Governor Bernard opened the General Court, May 29, 1766, with congratulations on the repeal of the Stamp Act. If he had stopped there he would have acted wisely; but he alluded to the "fury of the people" in their treatment of Hutchinson, and to some personal matters, which called forth a reply from the House couched in terms showing no abatement of animosity. This was increased on the receipt of another message from the governor (June 3), enclosing the Act of Repeal and the Declaratory Act, and at the same time informing them that he had been directed by Secretary Conway to recommend "that full and ample compensation be made to the late sufferers by the madness of the people", agreeably to the votes of the House of Commons. He also complained of their exclusion of the principal crown officers from the Council by non-election.[75] The General Court promptly availed themselves of this last topic for reply, instead of committing themselves on the matter of compensation. They did not fail, however, to vote a politic address of thanks to the king for assenting to the repeal of the Stamp Act, and to offer their grateful acknowledgments to Pitt and those members of the two Houses who had advocated it.[76] But the subject of compensation could not be passed by. The governor urged prompt compliance with the recommendation of Conway. The House, however, professing the greatest abhorrence of the madness and barbarity of the rioters, and promising their endeavors "to bring the perpetrators of so horrid a fact to exemplary justice, and, if it be in their power, to a pecuniary restitution of all damages", regarded compensation by the province as not an act of justice, but rather of generosity, and wished to consult their constituents. Therefore they referred the matter to the next session.[77] In December the two Houses passed a bill granting compensation to those who had suffered losses in the Stamp Act riots, but, on the suggestion of Joseph Hawley, accompanied it with a general pardon, indemnity and oblivion to the offenders. Why they should have been so solicitous for the safety of those who had committed crimes, condemned in June in the severest terms, does not appear; and this invasion of the royal prerogative of pardon did not fail to attract the attention of the Parliament.[78]