also observed, that if any "objections were made to it, or any attempts still to disquiet the minds of the people, those who were the authors ought to be marked out for punishment, or disgrace."*

On this occasion, the council addressed a separate answer to the governor, so firm and spirited, that justice to their characters requires a full statement of its contents. "It is with pain we express our apprehension that your excellency's speech may lead some, not acquainted with the state of the province, to form such an opinion of the people as they do not deserve. Surely, you cannot mean to impute the enormities, committed. by a few abandoned persons, to the body of the people, or to either branch of the government. We are sure no ill-temper prevails among the people, notwithstanding your intimations; nothing which can lead parliament to regret its favor in the repeal of the stamp act, as your excellency seems to intimate.

"Your excellency is pleased to say, that the government has been attacked in form, and oppugnation made to the authority of the king, because the two houses have exercised a legal right in the choice of counsellors. A regard to justice and truth, to our own character and the reputation of the province, oblige us to speak with freedom, but without intending any disrespect to your excellency. Silence on such an occasion would merit the imputation, which your excellency's language tends to lay on us. Can it be justly said, that the people of the province have attacked the government and are guilty of oppugnation to his majesty's authority, because their representations have not chosen the men to be counsellors, whom your excellency would prefer, and who have before had a seat at the board? Your excellency has seen fit to exercise the right of rejecting several persons chosen by the house and the general court, but no one complains that it is an attack on the government. And we feel it our duty to bear testimony to the loyal and dutiful temper of the people, and the constitutional proceedings of the house of assembly. We really hope, that, because an election is made not agreeable to the chair, it will not be said the government has been attacked or the king's authority opposed."+

It was supposed, that he had particular reference to Samuel Adams, and James Otis. They were the most decided, zealous and active-and had they cowered under the threats of the royal governor, the cause of liberty must have greatly suffered.

It was proof of great presumption in the lieutenant governor, that, when not chosen to the council, of which the governor made so loud complaint, he still took a seat at the board. A committee of the house, going with a measage to the council, some days after the elections, were much surprised to

The reply of the house was equally firm and independent.* They contended for a right to elect such men into the council as they saw fit; and to decide in what way and to what amount a grant should be to those who suffered by the riots of the former season;—and they voted to postpone the subject, that they might learn the opinions of their constituents. As to their right of electing one man or another, they must be the sole judges, and they hoped to exercise their right with discretion— they must protest against the control or direction of the chair in their elections and however wise, prudent, and mild was the present executive, they had no assurance that his successor would possess those shining virtues. As to the residue of the speech, they said, "they were sorry to be constrained to observe, that the general air and style of it savors much more of an act of free grace and pardon, than of a parliamentary address to the general court; and we sincerely wish your excellency had been pleased to reserve it for a proclamation."

At this session, (June 1766) a loyal and humble address was prepared and sent to the king, expressing the thanks of the house for his clemency in approving the act for the repeal of the law imposing duties on stamps. This address was a fair expression of the opinions and views of the representatives of Massachusetts at that period of political controversy and alarm. It may not be difficult to show, that they recognised the supremacy of parliament more readily at one time, than they did at others, or, that, in protesting against the charge of their political enemies of aiming at absolute independence, they spoke more submissively, than they did when laws were made to tax them and raise a revenue in the province without their con

Then they pleaded for the sole and exclusive right of legislation. A qualified supremacy in parliament, they did not indeed, deny and yet insisted on the power of the subordinate legislation in the province for laying all taxes on the people. The right derived from nature and recognised by charter, they held sacred, and boldly asserted-but at the same

find the lieutenant governor had taken a seat there. They remonstrated to the council immediately, against the conduct of Mr. Hutchinson. He attempted to justify it, and to claim a seat, as lieutenant governor. The house still complained, and insisted, that, though in the absence of the gov ernor, he had a right to the chair, he had no right to a seat at the board, at any other time. The council agreed with the house, and the lieutenant governor gave up his claim.

* Mr. Bowdoin was supposed to be the writer of the answer to the council -a part of which only is given. Mr. Hutchinson said that Mr. Bowdoin was the leading member of council, after he was left out; and that he was generally in sentiment with the friends of liberty in the house.

time called themselves the faithful subjects of the king, and professed submission (with some exceptions) to parliament. Mr. Hutchinson argued, that they must either submit to parliament, or admit that they claimed independence. They were not willing to allow the alternative. . But when the crisis came at last, and parliament made laws and the ministry gave instructions which were opposed and resisted, a REVOLUTION was the inevitable consequence.

Governor Bernard was disposed to assert the authority of parliament and the prerogative to the fullest extent and was often less guarded and less prudent in his language than Mr. Hutchinson. When the stamp act was repealed, and the people were disposed to be quiet, he used irritating expressions, and plainly intimated, that if there were any more disorders or complaints, they must expect no lenity, but force, to oblige them to submit. This produced warm, and sometimes intemperate and indecorous replies from the representatives. When the lieutenant governor and other friends of the governor were left out of the council, he charged them with an attack on the government, and oppugnation to the king. They replied with warmth and severity; and they had just cause for both. His arbitrary principles were offensive to their high spirits, and they believed dangerous to the liberties of the people. They retorted his charge of causing discontents and alarm; and little cordiality from that time existed between them. They considered him the agent of an administration, claiming to exercise a power over them inconsistent with their rights and hostile to their prosperity. The British government had recently manifested a determination to extend its authority to the colonies; which, however claimed before, had seldom been fully exerted, and which their fathers opposed or denied. They were convinced of the governor's devotion to the views and plans of the British ministry, for reducing them to the lowest degree of colonial dependence, and for governing the people by foreign officers; and had no expectation that he would contend for the rights of the province. If the governor, or Mr. Hutchinson ever applied to England, in behalf of the province, it was for favors; whilst the true friends of liberty sought for redress from oppression, and boldly resisted all arbitrary exercise of power in the parliament or its agents. Every session of the general court, which brought the governor and the representatives together was sure to produce collision and crimination. He contended for submission to acts of parliament and to ministerial instructions; and they asserted their rights, as free-born Englishmen, and the power granted by charter. The two parties

were thus at issue early in the dispute; neither would yield, but urged each their claims with increasing feeling and obsti

nacy.

A portion of those, who sometimes voted with Mr. Hutchinson and opposed some of the measures of the most zealous whigs, at this period, were the sincere friends of civil liberty. It was not from want of attachment to the principles of political freedom, but from timidity, that they did not give their voice in favor of all the measures proposed by James Otis, Samuel Adams and their friends. They readily united in remonstrating against the sugar act, the stamp act and similar measures of the parent government, and in praying for redress; but declined opposing the authority of parliament, as the more decided and daring spirits of the day did. They loved their country, but feared the opposition could not sustain itself, and that force would be used to oppress the people; and the condition of the province be far more abject and distressing than if submission were yielded to the laws of parliament. It was among the aged chiefly that such sentiments were declared; and some apology is due to their prudence, or their fears, while far higher praise is due to those fearless patriots who opposed the giant strength of England, in defence of constitutional freedom and the unalienable rights of the people.

After this period, it appears that governor Bernard kept the general court in session for as short a time as possible, and only summoned them to meet to hear instructions and orders from the British ministry. Often when he called a meeting, they were suddenly prorogued, if found deliberating on measures to vindicate and preserve their rights. While together at the regular session in May and June, the house chose a committee, by recommendation of the governor, to inquire who were active in the riots of 1765, though they then declined making compensation to the sufferers. The committee met and gave notice to the governor, who had said, that the rioters were known, and that proof could be easily given, if an investigation. should be made. But he was not able to produce evidence to fix the charge on any individuals. Still he complained" that justice was not done, that the house was disposed to wink the matter out of sight," and intimated that the inhabitants of the town were answerable for the disorders, unless they would detect the individuals who had committed them. In October, the governor summoned a special meeting of the general court, and desired them to say expressly, whether they would, or would not grant compensation to those, whose property was destroyed by the mob, the preceding autumn: and he was so

unwise as to tell them, when that single subject was decided, he should immediately send them home. To this ungracious speech, the house of representatives replied with great firmness and decision; and alluded to his former message on the subject, in which he spoke neither with becoming dignity nor good temper. "The manner in which your excellency has repeatedly urged compensation to the sufferers by the riots," (they say) "is derogatory to the honor of the house, and in breach of the privileges thereof. The terms used are very different from those dictated by the king's express command, as signified in a letter from the secretary of state. They tend to weaken the inherent, uncontrollable right of the people to dispose of their own money to such purposes as they shall deem expedient, and to no other. The house, however, with most dutiful and profound respect for his majesty's gracious and mild recommendation, have passed a bill, to be sent to the several towns in the province for the consideration of the people; granting compensation to the sufferers, and a general indemnity and pardon to the offenders." The preamble to the bill was as follows: As the king's most excellent majesty, from a desire that the sufferers in the late riots should be compensated, and a veil be drawn over the late unhappy excesses, has been pleased to signify his intention to forgive and forget them, at the same time, in his abundant clemency recommending compensation to the sufferers; from a grateful sense of his majesty's grace and clemency, in order to promote peace and safety, to make compensation to said sufferers, and thus to demonstrate to the world a sense of the happiness we enjoy, in being a part of the British empire, and being entitled to the rights, liberties and privileges of British subjects, we, his majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the representatives of the commons of this province, in general court assembled, have resolved to give and grant," &c.

This bill was passed in December, 1766; and resolves were also adopted by the house, declaring the reasons for making the compensation; which were, "from a loyal and grateful regard to the king's mild and gracious recommendation, from deference to the opinions of the illustrious friends of the colonies in England, and for the sake of internal peace and order, without regard to any interpretation of his majesty's recommendation into a requisition precluding all debate and controversy; under a full persuasion that the sufferers had no just claim on the province; and that this compliance ought not, hereafter, to be drawn into a precedent." The resolves further assert, "that the resolutions of the house of representatives had not, as