by Nathan Allen
To the Honour of General Brattle he was single in his Opposition to this Resolution.
“21st of May 1761. In Council,
Present the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the honorable John Osborne, Jacob Wendell, Andrew Oliver, John Erving, William Brattle, Thomas Hancock, and Thomas Hubbard, Esqr’s.
Whereas Intelligence has been received of two Privateers cruizing off Block-Island which have already taken divers Vessels bound to and from the Colonies, and the Ship King George having no more than thirty men belonging to her, Officers included, and there being no prospect of any further men inlisting upon the present Establishment, and the appropriation for the Service of said Ship being exhausted, and his Excellency having proposed to put fifty men of the new raised Troops on board said Ship to serve for one Cruize only; therefore in order to compleat the Complement of Men; advised that his Excellency give orders to Captain Hallowell to send the Ship down to Nantasket without Delay, and to impress from all inward bound Vessels, coasters and Provincial Vessels excepted; also to inlist Volunteers upon a Bounty of ten Dollars each; provided the money can be procured; and for that Purpose it is further advised that a Warrant issue upon the Treasurer for seven Hundred Dollars, to be paid out of such Sums as shall be subscribed by any Merchants or other persons, for the above services, upon the credit of a Reimbursement to be made by the General Court at their next Session.”
There had been some other Proceedings that were very much disrelished by former Houses, e. g. In three Days after the Heirs of Lieutenant Governor Phipps had received a Denial from the House to bear the Expence of his Honor’s Funeral, the Governor and Council paid it. Some other extraordinary accounts had also been allowed contrary to the known and express Sense of the House. All these matters together alarmed the present House, and they thought it high time to remonstrate. Accordingly when the Governor’s Message relating to the Sloop Massachusetts was read, (upon a motion made and seconded) it was ordered as an Instruction to the Committee to answer it, to remonstrate against the Governor and Council’s making and increasing Establishments without the Consent of the House. Tho’ no Notice is taken of this Instruction in the printed Votes of the House. The Journal stands thus, “Read and Ordered, that Mr. Otis, Mr. Tyler, Captain Cheever, Col. Clap and Mr. Witt, take said message under consideration, and report an answer thereto.”
Sept. the 15th, The committee reported the following answer and Remonstrance,
Viz.
May it please your Excellency,
“The House have duly attended to your Excellency’s message of the 11th, Instant, relating to the Massachusetts Sloop, and are humbly of opinion that there is not the least necessity for keeping up her present complement of men, and therefore desires that your Excellency would be pleased to reduce them to fix, the old establishment made for said Sloop by the General Court.
“Justice to our selves, and to our constituents oblige us to remonstrate against the method of making or increasing establishments by the Governor and council.
“It is in effect taking from the house their most darling priviledge, the right of originating all Taxes.
“It is in short annihilating one branch of the legislature. And when once the Representatives of a people give up this Priviledge, the Government will very soon become arbitrary.
“No Necessity therefore can be sufficient to justify a house of Representatives in giving up such a Priviledge; for it would be of little consequence to the people whether they were subject to George or Lewis, the King of Great Britain or the French King, if both were arbitrary, as both would be if both could levy Taxes without Parliament.
“Had this been the first instance of the kind, we might not have troubled your Excellency about it; but lest the matter should grow into precedent; we earnestly beseech your Excellency, as you regard the peace and welfare of the Province, that no measures of this nature be taken for the future, let the advice of the council be what it may.”
Which being read, was accepted by a large majority, and soon after sent up and presented to his Excellency by Captain Goldthwait, Mr. Otis, Captain Taylor, Mr. Cushing and Mr. Bordman.
The same day the above remonstrance was delivered, the Town was alarmed with a report that the House had sent a message to his Excellency reflecting upon his Majesty’s person and government, and highly derogatory from his crown and dignity, and therein desired that his Excellency would in no case take the advice of his majesty’s council. About five of the clock P. M. the same day Mr. Speaker communicated to the house a Letter from the Governor of the following purport.
“S I R,
I have this morning received a message from the house, which I here inclose, in which the King’s name, dignity, and cause, are so improperly treated, that I am obliged to desire you to recommend earnestly to the house, that it may not be entered upon the Minutes in the terms it now stands. For if it should, I am satisfied that you will again and again wish some parts of it
were expunged; especially if it should appear, as I doubt not but it will, when I enter upon my vindication, that there is not the least ground for the insinuation under colour of which that sacred and well-beloved name is so disrespectfully brought into Question.
September 15th. To the
Honourable Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
Your’s, etc.
FRA: BERNARD.”
Upon the reading of this letter, it was moved to insert these words, to wit, “with all due reverence to his Majesty’s sacred Person and Government, to both which we profess the sincerest attachment and loyalty be it spolen” “it would be of little importance,” &c. But a certain member crying “Rase them,” “Rase them,” the proposed amendment was dropped, it being obvious, that the remonstrance would be the same in effect, with or without the words excepted against. These dreadful words, under which his Excellency had placed a black mark, were accordingly erased and expunged, and the Message returned to the Speaker.
In the course of the debate a new and surprising doctrine was advanced. We have seen the times when the majority of a council by their words and actions have seemed to think themselves obliged to comply with every Thing proposed by the Chair, and to have no rule of conduct but a Governor’s will and pleasure. But now for the first time, it was asserted that the Governor in all cases was obliged to act according to the advice of the council, and consequently would be deemed to have no Judgment of his own. In order to excuse if not altogether justify the offensive Passage, and clear it from ambiguity, I beg leave to premise two or three data. I. God made all men naturally equal. 2. The ideas of earthly superiority, preheminence grandeur are educational, at least acquired, not innate. 3. Kings were (and plantation Governor’s should be) made for the good of the people, and not the people for them. 4. No government has a right to make hobby horses, asses and slaves of the subject, nature having made sufficient of the two former, for all the lawful purposes of man, from the harmless peasant in the field, to the most refined politician in the cabinet; but none of the last, which infallibly proves they are unnecessary. 5. Tho’ most governments are de facto arbitrary, and consequently the curse and scandal of human nature; yet none are de jure arbitrary. 6. The British constitution of government as now established in his Majesty’s person and family, is the wisest and best in the world. 7. The King of Great-Britain is the best as well as most glorious Monarch upon the Globe, and his subjects the happiest in the universe. 8. It is most humbly presumed the King would have all his plantation Governors follow his royal Example, in a wise and strict adherence to the principles of the British constitution, by which in conjunction with his other royal virtues, he is enabled to reign in the hearts of a brave and generous, free and loyal people. 9. This is the summit, the ne plus ultra of human glory and felicity. 10. The French King is a despotic arbitrary prince, and consequently his subjects are very miserable.
Let us now take a more careful review of this passage, which by some out of doors has been represented as
seditious, rebellious and traiterous. I hope none however will be so wanting to the interests of their country, as to represent the matter in this light on the east side of the atlantick, tho’ recent instances of such a conduct might be quoted, wherein the province has after its most strenuous efforts, during this and other wars, been painted in all the odious colours that avarice, malice and the worst passions could suggest. The house assert, that “it would be of little consequence to the people, whether they were subject to George or Lewis, the King of Great Britain or the French King, if both were arbitrary, as both would be, if both could levy taxes without parliament.” Or in the same words transposed without the least alteration of the sense.
“It would be of little consequence to the people whether they were subject to George the King of Great-Britain, or Lewis the French King, if both were arbitrary, as both would be, if both could levy taxes without parliament.”
The first question that would occur to a philosopher, if any question could be made about it, would be whether the position were true. But truth being of little importance with most modern politicians, we shall touch lightly upon that topic, and proceed to inquiries of a more interesting nature.
That arbitrary government implies the worst of temporal evils, or at least the continual danger of them is certain. That a man would be pretty equally subjected to these evils under every arbitrary government, is clear. That I should die very soon after my head should be cut off, whether by a sabre or a broad sword, whether chopped off to gratify a tyrant by the Christian name of Tom, Dick or Harry is evident. That the name of the tryant would be of no more avail to save my life than the name of the executioner, needs no Proof. It is therefore manifestly of no importance what a prince’s christian name is, if he be arbitrary, any more, indeed, than if he were not arbitrary. So the whole amount of this dangerous proposition may at least in one view be reduced to this, viz. It is of little importance what a King’s christian name is. It is indeed of importance that a King, a Governor, and all other good christians should have a christian name, but whether Edward, Francis or William, is of none, that I can discern. It being a rule to put the most mild and favourable construction upon words that they can possibly bear, it will follow that this proposition is a very harmless one, that cannot by any means tend to prejudice his Majesty’s Person, Crown, Dignity or Cause, all which I deem equally sacred with his Excellency.
If this proposition will bear an hundred different constructions, they must all be admitted before any that imports any bad meaning, much more a treasonable one.
It is conceived the house intended nothing disrespectful of His Majesty, his Government or Governor, in those words. It would be very injurious to insinuate this of a house that upon all occasions has distinguished itself by a truly loyal spirit, and which spirit possesses at least nine hundred and ninety nine in a thousand of their constituents throughout the province. One good natured construction at least seems to be implied in the assertion, and that pretty strongly, viz. that in the present situation of Great Britain and France, it is of vast importance to be a Briton, rather than a Frenchman; as the French King is an arbitrary despotic Prince; but the King of Great Britain is not so de jure, de facto, nor by inclination; a greater difference on this side the
Grave cannot be found, than that which subsists between British subjects, and the slaves of tyranny.
Perhaps it may be objected that there is some difference even between arbitrary Princes in this respect at least, that some are more rigorous than others. It is granted, but then let it be remembered, that the life of man is as a vapour that soon vanisheth away, and we know not who may come after him, a wise man or a fool; tho’ the chances before and since Solomon, have ever been in favour of the latter. Therefore it is said of little consequence. Had it been No instead of little, the clause upon the most rigid stricture might have been found barely exceptionable.
Some fine Gentlemen have charged the expression as indelicate. This is a capital impeachment in politicks, and therefore demands our most serious attention. The idea of delicacy in the creed of some politicians, implies that an inferior should at the peril of all that is near and dear to him (i.e. his interest) avoid every the least trifle that can offend his superior. Does my superior want my estate? I must give it him, and that with a good grace, which is appearing, and if possible being really obliged to him that he will condesend to take it. The reason is evident; it might give him some little pain or uneasiness to see me whimpering, much more openly complaining at the loss of a little glittering dirt. I must according to this system not only endeavour to acquire my self, but impress upon all around me a reverence and passive obedience to the sentiments of my superior, little short of adoration. Is the superior in contemplation a king, I must consider him as God’s vicegerent, cloathed with unlimited power, his will the supreme law, and not accountable for his actions, let them be what they may, to any tribunal upon earth. Is the superior a plantation governor? he must be viewed not only as the most excellent representation of majesty, but as a viceroy in his department, and quoad provincial administration, to all intents and purposes vested with all the prerogatives that were ever exercised by the most absolute prince in Great Britain.
The votaries of this sect are all Monopolizers of offices, Peculators, Informers, and generally the Seekers of all kinds. It is better, say they, to give up any thing, and every thing quietly, than contend with a superior, who by his prerogative can do, and (as the vulgar express it) right or wrong, will have whatever he pleases. For you must know, that according to some of the most refined and fashionable systems of modern politics, the ideas of right and wrong, and all the moral virtues, are to be considered only as the vagaries of a weak or distempered imagination in the possessor, and of no use in the world, but for the skilful politician to convert to his own purposes of power and profit.
With these,
The Love of Country is an empty Name,
For Gold they hunger: but n’er thirst for Fame.
It is well known that the least “patriotic spark” unawares “catched,” and discovered, disqualifies a candidate from all further preferment in this famous and flourishing order of knights errant. It must however be confessed they are so catholic as to admit all sorts from the knights of the post to a garter and Star; provided they are thoroughly divested of the fear of God, and the love of mankind; and have concentrated all their views in dear self, with them the only “sacred and well-beloved name,” or thing in the universe. See Cardinal Richlieu’s Political Testament, and the greater Bible of the Sect, Mandaville’s Fable of the Bees. Richlieu expresly in solemn earnest, without any sarcasm or irony, advises the discarding all honest men from the presence of a prince, and from even the purlieus of a court. According to Mandeville, “The moral virtues are the political offspring which flattery begot upon pride.” The most darling principle of the great Apostle of the order, who has done more than any mortal towards diffusing corruption, not only thro’ the three kingdoms, but thro’ the remotest dominions, is, “that every man has his price, and that if you bid high enough, you are sure of him”.
To those who have been taught to bow at the name of a King, with as much ardor and devotion as a papist at the sight of a crucifix, the assertion under examination may appear harsh; but there is an immense difference between the sentiments ·of a British house of commons remonstrating, and those of a courtier cringing for a favour. A house of Representatives here at least, bears an equal proportion to a Governor, with that of a house of Commons to the King. There is indeed one difference in favour of a house of Representatives; when a house of Commons address the King, they speak to their Sovereign, who is truly the most august Personage upon earth: When a house of Representatives remonstrate to a Governor they speak to a fellow subject; tho’ a superior, who is undoubtedly intitled to decency and respect; but I hardly think to quite so much Reverence as his master.
It may not be amiss to observe, that a form of speech may be, in no sort improper, whe
n used arguendo, or for illustration, speaking of the King, which same form might be very harsh, indecent and even ridiculous, if spoken to the King.
The expression under censure has had the approbation of divers Gentlemen of sense, who are quite unprejudiced by any party. They have taken it to imply a compliment rather than any indecent reflection, upon his Majesty’s wise and gracious administration. It seems strange therefore that the house should be so suddenly charged by his Excellency with Impropriety, groundless Insinuations, &c.
What cause of so bitter Repentance, again and again, could possibly have taken place, if this clause had been printed in the Journal, I can’t imagine. If the case be fairly represented, I guess the province can be in no danger from a house of Representatives daring to speak plain English, when they are complaining of a grievance. I sincerely believe the house had no disposition to enter into any contest with the Governor or Council. Sure I am that the promoters of this address had no such view. On the contrary, there is the highest reason to presume that the house of Representatives will at all times rejoice in the prosperity of the Governor and Council, and contribute their utmost assistance, in supporting those two branches of the legislature, in all their just rights and preheminence. But the house is and ought to be jealous and tenacious of its own priviledges; these are a sacred deposit intrusted by the people, and the jealousy of them is a godly jealousy.
But to proceed with our narration; on Saturday about a quarter before one of the Clock, Mr. Secretary came down with his Excellency’s vindication, which is as follows.
