he should have been conciliatory—sought to constrain
the election of Hutchinson
, and two others,1
and accused the House
of having determined its votes from ‘private interests and resentment and popular discontent,’ disguised ‘under the borrowed garb of patriotism.’
‘It were to be wished,’ he continued, ‘that a veil could be drawn over the late disgraceful scenes.
But that cannot be done till a better temper and understanding shall prevail.
The recent election of Councillors is an attack on government in form, and an ill-judged and ill-timed oppugnation of the King
, as the leader of the Bedford
on the third day of June, proposed in the British
House of Commons an Address to the King
, censuring America
for its ‘rebellious disposition,’ as well as the Ministry for its dilatoriness; pledging Parliament to the coercion of the colonies; and praying that there might be no prorogation till positive assurances should be received from the provincial Governors of the return of the people to obedience.4
From the ministerial benches Charles Townshend
, professing to oppose the motion, spoke substantially in its favor.
‘It has long been my opinion,’ said he, in conclusion, ‘that America
should be regulated and deprived of its militating and contradictory charters, and its royal Governors, Judges
, and Attorneys be rendered independent of the people.
I therefore expect that the present Administration will, in ’