Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/186

154 The "Boston Massacre" [i76V-7o in an affray in which the soldiers fired on the mob and killed three of them. Preston, the officer in command, and the soldiers were tried for murder. Preston was acquitted, as there was no proof that he had given the order to fire. Two of the soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. It is neither possible nor practically important to apportion the blame of this occurrence. Where there has been for months a persistent exchange of expressions of ill-feeling, a trivial incident for which neither party is to blame may lead to an outburst of violence. Far more important and interesting is the attitude of the Boston populace and their leaders. In a worse disciplined and organised community there would have been an outbreak of something like civil war. Instead of this, a town-meeting was at once held in orderly fashion, and a deputation sent to demand the removal of the troops from the town. To this Hutchinson, who had now succeeded Bernard as governor, after some pressure consented. It is also to be noticed that no vindictiveness was shown towards Preston, and that two leading members of the popular party, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, acted as counsel in his defence. At the same time everything was done, not to inflame the passions of the populace, but to instil into them an abiding sense of injury and distrust. In the following and in each successive year the anniversary of the "Massacre" was celebrated by an oration, designed to inculcate a belief that military brutality was a necessary incident in British rule. Meanwhile there were important political changes in England. In the autumn of 1767 Townshend had died. Shortly afterwards Chatham retired, and Grafton became the recognised head of the Ministry. Townshend's place, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was filled by Lord North. The Cabinet were resolved to adopt a conciliatory policy towards America, but differed as to the length to which such concilia- tion should go. Grafton and one of his principal colleagues, Shelburne, were for a total repeal of Townshend's colonial taxes. North was for retaining the tax on tea as an assertion of right ; and his view prevailed in the Cabinet, though only by a single vote. It was on the 1st of May, 1769, that the Council, while repealing the other duties, decided to retain that on tea. In the following January Grafton resigned. With all his infirmities of character, his departure was, in what con- cerned the colonies, a loss. His distaste for a coercive policy was no doubt in some measure the indifference of an easy-going voluptuary. But it also rested on a foundation of Whig principle, and it was the temper needed to deal with the colonies. Grafton was succeeded as Prime Minister by North. North's facile and placable temper was dominated by the stronger will of the King, who demanded from the colonies nothing short of unqualified submission. Thus North was in the unhappy position of having to administer, as far as he might with moderation and intelligence, a harsh and unintelligent policy.