Chapter XII: Letter IV: Roxbury, April 14, 1773 (1)

Mr. _Samuel Adams’s_ name will occur frequently in the course of our correspondence; be it noted, therefore, that the first time of his being returned for _Boston_, [Sept. 27, 1765] and serving as a representative, was upon an election occasioned by the death of _Oxenbridge Thacher_, esq. The deceased belonged to the band of patriots; but when he happened to think differently from Mr. _Otis_, jun. in the house of assembly, the latter treated him in so overbearing and indecent a manner, that he was obliged at times to call upon the speaker to interpose and protect him. The state of affairs required a particular attention to the political sentiments of the person who should be chosen. The inhabitants, in fixing upon Mr. S. Adams, made choice of a member who was zealously attached to the rights of the Massachusetts in particular, and the colonies in general, and but little to his own personal interests. He was well qualified to second Mr. Otis, and learned in time to serve his own public views by the influence of the other. He was soon noticed by the house, chosen and continued their clerk from year to year, by which means he had the custody of their papers, and of these he knew how to make an advantage for political purposes. He was frequently upon important committees, and acquired great ascendency by discovering a readiness to acquiesce in the proposals and amendments of others, while the end aimed at by them, did not eventually frustrate his leading designs. He showed a pliableness and complaisance in these smaller matters, which enabled him in the issue to carry those of much greater consequence; and there were many favorite points which the sons of liberty in the _Massachusetts_ meant to carry, even though the stamp act should be repealed.

[1766.] Mr. _Pitt_’s declaration against the parliament’s right to impose _internal taxes_, and his saying _I am glad America has resisted_, were seized with eagerness by the popular leaders in the colonies. They praised and idolized him for the same, without regarding what he had declared in favor of the authority of parliament in all cases of _external taxation_, and for enforcing all laws for that purpose; and notwithstanding his having said, “If obedience be refused, I would not suffer a horse-nail to be made in the plantations.” Their spirits were elated, and they took encouragement from his declaration, to fortify themselves in their own sentiments upon American liberty.

It is impossible to express or describe the extraordinary joy with which the body of the Americans received the news of the repeal, though the power of the vice-admiralty courts remained unabridged, and the declaratory act was added. The latter was considered by some, as passed merely to save appearances, while contemned by others, whose wisdom would have been more evident had they repressed their contempt, whatever was their opinion. In regard to the former, “the judges of the vice-admiralty courts in the colonies, had assigned them, by acts of parliament, a jurisdiction for the recovery of penalties upon the laws of revenue and trade, without juries for near a century past.”[92] Had a prudent and moderate temper taken possession of all parties at this period, it had been happy: but they were so much heated in some colonies, as to be determined upon opposing each other.

When the choice of members for _Boston_, to represent the town in the next general court, was approaching, Mr. _John Rowe_, a merchant, who had been active on the side of liberty in matters of trade, was thought of by some influential persons. Mr. _Samuel Adams_ artfully nominated a different one, by asking with his eyes looking to Mr. _Hancock_’s house, “Is there not another _John_ that may do better?” The hint took. Mr. _John Hancock_’s uncle was dead, and had left him a very considerable fortune. Mr. _Samuel Adams_ judged that the fortune would give credit and support to the cause of liberty; that popularity would please the possessor; and that he might be easily secured by prudent management, and might make a conspicuous figure in the band of patriots.

Messrs. _James Otis_, jun. _Thomas Cushing_, _Samuel Adams_, and _John Hancock_ (who had never been of the house before) were returned for _Boston_. The town of _Plymouth_ made choice also of a new representative, the high sheriff of the county, _James Warren_, esq. a gentleman of real abilities, and who espoused the side of liberty upon principle. The government wished to have him upon their side, and played off both threats and promises; however he was immoveable.

[May 28.] The general court met according to charter. The house of assembly chose Mr. _Otis_ speaker. Governor _Bernard_ negatived, instead of adopting the conciliating measure of accepting him. The acceptance might have softened and induced him to have dropped the plan of leaving out of the council, in the new election, the crown officers and justices of the superior court; but the refusal confirmed him in it, and by irritating the house, enabled him to execute it the more easily. The crown officers were, the lieutenant governor and secretary, Messrs. _Hutchinson_ and _Oliver_; the others held only provincial commissions. The opposition assigned as the reason for leaving them out, that they might redress a grievance long complained of by their constituents, a dangerous union of legislative and executive powers in the same persons. But the true ones probably were, the suspicions and dislike they entertained of and to their political sentiments, and Mr. _Otis_’s having been negatived. Mr. _Bernard_ retaliated, and excepted against the six counsellors chosen in the room of the others. Thus the animosity was increased. Had he negatived two or three only, there might have been an opening for healing the breach; but now it was otherwise. The liberty party gained strength, and it was ordered by the assembly [June 12.] “That the debates of this house be open, and that a gallery be erected for the accommodation of such as shall be inclined to attend them.” A gallery was prepared with the utmost expedition, and finished in a few days. It was viewed as a great acquisition to the common cause; and certainly served a double purpose. The admission of the people at large to hear the debates, and to watch the members, restrained some from speaking with their usual freedom in support of governmental measures; and encouraged others to indulge themselves in all that animated language, and those solemn protestations of disinterested zeal for the rights and privileges of their country, which are so taking with men of honest minds and plain understandings. But you are not to suppose that these protestations were always true on this side of the Atlantic any more than on yours. Many joined the banners of liberty, and violently opposed the governor and governmental measures, because of the restraints they were under from the laws of trade, the danger they were in of suffering by them, and his persisting to give these laws all the support in his power. The opposition had great advantage in the political contest, by branding all the supporters of government as friends to the stamp act, though they knew to the contrary. Both sides were sensible that the act was merely financial, without any regard to the political state of America, or any purpose to remove one of its difficulties.

The house was unanimous in voting, that thanks should be returned to the duke of _Grafton_ and other noblemen, to Mr. _Pitt_ and other gentlemen, who had been active and aiding in the repeal of the stamp act. However, when his majesty’s recommendation to make up the losses of the sufferers in the late unhappy times, came before them from the governor, with these words, “The justice and humanity of this requisition is so forcible that it cannot be controverted; the authority with which it is introduced, should preclude all disputation about complying with it;” they objected to the manner in which it was proposed, as being “derogatory to the honor of the house, and in breach of the privileges thereof,” and unreasonably declined making compensation; whereas their privileges might have been preserved uninjured, by a vote to relieve the sufferers on their own application, out of dutiful respect to the mild representation of his majesty, and out of humanity and generosity to the sufferers.

When a compensation was first talked of, it was the general opinion that it ought to be made, but that it was due from Boston only, and not the province in general. This thought probably determined the Boston members to oppose making the compensation even out of the treasury; a way in which it might have been done, had they and their friends joined the friends of government. But had the money been ordered out of the treasury, a subsequent motion might have charged it upon Boston, which as the tax bill was to be past at that time, would have been easily effected. The interest of the town induced its members to employ every circumstance to prevent the compensation’s being voted at present. After a while repeated advices were received, that the honor of parliament was engaged to see the compensation made, and that they would certainly take it in hand, if the provincial assembly refused. It was obvious that the parliament could enforce payment from a sea port. The people of Boston grew uneasy that the money was not paid. A town-meeting was called; the above mentioned expedient was proposed and approved of, and their representatives were directed to use their influence that compensation might be granted upon those principles, and the money be paid out of the treasury.

[Sept.] Mr. _Hutchinson_ and the other sufferers petitioned for relief.[93] Their petitions were considered; and on the question being put, “Whether shall compensation be made out of the province treasury?” it passed in the negative. A bill, however, was finally admitted for making compensation, which was to be transmitted to the several towns, for the sentiments of the constituents.

[Dec. 5.] It passed to be engrossed, yeas 53, nays 35; but not without the house’s resolving, “That it is under a full persuasion that the sufferers have no just claim or demand on the province.” A needless resolve, tending to excite disgust in many, without answering any important purpose. The act granted compensation to the sufferers; and a free and general pardon, indemnity, and oblivion to the offenders in the late times. It was disallowed at home, on account of the assembly’s having incorporated an act of pardon with an act of compensation, without having obtained his majesty’s previous consent to such an act of pardon. The sufferers, however, received the compensation, and the offenders were not prosecuted.

[Nov. 7.] In _Virginia_ a bill passed the house of burgesses, for erecting a statue to his majesty, as an acknowledgment for repealing the stamp act, and also an obelisk to commemorate those worthy patriots who distinguished themselves in bringing about that happy event. And at _New-York_ [Dec.] an act was passed for making restitution to the several persons therein named, for losses sustained in the late commotions. But when the assembly was applied to for carrying into execution the act of parliament of the preceding year, for quartering his majesty’s troops, they said in their address to the governor, Sir _Henry Moore_, “According to the construction put on it here, it is required that all the forces which shall at any time enter this colony, shall be quartered during the whole year in a very unusual and expensive manner; by marching several regiments into this colony, this expence would become ruinous and insupportable; and therefore we cannot, consistent with our duty to our constituents, put it in the power of any person (whatsoever confidence we may have of his prudence and integrity) to lay such a burden on them,” and so justified their declining to provide for the troops.

Before closing the account of 1766, be it observed, that the people of _Connecticut_ failed not to show their resentment against their late governor’s having qualified, agreeable to what the stamp act enjoined. There was a meeting of gentlemen at _Hartford_, for concerting a plan for the choice of a new governor and counsellors, in the room of those, who with him had taken the oath required. Matters were so managed at this meeting, that when the election came on, Mr. _Petkin_ was chosen governor, and colonel _Trumbull_ deputy governor. But the episcopalians, almost to a man, voted for Mr. _Fitch_; and by thus making a party with administration against the claims and rights of their colony, rendered themselves obnoxious.

[Jan. 31, 1767.] The _Massachusetts_ house of assembly continued their opposition to the lieutenant governor Mr. _Hutchinson_, and resolved, “That he not being elected a counsellor, has by the charter, no right to a seat at the council board, with or without a voice, while the commander in chief is in the province.” March the fifth the council determined the same; but in their message to the house, expressed their surprise at what had been done without them, and at its not being mentioned to the board till February the twenty-fourth. Mr. _Hutchinson_ afterward did not attempt to be present. Lord Shelburne, in answer to what was transmitted to him by the governor upon the affair, wrote in September, “the admission of the lieutenant governor, lies after all in the breast of the council only, as being the proper judges of their own privileges, and as having a right to determine whom they will admit to be present at their deliberations.” These proceedings of the _Massachusetts_ and _New-York_ assemblies, thought to be, in name at least, two of the most considerable in the colonies, were ascribed to an unreasonable perverseness of temper; and exasperated the friends of America by exposing them, however unjustly, to the imputation of sacrificing the interests of Great-Britain to those of America. They also encouraged the anti-Americans to resume the plan of taxing the colonies; and Mr. _Charles Townsend_ pawned his credit to them for effecting it, and became chancellor of the exchequer. But three of the ministry opposed in the council taxing the Americans afresh, and it would have been a blessing had their opinion prevailed.

[May 13.] The chancellor of the exchequer moved for leave to bring in bills for granting a duty upon paper, glass, painters colours, &c. in the British American colonies; for settling salaries on the governors, judges, &c. in North-America; and for taking off the duty on teas exported to America, and granting a duty of three-pence a pound on the importation in America. Two bills were at length framed, the one for granting duties in the British colonies in America, on paper, glass, painters colours, tea, &c. the other for taking off the duty of a shilling a pound on all black and singlo tea, and for granting a drawback on teas exported to Ireland and America. The first received the royal assent June the twenty-ninth; the last July the second. The preamble to the first act expresses, that the duties are laid “for the better support of government, and the administration of the colonies.” The colonists deemed it unnecessary, unjust, and dangerous to their most important rights. There is a clause in it enabling the crown, by sign manual to establish _a general civil list_ throughout every province in _North-America_, to any indefinite extent, with any salaries, pensions, or appointments, to any unlimited amount, even to the produce of the last farthing of the American revenue. The point was now carried, which had been the object of every minister since the reign of Charles II. viz. _the establishment of a civil list in America, independent of the assemblies_. Mr. _Richard Jackson_ spoke in the house of commons against that part of the bill, and was supported only by Mr. _Huske_, and no other member. He was convinced, that though the judges ought to be independent both of crown and people, yet mischiefs might arise from the independency of governors on the people, much greater than could arise from their dependence; and that it was not fit that such persons as governors usually are, should be independent of the people, and dependent upon the crown for their governments. The act provides, that after all such ministerial warrants under the sign manual, as are _thought proper and necessary_, shall be satisfied, the residue of the revenue shall be at the disposal of the parliament. But who can suppose that such warrants will ever be satisfied till ministers have provided for all their friends and favorites? May it not be said upon the plan of this act, “the mockery of an American revenue proves at last to be the crumbs that fall from the minister’s table—the residue, indeed, of a royal warrant, countersigned by the first lord of the treasury.”[94]

An account being received of _New-York_’s having refused to provide for quartering the troops, Mr. _Grenville_ and his adherents raised such a clamor against America, that it was thought necessary to bring in a bill [May 27.] “for restraining the assembly of _New-York_ from passing any act till they had complied with the act of parliament for the furnishing his majesty’s troops with the necessaries required by that act;” and it had the royal assent the second of July. The taking away in this manner from the province of _New-York_ all the powers of legislation, till they should comply with the former act, occasioned a general alarm among the Americans. They now saw that their own colonial parliaments, as they considered them, were to be bound to what the British ministry might deem their good behavior, by the acts of a British parliament. Nothing could be more grating to the sons of liberty in every province. It was the club of power, which, while it knocked down the _New-York_ assembly, threatened every other with the like, if not pliable.

A plan of a board of commissioners for the American department, in order to ease the old board of commissioners of part of its burden through increasing business, had been in contemplation. It was intended to be placed in London, in order to be near the treasury, the ultimatum of revenue matters. Mr. _Paxton_, thought to be the most plausible and insinuating of mankind though not the most sincere, having left Boston and gone to Britain, had free access to the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. _Charles Townsend_. It is said that he whined, cried, professed, swore, and made his will in favor of that great man; and then urged the necessity of an _American board of commissioners_, and his having a seat at it. He might forward the business. Be that as it may, the chancellor brought in a bill [June 3.] for establishing a custom-house and a board of commissioners in America, which also passed into an act at the same time with the former. Mr. Paxton, for his own convenience and pleasure, might procure the fixing the board at Boston; but of all places it was the most improper. The people were, of all others, the most jealous of infringements on their liberties; and were the least suited to see crown officers living among them in great state, upon what they could not but deem, from the mediocrity of their own circumstances, large salaries, payable from the revenue to be raised from the colonies. The board should have been placed at _New-York_. Smuggling was as prevalent there as at Boston. The inhabitants had been long used to crown officers with splendid appearances; the commanders of his majesty’s troops resided much among them; numbers of them lived in a higher stile than the Bostonians; beside, there the commissioners would have had forces at hand to have supported them, and have met with greater assistance from the servants of a royal government and their connections. The timing also as well as the placing of the board, was rather unfortunate; for it supplied the Americans with the opportunity of propagating that it was appointed merely to enforce the new duties. By this means the people were inflamed, and the appointment was pronounced unconstitutional and oppressive. The duties were to take place after the twentieth of November; and in the beginning of that month, three of the commissioners, _Henry Hulton_, _William Burch_, and _Charles Paxton_, esqs. arrived at Boston; the other two, _John Temple_ and _John Robinson_, esqs. were in America before. As to the expence of the board of customs, including the whole, it was a thousand pounds less than that of the four surveyors general, and the office connected with them at London. The chancellor had been instrumental in reviving those American animosities which the repeal of the stamp act had quieted; but did not live to see the fatal consequences which have followed, as he died the fourth of September.

[Oct. 28.] A few gentlemen at a private club in _Boston_, having suggested a non-importation agreement, the thought was improved upon, till at length the inhabitants, at a town meeting, agreed upon measures to promote industry, œconomy, and manufactures; thereby to prevent the unnecessary importation of _European_ commodities. They also voted, that a subscription paper should be prepared, and a committee appointed to procure subscriptions to it; by which the parties engaged to encourage the use and consumption of all articles manufactured in any of the British American colonies; and after the thirty-first of December following, not to purchase certain enumerated articles imported from abroad.

The failure of expected success from these measures, and an apprehension of disagreeable consequences from an ineffectual opposition, were probably the motives that induced Mr. _Otis_ at a subsequent town-meeting [Nov. 20.] to make a long speech on the side of government, wherein he asserted the king’s right to appoint officers of the customs, in which number and by what denomination he pleased; and that as to the new duties, it would be very imprudent in the town to make an opposition to them, when every town in the province, and every other province in America seemed to acquiesce in them and be contented. But the proposed measures were afterward approved of and adopted _Providence_ and _Newport_.

[Jan. 1768.] The _Connecticut_ towns and _New-York_ followed the exemple. Still the business laboured without being productive of any important effects. This engaged the attention of one captain Malcolm, a small trader, who about eighteen months before had made himself famous by a violent and successful resistance with sword and pistol to the custom-house officers, when endeavouring to search his house for uncustomed goods, under the authority of a writ of assistance. Having, about the middle of February, safely run the cargo of a schooner from Fyall, consisting of about sixty pipes of wine, he, within two or three days, procured a meeting of some merchants and traders at which he presided. Nothing was determined upon more, than the calling of a general meeting of the merchants on Friday, March the fourth. This may be stiled the first movement of the merchants against the new acts of parliament. The result of this meeting was, that a subscription for not importing any English goods, except for the fishery, for eighteen months, should be prepared and carried round the town. It met with no great encouragement, and many declined subscribing. On this all engines were set to work; some were threatened and made afraid for their person and houses; others for their trade and credit.—By such means the subscription was filled. But the merchants of New-York and Philadelphia declined to concur in the measure, those of Boston were obliged to give it up for the present. However, they renewed it within a few months, as you will learn below.

The _New-England_ spirit of patriotism and œconomy was greatly approved of at _Philadelphia_: and it was said, that “If America is saved from its impending danger, New-England will be its acknowledged guardian.” Periodical pieces were published at Boston on the nature and extent of British parliamentary power. Hints were thrown out about independency, and intimations given, that freemen were not to be governed any more than taxed but by their own consent, in real or virtual representatives. The power of British legislation over the Americans was questioned, and virtually denied. Matters were brought to this length, by broaching a new dispute that should never have been moved again; and which might happily have lain dorment for half a century or more had no fresh attempt been made to tax the Americans. Before the stamp act they allowed the mother country a certain prerogative over them. They acquiesced in the parliament’s right to make many acts, binding them in divers internal matters, and regulating their trade. They did not reason neither then nor immediately after the repeal, “if the parliament has no right to tax us _internally_, they have none to tax us _externally_, or to make any other law to bind us.” They admitted the distinction between internal and external taxation, and between raising money from the regulation of trade, and raising it for the purpose of a revenue. The wisdom of parliament should have abode by their concessions, and have adopted and confirmed their distinction. But being obliged to enter afresh the field of political controversy, great numbers began to think, that the want of representation in parliament, freed them absolutely from any obedience to the power of the British legislature; and that there was no real, and only a nominal difference between internal and external taxation, agreeable to what was insisted upon by the party opposing the repeal of the stamp act. _John Dickinson_, esq. began so early as in November, 1767, to employ his pen against the act which had been passed, in a series of _Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania to the inhabitants of the British Colonies_. They amounted to twelve; and in them he ably maintained the rights of the colonists. He closed with a postscript in these words: “Is there not the greatest reason to hope, if the universal sense of these colonies is immediately exprest by _resolves_ of the assembles in support of their rights, by _instructions_ to their agents on the subject, and by _petitions_ to the crown and parliament for redress, that those measures will have the same success now that they had in the time of the stamp act?” The inhabitants of Boston were so sensible of the eminent service he did to the common cause, that they wrote to him upon the occasion. It his answer, April the eleventh, he said, “Never will my heart become insensible till insensible of all worldly things, of the unspeakable obligation I owe to the inhabitants of the _Massachusetts Bay_, for the vigilance with which they have watched over, and the magnanimity with which they have maintained the liberties of the _British colonies_ on this continent.” It was probably owing to Mr. _Dickinson’s_ publications, that the _Pennsylvania_ assembly, early in February, before they knew what measure the _Massachusetts Bay_, or any other colony, would pursue, took into consideration the act imposing duties on paper, glass, &c. and gave positive instructions to their agents, to unite with other agents, in applying to parliament and praying relief.

It may be justly concluded, from governor _Bernard’s_ letters to lord Shelburne, that the Massachusetts assembly were inclined to bury in oblivion the discords occasioned by the stamp act, and to escape other subjects of future controversy, had not the late chancellor unhappily revived the animosities. “The house, (says the governor) from the time of opening the session to this day, has shown a disposition to avoid all dispute with me; every thing having passed with as much good humor as I could desire, except only their continuing to act in addressing the king, remonstrating to the secretary of state, and employing a separate agent. It is the importance of this innovation which induces me to make this remonstrance, at a time when I have a fair prospect of having in all other business, nothing but good to say of the proceedings of the house.”[95]

“They have acted in all thing, even in their remonstrance, with temper and moderation: they have avoided some subjects of dispute, and have laid a foundation for removing some causes of former altercation.”[96]

“I will make such a prudent and proper use of the letter, as, I hope, will perfectly restore the peace and tranquility of this province, for which purpose considerable steps have been made by the house of representatives.”[97]

[Jan. 21.] The _Massachusetts_ house of representatives, in a debate upon the expediency of writing to the assemblies of the other colonies upon the continent, with respect to the importance of joining with them,” put a question on the proposition of writing letters, desiring those assemblies to join them, which was negatived for this very reason, because containing the proposition of joining. The house thought exceptions might be taken at it, as having a tendency to from combinations; and that it might be considered at home as the appointing another congress. It is an excellent rule of the house, that no vote shall be re-considered, unless the number of members present equals the number at its passing. When they had the same number, eithty-two, which makes a full house, a motion was made [Feb. 4.] for re-considering the vote against applying to the other colonies; and the vote of re-consideration was obtained by a large majority. The same day a committee was appointed to prepare a letter to be transmitted to the several houses of representatives and burgesses upon the continent, to inform them of the measures the house had taken with regard to difficulties they were apprehensive would arise from the operation of several acts of parliament for levying duties and taxes on the American colonies. The committee after deliberating a week, reported the letter, [Feb 11.] which being read in the house, was accepted almost unanimously, in the presence of eighty-three members. It began thus: “Sir, the house of representatives of this province have taken into their serious consideration the great difficulties that must accrue to themselves and their constituents, by the operation of several acts of parliament imposing duties and taxes on the American colonies.” It then related the measures they had taken in petitioning the king, making representations to the ministry, &c. and concluded with, “the house is fully satisfied that your assembly is too generous and enlarged in sentiment, to believe that this letter proceeds from an ambition of taking the lead or dictating to the other assemblies. They freely submit their opinion to the judgment of others, and shall take it kind in your house to point out to them any thing further that may be though necessary. This house cannot conclude without expressing their firm confidence in the king, our common head and father, that the united and dutiful supplications of his distressed American subjects will meet with his royal and favorable acceptance.”

[Feb. 25.] _Peter Gilman_, esq. speaker of the _New-Hampshire_ assembly wrote by order of the house, in answer to the Massachusetts circular letter—“The sentiments contained in it are highly approved, and the communication kindly received and gratefully acknowledged. The time of the house’s existance in that relation is near expiring; they cannot engage for their successors and can only express their satisfaction in the Massachusetts proceedings, and declare their hopes, that the next assembly will heartily concur in sentiments on this affair, and pursue the same method.” The letter ran in the highest recommendatory strain of the Massachusetts Bay assembly; and concluded with, “What remains for us at present, is to offer our daily prayer to the Governor and Lord of the universe, to avert the impending evil, and to make way for the full establishment of British liberty in every branch of it, and to quiet every colony in the enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights and privileges.” For these courtly expressions, with which the house declined doing any thing in the business, the next assembly was rewarded with courtly commendations. The governor, _John Wentworth_, esq. in a message of October the twentieth, communicated the copy of the following extract of a letter from Lord _Hillsborough_, of July the ninth: “It is his majesty’s pleasure that you should assure his faithful subjects in _New-Hampshire_, that his majesty has nothing more at heart than to promote their welfare and happiness, whose cheerful obedience to the laws of this kingdom, and steady resolution in refusing to accede to the measures and proposals which have been urged with so much indecent warmth in other colonies, cannot fail to recommend them to his royal favour and countenance.” The assembly, however, nine days after, petitioned the king, and mentioned that his royal predecessors granted them a power of legislation, limited to the approbation or disallowance of the crown, with the powers and privileges essential to British liberty, of raising internal taxes by their own representatives. The petition was most profoundly humble, and so softly worded, that it could not offend the most delicate ear of the highest parliamentary prerogative man. By some accident or contrivance, it was not sent till antiquated and out of season. Mr. _Wentworth_ had gained an ascendency over the people of his government, by which he kept them from entering into such spirited measures for the redress of grievances as would be offensive to ministry. The other colonies adopted a different line of conduct. The _Virginia_ house of burgesses applauded the _Massachusetts_ representatives for their attention to American liberty; took notice of the act suspending the legislative powers of _New-York_; and said, “If the parliament can compel the colonies to furnish a single article to the troops sent over, they may, by the same rule, oblige them to furnish clothes, arms, and every other necessary, even to the pay of the officers and soldiers, a doctrine replete with every mischief, and utterly subversive of all that is dear and valuable.” The council concurred with them in all their proceedings; and their agent was enjoined to consult the agents of the other colonies, and to co-operate with them in applying for redress. Most of the assemblies upon the continent, as they had opportunity, approved of the doings of the Massachusetts, and harmonized with them in resolves and petitions. [April 22.] But an account of their doings had not reached Great-Britain long, before lord _Hillsborough_ wrote Gov. _Bernard_ upon the occasion. For want of fuller and juster information, or of due attention to the governor’s expressions, the proceeding which originated the circular letter, was mentioned—“as unfair, contrary to the real sense of the assembly, and procured by surprise; and therefore” upon this mistaken principle, the governor was instructed, “so soon as the general court is again assembled, to require of the house of representatives, in his majesty’s name, to rescind the resolution which gave birth to the circular letter from the speaker, and to declare their disapprobation of, and dissent to that rash and hasty proceeding.” In case they refused to comply, he was immediately to dissolve them, and to transmit to his lordship an account of their transactions. [June 21.] The house was informed of what was required; and three days after, of what they were to expect if unpliable. Their resolution not being returned within six days of the last part of the information, the governor sent them word he could wait no longer, which hastened the business in which they were engaged.

[30.] A committee of the house reported a letter to Lord _Hillsborough_, setting forth the several votes and resolutions which passed in the last house of representatives, relating to the circular letter; and showing that the whole of these matters was transacted in the height of the cession in a full house, and by a large majority. The letter was approved of by 93 out of 105 members present, and ordered to be transmitted to his lordship. The house agreed also upon a message to the governor, in which they said, “It is to us incomprehensible that we should be required, on the peril of a dissolution of the general court, to rescind a resolution of a former house, when it is evident, that that resolution has no existence but as a mere historical fact. Your excellency must know, that the resolution is, to speak in the language of the common law, not now executory, but to all intents and purposes executed. If, as is most probable, by the word rescinding is intended the passing a vote, in direct and express disapprobation of the measure taken by the former house as illegal, inflammatory, and tending to promote unjustifiable combinations against his majesty’s peace, crown and dignity, we must take the liberty to testify and publicly declare, that we take it to be the native, inherent, and indefeasible right of the subject, jointly or severally, to petition the king for the redress of grievances; provided alway, that the same be done in a decent, dutiful, loyal and constitutional way, without tumult, disorder and confusion.—If the votes of the house are to be controuled by the direction of a minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty.—We have now only to inform you, that this house have voted _not to rescind_, and that on a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and seventeen yeas.” The message was firm, patriotic, and spirited; and in some parts allusively severe upon the governor, but every where decently expressed. The rescinders were governmental receivers or expectants. They had, or looked for a reward for their crouching compliance. The next day [July 1.] the governor passed some necessary acts, and then dissolved the assembly. It is scarce conceivable how a new assembly of representatives could think themselves capable of being more grossly insulted, than by being made accountable for the proceedings of a dissolved and dead one, and by being punished with immediate destruction for not declaring themselves of opposite sentiments to their predecessors. Mr. _Otis_, in his speech against rescinding, said, “When Lord Hillsborough knows that we will not rescind our acts, he should apply to parliament to rescind theirs. _Let Britain rescind their measures or they are lost for ever._” His speech, by the patriotic enthusiasts was extolled to the skies; and by the governmental ones, was declared to be the most violent, insolent, abusive, treasonable declamation, that perhaps ever was delivered. While the matter of rescinding was under consideration, the house received an answer from _Virginia_, and one from _New-Jersey_, which, though not so very high as the other, was far from being unfavorable. They had also intelligence that they might expect the like from other assemblies: these circumstances probably increased the majority against rescinding. Had it not been for the mandate to rescind, the sessions might have terminated prosperously and peaceably; for Mr. _Otis_, though he had distinguished himself by carrying the objections to the authority of parliament to the greatest length, had retracted all his former opinions, in a set speech at the opening of it. He said, he had fully informed himself of the relation between Great-Britain and her colonies; and was convinced that the power of parliament over her colonies was absolute, with this qualification, that they ought not to tax them until they allowed them to send representatives; and that if the colonies had representatives, the power of parliament would be as perfect in America as in England. He then argued for an American representation. This surprised the assembly, and induced a member on the side of government to charge the opposition with the intention of making an American representation necessary, by denying the authority of parliament over them because not represented. The answers of the other party were thought to strengthen the suspicion. Upon which Mr. Timothy Ruggles pointedly said, that as they were determined to have representatives, he begged leave to recommend to them a merchant who would undertake to carry their representatives to England for half what they would sell for when they arrived there. But the best argument to have silenced any of the opposition, who might interestedly hanker after an American representation, would have been to have repeated the resolve of the house on the 29th of October, 1765—“A representation in parliament of the inhabitants of the province, such as the subjects in Britain actually enjoy, is impracticable for the subjects in America.” The day before lord _Hillsborough_ wrote to Mr. _Bernard_ upon the business of rescinding, a circular letter was written to the governors of the respective provinces, to accompany a copy of that of the _Massachusetts_, in which his lordship said, “It is his majesty’s pleasure, that you should immediately, on the receipt hereof, exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace, by prevailing upon the assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves.” He then added a closing paragraph meant to influence the assemblies into a compliance. The circular letter was in some instances received in time, but produced a very different effect from what was intended. The _New-York_ assembly had felt the weight of the parliament’s high displeasure, and been bereaved of legislative power till they should comply with the billeting act. In the beginning of the year they voted the sum wanted to the general, for the purchase of salt, pepper and vinegar, instead of passing an act conformable to the parliament’s act, which vote was accepted. But when they met at the close of the year, after having completed a petition to his majesty, another to the lords, and a remonstrance to the commons, they proceeded to consider the circular letters from the assemblies of _Massachusetts-Bay_ and _Virginia_, and unanimously agreed to answer them in the most respectful manner. They then entered into some very spirited resolves in favor of liberty, and the rights of their constituents; and appointed a committee to correspond and consult with any other his majesty’s subjects out of the colony, either individually or collectively, on any matter or thing whatsoever, whereby the rights or privileges of the house or its constituents might be affected. These doings occasioned their being dissolved.

We are now entering upon another interesting period.

It had been the common practice for the tide-waiter, upon the arrival of a vessel, to repair to the cabin, and there to remain, drinking punch with the master, while the sailors and others upon deck were employed in landing the wines, molasses, or other dutiable goods. The commissioners of the customs were determined that the laws of trade should be executed.

Upon the arrival of Mr. _Hancock_’s sloop _Liberty_, _Nathaniel Bernard_, master, from _Madeira_, the tidesman, _Thomas Kirk_, went on board in the afternoon. Captain _Marshall_, in Mr. _Hancock_’s employ, followed; and about nine in the evening, made several proposals to _Kirk_, which being rejected, captain _Marshall_, with five or six others, laid hold of, overpowered, and confined him below for three hours, in which time the wine was taken out, before entry had been made at the custom-house or naval office. _Marshall_ threatened _Kirk_ in case of discovery. The captain wrought so hard in unloading the sloop, that his sudden death, that night, while in bed, before assistance could be obtained, was generally believed to have been owing to some injury received from his uncommon exertions. The next morning the master entered, as it is said, four or five pipes, and swore that was the whole of his cargo. It was resolved to seize the sloop for a false entry’s being made; though it was thought by many that no one would undertake the business.

[June 10.] Mr. _Joseph Harrison_, the collector, and Mr. _Benjamin Hallowell_, the comptroller, repaired to Hancock’s wharf. Mr. _Harrison_ objected to the unseasonableness of the time, being between six and seven, when the lower class of people were returning from their day labour. The seizure however was made before sun-set, so as to be perfectly legal. Mr. _Harrison_ thought the sloop might lie at the wharf, after clapping the broad arrow upon her; but Mr. _Hallowell_ judged it would be best to move her under the guns of the _Romney_, and made signal for her boats to come ashore. The people upon the wharf cried out, “There is no occasion, she will lie safe, and no officer has a right to remove her;” but the master of the man of war cut her moorings and carried her off. Every mean was used to interrupt the officers in the execution of their business, and numbers swore that they would be revenged. A mob was soon collected, which increased to a thousand or two, chiefly of sturdy boys and negroes. The minds of the people were inflamed by the seizure and removal of the vessel. They had been before irritated by the captain of the man of war’s pressing some seamen belonging to the town; add to that; their aversion to the board of commissioners, the popularity of the owner, and the name of the sloop—these of course excited their resentments, and wrought them up into a combustible body. Captain Malcolm, who was deeply engaged in running the wines, headed a number of men after the seizure, and was very active in attempting to prevent the sloop’s being removed. Mr. _Harrison_ was pelted with stones, bricks, and dirt, and received several blows with sticks, particularly one on the breast, so that it was with difficulty he could keep from falling; he was afterward confined to his bed from the injuries he had received. Mr. _Hallowell_, Mr. _Irving_, inspector of imports and exports, and the collector’s son were sharers in the treatment. They all escaped with the utmost hazard of their lives. Mr. _Hallowell_ was confined to his house under the care of a surgeon from wounds and bruises. Mr. _Richard Harrison_, the collector’s son, was thrown down, dragged by the hair of his head, and otherwise treated barbarously. Mr. _Irving_ was beaten with clubs and sticks; had his sword broken to pieces, and received a few slight wounds. The mob proceeded to the houses of the collector and comptroller, broke their windows, and those of Mr. _Williams_, inspector general, then dragged the collector’s boat through the town, and burnt it on the common. This was on Friday evening. Saturday and Sunday evenings are sacred; and the commissioners _Hulton_, _Burch_, _Paxton_ and _Robinson_, esqrs. remained pretty easy; during the outrages, to avoid insults, they retired from their own to neighbours houses. But receiving information that further riots were intended, and the governor telling them he could not protect them, and that there would be no safety for them in Boston, considering the temper of the people; on Monday morning early, they sent a card to the governor, to let him know that they were going on board the Romney, and desired his orders for their reception at the castle, which he readily gave. They repaired first on board the man of war, and then proceded from thence to the castle. The collector and comptroller, and most of the other officers of the customs withdrew, either then or afterward. [13.] On the Monday morning large numbers of people were gathered together, and to appearance regularly formed into parties, under their different leaders, in several parts of the town. If they meant any thing against the commissioners, they were disappointed by their having withdrawn. In the afternoon printed tickets were put up, notifying a meeting of the sons of liberty the next day at ten o’clock. This prevented all mischief in the evening. [14.] At the appointed time, thousands of the lower class met; but the day being rainy, numbers adjourned to Faneuil-hall, and there agreed to send the constables about to notify a legal town meeting for the afternoon. Little else was done at this meeting, but the appointing a committee to wait upon the governor with a petition, the receiving his answer, writing a letter to a friend, and voting such instructions as they thought proper to their representatives. The common talk was that the removal of the sloop was an affront to the town, as it contained an insinuation, that she would not have been safe if left at the wharf in custody of a custom-house officer. It was asserted, and very truely, that there had been no rescue lately; but an invincible reason existed for it, as no seizure had been lately made. When captain Malcolm, more that a year and a half back, opposed in an armed manner, the officers attempting to search his house, such a number of people assembled about it, when he had got the officers out and shut his gates against them, that they were glad to retreat without doing their business. This defiance the of law passed unnoticed and unpunished, so that the officers never afterward attempted to make a seizure, although informations were not wanting, until the present time, when they were ordered by their superiors. About a month after, a schooner was seized for having thirty hogsheads of molasses on board, and was left at the wharf in custody of two custom-house officers. July the eighth at night, thirty men boarded her, confined the officers to the cabin, and carried off the molasses. The town’s-people were dissatisfied that their declarations concering the sloop Liberty, that she would have been safe if left at the wharf, should be so soon falsified. The select men sent for the master, and ordered him to return the molasses directly under pain of the displeasure of the town. It was immediately done, and the molasses put on board again, the day after it was conveyed away.

The day before the town meeting of June the fourteenth, a committee of both houses was appointed to inquire into the state of the province. When they made their report, [30.] in speaking of the affair on Friday the tenth, they said, “The seizure occasioned a number of people to be collected, who, from the violence and unprecedentedness of the procedure in carrying off the vessel, _&c._ took occasion to insult and abuse the officers, and to commit other disorders, _&c._—Resolved, that though the extraordinary circumstances of said seizure may extenuate the criminality, yet being of a very criminal nature, and of dangerous consequence, the two houses delare their utter abhorrence and detestation of them and resolve that the governor be desired to direct the attorney-general to prosecute all persons concerned in the said riot, and that a proclamation be issued, offering a reward for making discovery, so as the rioters or abettors may be brought to condign punishment.” Neither rioters not abettors had any thing to fear from either proclamation or prosecution; and knew themselves to be perfectly safe, notwithstanding the report; but the politicians saw it was expedient to say something to save appearances, and well-meaning persons might join them, in the simplicity of their hearts, believing that the others intended their words should be productive of the events to which they seemingly pointed. At the sitting of the superior court in August, the grand jury was found to have among them several of the abettors of the Boston rioters, and particularly the famous captain Malcolm, a circumstance that necessarily quashed all informations and prosecutions, as it strongly foreboded their issue.

The council in a letter to Lord _Hillsborough_ insinuated, that the commissioners had concerted a plan, with the design of raising a disturbance by the seizure of the sloop Liberty. The insinuation must be placed to the ill will they bore to the commissioners, more than to any thing beside. On the twenty-ninth of July, they said, “The commissioners were not obliged to quit the town; there never had been any insult offered to them; their quitting the town was a voluntary act of their own; we do not apprehend there was any sufficient ground for their quitting it.” But it appears from a manuscript in Mr. _Hutchinson_’s hand writing, that the commissioners applied, December the nineteenth, to each of the four judges of the superior court separately for their opinions upon four questions; and that after having conferred together, they were unanimously of opinion,

“That from the spirit which had been excited in the populace against all the commissioners of the customs, Mr. _Temple_ excepted, they could not have remained long in safety at Boston after the seizure of the sloop Liberty, but would have been in great danger of violence to their persons and properties from a mob, which, at that time, it was generally expected would be raised for that purpose:

“That government was insufficient to restrain, suppress or punish the several mobs, which had been assembled since the fourteenth of August, 1765; and that at the time of the commissioners retiring to the castle, there was no probability that the same authority could have had any greater force:

“That they could not have returned to town, and executed their commission with safety, at any time after they withdrew, before the arrival of his majesty’s troops:

“And that they knew of no better measure that they could have taken, than retiring to Castle William.”