Chapter CDXLVIII: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (45)

K.—I am intirely satisfied with it. I am well acquainted with
the difficulties you have encountered, and with the abuse &
injury offered you. Nothing could be more cruel than the
treatment you met with in betraying your private letters.

The K., turning to Lord D.—My Lord, I remember nothing in them
to which the least exception could be taken.

Lord D.—That appears, Sir, from the report of the Committee of
Council, and from your Majesty's orders thereon.

H.—The correspondence, Sir, was not of my seeking. It was a
meer matter of friendly amusement, chiefly a narrative of
occurrences, in relating of which I avoided personalities as
much as I could, and endeavoured to treat persons, when they
could not be avoided, with tenderness, as much as if my
letters were intended to be exposed; whereas I had no reason
to suppose they ever would be exposed.

K.—Could you ever find Mr. H. how those letters came to New
England?

H.—Doctor F., may it please your Majesty, has made a publick
declaration that he sent them, and the Speaker has
acknowledged to me that he received them: I do not remember
that he said directly from Doctor F., but it was understood
between us that they came from him. I had heard before that
they came either direct from him, or that he had sent them
through another channel, and that they were to be communicated
to six persons only, and then to be returned without suffering
any copies to be taken, I sent for the Speaker and let him
know what I had heard, which came from one of the six to a
friend, and so to me. The Speaker said they were sent to him,
and that he was at first restrained from shewing them to any
more than six persons.

{3211}

K.—Did he tell you who were the persons?

H.—Yes, sir. There was Mr. Bowdoin, Mr. Pitts, Doctor
Winthrop, Doctor Chauncy, Doctor Cooper, and himself. They are
not all the same which had been mentioned before. The two Mr.
Adamses had been named to me in the room of Mr. Pitts and
Doctor Winthrop.

K.—Mr. B. I have heard of Lord D.—I think he is father-in-law
to Mr. T. [Temple].

K.—Who is Mr. Pitts?

H.—He is one of the Council—married Mr. B.'s sister.

K.—I have heard of Doctor Ch. and Doctor Cooper, but who is
Doctor Winthrop?

H.—He is not a Doctor of Divinity, Sir, but of Law; a
Professor of Mathematicks and Natural Philosophy at the
College, and last year was chose of the Council.

K.—I have beard of one Mr. Adams, but who is the other?

H.—He is a Lawyer, Sir.

K.—Brother to the other?

H. No, Sir, a relation. He has been of the House, but is not
now. He was elected by the two Houses to be of the Council,
but negatived. The speaker further acquainted me that, after
the first letter, he received another, allowing him to shew
the Letters to the Committee of Correspondence; and afterwards
a third, which allowed him to shew them to such persons as he
could confide in, but always enjoined to send them back
without taking copies. I asked him how he could be guilty of
such a breach of trust as to suffer them to be made publick?
He excused it by saying that he was against their being
brought before the House, but was overruled; and when they had
been read there, the people abroad compelled their
publication, or would not be satisfied without it. Much more
passed with which I will not trouble your Majesty; but after
the use had been made of the Letters, which is so well known,
they were all returned.

K., turning to Lord D—This is strange:—where is Doctor F., my
lord?

Lord D.—I believe, Sir, he is in Town. He was going to
America, but I fancy he is not gone.

K.—I heard he was going to Switzerland, or to some part of the
Continent.

Lord D.—I think, Sir, there has been such a report.

K.—In such abuse, Mr. H., as you met with, I suppose there
must have been personal malevolence as well as party rage?

H.—It has been my good fortune, Sir, to escape any charge
against me in my private character. The attacks have been upon
my publick conduct, and for such things as my duty to your
Majesty required me to do, and which you have been pleased to
approve of. I don't know that any of my enemies have
complained of a personal injury.

K.—I see they threatened to pitch and feather you.

H.—Tarr & feather, may it please your Majesty; but I don't
remember that ever I was threatened with it.

Lord D.—Oh! yes, when Malcolm was tarred and feathered
[Almanac for 1770, May, MS. Note], the committee for tarring
and feathering blamed the people for doing it, that being a
punishment reserved for a higher person, and we suppose you
was intended.

H.—I remember something of that sort, which was only to make
diversion, there being no such committee, or none known by
that name.

K.—What guard had you, Mr. H.?

H.—I depended, Sir, on the protection of Heaven. I had no
other guard. I was not conscious of having done anything of
which they could justly complain, or make a pretence for
offering violence to my person. I was not sure, but I hoped
they only meant to intimidate. By discovering that I was
afraid, I should encourage them to go on. By taking measures
for my security I should expose myself to calumny, and being
censured as designing to render them odious for what they
never intended to do. I was, therefore, obliged to appear to
disregard all the menaces in the newspapers, and also private
intimations from my friends who frequently advised me to take
care of myself.

K.—I think you generally live in the country,
Mr. H.; what distance are you from town?

H.—I have lived in the country, Sir, in the summer for 20
years; but, except the winter after my house was pulled down,
I have never lived in the country in winter until the last. My
house is 7 or 8 miles from the Town, a pleasant situation, and
most gentlemen from abroad say it has the finest prospect from
it they ever saw, except where great improvements have been
made by art, to help the natural view. The longest way the
road is generally equal to the turnpike roads here; the other
way rather rough.

K.—Pray, what does Hancock do now? How will the late affair
affect him?

H.—I don't know to what particular affair your Majesty refers.

K.—Oh, a late affair in the city, his bills being refused.
(Turning to Lord D.) Who is that in the city, my Lord?

Lord D. not recollecting—

H.—I have heard, Sir, that Mr. Haley, a merchant in the city,
is Mr. Hancock's principal correspondent.

K.—Ay, that's the name.

H.—I heard, may it please your Majesty, before I came from New
England, that some small sums were returned, but none of
consequence.

K.—Oh, no, I mean within this month, large sums.

Lord D.—I have heard such rumours, but don't know the
certainty.

H.—Mr. Hancock, Sir, had a very large fortune left him by his
uncle, and I believe his political engagements have taken off
his attention from his private affairs. He was sensible not
long ago of the damage it was to him, and told me he was
determined to quit all publick business, but soon altered his
mind.

K.—Then there's Mr. Cushing: I remember his name a long time:
is not he a great man of the party?

H.—He has been many years Speaker, but a Speaker, Sir, is not
always the person of the greatest influence. A Mr. Adams is
rather considered as the opposer of Government, and a sort of
Wilkes in New England.

{3212}

K.—What gave him his importance?

H.—A great pretended zeal for liberty, and a most inflexible
natural temper. He was the first that publickly asserted the
Independency of the colonies upon the Kingdom, or the supreme
Authority of it.

K.—I have heard, Mr. H., that your ministers preach that, for
the sake of promoting liberty or the publick good, any
immorality or less evil may be tolerated?

H.—I don't know, Sir, that such doctrine has ever been
preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been
publickly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call
themselves sober men, that the good of the publick is above
all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed
with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be
obtained by such means.

K.—That's a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr. H., what is
your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the
Council? Will it be agreeable to the people, and will the new
appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?

H.—I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform
myself who they are. I came to Town late last evening, and
have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice
that has been made.

K.—Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable
persons should be appointed.

H.—The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of
England; what are called Congregationalists. If the Council
shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it
will make the change more disagreeable.

K.—Why are they not Presbyterians?

H.—There are very few Churches which call themselves
Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a
Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which
the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.

Lord D.—The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any
of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England,
Congregationalists, or rather Independents.

K.—Pray, what were your Ancestors, Mr. H.?

H.—In general, Sir, Dissenters.

K.—Where do you attend?

H.—With both, Sir. Sometimes at your Majesty's chapel, but
more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very
worthy minister, a friend to Government, who constantly prays
for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.

K.—What is his name?

H.—Doctor Pemberton.

K.—I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good
man. Who is minister at the chapel?

H.—The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who
frequently inculcates upon his hearers due subjection to
Government, and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it;
and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short
prayer before sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and
for the chief Ruler in the Province.

K.—Why do not the Episcopal ministers in general do the same?

H.—In general, Sir, they use no other prayer before sermon
than a short collect out of the Liturgy.

K.—No—(turning to Lord D.) It is not so here, my Lord?

Lord D.—I believe it is, Sir. In your Majesty's Chapel they
always use such a prayer. It is a form adapted.

K.—I think you must be mistaken.

Lord D.—No, Sir. This prayer used to be printed formerly, but
of late it has not been printed with the service. In general
the ministers use a collect, as Mr. Hutchinson says; sometimes
the collect in the Communion service—'Prevent us, O Lord,'
&c., but I think oftener the collect for the second Sunday in
Advent.

H.—My education, Sir, was with the Dissenters. I conceive
there is no material difference between reading a prayer out
of a book, and saying it 'memoriter,' without book.

Lord D.—I think, Sir, it is not very material. The prayers of
the Dissenters are in substance very much the same with those
in the service of' the church.

K.—I see no material difference, if the prayers be equally
good, but will not that depend upon the minister? But, pray,
Mr. H., why do your ministers generally join with the people
in their opposition to Government?

H.—They are, Sir, dependent upon the people. They are elected
by the people, and when they are dissatisfied with them, they
seldom leave till they get rid of them.

K.—That must be very dangerous. If the people oblige them to
concur with them in their erroneous principles on Government,
they may do it in religion also, and this must have a most
fatal tendency.

H.—There is one check, Sir, upon the people. Unless a minister
be dismissed by a council of Churches, the Province law makes
provision for the recovery of the salary; but we have no
instance where a minister, for any length of time, has brought
suits for the recovery of his salary, after the people refuse
to hear him. They generally weary him, and sooner or later
they get clear of him.

Lord D.—That's a considerable tye, however.

K.—Pray, Mr. H., does population greatly increase in your
Province?

H.—Very rapidly, Sir. I used to think that Doctor F., who has
taken such pains in his calculations, carried it too far when
he supposed the inhabitants of America, from their natural
increase, doubled their number in 25 years; but I rather think
now that he did not; and I believe it will appear from the
last return I made to the Secretary of State, that the
Massachusets has increased in that proportion. And the
increase is supposed, including the importation of foreigners,
to be, upon the whole, greater in most of the Southern
Colonies than in the Massachusets. We import no settlers from
Europe, so as to make any sensible increase.

K.—Why do not foreigners come to your Province as well as to
the Southern Governments?

H.—I take it, Sir, that our long cold winters discourage
them. Before they can bring the land to such a state as to be
able in summer to provide for their support in winter, what
little substance they can bring with them is expended, and
many of them have greatly suffered. The Southern colonies are
more temperate.

K.—What is the reason you raise no wheat in your Province?

{3213}

H.—In most places, especially near the sea, it blasts.

K.—To what cause is that owing?

H.—It has been observed that when the grain is so forward as
to be out of the milk the beginning of July, it seldom blasts;
and that about the 8th or 10th of that month the weather
becomes exceeding hot, and what are called the honey dews of
the night are fixed upon the grains by the scalding sun in a
hot morning, and if the grain be then in the milk it shrivels
up, and the straw becomes rusty and black. This is a pretty
general opinion of the cause.

K.—To what produce is your climate best adapted?

H.—To grazing, Sir; your Majesty has not a finer Colony for
grass in all your dominions: and nothing is more profitable in
America that pasture, because labour is very dear.

K.—Then you import all your bread corn from the other
Colonies?

H.—No, Sir, scarce any, except for the use of the maritime
towns. In the country towns the people raise grain enough for
their own expending, and sometimes for exportation. They live
upon coarse bread made of rye and corn mixed, and by long use
they learn to prefer this to flour or wheat bread.
K.—What corn?

H.—Indian corn, or, as it is called in Authors, Maize.

K.—Ay, I know it. Does that make good bread?

H.—Not by itself, Sir; the bread will soon be dry and husky;
but the Rye keeps it moist, and some of our country people
prefer a bushel of Rye to a bushel of Wheat, if the price
should be the same.

K.—That's very strange.

Lord D.—In many parts of Scotland, Sir, Rye is much esteemed
as making good and wholesome bread.

The King enquired very particularly into many other parts of
the produce of the country, and the natural history of it, to
which I gave the best answers I was capable of.

K.—New York, I think, comes the next to Boston in their
opposition to Government?

H.—Does your Majesty think nearer than Pennsilvania?

K.—Why, I can't say that they do of late.

K.—Rhode Island, Mr. H., is a strange form of Government.

H.—They approach, Sir, the nearest to a Democracy of any of
your Colonies. Once a year all power returns to the people,
and all their Officers are new elected. By this means the
Governor has no judgment of his own, and must comply with
every popular prejudice.

K.—Who is their Governor now?

H.—His name, Sir, is Wanton, a Gentleman who I have reason to
think wishes to see Government maintained as much as any they
could find in the Colonies.

K.—How is it with Connecticut? are they much better?

H.—The constitutions, Sir, are much the same; but Connecticut
are a more cautious people; strive to make as little noise as
may be, and have in general retained a good share of that
virtue which is peculiarly necessary in such a form of
Government.

More was said upon the state of these and some of the other
Colonies. There being something of a pause about this time, I
turned to Lord Dartmouth and asked—Does your Lordship remember
when you had the first account of the Lieutenant Governor's
death, and whether it was before the Letters which I wrote by
Governor Tryon?

Lord D.—Oh, yes, I had a letter from you several weeks before
that, giving an account of it.

H.—There was a vessel sailed for Lisbon the day after he died,
and I gave a letter to the master in charge, to put it on
board the first Vessel for London, but was doubtful of the
conveyance.

K.—We never could find out which way that letter came. Is the
present L. Governor a relation to the late Mr. Oliver?

H.—No, Sir, not of the same family. I have no connection with
him, nor did I ever let him know that I had mentioned him as
one of the persons I thought might be proper for a Lieutenant
Governor.

K.—The Chief Justice, I think, is brother to the late
Lieutenant Governor?

H.—Yes, Sir.

K.—We had thought of him, but as he was not one of those you
had named, the present Gentleman, upon enquiry, appeared under
all circumstances the most proper.

H.—I had some particular inducement not to mention the Chief
Justice. He is related to me, and his appointment would have
increased the envy against both of us.

K.—How is he related to you?

H.—One of his sons, Sir, married one of my daughters. I was,
besides, uncertain whether the salary would be continued; and
if it should be, his salary as Chief Justice exceeded it,
except in case of my absence, and then the expense of living,
and the additional trouble from his post, I considered as more
than an equivalent. I considered further, that the controversy
in which he had been engaged as Chief Justice would render the
administration peculiarly difficult just at that time; and I
supposed it would immediately devolve upon him by my absence,
having then no expectation of being superseded. I never took
more pains to divest myself of all personal views than in
mentioning proper persons for this place. I should have been
more anxious, if I had not thought it not improbable that some
person might be appointed, and sent from England.

K.—What number of Indians had you in your Government?

H.—They are almost extinct. Perhaps there are 50 or 60
families at most upon the Eastern Frontier, where there is a
small fort maintained; tho' I conceive the inhabitants would
not be in the least danger. It looks, Sir, as if in a few
years the Indians would be extinct in all parts of the
Continent.

K.—To what is that owing?

H.—I have thought, Sir, in part to their being dispirited at
their low despicable condition among the Europeans, who have
taken possession of their country, and treat them as an
inferior race of beings; but more to the immoderate use of
spirituous liquors. There are near 100 families, perhaps more,
of Indians who are domiciliated, and live, some in other towns,
but most of them at a place called Mashpee, where they have a
church, and a Missionary to preach to them, and also an Indian
Minister who has been ordained, and preaches sometimes in
their own language.

K.—What, an Episcopal Minister?

H.—No, Sir, of the Congregational persuasion or form of
worship.

{3214}

The King was particular in many other enquiries relative to my
Administration, to the state of the Province, and the other
Colonies. I have minuted what remained the clearest upon my
mind, and as near the order in which they passed as I am able.
He asked also what part of my family I brought with me, and
what I left behind, and at length advised me to keep house a
few days for the recovery of my health. I then withdrew. I was
near two hours in the K. closet. Lord D. feared I was tired so
long standing. I observed that so gracious a reception made me
insensible of it."

_Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson.
chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September).
The meeting of the First Continental Congress.

"On the 5th day of September most of the delegates elected to
the congress were in Philadelphia. They were invited by the
speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly to hold their sessions in
the State House, but decided to meet in the hall owned by the
carpenters,—a fine brick building, having commodious rooms for
the use of the committees, and an excellent library in the
chambers. It is still in good preservation. At ten o'clock in
the morning the delegates met at the City Tavern, walked to
Carpenters' Hall, and began the sessions of the Continental
Congress. This assembly, when all the members had taken their
seats, consisted of 55 delegates, chosen by 12 colonies. They
represented a population of 2,200,000, paying a revenue of
£80,000 sterling. Georgia, which did not elect delegates, gave
a promise to concur with her 'sister colonies' in the effort
to maintain their right to the British Constitution. … In
general, the delegates elect were men of uncommon ability, who
had taken a prominent part in the political action of their
several localities. … New England presented, in John Sullivan,
vigor; in Roger Sherman, sterling sense and integrity; in
Thomas Cushing, commercial knowledge; in John Adams, large
capacity for public affairs; in Samuel Adams, a great
character, with influence and power to organize. The Middle
colonies presented, in Philip Livingston, the merchant prince
of enterprise and liberality; in John Jay, rare public virtue,
juridical learning, and classic taste; in William Livingston,
progressive ideas tempered by conservatism; in John Dickinson,
'The Immortal Farmer,' erudition and literary ability; in
Cæsar Rodney and Thomas McKean, working power; in James Duane,
timid Whiggism, halting, but keeping true to the cause; in
Joseph Galloway, downright Toryism, seeking control, and at
length going to the enemy. The Southern colonies presented, in
Thomas Johnson, the grasp of a statesman; in Samuel Chase,
activity and boldness; in the Rutledges, wealth and
accomplishment; in Christopher Gadsden, the genuine American;
and in the Virginia delegation, an illustrious group,—in
Richard Bland, wisdom; in Edmund Pendleton, practical talent;
in Peyton Randolph, experience in legislation; in Richard
Henry Lee, statesmanship in union with high culture; in
Patrick Henry, genius and eloquence; in Washington, justice
and patriotism. 'If,' said Patrick Henry, 'you speak of solid
information and sound judgment, Washington unquestionably is
the greatest man of them all.' … The congress was organized by
the choice of Peyton Randolph of Virginia for President, and
Charles Thomson of Philadelphia, not a member, for Secretary.
… A discussion … arose on the rules to be observed in
determining questions, … which was renewed the next day, when
it was agreed that each colony should have one vote."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_J. T. Scharf and. T. Westcott,
History of Philadelphia,
volume 1, chapter 16._

_C. J. Stillé,
Life and Times of John Dickinson,
chapter 5._

_V. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the! United States,
volume 3, chapter 13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September-October).
The action of the Congress.

"The Congress first resolved 'to state the rights of the
colonies in general, the several instances in which those
rights were violated or infringed, and the means most proper
for a restoration of them.' Next, 'to examine and report the
several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of
the colonies,' not earlier than the last nine years. While
these subjects were under consideration, resolutions of Boston
and its neighbors [Middlesex and Suffolk counties] were laid
before them, stating their wrongs and merely defensive
measures to which they would adhere, 'as long as such conduct
may be vindicated by reason and the principles of
self-preservation, but no longer.' … Congress unanimously
approved and recommended 'a perseverance in this firm and
temperate conduct,' trusting a change in the councils of the
British nation. The merchants were urged not to order goods,
and to suspend those ordered; and it was resolved, that after
the first of next December there should be no importation of
British goods, and no consumption of, or traffic in them. A
loyal petition to the king was ordered, assuring him that by
abolishing the system of laws and regulations of which the
colonies complained, enumerating them, the jealousies they had
caused would be removed, and harmony restored. 'We ask but for
peace, liberty and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in
our favor. Your royal authority over us, and our connection
with Great Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously
endeavor to support and maintain.' General Gage was entreated
to discontinue the erection of the fortifications on Boston
Neck, and to prevent all injuries on the part of the troops;
and Massachusetts was asked 'temporarily to submit to a
suspension of the administration of justice where it could not
be procured in a legal and peaceable manner.' Persons
accepting office under the recent act, changing the form of
her government, were denounced, 'as the wicked tools of that
despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which
God, nature, and compact have given to America.' A memorial
was next ordered to the inhabitants of the British colonies
there represented, exposing their common wrongs and urging a
united 'commercial opposition,' warning them to extend their
views 'to mournful events,' to be 'in all respects prepared
for every contingency, and to implore the favor of Almighty
God.'
{3215}
An appeal was made to the enlightened sympathies of the
British people. … Finally, an address was made to the
inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, inviting their
co-operation. In the meantime, the form of a non-exportation,
non-consumption association was adopted, and signed by each of
the delegates. … A declaration of the rights and injuries of
the colonies was made, in which the most difficult question
was disposed of. The right to participate in the legislative
council of their common country, was declared to be the
foundation of English liberty and of all free government. … Of
all these proceedings the language was that of peace, except
where other language was demanded. For they approved the
opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay to the
execution of the late acts of Parliament, and declared, 'If
these acts shall be attempted to be carried into execution by
force, in such case all America ought to support them in their
opposition,' and 'that seizing or attempting to seize any
person in America, in order to transport such person beyond
the sea for trial of offences committed within the body of a
county in America, being against law, will justify, and ought
to meet with, resistance and reprisal.' These were the
essential resolutions. They bound the colonies to a common
resistance to acts of force against all, or any one of them.
They also declared their opinion of the necessity that another
Congress should be held in the ensuing month of May, unless
the redress of grievances which they had desired was obtained
before that time, and that all the colonies in North America
choose deputies, as soon as possible, to attend such Congress.
On the twenty-sixth of October, after a secret session of
fifty-one days, this body adjourned. The recommendations of
this Congress were received with marked respect among the
patriots of the colonies."

_J. C. Hamilton,
History of the United States as traced
in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._

"Trained in all the theories of the mercantile system, America
had been taught to believe (1) that two countries could
continue to trade, though one of necessity did so at a loss;
(2) that in the trade between England and the colonies, the
former both through natural advantages and through law was the
party to which the profit accrued; (3) that England was 'a
shop-keeping nation,' whose very existence depended on her
trade and manufactures. A suspension of trade between England
and America therefore would mean misery, if not ruin, to the
mother country, while the colonies would 'both save and gain.'
With measures of non-importation, non-exportation and
non-consumption, accordingly, did this otherwise powerless
body hope to coerce the English people and government. Though
founded on an economic fallacy, this method of action was
certain to have a great effect in England. Twice already had
it been employed on a limited scale—against the Stamp Act and
against the revenue acts,—and each time with sufficient
success to warrant the belief that its wider application would
result in victory. Now the agents of the colonies in London
were writing home: 'If you have virtue enough to resolve to
stop, and to execute the resolution of stopping, your exports
and imports for one year, this country must do you justice.' …
In both England and America the temporary destruction of
British trade was viewed not merely as an effective weapon,
but as the only peaceful one which the colonies possessed. A
failure to unite in a non-importation agreement against
England would, according to a prominent English politician,
leave nothing for the colonies 'but to decide between ruin and
submission.' The question for the Congress was not, therefore,
a choice of remedies, but merely whether, and to how great an
extent, the dele·gates could be brought to agree to the only
one within their reach. For even while accepting the system as
effective against Great Britain, the delegates and their
constituents had so far progressed as to realize that it bore
with uneven force on the different colonies. The southern
colonies were really no more diversified in their industries
than the West India islands. South Carolina grew rice and
indigo; North Carolina depended largely on tar, pitch and
turpentine; Virginia raised tobacco. Unless these products
could be exported to Europe, those colonies might suffer for
the necessaries of life. … The first consideration of the
subject in the Congress revealed serious difficulties. The
Virginia delegation, 'to avoid the heavy injury that would
arise,' were prevented by their instructions from agreeing to
an immediate cessation of trade relations. Imports would cease
on November 1, 1774, but exports must continue till August 10,
1775. It was in vain they were told 'that a non-exportation at
a future day cannot avail,' and that at the Virginia date
non-exportation would not operate before the fall of 1776. The
Virginians had determined to cure and sell their tobacco crop
of 1774 before 'consideration of interest and of equality of
sacrifice should be laid aside.' So vital, however, did most
of the delegates consider the immediate enforcement, that it
was proposed to act without Virginia; for Boston and New
England, it was said, would need active support before that
date. This proposition was defeated by the refusal of the
delegates of North Carolina and Maryland to join unless
Virginia should also make the sacrifice. With sorry grace the
Congress had to accept the dictation of Virginia. But the
trouble did not end here. Virginia's selfish interest having
been triumphant, the South Carolina delegation sought for an
equal advantage, and demanded that the two great products of
that colony should be especially reserved from the
non-exportation clause. … Rather than yield, the Congress
preferred a cessation of business for several days, in order
'to give Our [South Carolina] deputies time to recollect
themselves.' But when the Association was ready for signing,
the South Carolina delegates, with but one exception, seceded
from the Congress, and their assent was only secured
eventually through a compromise, by virtue of which rice alone
was excluded from the agreement, while indigo was brought
under its terms. Such were the secret deliberations of the
Congress, in endeavoring to unite the colonies in the use of
their only weapon. The first public results appeared in the
form of a unanimous resolution, passed and published on
September 22, requesting 'the merchants and others in the
several colonies not to send to Great Britain any orders for
goods,' and to delay or suspend orders already sent. Five days
later it was unanimously resolved that after December 1, 1774,
'there should be no importation into British America from
Great Britain or Ireland, or from any other place,' of any
goods, wares or merchandise exported from Great Britain or
Ireland.
{3216}
Three days later, with no assertion of unanimity, a resolution
was announced to the effect 'that from and after the 10th day
of September, 1775, the exportation of all merchandise and
every commodity whatsoever to Great Britain, Ireland and the
West Indies ought to cease, unless the grievances of America
are redressed before that time,' and a committee was appointed
to draft a plan for carrying into effect these resolves. On
October 12 this committee brought in a report, which, after
consideration and amendment, was on the 18th of October agreed
to and ordered signed. On October 20 it was signed and ordered
to be printed. Possessed of no real power, the Congress relied
on the people to enforce this agreement. It was recommended
that in every county, city and town a committee be chosen
'whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct
of all persons touching this Association.' With hardly an
exception, this recommendation was adopted. … As America had
refused to trade with Great Britain and her colonies, the
government replied by acts prohibiting any such trade. The
policy of 'exhausting its opponent by injuring itself' was at
last to have a fair trial, but through British, not American
action. The colonies were by law interdicted from all
commerce, trade and fishing. But before the legislation went
into effect blood had been shed at Lexington. The contest
could no longer be fought with acts of Parliament and resolves
of Congress; 'blows must decide.' The Association was
distinctively a peace weapon. Had the Congress really expected
war, no action could have been more foolish. A garrison soon
to be beleaguered virtually shut its ports to supplies. No
better proof is needed of how little the delegates wished or
worked for separation."

_P. L. Ford,
The Association of the First Congress
(Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891.)_

'That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free
government, is a right in the people to participate in their
legislative council; and us the English colonists are not
represented, and from their local and other circumstances
cannot be properly represented in the British Parliament, they
are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in
their several provincial legislatures, where their rights of
representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of
taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of
their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used
and accustomed. But from the necessity of the case, and a
regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully
consent to the operation of such acts of the British
Parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of
our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the
commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother
country; and the commercial benefits of its respective
members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or
external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America,
without their consent.' This was not precisely what John Adams
wanted, but it was much. When this declaration went forth, the
cause of Massachusetts, in whatever it might eventuate, was
the cause of the colonies. It was nationalized. This was John
Adams's greatest feat of statesmanship. On it the Success of
the impending war, and the Declaration of Independence
rested."

_M. Chamberlain,
John Adams, the Statesman of the
American Revolution,
pages 78-80._

"How far the authority of this first congress extended,
according to the instructions of the delegates, it is
impossible to determine with certainty at this distance of
time. But it is probable that the original intention was that
it should consult as to the ways and means best calculated to
remove the grievances and to guaranty the rights and liberties
of the colonies, and should propose to the latter a series of
resolutions, furthering these objects. But the force of
circumstances at the time compelled it to act and order
immediately, and the people, by a consistent following of its
orders, approved this transcending of their written
instructions. The congress was therefore not only a
revolutionary body from its origin, but its acts assumed a
thoroughly revolutionary character. The people, also, by
recognizing its authority, placed themselves on a
revolutionary footing, and did so not as belonging to the
several colonies, but as a moral person; for to the extent
that congress assumed power to itself and made bold to adopt
measures national in their nature, to that extent the
colonists declared themselves henceforth to constitute one
people, inasmuch as the measures taken by congress could be
translated from words into deeds only with the consent of the
people. This state of affairs essentially continued up to
March 1, 1781.
{3217}
Until that time, that is, until the adoption of the articles
of confederation by all the states, congress continued a
revolutionary body, which was recognized by all the colonies
as 'de jure' and 'de facto' the national government, and which
as such came in contact with foreign powers and entered into
engagements, the binding force of which on the whole people
has never been called in question. The individual colonies, on
the other hand, considered themselves, up to the time of the
Declaration of Independence, as legally dependent upon England
and did not take a single step which could have placed them
before the mother country or the world in the light of 'de
facto' sovereign states. They remained colonies until the
'representatives of the United States' 'in the name of the
good people of these colonies' solemnly declared 'these united
colonies' to be 'free and independent states.' The
transformation of the colonies into 'states' was, therefore,
not the result of the independent action of the individual
colonies. It was accomplished through the 'representatives of
the United States'; that is, through the revolutionary
congress, in the name of the whole people. Each individual
colony became a state only in so far as it belonged to the
United States and in so far as its population constituted a
part of the people."

_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the
United States,
volume 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_W. V. Wells,
Life of Samuel Adams,
volume 2, pages 213-247._

_J. Adams,
Diary (Works, volume 2)
pages 358-401._

_Journal of the Congress which met at Philadelphia
September 5, 1774
(London: J. Almon)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774-1775.
Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and
Committee of Safety.
Military preparations.

"Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members
elected to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved
themselves into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th
of October, adopted a plan for organizing the militia,
maintaining it, and calling it out when circumstances should
render it necessary. It provided that one quarter of the
number enrolled should be held in readiness to muster at the
shortest notice, who were called by the popular name of
minute-men. An executive authority—the Committee of
Safety—was created, clothed with large discretionary powers;
and another called the Committee of Supplies. On the 27th
Jedediah Preble, (who did not accept,) Artemas Ward, and Seth
Pomeroy, were chosen general officers; and on the 28th, Henry
Gardner was chosen treasurer of the colony, under the title of
Receiver-General. Among the energetic acts of this memorable
Congress, was one authorizing the collection of military
stores. It dissolved December 10. The committee of safety, as
early as November, authorized the purchase of materials for an
army, and ordered them to be deposited at Concord and
Worcester. These proceedings were denounced by General Gage,
in a proclamation dated November 10, as treasonable, and a
compliance with them was forbidden. In a short time the king's
speech and the action of Parliament were received, which
manifested a firm determination to produce submission to the
late acts, and to maintain 'the supreme authority' of Great
Britain over the colonies. General Gage regarded this
intelligence as having 'cast a damp upon the faction,' and as
having produced a happy effect upon the royalist cause.
However, a second Provincial Congress (February 1 to 16, 1775)
renewed the measures of its predecessor; and gave definiteness
to the duties of the committee of safety, by 'empowering and
directing' them (on the 9th of February) to assemble the
militia whenever it was required to resist the execution of
the two acts, for altering the government and the
administration of justice. At the same time it appointed two
additional generals, John Thomas, and William Heath, and made
it the duty of the five general officers to take charge of the
militia when called out by the committee of safety, and to
'effectually oppose and resist such attempt or attempts as
shall be made for carrying into execution by force' the two
acts. … The conviction was fast becoming general that force
only could decide the contest. Stimulated and sustained by
such a public opinion, the committees of safety and supplies
were diligent, through the gloomy months of winter, in
collecting and storing at Concord and Worcester materials for
the maintenance of an army."

_R. Frothingham, Jr.,
History of the Siege of Boston,
chapter 1. _

The following citizens composed the Committee of Public
Safety, viz., "John Hancock, Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church,
Richard Devens, Benjamin White, Joseph Palmer, Abraham Watson,
Azor Orne, John Pigeon, William Heath, and Thomas Gardner. The
following 'Committee of Supplies' was announced, viz.,
Elbridge Gerry, David Cheever, Benjamin Lincoln, Moses Gill,
and Benjamin Hall. … By the first day of January, 1775, the
garrison of Boston had been increased to thirty-five hundred
men, and mounted three hundred and seventy men as a daily
guard-detail, besides a field officers' guard of one hundred
and fifty men on Boston Neck. Three brigades were organized
and were officered, respectively by Generals Lord Percy,
Pigott and Jones. In November of 1774, General Gage had
advised the British government, that he, 'was confident, that
to begin with an army twenty thousand strong, would in the end
save Great Britain blood and treasure.' Meanwhile, the militia
drilled openly, rapidly completed company organizations, and
made many sacrifices to procure arms, powder and other
materials of war. The Home government, in view of the serious
aspect of affairs, ordered Generals Howe, Clinton, and
Burgoyne to join General Gage, and announced that 'ample
reinforcements would be sent out, and the most speedy and
effectual measures would be taken to put down the rebellion,'
then pronounced to already exist. On the eighth of April, the
Provincial Congress resolved to take effectual measures to
raise an army, and requested the cooperation of Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Connecticut. On the thirteenth, it voted to
raise six companies of artillery, to pay them and keep them at
drill. On the fourteenth it advised citizens to leave Boston
and to remove to the country. On the fifteenth, it solemnly
appointed a day for 'Public Fasting and Prayer,' and adjourned
to the tenth day of May. The Committee of Public Safety at
once undertook the task of securing powder, cannon and small
arms. A practical embargo was laid upon all trade with Boston.
The garrison could obtain supplies only with great difficulty,
and, as stated by Gordon, 'nothing was wanting but a spark, to
set the whole continent in a flame.'"

_H. B. Carrington,
Battles of the American Revolution.
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{3218}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-March).
Vain efforts toward pacific statesmanship in the British
Parliament, by Chatham, Burke, and others.

A newly elected British Parliament "met on November 30, 1774;
but no serious measure relating to America was taken till
January 1775, when the House reassembled after the Christmas
vacation. The Ministers had a large majority, and even apart
from party interest the genuine feeling of both Houses ran
strongly against the Americans. Yet at no previous period were
they more powerfully defended. I have already noticed that
Chatham, having returned to active politics after his long
illness in 1774, had completely identified himself with the
American cause, and had advocated with all his eloquence
measures of conciliation. He … moved an address to the King
praying that he would as soon as possible, 'in order to open
the way towards a happy settlement of the dangerous troubles
in America,' withdraw the British troops stationed in Boston.
In the course of his speech he represented the question of
American taxation as the root-cause of the whole division, and
maintained that the only real basis of conciliation was to be
found in a distinct recognition of the principle that
'taxation is theirs, and commercial regulation ours;' that
England has a supreme right of regulating the commerce and
navigation of America, and that the Americans have an
inalienable right to their own property. He fully justified
their resistance, predicted that all attempts to coerce them
would fail, and eulogised the Congress at Philadelphia as
worthy of the greatest periods of antiquity. Only eighteen
peers voted for the address, while sixty-eight opposed it. On
February 1 he reappeared with an elaborate Bill for settling
the troubles in America. It asserted in strong terms the right
of Parliament to bind the colonies in all matters of imperial
concern, and especially in all matters of commerce and
navigation. It pronounced the new colonial doctrine that the
Crown had no right to send British soldiers to the colonies
without the assent of the Provincial Assemblies, dangerous and
unconstitutional in the highest degree, but at the same time
it recognised the sole right of the colonists to tax
themselves, guaranteed the inviolability of their charters,
and made the tenure of their judges the same as in England. It
proposed to make the Congress which had met at Philadelphia an
official and permanent body, and asked it to make a free grant
for imperial purposes. England, in return, was to reduce the
Admiralty Courts to their ancient limits, and to suspend for
the present the different Acts complained of by the colonists.
The Bill was not even admitted to a second reading. Several
other propositions tending towards conciliation were made in
this session. On March 22, 1775, Burke, in one of his greatest
speeches, moved a series of resolutions recommending a repeal
of the recent Acts complained of in America, reforming the
Admiralty Court and the position of the judges, and leaving
American taxation to the American Assemblies, without touching
upon any question of abstract right. A few days later, Hartley
moved a resolution calling upon the Government to make
requisitions to the colonial Assemblies to provide of their
own authority for their own defence; and Lord Camden in the
House of Lords and Sir G. Savile in the House of Commons
endeavoured to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act. All these
attempts, however, were defeated by enormous majorities. The
petition of Congress to the King was referred to Parliament,
which refused to receive it, and Franklin, after vain efforts
to effect a reconciliation, returned from England to America."

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

The following are the more important passages of the speech of
Burke, on moving the resolutions which he introduced in the
House of Commons, March 22, 1775: