Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
George II, as head of the Church of England, issued a commission, April , ,
to Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London, authorizing him or his commissaries “to
visit all Anglican churches in the colonies and the Rectors...by whatever name
called belonging to said Churches...with all and every Sort of Jurisdiction,
power, and Ecclesiastical coercion, requisite in the premises,” N.Y. Col. Doc. V
– at . This was not renewed to any of the successors of Gibson, who
died in .
Supervision of the Bishops of London after , Thomas Sherlock to the King of
Council, same VII –, undated but about according to Sherlock to
Board of Trade, Feb. , , N.C. Col. Rec. VI –; Richard Terrick to Lord
Hillsborough, Jan. , , C.O. ::–, summarized in Labaree Royal Gov-
ernment n.; correspondence of Sherlock, Terrick, and other Bishops of London
from to with their commissaries in Va., Perry Va . – passim; Laba-
ree Royal Government –; Labaree Instructions II –, –, –.
The shipwreck and death of the young men, Hugh Wilson and Samuel Giles, the
Reverend Samuel Seabury (–) to the Secretary of the Society Apr. ,
, N.Y. Doc. Hist. III ; Lydekker Inglis n., .
Ordination other than by a bishop was unthinkable to a good Churchman.
Chandler, for example, wrote indignantly to an unidentified correspondent April ,
, that if the growing tolerance of Anglicans toward Dissenters was not curbed
“we may come to think that...Episcopal is no better than the leathern mitten or-
dination; or in other Words, that the authority derived from Christ is no better
than that which is given by the mob,” Clark St. John’s Church –. As to the Con-
gregationalists’ “leathern mitten ordination,” Hawks and Perry Conn. I –.
Johnson to Secker May , , for colonial bishops, quoted in the text, Schneider
Johnson I . His plea, based on the recent death of Wilson and Giles, was sup-
ported by the Reverend Charles Inglis, assistant minister of Trinity Church, New
York City, to the Secretary April and May , Lydekker Inglis , ; the Reverend
Hugh Neill and George Craig of Pa. to the Secretary of the Society May and
June , Perry Pa. –; and convention of clergy at New York City May , to
the Secretary, Stowe “Minutes” , –.
Settlement of an Anglican bishop at Quebec would, of course, have alleviated the
hardship of colonial candidates for the Anglican clergy having to go to England
for ordination, but would not have met other considerations
—such as the hope
among some of being chosen an American bishop, immediately or later, and the
belief of many of the Anglican clergy that the colonial Anglican Church would be
strengthened by the presence of a resident bishop.
Secker to Johnson July , , concerning the proposal for a bishop in Canada,
quoted in the text, Schneider Johnson III –. Secker seems to have been do-
ing his best for the project; but Auchmuty wrote Johnson June , , criticizing
Secker for his supposed neglect to “push the affair,” and expressing the wish that
“we had a L
——d” instead, same I –. “L——d” was, of course, William Laud
(–), Archbishop of Canterbury (–), notable for his extremely ag-
gressive championship of compulsory uniformity.
Johnson to Secker Nov. , , concerning bishops quoted in the text, same I .
Johnson did not mention N.J. and Del., but presumably he would include these in
:
the bishopric mentioned for New England, N.Y., and Pa. In stating there were few
“Dissenters” at Albany, Johnson must have ignored members of the Dutch Re-
formed Church who were numerous there.
Chandler to Johnson July , , scorning the proposal to settle an Anglican
bishop in Canada, quoted in the text, same I . In an earlier letter to Johnson
(Sept. , ) Chandler had written in similar vein of this proposal, same I .
“Holt,” referred to in Johnson’s letter, doubtless was John Holt, formerly of
Williamsburg, Va., now settled in New York City as publisher of the New-York Jour-
nal, sketch in D.A.B. I have not found the letter to Holt mentioned by Johnson.
Johnson to the Reverend John Camm, April , , appealing for support for at
least three colonial bishops, quoted in the text, same I –. I have found no
reply from Camm. There is a sketch of Camm, later the President of the College
of William and Mary, in D.A.B. Camm had taken a leading part in the attack by
some of the Virginia clergy on the Virginia Twopenny Act of , Knollenberg
Origin –, –, .
Johnson’s encouragement to Chandler to write and publish an appeal to the
public in support of the establishment of an American episcopate, referred to in
Chandler to Johnson Sept. , , and Jan. , March , and June , , Schnei-
der Johnson I , , , . Johnson’s letters to Chandler are missing. Also
at this time, a convention of fourteen Anglican clergymen of Mass. and R.I. as-
sembled at Boston, signed a letter (June , ) to the Secretary of the Society
(Burton) asking the Society’s support for “American Bishops,” Perry Mass. .
Chandler’s Appeal was advertised as “just published” in the New-York Gazette of Oct.
, , Nelson Bibliography unpaged. Correspondence of Johnson concerning the
Appeal, Schneider Johnson I , , . Chandler to Terrick Oct. , enclosing a
copy of the Appeal, has some interesting data concerning its origin, Cross Anglican
Episcopate –. Chandler (–), born in Conn., was a graduate of Yale
and a former student in theology of Johnson, sketch of Chandler in D.A.B.
The sermon by the Bishop of Llandaff, John Ewer, was delivered at a meeting of
the Society Feb. , , and was published soon afterward under the title A Ser-
mon Preached before the Incorporated Society . . . in London and reprinted at New York
City in Apr., , Nelson Bibliography unpaged. (Ewer’s pamphlet carries the in-
correct spelling “Landaff” on the title page, and the bishopric is listed as “Lan-
daff” in Beatson Pol. Index I .)
The pamphlets concerning colonial bishops, with their authors or reputed authors
and dates of publication, Nelson Bibliography unpaged; Bridenbaugh Mitre and
Sceptre –; and Cross Anglican Episcopate –. The newspaper war from
March, , to February, , is well covered in Bridenbaugh – and Cross
–. William Livingston of N.Y. wrote the Reverend Samuel Cooper, April
, , that his aim was to arouse “an universal alarm” to induce “our superiors
at home” not to support the project, Sedgwick Livingston –.
Chauncy contributed pamphlets described in Nelson Bibliography passim. Liv-
ingston’s bitter newspaper articles, reprinted in pamphlets, are described in same.
Livingston later moved to New Jersey and was elected one of the N.J. delegates to
both the First and Second Continental Congresses and the first Governor of the
:
State of New Jersey. There are sketches of Chauncy (–) and Livingston
(–) in D.A.B.
The petition for a charter by the Presbyterian Church of New York City, the An-
glican opposition and rejection of the petition by the Privy Council Aug. , ,
Baird “Presbyterians” –; Hastings N.Y. Ecclesiastical Rec. VI –,
, , –, –; Bridenbaugh Mitre and Sceptre –, –
.
Inglis and Chandler to Johnson Nov. and Dec. , , concerning Cooper’s
recent trip to Md., Lydekker Inglis and Schneider Johnson IV . For the gen-
esis of this trip, minutes of N.Y. convention May and , , Stowe “Minutes”
–.
Md. convention’s undated address to the King and other undated addresses re-
ferred to in the text, enclosed in an undated letter from the Reverend Robert
Read, Secretary of the convention, to Governor Robert Eden, which he laid be-
fore the Md. Council Sept. , , Md. Archives XXXII –. There were
forty-four Anglican clergymen in Md. in , Perry Md. –, and I suppose
about the same number in .
Eden’s reply, Sept. , , stating that a matter of such “momentous Concern”
ought to have been presented “by the Subscription of the Clergy individually,”
Md. Archives XXXII –. (Eden said he would lay the matter before the As-
sembly, but he did not do so in his opening address to the Assembly Sept. , same
LXII –, and I have found no evidence of his doing so at any later date.)
Henry Addison, Bennet Allen, and Jonathan Boucher to the Anglican clergy of
Md. Sept. , , requesting a report to Boucher of their approval or disapproval
of the proposed move, same . As to Boucher (–), apparently the leader
in Md. for an American episcopate, sketch in D.A.B.; Boucher View of the American
Revolution; Boucher’s autobiography in Bouchier Reminiscence of an American Loyalist;
Boucher’s letter in Md. Hist. Mag. VI–IX passim; correspondence between Boucher
and George Washington, Knollenberg Washington: The Virginia Period –, –
.
Md. Anglican clergy’s address to the King opposed by ten members, Rev. John
Rodgers to “Committee of Dissenters,” Sept. , , Minutes of the Convention .
Stiles’ diary for Feb. , , records “By the prints I find under the News of No-
vember last that the Episcopal Clergymen in Maryland had lately preferred a Pe-
tition to the King asking a Bishop for that province,” Stiles Diary I . See also
Rodgers’ letter cited in note above.
The circular letter from Anglican clergymen of N.Y., N.J., and Conn. to those in
Va. and the Carolinas is described in Inglis to Johnson, Dec. , , Lydekker In-
glis . I have not found a copy of this letter or evidence of any action in the Car-
olinas in response to it.
The reply of the Reverend James Horrocks quoted in the text is known from In-
glis to Johnson March , , same . There is a sketch of Horrocks (–),
rector of Bruton parish, President of William and Mary College (–) and
the Bishop of London’s commissary for Va., in D.A.B. Richard Bland to Thomas
Adams, Aug. , , further describes Horrocks, W and M Q V () –.
:
Call made by Horrocks for a convention of the Anglican clergy of Va. to be held
in Williamsburg June , , Bridenbaugh Mitre and Sceptre .
The resolution of the convention quoted in the text, adopted June , , is in a
protest, undated, of the Reverends Samuel Henley and Thomas Gwatkin, profes-
sors at the College of William and Mary, in the London Chronicle of Aug. , .
Bland to Adams Aug. , , states that Camm (to whom Johnson had written in
) was “the champion” in the project, W and M Q V () –. Francis
Fauquier, Acting Governor of Va., wrote the Reverend Samuel Nicholls, July ,
, that Camm was one “whose Delight...is to raise a Flame and to live in it,”
Perry Va . .
Brydon Mother Church – lists Anglican ministers of Va. in , and
states (p. ) that there were “a hundred [or] more” in . The attendance at
the convention of June, , was evidently very thin.
The protest of Henley and Gwatkin, printed in the Va. Gazette (Purdie) of June ,
, and reprinted in the London Chronicle of Aug. . The other dissenters were
William Bland and Richard Hewitt, Brydon Mother Church . The problem in
Va. was complicated by a Va. act of March , (Hening Va . II ) providing
that no minister should be inducted in Va. unless “he hath received his ordination
from some bishop in England,” making it doubtful if a minister ordained by a
bishop in America could be legally inducted in Va.
Resolution of thanks by the Va. House of Burgesses to the four dissenters, quoted
in the text, July , , Va. Journals (for –) . Bland, a member of the
House, wrote: “I profess myself a sincere son of the established church but I can
embrace her Doctrines without approving of her Hierarchy, which I know to be a
Relick of the Papal Encroachments upon the Common Law,” W and M Q V
() –.
Brydon Mother Church states that it is not known “whether or not they prepared
it [the proposed Petition to the King]; or if copies were sent to all the clergy,” and
(pp. –) presents evidence that later attempts (Sept., , and Jan. , ) to
assemble another convention to discuss the matter failed.
The report of Horrocks’ presentation of a petition is in the Instructions of June,
, from the Conn. Association of Congregational ministers concerning coun-
teracting a petition presented by Horrocks (misspelled “Horrax”) to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury for an American episcopate, Minutes of the Convention .
The consecration of Inglis as Anglican bishop of Nova Scotia in , sketch of In-
glis in D.A.B. and Lydekker Inglis . His diocese included not only Nova Scotia,
but also New Brunswick, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and
Bermuda, same . (The Reverend Samuel Seabury had previously [] been
consecrated bishop for Conn. in the Protestant Episcopal Church by so-called
non-juring bishops in Scotland, sketch of Seabury in D.A.B.)
Stiles’ note in of a statement of the Reverend William Willard Wheeler
quoted in the text, Stiles Itineraries .
Lowth to William Samuel Johnson, May , , states that Lord Dartmouth is
the only member of the Ministry sympathetic to the establishment of an Ameri-
can episcopate, Beardsley W. S. Johnson –; and the Reverend George Berke-
ley wrote William Samuel Johnson Aug. , , that he was convinced the ad-
:
ministration would never settle a bishop in the colonies “though Lord Dartmouth
wishes it sincerely,” same .
Benjamin Franklin in London to John Ross in Pa., May , , Smyth Franklin
V –, and the Reverend William Gordon in England to the Reverend Joseph
Bellamy in Conn. in , Baird “Presbyterians” , as to Ministry’s reluctance to
aggravate colonial unrest by settling bishops in the colonies. Also Robert Lowth,
Bishop of Oxford, wrote Samuel Johnson’s son, William Samuel Johnson, May
, , “As to the important object of our wishes, the American Episcopate...
the Ministry seem determined to put a stop to every motion of this kind that...
may hazard the least disturbance...,” Beardsley W. S. Johnson .
Appendix (Chapter )
Judge William Spry, appointed judge of the overall court of admiralty at Halifax,
May , , opened his court there Oct. , Ubbelohde Vice-Admiralty Courts , .
Expressions of fear of having to defend suits for forfeiture of property in a court
far from the place of seizure or from the owner’s home or place of business are, for
example, in Thacher Sentiments () and Hopkins Rights of Colonies ()
reprinted in Bailyn Pamphlets , –.
The records of Spry’s court are missing, but colonial newspapers would almost
certainly have commented on cases, if any, similar to that of the Polly, and I have
found no such comment.
Thomas Whately, Secretary to the Treasury, wrote John Temple May , , “It
having been represented that the option of carrying all causes within that [admi-
ralty] jurisdiction to Halifax might be made a great grievance, it is proposed to di-
vide all North America into three districts...and confine all causes to the Court
of the district...,” Bowdoin-Temple Papers . Why the proposed change was so
long delayed I do not know. The establishment and work of the new courts are dis-
cussed at length in Ubbelohde Vice-Admiralty Courts –.
The particular colonies and adjacent waters placed within the jurisdiction of each
of the several district courts established in and the nature of the courts’ ju-
risdiction were given in warrants issued by the High Court of Admiralty in Lon-
don Sept. , , Adm. :, P.R.O., quoted in part in same n. A typical
commission is that issued Oct. , , to Jared Ingersoll, judge of the new court
at Philadelphia, printed in full in the Pennsylvania Journal Jan. , .
The extent of the courts’ jurisdiction is given in the judges’ commissions, e.g., In-
gersoll’s commission of Oct. , , in the Pennsylvania Journal Jan. , . (The
statement in Gipson Brit. Empire XI that the new district courts had broader
power than the existing colonial admiralty courts because given jurisdiction over
“all district cases concerned with breaches of the trade laws” is erroneous. As
brought out in Chapter of this volume, the provincial admiralty courts had had
such jurisdiction since .)
Ingersoll’s commission, Philadelphia Journal for Jan. , , granted a salary of £
a year. Since the £ was not stated in terms of some form of colonial currency,
£ sterling was doubtless meant. Colonial criticism of the high salaries will be
found in newspaper items dated Nov. and , , Dickerson Boston , .
:
The appointment of Jared Ingersoll and Augustus Johnston as Stamp Distributors
in and their enforced resignation, Knollenberg Origin –, – and
Morgan Stamp Act –, –.
Joseph Reed of Pa. wrote Lord Dartmouth Apr. , , criticizing the choice of
officers, such as the register and marshal, of the new court at Philadelphia and of
dissatisfaction over the appointment of judges “who had made themselves ob-
noxious by their conduct at the time of the Stamp Act,” Reed Reed I . Other crit-
icisms are cited in Gipson Ingersoll – and Ubbelohde Vice-Admiralty Courts
–.
Appendix (Chapter )
George Mason to Richard Henry Lee June , , concerning the planters’ dis-
regard of the Va. non-importation agreement of May, , Rowland Mason I .
(A letter from George Washington to Robert Cary & Co., July , , Washing-
ton II indicates that he wished to adhere to the agreement, but seems to have
thought, erroneously, that only “Articles...which are taxed by Act of Parliament
for the purpose of Raising a Revenue in America” were banned.)
Richard Henry Lee to William Lee July , , stating, “You will observe some
clauses therein [the modified Va. non-importation agreement of June, ], cal-
culated to produce the operation of this scheme, which, being omitted before, oc-
casioned the shameful neglect of the former Association among the Merchants
here,” Ballagh Lee I . Thomas Adams to Perkins, Buchanan & Brown June ,
, Price “Glasgow” n. implies that the Scotch merchants were the most fla-
grant offenders. Further evidence of disregard of the Va. agreement, Jensen Found-
ing –, –; Norton , , , –, –.
The official figures for exports given in the text are from Historical Statistics . The
yearly figures in same, captioned “Imports from England,” actually cover exports
from England, same . McCusker “Exports” n. points out that the statistical
year probably was Jan. through Jan. , rather than Dec. through Dec. , as
stated in Historical Statistics, and that the figures there are based on an obsolete
method of valuation. However, McCusker’s adjusted figures for – show
the same pattern of decline as those in Historical Statistics.
Figures of exports from England to Md. and Va. in the text, same . The figures
of exports from Scotland, which were very substantial to these two colonies, show
a similar trend, McCusker “Exports” . (As to the extensive trade between Scot-
land and Va. and Md., Price “Glasgow” –, –; Soltow “Scottish
Traders” –.) The agreement probably was better observed in Md. than in
Va., Rowland Mason I and Schlesinger Col. Merchants –; but other evi-
dence in same and in Jensen Philadelphia , indicates poor observance in
Md., too.
The several dates when agreements became operative are in Chapter , the dates
of termination are given in Chapter .
Figures of exports from England to the Carolinas in and given in the
text, Historical Statistics . Additional evidence as to strict enforcement in S.C.,
Schlesinger Col. Merchants –; McCrady South Carolina –; Sellers
:
Charleston –. Probably a large part of the exports in went to N.C., where,
as indicated in a later footnote, the local government had not been well observed.
Exports from England to Pennsylvania given in the text, same . Measures to en-
force the Philadelphia non-importation agreement are described in Jensen
Philadelphia –. Though the exports for were somewhat higher than in
earlier years, was fairly representative; the exports in to the Pa. district,
for example, were £,, compared with £, in , and a similar pat-
tern obtained in the other districts, Historical Statistics . The figures probably in-
clude a negligible amount of exports to Delaware and western New Jersey.
Exports from England to New England in and , Historical Statistics .
Exports from England to New York for and stated in the text, same .
These figures probably include a negligible amount of exports to eastern New Jer-
sey. The exports from Scotland to the thirteen colonies except Va. and Md. were
almost negligible, as shown by the table of exports in McCusker “Exports” .
Supporting evidence as to N.Y. referred to in the text, correspondence of Sir
William Johnson, Johnson VII – passim; VIII ; XII ; and of James
Beekman, Beekman II , , , , , , . Some of the letters to John-
son charge certain N.Y. merchants with chicanery and profiteering, but the gen-
eral picture is one of strict observance.
The Newport agreement, Andrews “Boston Merchants” –; Ezra Stiles’ di-
ary for May , , Stiles Diary I –; letters in Pa. Mag. Hist. XIV () and
M.H.S. Proc. (for –) –; Lovejoy R.I. Politics , ; Schlesinger Col.
Merchants –, –. (Newport merchants entered into a new agreement
on Aug. , , Andrews “Boston Merchants” , but by that time, the non-
importation movement was collapsing.)
Gov. Francis Bernard of Mass., in writing Lord Barrington June , , against
removing the British troops from Boston, pointed out that “if the Troops are re-
moved, the importers of goods from England in defiance of the Combination must
remove also,” Bernard–Barrington Corresp. .
The refusal of several Boston merchants to subscribe and the efforts, only partially
successful, to secure their adherence are brought out in Schlesinger Col. Merchants
–, –, – passim; Andrews “Boston Merchants” –, ;
and in Chapter of this book.
John Mein, his important activities in –, and the financial support re-
ceived by him from British officials are described in Andrews “Boston Mer-
chants” –; Schlesinger Col. Merchants –, –; Schlesinger “Pro-
paganda” –; Schlesinger Prelude –; Bolton “Circulating Libraries”
–; Alden “John Mein, Publisher” –; Alden “John Mein” –;
Dickerson “British Control” –; and Adams Legal Papers I –, –,
–; II –. As to William Fleeming, Alden “John Mein” –.
The bills of lading of imports into Boston referred to in the text were published in
the Boston Chronicle Aug. –Oct. , , and from Dec. , , to March ,
, Schlesinger Col. Merchants n. Pamphlets published in and
reprinting the invoices are described in Adams Bibliography , and Schlesinger
“Propaganda” n.
Carriage of proscribed goods on ships belonging to John Hancock, Schlesinger
:
Col. Merchants –. The Boston agreement was amended July , , ex-
plicitly to bar the carriage of proscribed goods, Mass. Gazette July , , and on
Sept. , Hancock wrote his principal London correspondents, Haley & Hopkins,
of the amended agreement, instructing them to observe the new agreement and
to inform his shipmasters to do the same, Brown Hancock –.
First Appendix (Chapter )
The prosecution tried to establish that Lieut. Henry Panton and his party from
the Rose boarded the Pitt Packet merely to search for contraband, but the testimony
showed clearly that Panton planned to impress at least two members of the crew,
Adams Legal Papers II –. The ship Rose had arrived at Boston in Nov., ,
Commodore Samuel Hood to Philip Stephens Nov. , , Letters to Ministry ,
and on April , , Hood ordered her captain, Benjamin Caldwell, to impress,
Zobel Boston Massacre .
The statement concerning the attempt to impress Michael Corbet and three other
Irish sailors and the killing of Panton, same, –, ; Adams Legal Papers II –
, –. The seizure and prompt release of the two members of the crew who
were residents of Mass., testimony of Thomas Power, master of the Pitt Packet, same
–.
On Jan. , , the British admiralty, pursuant to the act cited, issued a com-
mission to a group of Crown officers, ex officio, or by name, in Mass., N.H., and
R.I., to form courts for the trial of piracies and other felonies committed in Mass.,
R.I., or N.H. waters, to consist of at least seven members, three of whom must be
members of the commission. Others (if needed) were to be chosen from a wide
range of persons by any three of a group composed of the commissioners specified
in the commission, “Book of Charters, Commissions, Proclamations, etc.” II –
, Mass. Arch.
The names and offices of the members of the court, all of whom were persons
named by office or in person in the commission of Jan. , , which convened
May , , Adams Legal Papers II , and sources therein cited. Governor Fran-
cis Bernard of Mass. presided, Dickerson Boston , quoting a newspaper account
of June .
John Adams and James Otis as counsel for the accused, Zobel Boston Massacre –
, . Adams wrote William Tudor Dec. , , that “Mr. Otis...constantly
and finally refused to appear publicly in the cause,” Adams Works II n., but
Adams’ own minutes of the trial show that Otis participated in the public exami-
nation of witnesses, Adams Legal Papers II , , .
Plea demanding trial by jury under acts of Henry VIII ch. () and Geo.
I ch. (), same –.
Plea for trial by jury denied, and special court proceeds to trial without a jury, same
–.
Adams’ statement that “No trial had ever interested the community so much be-
fore, excited so much curiosity and compassion, or so many apprehensions of
the fatal consequences of the supremacy of parliamentary jurisdiction, or the
intrigues of parliamentary courts,” Adams Works X –, was not made until
:
years later, but the copious contemporary evidence of bitter hostility in Mass. to
impressment, and denial of trial by jury lend color to Adams’ statement.
The decree of “justifiable homicide” and acquittal of the accused, June , ,
Dickerson Boston , quoting a newspaper account of June .
Though there was no act of Parliament explicitly authorizing impressment, the
general authority of the Crown to impress was firmly established, Blackstone
Commentaries I –.
The arguments for and against the view that section of the act of Anne ch.
() was still currently in force, Knollenberg Origin –, . The question
was never finally determined; it became moot in , when the section in ques-
tion was repealed by Geo. III ch. sec. . Adams was prepared to argue in
the Corbet case that sec. was still in force, Adams Legal Papers II –. Also, see
discussion of the Liberty case in Chapter .
Gov. William Shirley to the Board of Trade Dec. , , of the view throughout
the colonies that impressment there was “illegal by virtue of a Clause in a statute
of Queen Anne,” Shirley I –.
Instructions, prepared by a committee of which John Adams was a member,
adopted at Boston town meeting June , , condemning impressment in the
colonies as illegal under the act of Anne ch. sec. (), Boston Town Records
(for –) . Many years later, John Adams wrote several letters concern-
ing the Corbet case, some of which are demonstrably inaccurate and others un-
supported by contemporary evidence, Adams Works II n., same X –;
M.H.S. Proc. () .
Hutchinson’s explanation of the court’s action quoted in the text, Hutchinson
Hist. of Mass. III n. As to the requirement for a warrant of impressment, Lords
of the Admiralty to Captains of His Majesty’s Ships in America Sept. , ,
Law I ; Clark “Impressment” –; Adams Legal Papers II n.; Stout “Man-
ning the Royal Navy” –.
Hutchinson’s diary for Oct. , , records: “I finished the revisal of my History
to the end of my Administration [the third volume], and laid it by,” Hutchinson
Diary and Letters II .
Second Appendix (Chapter )
Clashes between civilians, especially merchant seamen, and British troops in New
York, Lemisch “Jack Tar vs. John Bull” passim.
The irritation caused by the soldiers’ working in spare time for cut-rate wages,
same; Lemisch “Jack Tar in the Streets” ; Morris Govt. and Labor . Accord-
ing to a New York broadside signed “a Merchant,” issued in February, ,
quoted in Lemisch “Jack Tar vs. John Bull” , , soldiers would work for eigh-
teen pence (a shilling and a half) to two shillings a day at jobs for which civilian
workmen were paid four shillings.
Attack by British soldiers on the Liberty Pole in New York City, Stokes Iconography
IV . Earlier attacks on the pole or its predecessor, are described in same .
The handbill dated Jan. , , and signed “Brutus,” quoted in the text, same
–.
:
Tearing down of the Liberty Pole in “the dead Hour of Night...,one o’clock”
Jan. , , same .
The handbill signed “th Regiment of Foot,” quoted in the text, Dewson Sons of
Liberty –n.
Golden Hill, since leveled, was “That portion of John-street which is between
Cliff-street and Burling Slip,” same n.
The clash Jan. , , described in the text, Stokes Iconography IV . A “Letter
from New York” of Jan. , published in the St. James Chronicle (London) of March
and reprinted in Dewson Sons of Liberty –n. states that a merchant sailor
was killed by the soldiers. But contemporary New York City newspaper accounts
report no death, and Cadwallader Colden to Lord Hillsborough Feb. , says
“only a few wounds and bruises were received on each side,” N.Y. Col. Doc. VII
.
Appendix (Chapter )
Gov. Hutchinson’s statement in his “Narrative” as to the entry of the Dartmouth,
Hutchinson Diary and Letters I –. The narrative was written apparently some
time after August , , same .
Hutchinson’s similar statement in his History of Mass. is at III , –. The
History, of which this is in the concluding part, was finished in October, ,
Hutchinson Diary and Letters II .
Miller Sam Adams – quoted in the text. Sydney George Fisher’s The Struggle
for American Independence I – () is in similar vein. Paraphrasing Hutchin-
son’s retrospective account of the tea episode, Fisher states, “Governor Hutchin-
son followed the conciliatory policy of the home government....But the radical
patriots would not take this conservative and moderate course....”
Shipton “Samuel Adams” in Harvard Graduates X ().
Dartmouth’s log for Nov. and , , says nothing of any order or request from
the consignees or Hutchinson to remain outside the harbor or any order or request
from Samuel Adams or any Boston committee to enter, but mentions the unusual
circumstance of boarding by customs officers, Traits of the Tea Party –.
No mention by James Hall in his testimony before the Privy Council Feb. , ,
of any request or order from the consignees or Boston Whigs as to the Dartmouth’s
entering port, P.C. ::Part I:Bundle .
Hutchinson to Gov. William Tryon Dec. , , Mass. Arch. XXVII , and
other contemporary letters of Hutchinson, referred to in the text, to one of his sons
Nov. , , Hutchinson Diary and Letters I –; to Dartmouth Dec. , , ,
, , and , Mass. Arch. XXVII –, –, , ; William Palmer
Dec. , Directors of the East India Company Dec. , Israel Mauduit Dec. [no
day], and Francis Bernard Jan. , , same –, –, –, .
(Bernard was now Sir Francis, having been made a baronet on his return to En-
gland in .)
Hutchinson wrote Bernard Jan. , , “After the usurpers of government had
tried every method they could think of to force the tea back to England, and all in
vain, they...destroyed three hundred and fifty chests,” Hutchinson Diary and Let-
: