GOVERNOR BERNARD'S CONDUCT

173

work which speaks kindly of the Governor, whose character he describes at some length:

He was a man of excellent judgment, sincerely attached to the interests of the province, and of an irreproachable character; but he was also a defender of the prerogative of the Crown, and wanted the pliancy necessary in these difficult times; ardent, and totally devoid of dissimulation, he could never abstain from declaring his sentiments.1

There is one point open to comment in Botta's verdict. It is not easy to understand how any man could honestly be a Royal Governor, without upholding the prerogative—or authority of the Crown. When Mr. Bernard believed that concession was advisable, he apprised the British Government of his opinion on several occasions; more he could not do; but it is undeniable that he was not always in favour of concession or indulgence. It is, however, refreshing to learn that this Governor, accused of cowardice and duplicity by American nationalists and their English sympathisers, was 'ardent' and 'totally devoid of dissimulation.'

The Governor's son Thomas agrees with Signor Botta as to his open-heartedness, but, unlike him, believes that this quality conduced to his father's safety:

Though placed in a defenceless situation, exposed to the prejudices of the people, and abandoned to their mercy, no attacks or threats were directed personally at him. The gentlemen of Boston offered to associate for his defence; and though he was officially one of the objects of the periodical invectives of the popular party, the general expression was that no personal resentment existed against him, as what he did was justified by its being his duty. Nothing so much contributed to his security and preservation as that openness and candour of conduct which is here mentioned as his distinguished point of honour; though by some versatile

1 Botta (Carlo), Storia della Guerra d'Independenza degli Stati Uniti d'America. The passage above is quoted from the translation by G. A. Otis, but the word in the original, which is used in the plural, is the same-'prerogative.'

In an English dictionary 'prerogative' is defined as an exclusive or peculiar privilege, right, or authority' (Routledge's Pronouncing Dictionary, edited by Nuttall).

politicians it has since been stigmatised as the weak point of his political character.1

The accusations of cowardice, which have been launched against Sir Francis Bernard from sundry quarters, are disproved by the manner in which he faced the Assembly on critical occasions, the spirit with which he used his veto, and his unflinching discharge of his official duties in the worst times. Belsham, an English admirer of the American revolutionists, has borne testimony to the Governor's courage at the same time that he abuses him for his alleged vehemence :

The residence of the military at Boston, far from preserving the peace of the town, was the occasion of perpetual tumult and disturbance. The Governor, Sir Francis Bernard, from the violence of his temper, grew every day more obnoxious to the inhabitants, and the licentiousness of the Boston populace seemed to threaten his safety; notwithstanding which, he scrupled not to walk frequently alone and unattended at his villa in the vicinity of the metropolis. On being asked whether he had no apprehensions of danger, he replied: 'No, they are not a bloodthirsty people.' 2

This anecdote is also given by Thomas Bernard, and both writers ascribe it to the concluding period of the Governor's administration, when the political frenzy had risen to a dangerous point. It is also mentioned by the Whig historian, Gordon.3

Very few allusions have been made in these pages to the condition of any province but Massachusetts. Fuller notices might serve to illustrate the situation, but would also complicate the narrative unduly. There was more or less discontent and disloyalty in all the colonies, different as they were in their Constitutions and in the character of

Life of Sir Francis Bernard.

2 Belsham, Memoirs of the Reign of George III., vol. ii. book xvi.

3 Gordon (William, D.D.), History, &c., of the Independence of the U.S.A., Letter IV.

See ch. xxii. p. 149.

DISLOYALTY IN THE COLONIES

175

their inhabitants; and there were everywhere turbulent spirits to stir these feelings into action. But Massachusetts took a leading part. Mr. Whately wrote to Mr. Grenville at the very beginning of 1769, concerning events which had, of course, taken place some weeks previously :

It is hardly news, so much was it in expectation that the spirit raised in the colonies should break out in other places besides Boston, and show the narrowness of their views who think that preventing riots in one place is restoring order and subordination to Government in all. The Assemblies of South Carolina and Virginia have shown their factious spirit so much as to oblige the Governors to dissolve them, in order to prevent their agreeing immediately with the Boston resolution.1

An illustration of the threatening attitude of New York will fitly conclude the chronicle of this eventful year (1768). Commodore Hood wrote to Mr. Stephens, Secretary to the Admiralty, on November 25, stating that he had directed Captain Parker to remain at New York till further orders, and adds: Disturbances seem again to be renewed there; the General [Gage] and Governor Bernard have been lately burnt in effigy, in a most public manner.' 2

''Letter of Mr. Whately to Mr. Grenville, dated January 3rd, 1769,' in The Grenville Papers, vol. iv.

2. Copy of a Letter from Commodore Hood to Mr. Stephens, dated on board His Majesty's ship the Romney, in Boston Harbour, the 12th of December, 1768,' from 'Letters from Lord Hillsborough, General Gage, Commodore Hood,' &c., in the same volume as 'Letters to the Ministry.'

CHAPTER XXIV

THE LAST MONTHS IN MASSACHUSETTS

Action of the Selectmen-An Address to the King-A plain-spoken Conclusion of a 'Son of Liberty '-Samuel Seabury-Patent of Sir Francis Bernard's Baronetcy-Sir Francis ordered to England to report on the State of his Province The System of purloining Letters-Grievances of the Council against the Governor-A new Phase of the Conflict-The New Assembly decline to proceed to Business under Military Orders-Removal of Two Regiments to Halifax-A Pressgang Trial-A Committee of the House of Representatives show their Respect to the Governor of New HampshireThe Selectmen of Boston slight Sir Francis-Sir Francis's last public Appearance in Massachusetts-He embarks for England.

THE year 1769 opened without any prospect of improvement in the relations between the American colonies and the Mother Country. All through the winter a fierce controversy raged in the newspapers. Hosmer names the 'Massachusetts Gazette'-also known as 'Draper's' and the Court Gazette'-as the Government organ, and the 'Boston Gazette' as the special exponent of popular views. To this paper Samuel Adams was a constant contributor.

The official letter in which the Governor was bidden to remove all offending magistrates contained an injunction, equally absurd, to inquire into the causes of the late riots and bring the offenders to justice, although the experience of the Stamp Act riots and their sequences might have shown the futility of such an order. The situation was not materially altered by the arrival of a few soldiers, who were inhibited from any demonstration, except in case of an actual rising. General Gage's letter, written almost simultaneously with Governor Bernard's fuller account of the opposition to the quartering of the troops, and giving the General's independent view of the situation, seems, however,

1 Hosmer, Samuel Adams, ch. ix., 'The Recall of Bernard.'

ACTION OF THE SELECTMEN

177

to have once more roused the attention of the British Government, with the result that, for a short time, the socalled patriots were in dread of being called to account. Hutchinson states that

something very serious was generally expected. And the King's Speech, upon the meeting of Parliament, which was assembled earlier than usual, and before some of these facts could be known, accorded with this expectation.

The town of Boston was declared to be in a state of disorder and confusion; and their proceedings in town-meetings to be illegal and unconstitutional, tending to sedition and insurrection, and manifesting a design to set up a new and unconstitutional authority, independent of the Crown of Great Britain. The Commons, in their Address, gave the strongest assurances that they would zealously concur in measures for suppressing the daring spirit of disobedience, and enforcing a due submission to the laws; and both the Lords and Commons consider it as their duty to maintain inviolate the supreme authority of the Legislature of Great Britain over every part of the Empire. Private letters from England mentioned a supposed plan of intended measures in Parliament: that there should be a change in the constitution of the Council, and that the members of the House of Representatives should be elected by counties, and not towns; and that the chief promoters of the late measures should be apprehended and carried to England for trial.

It is certain, that, at first it was believed that Parliament would proceed with vigour; and some, who were afraid of being accounted chief promoters, began to exculpate themselves, and to charge others.1

The selectmen, acting on behalf of the town, now endeavoured, in two addresses, to extort from the Governor a general exoneration of its inhabitants; but his answers were too guarded to afford them satisfaction. The next move was an address to the King, to be presented by Colonel Barré, the prime advocate of the American nationalists in the British House of Commons.

Soon after these proceedings [continues Mr. Hutchinson] the resolves of Lords and Commons, declaring their sense of the

Hutchinson, Hist. Mass., ch. ii.

VOL. II.

N