and


SOe  THE   HISTORY  OP

1770  and  the  house  expressly  resolved,  that  it  was  not
expedient  to  do  business  while  they  were  restrained
from  sitting  in  Boston.  Their  arguments  may  be
reduced  to  two  heads,^ — that  the  removing  the
assembly  was  contrary  to  the  charter, — and  contrarv
to  the  law  of  the  province.  It  was  acknowledged,
that  there  are  no  express  words  in  the  charter,
directing  where  the  assembly  shall  be  held ;  but  it
was  contrary  to  charter,  that  the  lieuteuant-goveraor
should  remove  it  in  consequence  of  instruotions
from  the  king.  The  house  doubted  whether  it  ever
was  his  majesty's  pleasure  that  the  assembly  should
sit  at  Cambridge,  and  suppose  it  done  by  an  arbi*
trary  mandate  of  the  ministry ;  but,  admitting  it  to
be  by  the  king's  instruction,  still  the  power  given
by  the  charter  to  the  governor,  solely,  to  adjounii
prorogue,  and  dissolve  the  assembly,  was  a  grant
^*  in  favour  of  the  commons,"  and  if  an  instruction
should  supersede  such  a  grant,  it  would  be  vacating
the  charter.  The  council  say,  it  is  a/w//  power  to
the  governor  to  adjourn,  &c.,  as  he  shall  judge  ne^
cessary,— r-that  it  is  "  wholly  "  in  the  governor,  and  it
would  be  a  palpable  contradiction  to  suppose  it
under  the  control  of  instructions.  Both  council  and
house  admit  that  there  may  be  instances  when  the
governor  ought  to  obey  royal  instructions ;  but  not
in  any  case  when  it  shall  be  inconvenient  and
injurious  to  the  province ;  and  the  removal  of  the
assembly  to  Cambridge,  they  say,  was  such  a  case.
