Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Hutchinson to Thomas Whately, June , also refers to Hancock’s wealth and
“great influence over the populace,” Mauduit Franklin , and Commodore
Samuel Hood wrote George Grenville July that he was “by far the richest man
in the province,” Grenville IV . As to his extensive business activities, Baxter
Hancock – and Brown Hancock –.
John Hancock had the unique distinction at this time of being both a selectman
of Boston and one of its four representatives in the Mass. House of Representa-
tives, Boston Records (for –) , .
Commissioners’ statement to the Treasury May , , concerning Hancock’s
and others’ opposition to them, enclosed in letter of the same date from Samuel
Venner, Secretary to the American Customs Boards, to Thomas Bradshaw, Sec-
retary to the Treasury Board, T::, , P.R.O.
One of the complaints against the Commissioners, published in the New York Jour-
nal of March , , was the affectation by these “mushroom gentry” of “high life,
not only in their dress, attendants and in rolling from house to house in their char-
iots the best of weather”; but in dining at the “courtly hour” of four, when the “hours
for dining in this town, time out of mind” was one or two o’clock, Journal of Times
. Hutchinson [to Whately] Aug. and , , explained that in allegedly “tak-
ing too much state upon them,” the Commissioners were merely following the
practice of the English Customs Board, Mass. Arch. XXVI –.
John Palfrey to William Holt June , , Palfrey New Eng. V and Gov. John
Wentworth of N.H. to Paul Wentworth Nov. , Mayo Langdon n. and to “Dr.
Belham” Aug. , Mayo Wentworth , concerning the Commissioners’ arrogance.
The attitude of Hulton may be gathered from his letter to an unidentified corre-
spondent June , , deploring the death of so many British officers at Bunker
Hill, particularly because they were killed by enemies not one of whom “has the
least pretension to be called a gentleman,” Hulton Letters .
Similar comments by others: Thomas Cushing to Dennys De Berdt Sept. , ,
Cushing S. Adams I ; John Rowe’s diary for Dec. as to the “very Insolent” be-
havior of “their High Mightinesses,” Rowe ; Hutchinson’s nephew, Nathaniel
Rogers, to W. S. Johnson Nov. , spoke of the Commissioner’s carrying “their
Ideas of Superiority” too high as “one great cause of their ill usage,” Shipton Har-
vard Graduates XIII .
Joshua Loring to John Swift, Collector of Customs at Philadelphia, Aug. , , at-
tributed Swift’s difficulties with the Board to his letters not having “Flummery eno’
in them alias not big eno’ with respect,” Custom House Papers XI , Hist. Soc.
of Pa., and Hutchinson wrote Whately in Aug., , “There is too much hauteur,
some of their officers say, in the treatment they receive,” Mauduit Franklin .
The American Customs Board, as its name implies, also was responsible for en-
forcement of British duties levied in the colonies, and Hutchinson wrote Whately
in Aug., , that one of the reasons for the Board’s extreme unpopularity was
that because the Townshend Act duties happened to take place just about the time
the Commissioners arrived, people “have absurdly connected [imposition] of the
duties and the Board...,” same.
The Commissioners wrote the Treasury Feb. , , that for two years and a half
before their arrival only six seizures for violations of the British acts of trade and
customs had been made in New England, Barrow “Customs Service” .
Hutchinson wrote Lord Hillsborough Feb. , , of the Commissioners’ exer-
tions “to restore the Acts of Trade which for two or three years together no officer
dared to carry into execution,” same , and Bernard wrote in similar vein to Bar-
rington Feb. , , Barrington–Bernard .
Hutchinson wrote Whately Aug. [no day], , that he was satisfied the root of
the complaints against the Commissioners was their “vigilance...in carrying the
acts of trade into execution...especially in this port where the Board is con-
stantly held,” Mauduit Franklin . (The staff of customs officers at Boston and
additional officers recommended for better enforcement are given in a letter
from the Collector and Comptroller at Boston to the American Customs Board
April , , Wolkins “Boston Customs District” –.)
Copy of the merchants’ protest, Document : in the Price Papers, Mass.
Hist. Soc. Additional evidence of the Commissioners’ activities at Boston and the
baneful effects on trade there will be found in Dickerson Boston , , –,
and Dickerson Navigation Acts –, –, –, –. Wroth “Mass.
Vice-Admiralty Court” points out that suits for violations of British Acts of
Trade and Revenue in the Mass. Admiralty Court rose from three or four a year
in – to twenty-four in and twenty-eight in .
Temple (son-in-law of James Bowdoin, a leading Boston Whig), who disassociated
himself as far as practicable from the other Commissioners, Wolkins “Liberty”
n., n., Barrington–Bernard Corresp. and Hulton Letters , complained to
Grenville Nov. , , of his fellow Commissioners’ undue severity, Grenville IV
, but in writing the Duke of Grafton Oct. , , of the injury to trade at
Boston from the Board’s “unnecessary severities” he blamed these on instructions
(now missing) received from England, Barrow “Colonial Customs” .
The Fortune (stationed at Boston in under the new enforcement program, de-
scribed in Chapter ) left Boston in July, , John Rowe’s diary for July , Rowe
. Apparently she was not replaced until the Romney arrived at Boston in May,
. According to a letter of July , , from Bernard to the British Admiralty,
the Fortune’s commander, Captain Thomas Bishop, had “so discouraged the prac-
tice of illegal trade” at Boston that there was now “less of it in this port than in
other places,” Quincy Reports n., which may explain the delay in replacing the
Fortune.
American Customs Board to Treasury Board Feb. , , intimating the neces-
sity for troops and ships of war at Boston to assist the Board in its enforcement
measures, Wolkins “Liberty” , and to Commodore Samuel Hood March ,
, for naval support at Boston, Channing History III .
Gov. Bernard wrote Lord Shelburne March and , , as to the need for
troops at Boston, Letters to Ministry –, and on May , Paxton wrote Lord
Townshend “Tis the Opinion of the wisest Men here that unless we have imme-
diately three or four men of war and at least one Regiment [at Boston] every thing
will be in the greatest confusion and disorder,” Wolkins “Paxton” . Paxton had
written in similar vein to Lord Townshend on Feb. , same .
Instructions dated May , , from Samuel Hood as “Commander in Chief of
His Majesty’s Ships and Vessels employed...in the River St. Lawrence Along the
Coast of Nova Scotia...to New York” to Captain John Corner, commander of the
Romney, to “proceed without loss of time...to Boston,” Wolkins “Liberty” –.
John Rowe’s diary for May , , records the arrival of the Romney “this day in
Kingsroad [Boston],” Rowe .
By June , , Corner had impressed eighteen men, Report of Committee of
Mass. Council to the Council June , same n. Hutchinson wrote Jackson June
that, although Corner had refrained from pressing men “belonging to the Prov.
[Massachusetts] who have families,” his seizure of “Seamen out of all inward
bound Vessels” had aroused so much fear that “it prevents Coasters as well as
other Vessels coming in freely, and it adds more fewel to the great stock among us
before,” same .
Gov. Edward Trelawney of Jamaica to Duke of Newcastle July , , Knollen-
berg Origin , n..
Section of Anne ch. () exempted from impressment all persons in the
colonies except deserters from the British navy. The grounds for the view that this
act prohibiting impressment in the colonies was still in force in are set forth
in Knollenberg Origin , and John Adams’ proposed argument in Rex. v.
Corbet () Adams Legal Papers II –. See also the appendix to Chapter of
this volume relating to the Corbet case.
The Commissioners wrote the Treasury Board March , , that persons who
had applied for “the usual indulgences” with respect to imports of wine had been
told that “full Duties would be required,” Wolkins “Liberty” . Hutchinson had
earlier (Oct. , ) written Richard Jackson that the custom officers at Boston
must be winking at the illegal importation of “Wines from the Islands,” since they
“are sold so Cheap that there is no need of other Evidence that they pay no duty,”
Mass. Arch. XXV –.
The “indulgence” allowed with respect to wine perhaps was similar to that with
respect to the duty on foreign colonial molasses, described in Knollenberg Origin
–, –, namely to permit the importer to declare for duty only a small
fraction of the molasses.
Commissioners to Treasury Board March , , reporting the refusal to grant
Daniel Malcom, among others, “the usual indulgence” with respect to a cargo of
expected wine, Wolkins “Liberty” . As to the subsequent landing of this
“Fayal” (Azores) wine without payment of duty and the refusal of witnesses to tes-
tify against Malcom, same and Bernard to Shelburne March , Letters to Ministry
. (An earlier
——clash between Malcom and Boston customs officers is de-
scribed in the appendix to Chapter .)
The affidavit of the informer, Thomas Kirk, as to the alleged violation on May ,
dated June , , is in Letters to Ministry –. Kirk explained his long delay
in lodging the information by stating he had been fearful of reprisals if he failed to
keep silent, Adams Legal Papers II n..
The Commissioner’s proceedings, including the order to the Collector and the
seeking of legal advice before ordering seizure of the Liberty, are described in the
sources cited in same n..
Harrison, Collector of the Port of Boston, to Rockingham June , , as to ar-
ranging for assistance from the Romney and seizure of the Liberty, Watson “Harri-
son” . The cutting or affixing of a broad arrow was the customary method of
formally seizing a ship or cargo as the basis for condemnation proceedings for al-
leged violation of British laws of trade or customs. Hutchinson to Jackson June
mentions that the “broad arrow” was cut on the mast of the Liberty, Wolkins “Lib-
erty” .
The seizure of the Liberty for alleged false entry was clearly legal and justified. But
the attempt to secure condemnation, on a technicality, of some tar and oil in the
Liberty; another suit, inspired by the Commissioners, for extremely heavy penal-
ties against Hancock and associates for smuggling wine from the Liberty; and the
harassment of Hancock over another of his vessels, the Lydia, have led respected
scholars to charge the Commissioners with “racketeering.” I agree with the edi-
tors of the Adams Legal Papers, that the Commissioners’ actions probably were not
improper, same , , , –.
The absence of opposition to the customs officers’ formal seizure of the Liberty is
clearly implied in Hutchinson to Jackson June , , Wolkins “Liberty” , and
Harrison to Rockingham June , Watson “Harrison” . Hutchinson to Jack-
son June , , stated that “the Comptroller [Benjamin Hallowell]...made a
signal for the man of war boats to come ashoar,” Wolkins “Liberty” .
Hutchinson to Jackson June , , as to the Liberty incident, same –.
Hutchinson wrote Thomas Whately June that “it is pretended that the removal
and not the seizure incensed the people. It seems not very material which it was,”
Mauduit Franklin . It was, of course, highly material toward establishing that
there was no effort to prevent the customs officers from doing their duty in for-
mally seizing the Liberty and that they were attacked only after, and because, the
landing party, coming ashore at Hallowell’s signal, conducted itself as described in
Hutchinson’s letter to Jackson cited in note above.
The affidavits of numerous eyewitnesses that the customs officers were not at-
tacked until the move was made to remove the Liberty from her berth are published
in American Gazette No. –. According to these affidavits, the landing party’s
conduct was particularly provocative because the master of the landing party
used abusive language and gave orders, luckily not obeyed, for his men to fire. See
also Boston committee’s statement of June , , in Boston Records (for –
) . (The word fasts is misprinted forts there.)
Report of the Liberty incident in the Commissioners’ Minutes of June , , en-
closed in a memorial to the Treasury dated June is in Letters to Ministry –.
The report of Bernard to Secretary of State Lord Hillsborough June and is
in same –. The misimpression given by this letter and the Commissioners’ re-
port or both is reflected in the statement concerning the incident in the opinion of
Attorney-General William De Grey July , Wolkins “Liberty” –.
A report dated June , , of a committee including two of the town’s leading
lawyers, John Adams and Richard Dana, appointed to investigate the Liberty riot,
denounced the cutting of the vessel from her moorings and removing her from her
berth as illegal, Boston Records (for –) –. This view seems to be
sound in view of the fact that the Liberty had not even been libeled, much less con-
demned, when the seizure was made. She was not libeled until June , and not
condemned until Aug. , , Adams Legal Papers II , .
Report of a committee of the Mass. Council June , , as to Captain Corner’s
assurance not to impress certain categories of seamen, Wolkins “Liberty” n.
and statement in the Boston Chronicle of June .
Proceedings against the Liberty in the Admiralty Court at Boston and her con-
demnation Aug. , , on the ground that wine had been unloaded from her
before the ship had been entered for customs as required by Cha. II ch.
sec. (), Adams Legal Papers II – and sources therein cited. Suits filed on
Oct. against Hancock and four others for treble the value of the wine illegally
imported by the Liberty, for having allegedly connived in the illegal importation,
were dismissed on motion of the Crown March , , same , .
Chapter
Rumors of Lord Chatham’s mental illness were current as early as April and May,
, Walpole to Mann Apr. and May , Lewis Walpole XXII –; Lord
George Sackville to John Irwin Apr. , Stopford I ; Lady Chatham to Lord
Temple April , Grenville IV ; Edmund Burke to Lady Rockingham Apr. ,
Burke I ; Franklin to Cadwallader Evans May , Smyth Franklin V ; William
Samuel Johnson to William Pitkin May , Trumbull . Details of Chatham’s
mental collapse are given in Williams Pitt II –, .
On July , , Chatham wrote the King, in Lady Chatham’s hand, reporting his
“utter disability” to suggest a plan requested by the King, Geo. III I , , with
comment in Namier Additions –, and on July , Thomas Whately wrote
George Grenville that Chatham was reported to be “most of the day leaning his
head upon his hands...[and] is so averse to speaking, that he commonly inti-
mates his desire to be let alone, by some signal rather than by any expression,”
Grenville IV –.
The quoted characterization of the Duke of Grafton is from John Brooke’s sketch
of him in Namier and Brooke Commons II . Grafton, thirty-one years old when
he became head of the Ministry, had served in the House of Commons for a few
months in and since then in the House of Lords; but had held important
offices for less than two years.
Negotiations of the Ministry with Lord Rockingham were opened through Henry
Seymour Conway on the evening of July , , Rockingham to the Duke of
Newcastle July , with Newcastle to John White, July , Newcastle –.
The negotiations for a “broad-bottom” Ministry including followers of Rocking-
ham, the Duke of Bedford, and Grenville, described in Brooke Chatham –,
failed July , , when Bedford refused Rockingham’s demand that Conway
remain Leader in the House of Commons, same –; Newcastle’s memoran-
dum of July , Newcastle ; Whately to Grenville July , Phillimore Lyttelton II
–. I do not know why Bedford took this stand. Perhaps he thought that with
Conway as Leader in the Commons, the Rockingham party would be overpow-
ering or considered Conway too pro-colonial to be acceptable.
Negotiations between Grafton and Rockingham independently of the Bedfords
broke down on July , , when Rockingham refused to “undertake Adminis-
tration but upon full power given him by the King himself,” Rockingham’s
undated memorandum written apparently soon after July , Rockingham Papers
R :; and Rockingham to Newcastle July , Newcastle –.
The negotiations and arrangement as to offices for Lords Gower and Weymouth
and two other Bedfordites, are described in Horace Walpole to Horace Mann
Dec. and , , Lewis Walpole XXII , –, Whately to Grenville
Dec. , Grenville IV –. Grafton to the King Dec. –, Geo. III I –,
and memoranda and letters of Lord Shelburne Dec. –, Shelburne II – and
Pitt III –, give further details. Gower was appointed President of the Coun-
cil Dec. , , and Weymouth Secretary of State Jan. , .
Since Leadership of the House of Commons was not a formal office, the date of
accession can sometimes be ascertained, as in the instant case, only by reference
to the time when the old Leader ceases and the new begins to report the proceed-
ings of the House to the King. Conway’s last known report is dated Feb. , ,
Lord North’s first, Feb. , Ellis rd Ser. IV and Geo. III II . Conway appar-
ently remained in the Council until well into . Walpole’s “Journal of Events,”
under date of Nov. , , mentions Conway’s having “left the Cabinet Coun-
cil.” See also Namier and Brooke Commons I .
Charles Townshend’s unexpected death Sept. , , was reported in Gentleman’s
Mag. for Sept., , XXXVII . North was appointed Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer Oct. , , same for Oct., , XXXVII , and North wrote his fa-
ther, Lord Guilford, Oct. , , that he was to be called to the Cabinet, North
“North” . According to letters from Newcastle to Lord Mansfield Sept. and
Walpole to Mann Sept. , Lewis Walpole XXII n., , the King promised
North that after his father’s death he should have the continuance of a pension en-
joyed by his father.
The general election of March, , is discussed in Winstanley Chatham –;
Brooke Chatham Administration –; Namier and Brooke Commons –. The
election seems to have been even more corrupt than usual, Winstanley Chatham
–; Franklin’s letters May and , , Smyth Franklin V , , ;
Johnson to Pitkin Apr. , Trumbull –. (The new, Thirteenth, Parliament sat
briefly in May, , but passed only one act—an act extending the life of several
acts about to expire.)
The dissension between Shelburne and other members of the Cabinet, Jacques
Bataille de Francés, French Chargé d’Affaires in London, to the Duc de Choiseul
July , , Bancroft Papers Vol. ; Knox to Grenville Sept. , Grenville IV ;
the King to Grafton Sept. and Oct. , , Geo. III II –, ; Shelburne and
Grafton correspondence June and Sept., Shelburne II , –; William Ge-
rard Hamilton to John Calcraft July , Pitt III –n.
Shelburne resigned Oct. , , London Chronicle Oct. , thus forestalling the
projected dismissal of him, discussed in the King to Grafton Oct. , Geo. III II .
Shelburne’s procedure in resigning is described in Whately to Grenville Oct. ,
Grenville IV .
Lord Rochford succeeded Shelburne Oct. , , Beatson Pol. Index I . As to
Rochford’s career, D.N.B. His political tie, if any, was apparently with Lord Albe-
marle (who was in turn affiliated with Newcastle and Rockingham), Newcastle to
Albemarle Sept. , , Winstanley Chatham n. He had been talked of as
Shelburne’s successor some months earlier, William Gerard Hamilton to John
Calcraft Aug. , , Pitt III n.
Chatham wrote Grafton Oct. , , stating his wish to resign because of ill
health and on Oct. , to the King, declining to reconsider, Geo. III II , –.
Though Chatham’s letter to the King assigned only ill health as the ground for
resignation, his letter to Grafton and a memorandum of Lady Chatham of Oct.
indicate that the report (confirmed to him by Grafton, Grafton ) of the pro-
posed dismissal of Shelburne was an important factor. Chatham also was offended
by the removal of his friend Gen. Sir Jeffery Amherst from the sinecure Gover-
norship of Va., Geo. III II .
Lord Bristol succeeded Chatham as Lord Privy Seal on Nov. , Beatson Pol. Index
I , but without a seat in the Cabinet, Grafton , . Weymouth switched at
this time to the more important Southern Department following Shelburne’s res-
ignation, and Rochford took the Northern, same n.
Hillsborough, North, and Rochford may be classified as so-called “King’s
Friends” in the sense that, not being “friends,” i.e., followers of the leader of any
political bloc, they depended exclusively on the King for their political fortunes.
King’s speech and replies of both Houses Nov. , , Parl. Hist. XVI –.
(The King in making his opening speech was regarded as speaking for the Min-
istry, Johnson to Pitkin Nov. , Trumbull .)
Resolutions by Hillsborough denouncing the conduct of Mass. and Boston were
introduced into the House of Lords Dec. , , and promptly adopted, Parl.
Hist. XVI –; Journals H. of L. XXXII –.
Bedford’s proposed Address to the King asking him to obtain information as to
treason in Mass., same citations as in note above. The act for punishing trea-
son or misprision of treason committed outside the realm, referred to in the Ad-
dress, was Henry VIII ch. (), which the Solicitor General, John Dunning,
stated in the House of Commons was still in force and applied to the colonies,
Johnson to Pitkin Feb. , , Trumbull .
North’s leadership in the debate in the Commons Jan. , , Cavendish Debates
I –. North stated that “The meeting of the th September [in Boston], the
voting a standing army to be contrary to the bill of rights, the calling upon the in-
habitants to arm on the report of a French war, and the intention to seize Castle
William were all acts...approaching treason. . . .” As to the apparently un-
founded rumor of a plan to seize Castle William at the entrance to Boston harbor,
Miller Sam Adams . The other acts referred to by North are described in Chap-
ter of this volume.
Resolutions and address of the House of Lords concerning Mass. debated and
adopted by the Commons Jan. and reaffirmed Feb. , , by rejection,
to , of a motion to recommit, Charles Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. Feb. ,
S.C. Hist. Mag. XXXI () –; Parl. Hist. XVI –. The resolutions were
based on letters submitted to both Houses from Francis Bernard, Governor of
Mass., the American Board of Customs Commissioners, and others, listed in Jour-
nals H. of L. XXXII –, painting in lurid colors the opposition in Mass. to
British measures, particularly the Townshend Act.
The King’s reply to the Address Feb. , , same . Lord Barrington, Secre-
tary at War, to Gov. Bernard Feb. , , Barrington–Bernard Corresp. , referred
to James Otis, chairman of the Boston town meeting of Sept. , , and the
Boston selectmen, including John Hancock, as particular culprits who should be
punished.
Hillsborough to Bernard Feb. , , directing him to gather and transmit such
evidence of treason or misprision of treason as would support a prosecution in En-
gland under the Treason Act of Henry VIII, Instructions to the Governors,
Mass. Hist. Soc. This letter from a member of the Cabinet militates against the
credibility of a statement by a non-Cabinet minister ( joint Secretary of the Trea-
sury), Grey Cooper, in the Commons Feb. that the administration did not mean
“to put the [treason] act in execution, but only to shew to America what govern-
ment could do if pushed to it,” Parl. Hist. XVI .
Hillsborough’s undated memorandum proposing an act of Parliament concern-
ing Mass., enclosed in Hillsborough to the King Feb. , , Geo. III II –.
Hillsborough also made several less important suggestions concerning Mass. and
also N.Y., same –.
Hillsborough wrote the King Feb. , , that “The Lords of the Cabinet, ex-
cept Lord Chancellor [Camden] & General Conway, I rather think approved the
measures [set forth in Hillsborough’s memorandum], but none expressed them-
selves explicitly,” same .
The King’s undated memorandum unfavorably commenting on Hillsborough’s
proposals concerning Mass., described in the text, same –. The King made a
suggestion (same ) to provide for “dissolving the Commissions of the Peace in
the Province of Massachusetts,” presumably by an act of Parliament giving the
Crown or the Governor of Mass. authority to do this without the approval of the
Mass. Council as probably required by the charter of Mass.
The Cabinet not only rejected Hillsborough’s provocative proposals but spon-
sored an act ( Geo. III ch. ) modifying the colonial Quartering Act to make it
less unpalatable to the colonists, and acts ( Geo. III ch. , , and sec. ) lib-
eralizing the British restriction on the export of colonial rice, granting a bounty
on colonial raw silk imported into the Port of London, and exempting colonial raw
hides and skins from British tariff duties for a period of five years.
Thomas Pownall’s motion of April , , in the House of Commons for repeal
of the Townshend Act, and the proceedings on this proposal, Garth to S.C.
Comm. of Corresp., S.C. Hist. Mag. XXXI () –; Parl. Hist. XVI –;
Johnson to Pitkin Apr. , Trumbull ; Cavandish Debates I –; Franklin, not
wholly accurate, to Samuel Cooper Apr. , Smyth Franklin V .
Cabinet resolution of May , , for future repeal of the duties on paper, glass,
and paint, Grafton . The King favored retention of the duty on tea, Geo. III II
, but the statement in Bancroft History VI – that he persuaded North,
contrary to the latter’s wish, to vote against total repeal, is not supported by the
source, Cavendish Debates I , cited by Bancroft. (Hillsborough had earlier pro-
posed to exempt from the Townshend Act all colonies that made provision for
such support of their civil officers as the Crown approved, Hillsborough’s memo-
randum to the King about Feb. , Geo. III II –.)
Grafton’s statement in his autobiography that he, Lord Camden, Lord Granby,
and Conway had voted in favor of total repeal of the Townshend Act duties,
Grafton –. These four, together with Sir Edward Hawke, who was not pres-
ent at the meeting (same ) were the Chathamite members of the Cabinet. The
other members present were North and Lords Gower, Weymouth, Rochford, and
Hillsborough, same . (Grafton’s autobiography was not written until and
later, same viii.)
An undated letter from Camden to Hillsborough, written apparently about June
, , same –, objected to a statement in the minutes of the Cabinet meet-
ing of May , as recorded by Hillsborough (same ), that “It is the unanimous
opinion,” etc., furnishes contemporary evidence that there was division in the
Cabinet at the meeting of May . See also Grafton’s comment on Hillsborough’s
minutes of this meeting, same .
Statements of Grafton and Weymouth in the Lords, March , , quoted in the
text, Force VI . Grafton thought that if Sir Edward Hawke, who was absent,
had been present, he would have voted in favor of total repeal, Grafton . (Wey-
mouth recollected that the proposal for total repeal had been defeated by a tie
vote, Force VI . Since the minutes of the meeting reveal nine members pres-
ent, Grafton , Weymouth’s recollection of a tie vote must be mistaken, unless
one of the members present abstained from voting.)
Johnson to Pitkin May , , reporting that the Ministry had spread word of its
intention to propose partial repeal among “the merchants here, to be by them
transmitted to their correspondents abroad,” Trumbull . He thought the object
was “to create division among the colonies,” and wreck the non-importation
movement, and that, in any case, the colonists should take the announcement
with a grain of salt since the Ministry “may not continue in power” and anyway
“can never want pretences and plausible excuses” for not carrying the resolution
into effect, same .
Hillsborough’s circular letter of May , , announcing the proposed partial
repeal of the Townshend Act at the next session of Parliament, N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII
– and Grafton . Camden wrote Hillsborough on or about June object-
ing to the second sentence of Hillsborough’s circular letter, same , presumably
because of the provocative phrase, “men with factious and seditious views,”
which was not in the minutes of the meeting, same .
The Va. resolutions of May , , given in the text also asserted the right to pe-
tition the King for redress of grievances and to procure the concurrence of the
other citizens in this, Va. Journals (for –) –.
A copy of the circular letter from Peyton Randolph, Speaker of the House, to
other Speakers dated May , is in R.I. Col. Rec. VI –.
The sources for the statement in the text concerning resolutions in of the As-
semblies of N.J., Del., S.C., N.C., and N.Y., are in Jensen Founding , , ;
the R.I. Assembly’s resolution Oct. , , is in R.I. Col. Rec. VI . The Md.
resolutions and an accompanying order to the Speaker of the Md. Lower House
of Assembly to send copies of the resolutions to Speakers of the Assemblies of
other colonies, are in Md. Archives LXII –. For additional details, Jensen
Founding , , and sources cited therein.
Peter Gilman, Speaker of the N.H. Assembly, wrote Randolph Apr. , , ex-
pressing the thanks of the Assembly for the Va. resolutions and stating that their
“sentiments” were similar to those expressed in the Va. resolutions, N.H. Papers VII
, but I have found no record of any notice of Randolph’s letter by the Assem-
blies of Pa. or Ga. Joseph Galloway, Speaker of the Pa. Assembly, laid the resolu-
tions of the Md. Lower House and its Speaker’s accompanying letter before the
Assembly May , Pa. Assembly VII , but the Assembly apparently took no ac-
tion on the matter.
The Mass. resolutions of June , , similar to those of Va., Bradford Mass. Pa-
pers .
No evidence has been found that Gov. Bernard of Mass. tried to carry out Hills-
borough’s instruction of Feb., , to secure information of treason or misprision
of treason on which to arrest and send the alleged offenders to Great Britain for
trial. But, as brought out in the discussion of the Gaspee affair in R.I. in , efforts
were then made to secure evidence on which persons could be indicted and sent
from R.I. to Great Britain to be tried for treason.
Chapter
As to George III’s determination to keep Wilkes from being seated in the House
of Commons, the King to Lord North Apr. , , and to Lord Hertford Jan. ,
, Geo. III II , . The King’s enmity to Wilkes probably was chiefly because
of slurs on the King’s mother and himself in The North Briton published by Wilkes
in , discussed in Bleackley Wilkes – and Knollenberg Origin –, –,
–.
John Wilkes’ repeated elections in and to the House of Commons by the
voters of populous Middlesex County (including a large part of London), his exclu-
sion from his seat on the ground of his conviction for criminal libel, and the House’s
seating of his chief opponent, Col. Henry Luttrell, whom he had last defeated by
a vote of to , are described in Bleackley Wilkes –; Rudé “Wilkes and
Liberty” –; Macoby English Radicalism –. Wilkes’ earlier conviction of
criminal libel and flight to France are described in Knollenberg Origin –.
Lord Chatham’s and William Dowdeswell’s motions in the Lords and Commons
respectively, Jan. , , to amend the proposed address of thanks to the King,
and their speeches in support of the motions, Parl. Hist. XVI –, –,
–.
Defeat of both motions for amendment, to in the Lords and to in
the Commons, same , .
Lord Camden spoke and voted in favor of Chatham’s motion Jan. , , same
–, . Camden was dismissed Jan. , , and his place as Lord Chan-
cellor was given the next day to Charles Yorke, London Mag. for Jan., XXXIX
. Yorke died a few days later, same, and no one was appointed to succeed him for
over a year, Beatson Pol. Index I .
Lord Granby voted in favor of Dowdeswell’s motion in the House of Commons,
Parl. Hist. XVI , and had collaborated with Chatham and Camden in pre-
paring the attack, Chatham’s correspondence Jan. –, , Pitt III –.
Granby resigned as Master General of the Ordnance on Jan. , , Gentleman’s