of respect, and marks the guileful, treacherous man-hater for disgust and infamy. Nothing has ever been more intolerable than your insolence upon a late occasion, when you had, by your jesuitical insinuations, induced a worthy minister of state to form a most unfavorable opinion of the province in general, and some of the most respectable inhabitants in particular. You had the effrontery to produce a letter from his lordship, as a proof of your success in calumniating us. Surely you must suppose we have lost all feeling, or you would not dare thus tauntingly to display the trophies of your slanders, and upbraidingly to make us sensible of the inexpressible misfortunes which you have brought upon us. But I refrain, lest a full representation of the hardships suffered by this too-long insulted people should lead them to an unwarrantable revenge. We never can treat good and patriotic rulers with too great reverence. But it is certain that men totally abandoned to wickedness can never merit our regard, be their stations ever so high.

"If such men are by God appointed,

The devil may be the Lord's anointed.'

"A TRUE PATRIOT." 1

The governor said that he could not, with safety to the Government, let this article pass unnoticed. He first consulted, informally, several members of the council, who advised him to lay it officially before that body and the House of Representatives, which was then in session; which he did, by sending a similar message (March 1, 1768) to each. He said that he usually treated the "Boston Gazette" with the

1 On this day, Feb. 29, 1768, the "Boston Chronicle," an Administration journal, stated that articles printed in Boston, in August, September, and October last, "had lately occasioned much conversation in a certain place;" and that, soon after the meeting of the P―t, Mr. G—G—, when the house was sitting, produced some American newspapers, which, he said, contained doctrine of a dangerous and alarming tendency; and proposed that the printer should be sent for and the author inquired after. Upon this, Mr. C―y replied, that the gentleman's motion was contrary to the order of the house; that, beside, it was only reasonable, before they sent for printers and authors from such a distance, they should make reformation at home among those who were just at hand. It was then put off for six months."

2 Bernard to Lord Shelburne, March 5, 1768.

contempt which it deserved, but that he felt bound to notice it, when its publications were carried to such an extent as to endanger the existence of the Government; that this paper was of this character, and he presented it to them for their serious consideration, that they might act as the majesty of the king, the honor of the general court, and the interest of the province, might require.

The council received this message, Bernard says, "at a very full board, - there being twenty present, the whole number but three,"-who appointed a committee to prepare an' answer, which was "unanimously agreed upon by the same number."1 The council (March 3, 1768) remarked, that the article gave the board a real concern, and characterized it as a false, scandalous, and impudent libel on His Excellency. They said it was an insolent and licentious attack on the king's representative; involved an attack on Government itself; was subversive of all order and decorum; an insult on the general court, on the king's authority, on the King of kings; and worthy only of the utmost abhorrence and indignation: and the reply closed with the assurance, that the council would always support the dignity of the king's governor. It is questionable whether the council, in this reply, preserved its own dignity; for, while it affected to be shocked by the licentiousness of the press, it showed itself a master of the vocabulary of invective. The governor (March 3) returned his most hearty thanks for so decided an address, by a message, in which he said that he should not have taken notice of the libel, if he had not apprehended it to be pregnant with danger to the Government.

1 Bernard to Lord Shelburne, March 5, 1768.

The house also considered the governor's message. Bernard says: "In the house, which was grown thin, and evacuated by the friends of Government in greater proportion than [by] the opponents, it had not the same success. The faction labored with all their might to prevent the paper being considered. It was debated a whole afternoon, and adjourned to the next morning." The house, after such deliberation, agreed (39 to 30) upon an answer to the message. They said (March 3) that they had given due attention to the communication of the governor; had examined the paper which he had transmitted; and expressed sorrow, that any publication in a newspaper, or any other cause, should give His Excellency an apprehension of danger to the being or dignity of His Majesty's Government here. The house, however, could not see reason to admit of such conclusion from that paper. No person was named in it; and as there was nothing contained in it that could affect the majesty of the king, or the honor of the general court, the house thought they were justified in taking no further notice of it; remarking, "The liberty of the press is a great bulwark of the liberty of the people: it is, therefore, the incumbent duty of those who are constituted the guardians of the people's rights, to defend and maintain it." The answer closed by an expression of the opinion, that the provision already made for the punishment of abuses by the press, in the common course of the law, was sufficient in the present case. "The house," Hutchinson says, "rather justified the libel than condemned it." The criticism would have been more just, had it

1 Bernard's Letter, March 5, 1768.

read,-The house rather condemned the action of the governor than justified the contents of the paper. In truth, the house understood its position; and its admirable answer is a calm and strong word for the freedom of the press.

The governor, with reason, now asked the council to prosecute the printers of "A True Patriot;" but this body declined to proceed farther in the affair. "This," Bernard wrote, "is one of the consequences of the fatal ingredient in this constitution, — the election of the council," which he termed "the cankerworm of the Government." He next directed the attorney-general to commence proceedings against the printers in the courts; and the article was brought before the grand jury. Hutchinson, as the chiefjustice, delivered on this occasion a charge, in which he says, "I told them in almost plain words, that they might depend on being damned, if they did not find a bill." This charge received from his friends great praise for its legal ability. But the grand jury, which sympathized with the House of Representatives, braved the penalty named by the chiefjustice, and refused to find a bill against the printers.1

1 It appears from the following communication in the "Gazette " of March 27, 1769, written probably by Warren, that the article, "A True Patriot," was again before the grand jury.

"MESSRS. EDES AND GILL, - Please to insert the following:"I am informed of what passed with the grand jury last week, relative to a paper signed 'A True Patriot,' published in the supplement to your 'Gazette' of Feb. 29, 1768. I imagined nothing more would have been said upon a subject which has so ridiculously taken up the time of many persons, who might have been more wisely employed. However, I know the motives of those who have again brought it upon the tapis. It is to be represented to the ministry as an instance of disregard to law and good order. What success plotters will have, time must discover. In the mean time, it may be depended on that their representations will not, as in time past, be suffered to go without company.

"T. N. MONUMENT-MAKER."

Warren, in two communications printed in the "Boston Gazette," under the signature of "A True Patriot," reviewed with scathing severity these proceedings. While he disavowed any intention to destroy the dignity of authority, and remarked with contempt on the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience, he expressed the pleasure with which he heard the voice of "all orders of unplaced and independent men," who were determined to support their rights and the liberty of the press. He said that the House of Representatives showed themselves resolute in the cause of justice; and the grand jurors demonstrated by their action that influence was not able to overcome their attachment to sacred honor, a free constitution, and their country. He remarked of the people, that, when they knew their true interest, they would distinguish their friends from their enemies, and would protect from tyrannic violence generous defenders in the cause of justice and humanity; but, should a mistaken complaisance lead to a sacrifice of their privileges, or to a desertion of their well-meant supporters, they would deserve bondage, and soon find themselves in chains. He said that the authors of some of the misfortunes under which the province groaned, had been detected; and he closed in the following words: "We will strip the serpents of their stings, and consign to disgrace all those guileful betrayers of their country. There is only one way for men to avoid being set up as objects of general contempt, which is not to deserve it."1

The result of this affair caused great chagrin to the

1 One of these papers is in the "Boston Gazette" of March 7; and the other, in that of March 14.