But your petition proceeds to say, "that where such disturbances have happened, they have been _speedily quieted_." By whom were they quieted? The _two first_, if they can be said to be quieted, were quieted only by the rioters themselves going home quietly (that is, without any interruption) and remaining there till their next insurrection, without any pursuit, or attempt to apprehend any of them. And the _third_, was it quieted, or was the mischief they intended prevented, or could it have been prevented, without the aid of the king's troops, marched into the province for that purpose?--"The civil powers have been supported," in some sort. We all know how they were supported; but have they been _fully_ supported? Has the government sufficient strength, even with all its supports, to venture on the apprehending and punishment of those notorious offenders? If it has not, why are you angry at those who would strengthen its hands by a more immediate royal authority? If it has, why is not the thing done? Why will the government, by its conduct, strengthen the suspicions (groundless no doubt) that it has come to a private understanding with those murderers, and that impunity for their past crimes is to be the reward of their future political services?--O! but says the petition, "there are perhaps cases in all governments where it may _not be possible speedily to discover offenders_." Probably; but is there any case in any government where it is not possible to _endeavour_ such a discovery? There may be cases where it is not safe to do it: and perhaps the best thing our government can say for itself is, that that is our case. The only objection to such an apology must be, that it would justify that part of the assembly's petition to the crown, which relates to the _weakness_ of our present government.[68]
Still, if there is any _fault_, it must be _in the assembly_; for, says the petition, "if the executive part of our government should seem in any case too weak, we conceive it is the duty of the assembly, and in _their_ power, to strengthen it." This weakness, however, you have just denied. "Disturbances you say _have_ been speedily quieted, and the civil power supported," and thereby you have deprived your insinuated charge against the assembly of its only support. But is it not a fact known to you all, that the assembly _did_ endeavour to strengthen the hands of the government? That, at his honour's instance, they prepared and passed in a few hours a bill for extending hither the act of parliament for dispersing rioters? That they also passed and presented to him a militia bill, which he refused, unless powers were thereby given him over the lives and properties of the inhabitants, which the public good did not require; and which their duty to their constituents would not permit them to trust in the hands of any proprietary governor? You know the points, gentlemen: they have been made public. Would you have had your representatives give up those points? Do _you_ intend to give them up, when at the next election _you_ are made assemblymen? If so, tell it us honestly beforehand, that we may know what we are to expect when we are about to choose you?