THE Committee appointed by the Honorable Board on the 4th of October Instant, to enquire what Foundation there was for the Representation made in the Deposition signed Andrew Oliver, published in the Appendix to a Pamphlet printed in London, and to prepare a true State of that Matter and lay the same before the Board, having (as far as they are able) recollected the Proceed­ings had in Council the 6th and 7th of March last, and the Decla­rations of Royal Tyler, Esq and other members of Council (so far as those Proceedings and Declarations are referred to in Mr. Oliver's Deposition)—what your Committee can severally recollect being comprized in their respective Depositions ^* accompanying this their Report, they take leave to lay the same before the Honorable Board for their Consideration.

The Committee appointed by the Honorable Board the 16th Instant, beg Leave to make the following Report. W. BRATTLE, per Order.

THE Committee having maturely considered the two petitions to the Honorable Board from the Secretary, Andrew Oliver, Esq together with his Affidavit concerning the Proceedings at Council on the 6th and 7th of March last, annexed to a pamphlet published in London, and the several depositions on the subject matter of the said Affidavit, take occasion to make a few observa­tions from and upon them.

With regard to the said Affidavit several things are observable from it.

1 st. That what is there declared to have been said by Mr. Tyler in Council, is expressed in such a manner as to be generally under­stood to represent, that antecedent to the unhappy affair of the 5th of March last▪ there had been a plan formed by people of the best character among us to remove the troops out of the town of Boston, and after that, the Commissioners.

2 dly, That divers Gentlemen of the Council adopted what had been so said.

3 dly, That the Secretary had in his draft expressed what had been said in debate at Council in the terms in the said Affidavit recited; and that this form or draft of his "was allowed (by the Council) strictly to express the truth, but that it would not stand well on the Council Records": whereupon "one of the Gentlemen of the Board prepared an amendment" which "was substituted."

As to the 1st article, the plan therein mentioned was, according to the said Affidavit, intended to effect the removal of the troops, and the removal of the Commissioners.

With regard to the removal of the troops, Mr. Tyler, who men­tioned the said plan in Council on the 6th of March last, declares in his deposition, ^* "that he uttered nothing in said Council purport­ing that any plan had been formed to remove the troops previous [Page 3] to their firing on the inhabitants; that he had no idea of a plan formed for the removal of said troops until the day after the shock­ing scene on the evening of the 5th of March last; and that he then meant to be understood that the disposition of the people to remove the [...]ops was occasioned by the killing and wounding of divers inhabitants of the town, and by the people's apprehensions that the troops still had an unfriendly design against them."

Mr. Erving, Mr. Pitts and Mr. Dexter in their depositions ^* de­clare, "that they cannot recollect, neither do they believe, that any thing was said in Council by Mr. Tyler, purporting, that any plan had been formed to remove the troops, previous to their firing on the inhabitants, but that they understood Mr. Tyler to mean that the people were excited to such a measure by the killing and wounding of some of the inhabitants of the town on the even­ing immediately preceding."

Mr. Danforth and the other members of the Board, then present in Council, have made in substance the same declaration in their respective depositions. Mr. Cotton, the Secretary's deputy, and his assistant Francis Skinner, by their depositions, ^† taken at the desire of the Secretary, on being asked, declared, that when Mr. Tyler men­tioned the plan aforesaid they did not apprehend him to mean a plan concerted previous to the sixth of March last; and the Secre­tary himself has lately declared before the Board, that he did not conceive Mr. Tyler to mean such a preconcerted plan; and that he never believed any such plan had been formed. All which declara­tions amount to a satisfactory proof, that what Mr. Tyler said in Council did not convey the idea that a plan had been formed to re­move the troops previous to their killing a number of the inhabitants.

With regard to a plan for the removal of the Commissioners, Mr. Cotton ^† declares "he heard Mr. Tyler say, that there was a plan formed to remove the troops from the town, and that they would not stop there but would remove the Commissioners also." Francis Skinner ^† declares in substance the same: as does also Capt. Caldwell: ^‡ the two first however say, that they did not apprehend Mr. Tyler meant a plan concerted previous to the [...]th of March last. With regard to this circumstance Capt. Caldwell is not explicit, and it does not appear that any question was asked him concerning it.

Lieutenant Colonel Dalrymple in the body of his deposition ^‖ says nothing concerning the Commissioners: but after he had signed and delivered it, being asked whether he remembered that Mr. Tyler said, that part of the plan was to remove the Commissioners out of town? He answered, "that something of that kind was mentioned by some gentleman of the Council during the debates, but he cannot say whe­ther it was Mr. Tyler."

This is the whole of what is declared on the positive side relative to the Commissioners.—Two of the declarants, viz. Messrs Cotton and [Page 4] Skinner say they were called out divers times while the Council was sitting and in the course of the proceedings and Mr. Cotton infers from it, "that he cannot declare so fully as those who attended with­out interruption."—Capt. Caldwell did not go to the Council till 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 6th of March, and therefore can­not judge of what passed at Council so well as those who attended both parts of the day: and Colonel Dalrymple, who did attend both parts of the day, did not recollect when he delivered his deposition, that any thing had been said concerning the Commissioners; and his answer, when asked as above, shews he had only a general remem­brance of something said about the Commissioners; but what it was, does not clearly appear by his answer. It is very likely that what passed between the Lieutenant Governor and several of the Council relative to the protection of the Commissioners, as below mentioned, was the thing that lay in his mind.

It is not doubted that these Declarants understood Mr. Tyler in the sense they have declared, but it is probable they might misap­prehend him. It appears by Mr. Gray's ^* and other depositions, that the Lieutenant Governor asked the Board, what protection there would be for the Commissioners if both regiments were order'd to the Castle: and this, very probably, gave the occasion for mention­ing the Commissioners at all.—Mr. Tyler, upon that question, might express his sentiments on that head; and having so fair an opportu­nity, might also express his sentiments concerning the Commissioners themselves, and the low estimation in which they are held by people in general, not only here but throughout the continent: and this being intermixed with the subject of the day, viz. the removal of the troops, might occasion what he meant to say relative to the troops only, to be understood by some as relative to them and the Commissioners also It is certain that all the Gentlemen of the Council then pre­sent, have declared on oath, they have no remembrance that Mr. Tyler said there was a plan laid for the removal of the Commissio­ners; and Mr. Gray adds to this declaration, that he took particu­lar notice of what Mr. Tyler did say▪ Mr. Tyler himself, ^* upon the most serious recollection, declares on oath, "that the assertion, that he said there was a plan formed to remove the Commissioners, or that it was any part of a plan to remove them, is a gross misrepresentations; and that in his best judgment and firm belief no plan to remove the troops, before their firing on the inhabitants of Boston, or at any time whatever to remove the Commissioners of the Customs, ever was formed or forming by the people, or any number of per­sons whatever." He further declares "that on the Lieut. Governor's asking in said Council, what will become of the Commissioners, if the troops should be removed, several of the Council gave it as their opinion, that they would be safe, and that they always had been safe: And he verily believes nothing was said to the contrary by any one of the Council present."

Mr. Gray declares, ^* that upon the Lieut. Governor's asking the said question, he answered, "that the Commissioners would be as ^‡ [Page 5] safe without the troops as with them: for that the people would never be so mad as to offer them the least violence when the troops could so easily be recalled for their protection." He further de­clares "that one Gentleman at the Board immediately seconded him, and assured his Honor of their safety, and added, that he would pawn his life they should receive no injury."

Mr. Danforth declares, ^* "he well remembers that divers of the Council then declared, that in their opinion the Commissioners might continue in town in all safety after the troops were removed thence; and that no one of the Council present discovered an opinion diverse therefrom."

Mr. Erving declares, ^† that "he said at the Board, in the hearing of the Lieut. Governor, on the 6th of March last, that in his opinion the Commissioners were safe in town, and never had been in danger; and that he would pawn his life they would remain safe, or words of the same import."

If the foregoing circumstances and declarations be duly remarked, it will appear highly probable that if Mr. Tyler said any thing about the Commissioners it was misunderstood: and this will appear still more so, if it be further remarked, that, on the contrary supposition, it must have been considered as a reason for the troops remaining in town, if the Commissioners had been supposed to be in danger; as has been observed by several of the deponents; and "the said de­ponents are persuaded it would have been so considered by the Lieu­tenant Governor, and the commanding officer of the troops, and consequently tended to defeat the very end, which the several mem­bers of the Council, and Mr. Tyler in particular, are represented as aiming at. And they further observe, that had he mentioned it as his opinion, that there was a design of the people to remove the Commissioners, it would have been so utterly contrary to the senti­ments of these deponents, and they doubt not of every other mem­ber of the Council present, except himself, that they verily believe it must have produced such a dispute, and opposition, as could not so soon have been forgot."

The second thing observable from the Secretaty's Affidavit ^‡ is, that divers Gentlemen of the Council, by referring expressly to it, adopted what Mr. Tyler had said, viz. That people of the best cha­racters among us had formed a plan not only to remove the troops but the Commissioners.

In contradiction to this, every Gentleman of the Council then present, deny that they adopted any such declaration. So far are they from adopting what is represented to have been said by Mr. Tyler about a plan for the removal of the Commissioners, that there is not one of them has the least remembrance of any thing said con­cerning a plan to remove the Commissioners: and therefore they could not refer to it, or in any sense whatever adopt it.—Mr. Hubbard [Page 6] and Mr. Russell declare, ^* "that they cannot recollect that they heard a word from Mr. Tyler of any intention to remove the Commis­sioners, so neither could they have adopted such a strange opinion, had it been advanced by any person whatever."

Mr. Erving, Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Dexter ^† declare the same; and add, "that, according to their best remembrance, what was really said in Council by Mr. Tyler was not referred to by any other mem­ber present in such manner, as that it could with the least degree of propriety be affirmed in general terms, as it is in the deposition of the said Mr. Oliver, that they adopted what Mr. Tyler had said."

Mr. Danforth in his deposition recites, ^‡ "that whereas in Mr. Oliver's aforementioned affidavit, it is asserted that divers members of the Council adopted what Mr. Tyler had said, by referring to it, and thereby excusing themselves from enlarging (which assertion plainly imports that divers members of the Council assented to and adopted all that Mr. Oliver in his affidavit had represented to have been said by Mr. Tyler, relative to a plan formed to remove the Com­missioners as well as the troops) He the deponent declares, that al­tho' he had the like apprehensions Mr. Tyler had of the danger of further bloodshed, in case the troops should continue in the town, yet that he never adopted any sentiment, that a plan had been con­certed for removing the Commissioners (or even the troops by way of compulsion) and, so far at least as relates to the Commissioners, this deponent is fully persuaded, that no member of the Council then present, did adopt the same: inasmuch as he well remembers that divers of them then declared, that in their opinion the Commis­sioners might continue in town with all safety after the troops were removed thence; and no one of the Council then present discovered an opinion diverse therefrom."

From these depositions and what went before, it appears that the said Gentlemen of the Council were so far from adopting what the Secretary represents to have been said by Mr. Tyler concerning a plan for the removal of the Commissioners, that there is not one of them has the least remembrance of any thing said about such a plan; and therefore they could not refer to it, or in any sense whatever adopt it.

The third thing observable in the Secretary's Affidavit ^§ is, what he declares about his draft expressing what had been said in debate at Council, that it was allowed by the Council strictly to express the truth, but that it would not stand well on the council records. This declaration represents the Council in a very odious light. It conveys to the world this idea, that they rejected his draft because it was true; and that the truth of it made it unfit to be recorded in the Council books: Whereupon an amendment was substituted. To substitute an amendment, that alters the truth, is to substitute a falsehood; and as the said declaration suggests such a substitution, is implies a charge of falsehood upon the Gentlemen that were present [Page 7] at that Council. But although the Committee apprehend the Se­cretary did not intend any such charge, yet his words may probably be construed to imply it.

With regard to the said amendment, most of the said Gentlemen have expressed their sentiments in their respective depositions. Five of them ^* declare, "that the words made use of in the amendment, as recited by the said Mr. Oliver in his deposition, which were the next morning proposed in Council to be substituted instead of the terms the Secretary had used in the minutes the day before, these deponents then verily thought less liable to be misconstrued; and that by this alteration the true meaning and intent of the several members of the Council, in what they had on the preceeding day said to the Lieutenant Governor, of the disposition of the people, would fully and fairly appear."

Mr. Danforth declares, ^† "that the said amendment was unanimously agreed to by the members of the Council then present, and contains the whole of what, after full debate and mature consideration, was by them adopted, and (together with the advice given to the Lieute­nant Governor, to use his influence that the troops might be removed) was, as this deponent apprehends, the whole that could regularly be certified by the Secretary, as they were the only Votes of Council that had passed upon that occasion."

The Committee next proceed to consider the Secretary's two Petitions ^‡ to the Board, and to make some observations on them.

In one of them he represents, "that his Deposition or Affidavit above-mentioned appears by the tenor of it to have been made meerly to vindicate the Lieutenant-Governor, in desiring that his Majesty's troops might be removed to Castle William, after the fatal catastrophe of the 5th of March: he having been called upon by the Lieutenant-Governor to give a true relation of the proceedings had in Council on that affair."—If the Lieutenant-Governor de­sired the said deposition for his vindication, could he not have been vindicated without the Secretary's traducing the Council, and bring­ing into question the loyalty of the Town of Boston, or Province? Was it not traducing the Council, to suggest that they rejected his draft because it strictly expressed the truth? And was it not bring­ing into question the loyalty of the Town or Province, to suggest that a plan had been formed by people of the best characters among us to remove the Troops and Commissioners, and that divers of the Council adopted or allowed it to be true that there was such a plan? Do these suggestions, and the declarations contained in the Secretary's deposition, in which he wholly omits what was said about the safety of the Commissioners, comport with a true relation of the proceed­ings had in Council on the above-mentioned affair; which relation the Lieutenant-Governor called upon him for?

[Page 8]The Secretary further represents, that "as holding his commission immediately from the King, who therein expresses his confidence in his fidelity, he could not consider himself as acting in breach of trust, in making said deposition, as he was called upon by the Com­mander in Chief, who is the King's representative, to give a true relation of the proceedings had in Council on that day."

Though the Secretary holds his commission immediately from the King, the commission constitutes him an officer of the Province, to do the business appertaining to the office of Secretary but does not give the Commander in Chief, notwithstanding he is the King's re­presentative in the Province, any authority over him.—By virtue of his commission, he is to do the proper business of Secretary. But could it be a part of such business to take minutes at Council of what all or any of the members said in their debates? and after­wards to give a deposition of it, when called upon by the Comman­der in Chief? If it was not a part of such business, for what pur­pose could he want to assist his memory by the said minutes? Could this be any proof of fidelity to the King? or could it not be considered as a breach of trust? Would not such an idea of the business of a Secretary degrade him into the character of a spy and an informer? Would it not be inconsistent with freedom of consul­tation and debate, and consequently with one of the most essential privileges and rights of Council? and would it not therefore be sub­versive of every principle, which distinguishes a free government from despotism? But admitting that the Secretary, as the King's officer, is under obligation to take such minutes at Council and reduce them to a deposition if desired by the King's representative (which is utterly denied) yet it appears by one of the Secretary's petitions to the Board, that he officiously, without the privity of any one, took the minutes of what was said in the debates of Council on the 5th of March.

If the Secretary could think himself authorized to take such mi­nutes, and give such a deposition, was he not under the obligation of honor, and did not justice require him, to communicate it to the Council before he had compleated and delivered it? Had he done so, the mistakes and partial representations contained in it might have been corrected, and his own honor and justice remained unimpeached.

It has been for some time justly complained of, that depositions, memorials, and every species of information, have been taken and sent to England in a secret manner; and there made use of to re­present his Majesty's subjects here in an odious light: which has occasioned troops and naval armaments to be sent hither, to the great and unjust annoyance and distress of his Majesty's subjects of this Province. It was therefore the more extraordinary that the Secretary, in the affair of his deposition, should act in the same secret manner, especially as it respected what had been said in Council; about which he could easily have informed himself from the mem­bers of it, who at the same time had a right to know what he had [Page 9] represented concerning them.—Whatever may have been designed with regard to the operation of this deposition, the manifest ten­dency of it is to give a most unfavorable, and at the same time a most unjust idea of the people here, and of the Council in particular.

As the said deposition represents the Council in an ill light, it could be no disagreeable present to Governor Bernard, to whom it was sent by the Lieutenant-Governor, as he informed the Board. His Honor at the same time informed them, that he desired Governor Bernard to keep it to himself, unless his conduct with regard to the removing the troops should be faulted, in which case it was to be made use of for his Honor's vindication. Whether it was used or not for that purpose is uncertain: but this is certain, that it has been published in London, annexed with other depositions to a printed pamphlet, intitled "A fair account of the late unhappy disturbance at Boston, in New-England": in which pamphlet and depositions is given a very unfair, and, in all material circumstances, a very false account of what it therein called the late unhappy di­sturbance. The most material thing aimed at in the said pamphlet, is to obtrude as truth on the public this falsehood, viz. that a plan was here laid for the expulsion of the troops, prior to their firing on and killing a number of the inhabitants of the town: and the principal if not the only deposition that in any measure tends to support such a charge is the Secretary's above mentioned.

This deposition has in some degree answered the purpose of the Pamphlet writer or procurer; and is well calculated [...] answer the further purpose of Governor Bernard, to effect a change in the con­stitution of the Council, by giving of the last year's Council a very disadvantageous idea; from which will be formed the idea of the present Council, which include the same members as the last.

This deposition has been attended with circumstances that appear in some degree remarkable. It was taken on the same day on which the other depositions (or most of them) annexed to the same pam­phlet, were taken, viz. the 13th of March. They all went (as seems probable) by Mr. Commissioner Robinson, who sailed for England the 16th of March; and they are all published together in the same pamphlet. Whether these circumstances are casual, or whether they indicate a mutual correspondence and communication between persons here, with regard to the said depositions, there do not appear any sufficient means precisely to determine.

The Secretary further represents "how cautious he was in fram­ing his deposition; and that he is confident he has been precise in setting down the very words used on the occasion, without adding any construction of his own."

How cautious and precise the Secretary has been, especially in representing what was said about the Commissioners, has fully ap­peared above, under the article relative to them. He not only gives an imperfect account of what he has represented, but has wholly [Page 10] omitted all the declarations made at Council, relative to the Com­missioners, that they would be safe, notwithstanding the troops should be removed: which has already sufficiently appeared.

The Secretary goes on to observe, that "the principal matter, wherein the testimony of divers [or rather of all] of said Gentlemen differs from his own, appears to him to be concerning what relates to the Commissioners: with regard to which he apprehends his de­position is fully supported by the testimony of disinterested witnesses then present."

The Secretary here suggests that the Gentlemen of the Council are interested; and therefore that their testimony, wherein it differs from that of his witnesses, whom he represents as disinterested, must be invalidated.

Seven Gentlemen of the Council have given testimony about what Mr. Tyler is represented to have said in Council, concerning the Troops and Commissioners. In this matter, it is evident, they are wholly disinterested. What inducement then could they have to per­vert the truth? How is their testimony in this matter invalidated?— They may be stiled disinterested witnesses, as properly as those pro­duced by the Secretary; and much more so than two of them, who act under, and are dependant on the Secretary for their conti­nuance in office.

The Committee have been thus particular in this matter, that the true state of it might appear; and that thereby the pernicious consequences to the Province, which the Honorable Board appre­hend the Secretary's deposition may be attended with, may be prevented.

So far as this matter stands related to the Council, it appears that the Secretary's deposition exhibits to the world a very dishonorable and injurious idea of them, by suggesting, that because his draft was allowed strictly to express the truth, it would not stand well on the Council records, and was therefore rejected by the Council. —It appears also that the Secretary, in a secret manner, has taken minutes at Council of what was said by the members of the Council in their debates.—That he has subscribed his name to a paper con­taining those minutes, and has taken his deposition before Foster Hutchinson, Esq to the truth of it; also, that the said paper and deposition have been sent by the Lieutenant-Governor to Governor Bernard, and that they have been since published, with other depo­sitions, annexed to a printed pamphlet designed to defame the Pro­vince, with regard to the unhappy affair of the 5th of March.

The conduct of the Secretary in this affair is not only a breach of trust in him, and injurious to the character and honor of the Council, but is destructive of all freedom of speech and debate, and consequently a breach of privilege—the most essential privilege belonging to the Council, or that can belong to a deliberative body.

[Page 11]The Committee therefore are humbly of opinion, that the honor of the Council requires that the Board should come into the follow­ing Resolutions.

1. Resolved, That Andrew Oliver, Esq Secretary of this Pro­vince▪ by secretly taking minutes at Council of what was said by the members of Council in their debates, also by signing a paper con­taining those minutes, and further by giving his deposition to the truth of it, has in each and all those instances acted inconsistent with the duty of his office, and thereby is guilty of a breach of trust.

2. Resolved, That the said Andrew Oliver, Esq in as much as such proceedings are destructive of all freedom of debate, is guilty of the breach of a most essential privilege of this Board.

3. Whereas the said Andrew Oliver, Esq has suggested in his said deposition, that because his draft was allowed strictly to express the truth, it would not stand well on the Council records, and was therefore rejected by the Council, Resolved, That by such suggestion he has injured and abused the members composing that Council, and by so doing has reflected great dishonor on this Board.

4. Resolved, That an attested copy of this report, and the peti­tions and depositions to which it relates, be sent to Mr. Agent Bollan, in order that he may make the best use of them he can, for the benefit of this Province.

The Committee on the Secretary's Petition of the 29th of October last have taken the same into Consideration and made the fol­lowing Observations thereon, which are submitted to the Honorable Board. WM. BRATTLE, by Order.

THE Secretary's last Petition to the honorable Board begins with shewing "that it so happened he had no opportunity to see the report of your Committee, and your Honor's Resolutions thereon, until sometime after they had passed the Board."

On which your Committee would observe, that if the Secretary had thought proper he might have been present, as his Deputy was, at the time the said report was made, and whilst it was under con­sideration, which would have given him a full knowledge of its con­tents: But that his knowing it, was in no wise necessary to the Board's passing upon it, as the examination of the evidence on both sides, and in his presence, had been had some time before, agreeable to his petition; and as the said report, besides a summary of the evidence, and one or two incidental circumstances, contained no­thing but the Committee's observations on that evidence, and the re­solutions they recommended to the consideration of the Board. They would further observe, that the Board make no secret of any of their proceedings: which however in this case they might have justly done, as the Secretary in a secret manner took minutes of what he represents had been said in Council, and in a secret manner gave his deposition concerning it, and will doubtless in a secret man­ner, at least without the knowledge of the Board, make represen­tations on the subject of their proceedings in this affair; which if right or wrong, the Board for that reason, can neither acquiesce in, or detect.

On this occasion the Committee cannot omit taking notice of what his Honor the Lieutenant Governor observed in Council upon the said report, a few days after its acceptance by the Board, viz. That the King had a right to know all that is at any time said or done in the privy Council, considered either as a body or as indivi­duals; that the calling in question this right would operate to the prejudice of the Province, more than any thing that had been yet done; and that the Secretary did his duty in taking minutes, and conducting as he did.

As to the former part of this declaration, that the King had a right to know what passed at the Privy Council, is granted, and has never been called in question by the Council, either in the re­port aforesaid, or in any of their proceedings. The King has not only a right to know, but in fact may be said to know whatever passes in Privy Council, even at the time of its passing: His Majesty being a constituent part of every Privy Council, and always present by his representative. There is nothing in the said report, which [Page 15] justly be construed to call in question that right. If such a construc­tion has been given to any part of it, it is forced and unnatural, and which the Board wholly disavow. They do not therefore appre­hend, that it can in the least degree operate to the prejudice of the Province in any respect whatever; and they humbly rely on his Ma­jesty's justice and goodness, that no such operation will be the effect of it. If his Honor had pointed out the clause capable of such a construction, they would have received it as an instance of his re­gard to the Province, and to them.

As to the last part of the declaration, that the Secretary did his duty in taking minutes and conducting as he did, the Committee think it needless to say any thing on this head, as the contrary is fully proved in the report aforesaid.

The Secretary in the said Petition takes exception to two clauses of the said report: the first only of which needs to be noticed. It runs thus, "The Secretary himself has lately declared before the Board, that he did not conceive Mr. Tyler to mean such a preconcert­ed plan, and that he never believed any such plan had been formed."

The Secretary divides this clause into two parts, and makes ob­servations on each. One of the observations is, "that no one Gen­tleman at the Board would undertake to say, that the expression was precisely as above-mentioned:" and another is, "that he would by no means be understood even to insinuate that the honorable Board meant to put any unjust colouring upon his declarations."—The words, whatever they were, were spoken by the Secretary before the Board, not in conversation with any of the members, but by way of observation on one of the papers in his affair, that had been just read to the Board.

Now although no one Gentleman at the Board would undertake to give the precise words used by the Secretary on that occasion, yet divers of them at the time he first mentioned this matter to the Board, and many of them since have declared, and they do declare, that what he said conveyed to them the same idea as the words made use of in the report, and above quoted, do convey. And not­withstanding the Secretary insinuates what he says he would by no means insinuate, "that the Board meant to put an unjust colouring on his declarations," yet the Board are wholly clear of that charge, and meant to represent truly what the Secretary said, which they still think they have done, although it may not be in the precise words spoken by him. But it is of so little importance, whether the declaration above quoted was made or not, that the Board would have suffered the Secretary's explanation of himself, to have passed unremarked on, if it had not been attended with an implied reflec­tion upon their veracity.

The Secretary's Petition mentions further, "that he did not know that his own deposition (containing his secret minutes afore­said) was ever sent to England until he saw it in the pamphlet" he refers to.

[Page 16]Though the Secretary did not (strictly speaking) know, that his said deposition had been sent to England, he could have no sufficient reason to doubt it. At the time he delivered his deposition to the Lieutenant Governor, and also when his Honor applied to him for it, it is probable he was informed for what purpose it was wanted. But admitting he was not, it would be a reflection upon his un­derstanding, to suppose he could have any doubt, that the deposi­tion was intended to be sent to England. His saying therefore he did not know it had been sent, is neither a proof, that he did not know it was intended to be sent, nor any justification of himself for delivering it: especially as it was done without giving the Gentle­men whom it respected, and whose character, as well as that of the Province, was essentially affected thereby, the least notice of it.

The Secretary's Petition further mentions, that "as the Board expected him to observe upon these two points only (contained in the two clauses above refered to) he will add nothing with regard to the other parts of the report, or the resolves of the Board in con­sequence of it, except that he is not convinced, that he has done any thing inconsistent with the character of a man of honor, or been guilty of any breach of trust."

It is to be observed here, that when the Secretary mentioned to the Board the said two clauses, he excepted to no other part of the report; and when the Board consented he should explain himself by something written upon them; he said he should confine himself to those clauses only: which was acquiesced in. He was not limit­ed to them by the Board, and the suggestion, that he was so limited, is without foundation.

As to what the Secretary says, that he is not convinced he has done any thing inconsistent with the character of a man of honor, or been guilty of any breach of trust, the Committee would only remark, that altho' the Secretary's general character may be consis­tent with the character of a man of honor, yet what he has done with regard to his minutes and deposition aforesaid, is in the whole of it inconsistent with that character, and clearly involves in it a breach of trust: all which is sufficiently manifest by the report aforesaid.