1774]

BOSTON PORT ACT.

331

duty collected, it was resolved that no ship could load or unload at Boston after the first of June following. It was the forcible shutting up of the port, and transferring the commerce of the city to Salem. The bill passed without opposition. Burke and Johnstone, formerly governor of Florida, being those who alone opposed it.* A bill was also brought in to protect the servants of the crown in cases similar to that of captain Preston, providing that when troops acted in any tumult, in the event of any charges being brought against them for the performance of their duty, they should be tried in England.

In my humble opinion of all the reprehensible proceedings of the British government distinguished by error and want of judgment, which in those unhappy times can be traced from the beginning to the end of the dispute, no two acts are more worthy of condemnation. On their face they plainly bore the marks of vindictiveness and rage, and their authors should have foreseen, that necessarily they would prove inoperative. What was more deplorable, they turned the whole sympathy of the provinces on the side of Massachusetts; and furnished argument to the agitators in other provinces, who acted in union with those of Boston, for their advocacy of the firm defence of popular rights thus arbitrarily assailed. For eight years it had been the topic of their invective; they were now able to assert that matters had reached a climax, which the people had to consider with arms in their hands.

The second act could only be construed into a threat that there was a determination to take vigorous steps to sustain the authority of government; it was the preparation for any evil consequences which might happen through opposition to the law, supplemental to the first act, as if in anticipation of the collision, that might arise from its enforcement.

The Boston port act failed in its purpose in every respect:

Even Barré and Conway sustained the act. The consequence was that their portraits were removed from Faneuil hall, where they had been placed owing to their advocacy of the provincial cause in parliament.

its only effect was to cause suffering among such of the inhabitants as were dependent on the trade of the city.

The legislature of Virginia appointed the 1st of June, the date when the act was to come into operation, as a day of fasting and of prayer that the divine interposition would avert the calamity of the destruction of their civil rights, and the evils of civil war; that the people would be of one mind in opposing the wrong. The governor dissolved the house. The members assembled in another spot, and drew up a declaration expressing sympathy with Boston. The 1st of June was observed as a day of fast throughout America; subscriptions were entered into for the relief of the Boston population thrown out of employment, and a large quantity of provisions was despatched to the city.

In Massachusetts, meetings were held in every town and county condemning the proceedings of parliament; Salem and Marblehead, the ports expected to prosper by the transfer of the trade of the city, offered the use of their storehouses and wharves for the reception of Boston merchandise. Gage, now the governor of Massachusetts, convoked the assembly at Boston. The meeting of the house was then removed to Salem. One of its first motions was to call upon the governor to name a day of fasting and prayer. A vote was likewise passed, recommending the assembly of a congress of colonial representatives from each province, to take measures to secure their liberty and rights against the design of the British government to destroy the free institutions of America, calling upon all persons to obstruct the proceedings of the government, and to give up intercourse with England till their wrongs were redressed. The assembly was immediately dissolved. Consequently, committees were organized in every district to maintain a correspondence throughout the province, and with the other colonies. The press became more active in advocating union against the oppressor. The clergy, as a rule, were unfailing in acrimony in calling for resistance. Engagements were entered into, to abjure all intercourse with the mother country until the obnoxious act was repealed.

1774]

BOSTON CONSTITUTIONAL ACT.

333

What was of special significance was, the recommendation, that all those failing to act with the dominant party should be specially denounced in the public papers, as objects of

vengeance.

Thus, the first consequence of the Boston port act was of the most opposite character to the expectation of its authors. Had the third act been introduced alone, no. one can dispute that it was called for under the circumstances. A handful of men in broad day-light had seized and destroyed a ship's cargo, on the ground that they disputed the principle on which the owners claimed the right to land it. There had been previous disputes, when the threatened consignees had been forced for self-protection to take refuge with the garrison. For years there had been a series of tumults, and no one responsible for order, whose position enforced the duty of maintaining the civil power, had been willing to interfere for the preservation of peace. Boston was ruled by a small number of the population banded together, continually urged to deeds of violence by agitators, desirous of establishing their own opinions, and who shrank from no violence. It was a condition approaching to anarchy; and those suffering from this state of confusion, had a right to the protection of the imperial parliament. Had a preamble, written in severe simplicity, been given as the causes of the act, it would have been self-evident that the new protective legislation was positively demanded, if order was to be maintained. The act bore the title for the better regulating the government of Massachusetts bay. The lower house was left untouched: the changes made were, that the council was to be appointed by the crown. The judges, magistrates, and sheriffs were to be nominated by the governor, removeable by him without. reference to the council. The selection of jurors was given to the sheriff; town meetings were prohibited, except for the purposes of election. The appointment of the council was no innovation in the constitution of provincial governments, except in the extremely democratic small province of Rhode Island.

Had this act, essential for the preservation of the

peace, been passed as a single measure without the accompanying reprehensible legislation, Massachusetts would have had slight claim on the general sympathy. It was undeniable, that the riotous proceedings of the mob called for greater protection to be given to the sober-minded industrious class of the citizens. There would have been no cause for the remaining provinces to range themselves on the side of a turbulent city, which permitted outrages on property in noonday to remain unchastised. Any such feeling was, however, destroyed by the provisions of the Boston port act, which called forth in all directions the most bitter animosity against the government.

The Quebec act was assented to on the last day of the session. The history of this act I have given in the previous book.

1773]

THE WHATELY LETTERS.

335

CHAPTER IV.

In 1773 the publication of the Whately-Hutchinson letters took place, important from the influence which it exercised in directing Franklin's ability to the side of the extreme republican party, causing him to abandon the moderation he had hitherto professed and outwardly practised; they consequently cannot be permitted to pass without notice. In 1772 Mr. Thomas Whately died; he had been a member of parliament on the side of the opposition; he previously acted as a secretary to the treasury during the administration of George Grenville, and was afterwards one of the lords of trade. For the last ten years of his life, when living in private without any official position, he had carried on a correspondence with Hutchinson, Oliver, then lieutenant-governor, Paxton, and other public men in Boston, opposed to the popular pretensions. The letters were strictly private, written by friends having confidence in each other, and interchanging their views of passing events in perfect frankness; many having been dated before the appointment of Hutchinson as governor. The latter had dwelt on the agitation of the popular leaders in Boston, and its impression upon the people, exciting them to regard any legislation by the house of commons, as treason to the constitution. He had pointed out the weakness of the executive to contend against any ebullition of feeling, and had expressed the opinion that a strong military force was indispensable to the protection of authority. The letters advocated the continuance of the connection with the mother country, even at the expense of establishing some restraint upon the liberty, which had prevailed under the extremely democratic constitution of Massachusetts. Oliver wrote in the same spirit.

These letters were placed in Franklin's hands, and it has