proof that Hutchinson
ing against its Constitution; to bring censure on the act, it was necessary to raise a belief that the evidence had been surreptitiously obtained.
To that end Hutchinson
was unwearied in his entreaties; but William Whately
the Banker, who was his brother's xecutor, was persuaded that the letters in question had never been in his hands, and refused to cast imputations on any one.
The newspaper Press was therefore employed to spread a rumor that they had been dishonestly obtained through John Temple.
The anonymous calumny which was attributed to Bernard
, and Mauduit
, was denied by one calling himself ‘a Member of Parliament,’ who also truly affirmed, that the letters which were sent to Boston
, had never been in the executor's hands.
Again the Press declared, what was also true, that Whately
, the executor, had submitted files of his brother's letters to Temple
's examination, who, it was insinuated, had seized the opportunity to purloin them.
repelled the charge instantly and successfully.1 Whately
, the executor, never made a suggestion that the letters had been taken away by Temple
, and always believed the contrary;2
but swayed not so much by the solicitations of Hutchinson
, as by his sudden appointment as a banker to the Treasury, he published an evasive card, in which he did not relieve Temple
from the implication.