Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Act among the grievances recited in the petition to the King, Deane’s diary for
Oct. , “Deane Diary” , but then gave way, Burnett Letters I .
The Quebec Act is included in the Association as one of the grievances that must
be redressed, Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Randolph “was taken with the gout, & besides, being Speaker [of the Va. House],
was called home to attend the Assembly of Virginia,” and, though he “left a Power
of Attorney empowering Col. Washington to sign in his Name,” it was decided not
to add his signature, Ezra Stiles’ diary Nov. , , Stiles Diary I , . Rod-
ney’s signature was added pursuant to instructions given by him and several other
absentees signed later, but Goldsborough, Rhoads, and Haring, who also were ab-
sent, evidently did not, Journals Cont. Cong. I n.
The Association signed, and the order that copies of it be printed, Oct. ,
, same I –. I have not found evidence as to how the printing of this and
other documents that the Congress had printed was paid for. So far as is known,
the Congress had no source of revenue, and, unlike the Second Congress, issued
no paper money.
The journals of the Congress for Oct. , , record resolutions that “a Memo-
rial be prepared to the people of British America etc. and that Mr. Lee, Mr.
[William] Livingston and Mr. Jay...[be] a committee to prepare a draught of the
Memorial...,” same . In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that
Lee, as head of the committee, was chiefly responsible for preparation of the me-
morial. (A letter from Jay to Lee’s grandson, Richard H. Lee, Feb. , , states
that the Memorial “was written by Mr. Lee,” Lee Richard Henry Lee I –.)
Congress adopts the Memorial and orders not more than copies of it to be
printed, Journals Cont. Cong. I .
The Memorial to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, same –.
The Address to the People of Great Britain, same –. Lee, William Livingston,
and Jay were also the committee to prepare this document, entry of Oct. , ,
same .
Chapter
Resolution of thanks to British supporters, Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Committee chosen Oct. , , to prepare an address to the King, same . The
Stamp Act Congress of addressed each House of Parliament as well as the
King. But in , there was so much objection in the House of Commons to
the receipt of a petition from the Pa. Assembly because it denied the right of Par-
liament to tax the colonies, Benjamin Franklin to Galloway, Van Doren Franklin’s
Writings –, that, as Franklin to Cushing Dec. , , pointed out, all peti-
tions from the colonies now go “to the King only,” Smyth Franklin V –.
Gadsden to Samuel Adams June , , as to not paying “for an ounce of the
damn’d tea” destroyed at Boston, Gadsden .
Jay’s motion of Oct. , , to include in the Address to the King a proposal to
pay for the tea destroyed at Boston, opposition by S.C. and other members and
defeat of the motion “unanimously,” Deane’s notes for Oct. , “Deane Notes”
–. The defeat of Jay’s motion is confirmed by the instructions to the committee,
Oct. and , and the Address itself, which say nothing as to paying for the tea,
Journals Cont. Cong. I –, –.
Duane’s motion Oct. , , to include in the Address the statement as to colo-
nial cooperation quoted in the text, Duane’s “Proposed Resolve,” Burnett Letters
I . Burnett tentatively dates Duane’s “Proposed Resolve” Oct. , but Deane’s
notes for Oct. show that the correct date is Oct. , “Deane Notes” . (The man-
uscript of the Duane resolution at the N.Y. Hist. Soc. seems to read “Councils Aid
and Thought,” but since Burnett’s reading of the last word as “Strength” is pos-
sible and makes better sense, I follow his reading.)
Lee’s motion concerning the militia, undated but probably Oct. , , Journals
Cont. Cong. I n.
Debate on Lee’s militia motion, including Henry’s spirited statement, Oct. and
, , “Deane Notes” .
The instruction to the committee as to what should be said in the Address to the
King concerning colonial militia, Oct. , , Journals Cont. Cong. I –.
I have not found a copy of the motion for an instruction to the committee to limit
the statement of grievances to those arising since the close of the late war; but the
substance of the motion is deducible from the statement in Deane’s notes for
Oct. , , “the Motion of Yesterday [undescribed by Deane because he was at
home unwell] taken up,” “Deane’s Notes” , coupled with his notes of the debates
on the motion, same –, and the instruction as finally adopted Oct. , Journals
Cont. Cong. I .
Deane’s notes for Oct. , , state, “the Motion of Yesterday taken up; Mr. Read
in favor of the Motion,” and then record what Read said as quoted in the text,
“Deane Notes” .
The rice, hat, and land acts referred to by Lynch were and Anne sec. ()
forbidding exportation of rice to any place but England, later ameliorated but not
repealed; Geo. II ch. (), making real estate in America subject to execution
and sale for debts of all kinds; and Geo. II ch. (), forbidding the export of
colonial-made hats or felt and restricting their manufacture.
The acts referred to by Lynch extending the jurisdiction of colonial courts of ad-
miralty are discussed in Chapter and the first appendix to that chapter. “Invidi-
ously” implied that Lynch did not object to colonial admiralty courts exercising
jurisdiction over cases involving maritime contracts and other matters tradition-
ally dealt with by admiralty courts both in England and the colonies. As brought
out in Chapter , the judge and officers of the admiralty court in Lynch’s colony,
S.C., had been particularly offensive.
The controversy in S.C. over Crown-appointed members of the provincial Coun-
cil acting as a branch of the Legislature also was discussed in Chapter .
Lynch’s objection to including only British acts passed since in the statement
of grievances in the Address, Deane’s notes for Oct. , , “Deane Notes” .
John Rutledge (“Mr. Rutledge senior”) supports Lynch’s objection to limiting the
recital of grievances to acts passed since , same .
Biddle’s opposition to the proposed limitation to post- measures, same. Edward
Rutledge’s opposition, Edward Rutledge to Ralph Izard Oct. , Izard –.
John Adams supports the original motion for the reason stated in the text, Deane’s
notes for Oct. , , “Deane Notes” .
Low’s objection to the motion as “not sufficiently explicit,” putting the Congress
“in a suspicious point of Light,” same.
Amendments to the proposed instruction were offered by Dyer of Conn., Sullivan
of N.H., Samuel Adams [“Mr. Adams senior”], and Lee, same –.
Deane’s notes for Oct. , , state, “the Amendment Carried to ,” same .
This probably was Lee’s amendment (no copy found), which was the last amend-
ment recorded as having been proposed and was seconded by an unidentified
member, same.
The amended instruction quoted in the text, adopted by the Congress Oct. ,
, Journals Cont. Cong. I –.
The six to five vote carrying the resolution, Deane’s notes for Oct. , , “Deane
Notes” . Delaware is recorded by Deane as “ Counties,” Pennsylvania as “Phila.”
My presumption as to the reason for S.C.’s dissent is based on the known opposi-
tion, as brought out in the text, of Lynch and the two Rutledges, being a majority
of the S.C. delegates, to the limitation to postwar grievances.
The original draft of the Address was “read” in the Congress Oct. , , Jour-
nals Cont. Cong. I . Whether Lee or Henry was its chief author is discussed in
Wolfe “Authorship” –, –. Presumably, it represented the ideas of all
five members, Lee, Henry, John Adams, Johnson, and John Rutledge. Adams’ di-
ary for Oct. records, “Spent the evening with Mr. Henry at his lodgings, con-
sulting about a petition to the King,” Burnett Letters I .
John Dickinson, elected to the Pa. House early in Oct., , had been added to
the Pa. delegation to Congress on Oct. , the day after the House assembled, Pa.
Assembly VIII , . At this same election, Thomson was chosen to replace
Benjamin Franklin, who was in England, and Mifflin was reelected, same ,
. John Adams wrote his wife Oct. that the election of these three “is consid-
ered here as a most compleat and decisive Victory in favour of the American
Cause...,” Adams Family Corresp. I .
The Congress’ recommitment of the committee’s initial draft, and addition of
Dickinson to the committee, Oct. , , Journals Cont. Cong. I .
An undated draft of “a humble petition” to the King in Dickinson’s hand and a
letter from him to Charles Thomson, written apparently about Oct. , ,
Wolfe “Authorship” –, indicate that he prepared a revised draft which was
at least the basis for the document adopted on Oct. . (Dickinson wrote George
Logan Sept. , , “The committee, on my being added to them, desired me
to draw the address, which I did...,” Stillé Dickinson n.)
A revised draft of the Address was submitted to the Congress Oct. , , and
adopted, after “being debated paragraph by paragraph,” on Oct. , Journals Cont.
Cong. I –. The document as adopted is in same –.
Dickinson wrote George Logan Sept. , , the statement quoted in the text,
Stillé Dickinson –n. Two or three harsh expressions in the undated drafts of
the Address by Henry and Lee, Wolfe “Authorship” –, were not in the Ad-
dress adopted by the Congress, but these may already have been eliminated in the
original draft of the Address submitted by the committee on the Address to the
Congress and rejected on Oct. , .
The proposed appeal to the King was uniformly referred to in the journals of the
Congress up to and including Oct. , , as “address,” Journals Cont. Cong. I ,
–, , , , .
The appeal to the King referred to as “humble petition” and “petition,” same ,
. The discussion of this point probably evoked the comment in John Adams’
diary for Oct. , : “In Congress, nibbling and quibbling as usual. There is no
greater mortification than to sit with half a dozen wits, deliberating upon a peti-
tion, address or memorial,” Burnett Letters I . (This is the same entry in which
Adams complained of Dickinson as “very...timid”
—marking the change in his
remarks on Dickinson from admiring to disparaging, discussed in Knollenberg
“Dickinson” –.)
The Petition to the King signed by, or for, all fifty-five members of the Congress
except Randolph, Rhoads, Goldsborough, Haring, and Kinsey, Journals Cont. Cong.
I . I have found no evidence that any of the five non-signers disfavored the Pe-
tition. Randolph, Henry, Pendleton, Bland, and Harrison had left the Congress
before the Petition was signed; Lee signed for Henry, and Washington for Pendle-
ton, Bland, and Harrison, Burnett Letters I lxiv–lxvi.
Middleton to London Agents Oct. , , stating, “We desire you will deliver
the petition into the hands of his Majesty, & after it has been presented, we wish
it may be made public thro’ the press ...,” Journals Cont. Cong. I . The
Agents named were Benjamin Franklin, William Bollan, Arthur Lee, Thomas
Life, Edmund Burke, and Charles Garth. As to the London Agents and their
work, Kammen “Colonial Agents” n., and Rope of Sand and Sosin Agents and
Merchants.
Middleton, who had recently succeeded Randolph as President of the Congress,
in a letter of Oct. , , refers to “the petition,” and copies of the document
published in uniformly caption it “The Petition to the King,” Journals Cont.
Cong. I , , , . (Secretary Charles Thomson in letters to Benjamin
Franklin of Oct. and Nov. referred to the document in one of them as “the pe-
tition,” in the other as “the address,” to the King, same .)
Statement in the Petition as to supporting the Crown’s prerogative, quoted in the
text, same . As shown by the passage quoted from the Statement of Rights in
Chapter concerning the regulation of colonial trade, the Congress had already
explicitly recognized the most important of the elements of Crown authority in
the colonies
—the authority to “negative [acts of colonial Legislatures] in such
manner as had heretofore been used and accustomed.”
As late as Oct. , , Washington wrote Robert Mackenzie that “no thinking
man in North America” desired “independency,” that “on the contrary,...it is
the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty that peace and tranquillity
upon constitutional grounds, may be restored,” Washington III –. Prior to
, this sentiment was expressed by nearly every outstanding Whig leader in the
colonies, and, I believe, in nearly if not quite all cases, truthfully.
The Privy Council’s authority to hear and decide appeals from the highest court
of every colony, Smith Appeals passim; Knollenberg Origin –, . This author-
ity was particularly important with respect to the colonies (R.I., Conn., and Md.)
over whose laws the Crown otherwise had no control.
Veto power of the Crown-appointed Governors in the royal colonies, same –,
; Labaree Royal Government . Also the provincial Councils in all the royal col-
onies except Mass. were appointed by the Crown and in all the royal colonies ex-
cept S.C. exercised without opposition the power of an Upper House of the Leg-
islature. The opposition to exercise of this power in S.C., Smith S.C. –, –
; McCrady South Carolina –. The non-royal colonies were R.I., Conn.,
Pa., Del., and Md.
The Crown’s prerogative of disallowance, Knollenberg Origin –, –. (As
to the curious situation of Del., Andrews Col. Period II –, –; Thomas
Penn to James Hamilton Feb. , /, Wolff Pa. Col. Agency n.; Labaree
Franklin XI –, – and XII ; Shepherd Pa. .) The Crown’s pre-
rogative to disallow was terminated once an act had been allowed by the King in
Council, which, in the case of Mass. and Pa., was automatic if the act were not dis-
allowed within the period specified in their charters, Knollenberg Origin , .
Instructions from the Crown protecting British shipping and goods from unfavor-
able colonial legislation, quoted in the text, especially the circular instruction of
May , , Labaree Instructions I –; Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll. IV –.
Little complaint in Great Britain of burdensome or discriminatory colonial legis-
lation after , Giesecke Am. Col. Legis. before –, indicating general co-
lonial compliance with the instruction quoted in the text. A discriminatory act of
Conn. of May, , was repealed two years later after protest in England, Trum-
bull , , , –; Conn. Col. Rec. XIII , . Even R.I., one of the least
pliable of the colonies, observed the instruction by repealing an offending act in
, R.I. Col. Rec. IV ; Kimball R.I. .
The only recognition I recall having seen of the advantage to Great Britain noted
in the text is in a letter from the Duke of Newcastle to Lord Rockingham in ,
quoted in another connection in Chapter , pointing out the advantages of Great
Britain’s trade with the colonies as compared with its foreign trade because the
latter “depends so much on the Will & Caprice of the Powers with whom we
trade,” Add. Mss. :.
The circular letter to the inhabitants of St. John’s, etc., adopted Oct. , , same
–. The composition of the committee to prepare this letter and the date
(Oct. ) established, same .
The address to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, adopted Oct. , ,
same –. The composition of the committee to prepare this address and the
date (Oct. ) established, same . I have found no evidence of who spoke con-
cerning this address. Adams’ diary for Oct. , stating “General Lee...showed me
an Address from the C. to the people of Canada...,” Burnett Letters I , suggests
that Gen. Charles Lee may have had a hand in preparing it.
Resolution for translation, printing, and distribution of the Quebec address, Jour-
nals Cont. Cong. I . The translation was by Eugène du Simitière, same , who
later became famous as a painter of miniatures, including those of several mem-
bers of the Congress.
Address to the inhabitants of Quebec, including the invitation (which was not
accepted) to send representatives to the Continental Congress called for May ,
, same –. Metzger Quebec Act – points out the ludicrous contrast of
a passage in this address, “We are too well acquainted with the liberality of senti-
ment distinguishing your [the French] nation to imagine that the differences of re-
ligion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us,” with the diatribes against
the Catholic religion in the address to the people of Great Britain.
Congress’ fear of seizure of members as quoted in the text, Hewes to James Iredell,
Oct. , , Burnett Letters I .
Resolution of Oct. , , recommending retaliation for seizing or attempting to
seize anyone to be transported overseas for trial, Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Samuel Adams wrote Thomas Young Oct. , , acknowledging receipt of a
letter from Young of Oct. , enclosing Samuel Dyer’s affidavit, Cushing S. Adams
III . Young’s letter is in the Samuel Adams Papers at the N.Y. Public Library;
the affidavit referred to in Young’s letter is missing.
The quotation in the text as to releasing Dyer, Lord Dartmouth to Gen. Thomas
Gage Aug. , , Gage II . The history of the seizure, transportation, exam-
ination, and release of Dyer is brought out in Young’s letter cited in note above,
Dartmouth’s letter to Gage of Aug. , Gage’s reply of Oct. , Gage I ;
Ebenezer Storer to Joseph Warren, Quincy Memoirs ; John Andrews to William
Barrell Oct. and , “Andrews Letters” –, the last of which describes
Dyer’s wild behavior on his return to Boston.
Appointment of a committee “to revise the minutes of the Congress” Oct. , ,
Journals Cont. Cong. I .
As noted in Chapter , Kinsey, as well as Randolph, Rhoads, and Goldsborough,
did not sign the Petition; but he signed the Association, which unlike the Petition
would tend to incriminate him.
Gov. Cadwallader Colden wrote Dartmouth Dec. , , “Mr. Galloway and
Duane tell me that at the close of the Congress, they Dissented from the Proceed-
ings, and insisted to have their Dissent entered on the Minutes, but could not by
any Means get it allowed,” Colden , and Galloway and Duane themselves
later wrote that they had exchanged certificates of having voted against the par-
ticularly seditious resolution of Oct. (discussed in Chapter ) encouraging the
inhabitants of Mass. to oppose enforcement of the Intolerable Acts, Alexander
Duane , ; Burnett Letters I .
Resolution of Oct. , , for another intercolonial congress, Journals Cont. Cong.
I . On this same day, Henry Middleton of S.C. was chosen to preside over the
closing sessions of the Congress in place of Randolph, who was “unable to attend
on account of indisposition,” same.
Resolutions of Oct. , , thanking the Pa. House for its “politeness” to the
Congress and to dissolve, same –. (“A most elegant entertainment” was pro-
vided by the Pa. House on Oct. , at which “the whole House dined with the
members of the Congress,” John Adams’ diary for Oct. , Burnett Letters I and
Washington diary for Oct. , Washington Diaries I . An appropriation voted
by the House Oct. refers to additional, undescribed expenses “attending the
Sitting of the Congress,” Pa. Assembly VIII .)
Colden to Dartmouth Dec. , , as to a combination of the Va., Md., and New
England delegations and some of the South Carolina delegates against the other
delegations, Colden .
Unique record of vote by colonies, Oct. , , referred to in the text, Deane’s di-
ary for Oct. , “Deane Diary” .
Delegates of Mass. and R.I. each equally divided in vote on Oct. , , Adams’
diary for Oct. , Burnett Letters I .
My statement as to Lee is based on Chitwood Lee, a valuable book, as to Johnson,
on Delaplaine Johnson and the biographical sketch of him in D.A.B. A good biog-
raphy of Johnson is much needed. Both men continued to play an important part
in public life after . Lee was an outstanding figure in the Second Continental
Congress and was a Senator from Va. in the first United States Congress. Johnson
became the first Governor of the state of Md. and an associate justice of the
United States Supreme Court.
Lee’s and Johnson’s committee memberships described in the text, Journals Cont.
Cong. I , , .
Most of the meager notes of debates in the First Continental Congress known to
have survived are printed in Burnett Letters I –. The only additional important
evidence known to me is in “Deane Notes” –. A few of the editorial notes in
these “Notes” are incorrect, but only one reading as published is open to question;
the word “dropping,” in Sherman’s statement on p. , I think, reads “damping.”
Adams’ diary for Oct. , , as quoted in the text, Burnett Letters I . In this
same diary entry Adams wrote disparagingly of John and Edward Rutledge as
speakers and also complained of Dyer and Sherman as speaking “often and long
...very heavily and clumsily.”
Assembling of eleven delegations to the Second Continental Congress by May ,
, Journals Cont. Cong. II –. The R.I. delegates, Ward and Hopkins, arrived
May and , respectively, and the parish of St. John’s, Georgia, also sent a del-
egate, Lyman Hall, who apparently sat in the Congress but did not seek recogni-
tion as representing the colony as a whole, until he and other delegates elected by
a Ga. provincial convention presented themselves several months later, same
–, –, and Burnett Letters I xliii–xliv.
Conn. delegates to Gov. Jonathan Trumbull, as quoted in the text, Oct. , ,
same .
The enlargement of the work of the committees to enforce the Association to in-
clude implementation of war measures is well exemplified by the developments in
Va. described in Bowman “Va. Committees” –. Modification of the Asso-
ciation by a resolution of the Second Continental Congress, April , , Journals
Cont. Cong. IV –, somewhat changed the nature of the committee’s activities.
Chapter
Gen. Thomas Gage wrote Lord Dartmouth from Boston May , , “the
Lively in which I Embarked at Plymouth on the th of April arrived here...on
the th of this Month....I went to Mr. [Thomas] Hutchinson and remained
with him at Castle William till preparations were made for My Reception in
Boston...,” Gage I . Rowe’s diary for May records, “This morning Genl
Gage Our New Governour...came to the Town House, had his commission
read by the Secretary [Thomas Flucker, Secretary of Mass.] & took the Usual
Oaths [of office],” Rowe .
The Boston Port Act, Geo. III ch. (), closed the Port of Boston to most
private commerce, June , . However, sec. of the act permitted private ves-
sels to enter the port with “fuel or victual brought coastwise...for the necessary
use and sustenance of the inhabitants” of the town, provided they had cleared at
Salem or Marblehead before proceeding to Boston and gave fourteen days’ grace
for outward-bound private vessels in port on or before June , to leave. News of
the passage of the act had reached Boston May , , John Rowe’s diary for
that date, Rowe .
The Mass. Regulating Act was Geo. III ch. (). The provision of the act
for the Governor’s appointment of the Council was to take effect Aug. , ; for
his appointment and dismissal of sheriffs and judges without the consent of the
Council, July ; for limiting town meetings without the Governor’s consent to one
meeting a year, Aug. ; and for the selection of jury panels by the sheriff, Oct. .
The “General Court” of Mass. consisted of the House of Representatives and the
Council acting in its capacity as a branch of the Legislature. Legally speaking, the
“legislature” included the Governor; but in line with modern usage I employ
the term “legislature” to mean the Mass. House and Council alone. What we
now speak of as courts were then referred to as the “‘executive courts,” that is
courts responsible for execution of the laws passed by the “General Court.”
Dartmouth to Gage Apr. , , giving him the instructions described in the text,
Gage II –. Also, the Treasury ordered the American Customs Board and its
officers to establish themselves at Salem and the customs officers of the Port of
Boston at any place “within the limits of the said port, as shall seem to them most
proper...,” Force I –. The Board made arrangements on May to move
to Salem, M.H.S. Proc. Vol. () –, and officers of the Boston Customs
District moved to Plymouth June , Boston Evening-Post June .
Nine British war vessels stationed in or near Boston May , , are listed in
Rowe’s diary for that date, Rowe –. Arrival from June to July , , of the
four British regiments sent from England and Ireland to Boston, Gage to Dart-
mouth June , July and , Gage I –.
The Mass. Legislature met at Boston May –, , during which period it
passed a few unimportant bills, Mass. Acts XVIII –; listened to a brief mes-
sage from Gage, Bradford Mass. Papers –; and, as the Regulating Act was
not yet operative or even known, elected a Council of twenty-eight members, thir-
teen of whom were negatived by Gage, Force I . (Gage to Dartmouth May
gives his reasons for negativing those rejected, Gage I .)
The general court obeyed Gage’s summons to meet at Salem June , , and sat
there until dissolved by him as stated in the text, Gage to Dartmouth June ,
, same ; Mass. Acts V –n.
Gage to Dartmouth June , , reporting his deferment of action to prosecute
traitors, guided by the opinion of “the Chief Justice of the Province [Peter Oliver]
...that the times are not yet favorable for Prosecutions...,” Gage I . Under
Gage’s instructions of Apr. , the proposed prosecutions were to be “in the ordi-
nary Courts of Justice within the Colony,” same II .
John Andrews, Boston merchant and moderate Whig, to William Barrell May ,
, concerning payment for the destroyed tea, quoted in the text, “Andrews Let-
ters” . Andrews himself apparently was in favor of paying for the tea, Andrews
to Barrell June , same, and so was the Boston moderate Whig merchant John
Rowe, Rowe’s diary for July , Rowe .
Hutchinson left Boston for England June , , Hutchinson’s “log” for that date,
Hutchinson Diary I . He died in England June , , without ever having re-
turned to America, sketch of him in D.A.B.
Farewell address of persons to Hutchinson May , , including an assur-
ance of their readiness to pay their proportion of the value of the destroyed tea,
Force I . The occupation of each of the signers is given in an undated paper in
M.H.S. Proc. XI (–) –. Joseph Warren wrote Samuel Adams June
, of the “formidable” power of “the party who are for paying for the tea,” Froth-
ingham Warren .
Dr. Thomas Young of Boston wrote John Lamb of N.Y. June , , that at a
Boston town meeting on June , those who had “whispered in the conclave” in
favor of payment for the tea had remained silent on this point at the town meet-
ing, Leake Lamb . The minutes of the meeting are in Boston Records (for –
) –.
Gage to Dartmouth July , , of the plan “by the better sort,” at the recent
Boston town meeting, “to make a Push to pay for the Tea,” Gage I . Gage said
they were “outvoted,” but the records of this meeting (June and ) and Rowe’s
diary entry concerning the meeting make no mention of a motion for payment,
Boston Records (for –) – and Rowe –. Probably those favoring
payment were deterred from making a motion for this by the overwhelming de-
feat of the motion to dismiss the Boston Committee of Corresp., referred to in
note below.
Motion to dismiss the Boston Comm. of Corresp. rejected at a Boston town meet-
ing June , , by a majority of four to one, Rowe’s diary for June , same .
The progress and ultimate defeat of the movement for the Solemn League and
Covenant is described in the appendix to this chapter.
Letters accompanying the gifts for the poor of Boston, usually describing the gifts,
and the acknowledgments of the gifts from June , , to Apr. , , are pub-
lished in Donations –. Many of the gifts, of course, were from towns in Mass.,
e.g., Wrentham, Pepperell, and Charlemont, same –. Those from other colo-
nies are cited and described in subsequent notes.
Letters and gifts from Windham and Groton, Conn., June , Aug. , and Oct.
, , same –, , –. The large number of sheep sent from all parts of
New England is particularly notable: raising sheep, probably chiefly for local use
of flesh, wool, and hides, was apparently very extensive in New England.
Gifts by the end of Oct., , from the other Conn. towns mentioned in the text,
same – passim.
Samuel and Robert Purviance for the Comm. of Corresp. of Baltimore to the
Boston Comm. of Corresp. Aug. , , accompanying a gift of , bushels of
corn, barrels of rye flour, barrels of port, and barrels of bread; and assur-
ing the Boston committee of further gifts from the people of Maryland “to main-
tain and support every sufferer in your and their common cause,” same –.
This assurance was fulfilled; on Nov. , the Purviances sent Boston a bill of lad-
ing for , bushels of corn and rye from Talbot and Dorset Counties, Md., same
–.
Donations to Boston by the end of October, , as stated in the text, same –
. These included gifts of a sloop-load of “provisions” from inhabitants of the
Cape Fear region of N.C., accompanied by a letter of July , , from James
Moore (later a brigadier-general in the Continental army) to John Hancock and
others assuring them of the sympathy and support; of over , bushels of corn
from Northampton and Essex Counties, Va.; and of over , bushels of corn
from the Edenton region of N.C., same –, , , .
Outpouring of gifts, with accompanying letters of support, as stated in the text,
from Nov., , to April, , same –; New Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg. XXX
() –; and M.H.S. Coll. IX () –. Friends (Quakers), who later
contributed generously to relief, Cadbury “Quaker Relief” –, held aloof at
this time, lest, among other reasons (quoting a letter of Nov. , , from leading
Friends in Philadelphia to Friends in London), “our contributing to the relief of
the distressed people of Boston should subject us to be considered as approvers of
their conduct,” same .
Emergency committee of eleven chosen by a Boston town meeting May , ,
Boston Records (for –) . The committee was usually referred to in the
town minutes as “the Committee on Ways and Means,” same – passim; but
from Sept. onward the committee’s letters acknowledging receipt of gifts were of-
ten signed “Committee of Donations,” Donations – passim.
The emergency committee was increased to twenty-five July , , and to
thirty-five Oct. , Boston Records (for –) , . On Aug. , the town of
Boston directed the committee to apply % of the donations to the needy of the
neighboring town of Charlestown, same , which was within the limits of the
Port of Boston.
William Cooper, Boston town clerk, to an unidentified correspondent in N.Y.
Sept. , , concerning Boston employment quoted in the text, Force I
–.
Boston town meetings of July and Aug. , , authorized the Committee on
Ways and Means to build a town wharf and dig a town well, Boston Records (for
–) , . Also encouragement to home industry was given by the
town’s voting on May to have the committee circulate a petition binding the
subscribers “not to purchase any Articles of British Manufacture that can be ob-
tained among Ourselves,” same .
Replies of the committee July , , to March , , Donations – passim.
The quotations in the text are from Samuel Adams to Fisher Gray of the com-
mittee in Farmington, stating, “The [Boston] Committee have a very grateful
sense of the generosity of their friends in Farmington....Boston is now suffering
for the common liberties of America, and while they are aided and supported by