1773.

LETTERS OF THOMAS WHATELY.

337

same of another transaction in which at nearly the same period this shrewd philosopher became engaged. Mr. Thomas Whately, at one time private secretary to Mr. Grenville, and, after several years' interval, Under Secretary of State to Lord Suffolk, had died in the summer of 1772. During some time he had carried on an active correspondence as a personal friend of old standing with several officers of the Crown in Massachusetts, especially with Thomas Hutchinson the Governor, and Andrew Oliver the Lieutenant Governor, of the province. Their letters he may have shown in confidence to one or more of the Ministers at the public offices. Either from those offices or from his own house these letters were purloined at or after the period of his death. Later in the same year they were brought to Dr. Franklin. Who it was that so brought, or who had at first obtained them, was never discovered.* Dr. Franklin received them under an injunction of secrecy and a solemn pledge, which he kept, not to reveal the name of the person or persons concerned. It was quite plain, however, that they could not have been obtained by any other than dishonourable means. Nevertheless, Dr. Franklin thought himself at liberty to forward these letters, with a private note of his own, to Mr. Cushing, the Speaker of the House of Assembly in Massachusetts.

In the letters thus forwarded, the direction of each to Mr. Whately had been either omitted, as being on a cover, or else erased. It did not therefore appear to whom they were addressed, but by the signatures as well as the hand-writing it was evident from whom they had proceeded. On perusal they were found to contain many strong and unguarded ex

* The honour of the theft was in 1820 claimed by Dr. Hosack of New York for Dr. Hugh Williamson. But the last editor of Franklin's Works has conclusively shown from a comparison of dates that Dr. Williamson was then in the West Indies. (Note, vol. iv. p. 442. ed. 1844.) Mr. John Adams, in a letter to Dr. Hosack, dated January 28. 1820, states: "Mr. "Temple, afterwards Sir John Temple, told me in Holland that he had "communicated these letters to Dr. Franklin." But on the other hand, as Mr. John Adams goes on to remark, "Dr. Franklin declared publicly that "he received them from a Member of Parliament," which Mr. Temple was not.

Mahon, History. V.

22

pressions against the opposition party at Boston. There were also some hints as to the popular licentiousness which had grown from several provisions in the Charter. Thus Hutchinson wrote: "I doubt whether it is possible to pro"ject a system of government in which a Colony three thou"sand miles from the parent state shall enjoy all the liberty "of the parent state. I wish the good of the Colony "when I wish to see some further restraint of liberty rather "than that the connexion with the parent state should be "broken."* Containing such expressions and such sentiments, the letters were no doubt well adapted, when made known to the popular leaders in Massachusetts, to feed the flame which already blazed high in that Colony against the officers of the Crown. But it is to be observed that all these expressions, and all these sentiments had been put forth in the strictest confidence. "If I have wrote with freedom," says Oliver, "I consider I am writing to a friend, and that I 'am perfectly safe in opening myself to you." ** It is also to be noted that during the years 1767, 1768, and 1769, to which years the letters thus abstracted were confined, Mr. Whately did not fill any official station, and was merely a private Member of Parliament.

To make use of private letters so obtained for such an object would be, in our own time at least and in our own country, and by all parties alike, equally and warmly condemned. Several Americans of high character have indeed attempted to palliate or to justify the conduct of Franklin in that transaction. But I have so much respect for these gentlemen, my brethren in blood, in language, and in feeling, as to believe that every one of them would utterly shrink from doing what from mistaken zeal they still labour to defend.

In transmitting these letters to Mr. Cushing, Dr. Franklin had stated that in pursuance of the terms upon which he had

*Letter, January 20. 1769.

** Letter of Andrew Oliver, August 12. 1769. See also to the same effect Mr. Hutchinson's letter of October 26. in the same year.

1773.

PUBLICATION IN MASSACHUSETTS.

339

received them, he must insist that they should not be printed nor made public, but only circulated among a chosen few. As might have been foreseen, this restraint was quickly overleaped. The temptation was too strong for eager politicians to hold such a weapon in their hands and yet forbear from wielding it. Accordingly in the summer of 1773, after many previous rumours of these letters, they were laid before the Assembly. The name of Franklin as connected with them was still carefully concealed; it was only said in general terms that they had come from one of their friends in England. It was added that he their unknown friend had forbid these letters being published. Under this prohibition, the Assembly for some time paused. But at length it was alleged, though without a shadow of truth, that other copies of these letters had arrived from England by the last ships. *That assurance was deemed sufficient to absolve the House from any engagement of secrecy. It was voted by a majority of 101 against only 5 that the letters thus revealed were designed to subvert the Constitution and establish arbitrary power. A petition was likewise passed, and transmitted to Franklin for presentation, beseeching His Majesty to remove both Hutchinson and Oliver from their posts within the province.

The letters having been published in Boston, printed copies of them came to England in the course of the ensuing autumn, and produced of course no slight degree both of resentment and surprise. Public curiosity was upon the stretch by what possible means they could have been obtained. The person most aggrieved was Mr. William Whately, the surviving brother of Thomas, and the rightful heir to his papers. His suspicions fell, and apparently not without good grounds, on Mr. John Temple, lately one of the Commissioners of Customs at Boston, but a partisan of the

* Dr. Samuel Cooper to Franklin, June 14. 1778. Franklin says in answer, on the 25th of July, "As to the report of other copies being come "from England, I know that could not be. It was an expedient to dis66 engage the House." (Works, vol. viii. p. 50. and 79.)

popular side*, and a close friend of Franklin. A duel ensued between them, in which Mr. William Whately was wounded. Under these circumstances Dr. Franklin felt it necessary to avow, and so far as he could to vindicate, his part in the transaction. The whole tide of obloquy was now turned against himself. He was assailed by Mr. William Whately, although not quite with the same weapons as Mr. Temple; he received no challenge, but he found a suit in Chancery commenced against him.

Meanwhile the petition from Massachusetts, praying for the dismissal of Hutchinson and Oliver, had been through the hands of Lord Dartmouth laid before the King; and was by His Majesty referred to a Committee of His Privy Council. Accordingly, the Lords of the Council, after one adjournment and full notice to the parties concerned, met for that purpose in solemn conclave on the 29th of January 1774. No less than thirty-five Privy Councillors took their seats on this memorable day; at their head, the Lord President, Earl Gower. There also was seated the Prime Minister, and on the other side stood Benjamin Franklin. The public expectation was eager, and the Council Chamber thronged. Among others struggling, the most part vainly, for admittance was Dr. Priestley, who has left us a lively description of the scene. "We shall never get through!" cried he to Mr. Burke. "Mr. Burke said, 'Give me your “arm,' and locking it fast in his, he soon made his way to "the door of the Privy Council. I then said, 'Mr. Burke, “you are an excellent leader.' He replied, 'I wish other "persons thought so too!'"**

The business of the day was opened by the Counsel on the part of the petition, Mr. Dunning and Mr. John Lee. They spoke but feebly; Dunning being hoarse and ill; and

* This apparent contradiction is explained by Dr. Gordon. "Mr. Temple "was not obnoxious to the populace, being averse to the establishment of "the Board of Commissioners, which lessened both his salary and power. "He wished the dissolution of it, and to be restored to his former place of "Surveyor General of the Customs." (History of the American Revolution, vol. i. p. 237.)

** Letter of Dr. Priestley in the Monthly Magazine, November 10. 1802.

1774.

SCENE AT THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

341

both it was thought labouring under an uneasy consciousness of the means by which the letters must have been obtained. Wedderburn, the Solicitor General, then rose on behalf of the Crown. Besides his public duty he was, it seems, on some personal grounds, stirred by a feeling of ill-will to Franklin; and he had carefully prepared himself for the part he was to play. In an able and brilliant but most bitter speech he turned the full force of his ready rhetoric against the agent of Massachusetts. Private correspondence, he observed, had hitherto been held sacred, even in times of the greatest party-rage. Into what companies, he asked, could Dr. Franklin hereafter go with an unembarrassed face? Men would hide their papers from him and lock up their escritoires. Hitherto he had aspired to fame by his writings, but henceforth he must esteem it a libel to be termed a man of letters! Wedderburn even went so far as to apply to his opponent the Roman by-word, as "a Man of three Letters," namely FUR, a thief! He next drew an elaborate parallel between him and the character of Zanga, in Young's fine play of THE REVENGE. And that parallel he wound up as follows: "I ask, my Lords, whether "the vengeful temper attributed by poetic fiction only to the "bloody-minded African, is not surpassed by the coolness "and apathy of the wily New Englander?"

Such language on such an occasion was certainly most ill-judged and impolitic. A strong case can scarce ever be stated too gently. Had Wedderburn dwelt on the transmission of the letters in terms of greater moderation, his hearers would have felt with him how far from justifiable had been the conduct of Franklin. But his keen philippic caused, on the contrary, a rebound in Franklin's favour. The audience and the public inclined amidst all these taunts to remember how eminent was the character of Franklin as a man of science; how from an humble station he had risen, solely by his own merits and exertions, to enjoy the confidence of America and the esteem of Europe. - What added to the ill-effect of the invective was its too favourable recep