Chapter II: Part 2

_25 Aug._--Mr. Henry Barnes, who lately arrived from England, has requested him, the Governor, to cover a letter from him to his Lordship, and to represent his sufferings and services in the cause of Government. Has not been made acquainted with the contents of the letter. Mr. Barnes has certainly suffered greatly by refusing to comply with the scheme of non-importation, and by his endeavours to support the authority of the magistrate; but in his solicitations for compensation he shows more impatience than could be wished. Is willing to attribute it to a mind chafed with his troubles, and impressed with a strong sense of his merit, which he supposes to exceed that of many others who have received the favours of Government. He complains of his, the Governor’s, neglecting him, in not particularly recommending his case when he went to England. Though he did not ask it, he yet concluded it had been done in the course of public correspondence. He, the Governor, transmitted an account of the incendiary letters, and would have been more particular had he been requested. Thought that for his general character, which is very good, he depended on Sir Francis Barnard, who held him in esteem, and to whom he was more particularly known. If there were anything in the province in his, the Governor’s, disposal worth accepting, would give it him, but there is not.

Makes his grateful acknowledgments to his Lordship for H.M.’s warrant to the Commissioners of the Customs for the payment of his salary. The fund on which the warrant is charged would rise to a very large sum if the illicit trade with Holland could be prevented.

The consumption of tea in America exceeds what anybody in England imagines. Some suppose five-sixths of the consumption in the last two years has been smuggled, and in Philadelphia and New York it is judged nine-tenths. The traders make such an extravagant profit that it will require more frequent seizures to discourage them than there is any reason to hope for. If the India Company had continued the sale of their teas at 2s. 2d. to 2s. 4d., as they sold them two years ago, the Dutch trade would have been over by this time; but now that teas are 3s. and upwards in England, the illicit trader can afford to lose one chest in three, whereas not one in a hundred has been seized. The custom-house officers on shore have strong inducements to do their duty, being entitled to a proportion of one-third or more, but they are really afraid of the rage of the people. The sea officers have of late been more active, and Admiral Montague appears disposed to keep out his cruisers. Doubts, however, whether this trade will ever be discouraged in any other way than by reducing the price in England to the exporter very near the price it is at in Holland. For want of this, the revenue has lost, the last and present years, at least 60,000_l._ sterling, from the 3d. duty only. Believes the cruisers are capable of doing more. Suggests that a greater proportion is necessary for the particular officer who makes the seizure under a commission from the Customs than what he is now entitled to. Has discovered, when he has sworn some of the Navy officers to qualify them for their commissions from the Customs, a great indifference and disinclination to make themselves obnoxious to the people without any great advantage to themselves.--Boston. R. 29th Oct.

_Thos. Hutchinson, Governor of [Massachusetts Bay], to Lord [Hillsborough]._

_10 Sept._--In reply to his Lordship’s private letter of 30 May, not received till he had closed his letter of the 25th August. Now submits an estimate of the consumption of Bohea tea in America. The two towns of Boston and Charlestown consume a chest, or about 340 lbs., per day. The towns are not more than one-eighth, perhaps not more than one-tenth of the province. Suppose they consume only 300 chests in the year, and allow that they are one-eighth, it will make 2,400 chests for the whole province. This is much short, for in the country towns there is much more tea drunk in proportion than at Boston. This province is not one-eighth part of the colonies; and in other Governments, New York especially, they consume tea in much greater proportion. If it be one-eighth, the whole continent consumes 19,200 chests, which at 4_l._ per chest, the 3d. duty only, amounts to 76,800_l._ But the computation is short in every part. In New York they import scarce any other than Dutch teas. In Rhode Island and Pennsylvania it is little better. In this province the Dutch traders are increasing. Has frequent information of large quantities when too late; and sometimes such persons are concerned as he thought could not have been capable of countenancing perjury or fraud. Cannot help repeating that unless the East India Company bring the price of tea so near to the price in Holland as to make the profit of importing from thence not equal to the risk, there will scarce be any imported from England. The acting collector at Falmouth, in Casco Bay, acknowledged it to be true that the Acts of Trade were broken every day in his district, but said the officers on shore could not prevent it. He suggested that the only way to prevent it was to increase the number of small schooners, and to keep one or more constantly cruising in the bay, rigged and fitted like schooners. “We have not virtue enough to become obnoxious to the people merely from a sense of duty.” It seems, therefore, best to have one officer only in each vessel with a commission from the Customs, and he to have the command, and to be entitled to all but the King’s half of the forfeiture; which would give him a good chance of making a small fortune. There does not seem to be the same reason for sharing any part among the crew or other officers as in cases of prizes taken in war, where all their lives are exposed; for in the present case there is no danger of resistance to an armed vessel, seeing that all the smugglers are themselves unarmed and depend entirely on concealment.--Boston. R. 29 October.

REFORMERS IN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDED TO SINK DIFFERENCES AND PROMOTE UNION (1771).

=Source.=--_Letters of Junius_ (Letter LIX.). London: G. Bell and Sons. 1910. Vol. i.

_To the Printer of the “Public Advertiser,” October 5, 1771._

SIR,

No man laments more sincerely than I do the unhappy differences which have arisen among the friends of the people, and divided them from each other. The cause undoubtedly suffers as well by the diminution of that strength which union carries with it as by the separate loss of personal reputation, which every man sustains when his character and conduct are frequently held forth in odious or contemptible colours. These differences are only advantageous to the common enemy of the country; the hearty friends of the cause are provoked and disgusted; the lukewarm advocate avails himself of any pretence to relapse into that indolent indifference about everything that ought to interest an Englishman, so unjustly dignified with the title of moderation; the false, insidious partisan, who creates or foments the disorder, sees the fruit of his dishonest industry ripen beyond his hopes, and rejoices in the promise of a banquet, only delicious to such an appetite as his own. It is time for those who really mean the _cause_ and the _people_, who have no view to private advantage, and who have virtue enough to prefer the general good of the community to the gratification of personal animosities,--it is time for such men to interpose; let us try whether these fatal dissensions may not yet be reconciled; or, if that be impracticable, let us guard at least against the worst effects of division, and endeavour to persuade these furious partisans, if they will not consent to draw together, to be separately useful to that cause which they all pretend to be attached to. Honour and honesty must not be renounced, although a thousand modes of right and wrong were to occupy the degrees of morality between Zeno and Epicurus. The fundamental principles of Christianity may still be preserved, though every zealous sectary adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious ecclesiastics make it part of their religion to persecute one another. The civil constitution, too, that legal liberty, that general creed, which every Englishman professes, may still be supported, though Wilkes and Horne, Townshend and Sawbridge, should obstinately refuse to communicate; and even if the fathers of the church, if Savile, Richmond, Camden, Rockingham, and Chatham, should disagree in the ceremonies of their political worship, and even in the interpretation of twenty texts in Magna Charta. I speak to the people as one of the people. Let us employ these men in whatever departments their various abilities are best suited to, and as much to the advantage of the common cause as their different inclinations will permit. They cannot serve _us_ without essentially serving themselves.

If Mr. Nash be elected, he will hardly venture, after so recent a mark of the personal esteem of his fellow-citizens, to declare himself immediately a courtier. The spirit and activity of the sheriffs will, I hope, be sufficient to counteract any sinister intentions of the lord mayor; in collision with _their_ virtue, perhaps he may take fire.

It is not necessary to exact from Mr. Wilkes the virtues of a Stoic. _They_ were inconsistent with themselves who, almost at the same moment, represented him as the basest of mankind, yet seemed to expect from him such instances of fortitude and self-denial as would do honour to an apostle; it is not, however, flattery to say, that he is obstinate, intrepid, and fertile in expedients; that he has no possible resource but in the public favour, is, in my judgment, a considerable recommendation of him. I wish that every man who pretended to popularity were in the same predicament; I wish that a retreat to St. James’s were not so easy and open as patriots have found it. To Mr. Wilkes there is no access. However he may be misled by passion or imprudence, I think he cannot be guilty of a deliberate treachery to the public; the favour of his country constitutes the shield which defends him against a thousand daggers, desertion would disarm him....

I have too much respect for the abilities of Mr. Horne to flatter myself that these gentlemen will ever be cordially reunited; it is not, however, unreasonable to expect that each of them should act his separate part with honour and integrity to the public. As for differences of opinion upon speculative questions, if we wait until _they_ are reconciled, the action of human affairs must be suspended for ever. But neither are we to look for perfection in any one man, nor for agreement among many. When Lord Chatham affirms that the authority of the British legislature is not supreme over the colonies in the same sense in which it is supreme over Great Britain; when Lord Camden supposes a necessity (which the king is to judge of), and, founded upon that necessity, attributes to the crown a legal power (not given by the Act itself) to suspend the operation of an act of the legislature, I listen to them both with diffidence and respect, but without the smallest degree of conviction or assent; yet I doubt not they delivered their real sentiments, nor ought they to be hastily condemned. I, _too_, have a claim to the candid interpretation of my country, when I acknowledge an involuntary compulsive assent to one very unpopular opinion. I lament the unhappy necessity, whenever it arises, of providing for the safety of the state by a temporary invasion of the personal liberty of the subject. Would to God it were practicable to reconcile these important objects in every possible situation of public affairs! I regard the legal liberty of the meanest man in Britain as much as my own, and would defend it with the same zeal. I know we must stand or fall together. But I never can doubt that the community has a right to command, as well as to purchase, the service of its members. I see that right founded originally upon a necessity which supersedes all argument; I see it established by usage immemorial, and admitted by more than a tacit assent of the legislature. I conclude there is no remedy in the nature of things for the grievance complained of; for if there were, it must long since have been redressed. Though numberless opportunities have presented themselves highly favourable to public liberty, no successful attempt has ever been made for the relief of the subject in this article. Yet it has been felt and complained of ever since England had a navy. The conditions which constitute this right must be taken together; separately, they have little weight. It is not fair to argue from any abuse in the execution to the illegality of the power, much less is a conclusion to be drawn from the navy to the land service. A seaman can never be employed but against the enemies of his country. The only case in which the king can have a right to arm his subjects in general is that of a foreign force being actually landed upon our coast. Whenever that case happens, no true Englishman will inquire whether the king’s right to compel him to defend his country be the custom of England or a grant of the legislature. With regard to the press for seamen, it does not follow that the symptoms may not be softened, although the distemper cannot be cured. Let bounties be increased as far as the public purse can support them.[5] Still they have a limit, and when every reasonable expense is incurred, it will be found, in fact, that the spur of the press is wanted to give operation to the bounty.

Upon the whole, I never had a doubt about the strict right of pressing, until I heard that Lord Mansfield had applauded Lord Chatham for delivering something like this doctrine in the House of Lords. That consideration staggered me not a little. But, upon reflection, his conduct accounts naturally for itself. He knew the doctrine was unpopular, and was eager to fix it upon the man who is the first object of his fear and detestation. The cunning Scotchman never speaks truth without a fraudulent design. In council he generally affects to take a moderate part. Besides his natural timidity, it makes part of his political plan never to be known to recommend violent measures. When the guards are called forth to murder their fellow-subjects, it is not by the ostensible advice of Lord Mansfield. That odious office, his prudence tells him, is better left to such men as Gower and Weymouth, as Barrington and Grafton. Lord Hillsborough wisely confines _his_ firmness to the distant Americans. The designs of Mansfield are more subtle, more effectual, and secure.--Who attacks the liberty of the press?--Lord Mansfield. Who invades the constitutional power of juries?--Lord Mansfield. What judge ever challenged a juryman, but Lord Mansfield? Who was that judge, who, to save the king’s brother, affirmed that a man of the first rank and quality, who obtains a verdict in a suit for criminal conversation, is entitled to no greater damages than the meanest mechanic?--Lord Mansfield? Who is it makes commissioners of the great seal?--Lord Mansfield? Who is it forms a decree for those commissioners, deciding against Lord Chatham,[6] and afterwards (finding himself opposed by the judges) declares in Parliament that he never had a doubt that the law was in direct opposition to that decree?--Lord Mansfield. Who is he that has made it the study and practice of his life to undermine and alter the whole system of jurisprudence in the Court of King’s Bench?--Lord Mansfield. There never existed a man but himself who answered exactly to so complicated a description. Compared to these enormities, his original attachment to the Pretender (to whom his dearest brother was confidential secretary) is a virtue of the first magnitude. But the hour of impeachment _will_ come, and neither he nor Grafton shall escape me. Now let them make common cause against England and the House of Hanover. A Stuart and a Murray should sympathize with each other.

When I refer to signal instances of unpopular opinions delivered and maintained by men who may well be supposed to have no view but the public good, I do not mean to renew the discussion of such opinions. I should be sorry to revive the dormant questions of _Stamp Act_, _Corn Bill_, or _Press Warrant_. I mean only to illustrate one useful proposition, which it is the intention of this paper to inculcate:--_That we should not generally reject the friendship or services of any man because he differs from us in a particular opinion_. This will not appear a superfluous caution if we observe the ordinary conduct of mankind. In public affairs, there is the least chance of a perfect concurrence of sentiment or inclination. Yet every man is able to contribute something to the common stock, and no man’s contribution should be rejected. If individuals have no virtues, their vices may be of use to us. I care not with what principle the new-born patriot is animated, if the measures he supports are beneficial to the community. The nation is interested in his conduct. His motives are his own. The properties of a patriot are perishable in the individual, but there is a quick succession of subjects, and the breed is worth preserving. The spirit of the Americans may be an useful example to us. Our dogs and horses are English only upon English ground; but patriotism, it seems, may be improved by transplanting. I will not reject a bill which tends to confine parliamentary privilege within reasonable bounds, though it should be stolen from the House of Cavendish, and introduced by Mr. Onslow. The features of the infant are a proof of the descent, and vindicate the noble birth from the baseness of the adoption. I willingly accept of a sarcasm from Colonel Barré, or a simile from Mr. Burke. Even the silent vote of Mr. Calcraft is worth reckoning in a division. What though he riots in the plunder of the army, and has only determined to be a patriot when he could not be a peer? Let us profit by the assistance of such men while they are with us, and place them, if it be possible, in the post of danger, to prevent desertion. The wary Wedderburne, the pompous Suffolk, never threw away the scabbard, nor ever went upon a forlorn hope. They always treated the king’s servants as men with whom, some time or other, they might possibly be in friendship. When a man who stands forth for the public has gone that length from which there is no practicable retreat, when he has given that kind of personal offence, which a pious monarch never pardons, I then begin to think him in earnest, and that he never will have occasion to solicit the forgiveness of his country. But instances of a determination so entire and unreserved are rarely met with. Let us take mankind _as they are_. Let us distribute the virtues and abilities of individuals according to the offices they affect, and, when they quit the service, let us endeavour to supply their places with better men than we have lost. In this country there are always candidates enough for popular favour. The temple of _fame_ is the shortest passage to riches and preferment.

Above all things, let me guard my countrymen against the meanness and folly of accepting of a trifling or moderate compensation for extraordinary and essential injuries. Our enemies treat us as the cunning trader does the unskilful Indian. They magnify their generosity when they give us baubles, of little proportionate value, for ivory and gold. The same House of Commons, who robbed the constituent body of their right of free election; who presumed to _make_ a law under pretence of _declaring_ it; who paid our good king’s debts, without once inquiring how they were incurred; who gave thanks for repeated murders committed at home, and for national infamy incurred abroad; who screened Lord Mansfield; who imprisoned the magistrates of the metropolis for asserting the subject’s right to the protection of the laws; who erased a judicial record, and ordered all proceedings in a criminal suit to be suspended;--this very House of Commons have graciously consented that their own members may be compelled to pay their debts, and that contested elections shall for the future be determined with some decent regard to the merits of the case. The event of the suit is of no consequence to the crown. While parliaments are septennial, the purchase of the sitting member or of the petitioner makes but the difference of a day. Concessions such as these are of little moment to the sum of things; unless it be to prove that the worst of men are sensible of the injuries they have done us, and perhaps to demonstrate to us the imminent danger of our situation. In the shipwreck of the state, trifles float and are preserved, while everything solid and valuable sinks to the bottom, and is lost for ever.

JUNIUS.

DISTRESS CAUSED BY HIGH PRICES (1772).

=Source.=--_Calendar of Home Office Papers, 1770-1772._ P. 479.

_Forestalling and Engrossing._

_11 April._--A paper signed “near Dorchester,” addressed to the King (the newspapers taking notice of His Majesty’s desire to see the price of provisions lowered), to lay before him the evils of forestalling and engrossing. As examples of engrossing in the neighbourhood of Dorchester, the writer instances the manors of Came, Whitcomb, Muncton, and Bockhampton. The first, he says, about thirty years before, had many inhabitants, many holding leasehold estates under the lord of the manor for three lives. Some of these had estates of 15_l._, 20_l._, and 30_l._ a year, being for the most part careful, industrious people, obliged to be careful to keep a little cash in order to keep the estate in the family if a life should drop. Their corn was brought to market, and they were content with the market price. Their cattle were sold in the same manner. Their children when of proper age were married, and children begotten, without fear of poverty. But the lord had since turned out all the people, and the whole place was in his own hands, while not half the quantity of corn was sown that formerly had been. The writer also gives an account how one Wm. Taunton, though only a tenant of the Dean and Chapter of Exon, was gradually getting the whole parish into his own hands. He says, comparing his own with past times, that formerly a farmer that occupied 100_l._ a year was thought a tolerable one, and he that occupied four or five hundred pounds a very great one indeed; but now they had farmers that occupied from one thousand to two thousand per annum, who did not want money to pay their rent, as did the little farmers, who were obliged to sell their corn, &c. The writer gives it as the general opinion that the kingdom had become greatly depopulated, some averring the population to have decreased by a fourth within the preceding hundred years. He further says: “Your Majesty must put a stop to inclosures, or oblige yᵉ lord of yᵉ manor to keep up yᵉ antient custom of it, and not suffer him to buy his tenant’s interest; to have all the houses pulled down, and yᵉ whole parish turn’d into a farm: this is a fashionable practice, and by none more yⁿ Jnᵒ Damer, Esq., yᵉ owner of Came, and his brother Lord Milton.”

MEETINGS OF WEAVERS AND OTHERS TO PETITION THE KING (1773).

=Source.=--_Calendar of Home Office Papers, 1773-1775._ Pp. 39-42, and 65.

_13-27 April._--A series of letters and other papers about meetings of weavers, coalheavers, &c. A printed handbill, calling them together, was first dispersed in Spitalfields on the 12th April. Next day notice of it was given to Lord Rochford by Sir John Fielding. The handbill to the weavers is signed “Ten Thousand,” and exhorts them “to stand up and carry the truth to the King.” “Let us rise up as one man and wait humbly upon the King at St. James’ every day. He will then grant the humble petition of the worthy Lord Mayor and liverymen of London, who have begged him to have pity upon the poor, and to remove those evil ministers who will not lower the price of provisions to relieve us, and who will take no care of our trade. Let us go daily and repeat our prayer to the King, and he will at length hearken to us, and remove his evil counsellors. Then shall we and our poor families be able to gain an honest and comfortable livelihood by a reasonable industry; if not, our trade will be lost for ever. We all remember that some years ago more than 20,000 of our trade waited on the King for several days together, and he was convinced of their distress. N.B.--Do not be guilty of any disorder; only show yourselves to the King, that he may see your distress every day.”

The magistrates in Bethnal Green granted a privy search-warrant, to “set aside all tumults and riots which might happen,” and next day reported that everything had been quiet the night before.

On the 16th April it was reported that printed handbills, verbatim the same as those to the weavers, except the address [and the signature, “One of Two Thousand”] had been distributed among the coalheavers in Shadwell. Everything was quiet, but (say the justices) “we greatly fear some evil agents are abroad sowing sedition.”

On the 17th April Mr. Justice Wilmot acquainted Lord Suffolk that everything was quiet among the Spitalfields weavers, but that he was afraid the City Marshal was making himself “too busy” among them. Their intention then was to rise in a body on the 26th and proceed to the House of Commons. The sworn information of a victualler in Bethnal Green states that the City Marshal came to his house to inquire into the grievances of the weavers, that it was agreed that eight or ten men should meet at the informant’s house to present a petition to the Lord Mayor; but on his objecting to this proposal, the City Marshal desired them to meet at any place they thought proper, or come into the city, and he would protect them, and assured them my Lord Mayor would serve them so long as they kept peace and good order. The Lord Mayor’s account is that he sent the City Marshal with the Sheriffs into Spitalfields, and that the former got himself introduced the same evening to about 50 weavers, when, the handbill distributed the day before becoming the subject of conversation, he expostulated with them on the imprudence and danger of such a proceeding, and convinced them it must have been some enemy to their well-being who had suggested it. The City Marshal’s account convinced the Lord Mayor that the intention of assembling did not originate with the weavers. The Lord Mayor encloses a letter from “A Citizen,” in a disguised hand, in which the hope is expressed that his Lordship, now that the people had become the “messengers of their own distress,” would not use his authority to interpose “any unnecessary obstruction to the miserable people,” the success of his own endeavours for the service of his country not having proved equal to the “honourable part” he had acted, and the “late remonstrance” having been “treated with a contempt which nothing but a persuasion of its falsity could justify.” In order to discover the origin of the hand-bills, Sir John Fielding suggested that they should be shown to printers who might learn something from the type, he himself having once been very successful in discovering the forgery of a banknote by an application to the copper-plate printers, who detected it to have been done by a gun engraver. He also advised the offer of a reward from the justices at Hicks’ Hall.

On the 23rd April Mr. Justice Wilmot wrote from the Globe Tavern in Moorfields that he had just received the handbill which he enclosed, in consequence of which he had come to Moorfields. He found 300 or 400 weavers gathered, “and by their coming in it’s likely there will be thousands.” The body of the handbill is in the same terms as those already referred to, but addressed in this case to the “poor watermen, porters, and carmen, and their families, &c.,” and signed “Two Thousand.” There is the same postscript deprecating disorder. A similar handbill was also distributed, addressed to the weavers as before. On this occasion the Lord Mayor, being applied to, quitted his chair at the Old Bailey, took a hackney coach, and went to the scene to disperse the mob. Before he reached the spot, however, the “three or four hundred weavers” who had assembled had quietly dispersed. It was Mr. Justice Sherwood who succeeded in getting the crowd to disperse on this occasion. He went alone to Moorfields. The weavers could not tell him what they had come together for. Their only complaint was that they had a bill before the House of Commons which they were afraid would not pass. He promised to convey any application they had to make to the King or the Ministry, a promise which they cheerfully accepted, and then immediately dispersed.

The night before Mr. Alderman Oliver had received a letter in a large feigned hand from “A Citizen,” intimating that nothing was intended but that the poor people should go in large bodies to convey that conviction which every gentler method had been so repeatedly yet so vainly tried to produce, and asking him “if a body of starving people” should be found assembling in Moorfields, in order to be under the protection of the city magistrates to consult how to make their sorrows known to their Sovereign, not to let them be hunted by the ill-timed zeal of the neighbouring justices who might apply for his assistance in suppressing a disturbance when the only design was to excite the emotions of humanity in favour of the wretched. For the discovery of the writer of this letter and of the one to the Lord Mayor, already referred to, a reward of 100_l._ was offered, with a pardon to an accomplice.

On the same day (23rd April) Mr. Robert Pell, chairman of the Tower Sessions, wrote that after diligent secret inquiry after the printed handbills said to have been distributed among the coalheavers in the Tower division, he had been induced to believe that their distribution, if real, had not been general. He had within the last few days, however, noticed a person (for some time in the commission of the peace for the county, but whose name had been struck out on account of certain transactions with the riotous coalheavers) in better plight as to garb and outward appearances than he had been seen in since his disgrace, and in close familiar conference with labouring people in the streets of the neighbourhood. Upon this man he said he had set a watch. In this letter is a printed petition signed by several persons, whose places of residence are also given, addressed “To the nobility, gentry, &c. who are real lovers of the King and country’s prosperity,” attributing the distresses of the silkweavers to the great encouragement given to the importation and wearing of foreign wrought silks, and imploring their assistance to discountenance such “impolitic and unnatural” practices by refusing to wear or purchase such goods.

On 24th April Sir John Fielding proposed that the magistrates of each division should sit for a week every morning from 8 till 11, having the high constable and all the petty constables stationed near them with proper messengers to reconnoitre and inquire. He thought that nothing else would counteract the endeavours which were being made to disturb the public peace by inviting ignorant and illiterate bodies to assemble. He mentioned the plan to “avoid different opinions in the magistrates, and that the whole might be uniform and the force united.” Monday, Thursday, and Friday were the particular days of apprehension. As the general constables were men of business, and must necessarily lose much time in the execution of this plan, he suggested that Sir John Hawkins should be authorised to make them amends.

The weavers were summoned to meet again on Monday, 26th April, when they were promised they should “absolutely see a petition to be delivered to His Majesty’s person by the hands of people who have no reason to be ashamed or afraid to appear in behalf of such distress.” Mr. Wilmot, Mr. Sherwood, and Mr. Pell proceeded to Moorfields, the place of meeting. After a conference with a posse of about 200 weavers they succeeded in getting possession of the proposed petition, which was “artfully drawn up,” and then retired to a public-house while the weavers elected a committee of six or eight to meet them. These made certain proposals to the magistrates, who gave an answer next day which thoroughly satisfied the committee, who sincerely promised on behalf of their body to have no more irregular meetings on the magistrates’ engaging to consider of some mode of subjecting their wages to the decision of the magistrates in their quarter sessions.

_Sir John Fielding to the Earl of Suffolk._

_9 July._--Assisted yesterday at the Middlesex General Quarter Sessions to carry into execution the late Act of Parliament for regulating the wages of journeymen weavers in Spitalfields, &c.; and the wages were then settled by a numerous and unanimous Bench to the entire satisfaction of those masters and journeymen weavers who appeared there. I sincerely hope this step will prove a radical cure for all tumultuous assemblies from that quarter. By this statute your Lordship has conveyed contentment to the minds of thousands of His Majesty’s subjects. The Act for appointing clergymen with proper salaries to attend the gaols, according to my proposals, was also carried into execution. This preventive step will, I am persuaded be attended with very salutary effects. I hope your Lordship will take advantage of my Lord North’s leisure to settle the affair regarding my preventive plan now lying before him for His Majesty’s approbation.

DESTRUCTION OF TEA (CARGOES) AT BOSTON (DECEMBER, 1773).

=Source.=--_Calendar of Home Office Papers (1773-1775)._ Pp. 175 _et seq._

_Lords of the Admiralty to the Earl of Dartmouth._

_27 Jan._--Enclosing a copy of another letter from Rear-Admiral Montague, dated at Boston, the 17th Dec. last, give an account of a mob having assembled and destroyed the tea exported from England by the East India Company.--Admiralty Office.

The enclosure. On the evening of 16 Dec., between 6 and 7 o’clock, a large mob assembled with axes, &c., encouraged by Mr. John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and others, and marched in a body to where the ships lay, and there destroyed the whole by starting it into the sea. During the whole of this transaction neither the Governor, Magistrates, owners, nor Revenue officers ever called for the Admiral’s assistance. If they had, he could easily have prevented the execution of the plan, but must have endangered the lives of many innocent people by firing on the town.

_Lord Viscount Barrington to the Earl of Dartmouth._

_28 Jan._--Enclosing copies of two letters from Lieut.-Col. Leslie, commanding the 64th Regiment at Castle William, Boston.--War Office.

The enclosures, dated respectively the 6th and 17th Dec., 1773. In the first Col. Leslie says that the four Commissioners of the Custom-house and the five tea agents had taken refuge with him that day week, and were likely to continue some time. The Governor had not mentioned any desire of marching the regiment to town. Only two of the tea ships had then arrived, and Mr. Hancock, “the Governor’s Captain of his Cadet Company,” was mounting guard on board them, to prevent the landing of that part of the cargo, “a most daring insult to his Excellency.” In the second letter he states that the Sons of Liberty had destroyed 340 chests of tea that lay altogether at one of the wharfs. The fourth vessel was stranded near to Cape Cod; but the tea was got safe on shore, and it was expected it had shared the same fate as the last. The regiment was ready, had it been called upon. The Council would not agree to the troops going to town. “However, it must end in that. Lenity won’t do now with the people here.” The gentlemen who had taken refuge in Castle William still continued there.

_Chairman of the East India Company to Lord Dartmouth._

? _29 Jan._--Transmitting copies of several papers lately received relative to the tea affair in America.--East India House, Saturday night.

The enclosures; viz., (_b_) Petition from the Company’s agents in Boston (Richard Clarke and Sons, Benjamin Faneuil, jun., and Thos. and Elisha Hutchinson) to the Governor and Council; and minutes of the meetings of the Council held thereupon.

(_c_) Letters from the agents to the Directors of the East India Company, dated Castle William, near Boston, respectively the 2nd and 9th Dec. 1773.

(_d_) Letters from the Company’s agents (Roger Smith and Leger and Greenwood) at Charlestown, South Carolina, dated respectively 4 and 18 Dec. 1773.

(_e_) Letter from the Boston agents to the Directors, dated Castle William, 17 Dec. 1773.

The Boston agents petitioned the Governor and Council to take charge of the tea on its arrival. The meetings of the Council when this petition was taken into consideration were several times adjourned between 19 and 29 Nov. Finally, on the latter date a committee of Council, consisting of James Bowdoin, Samuel Dexter, and John Winthrop, Esq., having been previously appointed to draw up a report of the debate, to be presented to the Governor, their report was discussed and accepted. It described the origin of the disturbances to be the Act laying a duty upon tea in America, and, in regard to the petition, referred the petitioners for personal protection to the justices of the peace, and declared they had no authority to take the tea, or any other merchandise, out of the agent’s care, while, if they advised the landing of it, the duty would have to be paid or secured, and they would therefore be advising a measure inconsistent with the declared sentiments of both Houses in the last winter session of the General Court, advice which they considered to be altogether inexpedient and improper. They said they had seen with regret some late disturbances, and had advised the prosecution of their authors. The letters of the agents give an account of the people’s proceedings, and that they themselves had been obliged to take refuge in Castle William. The letter of 17 Dec. announces the destruction of the tea.

In Charlestown, after several meetings of the townspeople, it was decided that the teas should not be allowed to be landed, whilst six months was allowed to consume the teas then on hand, after which time no teas were to be used on any pretence whilst the duty payable in America continued.

WAR MATERIAL FOR AMERICA (1774).

=Source.=--_Calendar of Home Office Papers (1773-1775)._ Pp. 240 _et seq._

_Earl of Suffolk to the Earl of Dartmouth._

_31 Aug._--Sends extracts from two letters from Sir Joseph Yorke relative to large quantities of gunpowder said to be purchased in Holland and shipped for some of the ports in North America.--St. James’s.

The enclosures. It was the house of Crommelin at Amsterdam which was chiefly concerned in this trade. A great quantity of war material was exported by the Dutch to St. Eustatia, the centre of all contraband in that part of the world.

_Earl of Suffolk to the Earl of Dartmouth._

_24 Sept._--Giving notice of intelligence received from Sir Joseph Yorke that it was being confirmed to his Excellency more and more every day that North America is largely supplied by way of St. Eustatia with what it does not choose to take from England, or to export directly from Holland, in which the Dutch find their account and will not let the market want.--St. James’s.

_Earl of Suffolk to the Earl of Dartmouth._

_25 Oct._--Enclosing an extract from a letter from Sir Joseph Yorke, stating the steps taken by him in consequence of the instructions transmitted to him by messenger on the 17th instant.--St. James’s.

The enclosure. Sir Joseph found the Pensionary as well disposed to satisfy the King as the most zealous wishes could expect. He said that whatever depended upon him to stop such a dangerous traffic should be done, though the manner of doing it could not be immediately determined, because it might not be advisable to exert an extraordinary power which might occasion both a clamour and alarm. He explained, in conversation, that in the present temper of the magistracy of Amsterdam it would be difficult for the Ministry at the Hague to work at all through that channel. He imagined that the channel of the Admiralty at Amsterdam, which is at the same time charged with the department of the Customs, might be preferred. Afterwards saw M. Fagel, whose attachment and zeal are too well known to require any new assurances. He soon brought a letter to M. Boreel, Fiscal of the Admiralty, and said the Prince did not think it necessary or advisable to use any extraordinary methods, but that he had desired M. Boreel to examine strictly into the affair, to prevent in every way the departure of any vessel with such a cargo, &c. Calling on the Prince to thank him in the King’s name, the Prince said he should always contribute with joy to the ease and welfare of His Majesty and his dominions, but that he, Sir Joseph, knew the merchants well enough to be convinced they would sell arms and ammunition to besiege Amsterdam itself.

_Lords of the Admiralty to the Earl of Dartmouth._

_9 Dec._--Send copies of letters of 1st and 11 Nov. and 6th inst. from Lieut. Walton, of the _Wells_ cutter, giving an account of his proceedings consequent on Lord Dartmouth’s letter of 18 Oct.--Admiralty Office.

The enclosures. The vessel Lieut. Walton was sent to watch at Amsterdam, after one attempt to sail, was finally unladen of her cargo and partly unrigged. Information was also obtained that if she attempted to go down the river she would certainly be searched at the Texel by the Dutch Admiralty.

AMERICAN EXPEDITION TO CANADA (1775).

=Source.=--_Calendar of Home Office Papers (1773-1775)._ Pp. 407-409.

_Hugh Finlay to_ ? _Anthony Todd._

_19 and 20 Sept._--The army under General Gage at Boston cannot be of much service there; it would require a very great force to penetrate any way into the country. Every American able to bear arms will take the field; they will avoid meeting the King’s troops openly, will harass and pick them off from behind trees, hedges, or any cover, and will ever take possession of the ground left by the King’s troops. The provincials, by handling arms, will become soldiers. They seem not to foresee the great misery that their non-importation and non-exportation will occasion among them. I am inclined to think that they entered into this association more with a design to cause troubles and commotions in England than from a conception that they can subsist for any time without our manufactures. The agreement not to export their produce will of itself bring them to implore Britain to permit them to send it out; thousands must starve else. As long as the King’s troops act against the rebellious colonists, they will hang together, and be obedient to their leaders. If the troops shall be withdrawn, the people will have nothing to divert their attention from their situation; they will more forcibly feel the sad distress that non-exportation will inevitably spread in every province: every man will think for himself, they will become discontented, and will insist on making up the affair with the mother country. I am persuaded that after they are left to reflect coolly on their conduct they will return to their duty. They, no doubt, at present imagine that they will be supplied from Holland and France; indeed, it will hardly be possible wholly to hinder this; yet it will be as impossible for the Americans to get a twentieth part of what they’ll want. A few ships of war can block up all their principal harbours, and a chain of small cruisers can do the rest. Necessity is the mother of invention. They will become expert in many manufactures, but without money in the country the manufacturer will find but little encouragement. Without foreign trade they’ll have no money.

Every soldier on the continent would be well employed to drive the rebels from this province. The provincial troops have executed their plan so far. A body of them have gone round our works at St. John’s, and have taken post on Sorrel River. By this means they cut off all communication with our little army by water, and they are now endeavouring to cut off the communication between St. John’s and Montreal. If they succeed, our troops at St. John’s can have no supply of provisions from any quarter, as the rebels are posted also at Isle aux Noix. We are not above 500 strong at Quebec. We lately had 900 Indian warriors in our interest; they have made their peace with the provincials, and are about returning to their homes. The rebels have nothing to fear from the Canadians; nine in ten are in their interests, and heartily wish them success. How have we been deceived in the Canadians! Many Englishmen in this province have taken infinite pains to set the Quebec Act in a most horrid light to the Canadians, and they have succeeded but too well. The Canadians look upon the rebels as their best friends. I shall not be surprised if many join them. We are in a bad situation in this place. The walls are in bad repair; in many places an enemy may easily enter the town. We have no cannon mounted. We have not a single armed vessel in our harbour. General Carleton, in whose military abilities we have great confidence, is at Montreal. Our Lieut.-Governor (Mr. Cramahé) and Col. McLean are doing everything in their power to put the town in a proper posture of defence. The British militia amount to 300, many of them well-wishers to the rebels. The Canadians muster about 600; few of them, I fear, willing to use their arms in defence of Quebec. I cannot suppose the provincials can bring artillery against this place. They know our strength, and I imagine they intend to take the town by assault. If they cannot effect it this fall, they will quarter themselves in the parishes round the town, and intercept all our supplies. If they cannot take us by assault nor starve us out, we hope to be reinforced from England very early in spring, for we can expect no assistance from the Canadian peasantry. Many of them have told me that they look on this rebellion only as a quarrel among Englishmen, in which they are no way immediately concerned, but that hereafter they’ll reap great benefit if the colonists shall succeed in their plans. They have the notion that if the rebels get entire possession of the country, they’ll be for ever exempted from paying taxes. If one asks them what will become of them when the British forces re-take the town in the spring, they answer that everything will be settled before that time; for that when the Ministry find Quebec in the hands of the Americans, they’ll readily comply with every American demand. My opinion on the whole is this: Unless our troops at St. John’s can join us here, the rebels will starve us; and even if they do, the flying parties of our enemies will intimidate the Canadians so much that no provisions will be brought to town. If the 500 at St. John’s shall be able to join us, the rebels will not be able to enter the town unless hunger shall force us to abandon it. We are about 6,000 souls in Quebec. Perhaps the Canadians may return to their duty; in that case we have nothing to fear from the combined force of North America with such a General as our Governor at our head.

_20 Sept._--There is advice from Montreal that the party on the Sorrel consists of 150 Canadians, headed by one Duggan, formerly a hairdresser of this place, and one James Livingstone, son of an Albany Dutchman, who resided long in Montreal. It is not known whether there are any provincials with them; it is supposed there are. It is imagined that it was this band of villains who fired on an artillery batteau loaded with stores for St. John’s; they killed the men, 11 in number, and took her. Since the Governor’s proclamation offering pardon to the Canadians of Duggan’s party, many of them have deserted him, and they hourly expect to see Duggan and Livingstone brought dead or alive into Montreal. General Schuyler, commanding the expedition against this country, has commanded the parishes on the Sorrel or Richlieu River &c. to send 50 men from each, armed and properly provided, under pain of having fire and sword carried among them on refusal. I hope this mandate will open the eyes of the Canadians. The rebels could not have done us greater service.

Extract of a letter I received to-day from Montreal:--“The behaviour and appearance of our militia surpasses my most sanguine expectations, both as to numbers and conduct. Courage, loyalty, and cheerfulness are conspicuous in their countenances, and they do their duty cheerfully. I cannot help likewise expressing the pleasure I feel at the appearance of the peasantry returning to their duty.”--Quebec.

RESOLUTIONS FAVOURING THE AMERICAN COLONIES (1775).

=Source.=--“Speech on Conciliation with America,” _Edmund Burke_. Vol. i. of his Collected Works. London: G. Bell and Sons. 1909.

I wish, Sir, to repeal the Boston Port Bill, because (independently of the dangerous precedent of suspending the rights of the subject during the king’s pleasure) it was passed, as I apprehend, with less regularity, and on more partial principles, than it ought. The corporation of Boston was not heard before it was condemned. Other towns, full as guilty as she was, have not had their ports blocked up. Even the restraining bill of the present session does not go to the length of the Boston Port Act. The same ideas of prudence, which induced you not to extend equal punishment to equal guilt, even when you were punishing, induced me, who mean not to chastise, but to reconcile, to be satisfied with the punishment already partially inflicted.

Ideas of prudence and accommodation to circumstances, prevent you from taking away the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island, as you have taken away that of Massachusetts colony, though the crown has far less power in the two former provinces than it enjoyed in the latter; and though the abuses have been full as great, and as flagrant, in the exempted as in the punished. The same reasons of prudence and accommodation have weight with me in restoring the charter of Massachusetts Bay. Besides, Sir, the act which changes the charter of Massachusetts is in many particulars so exceptionable, that if I did not wish absolutely to repeal, I would by all means desire to alter it; as several of its provisions tend to the subversion of all public and private justice. Such, among others, is the power in the governor to change the sheriff at his pleasure; and to make a new returning officer for every special cause. It is shameful to behold such a regulation standing among English laws.

The act for bringing persons accused of committing murder under the orders of government to England for trial is but temporary. That act has calculated the probable duration of our quarrel with the colonies; and is accommodated to that supposed duration. I would hasten the happy moment of reconciliation; and therefore must, on my principle, get rid of that most justly obnoxious act.

The act of Henry the Eighth, for the trial of treasons, I do not mean to take away, but to confine it to its proper bounds and original intention; to make it expressly for trial of treasons (and the greatest treasons may be committed) in places where the jurisdiction of the crown does not extend.