Chapter I: The Revolution Impending (4)

THE argument of Otis on the Writs of Assistance is the first well-arranged expression of the gathering opposition,[163] and what John Adams called "the heaves and throes of the burning mountain", forerunning the eruption, were shown in James Otis's _A vindication of the conduct of the House of Representatives of the province of the Massachusetts-Bay; more particularly, in the last session of the general assembly_ (Boston, 1762).[164]

John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway were already pitted against each other on the question of maintaining the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, or of seeking a royal one.[165]

Frothingham[166] says the earliest organized action against taxation was when the town of Boston passed instructions to its representatives, May 24, 1764, the original writing of which is among the Samuel Adams MSS. The paper was printed in the newspapers of the day, and shortly afterwards in the famous tract of Otis, _The Rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved_,[167] in which, however, he failed, with all his fervid and cogent reasoning, to stand in every respect by the advanced position which he had taken in his plea against the Writs of Assistance.[168]

After a statue of James Otis, by Crawford, in the chapel at Mount Auburn. The usual portrait of Otis is by Blackburn, painted in 1755, and now owned by Mrs. H. B. Rogers. The earliest engraving of it which I have noticed is by A. B. Durand in Tudor, and again in the _Worcester Magazine_ (1826), vol. i. It has been engraved by W. O. Jackman, J. R. Smith, O. Pelton, and best of all by C. Schlecht, in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 332. Cf. Loring's _Hundred Boston Orators_, and the woodcut in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 6. The earliest engraved likeness is probably a rude cut on the title of Bickerstaff's _Almanac_ (1770), which is reproduced in Lossing's _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 486.

There is a photograph of the house where Otis was killed by lightning (May 28, 1783) in Bailey's _Andover_, p. 86. Cf. _Appleton's Journal_, xi. 784. The principal detailed authority on the career of Otis (born, 1724; died, 1783) is William Tudor's _Life of James Otis_, which Lecky, in his _England in the Eighteenth Century_ (iii. 304), calls "a remarkable book from which I have derived much assistance." Francis Bowen wrote the life in Sparks's _Amer. Biog._, vol. xii. John Adams had an exalted opinion of Otis, and Otis's character receives various touches in Adams's _Works_ (x. 264, 271, 275, 279, 280, 284, 289-295, 299, 300). Bancroft depicts him in 1768 (vol. vi. 120, orig. ed.), but he failed rapidly later by reason of the blows he received in an assault in Sept., 1769, provoked by him. Cf. Greene's _Hist. View_ (p. 322); D. A. Goddard in _Mem. Hist. Boston_ (iii. 140); Barry's _Mass._ (ii. 259).]

One of the ablest as well as one of the most temperate expressions of the stand taken by the colonies was in Stephen Hopkins's _Rights of the Colonies examined; published by Authority_ (Providence, 1765).[169]

Similar arguments were set forth in behalf of Connecticut by its governor.[170]

Already, in 1764, when Oxenbridge Thacher printed his _Sentiments of a British American_, he had formulated the arguments against the navigation acts and British taxation, which ten years later, in the Congress of 1774, Jay embodied in his Address to the British People.[171]

John Adams, in later years, when distance clarified the atmosphere, looked upon the conflict which Jonathan Mayhew waged with Apthorpe, and with the abettors of all schemes for imposing episcopacy on the people by act of Parliament, as the repelling of an attack upon the people's right to decide such questions for themselves, and as but a forerunner of the great subsequent question.[172]

Copied from a mezzotint engraving in the American Antiquarian Society's possession, marked "Richard Jennys, jun., pinxt et fecit."

A portrait by Smibert, and engraved by J. B. Cipriani, is in Hollis's _Memoirs_ (1780), p. 371; and a reëngraving has been made by H. W. Smith. Cf. Bradford's _Life of Mayhew_; Thornton's _Pulpit of the Rev._; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 245, with note on his portraits.

The principal source of detailed information about Mayhew is Alden Bradford's _Memoir of the life and writings of Jonathan Mayhew_ (Boston, 1838). Cf. Tudor's _Otis_ (ch. 10); Thomas Hollis's _Memoirs_; Tyler's _Amer. Lit._ (ii. p. 199); touches in _John Adams's Works_ (iv. 29; x. 207, 301); and on his death, Dr. Benjamin Church's _Elegy_, Dr. Chauncy's discourse, both in 1766, and the _Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr._, p. 384.]

The issue on the question of taxation without representation was forced, after many indications of its coming,[173] when the British Parliament passed the Grenville Act in 1764, and in the next year what is known as the Stamp Act, a tax on business papers, increasing their cost at different rates, but sometimes manyfold.[174] The question of the authorship of the bill is one about which there has been some controversy,[175] and, contrary to the general impression, the truth seems to be that the consideration of the bill caused little attention in and out of Parliament, and the debates on it were languid.[176]

In May a knowledge of the passage of the Stamp Act reached Boston,[177] and it was to go into effect Nov. 1st. In June the Massachusetts legislature determined to invite a congress of all the colonies in October. In August it was known that Jared Ingersoll for Connecticut and Andrew Oliver for Boston had agreed to become distributors of the stamps. The mob hanged an effigy of Oliver on the tree afterwards known as Liberty Tree,[178] and other outrages followed. The governor did not dare to leave the castle. Dr. Mayhew delivered a sermon, vigorous and perhaps incendiary, as Hutchinson averred when he traced to it the passions of the mob which destroyed his own house in North Square on the evening of August 26th.[179] The town contented itself with passing a unanimous vote of condemnation the next day.[180] On Sept. 25th Bernard addressed the legislature in a tone that induced them to reply (Oct. 25th), and to fortify their position by resolves (Oct. 29th).[181] Finally, in December, Andrew Oliver,[182] the stamp distributor, was forced to resign, and on the 17th to sign an oath that he would in no way lend countenance to the tax.[183]

The spirit in Boston was but an index of the feelings throughout all the colonies.[184] The histories of the several States and the lives of their revolutionary actors make this clear.[185]

In October, 1765, what is known as the Stamp Act Congress assembled in New York, in the old City Hall.[186] Its proceedings are in print, and its deliberations are followed in the general histories and in the lives of its members.[187]

Franklin had, with considerable opposition, been appointed the London agent of Pennsylvania in 1764, and, being in that city, was accused by James Biddle of promoting the passage of the Stamp Act, but his letters show how he seems only to have yielded when he could not prevail in opposing.[188]

In July, 1765, the Rockingham administration came in, followed by the parliamentary sparring of Grenville and Pitt. In February, 1766, Dr. Franklin was examined before the House of Commons as to the temper of the colonies respecting the Stamp Act. He gave them some good advice,[189] and a full report of the questions and answers is preserved.[190] Parliament having passed the so-called Declaratory Act (March 7th) in vindication of its prerogatives, Pitt and Conway effected the repeal of the Stamp Act (March 18th), and vessels immediately sailed to carry the news to the colonies.[191] The whole question of taxation, thus brought squarely to an issue by the controversy over the Stamp Act, induced frequent rehearsals of argument in debates and pamphlet, and the later historians have summarized the opposing views.[192]

Josiah Tucker, the Dean of Gloucester, began in 1766 a series of tracts, which he continued for ten years, in which he advanced sentiments respecting the colonies, not very flattering, while at the same time he held to arguments which few at the time admitted the force of, when he advocated the peaceful separation of America from the crown.[193]

The most important presentation of the Tory insistence in defence of the Stamp Act policy came directly—or, at least, through his secretary, Charles Lloyd—from Grenville himself, in his attack on the Rockingham party, in the _Conduct of the late Administration examined, with Documents_.[194]

Reproduction of a print in Entick's _General Hist. of the Late War_ (3d ed., 1770), iv. frontispiece. A profile likeness, showing the king in armor, is in Murray's _Impartial History of the present War in America_, (London, 1778).]

The movements for organization to suppress importation, which had begun in 1765, taking shape particularly in Philadelphia in Oct. and Nov.,[195] were brought into definite prominence by the votes of Boston, Oct. 28, 1767,[196] copies of which were circulated in broadside, as shown in the annexed fac-simile.[197] The influence of these had more marked effect in England than had followed any previous manifestations of that kind.[198]

Copy of a broadside in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.]

Some other fac-similes are also given indicative of the prevailing coercive measures, which soon became popular. The next year (1768) committees were appointed in New York to consider the expediency of entering into measures to encourage industry and frugality and to employ the poor, and by 1769 the movement looking to independence of the British manufacturers became general through the colonies.[199]

In February, 1768, the Massachusetts House of Representatives, by a circular letter addressed to the other colonies, invited them to consultation.[200] It drew from Hillsborough a circular letter of warning to the continent,[201] and in May Virginia issued a letter inviting a conference.[202] On June 10, 1768, the seizure of the sloop "Liberty" brought further riotous proceedings in its train.[203]

After an original handbill in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library.]

What is known as the "War of the Regulators", or "Regulation", a series of riotous disturbances in North Carolina, 1768-1771, has usually been held to be one of the preliminary uprisings against British oppression. A. W. Waddell, in a paper in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (1871, p. 81), contends that it was nothing but a lawless outburst, and advances evidence to prove that the participants were but a small majority of the people, with no great principle in view; that they were ignorant, never republicans, became Tories, and were opposed by the prominent Whig leaders. He considers that Caruthers and other local historians[204] are responsible for the common misconception arising from their attempt to reflect credit on North Carolina for what is claimed to be an early patriotic fervor.

Fac-simile of an engraving by Paul Revere, which appeared in _Edes and Gill's North American Almanack_, Boston, 1770. It is reëngraved in S. G. Drake's _Boston_, p. 747, and in S. A. Drake's _Old Landmarks of Boston_, p. 119. KEY: 1, The "Beaver", 14 guns; 2, "Senegal", 14; 3, "Martin", 10; 4, "Glasgow", 20; 5, "Mermaid", 28; 6, "Romney", 50; 7, "Launaston", 40; 8, "Bonetta", 10.

Revere also engraved a large copperplate of the same event, which is given in heliotype fac-simile, on different scales, in the _Boston Evacuation Memorial_ (p. 18) and _Mem. Hist. of Boston_ (ii. 532). Cf. also Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii. 356; Dearborn's _Boston Notions_, 126, etc. The same view of the town was again used by Revere, but extended farther south, in a cut in the _Royal American Mag._ (1774), which is given in fac-simile in the _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, ii. 441. There is also a water-color mentioned in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 2d ser., ii. 156. On Revere as an engraver, see W. S. Baker's _American Engravers_, Philad., 1875, and the list in _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg._, 1886, p. 204.

In Sept. (dated 14th) the selectmen of Boston sent a circular to the other towns, calling a convention (_Boston Rec. Com. Rept._, xvi. 263) to consider the declaration of Bernard "that one or more regiments may soon be expected in this province" (original broadside in Mass. Hist. Soc., _Misc. MSS._, 1632-1795). It is printed and explained in that society's _Proceedings_, iv. 387. The convention sat from Sept. 22d to 29th. On the 30th, in the early morning, the British fleet took soundings along the water-front, and in the afternoon a number of war-ships came up from the lower harbor and anchored with springs on their cables. On Oct. 1st the landing took place. The news spread through the land, and the irritation was increased. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 9; Barry, _Mass._, ii. 370; Loring, _Boston Orators_, 75; _Franklin's Works_, vii. 418.)

The question of the expense of quartering troops had been raised by Massachusetts and New York in 1767 (Hutchinson, iii. 168), and a letter of Gage on the subject is in the Shelburne Papers, vol. li. (_Hist. MSS. Com. Rept._, v. 219). Cf. Hillsborough to Governor Franklin in _N. J. Archives_, x. p. 12. The message of the Assembly to Bernard, praying for their removal (May 31, 1769), is in Hutchinson (iii. App. 497).]

A contemporary vindication of the movement, and of Herman Husband, the leader, bringing the history of the commotions down to 1769 only, evidently based on material furnished by Husband, was printed in Boston in 1771.[205] Husband himself seems, during the preceding year, to have printed anonymously, giving no place of publication, a narrative of his own, fortified by the letters of Tryon and others, with the remonstrances and counter-statements.[206]

This cut from Nathaniel Ames's _Astronomical diary or Almanack_, 1772, Boston, is inscribed "The Patriotic American Farmer, J-N D-K-NS-N, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, who with Attic Eloquence and Roman spirit hath asserted the liberties of the British Colonies in America." Cf. Scharf and Westcott's _Philadelphia_, i. 276.

C. W. Peale's portrait of Dickinson (1770) was engraved by I. B. Forrest. Cf. _Catal. of Gallery of Penna. Hist. Soc._ (1872), no. 161; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 476.

On Dickinson's influence, see "The great American essayist" in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1882, p. 117; Sept., 1883, p. 223; Read's _Life of George Read_, 49, 79; Wells's _Adams_, ii. 38; Quincy's _Josiah Quincy, Jr._, 104; Green's _Hist. View_, 370; Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 476. Cf. letters of Dickinson in _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 22; Lee's _Life of A. Lee_, ii. 293, 296, etc.]

The most conspicuous presentation of the American side in 1768 were the famous _Farmer's Letters_, as they were usually called, of John Dickinson.[207]

Some of the most important of the documents of the Boston patriots were printed in London under the supervision of Thomas Hollis, long a devoted friend of the colonists.[208]

During 1768 and 1769 we find record of the workings of political sentiments in the colonies in abundant publications.[209]

The most important development in 1769 came from some letters which had been addressed by Governor Bernard and General Gage to the ministry, and to which, in the exercise of his rights as a member of Parliament, Alderman Beckford had obtained access and taken copies, subsequently delivered by him to Bollan, who transmitted them to Boston, where they were at once printed. From these letters the public learned of the urgency which the governor had used with the government to induce it to institute more stringent measures of repression.[210]

The publication of these letters led to the printing of _An appeal to the world; or a vindication of the town of Boston, from many false and malicious aspersions contain'd in certain letters and memorials, written by Governor Bernard, General Gage [etc.]. Published by order of the town_ (Boston, 1769),[211] and induced also a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough.[212]

Fac-simile of the engraving in Sedgwick's _Life of William Livingston_. Cf. Lossing's _Field-Book_, i. 330.]

There are in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xx.) copies of annotations which Franklin, then in London, made on the margins and fly-leaves of sundry pamphlets, which just at this time were engaging attention in London, and these comments show how the struggle was regarded by a mind of Franklin's astuteness, amid the influences of the British capital. Sparks printed parts of these annotations in his _Familiar letters and miscellaneous pieces by Dr. Franklin_, and again in his edition of _Franklin_, vol. iv.[213] Some letters which passed between Franklin and William Strahan in 1769 are also of great interest.[214]

The Boston Massacre of March, 1770, was the violent culmination of prevailing passions, and was in a measure induced by the sacrifice of life which resulted from the boarding by a press-gang from the "Rose" frigate of a ship belonging to Hooper, of Marblehead,[215] and by the riotous proceedings which, in Jan., 1770, brought about the death of the boy Snider.[216] Soon after the affray of March, the town of Boston published a _Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston_ (Boston, Edes and Gill, 1770),[217] which depicted the condition of the people at the time, and gave an appendix of depositions, including one of Jeremy Belknap.[218] Copies were sent to England at once,[219] but the rest of the edition was kept back till after the trial, when "Additional Observations" were appended.[220] The volume, thus completed, was reprinted in New York in 1849, with notes and illustrations by John Daggett, Jr.; and again in Frederick Kidder's _History of the Boston Massacre_ (Albany, 1870), which is the most considerable monograph on the subject.[221]

This song was written by John Dickinson, with some assistance from Dr. Arthur Lee, and was sent (printed in the _Penna. Chronicle_, July 4, 1768) by Dickinson from Philadelphia to Otis, accompanied by a letter dated July 4, 1768. It was sung to the tune "Hearts of Oak", and was made conspicuous in Boston by being sung at Liberty Hall and the Greyhound Tavern in Aug., 1768. It had been reprinted in the _Boston Gazette_, July 18th. An amended copy, "the first being rather too bold", was given in the _Penna. Chronicle_ July 11th. In September it appeared as a broadside, with the music. Edes and Gill's _Almanac_, in reprinting it in 1770, says it is "now much in vogue in North America." (Cf. Tudor's _Life of Otis_, pp. 322, 501; Moore's _Songs and Ballads of the Rev._, p. 37; Drake's _Town of Roxbury_, p. 166; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, iii. p. 131.)

A parody appeared in the _Boston Gazette_, Sept. 26, 1768 (Moore, p. 41). This parody gave rise to the "Massachusetts Song of Liberty", which is given in Edes and Gill's _Almanac_ (1770), as well as in Bickerstaff, under the full title of _The Parody parodized, or the Massachusetts Liberty Song_. It has been ascribed to Mrs. Mercy Warren. (Cf. Moore, p. 44; Lossing, _Field-Book of the Rev._, i. 487.) The _Almanac_ (Edes and Gill) of 1770 also contains "A new Song composed by a Son of Liberty and sung by Mr. Flagg at Concert Hall, Boston, Feb. 13, 1770."]

A stenographic report was made of the trial of Preston, and sent to England, but it has never been published.[222]

The trial of eight of the soldiers took place Nov. 27, 1770, and John Hodgson,[223] the stenographer of the earlier trial, made a Report, _The trial of William Wemms, ... published by permission of the Court_ (Boston, 1770),[224] which gives the evidence and pleas of counsel, and a report of the trial of Edward Manwaring and others, accused of firing on the crowd from the windows of the custom-house. They were acquitted.[225]

The original draft of these instructions, in the handwriting of Josiah Quincy, Jr., is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. This is a reproduction of the last page, showing the signatures of Richard Dana and of Cooper, the town clerk.]

The principal statement on the government side was _A Fair Account of the late unhappy disturbance at Boston, extracted from the depositions that have been made concerning it by persons of all parties, with an appendix containing affidavits and evidences not mentioned in the narrative that has been published at Boston_ (London, 1770).[226] This _Fair Account_ contained a deposition of Secretary Andrew Oliver, tending to show that the soldiers were justifiably defending themselves; and making public the doings of the governor's council thereupon. This "breach of a most essential privilege" excited animadversion, and the council censured Oliver.[227] The purport of the English presentations is to show that the soldiers did not fire till duly provoked by assaults, and the more candid American writers, like Ramsay, Abiel Holmes, Hildreth, and others, seem to allow this.[228]

Bancroft (orig. ed., vi. 347) has a long note on the evidence about the provocation and first assault. He gives ten reasons for thinking Preston gave orders to fire, and six reasons for thinking the provocation was not sufficient to justify the firing. The evidence in this form is omitted in the final revision of Bancroft.

The anniversary of the Massacre was observed in Boston till the struggle for Independence was passed, and a series of annual orations commemorates the continued and aroused feelings of the people.[229]

The appendix to the third volume of Hutchinson's _History_ records the sparring of Hutchinson and the legislature during the next six months.[230]

The list of Haven in Thomas (ii. 606) gives the American tracts published in 1770; but the more significant ones of the year appeared in London.[231]

The year 1771 was less eventful. In England, it seemed for a while as if the worst had passed. W. S. Johnson had written at the close of the preceding year (Dec. 29, 1770), "The general American controversy is at present looked upon here as very much at an end."[232] Franklin had been made the agent for Massachusetts;[233] he was still putting tersely to his correspondents the American view of the controversy,[234] and he had a conference with Hillsborough.[235]

Hutchinson in March had succeeded to the governor's chair, with reluctance, as he professed.[236] The American tracts may be gleaned in Haven's list.[237]

The events of 1772 are of more interest. The Boston patriots emphasized their arguments in their instructions to their representatives in May.[238] Later (July 14th) they passed a remonstrance against taxation and sent it to the king.[239]

NOTE.—The annexed cut is part of a handbill in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.]

There are diverse views as to the originator of the committees of correspondence. Gordon's opinion (i. 312) that James Warren was the instigator was adopted by Marshall, but is held by Bancroft (vi. 428) to be erroneous. John Adams gave the first movement to Samuel Adams.[240] One of the first-fruits of the committee, as a provincial measure, was the report drafted by Samuel Adams (Nov. 2, 1772), which was printed as the _Rights of the Colonies_.[241] The vote passed by Virginia, March 12, 1773, was the immediate cause of intercolonial activity.[242]

The seizure and destruction of the revenue vessel Gaspee in Narragansett Bay, June 10, 1772, is considered by Rhode Island writers as the earliest aggressive conduct of the patriots. John Russell Bartlett,[243] in the _R. I. Colonial Records_ (vol. vii. pp. 57-192), gathers all the documentary evidence, and this was in 1861 published separately as _A History of the Destruction of his Britannic Majesty's Schooner Gaspee ... accompanied by the Correspondence connected therewith; the action of the General Assembly of Rhode Island thereon, and the official journal of the ... Commission of Inquiry appointed by King George III._[244]

Early in 1773 the patriots of Boston produced what is called "the most elaborate state paper of the Revolutionary contest in Massachusetts." This is the reply of the House of Representatives to the governor in the contest then waging with him.[245]

The act which included the duty on tea had passed Parliament June 29, 1767, and in March, 1770, it had been repealed, except, in order to maintain the theoretical right of Parliament to tax, the tax on tea had been retained in force. Pownall[246] had exerted his utmost to make the repeal include tea. The test was deferred till it was announced[247] that the East India Company was assisted by government in sending over a surplus of tea which they had. A series of impassioned gatherings in Boston, and demonstrations not so boisterous in the other colonies, led to the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor, and elsewhere resulted in the transshipment of the tea whence it came.[248]

After an original in the Mass. Hist. Society.]

After an original in the library of the Pennsylvania Hist. Society.]

Another significant event of 1773 was the episode of the Hutchinson letters. They had been written (1767-1769), from Boston, to Thomas Whately, and came, after the latter's death (June, 1772), by some unknown means, into Franklin's hands. When Cushing[249] and the patriots printed them,—for the rumor of their existence led the "people abroad" to compel their publication,[250]—Franklin made no complaint, and bore with reserve the defamation which was visited upon him in England, and which is still repeated by later English writers,[251] Franklin finally prepared a statement in vindication, but it was not published till Temple Franklin printed his edition of _Franklin's Works_.[252] The letters were printed without any indication of Franklin's connection with them; but when a duel grew out of the publication, in which a brother of Whately was wounded by Mr. Temple,[253] who had been accused of purloining the letters, Dr. Franklin, to prevent a further meeting, published a note in the _Public Advertiser_, acknowledging his agency.[254] Sparks appends a note in his edition,[255] in which he refutes the claim of Dr. Hosack (_Biographical Memoir of Dr. Hugh Williamson_, 1820) that Williamson had been the medium of transmitting the letters.[256]

Mr. R. C. Winthrop, in discussing the question,[257] introduces a paper of George Bancroft, "Whence came the papers sent by Franklin to Cushing in his letter of Dec. 2, 1772?" Bancroft's conclusion is that Whately sent the letters to Grenville (who died Nov. 13, 1770), and they were found among his papers, and through some agency or consent of Temple passed into Franklin's hand.[258]

This is the original draft of the dedication to Quincy's tract on the Port Bill, the MS. of which is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Its full title is _Observations on the act of parliament commonly called the Boston port-bill; with thoughts on civil society and standing armies_ (Boston, 1774; Philad., 1774; London, 1774. It is reprinted in the _Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr._ Cf. Sabin, xvi. 67,192, etc.)]

The letters, when laid before the Massachusetts Legislature, produced some resolutions (June 25, 1773),[259] followed by a petition to the king,[260] asking that Hutchinson and Oliver might be removed from office. This led to the presence of Franklin before the Privy Council, and the attack on Franklin's character by Wedderburn.[261]

After a water-color painted by Miss Eliza Susan Quincy in 1822. The house was built in 1770, by the father of the patriot, Josiah Quincy, Jr. The original sketch is among the Quincy MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet. Cf. cut in _Appleton's Journal_, xiv. 161. Of Josiah Quincy, Jr., there was an engraving made in his lifetime, which was held to be a good likeness, and from this, and with the family's assistance, Stuart, fifty years after Quincy's death, painted the picture which is engraved in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 37.]

Fac-simile of the top portion of an original broadside in Mass. Hist. Society's library. The bills were that for the impartial administration of justice, and that for better regulating the government of the province of Massachusetts Bay.]

The earliest significant movement in 1774 was the impeachment of Peter Oliver, chief justice, and younger brother of the late lieutenant-governor, for receiving his salary from the crown,—the controversy respecting the governor and other officers being thus made independent of the people, having been one which had been active for two years past.[262]

Gen. Gage had landed in Boston May 17th, to put in force, June 1st, what is known as the Boston Port Bill (approved March 31, 1774), or _An Act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in North America_.[263]

While Salem and Marblehead were thus made chief ports of entry, the commerce of Boston was suddenly checked, and the town was forced to a dependence for succor upon other towns and other colonies.[264]

The effect of the measures on the other colonies was instant and widespread.[265]

One of the immediate results in Massachusetts because of these oppressive acts was a retaliatory "Solemn League and Covenant" agreed upon in the provincial assembly,—a combination made more or less effectual by the active agency of Boston and Worcester in issuing broadsides against the use of imported British goods.[266]

In July, 1774, close upon his arrival in London, Hutchinson held an interview with the king, and set forth his opinions of the condition of affairs in the colonies.[267]

In August, 1774, Gage received the two acts mentioned in the annexed fac-simile of a handbill.[268]

It is claimed by Dawson[269] that the movements of 1774 in New York Were precipitated by the merchants and their adherents, "aristocratic smugglers", who formally organized themselves in May, 1774; and it was on the 6th of July that Alexander Hamilton made his stirring appeal at "the great meeting in the fields."[270] Further south a similar spirit prevailed.[271]

Fac-simile of an original in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, where is another, dated Sept. 2, 1774, quoting this, and including an address by Gen. Brattle to the public, deprecating the current belief that his action in writing that letter was inimical to the cause. Cf. H. Stevens's _Catal._ (1870), no. 261. See on this mater John Andrews's diary in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 351, 354.]

The question of originating the Congress of 1774 is one upon which there has been some controversy. It seems evident that the first proposal for a congress for general purposes was in a vote of Providence, R. I., May 17, 1774.[272] Cushing of Massachusetts and Dr. Franklin appear to have exchanged views on the subject in 1773.[273] Hancock seems to have suggested a congress in March, 1774.[274] In May the Sons of Liberty in New York formally proposed a Congress.[275] A resolution of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, June 17th, looked towards one, and similar action took place in the House of Burgesses in Virginia.[276]

The Congress opened with a concession of the New England members, when Samuel Adams proposed the Episcopalian Duché for chaplain.[277] John Adams tells how the scheme of the Congress struck him,[278] and we learn from him something of the appearance and bearing of an assembly, where the "Tories were neither few nor feeble", and the political feelings were far from being in unison. "One third Whigs, another Tories, the rest mongrel", he says.[279] Franklin thought that only unanimity and firmness could conduce to any good effect from it.[280]

For the local feeling in Philadelphia and among the members assembled there at the time, see John Adams's diary, Ward's diary,[281] and Christopher Marshall's diary.

The original edition of the _Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress held in Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774_ (Philad., 1774), bore the earliest device of the colonies, twelve hands grasping a column based on Magna Charta, surmounted by a liberty cap with the motto _Hanc tuemur_.[282]

What we know of the debates, apart from the proceedings, is chiefly derived from some brief notes by John Adams.[283]

The Congress put forth a Declaration of Rights, and a draft of it is preserved in a hand thought to be that of Major Sullivan, of New Hampshire. Wells (_Sam. Adams_, ii. 234) thinks that Samuel Adams had a hand in it, as it resembles the pamphlet issued by the Boston Committee of Correspondence in 1772. The original draft of it, with the final form, is given in the _Works of John Adams_,[284] who claimed the authorship of article iv.

The petition of Congress to the king was drafted by John Dickinson.[285] It was signed in duplicate, and both copies were successively sent to Franklin, one of which is in the Public Record Office, and the other, retained by Franklin, is among the Franklin MSS. in the library of the Department of State at Washington.[286]

The petition to the king was first printed in London by Becket in _Authentic Papers from America, submitted to the dispassionate consideration of the public_ (London, 1775). This produced a card (Jan. 17, 1775) from Bollan, Franklin, and Arthur Lee, calling the copy of the petition "surreptitious as well as materially and grossly erroneous" (_Sparks Catal._, p. 84).

It is sometimes said that R. H. Lee, and sometimes that John Jay, wrote the "Address to the People of Great Britain" which the Congress adopted.[287] They also passed a "Memorial to the inhabitants of the colonies."[288]

On the 9th of September the people of Boston and the neighborhood met outside the limits of the town, and passed a paper, drawn up by Joseph Warren, more extreme and less dignified than was demanded, known as the "Suffolk Resolves",[289] and this was transmitted to the Congress, where, when the Resolves were read, as John Adams says, there were tears in the Quaker eyes. Jones[290] says that the loyalists had joined the Congress to help in claiming redress for grievances, but that the approval of these Resolves rendered their continuance with the Congress in its measures impossible. Hutchinson[291] says that when the Resolves were known in England, they were more alarming than anything which had yet been done.[292]

On Sept. 28th Joseph Galloway introduced his plan of adjustment, calling for a grand council to act in conjunction with Parliament in regulating the affairs of the colonies. The scheme was finally rejected by a vote of six colonies to five, after having allured many of the leading men to its support.[293]

The Congress, Oct. 20th, adopted the Articles of Association, pledging in due time the country to non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption, so as to sever completely all commercial relations with England.[294]

In the summer of 1774 the British Parliament had, after some opposition, passed what is known as the "Quebec Bill", restoring the old French law in the civil courts of Quebec, securing rights to the Catholic inhabitants, and extending the limits of that province south of Lake Erie as far as the Ohio.[295]

The debates[296] in Parliament caused much diversity of opinion, and gave rise to a number of pamphlets.[297] The Congress of 1774 sought to counteract this action by an address to the inhabitants of Quebec, which was distributed both in English and French.[298]

Pownall in London told Hutchinson that every step of the Congress was known to the ministry.[299] We know that Dartmouth, probably through Galloway, received accounts of the temper of the delegates,[300] and that Joseph Reed was in communication with Dartmouth at the time.[301]

The revolutionary measures advocated by the Congress were far from receiving general acceptance,[302] and in New York they elicited some sharp and vigorous controversial pamphlets.[303] It was the general opinion at the time that Samuel Seabury was the author of two of the ablest of these tracts, though the claims for their authorship are now divided between Seabury and Isaac Wilkins, while each may have assisted the other in a joint production[304] which rendered at this time the name of a "Westchester Farmer" famous.[305]

This is reproduced from a page of the diary of Josiah Quincy, Jr., which was kept while he was in London in 1774. It is the beginning of his description of an interview with Lord North. The original diary is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Quincy had sailed from Salem Sept. 28, 1774, and was not averse to having the Tories think that he was going for his health; but Gage seemed to have had a suspicion that about this time somebody was going over with bad designs (P. O. Hutchinson, 296). We learn from the same source (p. 301) that North thought his interviewer was "a bad, insidious man, designing to be artful without abilities to conceal his design",—a view that Hutchinson no doubt had helped the minister to form. With Quincy's spirit, we can imagine how North's warning that there must be submission before reconciliation would be taken. There was some suspicion also that Quincy was making observations upon Franklin to discern how far that busy genius could be trusted. Franklin seems to have satisfied him, and on his homeward voyage Quincy dictated to a sailor the report to the patriots that he had every reason to fear he would not live to deliver in person, as indeed he did not. It is preserved, and printed in his _Life_, where will be found his journal kept in London. Joseph Reed's letters to him, while in London, are in _The Life of Joseph Reed_, i. 85, etc. Quincy made out lists in London of the friends and foes of America among the merchants. Cf. letter of William Lee, April 6, 1775, in _Sparks MSS._, xlix. vol. ii.]

Another leading Tory writer at this time was Dr. Myles Cooper, the president of King's College, who was as sharply assailed for his _Friendly Address_[306] as the "Westchester Farmer" was.

Something of an official character belongs to _A true state of the proceedings in the Parliament of Great Britain, and in ... Massachusetts Bay, relative to the giving and granting the money of the people of that province, and of all America, in the House of Commons, in which they are not represented_ (London, 1774), for Franklin is said to have furnished the material for it, and Arthur Lee to have drafted it.[307]

One of the most significant of the American tracts of 1774 was John Dickinson's _Essay on the constitutional power of Great Britain over the colonies in America_.[308]

The journals of the provincial congress of Massachusetts (1774-1775) are in the _Mass. Archives_ (vol. cxl.), and have been printed as _Journal of each Provincial Congress of Mass. 1774-75, and of the Com. of Safety, with an Appendix_ (Boston, 1838). The proceedings of the session of Nov. 10, 1774, were circulated in a broadside.

In England we have the debates of Parliament, such correspondence as is preserved, and the records of passing feeling, to help us understand the condition of public opinion.[309]

The Assembly of New York met in January, 1775. Dawson contends that the usual view of the loyal element controlling its action is not sustained by the facts, and that in reality neither patriot nor Tory was satisfied with its action.[310]

The feeling in Virginia is depicted in Giradin's continuation of Burk's _Virginia_ (which was written under the cognizance of Jefferson), in Rives's _Madison_, and in Wirt's _Patrick Henry_.[311]

From Murray's _Impartial History of the Present War_, i. 96. Cf. _London Mag._ (1779, p. 435) for another contemporary engraving.]

The Congress of 1775 met in Philadelphia, May 10th. Quebec had been invited to send delegates.[312] Lieut.-Gov. Colden kept the majority of the New York Assembly from sending delegates.[313] John Hancock was chosen president, May 24th.[314]

The proceedings are given in the _Journals of Congress_.[315]

Perhaps the best expression of argumentative force on both sides was reached in the controversy waged by John Adams against Jonathan Sewall, as he always supposed, but in reality against Daniel Leonard, of Taunton, as it has since been made evident.[316]

From the title of _Bickerstaff's Boston Almanac_ for 1772,—the common popular picture of him. Cf. the head in _Gentleman's Mag._, March, 1770.

In 1768, Edmund Jennings of Virginia, being in London, and seeking, probably unsuccessfully, to get a portrait of Camden for some "gentlemen of Westmoreland County" who had subscribed for that purpose, contented himself with commissioning young "Peele, of Maryland", then in London, to make a picture of Chatham, following "an admirable bust by Wilton, much like him, though different from the common prints." Jennings presented it to R. H. Lee in a letter dated Nov. 15, 1768, and the _Virginia Gazette_ of April 20, 1769, says it had just arrived. The picture was placed in Stratford Hall, Lee's house, but was transferred to the Court-House of Westmoreland in 1825, or thereabouts. In 1847 it was transferred to the State of Virginia, and placed in the chamber of the House of Delegates in Richmond, where it now is. It represents Chatham "in consular habit, speaking in defence of American liberty." Cf. _Va. Hist. Reg._, i. p. 68; _Richmond Despatch_, Sept. 26, 1886. There is an engraving of Hoare's portrait of Chatham, representing him sitting and holding a paper, given in fac-simile in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1887. On the statue of Pitt at Charleston, S. C., see _Mag. of Amer. History_, viii. 214. For medals, see account by W. S. Appleton in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 299. D'Auberteuil, in his _Essais_, ii. 93, gives a curious picture of Pitt in Parliament on crutches, with more gout in his features than in his legs. Cf. Doyle's _Official Baronage_, i. 359.]

One of the most powerful pleas for conciliation was made in Richard Price's _Observations on the nature of civil liberty ... and the justice and policy of the war with America_ (London, 1776, in six editions, at least; Boston, 1776, etc.).[317]

From the _London Magazine_, May, 1776 (p. 227). "Published by R. Baldwin, June 1, 1776."]

For the mutations and progress of opinion in England at this time we may follow Bancroft (orig. ed., vol. viii.) and Smyth (_Lectures_, nos. 31-33), and the latter compares the expressions of this progress as recorded in Ramsay and the _Annual Register_.[318]

For the aspects of political leadership in Parliament during 1775-76, and the struggles in debates, see the _Parliamentary History_ and the _Amer. Archives_,[319] and we may offset among the general histories the Tory sympathies of Adolphus (_England_, ii. ch. 24) with the liberal tendencies of Massey (_Hist. of England_), but the lives of the principal leaders bring us a little nearer to the spirits of the hour.[320]

During 1775 Franklin in London was maintaining his correspondence with his American friends,[321] and conferring with Chatham upon plans of conciliation,[322] and discussing the ways of compromise with Lord and Lady Howe.[323]