Sir Francis Barnard (Wikipedia here) was appointed by King George II as the new colonial Governor of Massachussetts in June 1760. It was more than 70 years after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and many of the liberties which had been achieved then had steadily been rowed back by governments on both sides of the Atlantic - yes, the same also happened in Britain, and Ireland (see previous post here).
Even though the Glorious Revolution had ignited Boston in 1689 when the Declaration of William Henry Prince of Orange arrived at the quayside; even though the Governor had a residence on the island in Boston Harbour known as Castle William, and even though the Charter of Massachusetts Bay was known as the Charter of William and Mary, having been granted by them in 1691 – in the generations that followed, the Massachusetts ruling class gradually clawed back power from the people.
Perhaps as a symbol of his new power and increasing Royal domination, Barnard installed two portraits in the chamber of the Old Boston Town House where colonial government met – not of himself, or of the reigning King George II who had given him the job – but of the pre-Glorious Revolution tyrannical "absolute monarchs" King Charles II and King James II. Here are some pics of the chamber today (it was restored to its 1760s appearance, in a major project which was completed in 2014).
Here's an extract from St. Botolph's Town: an account of Old Boston in Colonial Days by Mary Caroline Crawford (1908)
"Thus there stepped upon the stage of the world's history, for the first time, one of the most brilliant men America has ever produced. The scene of the now-famous trial, in which Otis played so important a part, was the council-chamber of the Old Boston Town House, an imposing and elegant apartment at the east end of the building, ornamented with fine full-length portraits of Charles II and James II.
Hutchinson presided and there were also in attendance four associate judges, wearing great wigs on their heads and rich scarlet robes upon their backs. Thronging the courtroom were the chief citizens and officers of the Crown, all of whom well understood that a matter of enormous importance was to be debated.
Among the young lawyers who were present on that important day was John Adams, a fresh-faced youth who had come up from his home in Braintree to hear what should be said. In his old age he wrote to William Tudor a description of the scene, which brings vividly before us the actors and the parts they took:
"Round a great fire were seated five judges, with Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson at their head as Chief-Justice, all arrayed in their new fresh rich robes of scarlet English broadcloth; in their large cambric bands and immense judicial wigs. At a long table were all the barristers-at-law of Boston and of the neighboring county of Middlesex, in gowns, bands and tie-wigs. They were not seated on ivory chairs, but their dress was more solemn and more pompous than that of the Roman senate, when the Gauls broke in upon them.
Two portraits of more than full length of King Charles the Second and of King James the Second, in splendid golden frames were hung up on the most conspicuous sides of the apartment. If my young eyes or old memory have not deceived me, these were as fine pictures as I ever saw;... they had been sent over without frames in Governor Pownall's time, but he was no admirer of Charles or James. The pictures were stowed away in a garret among rubbish until Governor Bernard came, who had them cleaned, superbly framed and placed in council for the admiration and imitation of all men, no doubt with the advice and concurrence of Hutchinson and all his nebula of stars and satellites."
The case was opened by Jeremiah Gridley, the king's attorney, who defended the validity of the writs on statute law and English practice. To which Oxenbridge Thacher replied in a strong legal argument which showed that the rule in English courts did not apply to America. Then the Advocate of Freedom began to speak, confounding all his opponents by the splendour of his eloquence.
"Otis," says John Adams, "was a flame of fire. With a plenitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance of his eye into futurity, and a torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away everything before him!... Every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born!"
............................
In 1768, Barnard oversaw the arrival in Boston of thousand of troops from Britain. As a result, a portrait of him which was hanging in Harvard College was attacked and had the heart cut out.
Just over nine years after Otis Jr's speech, in March 1770, it was outside the same Old Boston Town House that five civilians were killed in the Boston Massacre. Once again, it was before these two portraits that the very same lawyer John Adams represented the 29th Regiment of Foot in their trial.
The portraits were lost, probably destroyed, during the eventual Revolution, from 1775-1783.
Late in his life, in 1817, John Adams proposed that the artist John Trumbull should paint a new scene of the famous 1770 trial, ensuring that both portraits featured –
Since our national legislature have established a national painter,—a wise measure, for which I thank them,—my imagination runs upon the art, and has already painted, I know not how many, historical pictures ... the theatre and the scenery are the same with those at the discussion of writs of assistance. The same glorious portraits of King Charles II and King James II, to which might be added, and should be added, little miserable likenesses of Governor Winthrop, Governor Bradstreet, Governor Endicott, and Governor Belcher, hung up in obscure corners of the room.
.............................
Of course, the history has since been made nationalistic, presented as British v American, re-written through 19th century nationalisms and their hunger for narratives. In our era, it's become fodder for consumer merch ranges.
But in 1760 it wasn't a question of nationality. It was British tyranny v British liberty. The limits of government. The basis of revolution. Just like it had been back in 1688.
PS: Today, the building is called the Old State House. I was fortunate to visit it very briefly in December 2023.
"They've come to take all your rights – Hail to the king, kneel to the crown"...
