Chapter CDXLVII: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (44)

The views of Pitt "were defended in the strongest terms by
Lord Camden, who pledged his great legal reputation to the
doctrine that taxation is not included under the general right
of legislation, and that taxation and representation are
morally inseparable. … The task of the ministers in dealing
with this question was extremely difficult. The great majority
of them desired ardently the repeal of the Stamp Act; but the
wishes of the King, the abstention of Pitt, and the divided
condition of parties had compelled Rockingham to include in
his Government Charles Townshend, Barrington, and Northington,
who were all strong advocates of the taxation of America. …
{3203}
In addition to all these difficulties the ministers had to
deal with the exasperation which was produced in Parliament by
the continual outrages and insults to which all who
represented the English Government in America were exposed.
Their policy consisted of two parts. They asserted in the
strongest and most unrestricted form the sovereignty of the
British Legislature, first of all by resolutions and then by a
Declaratory Act affirming the right of Parliament to make laws
binding the British colonies 'in all cases whatsoever,' and
condemning as unlawful the votes of the colonial Assemblies
which had denied to Parliament the right of taxing them. Side
by side with this measure they brought in a bill repealing the
Stamp Act. … The great and manifest desire of the commercial
classes throughout England had much weight; the repeal was
carried [March, 1766] through the House of Commons, brought up
by no less than 200 members to the Lords, and finally carried
amid the strongest expressions of public joy. Burke described
it as 'an event that caused more universal joy throughout the
British dominions than perhaps any other that can be
remembered.'"

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_Parliamentary History,
volume 16, pages 112-205._

_B. Franklin,
Works (Sparks' editor),
volume 4._

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England 1713-1783,
chapter 45._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.
The Townshend measures.

"The liberal Rockingham administration, after a few months of
power, disappeared [July, 1766], having signalized itself as
regarded America by the repeal of the Stamp Act, and by the
Declaratory Act. Of the new ministry the leading spirit was
Charles Townshend, a brilliant statesman, but unscrupulous and
unwise. His inclinations were arbitrary; he regretted the
repeal of the Stamp Act, as did also the king and Parliament
in general, who felt themselves to have been humiliated. Pitt,
indeed, now Earl of Chatham, was a member of the government;
but, oppressed by illness, he could exercise no restraint upon
his colleague, and the other members were either in sympathy
with Townshend's views, or unable to oppose him. Townshend's
three measures affecting America, introduced on the 13th of
May, 1767, were: a suspension of the functions of the
legislature of New York for contumacy in the treatment of the
royal troops; the establishment of commissioners of the
customs, appointed with large powers to superintend laws
relating to trade; and lastly an impost duty upon glass, red
and white lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea [see ENGLAND:
A. D. 1765-1768]. This was an 'external' duty to which the
colonists had heretofore expressed a willingness to submit;
but the grounds of the dispute were shifting. Townshend had
declared that he held in contempt the distinction sought to be
drawn between external and internal taxes, but that he would
so far humor the colonists in their quibble as to make his tax
of that kind of which the right was admitted. A revenue of
£40,000 a year was expected from the tax, which was to be
applied to the support of a 'civil list,' namely, the paying
the salaries of the new commissioners of customs, and of the
judges and governors, who were to be relieved wholly or in
part from their dependence upon the annual grants of the
Assemblies; then, if a surplus remained, it was to go to the
payment of troops for protecting the colonies. To make more
efficient, moreover, the enforcement of the revenue laws, the
writs of assistance, the denunciation of which by James Otis
had formed so memorable a crisis, were formally legalized. The
popular discontent, appeased by the repeal of the Stamp Act,
was at once awake again, and henceforth in the denial of the
right of Parliament to tax, we hear no more of acquiescence in
commercial restrictions and in the general legislative
authority of Parliament. … The plan for resistance adopted by
the cooler heads was that of Samuel Adams, namely, the
non-importation and the non-consumption of British products.
From Boston out, through an impulse proceeding from him,
town-meetings were everywhere held to encourage the
manufactures of the Province and reduce the use of
superfluities, long lists of which were enumerated. Committees
were appointed everywhere to procure subscriptions to
agreements looking to the furtherance of home industries and
the disuse of foreign products. … Before the full effects of
the new legislation could be seen, Townshend suddenly died;
but in the new ministry that was presently formed Lord North
came to the front, and adopted the policy of his predecessor,
receiving in this course the firm support of the king, whose
activity and interest were so great in public affairs that he
'became his own minister.'"

_J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
chapter 3._

_W. Belsham,
Memoirs of the Reign of George III.,
volume 1, page 139-142._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
The Farmer's Letters of John Dickinson.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts,
and the "Unrescinding Ninety-two."

"The English ministry was probably misled by the strong
emphasis which had been laid here during the controversies
concerning the Stamp Act upon the alleged distinction between
external and internal taxation. We had refused to submit to
the latter, but admitted that the former might be binding upon
the whole empire as a commercial regulation. In form the
duties levied on paints, glass, tea, etc., were undoubtedly
such a regulation, but it was at once contended here that, in
point of fact and of principle, this was as much an exercise
of the alleged right of Parliamentary taxation for the purpose
of raising a revenue for imperial purposes as the Stamp Act
itself. Although it was passed by the opponents of the Stamp
Act, and by the Rockingham ministry, who professed to be our
friends, the act met at once with opposition here. Late in
October, 1767, it was denounced by a public meeting in Boston,
which suggested a non-importation agreement as the best means
of rendering its operations ineffective. These agreements were
favorite expedients for manifesting political discontent in
those days, but, as they were voluntary, their obligation sat
somewhat loosely upon those who signed them. The truth is,
that those who were most decided in opposition to the course
of the ministry were somewhat puzzled as to the plan they
should adopt to exhibit the earnestness of their discontent. …
While the leaders of the opposition throughout the country
were doubtful and hesitating, there appeared in the
Pennsylvania Chronicle for the 2d of December, 1767, the first
of a series of letters on the political situation, afterwards
known as the 'Farmer's Letters.'
{3204}
… The letters, fourteen in number, followed one another in
quick succession, and they were read by men of all classes and
opinions throughout the continent as no other work of a
political kind had been hitherto read in America. It was, of
course, soon known that John Dickinson was their author, and
people remembered that he was the person who had formulated
what was a genuine Bill of Rights in the Stamp Act Congress.
The more these letters were read, the more convinced people
became that in the comprehensive survey they took of our
political relations with the mother-country, especially as
these were affected by the last obnoxious act of Parliament,
and in the plans which were proposed to remedy the evil, Mr.
Dickinson had struck the true key-note of the opposition to
the ministerial measures. He appeared at this crisis, as he
did in the Stamp Act Congress, as the leader and guide in the
controversy. From this time until the Declaration of
Independence the Pennsylvania idea, which was embodied by Mr.
Dickinson in these Farmer's Letters, 'controlled the destinies
of the country;' and Mr. Bancroft only does justice to Mr.
Dickinson's position when he recognizes fully his commanding
influence during that period. We may say with pardonable pride
(and it is one of those truths which many of our historians
have managed in various ways to relegate to obscurity), that,
as the leading spirit in the Stamp Act Congress, Dickinson
gave form and color to the agitation in this country which
brought about the repeal of that act, and that the arguments
by which the claim of the ministry to tax us for revenue by
such an act of Parliament as that levying duties on glass,
paints, etc. was answered in the 'Farmer's Letters' first
convinced the whole body of our countrymen, groping blindly
for a cure for their grievances, that there was a legal
remedy, and then forced the ministry to consent in a measure
to the demand for a repeal of some of its most obnoxious
provisions. It is worth remarking that when the ministry
yielded at all it yielded to argument, and not to the boastful
threats which were so common. The 'Farmer's Letters' gave
courage and force to those who in February denounced the law
in Pennsylvania; they formed the mainspring of the movement
which resulted in the circular letter sent by the legislature
of Massachusetts on the 17th of that month to the Assemblies
of the other Colonies; in short, they had the rare good
fortune not only of convincing those who suffered that the
remedy was in their own hands, but also of pursuading those
who had the power to abandon, or at least to modify their
arbitrary measures. … Mr. Dickinson begins these grave essays
with an air of simplicity as charming as it is calculated to
attract the attention of the reader. 'I am a farmer,' he says,
'settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the
river Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a
liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of
life, but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without
bustle as with it. Being generally master of my time, I spend
a good deal of it in my library, which I think the most
valuable part of my small estate. I have acquired, I believe,
a greater knowledge of history and of the laws and
constitution of my country than is generally attained by men
of my class,' etc. He then explains the nature of the
controversy with the mother-country, making it so clear that
the points in dispute are comprehensible by a child. … As to
our method of asserting our rights, he says, with an elevation
of sentiment which reminds one of Edmund Burke more than of
any other political writer, 'The cause of liberty is a cause
of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It
ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature.
Those who engage in it should breathe a sedate yet fervent
spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice,
modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.' He shrinks,
evidently with terror, from speaking of what may be the
consequences of the persistent refusal of England to change
her oppressive measures. … After showing in the most striking
manner the nature of our wrongs, the letters turn gladly to
the remedy that lies open to us. That remedy is based upon a
cultivation of the spirit of conciliation on both sides, and
Mr. Dickinson urges again and again upon his English readers
the folly of their policy, by showing them the value of the
American Colonies to them, and especially how the trade and
wealth of the English merchants are bound up in the adoption
of a liberal policy towards us. This is one of the most
interesting and important topics discussed in these letters,
and the subject is treated with elaborate skill, leading to
convincing conclusions drawn from our history. It must not be
forgotten that prior to the Revolution an impression widely
prevailed among the most thoughtful of our own people, as well
as among our friends in England, that if the English people
could be made to understand the frightful losses they would
suffer in case of a war in which we should be fighting for our
independence, or even during a short interruption of the trade
between the two countries, they would force the government to
yield rather than run the risk of the consequences. … Even Dr.
Franklin in London, who had had so many proofs of the
indifference and contempt with which the representations of
the Colonies in England were regarded … thought the appeal of
the Farmer to Englishmen so irresistible that, although no
friend of Dickinson's, he arranged that these letters should
be reprinted in London."

_C. J. Stillé,
The Life and Times of John Dickinson,
chapter 4._

In February, 1768, "the Legislature of Massachusetts sent a
Circular Letter [ascribed to Samuel Adams] to the Assemblies
of the other colonies, in which was set forth the necessity of
all acting together harmoniously, and of freely communicating
the mind of each to the others. The course Massachusetts had
pursued was described, with the contents of the petition and
letters which had been written, and with the hope expressed
that she would have their cordial co-operation in resistance
to the ministerial measures. The notion that political
independence was aimed at was strenuously denied, and the
trust was entertained that what had been done would meet the
approval of their 'common head and father,' and that the
liberties of the colonies would be confirmed. This letter
elicited response from some, others returned none officially,
but all who answered replied favorably. It gave, however, the
greatest offence to the ministry, and particularly to Lord
Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
{3205}
It seems that he read it entirely by the light which a letter
from Governor Bernard to Lord Barrington had shed upon it.
This epistle declared the real motive of the colonies to be a
determination to be independent. Hillsborough, filled with
this idea, communicated it to the other members of the
cabinet, and thus the Circular Letter was laid before them,
prejudged. It was determined that it merited consideration,
but that the only notice to be given it should be one of
censure, and, on the spur of the moment, they resolved upon
two things: to require the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind
the Letter, and to require the other legislatures before whom
it had been laid to reject it. This was done, and the
consequences were, that the General Court, or Legislature, of
Massachusetts voted, by ninety-two to seventeen, that they
would do nothing of the kind, and that the other legislatures
gave the outcast a hearty welcome. As for the people, they
showed their approval of their representatives by toasting,
from one end of the country to the other, 'The unrescinding
Ninety-two,' with whom was coupled the number Forty-five, or
that of the famous' North Briton'; while the Bostonians added
fuel to the flame by a riot on the score of the sloop Liberty,
in which they attacked the houses of the Commissioners of the
Customs, and made a bonfire of the Collector's boat. Shortly
afterward, (but not by reason of the riot), four ships of war
anchored in Boston harbor, and two regiments of soldiers were
quartered on the town."

_E. G. Scott,
The Development of Constitutional Liberty,
chapter 10 (with corrections by the author)._

ALSO IN:
_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 6._

_W. Thornton,
The Pulpit of the Revolution,
page 150._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The Massacre, and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
Massachusetts threatened, and Virginia roused to her support.

"The proceedings in Massachusetts attracted in England the
greatest attention, elicited the severest comment, and,
because a military force had been ordered to Boston to support
the stand of the administration, created the greatest
solicitude. … The king, on opening parliament, characterized
the action of Boston as a subversion of the Constitution and
evincing a disposition to throw off dependence on Great
Britain. The indictment against the colonies was presented in
sixty papers laid before parliament. Both Houses declared that
the proceedings of the Massachusetts assembly in opposition to
the revenue acts were unconstitutional, and derogatory to the
rights of the crown and the parliament; that the Circular
Letter tended to create unlawful combinations; that the call
of a convention by the selectmen of Boston was proof of a
design of setting up an independent authority; and both Houses
proposed to transport the originators of the obnoxious
proceedings to England for trial and condign punishment, under
the cover of an obsolete act of Henry VIII. … The
administration determined to make an example of Massachusetts,
as the ring-leading province in political mischief, by
transporting its popular leaders to England to be tried for
their lives in the king's bench. Such was the purport of an
elaborate despatch which Lord Hillsborough sent to Governor
Bernard, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the
conduct of any persons who had committed any overt act of
resistance to the laws. … Thus a great issue was created that
affected all the colonies. … There was no adequate step taken
to meet the threatened aggression until the House of Burgesses
of Virginia convened in May."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 6._

"On the day of the prorogation of parliament [May 9, 1769] the
legislature of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg. Great men
were there; some who were among the greatest—Washington,
Patrick Henry, and, for the first time, Jefferson. Botetourt
[the governor], who opened the session in state, was in
perfect harmony with the council, received from the house of
burgesses a most dutiful address, and entertained fifty-two
guests at his table on the first day, and as many more on the
second. … But the assembly did not forget its duty, and
devised a measure which became the example for the continent.
It claimed the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants
of Virginia. With equal unanimity, it asserted the lawfulness
and expediency of a concert of the colonies in defence of the
violated rights of America. It laid bare the flagrant tyranny
of applying to America the obsolete statute of Henry VIII.;
and it warned the king of 'the dangers that would ensue' if
any person in any part of America should be seized and carried
beyond sea for trial. It consummated its work by communicating
its resolutions to every legislature in America, and asking
their concurrence. The resolves were concise, simple, and
effective; so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that
time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest.
The menace of arresting patriots lost its terrors; and
Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union. … The
next morning, the assembly had just time to adopt an address
to the king, when the governor summoned them, and said: 'I
have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects;
you have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are
dissolved accordingly.' Upon this, the burgesses met together
as patriots and friends, with their speaker as moderator. They
adopted the resolves which "Washington had brought with him
from Mount Vernon, and which formed a well-digested,
stringent, and practicable scheme of non-importation, until
all the 'unconstitutional' revenue acts should be repealed. …
The voice of the Old Dominion roused the merchants of
Pennsylvania to approve what had been done. The assembly of
Delaware adopted the Virginia resolves word for word; and
every colony south of Virginia followed the example."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
pages 347-348._

ALSO IN:
_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapter 29._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

On the 5th of March, 1770—the same day on which the tragical
encounter of the king's troops with citizens of Boston
occurred—Lord North introduced a motion in Parliament for the
partial repeal of Townshend's revenue act; "not on the
petitions of America, because they were marked by a denial of
the right, but on one from merchants and traders of London.
'The subject,' said he, 'is of the highest importance.
{3206}
The combinations and associations of the Americans for the
temporary interruption of trade have already been called
unwarrantable in an address of this house; I will call them
insolent and illegal. The duties upon paper, glass, and
painters' colors bear upon the manufacturers of this country,
and ought to be taken off. It was my intention to have
extended the proposal to the removal of the other duties; but
the Americans have not deserved indulgence. The preamble to
the act and the duty on tea must be retained, as a mark of the
supremacy of parliament and the efficient declaration of its
right to govern the colonies.' … Thomas Pownall moved the
repeal of the duty on tea. The house of commons, like Lord
North in his heart, was disposed to do the work of
conciliation thoroughly. … Had the king's friends remained
neutral, the duty on tea would have been repealed; with all
their exertions, in a full house, the majority for retaining
it was but 62. Lord North seemed hardly satisfied with his
success; and reserved to himself liberty to accede to the
repeal, on some agreement with the East India Company. The
decision came from the king."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
volume 3, pages 381-382._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 48 (volume 5.)_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1771.
Suppression of the Regulators of North Carolina.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
The Watauga Association.
The founding of the State of Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
The burning of the Gaspe.

"One of the first overt acts of resistance that took place in
this celebrated struggle [in the war of independence] occurred
in 1772, in the waters of Rhode Island. A vessel of war had
been stationed on the coast to enforce the laws, and a small
schooner, with a light armament and twenty-seven men, called
the Gaspé, was employed as a tender, to run into the shallow
waters of that coast. On the 17th of June, 1772, a Providence
packet, that plied between New York and Rhode Island, named
the Hannah, and commanded by a Captain Linzee, hove in sight
of the man-of-war, on her passage up the bay. The Hannah was
ordered to heave-to, in order to be examined; but her master
refused to comply; and being favoured by a fresh southerly
breeze, that was fast sweeping him out of gunshot, the Gaspé
was signalled to follow. The chase continued for
five-and-twenty miles, under a press of sail, when the Hannah
coming up with a bar, with which her master was familiar, and
drawing less water than the schooner, Captain Linzee led the
latter on a shoal, where she struck. The tide falling, the
Gaspé … was not in a condition to be removed for several
hours. The news of the chase was circulated on the arrival of
the Hannah at Providence. A strong feeling was excited among
the population, and towards evening the town drummer appeared
in the streets, assembling the people in the ordinary manner.
As soon as a crowd was collected, the drummer led his
followers in front of a shed that stood near one of the
stores, when a man disguised as an Indian suddenly appeared on
the roof, and proclaimed a secret expedition for that night,
inviting all of 'stout hearts' to assemble on the wharf,
precisely at nine, disguised like himself. At the appointed
hour, most of the men in the place collected at the spot
designated, when sixty-four were selected for the bold
undertaking that was in view. This party embarked in eight of
the launches of the different vessels lying at the wharves,
and taking with them a quantity of paving stones, they pulled
down the river in a body. … On nearing the Gaspé, about two in
the morning, the boats were hailed by a sentinel on deck. This
man was driven below by a volley of the stones. The commander
of the Gaspé now appeared, and ordering the boats off, he
fired a pistol at them. This discharge was returned from a
musket, and the officer was shot through the thigh. By this
time, the crew of the Gaspé had assembled, and the party from
Providence boarded. The conflict was short, the schooner's
people being soon knocked down and secured. All on board were
put into the boats, and the Gaspé was set on fire. Towards
morning she blew up."

_J. F. Cooper,
Naval History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1173.
The instituting of the Committees of Correspondence.
The Tea Ships and "the Boston Tea-Party."

"The surest way to renew and cement the union [of the
colonies] was to show that the ministry had not relaxed in its
determination to enforce the principal of the Townshend acts.
This was made clear in August, 1772, when it was ordered that
in Massachusetts the judges should henceforth be paid by the
crown. Popular excitement rose to fever heat, and the judges
were threatened with impeachment should they dare accept a
penny from the royal treasury. The turmoil was increased next
year by the discovery in London of the package of letters
which were made to support the unjust charge against
Hutchinson and some of his friends that they had instigated
and aided the most extreme measures of the ministry. In the
autumn of 1772 Hutchinson refused to call an extra session of
the assembly to consider what should be done about the judges.
Samuel Adams then devised a scheme by which the towns of
Massachusetts could consult with each other and agree upon
some common course of action in case of emergencies. For this
purpose each town was to appoint a standing committee, and as
a great part of their work was necessarily done by letter they
were called 'committees of correspondence.' This was the step
that fairly organized the Revolution."

_J. Fiske,
The War of Independence,
chapter 5._

"The town records of Boston [November 2, 1772] say:—
'It was then moved by Mr. Samuel Adams that a Committee of
Correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons,
to state the rights of the colonists and of this Province in
particular as men and Christians and as subjects; and to
communicate and publish the same to the several towns and to
the world as the sense of this town, with the infringements
and violations thereof that have been or from time to time may
be made.' The motion occasioned some debate and seems to have
been carried late at night; the vote in its favor, at last,
was nearly unanimous. The colleagues of Adams, who had left
him almost alone thus far, now declined to become members of
the committee, regarding the scheme as useless or trifling.
The committee was at last constituted without them; it was
made up of men of little prominence but of thorough
respectability. James Otis, in another interval of sanity, was
made chairman, a position purely honorary, the town in this
way showing its respect for the leader whose misfortunes they
so sincerely mourned.
{3207}
The Committee of Correspondence held its first meeting in the
representatives' chamber at the town-house, November 3, 1772,
where at the outset each member pledged himself to observe
secrecy as to their transactions, except those which, as a
committee, they should think it proper to divulge. According
to the motion by which the committee was constituted, three
duties were to be performed: 1st, the preparation of a
statement of the rights of the colonists, as men, as
Christians, and as subjects; 2d, a declaration of the
infringement and violation of those rights; 3d, a letter to be
sent to the several towns of the Province and to the world,
giving the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was
assigned to Samuel Adams, of the second to Joseph Warren, of
the third to Benjamin Church. In a few days tidings came from
the important towns of Marblehead, Roxbury, Cambridge, and
Plymouth, indicating that the example of Boston was making
impression and was likely to be followed. On November 20, at a
town-meeting in Faneuil Hall, the different papers were
presented: Otis sat as moderator, appearing for the last time
in a sphere where his career had been so magnificent. The
report was in three divisions, according to the motion. … In
the last days of 1772, the document, having been printed, was
transmitted to those for whom it had been intended, producing
at once an immense effect. The towns almost unanimously
appointed similar committees; from every quarter came replies
in which the sentiments of Samuel Adams were echoed. In the
library of Bancroft is a volume of manuscripts, worn and
stained by time, which have an interest scarcely inferior to
that possessed by the Declaration of Independence itself, as
the fading page hangs against its pillar in the library of the
State Department at Washington. They are the original replies
sent by the Massachusetts towns to Samuel Adams's committee
sitting in Faneuil Hall, during those first months of 1773.
One may well read them with bated breath, for it is the touch
of the elbow as the stout little democracies dress up into
line, just before they plunge into actual fight at Concord and
Bunker Hill. There is sometimes a noble scorn of the
restraints of orthography, as of the despotism of Great
Britain, in the work of the old town clerks, for they
generally were secretaries of the committees; and once in a
while a touch of Dogberry's quaintness, as the punctilious
officials, though not always 'putting God first,' yet take
pains that there shall be no mistake as to their piety by
making every letter in the name of the Deity a rounded
capital. Yet the documents ought to inspire the deepest
reverence. They constitute the highest mark the town-meeting
has ever touched. Never before and never since have
Anglo-Saxon men, in lawful folk-mote assembled, given
utterance to thoughts and feelings so fine in themselves and
so pregnant with great events. To each letter stand affixed
the names of the committee in autograph. This awkward scrawl
was made by the rough fist of a Cape Ann fisherman, on shore
for the day to do at town-meeting the duty his fellows had
laid upon him: the hand that wrote this other was cramped from
the scythe-handle, as its possessor mowed an intervale on the
Connecticut; this blotted signature, where smutted fingers
have left a black stain, was written by a blacksmith of
Middlesex, turning aside a moment from forging a barrel that
was to do duty at Lexington. They were men of the plainest;
but as the documents containing statements of the most
generous principles find the most courageous determination,
were read in the town-houses, the committees who produced
them, and the constituents for whom the committees stood, were
lifted above the ordinary level. Their horizon expanded to the
broadest; they had in view not simply themselves, but the
welfare of the continent; not solely their own generation, but
remote posterity. It was Samuel Adams's own plan, the
consequences of which no one foresaw, neither friend nor foe.
Even Hutchinson, who was scarcely less keen than Samuel Adams
himself, was completely at fault. 'Such a foolish scheme,' he
called it, 'that the faction must necessarily make themselves
ridiculous.' But in January the eyes of men were opening. One
of the ablest of the Tories, Daniel Leonard, wrote:—'This is
the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued
from the egg of sedition. I saw the small seed when it was
implanted; it was a grain of mustard. I have watched the plant
until it has become a great tree.' It was the transformation
into a strong cord of what had been a rope of sand."

_J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams,
chapter 13._

"In the spring of 1773, Virginia carried this work of
organization a long step further, when Dabney Carr suggested
and carried a motion calling for committees of correspondence
between the several colonies. From this point it was a
comparatively short step to a permanent Continental Congress.
It happened that these preparations were made just in time to
meet the final act of aggression which brought on the
Revolutionary War. The Americans had thus far successfully
resisted the Townshend acts and secured the repeal of all the
duties except on tea. As for tea they had plenty, but not from
England; they smuggled it from Holland in spite of
custom-houses and search-warrants. Clearly unless the
Americans could be made to buy tea from England and pay the
duty on it, the king must own himself defeated. Since it
appeared that they could not be forced into doing this, it
remained to be seen if they could be tricked into doing it. A
truly ingenious scheme was devised. Tea sent by the East India
Company to America had formerly paid a duty in some British
port on the way. This duty was now taken off, so that the
price of the tea for America might be lowered. The company's
tea thus became so cheap that the American merchant could buy
a pound of it and pay the threepence duty beside for less than
it cost him to smuggle a pound of tea from Holland. It was
supposed that the Americans would of course buy the tea which
they could get most cheaply, and would thus be beguiled into
submission to that principle of taxation which they had
hitherto resisted. Ships laden with tea were accordingly sent
in the autumn of 1773 to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and
Charleston; and consignees were appointed to receive the tea
in each of these towns. Under the guise of a commercial
operation, this was purely a political trick.
{3208}
It was an insulting challenge to the American people, and
merited the reception which they gave it. They would have
shown themselves unworthy of their rich political heritage had
they given it any other. In New York, Philadelphia, and
Charleston mass-meetings of the people voted that the
consignees should be ordered to resign their offices, and they
did so. At Philadelphia the tea-ship was met and sent back to
England before it had come within the jurisdiction of the
custom-house. At Charleston the tea was landed, and as there
was no one to receive it or pay the duty, it was thrown into a
damp cellar and left there to spoil. In Boston things took a
different turn."

_J. Fiske,
The War of Independence,
chapter 5._

"Acting upon the precedent of the time of the Stamp Act, when
Oliver, the stamp commissioner, had resigned his commission
under the Liberty Tree, a placard was posted everywhere on the
3d of November, inviting the people of Boston and the
neighboring towns to be present at Liberty Tree that day at
noon, to witness the resignation of the consignees of the tea,
and hear them swear to re-ship to London what teas should
arrive. The placard closed,—'Show me the man that dares take
this town.' At the time appointed, representatives Adams,
Hancock, and Phillips, the selectmen and town clerk, with
about five hundred more, were present at the Liberty Tree. But
no consignees arrived, whereupon Molineux and Warren headed a
party who waited upon them. The consignees, Clarke, a rich
merchant, and his sons, Benjamin Faneuil, Winslow, and the two
sons of Hutchinson, Thomas and Elisha, sat together in the
counting-house of Clarke in King Street. Admittance was
refused the committee, and a conversation took place through a
window, during which the tone of the consignees was defiant.
There was some talk of violence, and when an attempt was made
to exclude the committee and the crowd attending them from the
building, into the first story of which they had penetrated,
the doors were taken off their binges and threats uttered.
Molineux, generally impetuous enough, but now influenced
probably by cooler heads, dissuaded the others from violence.
… A town-meeting on November 5, in which an effort of the
Tories to make head against the popular feeling came to
naught, showed how overwhelming was the determination to
oppose the introduction of the tea. … When news arrived on the
17th that three tea-ships were on the way to Boston, for a
second time a town-meeting demanded through a committee, of
which Samuel Adams was a member, the resignation of the
consignees. They evaded the demand; the town-meeting voted
their answer not satisfactory, and at once adjourned without
debate or comment. The silence was mysterious; what was
impending none could tell. … On the 28th, the first of the
tea-ships, the Dartmouth, Captain Hall, sailed into the
harbor. Sunday though it was, the Committee of Correspondence
met, obtained from Benjamin Rotch, the Quaker owner of the
Dartmouth, a promise not to enter the vessel until Tuesday,
and made preparations for a mass-meeting at Faneuil Hall for
Monday forenoon, to which Samuel Adams was authorized to
invite the surrounding towns. A stirring placard the next
morning brought the townsmen and their neighbors to the place.
After the organization, Samuel Adams, arising among the
thousands, moved that: 'As the town have determined at a late
meeting legally assembled that they will to the utmost of
their power prevent the landing of the tea, the question be
now put,—whether this body are absolutely determined that the
tea now arrived in Captain Hall shall be returned to the place
from whence it came.' There was not a dissenting voice. … In
the afternoon, the meeting having resolved that the tea should
go back in the same ship in which it had come, Rotch, the
owner of the Dartmouth, protested, but was sternly forbidden,
at his peril, to enter the tea. Captain Hall also was
forbidden to enter any portion of it. 'Adams was never in
greater glory,' says Hutchinson. The next morning, November
30, the people again assembling, the consignees made it known
that it was out of their power to send the tea back; but they
promised that they would store it until word should come from
their 'constituents' as to its disposal. … The Dartmouth each
night was watched by a strong guard; armed patrols, too, were
established, and six couriers held themselves ready, if there
should be need to alarm the country. … During the first week
in December arrived the Eleanor and the Beaver, also
tea-ships, which were moored near the Dartmouth, and subjected
to the same oversight. The 'True Sons of Liberty' posted about
the town the most spirited placards. … The days flew by. At
length came the end of the time of probation. If the cargo of
the Dartmouth had not been 'entered' within that period, the
ship according to the revenue laws, must be confiscated.
Rotch, the Quaker owner, had signified his willingness to send
the ship back to England with the cargo on board, if he could
procure a clearance. The customs officials stood on
technicalities; under the circumstances a clearance could not
be granted. The grim British admiral ordered the Active and
the Kingfisher from his fleet to train their broadsides on the
channels, and sink whatever craft should try to go to sea
without the proper papers. The governor alone had power to
override these obstacles. It was competent for him to grant a
permit which the revenue men and the admiral must respect. If
he refused to do this, then on the next day the legal course
was for the revenue officers to seize the Dartmouth and land
the tea under the guns of the fleet. It was the 16th of
December. A crowd of seven thousand filled the Old South and
the streets adjoining. Nothing like it had ever been known.
Town-meeting had followed town-meeting until the excitement
was at fever heat. The indefatigable Committee of
Correspondence had, as it were, scattered fire throughout the
whole country. … Poor Quaker Rotch … felt himself, probably,
the most persecuted of men, when the monster meeting forced
him in the December weather to make his way out to Milton Hill
to seek the permit from Hutchinson. … Meantime darkness had
fallen upon the short winter day. The crowd still waited in
the gloom of the church, dimly lighted here and there by
candles. Rotch reappeared just after six, and informed the
meeting that the governor refused to grant the permit until
the vessels were properly qualified. As soon as the report had
been made, Samuel Adams arose, for it was he who had been
moderator, and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to
save the country.'
{3209}
It was evidently a concerted signal, for instantly … the
famous war-whoop was heard, and the two or three score of
'Mohawks' rushed by the doors, and with the crowd behind them
hurried in the brightening moonlight to Griffin's wharf, where
lay the ships. The tea could not go back to England; it must
not be landed. The cold waters of the harbor were all that
remained for it. Three hundred and forty-two chests were cast
overboard. Nothing else was harmed, neither person nor
property. All was so quiet that those at a distance even could
hear in the calm air the ripping open of the thin chests as
the tea was emptied. The 'Mohawks' found helpers, so that in
all perhaps one hundred and fifty were actively concerned. Not
far off in the harbor lay the ships of the fleet, and the
Castle with the 'Sam Adams Regiments.' But no one interfered."

_J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams,
chapter 16._

ALSO IN:
_W. V. Wells,
Life of Samuel Adams,
volume 1, pages 372-375, 495-512;
volume 2, pages 1-9, 24-29, 61-63, 80-81, 103-130._

_R. Frothingham,
Life of Joseph Warren,
chapter 9._

_Force's American Archives,
volume 1._

See, also, BOSTON: A. D. 1773;
and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (March-April).
The Boston Port Bill.
The Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.

"The spoken defiance of the other colonies had been quite as
efficient as the combination of threats and force to which
Boston was compelled to resort, but Lord North launched the
first retaliatory and punitive measure against that city. …
The first of Lord North's bills was the Boston Port Act, which
closed the harbor until indemnity for the tea there destroyed
should be paid and the king be satisfied that thereafter the
city would obey the laws. The demand for indemnity was fair
but the indefinite claim of obedience was not only infamous in
itself but, as Burke said, punished the innocent with the
guilty. … North's second bill was a virtual abrogation of the
Massachusetts charter. The council of twenty-eight had been
hitherto elected every year in joint session of the assembly.
The king might now appoint the whole body to any number, from
twelve to thirty-six, and remove them at pleasure. The men so
appointed were designated mandamus councillors. Thereafter
town-meetings could be held only by permission of the governor
and for the sole purpose of electing officers [General Gage
was made governor under this act, and four regiments were
placed in Boston for his support]. Sheriffs were to return all
juries, and were to be named by the governor and hold office
during his pleasure. The third bill was really a device of the
king's, and it is said that the ministry was confused and
shamefaced in presenting it. It ordained that magistrates,
revenue officers, or other officials indicted in Massachusetts
for capital offences were to be tried either in Nova Scotia or
Great Britain. Another measure made legal the billeting of
troops, against which Boston had hitherto striven with
success, and a fifth, known as the Quebec Act, though
depriving that province of the right of habeas corpus,
restored the French customary law ('coutume de Paris'),
established Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and by
extending its boundaries to the Ohio and Mississippi, shut off
the Northern English Colonies from westward extension. This
was intended as an arbitrary settlement of a vexed question.
The Puritans, however, … exclaimed that the next step would be
the establishment among them of English episcopacy."

_W. M. Sloane,
The French War and the Revolution,
chapter 14._

ALSO IN:
_A. Johnston,
The United States: its History and Constitution,
sections. 57-58._

_Parliamentary History,
volume 17._

_American Archives,
series 4, volume 1, pages 35-220._

_Lord Fitzmaurice,
Life of the Earl of Shelburne,
volume 2, chapter 8._

On the Quebec Act.

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (April-October).
Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
The Western territorial claims of Virginia.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (May-June).
Effects of the Boston Port Bill.
The call for a Continental Congress.

"The Boston Port Bill was received in America with honors not
accorded even to the Stamp Act. It was cried through the
streets as 'A barbarous, cruel, bloody, and inhuman murder,'
and was burnt by the common hangman on a scaffold forty-five
feet high. The people of Boston gathered together in
town-meeting at Faneuil Hall, and expresses were sent off with
an appeal to all Americans throughout America. The responses
from the neighborhood came like snow-flakes. Marblehead
offered the use of its wharves to the Boston merchants; Salem
averred that it would be lost to all feelings of humanity were
it to raise its fortunes on the ruins of its neighbor.
Newburyport voted to break off trade with Great Britain, and
to lay up its ships. Connecticut, as her wont is, when moved
by any vital occurrence, betook herself to prayer and
humiliation, first, however, ordering an inventory to be taken
of her cannon and military stores. Virginia, likewise,
resolved to invoke the divine interposition, but, before
another resolution which called for a Congress could be
introduced, her House was precipitately dissolved; whereupon
the resolution was brought up and passed at a meeting called
in 'the Apollo,' where it was further declared that an attack
on one colony was an attack upon all. Two days later the
Massachusetts letter itself was received, upon which the
Virginians called a convention. From all parts contributions
in money poured into Boston, and resolutions were everywhere
passed, declaring that no obedience was due the late acts of
Parliament; that the right of imperial taxation did not exist;
that those who had accepted office under pay of the king had
violated their public duty; that the Quebec act establishing
Roman Catholicism in Canada was hostile to the Protestant
religion, and that the inhabitants of the colonies should use
their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of
war, and for that purpose should turn out under arms at least
once a week. In the fulness of time, a cordon of ships was
drawn around Boston, and six regiments and a train of
artillery were encamped on the Common—the only spot in the
thirteen colonies where the government could enforce an order.
The conflict between constitutional liberty and absolutism had
now reached that dangerous point where physical force became
one of its elements. … The situation was at once recognized
throughout the colonies, and the knowledge that in union there
is strength, manifested itself in one general impulse toward a
Colonial Congress. Committees of Correspondence were organized
in every county, and throngs attended the public meetings.
{3210}
'One great, wise, and noble spirit; one masterly soul
animating one vigorous body,' was the way John Adams described
this impulse. The Canadas alone remained inanimate. … But not
so those to whom constitutional liberty was as the breath of
life. On the 17th of June (1774) the Massachusetts Assembly,
which had been removed by a royal order to Salem, answered
Virginia by resolving on a call for a Continental Congress at
Philadelphia. The governor, hearing of what was going on, sent
the secretary of the colony to dissolve the Assembly, but,
finding the doors shut upon him, he had to content himself
with reading the message to the crowd outside. The House went
on with its work, while, at the same time, a great meeting,
with John Adams in the chair, was being held at Boston in
Faneuil Hall. Twelve colonies agreed to send delegates to a
Continental Congress to be held at Philadelphia in September."

_E. G. Scott,
The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the
English Colonies of America,
chapter 11 (with corrections by the author)._

ALSO IN:
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision)
volume 4, chapter 1._

See, also, BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774(May-July).
Governor Hutchinson's departure for England.
His conversation with King George.

In May, 1774, Governor Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, who had
applied some months before for leave of absence to visit
England, was relieved by General Gage and took his departure.
General Gage was temporarily commissioned to be "Captain
General and Governor-in-Chief" of the Province of
Massachusetts, and "Vice-Admiral of the same," combining the
civil and military powers in himself. It was then supposed
that Hutchinson's absence would be brief; but, to his endless
grief, he never saw the country again. Soon after his arrival
in England he had an interview with the king, which is
reported at length in his Diary. The conversation is one of
great historical interest, exhibiting King George's knowledge
and ideas of American affairs, and representing the opinions
of a high-minded American loyalist. It is reprinted here
exactly as given in Governor Hutchinson's Diary, published by
his great-grandson in 1883:

"July 1st.—Received a card from Lord Dartmouth desiring to see
me at his house before one o'clock. I went soon after 12, and
after near an hour's conversation, his Lordship proposed
introducing me immediately to the King. I was not dressed as
expecting to go to Court, but his Lordship observing that the
King would not be at St. James's again until Wednesday [this
was Friday], I thought it best to go; but waited so long for
his Lordship to dress, that the Levée was over; but his
Lordship going in to the King, I was admitted, contrary, as
Lord Pomfret observed to me, to custom, to kiss His Majesty's
hand in his closet: after which, as near as I can recollect,
the following conversation passed.

K.—How do you do Mr. H. after y voyage?

H.—Much reduced Sir by sea-sickness; and unfit upon that
account, as well as my New England dress, to appear before
your Majesty. Lord D. observed—Mr. H. apologised to me for his
dress, but I thought it very well, as he is just come ashoar;
to which the K. assented.

K.—How did you leave your Government, and how did the people
receive the news of the late measures in Parliament?

H.—When I left Boston we had no news of any Act of Parliament,
except the one for shutting up the port, which was extremely
alarming to the people.

(Lord D. said, Mr. H. came from Boston the day that Act was to
take place, the first of June. I hear the people of Virginia
have refused to comply with the request to shut up their
ports, from the people of Boston, and Mr. H. seems to be of
opinion that no colony will comply with that request.)

K.—Do you believe, Mr. H., that the account from Virginia is
true?

H.—I have no other reason to doubt it, except that the
authority for it seems to be only a newspaper; and it is very
common for articles to be inserted in newspapers without any
foundation. I have no doubt that when the people of Rhode
Island received the like request, they gave this answer—that
if Boston would stop all the vessels they then had in port,
which they were hurrying away before the Act commenced, the
people of R. Island would then consider of the proposal. The
King smiled.

Lord D.—Mr. H., may it please your Majesty, has shewn me a
newspaper with an address from a great number of Merchants,
another from the Episcopal Clergy, another from the Lawyers,
all expressing their sense of his conduct in the most
favourable terms. Lord Dartmouth thereupon took the paper out
of his pocket and shewed it.

K.—I do not see how it could be otherwise. I am sure his
conduct has been universally approved of here by people of all
parties.

H.—I am very happy in your Majesty's favourable opinion of my
administration.