CHAPTER V. Governor 1720. GILBERT BURNET, the famous Bishop of Salisbury, had several children. By his interest, one of them, who was named William after his royal godfather, and who had been bred to the legal profession, held in England a place in the treasury, from which he was. transferred to be Governor of New York and New Jersey, being William then just over thirty years of age. His adminis- Burnet. tration of those Provinces was in general satisfactory to the people, though, towards the close of it, a faction was created against him on account of some regulation of the Indian trade which gave displeasure to the merchants of the town of New York. Whether in consequence of their complaints, or because, as the historian Hutchinson had been informed,2 the place, being lucrative, was coveted by a favorite of King George the Second, Burnet, on the accession of that prince to the throne, was transferred to the government of Massachusetts, a post then of more honor, but of uncertain pecuniary value. Though the government of New Hampshire was added, as had been the practice, except in Phips's case, ever since the Revolution, the profit from this was small. The change was disagreeable to Burnet, as he had lost largely in the South Sea speculation, and had a numerous family on his hands. The busy bishop was now dead, and his children had to rely on their own merits and fortune.3 1 Smith, History of New York, (Revolt, II. 124) assigns a further 206 et seq. reason for the arrangement. 2 History, II. 325. Chalmers 3 After Burnet's death, his brother Governor Burnet possessed qualities imposing and attractive. His figure and manners were dignified and engaging. He was intelligent, witty, learned, accomplished, and experienced in business. He had a nice, if arrogant, sense of honor. In his youth he had been reputed to entertain doubts of the authority of revealed religion, but, under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton, he had come to a better state of mind, and while he was in New York he published a theological work, which had some reputation and currency.1 Question of The history of Burnet's fourteen months' administration of Massachusetts is little else than the record of a salary for a dispute with the House of Representatives about the settling of a stated salary upon the Governor.2 The reader has seen that this question, largely the Gover nor. it may be doubled." (Mass. Hist. Col., XXXII. 176.) But Douglas is not a trustworthy witness as to facts; and what he meant by management" is not explained. 66 'Sparks, Collection of Essays, I. 99. In N. H. Hist. Col., VIII. 416-426, is a curious letter ascribed to Burnet, on the Romanist controversy. It was addressed to Christina Baker, who, at the sack of Dover in 1689, was carried by the Indians to Canada, and was there educated in the Romish religion. Thomas presented a memorial to the King in behalf of the Governor's children. In it he represented that King George the First, in recognition of the Bishop's services, had made William Burnet "Comptroller of the Treasury, being a patent place of £1200 a year; "that "having, by unfortunate dealing in public stocks, involved himself in considerable debts," he had, in 1720, been permitted by the late King to exchange places with Hunter, Governor of New York; that, had he retained the latter government, "he might have 2 The currency question, urgent paid his debts, and made some pro- as it was, had to give place to the vision for his destitute family;" but great dispute of the time, and was in that, on the accession of his patron's abeyance during this administration. son to the throne, it was found to be One of the royal instructions which "for the King's service" to transfer Burnet brought out was not to give him to Massachusetts, by which re- his "assent to or pass any Act . . . . . moval he lost an income of £3000 whereby bills of credit may be struck a year." (British Colonial Papers.) in lieu of money, without a clause in- In the year of Burnet's appoint- serted in such Act, declaring that the ment to be Governor of Massachu- same shall not take effect" without setts, Douglas wrote to Cadwallader a previous royal confirmation. (See Colden (Nov. 20, 1727): "Governor Felt, Historical Account, &c., 85.) Shute did make of his government The Episcopalians hoped to turn £3000 per annum. By management to account the occasion of a new treated by Dudley and his successor, had been mostly lost sight of in the different concerns of the last years of the government of Shute, and in that of Lieutenant-Governor Dummer, which followed. For a short time, at the beginning of the new reign, the authority of the cautious Walpole was crippled, while the bustling imbecility of the Duke of Newcastle had much of the management of affairs. The crucial question as to the settling of a salary for the Governors of Massachusetts was now taken up with a zeal which looked like vigor. It was not brought to a determination in Governor Burnet's time, but it was then that the contest over it was most animated. The lavish magnificence of his reception in Massachusetts,' so far as it expressed genuine enthusiasm, is to be ascribed to the veneration popularly entertained for the memory of his father. So far as it was dictated by pru dence, its object may be naturally imagined to have been to conciliate the new ruler in respect to the matters upon which the Province had been at issue with his prede cessors. Losing no time in causing his position on the chief of these to be understood, he made it the sole theme monarch's accession, and Cutler, Caner, and Miles, of Boston, Johnson, of Connecticut, and their associates, in an address of congratulation (Dec. 12, 1727), prayed the King to appoint a resident Bishop. (See above, p. 479.) I find no indication that this paper was ever before the Privy Council, and I strongly incline to think that the Board of Trade, perhaps under a Walpolean influence, suppressed it. A proceeding of Massachusetts churchmen a little earlier attracted more attention. July 14, when the movement for a synod had lately occasioned irritation (see above, p. 454), the Privy Council considered a petition from them, "praying the repeal of several laws passed in New England." (Register of Privy Council.) The petition was referred to the Board of Trade. The Board applied to "Mr. Attorney and Solicitor General for their opinion, whether the said Acts are repugnant to the charter of the Massachusetts Bay; and, if so, whether it be not in the King's power to repeal them." (Journal of the Board of Trade, for November 9, 10, 14.) The Massachusetts law of Dec. 19, 1727 (Province Laws, II. 459), was apparently the fruit of this movement. 1 Some account of it is in Drake's History of Boston, 581, note. The Gover- of his first communication to the General Court. nor's speech eral Court. 1728. July 24. to the Gen- A few days after reaching Boston he addressed them in a speech, in the first sentence of which he not only declared peremptorily what he wanted, but cleverly turned the generosity of their reception of him into an argument in favor of his demand. "The commis sion," he said, "with which his Majesty has honored me, however unequal I am to it, has been received in so respectful and noble a manner, and the plenty and wealth of this great Province has appeared to me in such a strong light, as will not suffer me to doubt of your supporting his Majesty's government by an ample, honorable, and lasting settlement." He flattered their sense of importance by saying that they approached "the nearest of any of his Majesty's American dominions to the trade and numbers of people in his European kingdoms." He gave them notice of the King's pleasure respecting the salary, of his own immovable purpose to comply with it precisely, and of his confident expectation that they would do the same. "I shall lay before you his Majesty's instruction to me upon this subject, which, as it shall be an inviolable rule for my conduct, will without question have its due weight with you." Meanwhile he volunteered some suggestions of his argument in its support. "The three distinct branches of the Legislature," he said, "preserved in a due balance, form the excellency of the British Constitution. If any one of these branches should become the less able to support its own dignity and freedom, the whole must inevitably suffer by the operation. I need not draw the parallel at length. It speaks of itself. . . . . . The wisdom of parliaments has now made it an established custom to grant the civil list to the king for life. And as I am confident the representatives of the people here would be unwilling to own themselves outdone in duty to his Majesty by any of his subjects, I have reason to hope that they will not think such an example has any thing in it which they are not ready to imitate." Next came a copy of the royal instruction, which justified the Governor's description of it. After rebukes to Royal in a salary. the provincial authorities for their previous neglect of directions of the same tenor, it proceeded as struction follows: "Our will and pleasure therefore is, and concerning we do hereby require and direct you to acquaint the Council and Assembly of our said Province of the Massachusetts Bay, that, as they hope to recommend themselves to the continuance of our royal grace and favor, they must manifest the same by an immediate compliance with what has been so often recommended to them in forthwith passing Acts to establish a fixed and honorable salary for the supporting and maintaining the dignity of our Governor and commander-in-chief for the time being; and we deem a competent sum for that purpose to be at least one thousand pounds sterling per annum from our said Province of the Massachusetts Bay. And in case the said Council and Assembly shall not pay a due and immediate regard to our royal will and pleasure hereby signified, we shall look upon it as a manifest mark of their undutiful behavior to us, and such as may require the consideration of the Legislature in what manner the honor and dignity of our government ought to be supported in our said Province for the future."2 This mandate was a usurpation. The King had no right to lay any injunctions on the colonists, except such as they were bound to obey either through their relation to him as his natural subjects or under the obligations of his charter. If an instruction from him claimed that which the charter left to their discretion, the instruction had no 41. 1 Mass. Prov. Rec. - The instruc- of the Great and General Court or tion had been maturely considered Assembly of his Majesty's Province by the Privy Council. (Register, for of the Massachusetts Bay, &c., Feb. 6 and 15, and March 26, 1728.) For the occasion of this book, see below, p. 522. 2 A Collection of the Proceedings |