Chapter I: The Revolution Impending (3)

When the circular letter was laid before the ministry, April 15, 1768, it caused great excitement in parliamentary circles, and led to the gravest mistake which was made by the government during the entire Revolutionary period. Other measures, perhaps without exception, had a show of necessity; nor, as the British Constitution was then interpreted by the highest authority, were they clearly unconstitutional. But when the Earl of Hillsborough, speaking for the king, June 21, 1768, required the Massachusetts House of Representatives to rescind their circular letter on pain of immediate dissolution, there was a violation of the constitutional right of the House to express their opposition to measures deemed injurious to their constituents, and to communicate their sentiments to other colonies whose interests were similarly affected. Equally unwise was Hillsborough's letter to the colonial assemblies, requiring them to disregard the Massachusetts circular. Responses to the circular letter, when they expressed the sentiments of the assemblies rather than those of the royal governors, were in full sympathy with Massachusetts.[94] The representatives, says Bernard, "have been much elated, within these three or four days, by some letters they have received in answer to the circular letter",[95] and Hutchinson thought that "the strength which would be derived from this union confirmed many who would otherwise have been wavering."[96] But when Governor Bernard (June 21, 1768) communicated to the House instructions from the king to rescind the circular letter, and recommended immediate action as of important consequence to the province, no doubt it caused anxiety. Under a similar pressure New York had receded. The House apprehended the gravity of the situation, and took seven or eight days for consideration, and even then desired to consult their constituents. But when Bernard informed them that further delay would be considered as a refusal, they voted, 92 to 17, not to rescind, and "the number 92", Hutchinson says, "was auspicious, and 17 of ill omen, for many months after, not only in Massachusetts Bay, but in most of the colonies on the continent."[97] They doubtless were influenced by Otis, who spoke with great power, and, according to Bernard, unsparingly denounced the ministry and "passed an encomium on Oliver Cromwell."[98] Massachusetts deliberately disobeyed the king's command, and defied his power. Before dissolution, the House agreed (June 30, 1768) upon a message to the governor, arguing the question very fully, and declaring their refusal to rescind; a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough; and a Report and Resolves, in which they repeat the story of their grievances, doings, and rights with great fullness and ability.[99]

The effect of this action, so honorable to the House, was unfavorable upon the ministry. De Berdt, the London agent, in a letter to the House, August 12, 1768, giving the substance of a conversation with the Earl of Hillsborough, says that his lordship informed him that he would have used his influence for the repeal of the Townshend Acts, and believed he could have obtained it; but since the news respecting the non-rescinding of the circular letter, the matter was in doubt. "The crown must be supported, or we sink into a state of anarchy."

In July, 1768, General Gage, then at New York, had been directed by the ministry to remove one or two regiments to Boston; and when the news of the riots of March 18 reached England, on August 14, two additional regiments were ordered from Ireland. When rumors of these orders became rife in Boston, there were indications that the country would be raised to prevent the landing of the troops; but different counsels prevailed. A town meeting was held in Faneuil Hall on the 12th and 13th of September, which agreed to call a meeting of the towns.[100] Ninety-six towns and eight districts were finally represented in the convention which assembled at the time appointed (September 22). Their first act was a petition to the governor setting forth their apprehensions in respect to a standing army. This the governor refused to receive, but he expressed his opinion of the unauthorized meeting they were holding, directed them to separate instantly, and threatened to assert the prerogatives of the crown. After a recital of grievances, with declarations of loyalty and promises of assistance to civil magistrates in suppressing disorders, they adjourned on the 29th. Their proceedings were moderate,—a moderation induced, as some supposed, by the arrival at Nantasket, September 28, from Halifax of a fleet of seven armed vessels, with nearly a thousand troops.[101] If contempt of the royal prerogative, after the refusal to rescind the circular letter, could have been more pointedly expressed, it was by holding a provincial convention without sanction of law. Between these measures and April 19, 1775, no step involving a new principle was taken. The burning of the "Gaspee" in 1772 and the destruction of the tea in 1773 were merely the filling in of a picture firmly sketched in outline.

The refusal of the provincial council and of the town to provide for quartering the royal troops on their arrival was a practical nullification of the Mutiny Act, which served still further to strain the relations between Massachusetts and the British ministry. Parliament came together November 8, 1768. Both Houses were swift to condemn the late proceedings of the General Court of Massachusetts and of the town of Boston. On December 15 these acts were made the basis of eight resolutions, introduced by the Earl of Hillsborough, and an address to the king, moved by the Duke of Bedford, to obtain information respecting the actors in the riotous proceedings since December 10, 1767, with a view, if deemed advisable, of ordering their transportation to England for trial. These were passed by the House of Commons (January 26, 1769), after a debate in which the whole subject of American affairs was discussed.[102] The news of these proceedings at first created some uneasiness in Boston among those implicated; but apprehension subsided when it was learned from their friends in England that the voting of Bedford's Address by the two Houses was merely political;[103] that lenient, not rigorous, measures were intended by the ministry; and that the late act laying duties would be repealed. This intelligence reassured the patriotic party, but correspondingly depressed the tories, who saw no hope in the vacillating policy of the ministry.[104] A policy was much needed. Chatham had resigned in October, 1768, and the Duke of Grafton became the nominal, as he had long been the real, head of the ministry. Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had charge of the revenue. The Duke of Grafton favored the total repeal of the Townshend duties, but Lord North favored the retention of that on tea, as a matter of principle; and so it was decided by a majority of one in the Cabinet Council. Parliament rose May 9, and four days later the Earl of Hillsborough reported to the several colonies the resolutions of the government on the circular letter. Lord Hillsborough's letter gave little comfort to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, whose firmness was commended by Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the threat of transportation of the Bostonians to England for trial under a statute of Henry VIII. called forth from the latter colony vigorous resolutions and an address to the king, May 16, 1769.[105] Jefferson has given the history of these resolutions.[106] This action did not meet the approval of Lord Botetourt, the governor of Virginia, and he dissolved the House of Burgesses. This, however, did not prevent the delegates from meeting at the Apollo, in the Raleigh tavern, and, as citizens, entering into a non-importation agreement which bore the names of Henry, Randolph, Jefferson, and Washington, and became an example to all the colonies.[107] During the remainder of the year 1769 the progress of the Revolution was confined chiefly to Massachusetts, and there it assumed the form of an altercation between the House of Representatives and the governor in respect to the presence of the king's forces.[108] Coming in for their annual session near the end of May, the House, unwilling even to organize in the presence of the military, sent a message to the governor, remonstrating against so gross a breach of its privileges, and requesting him to give orders to remove the standing army, the main guard of which was kept with cannon pointed at the very door of the State House.[109] There was no design in this arrangement, but it was very menacing, nevertheless. For nearly two weeks messages kept passing back and forth, to the purport, on the governor's side, that he had no authority to remove the troops, they being under the commander-in-chief; and on the part of the House, that they would do no business while the troops remained. It occurred to the governor that, if he could not remove the troops, he could remove the General Court; and this he did by directing the secretary to adjourn it to Cambridge. The Court did not appreciate this stroke of humor, and proceeded to business only after a protest of necessity. But Bernard's career was drawing to a close. June 28th he informed the House that the king desired him to repair to Great Britain. July 8th the House passed nineteen resolutions,[110] covering the whole ground of dispute with the home government, and arraigning the governor for various political misdemeanors. They petitioned for his recall; and Governor Bernard left the province, accompanied by the reproaches of the House and manifestations of joy by the people. He did not succeed in a position in which all who had preceded him and all who followed him failed. He could not serve well two masters.

NOTE.—The plan on the following page is a reduction from that used in the trial following the massacre, and was made by Paul Revere. It now belongs to the MS. collections of the writer of this chapter. The key to the letters in the street, a part of the original drawing, is lost. Those attached to the buildings, etc., are substituted for the legends which are in the original, and which would be illegible in the reduced scale of the present reproduction. They signify as follows:—

A, Doct^r Jones; B, Doct^r Roberts; C, Brigdens, goldsmith; D, John Nazro, store; E, Main Street; F, Town house; G, Brazen Head; H, Benj. Kent, Esq., house; I, Mrs. Clapham; J, Exchange Tavern; K, Exchange Lane; L, Custom House; M, Col. Marshall's house; N, "N.B. The pricked line is the Gutter;" O, Mr. Paine's house; P, Mr. Davis's house; Q, Mr. Amory's house; R, Quaker Lane; S, Warden and Vernon's shop; T, Levi Jening, shop; U, Mr. Peck, wa[t]ch maker, shop; V, Court Square; W, whipping-post; X, J. & D. Waldo, shop; Y, Pudin Lane; Z, G. C. Phillips, house; 1, Ezk. Prince, Esq., office; 2, Guard House; 3, Mr. Bowse, shop.

Revere engraved a large folding picture of the massacre, which appeared in the official _Short Narrative_, which has been reproduced in the _Old State House Memorial_ (Boston, 1882, p. 82) and in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (Jan., 1886, p. 9), in an article on Revere by E. H. Goss. A reëngraving of Revere's plate is in the London (Bingley) edition of the same, and on a smaller scale in the other London (Dilby) edition, and this last is reproduced in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, iii. 40. Thomas's _Mass. Kalendar_ (1772) has a woodcut representation, after Revere's drawing. Cf. nos. 579 to 583 of the _Catal. of the Cab. of the Mass. Hist. Soc._—ED.]

When Sir Francis Bernard[111] sailed for England on board the "Rippon", in August, 1769, he left the administration in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson. For several months nothing of importance took place, except misunderstandings growing out of the non-observance of the non-importation agreements (which were renewed March, 1770), and quarrels between the troops and the populace which resulted in the deplorable scenes of March 5, 1770. The circumstances which led to this affair are too well known to need recital in detail. While the town was occupied by British regiments, collisions were constantly occurring. None knew better than the populace the helplessness of the soldiers to resent insult or injury by arms. Even in case of riots, the reading of the Act and the intervention of the civil power were necessary preliminaries to firing upon the crowd. Nothing but confinement of the soldiers to their barracks could have prevented collisions with the populace. The patriot leaders had determined to get rid of the regiments at all cost. The affair at Gray's wharf on Saturday, March 2, led to the more serious affray on Monday, the 5th. On the evening of that day, between seven and eight o'clock, the cry of fire and ringing of bells drew together a large crowd, which was followed by a collision with the troops, and resulted in the death of three persons and wounding of several others, two mortally. The Boston Massacre soon became known throughout the country, and aroused a spirit of resistance hitherto unfelt. Its immediate effect was the withdrawal of the troops from the town to the Castle, on account of the resolute attitude assumed by Samuel Adams. The men who lost their lives in this affray were buried in one grave, to which they were followed by an immense procession, and for some years the anniversary of their death was observed by commemorative ceremonies. All classes in the community joined in execrating the soldiers, and gave no ear to justifying or mitigating circumstances. Inflamed and grossly inaccurate accounts of the transactions were drawn up and scattered through the colonies and sent to Great Britain. But time somewhat allayed the first feeling of animosity; and when the facts became better known, it clearly appeared that the soldiers had fired, without orders, upon the crowd only when it had become necessary in defence of their lives. Captain Preston (October 24) and the soldiers (November 27) engaged in the affray were brought to trial on a charge of murder, and were all acquitted, except two soldiers who were convicted of manslaughter. These were slightly branded, and all of them were liberated. John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., appeared in their defence, and with equal honor the jurors did their duty in accordance with the law and the evidence. The news of the events of March 5 became known in London April 21, through Mr. Robertson. one of the commissioners of the customs.[112]

A fac-simile of a group of original autographs belonging to the writer of this chapter. Winthrop was the clerk of the court. The Attorney-General Sewall drew the indictment, but did not appear for the king.—ED.]

The Townshend act, though drawn conformably to the colonial distinctions between internal and external taxes, produced the same dissatisfaction as the Stamp Act had done. There was no real difference. If Parliament could lay external taxes, it could lay internal taxes. Non-importation agreements in the several colonies followed in 1769, and so long as they were observed, even without great strictness, were disastrous to British merchants, the value of whose exports to the American colonies between Christmas in 1767 and Christmas in 1769 fell off nearly £700,000 sterling; or, if we take the figures for those colonies where the agreement was most effective, in New England from £419,000 to £207,000, in New York from £482,000 to £74,000.[113] Though the agreement was not observed equally in all the colonies, nor in entire good faith in any,—Massachusetts and Rhode Island, particularly, suffered some discredit in this respect, as compared with New York and Philadelphia,—the general result seriously alarmed British merchants, who petitioned Parliament for the repeal of the Townshend act.[114] These petitions were considered in the House of Commons March 5, 1770, and Lord North, in accordance with Earl Hillsborough's circular letter, proposed to take off all the duties laid by the Townshend act of 1767, except that on tea, which he would preserve as a sort of declaratory act, especially since the conduct of the Americans had been such as to prevent an entire compliance with their wishes.[115] Governor Pownall offered as an amendment the entire repeal of the act, and supported his motion in an extremely able and interesting speech.[116]

A fac-simile of a group of signatures belonging to the writer of this chapter.—ED.]

Pownall's amendment was lost by a vote of 204 to 142. The merchants failed to procure a repeal of the duties, although Alderman Trecothic made one more effort in their behalf, on the 9th of April, "in a very sensible speech."[117]

When the news of the Boston Massacre reached England late in April, 1770, it recalled attention to American affairs, which, after the defeat of Trecothic's motion, seemed to have been laid aside for the remainder of the session. Trecothic called for the papers.[118] While waiting for them, Governor Pownall made a speech on the "powers of government [which] the crown can and ought to grant to the dependencies of the realm; what form and power of government the British subject in those parts ought to be governed by; what powers are granted, both civil and military; and what arrangements, and means taken, for administering and executing these powers."[119] Burke, in the second of eight resolutions, affirmed "that a principal cause of the disorders which have prevailed in North America hath arisen from the ill-judged and inconsistent instructions given, from time to time, by persons in administration, to the governors of some of the provinces of North America."[120] Later, the same resolutions were brought forward in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond. But Burke was not acting in good faith. A close observer wrote at the time: "It is plain enough that these motions were not made for the sake of the colonies, but merely to serve the purposes of the opposition, to render the ministry, if possible, more odious, so that they may themselves come into the conduct of affairs, while it remains very doubtful whether they would do much better, if at all, than their predecessors."[121] This resulted well for the colonies, and, in the long run, for the progress of liberal ideas in both countries. But to those who wished for the continuance of the British connection, and believed in its practicability, it must have been a matter for profound regret that the liberal leaders, from Chatham to Fox, simply found fault with the acts of the ministry, and proposed nothing instead. The ministry, conciliatory to-day and severe to-morrow, had no fixed policy. American affairs gave way to the exigencies of a general election, just as we have lately seen in this country, great interests jeopardized by the unwillingness of both political parties to treat them on the eve of a presidential election. If, instead of this vacillating and inconsistent policy, both parties had given their attention to devising some rational system of colonial administration, as proposed by Pownall,[122] leaving local affairs to the colonists, but placing imperial affairs under a permanent board, not changeable with every ministry, the colonies and the mother-country might have remained united, perhaps for a generation, longer.

The Townshend duties, except those on tea, were repealed in April; but this did not satisfy the colonists, and dissensions arose among the merchants of the several colonies in regard to the non-importation agreement. Those of New York became dissatisfied with Boston and Newport merchants, who had agreed to import non-dutiable articles, even before the news of the repealing act; and in October, 1770, all sections fell into the same plan, but no teas were to be imported. The Sons of Liberty in New York in vain resisted this arrangement.

In Massachusetts the patriots were seldom without causes of just complaint. Governor Hutchinson, in obedience to instructions of General Gage, had delivered (September 10) the keys of Castle William, in Boston harbor, which belonged to the province, to Colonel Dalrymple, who was the servant of the king; and following royal instructions, had refused to convene the General Court at Boston, instead of Cambridge, or to assent to any bill by which the assessors (in 1771) could tax the officers of the crown.[123] These exercises of the royal prerogative, and the payment of the governor's salary by the crown, involved constitutional questions of higher import, as the British Constitution then stood, than the question of parliamentary supremacy, and were matters of unceasing contention. In 1770, Franklin was chosen London agent of the colony, although not without some objection, in the place of De Berdt, recently deceased (May), and Hutchinson was appointed governor in March, 1771.

In 1772, although it was a year of general quiet, two events happened, which, in different ways, promoted the purposes of the more ardent patriots,—the burning of the "Gaspee" at Providence in June, and the formation of committees of correspondence in November. On the 9th of June, Lieutenant Dudingston, commander of the "Gaspee", who had shown great activity in the revenue service at Rhode Island, in undertaking to intercept the "Providence Packet", Captain Lindsay, ran aground on Namquit Point. While in this position, the "Gaspee" was boarded on the following night by a party of citizens led by John Brown, a respectable merchant. In the _mêlée_ the lieutenant was wounded and the vessel was burned. The affair created a great sensation in England, and it was ordered that those engaged in it should be sent to England for trial. For this purpose the home government appointed colonial commissioners, who sat at Newport from the 4th to the 22 January, 1773, to inquire into the matter.[124] At the end of their deliberations they required Wanton, the governor of Rhode Island, to arrest the offenders, for trial in England. He appealed for directions to the Assembly, as did Stephen Hopkins, the chief-justice of the highest court. That body referred the matter to the discretion of the chief-justice, and he accordingly refused to arrest, or to allow the arrest of, any person for transportation.[125] Nothing came of the order except ill-humor in England and indignation in the colonies, where it was regarded as an invasion of their constitutional right of trial by their peers.

Samuel Adams was always busy on political subjects; nor were subjects wanting. The Earl of Hillsborough had been succeeded in the American department (August 4, 1772) by Lord Dartmouth; but the change in administration made no change in the policy of paying the salaries of the provincial judges by the king, and thus rendering them less dependent on the popular will. This was thought to be in derogation of colonial rights, especially so long as the judges held their seats only during the king's pleasure.

From a pastel owned by the heirs of the late Hon. C. F. Adams. It is unfinished below the chest.—ED.]

Accordingly, a town meeting assembled in Faneuil Hall, October 28, and adjourned November 2d. Samuel Adams moved "that a committee of correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons, to state the rights of the colonies, and of this province in particular, as men, as Christians, and as subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the several towns in this province 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; also requesting of each town a free communication of their sentiments on this subject."[126] This was the beginning of an organization (November 22), entered into with hesitation by some of the leading patriots of Boston, which finally secured the public confidence, and became a great power for the concentration of popular sentiment.

Slightly reduced from an original in the Boston Public Library.—ED.]

It undoubtedly led to the larger measure of intercolonial correspondence instituted by Virginia during the next spring; and not the least of its claims to consideration is the fact that it engaged the attention and secured the services of Joseph Warren as the trusted lieutenant of Samuel Adams.[127]

The American Revolution rests upon grounds so high and clear, and was carried forward by measures so honorably conceived and so persistently adhered to, that all who adopt its principles must regret any circumstance in its history by which the opinion of candid people is divided. Such a division is found in connection with the Hutchinson letters. The story is briefly this:—In the years 1768 and 1769 Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver, then officers in Massachusetts, appointed by the crown, and sworn to a faithful discharge of their duties, with several other persons, in a private correspondence with Thomas Whately, an English gentleman, formerly, but not then, connected with the government, communicated facts about colonial affairs the truth of which has never been impugned, and expressed opinions which Tories might honestly entertain. These letters in some unexplained manner found their way—either from the cabinet of the person to whom they were addressed, after his death, or, as is more likely, from the papers of George Grenville, to whom Whately had probably entrusted them for perusal—into the hands of Franklin, the colony agent in London, by whom they were sent in 1773, with an unsigned letter, to the speaker of the Massachusetts House. The injunctions in respect to them were loosely regarded, and they were published by a breach of faith which implicated a large body of men. They were made the basis of a petition by the General Court to the king for the removal of their writers from the offices which they held; but after a hearing before the Privy Council, January 29, 1774, the petition, which the province did not attempt to support by evidence, was dismissed as "groundless, vexatious, and scandalous." Two days later, Dr. Franklin was removed from the office of deputy postmaster-general for the colonies,—a circumstance of great consequence to the American cause, since it irrevocably committed to it one who had been thought its lukewarm promoter.

Massachusetts, which had led in most of the Revolutionary movements, did not take the lead in establishing committees of correspondence between the colonies. That honor belongs to Virginia; and its chief cause was the action of the commissioners in the "Gaspee" case. March 12, 1773, Dabney Carr, who had been put forward at the suggestion of Jefferson, moved certain resolutions in the Virginia House of Burgesses, which, supported by Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, were unanimously adopted. Rhode Island followed in adopting similar measures. On May 28th the Massachusetts House responded to Virginia.[128] Hutchinson justly considers this as one of the most important and daring movements of the patriotic Party during the Revolution.[129] It paved the way for the union of the colonies and for the General Congress which was convened at Philadelphia the next year.

To the patriots of Philadelphia belongs the credit of making the first public demonstration against the project of the East India Company for transporting their accumulated stock of tea to America, in a series of resolutions passed October 18, at a meeting held in the State House.[130] News of the intention of the company to do this had reached America in August. Samuel Adams was ready. The towns in the province of Massachusetts were aroused by Joseph Warren's circular letter in behalf of the Committee of Correspondence, September 21, 1773, and the Philadelphia resolutions were adopted in Faneuil Hall. Constant communications were kept up between the importing colonies. Ships loaded with tea were dispatched about the month of August to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, but the tone of the public press in those towns indicated a determination not to allow the sale of the cargoes. The Charleston consignees, on the request of the people, resigned; those at Boston refused. November 28, one of the tea ships arrived in Boston, followed not long after by two more. These were placed under guard by the patriots. The consignees would neither resign nor return the tea, and the time was near at hand when they would be seized for non-payment of duties. Thursday, December 16, a large meeting of the citizens was held at the Old South Church, at which Josiah Quincy, Jr., spoke in words that have become historical. After all efforts to induce Hutchinson to grant a pass for the return of the tea (which he thought would be illegal) had proved futile, a war-whoop was sounded at the door of the Old South, and a large company of men disguised as Indians rushed to Griffin's wharf. Teas to the value of £18,000 were thrown from the vessels into the sea, and the same treatment was bestowed upon another cargo which came some weeks later. This act, although applauded throughout the colonies, was not imitated by them; other means were found to prevent the sale of the teas.[131]

While the news of these events was on its way to England, John Adams signalized his zeal in the patriotic cause and evinced his faith in the provincial constitution by leading in the impeachment of Chief-Justice Oliver for having accepted his salary from the crown instead of the people, in derogation of their fundamental rights.[132]

Governor Hutchinson, finding himself powerless to quell the storm, determined to put himself in closer communication with the ministry by going to England, but was delayed by the death of Lieutenant-Governor Oliver, until he was finally superseded by General Gage, who arrived in Boston May 13, 1774. As he was about to leave, he received an address, dated May 30, approving his conduct, and signed by many respectable Tories; but some of them were afterwards obliged by threats of popular violence to make their recantations in the newspapers. June 1, he sailed from Boston, and never saw his native shore again.[133] In the mean time an account of the destruction of the teas had reached England, and produced great indignation, which was shared to some extent by the most ardent friends of the colonists, whose efforts to mitigate and delay the punishment visited upon the offending people of Boston were unavailing. On the 7th of March, the king sent a message communicating the despatches from America; and on the 14th Lord North brought in the Boston Port Bill, which transferred the commerce of Boston, after the 1st of June, to Salem, but gave power to the king, in council, to restore it, upon the return of order and full compensation to the owners for the teas destroyed. Having passed both Houses, this received the king's assent March 31, and took effect June 1. While the measure was pending in the House of Lords, Lord North introduced another bill, which provided for the appointment of councillors by the crown, the appointment and removal by the governor of judges of the superior courts, justices of the peace, and other minor officers, and, with the consent of the council, of sheriffs. The governor's permission was made necessary for the holding of town meetings, except for the choice of officers. It was also provided by another act that offenders and witnesses might be transported for trial to the other colonies, or to England.[134]

These severe measures did not pass without resistance or protest by the liberal party in Parliament. They reached Boston June 2, 1774, were printed in the newspapers on the 3d, and soon found their way into all the colonies, where they excited indignation against the ministry and sympathy for the people of Boston, which was manifested by liberal contributions for relief when afterwards the loss of business had brought distress. If anything more was needed to arouse the anger of New England, it was supplied by the Quebec Bill, less objectionable to that section because it extended the bounds of Canada over regions for which the colonies had contended, than because it perpetuated civil and ecclesiastical institutions hateful to the descendants of Puritans. Hutchinson thought that these severe measures would bring the recalcitrant Bostonians to reason. But he was mistaken. The matter had already passed from the forum of reason, and was reserved for the arbitrament of impending war. Instead of being subdued, the spirit of the people became more resolute.

The Boston Port Bill, designed as a punishment for the destruction of the tea, brought ruin to the commerce of Boston, and distress to all whose subsistence depended upon it; but its political effect was to draw the colonies together, and that was so effectually promoted by the vigorous action of the committee of correspondence that the idea of a continental congress soon became general.

Sketched from a finely executed mezzotint, published in London in 1774. The man thrown from his horse seems to be Gage. The original belongs to the Boston Public Library.—ED.]

On May 26, 1774, Governor Gage informed the General Court that by the king's command its sessions would be held at Salem from June 1st until further orders. The court was convened at that place, and the patriots, guided by Samuel Adams, were making arrangements for a general congress at Philadelphia, when the governor, getting a hint of their action, sent Flucker, the provincial secretary, with a message to dissolve them. The secretary, however, found the door of the chamber of the Representatives locked; and before it was opened, that body had determined that "a committee should be appointed to meet, as soon as may be, the committees that are or shall be appointed by the several colonies on this continent, to consult together upon the present state of the colonies", and had chosen James Bowdoin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine delegates thereto. Such was the origin in Massachusetts of the first Continental Congress which met at Philadelphia September 5, 1774.[135]

The 17th of June, the day on which delegates to the Continental Congress were chosen, is also notable for "the Port Act" meeting in Faneuil Hall. From the general distress among the laboring classes in Boston the Tories had expected a reaction in favor of the ministry; consequently a counter demonstration by the patriots was deemed advisable. In the absence of Samuel Adams, then at Salem, John Adams was chosen moderator, and from this time he was one of the most conspicuous actors in the American Revolution. Joseph Warren was also present, and active in the cause which, a year later, he consecrated with his blood. The action of the town became widely known from a broadside, which is here reproduced.

After the repeal of the Stamp Act and the modifying of the Townshend act, there remained nothing to threaten seriously the pockets of the colonists. The tea duty had been retained to save the claim of parliamentary supremacy, which was not likely to be asserted in any offensive way. The navigation acts must soon have given way to a more liberal and equitable policy, and everything out of Massachusetts—certainly out of New England—indicated that the people were becoming tired of strife, and were ready for a return to more cordial relations with the mother country. This was what Samuel Adams feared, and determined to prevent. To this end nothing could have been more efficient than his policy in respect to the teas, and nothing more to his mind than the consequent action of Parliament. After this a contention which had been mainly local became general. The essential modification of the Massachusetts charter was a blow which imperilled every colonial government, and made the cause of Massachusetts that of every other colony,—a cause for which other colonies manifested their sympathy not only in relieving the distress occasioned by the closing of the port of Boston, but by uniting in declarations of their common right to maintain the integrity of a system of government which had been forming through many generations.

The Congress of 1774 was the inevitable result of the conduct of the British ministry subsequent to the peace of 1763. This served only to engender discontent in the colonies, and to strengthen the purpose of the patriotic party to hasten a revolution which many regarded as inevitable in time. The parliamentary government of the colonies fell into confusion for want of a well-defined policy and a consistent administration. But instead of such a policy, colonial affairs were regulated by ministers as wide apart in their views as Grenville, Rockingham, Townshend, Grafton, Shelburne, Hillsborough, Lord North, and Earl Dartmouth. Nothing could have kept the colonies as an integral part of the empire except some plan such as Franklin or Pownall might have devised and Shelburne might have administered. But the colonies were remote and but little known, and in the complication of European affairs, and amid the contentions of parties, they received only slight and intermittent attention from the ministry or the Parliament. No statesman save Choiseul seems to have understood the completeness of the change in interests which had been brought about by the extinction of the French power in America, or the necessary advance of the colonies under a new régime to a place among the great powers of the world. The colonists themselves felt, rather than understood, their relations to nationality and to the commerce of the world. This was the time chosen by the British ministry to impose upon them the restrictive mercantile system of Charles II.

The original is in the Boston Public Library. There are other significant broadsides of about this time. On June 8th, the citizens of Boston issued an address to their countrymen relative to the blockade of their port, and on July 26th they adopted a letter on the blockade, which was sent to the several towns,—both in broadside.—ED.]

It is doubtful, however, whether any policy could have rendered permanent the subjection of the colonies, even such a nominal subjection as that in which they had always been held. In looking for the causes of the Revolution, it is well to discriminate between those which were general in their effects and those which were local. The latter had been more actively operative and of longer existence in Massachusetts, where the Revolution began, than in any other colony. These were interwoven with the civil and ecclesiastical history of her people, which made them peculiarly apprehensive in respect to threatened invasion of rights which they had secured only by expatriation. Although the peculiar experience of Massachusetts did not cause the Revolution, it is doubtful whether, except for that experience, the Revolution would have occurred for some years. Nor was resistance to the Anglican ecclesiastical pretensions, connected as they were with the most odious features of the prerogative, confined to New England, but made itself felt in New York and in Virginia.[136] The general causes were the ever present and ever active strife between parties,—the liberals and the conservatives,—arising from a diversity of political ideas, and intensified by ambition, interest, and personal animosities. But the proximate causes of the Revolution will be found in that change of policy which led the ministry, at the close of a war that had strained the colonies to the utmost, to enforce the navigation laws, to lay taxes, to invoke the prerogative, and finally to overthrow the government of Massachusetts, and thus to threaten the autonomy of the people under the provincial constitutions.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE change in British colonial policy contemplated by the ministry during the progress of the French War, and entered upon between 1763 and 1774, developed those causes of dissatisfaction which had been intermittently operative for more than a century, and finally led to war in 1775. In the preceding chapter I have omitted, or passed lightly over, many incidents of the period which had no particular political significance, and dwelt more at length on the principles and causes which led to the Revolution. I shall pursue the same course in this essay.

The growth and development of the colonies brought forward, in succession, two practical questions. The first was, how far the interests of the colonies, as appendages to the crown, but subject, nevertheless, to an undefined parliamentary authority, could be subordinated to the interests of the trading and manufacturing classes in England. This was purely an economic question, and the answer to it in England assumed the subjection of the colonies and the validity of the mercantile system, neither of which was vigorously contested by the colonists so long as neither was rigidly enforced. But the question changed during the progress, and more especially at the close, of the French War, and then became this: How far could the interests of the colonies be subordinated to the necessities of an imperial revenue and the political policy of an empire? Hence arose the second question: What degree of autonomy could be allowed to the colonies, as integral parts of the empire, entitled to its privileges and subject to its burdens, when both were to be determined consistently with the constitutional prerogatives of the king and the supremacy of Parliament on the one side, and on the other with the natural and acquired rights of the colonies?

Regarded purely as an economic question, it was a matter of indifference to the colonists whether their pockets were depleted by the enforcement of an old policy or by the adoption of a new policy. The Sugar Act of 1733, if enforced, would have produced a parliamentary tax. The Grenville Act of 1764 did no more. But the former was intended as a regulation of trade; the latter to produce a revenue. This difference of intent raised a constitutional question, and it was on this constitutional question, behind which lay the real economic question, that the patriotic party chose to fight the battle. Grenville's Act, as an external tax, produced but little; and the Stamp Act, as an internal tax, not a farthing.

It was, therefore, mainly on the constitutional question—of the right to tax, rather than to throw off intolerable burdens—that people divided into parties. As Webster said, "They went to war against a preamble. They fought seven years against a declaration."[137] To understand the attitude of the tories on the economic question as well as on the constitutional question, we must consider the state of colonial affairs which led to the Congress of 1754, and the tentative efforts of that body to find consistent and reciprocal relations of the colonies to the imperial government, for union, defence, and revenue. To understand the attitude of the patriots, we must consider the reasons of the ministry for rejecting such a union, and their efforts to force each colony into relations to the crown and Parliament deemed by them consistent and reciprocal, but regarded by the colonists as subversive of their rights as Englishmen, and of their rights acquired by charters, growth, development, and usage, which, as they justly claimed, had become constitutional.

Though the enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade, at the close of the French War, is regarded by historians as one of the principal causes of the Revolution, I fail to find a satisfactory or entirely accurate account of them, either as the basis of the mercantile system, or, later, of a revenue system. Such a treatment would hardly be practicable in the limits of a general history. These laws have been elaborately discussed by Thomas Mun, Sir Josiah Child, Sir William Patty, Charles Davenant, Joshua Gee, John Ashley, and, not to mention others, Adam Smith and Henry Brougham. But these authors wrote with reference to their influence, as part of the mercantile system, on British interests. How they affected colonial interests is the question which chiefly concerns us.

To answer this question we must know not merely what those laws enacted, but to what state of colonial trade they originally and successively applied. For instance, what, from time to time, by development of agricultural or other industries, between 1640 and 1774, had the colonists to sell, and what, as they increased in wealth, did they wish to purchase; and where, left to the unrestricted course of trade, would they have carried their products, and where purchased their merchandise? In other words, what would they have done and become under free trade?

Then we must know what changes in this normal condition of trade were intended by the navigation laws, and to what extent and with what effect their partial enforcement operated before 1763. With these facts before us, we could estimate with some exactness the valid objections to the new system on the part of the colonists, when enforced by the British navy, commissioners of customs, admiralty courts, and writs of assistance, and what was their influence in bringing on the Revolution.

Having made up the debit account, we should be able to set against it the compensations in naval protection, bounties,[138] drawbacks, British capital, and long credits, in developing colonial agriculture and commerce.[139]

Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the commerce of the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to 1774, as affected by navigation laws, acts of trade, and revenue measures. No one who has read the twenty-nine acts which comprise this legislation will recommend their perusal to another; for, apart from their volume, the construction of these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained lawyers like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients in respect to them.[140] Nor have special students, like Bancroft, stated their effect with exact precision, as in respect to the Act of 1663;[141] and notably in respect to the Townshend Act of 1767,[142] where his error amounts to a perversion of its meaning. Palfrey has been more successful, though not entirely free from error.[143] The author of the _Development of Constitutional Liberty_,[144] a work of uncommon research and ability, reads the act of 1672 as though it prohibited the carrying of fish from Massachusetts to Rhode Island except by the way of England, failing to notice that it was not one of the "enumerated articles", or that even those could pass directly from colony to colony upon payment, at the place of export, of duties equivalent to those laid upon their importation to England. To give a monographic treatment to the subject would require familiarity with the construction of statutes, and exact information not only of the shifting conditions of colonial trade, but of the evasions which called forth supplemental acts, or constructions of existing acts by the Board of Trade.[145]

In Burke's _Account of the European Settlements in America_[146] much may be found respecting colonial products and commerce, and especially those of New England (in ch. vii.), which leaves little to be desired concerning the sources of her wealth, and the complaints of British merchants of the methods by which it had been acquired. But I have found nowhere else so full and clear an account of the course of trade of Boston at the time of the Revolution, and the effect upon it of the enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade in 1770, as in an anonymous pamphlet entitled _Observations of the Merchants at Boston in N. E. upon Several Acts of Parliament, 1770_.[147]

An essential part of this history is that which relates to the medium of exchange, and to the attempts of Parliament to regulate the issue of paper money as a legal tender in the interests of British merchants.[148]

The history of the navigation laws suggests the similarity of the causes which led to the successive revolutions of 1689 and 1775 in Massachusetts. The violation of these laws was a principal reason for the abrogation of the first charter, in 1684, graphically described by Palfrey,[149] and their enforcement by courts of admiralty, under Dudley, Andros, and Randolph, was one cause of the overthrow of the Andros government in 1689.[150] The resistance to the same and additional enactments, when enforced as revenue measures, led to the alteration of the second charter in 1774, and this again led to revolution by the united colonies.

One of the most efficient instruments in the execution of the navigation laws was the writs of assistance granted by the court in Massachusetts in 1761.[151]

If the student of American history finds difficulty in accepting the common accounts of the constitutional opinions and motives of two fifths of the colonists, among whom were many who must be regarded as intelligent and respectable, his doubts as to the accuracy of these narratives receive some confirmation when he becomes familiar with the history of the Congress of 1754, the circumstances which led to it, and the opinions of some of its representative men. A comparison of their views will show how far they were willing to go in the "abridgment of English liberties", for the sake of union, defence, and government. Franklin, Hutchinson, and Pownall formed plans for union, and all were at Albany in 1754, and participated in the discussions, though Pownall, not being a member, explained his views outside the congress.[152]

The difference between Pownall, Hutchinson, and Franklin was this: that while all contemplated the union of the empire under one general government as something dictated by the interest of all the parts, Hutchinson limited the power of the President more than Franklin, and Pownall was unwilling to contemplate the transfer of its seat to America; the prospect of which gave Franklin no concern. "The government cannot be long retained without union. Which is best, to have a total separation, or a change of the seat of government?"[153] Speculations as to the results of such a union are now idle, unless for the interest drawn towards them by Professor Seeley's _Expansion of England_, and Franklin's belief, expressed in 1789, "that if the foregoing plan [that of 1754], or something like it, had been adopted and carried into execution, the subsequent separation of the colonies from the mother country might not so soon have happened, nor the mischiefs suffered on both sides have occurred, perhaps, during another century."[154]

A comparison of the views of such men as Franklin, Hutchinson, and Pownall, expressed before they were forced into partisan relations to the impending conflict, help us in forming opinions respecting their conduct when affairs, no longer within the control of individuals, were swept onward by an uncontrollable impulse. Neither the colonies[155] nor the ministry approved of the proposed union; and when the new policy of raising a revenue was inaugurated the colonies were without defined integral relations to the mother country, and the government without administrative machinery for their regulation. The result was confusion. The press became heated, and an angry war of pamphlets ensued. At first the controversy was confined to the distinction between internal taxes and commercial regulations, but soon it involved the whole question of parliamentary power. This was elaborately and temperately discussed in the _Farmer's Letters_, by John Dickinson, but nowhere in America with more fulness (within the period covered by this chapter) than by Governor Hutchinson and the two Houses of the Massachusetts General Court, in messages and answers respectively, in January and February, 1773.[156]

So far as the Revolution grew out of the Massachusetts controversy between the king's representatives and the General Court, its progress may be traced in the _Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts, 1765 to 1775, and the Answers of the House of Representatives to the same_.[157] These authentic documents, with the _Journals of the House_ and the _Records of the Town of Boston_, may be referred to as showing the temper with which the parties treated each other, and the questions that were of paramount interest. The student will not find it easy to ascertain the facts which should make the history of the period. Contemporaneous accounts were generally drawn up with a partisan disregard of truth, and too much has been written subsequently in the same spirit. For the critical period of 1768, when the troops were sent over on account of the revenue riots, we have Bernard's _Letters_, which, though representing only one side, were written under a sense of official responsibility to the government. Though much complained of at the time as wanting in candor, their statements were evaded rather than controverted by the _Answer of the Major Part of the Council_, in a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough (April 15, 1769), as well as in _The Vindication of the Town of Boston_ (Oct. 18, 1769), drafted by Samuel Adams. For the entire period covered by this chapter, I find no narrative apparently more just, or opinions more candidly expressed, than in Ramsay's _History of the American Revolution_. Remote from the scene of the conflict, Ramsay shared the passions of neither party.

The most important events of this period were the passage of the Boston Port Bill, and other related measures. The reasons which led to these acts are set forth at length in _The Report from the Committee on the Disturbances in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_, April 20, 1774.[158] In this report may be seen the strength of the British case. Franklin's view of the matters referred to in the Report of the Lords may be found in a paper entitled _Proceedings in Massachusetts_,[159] and the bill itself was discussed in an interesting pamphlet by Josiah Quincy, Jr., _Observations on the Act of Parliament_.[160]

Franklin's paper was a clever argument in which he treated facts so as to serve his purpose rather than that of historic truth. His use of Oliver's phrase, "to take off the original incendiaries", which was a pleasant _ad hominem_ hit, has been adopted seriously by Bancroft,[161] in a chapter entitled "A Way to Take off the Incendiaries." The concessions which Franklin was willing to make for a settlement of the difficulties, as late as December 4, 1774, may be seen in "Some Special Transactions of Dr. Franklin in London, in Behalf of America", in Ramsay.[162]

EDITORIAL NOTES.