the American Governments destitute of means for preserving order. Nowhere was this more completely the case than in the democratic province of Massachusetts, whose very Constitution portended mischief. In a letter to Lord Halifax, written the day after the riot, Governor Bernard entered upon the subject. 'As to myself,' he observes, 'I am so utterly unable to oppose or correct an insurrection of this kind that it would be the highest folly to attempt it.'1 He repeats a few days later, to Mr. Jackson, the friend and secretary of Lord Halifax, who was also Provincial Agent, the details he had given to the Minister, and then remarks: It has been my opinion that the first thing to be done in America was to regulate, support, and strengthen the Governments. In case of popular tumult I cannot command ten men that can be depended upon. The Militia are worse than no soldiers at all; and there is not, that I know of, a corps of regulars within two hundred miles of me. Under such a disability of government, to send hither ordinances for execution, which the people have publickly protested against as illegal, and not binding upon them, without first providing a power to enforce obedience, is tempting them to revolt.2 The Governor and Council had, indeed, issued a proclamation for the discovery and arrest of insurgents, but they had no means of enforcing it. The next extract given by Belsham, from a private letter of the correspondent previously quoted, runs as follows: It is difficult to conceive the fury which at present possesses the people of Boston of all orders and degrees of men. If a gentleman in common conversation signifies his disapprobation of this insurrection, his person is immediately in danger.' And Bancroft glories over this state of affairs, which he describes vigorously: 3 'The prisons,' said Mayhew, 'would not hold them many Letter from Governor Bernard to the Earl of Halifax,' dated 15 August, 1765.' Quoted in Life of Sir Francis Bernard. 2 Letter from Governor Bernard to Richard Jackson, Esq.,' dated 24 August, 1765.' Quoted in Life of Sir Francis Bernard. 3 Belsham, Memoirs of the Reign of George III. Appendix to vol. ii. FRESH OUTRAGES 9 hours. In this town and within twenty miles of it, ten thousand men would soon be collected together on such an occasion.' And on the next Lord's Day but one, before a crowded audience, choosing as his text, 'I would they were even cut off which trouble you; for, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty,' he preached fervidly in behalf of civil and religious freedom.1 Fresh outrages followed at once, which are curtly disposed of by Bancroft: At nightfall on the 26th a bonfire in front of the old State House collected a mixed crowd. They first burnt all the records of the hated Vice-Admiralty Court, next ravaged the house of the Comptroller of the Customs, and then, giving Hutchinson and his family barely time to escape, split open his doors with broad axes, broke his furniture, scattered his plate and ready money, his books and manuscripts, and at daybreak left his house a ruin. A letter quoted by Belsham gives some details of this riot, which agree with Mr. Hutchinson's own account in his 'Diary.' The letter states: August 31.-It is with the utmost concern that I am obliged to continue the subject of my last letters. After the demolition of Mr. Oliver's house was found so practicable and easy, and that the Government was obliged to look on without being able to take one step to prevent it, and the principal people of the town publicly avowed and justified the act, the mob became highly elated. The Lieutenant-Governor had been apprised that there was an evil spirit gone forth against him; but being conscious that he had not in the least deserved to be made a party in regard to the Stamp Act or the Custom House, he rested in full security that the mob would not attack him, and he was at supper with his family when he received advice that the mob was coming to him. He immediately sent away his children, and determined to stay in the house himself; but happily his eldest daughter returned, and declared she would not stir from the house unless he went with her; by which means she got him away, which was undoubtedly 1 Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Epoch ii. ch. xi. It should be observed that, in an earlier edition of Bancroft's History, published by Routledge, the epithet 'incendiary preacher' is applied to Mayhew. In the edition from which I have quoted, these words, though accurately descriptive of Mayhew, are omitted. the occasion of saving his life. Everything moveable was destroyed in the most minute manner, except such things of value as were worth carrying off. But the loss to be most lamented is a large and valuable collection of MSS. and original papers; as these related to the history and policy of the country from the time of its settlement to the present time, and was the only collection of its kind, the loss to the public is great and irretrievable.1 2 Mr. Hutchinson himself estimated the damage done to him, so far as it could be pecuniarily estimated, at 2,500l., a much more considerable sum in his day than now, but he seems to have understated his loss; moreover, the value of the archives just mentioned and of some of his private property could not be priced in money. Nothing was left in the house and cellars except the furniture of a kitchen, and the rioters even 'pulled down as much of the partitions and roof of the house as the time between eight o'clock in the evening and four in the morning would admit.' As regards his History, the Lieutenant-Governor states that it was so far advanced as to be little affected by the catastrophe. Yet it was apparently delayed by this and perhaps other troubles. He afterwards wrote the history of the years which came within his own observation, and that supplementary volume was published in England.3 The events of this dreadful night made a deep impression upon Julia Bernard, then in her sixth year. She says in her Reminiscences: While the family was resident at Castle William my father came one night in his barge from Boston and brought LieutenantGovernor Hutchinson, his sister and two daughters, whom he had thus rescued from the fury of the mob. They had forced the house; the family fled for their lives; my father's barge was in waiting for him, and he took them under his protection. The house was stripped of everything, and pulled down that night. They had nothing but what they had on; I can remember my mother getting them out clothes, and ordering beds to be prepared. Terror and distress sat upon their countenances. 1 Belsham, Memoirs of the Reign of George III., vol. ii. Appendix, ' Letter of August 31.' 2 Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, vol. i. ch. iii. Long after his death. THE LIEUT.-GOVERNOR'S HOUSE 11 Of the sequel to this misfortune Mr. Hutchinson writes: The Superior Court was to be held the next morning in Boston. The Chief Justice, who was deprived of his robes and all other apparel, except an undress he was in when the mob came, appeared in that undress and an ordinary great coat over it, which he borrowed, and to as crowded an audience as ever appeared in Court, instead of the usual charge to the Grand Jury, he addressed himself,1 describing at some length his destitute condition and the dangerous state of the town. He spoke near half an hour to the people who, the same forenoon, assembled in as great a crowd at Faneuil Hall, and with one voice expressed their detestation of the disorders the evening preceding, a great number of the actors and promoters being present.' In the evening Mr. Hutchinson returned to the Castle for that night; after which he retired, though not without apprehensions of danger,' to his house at Milton. In Boston he had no longer a home: People came in from many parts of the country [he writes sadly] to view the ruins of the Lieutenant-Governor's house, outbuildings, garden, &c., and from the shocking appearance could not help expressing a disapprobation of such acts of violence. Their prejudices, however, were not abated against the Stamp Act. The execution of it must be hindered some other way.2 At this crisis3 the preacher Mayhew, and also the popular leader, Samuel Adams, ostensibly condemned the attack on the Chief Justice; but their half-hearted utterances were of little use, since these demagogues continued to laud the rioters of the 14th, holding that Mr. Oliver had deserved punishment for consenting to act as Stamp Distributor, and were also foremost among those who publicly consecrated the great elm, on which the effigies had hung, as 'The Tree of Liberty.' Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, vol. i. ch. iii. 2 Ibid., History of Massachusetts from 1749 to 1774, ch. ii. Why Mr. Hutchinson should have been selected as a principal victim requires consideration. He had always been highly respected; so, indeed, had Secretary Oliver; but the Lieutenant-Governor had, moreover, a widespread reputation, of which the province up to that time had seemed proud, and was in no way connected with the Stamp Act, which he was known to dislike.1 Mr. Hutchinson seems to have believed that the merchants who had been branded as ' illicit traders' were ringleaders in the riot; and certainly the letter quoted by Belsham speaks of the 'principal people in the town' as publicly justifying the act. But, as already observed, the paper-money question must have made Mr. Hutchinson many more enemies, and of all classes, with the fatal climax that he had thus made Samuel Adams his enemy, and that Adams had men of various grades, down to the lowest, at his beck and call. It need hardly be said that the person or persons who either let loose the populace with full license to commit outrages, or even failed to restrain the lawless mob at such a critical moment, incurred a grave responsibility; and amongst these must be included not only merchants and professional agitators, but also ministers of the Mayhew type. Some wished to stop the movement when it was too late-and wished in vain. It was now [says the writer quoted by Belsham] becoming a war of plunder, of general levelling, and taking away the distinction of rich and poor, so that those gentlemen who had promoted and approved the cruel treatment of Mr. Oliver became now as fearful for themselves as the most loyal person in the town could be.2 Mr. Hutchinson relates that The Justices of the Peace being ordered to attend the Governor and Council, one, who had been most active in town meetings, &c., complained that his own life had been threatened, and wept. 'Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, vol. i. ch. iii., and Hist. Mass., ch. ii.; Hosmer, Samuel Adams, ch. iv., ' In the Massachusetts Assembly.' 2 Belsham, Memoirs of the Reign of George III., vol. ii. Appendix, 'Letter of August 31.' |