred to the remedy which held the next rank in prospect of success,' suggesting the election of thirty delegates from the continent and fifteen from the islands, who were to be summoned to England to discuss the terms of relation between Great Britain and her colonies.' And in another letter, addressed to Mr. John Pownall, Under-Secretary of State, the Governor observes that when the patchwork government' of America should be at length revised and settled on a firm basis, representatives from that country would be no longer needed; they may return and serve in their own Assemblies, which then may be as separate from that of Great Britain as that of Ireland.' At this time Ireland had a Parliament of its own.

Thomas Bernard quotes from this letter at some length in the Life, but does

not state to whom it was addressed.

2 Life of Sir Francis Bernard.

To a different correspondent, whose name is left blank, Mr. Bernard sent a letter, with a copy of his 'Principles of Law and Polity,' supposing that the essay, which had passed without notice from any member of the Ministry to whom it had been forwarded, was by this time forgotten. In this letter he observes:

The present distresses of the American Governments are fatal and unhappy comments upon my work, such as I never desired to see. A further delay of a Parliamentary regulation of the American Governments, and, above all, ascertaining the nature of their subordination, will, I fear, make the business irretrievable. When the Americans have actually acquired the power of defying the Parliament, which some of them vainly pretend to now, a separation will soon follow. The weak patchwork Government of this country has no power to defer such an event one hour after the people have resolved upon it.1

But neither did this remonstrance produce any effect.

Select Letters, 'Letter X. to

Esquire, Boston, Dec. 14, 1765.'

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

25

CHAPTER XVII

THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT

Attitude of the British Government-Outrage on Secretary Oliver-A Petition from the Inhabitants of Boston to the Governor and Council, drawn up to order the Courts to proceed without Stamps-A Commiteee of Grievances -Rejoicing at Boston over the Repeal of the Stamp Act-Governor Bernard objects to the appointment of James Otis as Speaker of the House of Representatives-Vetoes Six Councillors-Letter from General ConwayGovernor Bernard's Speech to the House of Representatives on the Subject of Compensation to the Sufferers in the Riots-Efforts of the House of Representatives to Embarrass the Government-A New Occasion of Trouble-A Demand for the Abolition of Slavery.

GOVERNOR BERNARD was hardly prepared for the next proposition of the British Government, which displayed an ignorance of the state of Boston, or rather a determination to ignore all the information received on that subject, scarcely credible, and utterly bewildering to its supporters in Massachusetts.1 The Lords of the Treasury, who had been early advised that Secretary Oliver had resigned his post of stamp distributor to save his life, despatched a request to the Governor, which reached him before the end of November, that he would himself temporarily undertake the distribution-a proceeding calculated not only to degrade his office, but even to result in the total overthrow of his Administration.2 It so happened that about this time, while the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor were both at their country houses, Secretary Oliver, a man advanced in years, became the victim of an audacious outrage, on the mere suspicion, raised by an idle report, that he intended to resume his functions as stamp distributor. He was dragged to

Life of Sir Francis Bernard, Letter of Governor Bernard to Grey Cooper, Esquire, dated 22 December, 1765.'

2 Hutchinson, Hist. Mass., ch. ii.

the 'Tree of Liberty' in the custody, it may be said, of Mackenzie, the head of the gang which had destroyed the Chief Justice's house, and there forced to take an oath before a justice of the peace, who was also a lawyer, that he would never distribute stamps nor commission any subordinate officer to do so. This insult saved the Governor the necessity for deliberation on his own course of action.

'His answer was that it was impossible; that he had no real authority in the place, but was left totally in the hands of the people.' '1 So writes his son, who continues :

He could not, however, help adding, Although I have never received any orders concerning the Stamp Act until this day, nor even a copy of the Act, I have thought it my duty to do all I could to get it carried into execution. And I must say that in so doing I have exerted all possible spirit and perseverance. What has passed between me and the Assembly will appear from the enclosed printed copies; I have made great sacrifices to his Majesty's service upon this occasion. My administration, which was before easy, respectable, and popular, is rendered troublesome, difficult, and dangerous, and yet there is no pretext to charge me with any other offence than endeavouring to get the Stamp Act carried into execution; but that is here an high crime never to be forgiven. I have preserved from the destruction with which they were threatened the stamps which have hitherto arrived. In the course of this business I have found it necessary to put the Castle in a posture of defence, as if a foreign enemy had been expected. And now the people acquiesce in the stamps being lodged there only upon assurance that they shall not be distributed from thence. If an attempt to do it were apprehended the whole country would be in arms.

Mr. Bernard did not overestimate the strength of popular feeling on this subject; the struggle to which the Stamp Act had given rise was carried on with little intermission.

The law was in many places in the colonies set at defiance and evaded. Men had recourse to arbitration in the settlement

1 Life of Sir Francis Bernard, Letter from Governor Bernard to Grey Cooper, Esquire, dated 22nd December, 1765.' The italics in this passage are my own.

of disputes.

THE LAW COURTS AND STAMPS

27

Ships entered and cleared, and other business was done in contempt of the Statute. Newspapers were published with a death's-head in the place where the law required a stamp.1

Such is Hosmer's account of the situation. Thomas Bernard says that

The officers of the Customs first felt the necessity of proceeding in their official papers without stamps, and submitted to give qualified clearances, divested of the odious mark of the new duty. The next object of the popular party was to compel the judges and magistrates to do their business without stamps. For this purpose a meeting of the town of Boston was called, and a petition was agreed to be presented to the Governor and Council, praying that they would give orders that the courts should be opened; the prayer of the petition was rejected, and, at a subsequent town meeting, the rejection voted unsatisfactory; but the object of the application was effectively obtained in the town of Boston, by the judges yielding to the power of the people and opening the courts there, without waiting for the order of the Governor and Council to sanction the proceeding.2

This petition had been drawn up by Samuel Adams. The petitioners prayed that the point might be argued by counsel, and chose Gridley, Otis and John Adams for that purpose; by them the petition was presented. Of this memorial Bancroft writes: "" Many of the arguments,' said Bernard in reply, " are very good ones to be used before the judges, but there is no precedent for the interference of the Governor and Council. In England the judges would scorn directions from the King on points of law."' It is, however, not at all probable that the Governor used such a word as 'scorn' in this place. But to return to Thomas Bernard's narrative:

In the Assembly which met in January 1766 the Governor found that there had been only too much foundation for his 1 Hosmer, Samuel Adams, ch. v., ‘Parliamentary Representation and the Massachusetts Resolves.'

2

Life of Sir Francis Bernard.

"Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Epoch ii. ch. xiii.; see also Life of John Adams by his Son, ch. ii., and Hutchinson, Hist. Mass., ch. ii.