meditating upon radical measures for the correction of colonial disorder. "I am apprehensive," he wrote to the same Minister, "that very soon, if it is not at present, a new arrangement of New England may be taken into consideration. . . . . The division of New England into governments of suitable size and with proper boundaries is by no means a difficult task, if it was unembarrassed with the politics, prejudices, and humors of the people. I will suppose that the two republics of Connecticut and Rhode Island are to be dissolved." His scheme was to compose one Colony of Massachusetts proper, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and as much of Connecticut as lies east of Connecticut River; another, of Maine and the western part of Acadia; and a third, of all the British territory farther east. Whatever difficulties should prove to be in the way of such an arrangement would, he said, "arise from the bad policy of establishing republican forms of government in the British dominions. . . . . As for the religious divisions, they are become so entirely subservient to politics, that, if the state of the governments is reformed, and a perfect toleration secured, religion will never give any trouble." Each American province should, he thought, have a legislative council appointed by the King, the members to hold their office for life. "Massa chusetts, united as aforesaid, will afford a fine opportunity for trying the experiment." And he added that it was "absolutely necessary to establish a certain and sufficient civil list for support of officers of the Crown." This treated me with indignities," which the writer proceeds to specify at great length. In another letter to the Minister in the same month (December 29), the Governor complained that Temple had brutally insulted one of his subordinates, and with one of them had had a fight. 1. The means which seems now most likely to be pursued to destroy the Court of Admiralty, and with it the activity of the laws of trade, are to bring frequent actions at Common Law concerning the business determined in the Admiralty . . . . and by overhauling the decrees of that Court before a jury. . . . to render it certain ruin for officers of that Court to do their duty." (Bernard to the Lords of Trade, Aug. 6, 1761.) 1763. Aug. scheme, he informed Richard Jackson, had been suggested by him to Lord Barrington "above a year and a half ago," when he had not been two years in Massachusetts. So early as this had the Governor, utterly unconscious, it would seem, of the momentous character of his plans, been making proposals, unsuspected in New England till long after, of radical changes in the constitutions of that country.1 The methods of administration of the Laws of Trade at this time presented questions which proved to be of unexpected importance in relation to the later progress of events. 1760. The death of Stephen Sewall, taking place in the month after the arrival of Governor Bernard, Sept. vacated the office of Chief Justice of Massachusetts. It 1 I have not learned that these radical schemes of Bernard were prompted by any suggestions from his superiors at home, or even that they soon drew any favorable response from that quarter. For aught known by me to the contrary, they were original with him; and any favorable impression which they may have made was prevented from being carried out in corresponding measures by the disputes which soon succeeded. The letters from which these periods are extracted are in the British State Paper Office. Compare with them Bernard's letters to Lord Barrington of Sept. 27 and Dec. 15, 1761, and June 23, 1764, in the Sparks Collection (II. 11, 21; III. 235); to John Pownall of Dec. 5 (II. 233); and to Richard Jackson of Dec. 6 (II. 237). Lord Holdernesse was not now in office, but the Governor had not been so informed till December 14. (Letter of Bernard to Egremont, Ibid., 20.) — Aug. 2, 1763, Bernard wrote to Jackson: "In the close of one of your letters, you mention that it was hinted to you that the Crown would consent to the uniting Massachusetts, Counec- was said that Governor Shirley had promised the first vacancy which should occur on the bench of the Superior Court to James Otis, of Barnstable, who, beginning life in a mechanical employment, had afterwards studied law, and obtained considerable practice in that profession. At Sewall's death, Otis, who was now Speaker of the House, desired to take the place of one of the existing judges, who should be promoted to be Chief Justice. But Bernard had other views, and appointed Thomas Hutchinson to that high office. 1760. Dec. 1727. The new Chief Justice, descended through a line of reputable men from Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, the Antinomian heresiarch, had, on leaving college, engaged in commercial business. Not meeting with success in this employment, he withdrew from it with what remained of his considerable patrimony, and devoted himself thenceforward to public affairs and to the studies proper for a magistrate and statesman. In the crisis of the question about the currency, he was sent to England 1738. 1747. as agent for the town of Boston, and, increasing his already brilliant reputation by his management of that business, was chosen on his return to be one of the representatives of the town in the General Court. His eloquence, activity, courteous manners, superior abilities. and extensive knowledge easily gave him the lead in the House, of which he was made Speaker after a short service. He filled that place when the remuneration for the campaign against Louisburg came over, and for a time was brought into disfavor, but at length greatly strengthened his hold on public confidence, by the course which he took in causing the money to be used in a reform of the currency. Advanced to the Council, he maintained there, against a majority, the popular side against the burdensome Excise Bill, which Shirley also, contrary to his personal judgment and preference, found himself compelled by prudence to disapprove. 1758. He was made Lieutenant-Governor after Phips's death, and not only continued to hold that office after he was appointed Chief Justice, but subsequently the office of Judge of Probate for Suffolk County was further added to his honors. He was now undoubtedly the most conspicuous and powerful citizen of New England. Governor Pownall, during his short administration, placed less confidence in him than had been reposed by Governor Shirley; but there was no avowed estrangement between them, and the associations of dignity with which Hutchinson was invested as head of the administration in the few weeks which intervened between Pownall's recall and Bernard's succession, showed his shining qualities to advantage, and contributed to strengthen his hold on the public respect. The resentment raised in James Otis and his yet more distinguished son by Hutchinson's elevation to be Chief Justice, was supposed by the latter to have prompted the part taken by them in the controversies which after a while ensued; and there is no reason for denying that their sense of personal injury may have given a degree of acrimony to the opposition on which they entered, — for without doubt both were men of vehement passions. But the supposed effect is altogether out of proportion to the alleged cause. Acknowledging the merit or fearing the hostility of Speaker Otis, the Governor gave to him the nomination to all the principal offices in his county; and he took to himself those of Judge of Probate and of first Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Nor was it any merely personal or family disgust that in other quarters raised the storm which James Otis the younger was soon to be seen directing, as champion and interpreter to no small extent of the wisest and calmest thinkers of New England. Nor would it appear that there was any violent private animosity to influence his public action, when, on the occasion of a valuable 1764. Feb. 1762. grant of land by the General Court to the GovFeb. ernor,1 Otis used his influence to promote the measure, after the alleged cause of offence had been given, and before the Governor had made the alleged overtures for a conciliation. The first act of opposition to Governor Bernard's administration on the part of James Otis (which name will hereafter be used to designate the younger of the two, father and son, who bore it), was chiefly of importance as it stimulated a hitherto indefinite feeling of discontent. A provision in an Act of Parliament of the last reign, called the Sugar Act,2 imposing a duty of sixpence on every gallon of foreign molasses imported into a Colony, gave to the informer against a smuggling operation one third of the property forfeited, to the Governor one third, and one third to the King for the Colony's use. The General Court of Massachusetts, not liking the law, had never called for payment of its share of the forfeits, which in the course of time had come to amount to a con siderable sum. The informers meanwhile had presented their claims for payments to themselves in consideration of private intelligence; and these claims, instead of providing for them from the total sum of the forfeits, the Court had negligently allowed to be discharged from the third part belonging to the Province, or, in technical language, to the King for the Province's use. When the irregularity was brought to notice, no doubt was ex Mary were seized of the lands in question in their ancient right, as parcel of the dominion of the Crown of England, and that the grant thereof made by the Province charter was good and valid." (Bollan to Bernard, June 10, 1762, in Sparks's Coll. Bernard Letters, IX. 300; comp. X. 70, 83.) 1 It was, I think, in connection with his solicitation to the government for leave to accept this gift, that Bernard transmitted the Journal of Phips's conquest of Port Royal, as mentioned above (Vol. IV. 49, note 3); the object being to prove that Mount Desert belonged to Massachusetts and was subject to her grant. "It appears to me that after the conquest Act of the sixth year of George made by Sir William Phips, their the Second (1733), ch. 13. Majesties King William and Queen 2 |