66

funeral procession marched through the main street to the middle burial ground, where the last rites were performed. It was a sad day for the people of Boston. They well knew that exaggerated narratives of the affair would be published, and that no pains would be spared to insist upon harsher measures, and to justify high-minded attempts to enslave them. Yet, withal, there was a feeling in the breast of every one that, come what would, the province must on no account recede from its position.'

Shortly after the fray of the 5th of March, a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Preston, and of the soldiers whom he had called out. The trial of Preston was held in October, and Josiah Quincy, Junior, was selected as one of his advocates. On the 30th of the month, the trial, of which no minutes exist, was concluded, with the acquittal of PresOn the 27th of November the soldiers' trial was begun. They were ably defended by Quincy and John Adams. Of the accused, six were found "not guilty;" two, "guilty of manslaughter." These latter were "each of them burnt in the hand, in open court, and discharged."

Thus closed the direct result of the ever-memorable event of the 5th of March. In reviewing the circumstances attending the "massacre," one is disposed to censure as much the conduct of the citizens as of the soldiery. Both parties were, at the time, in a feverish state of excitement, and the tragedy was naturally to be expected from events that had already happened. Which side was the more to be blamed, it is difficult to say. Nor should Captain Preston be censured too severely. He may, or may not, have given the order to fire. The evidence against him was certainly not

1 Barry, ii. 420.

conclusive; and he himself personally denied having given. any such order. The real blame in the whole affair is attached to those who sent the soldiery to Boston. Hillsborough and Bernard, — upon them must always rest the responsibility.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PROGRESS OF THE STRUGGLE.

WHILST the victims of a massacre were falling in the streets of Boston, the American question was again under debate in the Parliament of Great Britain. The attention of the latter had been called by the "merchants and traders of London," to the "alarming suspense into which commerce had fallen, and some relief was sought. Only a few weeks before, Lord North had been called to the position made vacant by the resignation of the Duke of Grafton, and he now stood as the first lord of the treasury.

When the petition of the merchants and traders was read in the House, Lord North arose. "He had favored," he said, "with the rest of the ministry, at the end of the last session, the circular letter to the governors of the colonies, promising to repeal, on certain commercial principles, that part of the law which was repugnant to them; that he did this as a persuasive to bring them back to their duty, by a measure which would not at the same time relax the reins of government over them; and he could have wished to repeal the whole, if it could have been done without giving up such absolute right. But he was sorry to say that the behavior of the Americans had by no means been such as to merit this favor, their resolutions being more violent this summer than ever; neither did he think a total repeal would by any means quell the troubles there;

as experience had shown that to lay taxes when America was quiet, and repeal them when America was in flames, only added fresh, claims to those people on every occasion; and now, as they totally denied the power of Great Britian to tax them, it became more absolutely necessary to compel the observance of the laws, to vindicate the rights of Parliament."1 Lord North then asked leave to "bring in a bill to repeal the tax act as far as related to the tax on paper, glass, and painters' colors." Pownall, who had been governor of the province, and knew well whereof he spoke, defended the petition, and moved that the tax might be removed from tea. "I do not argue this repeal," he said, "as asking a favor for the Americans; they do not now ask the repeal as a favor. Nor do I move in this matter as seeking redress of a grievance complained of by them; they have not complained to Parliament, nor do they come for redress. Although they feel deeply, they suffer and endure with a determined and alarming silence. They are under no apprehension for their liberty. They remember that it was planted under the auspicious genius of this constitution; it hath taken root, and they have seen it grow up, under the Divine blessing, to a fair and blooming tree. And should any severe strokes of fate again and again prune it down to the bare stock, it would only strike the deeper and the stronger. It would not, perhaps, rise in so straight and fair a form, but it would prove the more hardy and durable. They trust, therefore, to Providence; nor will they complain."

Conway favored the repeal of "the whole of the present act ;" and Barré, also, was for "the whole repeal." When

1 Parl. Debates, v. 253-255: Mahon's Hist. of Eng., v. 265.

the vote was taken, the repeal was lost, so far as the article of tea was concerned, though carried on the other points. Nothing was more plain than that the ministers were obstinate, and their conduct impolitic.

In Massachusetts, the General Court was waging a fierce controversy with Hutchinson. On the 15th of March the latter had convened the legislature at Cambridge, "much against their will." Their petition that the assembly should be restored "to its ancient place, the Court House in Boston," was firmly disregarded by the governor. Finding him inflexible, the House resolved: "We proceed to business under this grievance, only from absolute necessity, hereby protesting against the illegality of holding the assembly as aforesaid, and ordering this our protest to be entered on our journals, to the end that the same may not be drawn into precedent at any time hereafter." In his messages to the Court, the governor took no notice of the tragedy of the 5th of March, but spoke freely of certain disturbances of minor importance. To his charge of "riots and tumults," the House replied, "It may justly be said of the people of this province that they seldom, if ever, have assembled in a tumultuous manner, unless they have been oppressed. It cannot be expected that a people accustomed to the freedom of the English constitution, will be patient under the hand of tyranny and arbitrary power. They will discover their resentment in a manner which will naturally displease their oppressors. And, in such case, the severest laws and the most rigorous execution will be to little or no purpose. The most effectual method to restore tranquillity would be to remove their burdens, and to punish all those who have been the procurers of their oppression.'

1 Hutchinson, iii. 283, seq.