Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
The Duke of Richmond and Lords Camden and Shelburne spoke against the bill
March , , Shelburne to Lord Chatham Apr. , Pitt IV –, with Wal-
pole Last Journal I . Furthermore, Lord Rockingham and nine other peers, not
recorded as having spoken against the bill, signed a protest against its passage, Force
I –; and one of the Lord Bishops, Jonathan Shipley, Bishop of St. Asaph, pub-
lished a tract, A Speech Intended to Have Been Spoken, condemning the bill, same –.
William Bollan to Mass. Council May , , Bowdoin–Temple Papers , gives
the vote on the Regulating bill May , , as in favor of the bill to against.
Walpole Last Journal I gives the vote of members present as about to , with
additional proxies in favor of the bill. (The statement in the Annual Register for
, that the vote was to in favor of the bill, is probably erroneous.) There is
no record in the published journals of the House of Lords of any vote on the bill;
it apparently passed that House without even a division.
Progress of the Regulating bill through the House of Lords May –, , Force
I –; Geo. III III – passim. The House of Commons voted May to accept
the Lords’ amendments, same . The King assented to the act May , same .
The firmly established rule that a colonial act approved by the Crown could not
thereafter be repealed or amended by the Crown, Knollenberg Origin , .
Rose Fuller’s motion for repeal of the tea duty, April , , Force I –.
Edmund Burke’s speech April , , in support of Fuller’s motion, same –
. Burke’s speech has often been reprinted, as in Burke Speeches –. Burke re-
viewed the history of the controversy with the colonies since and defended
the conduct of the colonists. He maintained that, assuming Parliament had the
right to tax the colonies, it should as a matter of expediency and justice refrain
from doing so; that the benefit to Great Britain from the British acts regulating co-
lonial trade was ample compensation for her protection of the colonies.
Vote April , , of against, and only for, repeal of the Townshend Act
duty on tea, Force I .
North’s speech April , , as quoted in the text, same .
The King to North Feb. , , reporting the talk he had just had with Gage, Geo.
III III . The King was much impressed by Gage, whose language, the King said,
“was very consonant to his Character of an honest, determined Man...,” same.
The King enjoined North to see Gage “and hear his ideas as to the mode of com-
pelling Boston to submit to whatever may be thought necessary,” same
—an in-
junction which North doubtless obeyed, though no record of the suggested con-
ference between him and Gage has been found.
The Administration of Justice Act was Geo. III ch. (). The act appar-
ently was prompted by statements of Gage and his predecessor as Commander-
in-Chief, Gen. Jeffery Amherst, at a Cabinet meeting March , , that British
soldiers would not have a fair trial for their lives if arrested for killing anyone at
Boston in the suppression of a riot, Ritcheson British Politics , citing Hinching-
brooke (Lord Sandwich) Papers. The act provided also for the compulsory atten-
dance at the trial of witnesses whose expenses were to be paid by the Crown.
The introduction and progress of the Administration of Justice bill through both
Houses from Apr. to May , , including a vote of to in favor of the
bill in the Commons on May , and to in the Lords on May , can be fol-
lowed in Force I –. Additional details are in the correspondence of the King
with North Apr. to May , Geo. III III –; Burke to N.Y. Comm. of Corresp.
May , Burke II –; and Donoughue British Politics –, –.
The formal protest against passage of the Administration of Justice bill filed by
eight peers, Richmond, Rockingham, Leinster, Fitzwilliam, Portland, Manches-
ter, Ponsonby, and Craven, May , , is in Force I –. The King assented
to the bill May , same .
The new Quartering Act of was Geo. III ch. . The old quartering acts
could be construed to require that if barracks supplied by the colony were avail-
able they must be used no matter how inconveniently located. The new act gave
the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in North America unlimited au-
thority to provide for housing the troops in such buildings other than inhabited
houses as he chose to requisition and pay for. The new act also directed Gover-
nors to cooperate in providing quarters independently of the provincial Council.
Proceedings in the House of Commons on the Quartering bill from Apr. , ,
when leave for the bill was voted, to its passage by that House May , Force I –
. There is no record of any division on the bill there.
Chatham had last spoken in the House of Lords May ,
—for a bill favorable
to dissenters, Williams Pitt II .
Chatham’s speech in the House of Lords May , , opposing the Quartering
bill and deploring other measures taken or proposed concerning Boston and
Mass., Force I –, Rockingham to William Dowdeswell, Kirtland Letters .
(I have found no contemporary evidence confirming the ludicrous description of
Chatham’s appearance on this occasion in Horace Walpole’s Last Journal I ,
much if not all of which was written long after the events described in it.)
The bill passed the House of Lords on its third reading May , , to ,
Force I , and was assented to by the King on June , same .
Chapter
The government of the province of Quebec by British military Governors, –
, Coffin Quebec –; S & D Doc. I –.
The Royal Proclamation of Oct. , , reserved “for the use of the...Indi-
ans,...all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the
Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and Northwest...,” i.e., most of the
valley of the Mississippi and its tributaries east of the great river. The region was
under the police of General Thomas Gage as Commander in Chief of the British
army in North America assisted by Indian superintendents as described in Carter
“Commander in Chief,” –; Alden Gage –; Knollenberg Origin , .
Bill for the Quebec Act introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Dartmouth
May , , and its passage by that House, with no record of any division, May
, Force I –. A motion to limit the proposed act to seven years was rejected,
apparently by voice vote, same .
Attack on the Quebec bill in the House of Commons May to June , ,
when submitted there for concurrence, same –; Cavendish Quebec Bill –.
Amendments of the bill by the House of Commons and its passage, as amended,
June , , to , Force I , Cavendish Quebec Bill . As to the amend-
ments, Journals H. of C. XXXIV – and S. & D. Doc. I –. The very thin
attendance is explained by the following fact: “The session was drawing near to
the usual time of recess; and the greatest number of the members, fatigued with a
long attendance on the American bills, were retired into the country,” Annual Reg-
ister (for ) .
Lord Chatham’s speech in the House of Lords June , , denouncing the Que-
bec bill for abolishing trial by jury in civil cases; failing to guarantee the writ of
habeas corpus; perpetuating Quebec’s “despotic” system of government; restoring
the Roman Catholic clergy’s right to tithes from the Roman Catholic inhabitants
of Quebec; and annexation to the province of the “vast, fertile region...capable
of containing (if fully peopled) million souls,” Parl. Hist. XVII –.
The Quebec bill passed the House of Lords June , , by a majority of to ,
with only the Duke of Gloucester and Lords Coventry, Effingham, Spencer,
Sandys, and King joining Chatham in voting against it, same and Force I –
(the latter misdated June ).
The petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London June , , to the
King not to assent to the Quebec bill, and the King’s reply, same –. As to the
King’s attitude toward the petition, which he had heard was to be presented, the
King to North June , Geo. III III .
The King assented to the act June , , Force I . The act was Geo. III
ch. .
Lord Apsley to Lord Dartmouth Aug. , , concerning a plan for the govern-
ment of Quebec, S & D Doc. I n.
Francis Maseres to Dartmouth Aug. , , as to Lord North’s plan for Quebec,
same n., and Under Secretary of State John Pownall to Under Secretary of
State William Knox Dec. , as to North’s pressing him for “a precis of the affairs
of Quebec,” Knox .
Dartmouth to Hector Cramahé Dec. , , concerning the “Arrangements” for
Quebec, C.O. : (P.R.O.). The settlements, chiefly French Canadian, referred
to in Dartmouth’s letter were at Detroit and several places in the Mississippi Val-
ley, such as Vincennes.
Solicitor-General Alexander Wedderburn reported to the Privy Council Dec. ,
, that the dues payable to the Catholic clergy had been “one thirteenth part
of the fruits of the earth in the name of tythe,” enforceable in “the Spiritual
Court,” Can. Doc. I ; but Diamond “Experiment in Feudalism” gives the
dues as only one twenty-sixth of the produce, excluding fish, eggs, timber, and live-
stock; and Munro Seignioral System – as merely one twenty-sixth of the grain
raised. (Sec. added an ambiguous statement as to ecclesiastical dues payable by
non-Catholic inhabitants of Quebec.)
Roman Catholics had practically been barred from office in Quebec by an oath
required by the act of I Elizabeth ch. () to which, as Catholics, they could
not swear. Furthermore, a Crown instruction to Carleton in required mem-
bers of the Council in Quebec to take oaths repugnant to Catholics, Can. Doc. I
. This instruction was dropped in a new set of instructions issued by the Crown
Jan. , , same –.
Guy Carleton, Governor of Quebec, had written Secretary of State Lord Shel-
burne Dec. , (same –), that a Quebec ordinance of Sept. ,
(same –), and other provincial laws passed under British rule had unjustly
“overturned” Canadian property rights existing at the time of the British conquest
of Canada; sec. was designed to restore or confirm all such rights, except those
of “religious orders and communities.”
North, in discussing the bill, told the House of Commons that it was intended “the
majority [of the Council] shall be Protestants,” Cavendish Quebec Bill . Twenty-
two members were named by the King in instructions to Carleton Jan. , (S
& D Doc. II ), of whom “seven were Catholic Canadians, all chosen from the
minor nobility and the seignioral class,” Lanctot Canada . To same effect, Burt
Quebec .
Royal instructions to Carleton of Jan. , directed him to grant the Council mem-
bers tenure only “during Our Will and Pleasure,” S & D Doc. II .
The provision for legislation in sections , , and was supplemented by a pro-
vision of sec. that “no ordinance touching religion, or by which any punishment
may be inflicted greater than fine or imprisonment for three months shall be of
any force or effect, until the same shall have received his Majesty’s approbation.”
No Assembly for Quebec was established until passage of the Constitutional Act
of ( Geo. III ch. ) dividing Quebec into Upper Canada and Lower
Canada, each of which was to have an assembly, S & D Doc. II . Carleton
wrote Lord Shelburne Jan. , , that “the better Sort of Canadians fear noth-
ing more than popular Assemblies, which, they conceive tend only to render the
People refractory and insolent,” and he himself doubted the wisdom of granting
“a popular Assembly...in a Country where all Men appear nearly upon a
Level,” same I .
Munro Seignioral System –, –, Munro Documents, passim; Diamond “Ex-
periment in Feudalism” – passim; and Parkman The Old Regime – discuss
the semi-feudal system of land tenure in Canada, but do not make clear what ob-
ligations of tenure in seigneurie survived at the time of the British conquest and
were reestablished in . However, an account of the rendering of homage to
Gov. James Murray by a Canadian seignior on his inheritance of land (same –
) indicates that at least this feature of tenure in seigneurie was retained.
The percentage of the purchase price nominally payable as the “fine” under
tenure in fief, or seigneurie, was the “quint,” i.e., one-fifth; but Parkman states,
same , that in practice “the greater part was deducted [i.e., remitted] for im-
mediate payment.” (Refugee loyalists from the old British colonies, granted land
in Quebec after the American Revolution, petitioned the King Apr. , , to be
freed from tenure “so different from the mild Tenure to which they have ever been
accustomed...,” Can. Doc. II – at , .)
The instructions of Dec. , , from the Crown to Murray, Carleton’s predecessor,
directed him to grant Crown land in Quebec on the following terms: ten shillings
(standard of currency not stated) purchase price and two shillings sterling per year
quit rent for every hundred acres, S & D Doc. I , and cultivation and improve-
ment of the land within specified years after the grant was received. (As to the
terms of grants of Crown land in other colonies, Labaree Instructions II –.)
Carleton to Shelburne Apr. , , as to the old form of tenure securing “a
proper subordination of the Province to Great Britain,” same I . He had previ-
ously (Dec. , ) written Shelburne in similar vein, extrolling the old form be-
cause “it established Subordination from the first to the lowest,” same . (How-
ever, the supposition that the seigniors could dominate their tenants proved to
be erroneous, Chief Justice Hey to Apsley Aug. , , and Carleton to Lord
George Germain Sept. , , and May , , same II –, –.)
Royal instruction to Carleton July , , as to granting Crown land “in Fief and
Seigneurie,” same I . This instruction was confirmed by the instructions to
Carleton of Jan. , , implementing the Quebec Act, same II . The instruc-
tions contained no stipulation as to purchase price or quit rent, but made grants
of Crown land in Quebec, unlike in other colonies, subject to ratification by the
King, same I , II .
The Royal Proclamation of Oct. , , established as the western boundary of
Quebec a line running from the St. Lawrence at the point where the th degree
of north latitude intersects the river (near present Cornwall, Ontario) northwest-
ward to the south end of Lake Nipissing, reserving “for the present” the rest of
former Canada for “the use of the...Indians,” Can. Doc. I , .
The proviso in sec. of the Quebec Act was designed primarily to avoid curtail-
ing the boundaries of Pa. and N.Y., Cavendish Quebec Bill –; Edmund Burke
to N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. May , , Burke II –; petition of William
Baker May , Force I ; Baker to Charles Lee Sept. , Lee Papers I .
The proviso could be construed to preserve the “sea to sea” charter claims of
Conn. and Mass. and the vast territory north of the Ohio claimed by Va. under
its early charters, the last of which had been annulled in . As to the Va. char-
ters, the territory claimed under them and annulment of the last (third) charter,
Thorpe Charters VII –; Hinsdale Old Northwest –; Dinwiddie I –;
Andrews Col. Period I –.
The attacks in colonial newspapers and Sullivan’s letter quoted in the text evi-
dence the understanding in the colonies that the Quebec Act was intended to in-
clude the vast territory described in the text.
A similar view seems to have prevailed in Great Britain: the Solicitor-General,
Alexander Wedderburn, supporting the bill for the act, said in the House of Com-
mons, May , , “one great advantage of the extension of territory [of Que-
bec]” is that this will say to inhabitants of the old British colonies “this is the bor-
der, beyond which for the advantage of the whole empire, you shall not extend
yourself,” Cavendish Quebec Bill .
Dartmouth wrote Hillsborough May , , that “nothing can more effectually
discourage” settlement in the territory to be annexed to Quebec, than such an-
nexation, Can. Doc. I .
The Quebec Act’s vast expansion of the territory of a province inhabited chiefly
by Roman Catholics was particularly stressed in attacks on the act in colonial
newspapers, Metzger Quebec Act, passim; Schlesinger Prelude ; Miller Origins
–, –. Though much of the clamor in the colonial newspapers against
this feature of the act may have been propaganda, the owners and readers of the
papers probably needed no incitement for alarm over this.
John Sullivan to John Langdon Sept. [actually Oct.] , , expressing fear as to
the Quebec Act, Sullivan I . Sullivan’s fear was well-founded; on Sept. , Gage
had asked Carleton “whether a Body of Canadians and Indians might be col-
lected and confided in, for the Service of this Country should matters come to ex-
tremities,” to which Carleton (who had just arrived from England) replied on
Sept. , proposing the immediate raising of a battalion of Canadians which, he
thought, would “go far to influence” the Indians, Can. Doc. II –.
Richard Henry Lee’s denunciation of the act on the floor of Congress, Oct. ,
, James Duane’s notes of debates, Burnett Letters I . Patrick Henry also as-
sailed the act (Oct. ) as one of “the capital” colonial grievances, same .
Reed to Dartmouth Sept. , , as to the effect of the Quebec Act in preparing
the people to support “any plan the Congress advise, should it be war itself,” Reed
Reed I .
Carleton, who was in England in and when the bill was being drafted
(sketch of Carleton in D.N.B.), was in touch with Dartmouth through Knox, if not
directly, concerning the bill (Knox to Dartmouth Apr. , , Can. Doc. I );
and spoke strongly in its favor in hearings in the House of Commons, June and
, Cavendish Quebec Bill – and Parl. Hist. XVII –.
Carleton to Gage Feb. , , and to Hillsborough Nov. , , as to the
Canadians quoted in the text, S & D Doc. I . Carleton wrote Lord George Ger-
main, Dartmouth’s successor, after the outbreak of the American war (Sept. ,
), “I have given my opinion so amply on...how much the Canadians may be
depended upon, and under what circumstances they may be usefull, in former let-
ters...that I must beg leave to refer you to them...[as showing] I had a war of
this sort constantly in view...,” Can. Doc. II –.
Knox’s collaboration with Dartmouth on the Quebec bill is indicated by a letter
from him to Dartmouth Apr. , , giving Carleton’s objections to the initial
draft of the bill; and by Dartmouth to Hillsborough May , , as to a talk by
him, Dartmouth, with Knox concerning Hillsborough’s objections to the bill,
same I , .
Statements as to possible use of Canadians against the old colonies in pamphlets
of Knox, Martin Empire –. Other pamphlets published in England in ,
cited and quoted by Martin (–), contain similar statements.
Lord Lyttelton’s statement in the House of Lords June , , concerning the
Quebec bill, quoted in the text, Parl. Hist. XVII .
The bill for the Quebec Revenue Act, Geo. III ch. , was introduced in the
House of Commons June , , after preliminary consideration of raising a rev-
enue in Quebec. It passed the Commons June ; was concurred in by the House
of Lords June ; and was assented to by the King June , Journals H. of C.
XXXIV , –, , , , .
Sec. of the Quebec Revenue Act levied the discriminatory import duties on
brandy, rum, spirits, molasses, and other syrups described in the text. (In addition,
sec. levied a license tax on innkeepers and retailers of liquor and wine; and sec.
continued the “territorial or casual revenues, fines, rents or profits” payable to
the King of France before the conquest.)
The provision as to entry for customs is in sec. of the Quebec Revenue Act. As
to the threat to the Indian trade of the old colonies by this section, Ebenezer Haz-
ard to Silas Deane Feb. , , N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll. () ; protest of N.Y. As-
sembly March , , Force I .
The act was amended May , (Journals H. of L. XXXIV ) by Geo. III
ch. , exempting the part of Quebec added to the province by the Quebec Act
from the duty on rum, brandy, and other spirits.
Chapter
News of the Boston Port Act reached Boston May , , diary of John Rowe,
May , Rowe .
Resolution as to non-importation and non-exportation adopted at a Boston town
meeting May , , to be sent by the moderator of the meeting, Samuel Adams,
with a covering letter, to other colonies and to towns throughout Mass., Boston
Records (for –) . The town also passed a resolution requesting its Com-
mittee of Correspondence to send the other colonies “the Letters etc. they have
wrote relative to shutting up this Harbour etc.,” same. The letters dated May
sent in accordance with these resolutions, are in Cushing S. Adams III –.
Adams reported to a Boston town meeting May , , that “agreeable to the
Order of the Town, he had enclosed an attested Copy of Town Votes in Letters to
the several Provinces by Mr. Reviere who set out last Saturday [May ],” Boston
Town Records (for –) . As to Paul Revere’s activities in the North End
Caucus and as messenger for Boston and Mass. from May, , to his famous ride
to Lexington on the night of April , , Goss Revere I –, II –.
Resolution of the town of Providence, R.I., May , , requesting its represen-
tatives in the R.I. General Assembly to promote “a Congress...of the several
Colonies and Provinces in North America,” Force I .
An intercolonial congress similar to the Stamp Act Congress of had been fre-
quently proposed during the past year, Frothingham Rise of the Republic , ,
–n.; Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Cushing July , , Smyth Franklin VI
–; “Observations” in Boston Gazette Sept. , ; Wells Adams II ; “Union”
in Boston Gazette Dec. , ; John Hancock’s oration March , , Orations on
the Boston Massacre ; Arthur Lee to Francis L. Lee Apr. , , Lee Arthur Lee I .
Descriptions of the Philadelphia mass meeting of May , Thomas Mifflin to
Samuel Adams May , , S. Adams Papers, N.Y. Pub. Lib., and Edward
Tilghman, Jr., to Edward Tilghman, Sr., May , Stillé Dickinson –. (De-
scription based on much later accounts, Jacobson Dickinson –.) The resolu-
tions of the mass meeting, directing the committee chosen there to ask the Gov-
ernor of Pa. to summon a meeting of the Pa. Assembly, and authorizing the
committee to call another “meeting of the Inhabitants when necessary,” Smith
Smith I .
Philadelphia Committee to Boston Committee May , , quoted in the text,
Force I –.
Nomination and election of the N.Y. Committee of Fifty-One, May and , ,
same –. A letter (date not given) from Jonathan Blake, signed as chairman
of “the body of Mechanics,” a body discussed in the second appendix to this chap-
ter, reported that it concurred in this choice of members for the Committee, same
. The meeting of May is described in an oft-quoted letter of Gouverneur
Morris to Mr. [ John] Penn, May , same –; Jensen Hist. Doc. –.
Letter of New York Committee of Correspondence signed by its Chairman, Isaac
Low, to Boston Committee May , , quoted in the text, rejecting the Boston
proposal for an immediate non-importation and non-exportation agreement,
Force I –.
Resolution of the Va. House of Burgesses May , , for “a day of Fasting, Hu-
miliation and Prayer,” Va. Journals (for –) . George Mason wrote Mar-
tin Cockburn May that resolves of the House “intended for the preservation of
our rights and liberties” were “proposed with a great deal of privacy, and by very
few members, of whom Patrick Henry is the principal,” Rowland Mason I ,
and, years later, Thomas Jefferson wrote that he, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry
Lee, and a few other members had “cooked up” the resolution of May , Boyd
Jefferson I n.
Gov. Lord Dunmore of Va. dissolved the House May , , because its resolu-
tions “reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament of Great Britain,” Va .
Journals (for –) .
I suppose saltpeter was exempted from the proposed ban on importation because
it was an essential ingredient of gunpowder, and spices because they were consid-
ered so important (in days before refrigeration) in preserving foodstuffs or at least
in making high meats palatable. (An order of Washington to England in in-
cluded four pounds each of white ginger, mace, nutmegs, cinnamon, and cloves,
Washington III .)
Resolutions of meeting of May , quoted in the text, Va. Journals (–) xiii–
xiv. Washington wrote George William Fairfax June , , that the day after
Dunmore dissolved the House, “the Members convened themselves at the
Raleigh Tavern and entered into the Inclosed Association [resolutions],” same III
. The Va. Comm. of Corresp. promptly sent out the circular letter to other co-
lonial Committees as resolved upon at the meeting. There is a copy of it, dated
May , in Pa. Assembly VIII .
The facts as to arrival of the letter from Boston, the names of the twenty-five mem-
bers of the Va. House present at the emergency meeting, and their resolutions are
in a circular letter of May , , from these members to their fellow members,
Hamilton Letters of Washington III –.
The names of the sixty-one Va. counties, each having two representatives (plus
three boroughs and the College of William and Mary, each having one), and of the
members of the House in are in Va. Journals (for –) –. The names
of the delegates to the Va. convention are in Niles Principles –. Wash-
ington wrote Thomas Johnson of Md. Aug. , , “We never had so full a Meet-
ing of delegates at any one Time, as upon the present Occasion,” i.e., so many
members of the House of Burgesses attending at any one time, Washington III .
Resolutions of thirty Va. county conventions (June and July, ) are in Force IV
– passim, and those of one other (Isle of Wight) are in Va. Gazette (Rind) of
July . These are analyzed in Schlesinger Col. Merchants – and Freeman
Washington III –. (Freeman’s statement that Dinwiddie, as well as Middle-
sex County, opposed “any stern action” is not borne out by the Dinwiddie resolu-
tions, Force I –.)
Fairfax County resolutions of July , , quoted in the text, Force I –.
These resolutions have been attributed to George Mason on the strength of evi-
dence discussed in Rowland Mason I , , and Mason (Rutland) I –,
–. However, two weeks earlier, in a letter of July to Bryan Fairfax, Wash-
ington had expressed sentiments similar to those of the Fairfax resolutions, Wash-
ington III –.
Westmoreland County’s spirited resolutions of June , , quoted in the text,
Force I –. Richard Henry Lee was one of the county’s two delegates to the
Va. convention of Aug. –, same . Similarly spirited resolutions of Albemarle
County, probably drafted by Thomas Jefferson, are in Boyd Jefferson I –, –
n.
Resolution of Conn. House of Representatives June , , authorizing the
Conn. Committee of Correspondence to appoint delegates to a proposed inter-
colonial congress, Journals Cont. Cong. I –.
R.I. General Assembly’s resolution of June , , appointing delegates to a pro-
posed intercolonial congress, Force I –.
A letter of May , , from Samuel Adams to Silas Deane discloses that Adams
had hoped to secure earlier action by the Mass. House. His letter states, “Our As-
sembly was unexpectedly adjourned on Saturday last [May ]...by which
means I am prevented mentioning a Congress to the Members...,” Cushing S.
Adams III .
Resolution of Mass. House June , , proposing an intercolonial conference
at Philadelphia Sept. , and electing delegates to it, Force I . The New York
City Committee of Fifty-One had written to the Boston Comm. of Corresp.
June , , inviting the latter to designate a time and place for the proposed in-
tercolonial congress, same I –.
Copies of the Mass. circular letter of June , , sent out by Thomas Cushing
as Speaker of the Mass. House, to Speakers of the Assemblies of N.H., R.I.,
Conn., N.Y., N.J., Pa., Del., Md., Va., N.C., S.C., and Ga. Nova Scotia and West
Fla. had Assemblies, but I have found no evidence that copies of the letter were
sent to their Speakers. Quebec and East Fla. had no Assemblies. Copies of the let-
ter are in Va. Journals (for –) and Pa. Assembly VIII –.
Cushing had represented Boston in the House continuously since , and had
been its Speaker continuously since , when Gov. Francis Bernard had ac-
cepted him as Speaker after rejecting James Otis, Jr. Cushing was then and, with
occasional fluctuations, continued to be one of the more moderate of the Boston
Whig leaders. No biography of him has been published; but there is a brief sketch
of him in D.A.B. and a better, more detailed, one in Shipton Harvard Graduates XI
–.
John Adams’ principal law office was in Boston, and he was one of the Boston rep-
resentatives in the House in –. But he resided most of the time in Brain-
tree, a town in Suffolk County (of which Boston was the county seat), about twelve
miles south of Boston. Thanks to exceptional ability and hard work he was by this
time, at the age of thirty-eight, one of the outstanding lawyers of New England.
James Bowdoin, former member of the Mass. Council (Wallett “Bowdoin” –
and “Mass. Council” –), declined to serve as a delegate because of the
serious illness of his wife, Bowdoin to Benjamin Franklin Sept. , , Frothing-
ham “Tea Party” –.
Samuel Adams was graduated from Harvard in , Cushing in , Bowdoin
in , Robert Treat Paine in , and John Adams in , Harvard Quinquennial
Catalogue , , , . There are interesting biographical sketches of all
of them in Shipton Harvard Graduates XI, XII, XIII. All but John Adams, as sons
of locally distinguished fathers, stood high in the class listings; John Adams was
listed fourteenth in a class of twenty-five.
The fact that a body composed chiefly of representatives of farming communities
in central and western Mass. chose a group consisting exclusively of non-farmers
from the seacoast is interesting as indicating great solidarity of sentiment through-
out the colony on issues likely to come before the projected congress; otherwise,
representatives from outside the Boston area presumably would have demanded
and secured a representative or representatives of their own.
Action of the Md. convention held at Annapolis, June –, , Force I –
; Schlesinger Col. Merchants –. The convention had been initiated by res-
olutions of a county mass meeting at Baltimore, May , Force I .
Proceedings of the Va. convention of Aug. –, , same I –. The names
of the delegates from Va. and those from other colonies mentioned later in this
chapter are in Journals Cont. Cong. I –, , , , , , . The apparent con-
sensus in Virginia for spirited measures and possible reasons for this are discussed
in the second appendix to the Introduction.
Methods of electing delegates from the several colonies, same –, .
Election of the Conn. delegates, same –; Zeichner Conn. –, .
Choice of delegates for S.C. at a mass meeting in Charleston July and , ,
and confirmation by the S.C. Commons House (Assembly) Aug. , Force I –
, . The committee chosen at the mass meeting was composed of thirty
members representing Charleston and sixty-nine representing the parishes of the
colony outside Charleston.
The movement in Ga. from July to Sept. , , to cooperate with the other
colonies and the failure to send delegates to the Continental Congress are de-
scribed in same I , –, –, –; Coleman Ga. –, –;
and Schlesinger Col. Merchants –.
The estimate of expense for – for the civil officers of Ga., submitted to the
House of Commons Feb. , , was £,, Journals H. of C. IV .
Georgia, youngest of the thirteen colonies that rebelled, had been founded only
in , and had a white population, widely scattered, of probably under ,
in . War with the Creek Indians broke out in Dec., , and was not finally
ended until Oct. , , Alden Stuart –. Coleman Ga. – and Abbott
Governors of Ga. – outline developments in Ga. –.
The best-known of the delegates listed in the paragraph of the text to which this
footnote relates was William Livingston (later the first Governor of the state of New
Jersey), who, before moving from New York had been well known there and else-