events of 1774—all classes in the colonies discontented—all classes and all the provinces reject the east india company's tea.

the year 1774 commenced, among other legacies of 1773, with that of the discontent of all the colonies,[325] their unanimous rejection of the east india tea, stamped with the threepenny duty of parliamentary tax, as the symbol of the absolutism of king and parliament over the colonies. the manner of its rejection, by being thrown into the sea at boston, was universally denounced by all parties in england. the accounts of all the proceedings in america against the admission of the east india tea to the colonial ports, were coloured by the mediums through which they were transmitted—the royal governors and their executive officers, who expected large advantages from being assigned and paid their salaries by the crown, independent of the local legislatures; and the consignees of the east india company, who anticipated large profits from their monopoly of its sale. opposition to the tea duty was represented as "rebellion"—the assertors of colonial freedom from imperial taxation without representation were designated "rebels" and "traitors," notwithstanding their professed loyalty[pg 389] to the throne and to the unity of the empire, and that their utmost wishes were limited to be replaced in the position they occupied after the peace of paris, in 1763, and after their unanimous and admitted loyalty, and even heroism, in defence and support of british supremacy in america.

"intelligence," says dr. holmes, "of the destruction of the tea at boston was communicated on the 7th of march (1774), in a message from the throne, to both houses of parliament. in this communication the conduct of the colonists was represented as not merely obstructing the commerce of great britain, but as subversive of the british constitution. although the papers accompanying the royal message rendered it evident that the opposition to the sale of the tea was common to all the colonies; yet the parliament, enraged at the violence of boston, selected that town as the object of its legislative vengeance. without giving the opportunity of a hearing, a bill was passed by which the port of boston was legally precluded from the privilege of landing and discharging, or of lading or shipping goods, wares, and merchandise; and every vessel within the points aldeston and nahant was required to depart within six hours, unless laden with food or fuel.

"this act, which shut up the harbour of boston, was speedily followed by another, entitled 'an act for better regulating the government of massachusetts,' which provided that the council, heretofore elected by the general assembly, was to be appointed by the crown; the royal governor was invested with the power of appointing and removing all judges of the courts of common pleas, commissioners of oyer and terminer, the attorney-general, provost-marshal, justices, sheriffs, etc.; town meetings, which were sanctioned by the charter, were, with few exceptions, expressly forbidden, without leave previously obtained of the governor or lieutenant-governor, expressing the special business of said meeting, and with a further restriction that no matters should be treated of at these meetings except the electing of public officers and the business expressed in the governor's permission; jurymen, who had been elected before by the freeholders and inhabitants of the several towns, were to be all summoned and returned by the sheriffs of the respective counties; the whole executive [pg 390]government was taken out of the hands of the people, and the nomination of all important officers invested in the king or his governor.

"in the apprehension that in the execution of these acts riots would take place, and that trials or murders committed in suppressing them would be partially decided by the colonists, it was provided by another act, that if any persons were indicted for murder, or any capital offence, committed in aiding the magistracy, the governor might send the person so indicted to another county, or to great britain, to be tried.

"these three acts were passed in such quick succession as to produce the most inflammatory effects in america, where they were considered as forming a complete system of tyranny. 'by the first,' said the colonists, 'the property of unoffending thousands is arbitrarily taken away for the act of a few individuals; by the second, our chartered liberties are annihilated; and by the third, our lives may be destroyed with impunity.'"[326]

the passing of these three bills through parliament was attended in each case with protracted and animated debates.

the first debate or discussion of american affairs took place on the 7th of march, in proposing an address of thanks to the king for the message and the communication of the american papers, with an assurance that the house would not fail to exert every means in their power of effectually providing for objects so important to the general welfare as maintaining the due execution of the laws, and for securing the just dependence of the colonies upon the crown and parliament of great britain.

in moving this address to pledge parliament to the exertion of every means in its power, mr. rice said: "the question now brought to issue is, whether the colonies are or are not the colonies of great britain." lord north said, "nothing can be done to re-establish peace, without additional powers from parliament." nugent, now lord clare (who had advocated the stamp act, if the revenue from it should not exceed a peppercorn, as a symbol of parliamentary power), entreated that there might be no divided counsels. dowdeswill said: "on the[pg 391] repeal of the stamp act, all america was quiet; but in the following year you would go in pursuit of your peppercorn—you would collect from peppercorn to peppercorn—you would establish taxes as tests of obedience. unravel the whole conduct of america; you will find out the fault is at home." pownall, former governor of massachusetts and earnest advocate of american rights, said: "the dependence of the colonies is a part of the british constitution. i hope, for the sake of this country, for the sake of america, for the sake of general liberty, that this address will pass with a unanimous vote." colonel barré even applauded the good temper with which the subject had been discussed, and refused to make any opposition. william burke, brother of edmund burke, said: "i speak as an englishman. we applaud ourselves for the struggles we have had for our constitution; the colonists are our fellow-subjects; they will not lose theirs without a struggle." wedderburn, the solicitor-general, who bore the principal part in the debate, said: "the leading question is the dependence or independence of america." the address was adopted without a division.[327]

on the 14th of march, lord north explained at large his american policy, and opened the first part of his plan by asking leave to bring in a bill for the instant punishment of boston. he stated, says the annual register, "that the opposition to the authority of parliament had always originated in the colony of massachusetts, and that colony had been always instigated to such conduct by the irregular and seditious proceedings of the town of boston; that, therefore, for the purpose of a[pg 392] thorough reformation, it became necessary to begin with that town, which by a late unpardonable outrage had led the way to the destruction of the freedom of commerce in all parts of america: that if a severe and exemplary punishment were not inflicted on this heinous act, great britain would be wanting in the protection she owed to her most peaceable and meritorious subjects: that had such an insult been offered to british property in a foreign port, the nation would have been called upon to demand satisfaction for it.

"he would therefore propose that the town of boston should be obliged to pay for the tea which had been destroyed in their port: that the injury was indeed offered by persons unknown and in disguise, but that the town magistracy had taken no notice of it, had never made any search for the offenders, and therefore, by a neglect of manifest duty, became accomplices in the guilt: that the fining of communities for their neglect in punishing offences committed within their limits was justified by several examples. in king charles the second's time, the city of london was fined when dr. lamb was killed by unknown persons. the city of edinburgh was fined and otherwise punished for the affair of captain porteous. a part of the revenue of the town of glasgow had been sequestered until satisfaction was made for the pulling down of mr. campbell's house. these examples were strong in point for such punishments. the case of boston was far worse. it was not a single act of violence; it was a series of seditious practices of every kind, and carried on for several years.

"he was of opinion, therefore, that it would not be sufficient to punish the town of boston by obliging her to make a pecuniary satisfaction for the injury which, by not endeavouring to prevent or punish, she has, in fact, encouraged; security must be given in future that trade may be safely carried on, property protected, laws obeyed, and duties regularly paid. otherwise the punishment of a single illegal act is no reformation. it would be therefore proper to take away from boston the privilege of a port until his majesty should be satisfied in these particulars, and publicly declare in council, on a proper certificate of the good behaviour of the town, that he was so satisfied. until this should happen, the custom-house officers, who were now not safe in boston, or safe no longer than while they neglected[pg 393] their duty, should be removed to salem, where they might exercise their functions."[328]

the bill passed the first reading without discussion. at the second reading, mr. byng alone voted no, though there was considerable discussion. "mr. bollan, the agent for the council of massachusetts bay, presented a petition, desiring to be heard in behalf of said council and other inhabitants of boston; but the house refused to receive the petition."[329]

at the third reading, the lord mayor of london presented a petition in behalf of several natives and inhabitants of north america then in london. "it was drawn," says the annual register, "with remarkable ability." the petitioners alleged that "the proceedings were repugnant to every principle of law[pg 394] and justice, and under such a precedent no man in america could enjoy a moment's security; for if judgment be immediately to follow on accusation against the people of america, supported by persons notoriously at enmity with them, the accused unacquainted with the charges, and from the nature of their situation utterly incapable of answering and defending themselves, every fence against false accusation will be pulled down.

"they asserted that law is executed with as much impartiality in america as in any part of his majesty's dominions. they appealed for proof of this to the fair trial and favourable verdict in the case of captain preston and his soldiers.

"that in such a case the interposition of parliamentary power was full of danger and without precedent. the persons committing the injury were unknown. if discovered, the law ought first to be tried. if unknown, what rule of justice can punish the town for a civil injury committed by persons not known to them?

"that the instances of the cities of london, edinburgh, and glasgow were wholly dissimilar. all these towns were regularly heard in their own defence. their magistrates were of their own choosing (which was not the case of boston), and therefore they were more equitably responsible. but in boston the king's governor has the power, and had been advised by his council to exert it; if it has been neglected, he alone is answerable."[330] in conclusion, the petitioners strongly insisted on the injustice of the act, and its tendency to alienate the affections of america from the mother country.

the petition was received, but no particular proceedings took place upon it.

the bill passed the house on the 25th of march, and was carried up to the lords, where it was likewise warmly debated; but, as in the commons, without a division. it received the royal assent on the 31st of march.[331]

[pg 395]

dr. ramsay remarks: "by the operation of the boston port act, the preceding situation of its inhabitants and that of the east india company was reversed. the former had more reason to complain of the disproportionate penalty to which they were indiscriminately subjected, than the latter of that outrage on their property, for which punishment had been inflicted. hitherto the east india company were the injured party; but from the passing of this act the balance of injury was on the opposite side. if wrongs received entitled the former to reparation, the latter had a much stronger title on the same ground. for the act of seventeen or eighteen individuals, as many thousands were involved in one general calamity."[332]

[pg 396]

shortly after the passing of the boston port bill, the second bill was brought into parliament, entitled "an act for the better regulating of the government of the province of massachusetts bay." this bill was brought in on the 28th of march, three days before the royal assent was given to the boston port bill. as the town of boston had received no notice of the bill which closed its port, and had therefore no opportunity to vindicate its conduct or rights; so the province received no notice of the bill which changed its system of government, which abrogated so much of its charter as gave to its legislative assembly the choice of the council; abolished town meetings, except for the choice of town officers, or on the special permission of the governor, which gave to the crown the appointment and removal of the sheriffs, and to the sheriffs the selection of the juries, which had hitherto been elected by the people. after an animated debate, led by dunning in opposition, the bill passed the commons by a vote of more than three to one.

the third penal bill brought in and passed was said to have been specially recommended by the king himself. it authorized, at the discretion of the governor, the removal for trial to nova scotia or great britain of all magistrates, revenue officers, or soldiers indicted for murder or other capital offence. mr. bancroft says: "as lord north brought forward this wholesale bill of indemnity to the governor and soldiers, if they should trample upon the people of boston and be charged with murder, it was noticed that he trembled and faltered at every word; showing that he was the vassal of a stronger will than his own, and vainly struggled to wrestle down the feelings which his nature refused to disavow."[333]

colonel barré, who had supported the boston port bill, said: "i execrate the present measure; you have had one meeting of[pg 397] the colonies in congress. you may soon have another. the americans will not abandon their principles; for if they submit they are slaves." the bill passed the commons by a vote of more than four to one.

the fourth bill legalized the quartering of troops within the town of boston.

the question now arises, what were the effects of these measures upon the colonies? we answer, the effects of these measures were the very reverse of what had been anticipated and predicted by their advocates in england, both in and out of parliament. the general expectation in england was that they would not be resisted in america; that boston and massachusetts would submit; that if they should not submit, they would be isolated from the other provinces, who would not identify themselves with or countenance the extreme proceedings of boston and of massachusetts. these measures had been adopted by the government and parliament of great britain in the months of march and april, and were to take effect the 1st of june. in the two following months of may and june, america spoke, and twelve colonies out of thirteen (georgia alone excepted) protested against the measures of the british parliament, and expressed their sympathy with boston and massachusetts. boston itself spoke first, and instead of submitting, as had been predicted by lords mansfield and others, held a town meeting as soon as they received intelligence of the passing of the boston port bill, at which resolutions were passed expressing their opinion of the impolicy, injustice, inhumanity and cruelty of this act, from which they appealed to god and to the world; also inviting other colonies to join with them in an agreement to stop all imports and exports to and from great britain and ireland and the west indies until the act should be repealed.[334]

[pg 398]

mr. bancroft, remarks:

"the merchants of newburyport were the first who agreed to suspend all commerce with britain and ireland. salem, also, the place marked out as the new seat of government, in a very full town meeting, and after unimpassioned debates, decided almost unanimously to stop trade, not with britain only, but even with the west indies. if in boston a few cravens proposed to purchase a relaxation of the blockade by quailing before power, the majority were beset by no temptation so strong as that of routing at once the insignificant number of troops who had come to overawe them. but samuel adams, while he compared their spirit to that of sparta or rome, was ever inculcating patience as the characteristic of a true patriot; and the people having sent forth their cry to the continent, waited self-possessed for voices of consolation."[335]

[pg 399]

in the meantime, according to the provisions of the charter, the legislature of massachusetts, the last wednesday in may, proceeded to nominate the twenty-eight councillors. of these, general gage negatived the unprecedented number of thirteen, including all the popular leaders nominated. he laid nothing before the general assembly but the ordinary business of the province; but gave notice that the seat of government would be removed to salem the 1st of june, in pursuance of the act for closing the port of boston.

the legislature reassembled, according to adjournment, at salem the 7th day of june,[336] after ten days' prorogation, and on the 9th the council replied to the governor's speech at the opening of the session. their answer was respectful, but firmly and loyally expressive of their views and feelings. they declared their readiness "on all occasions cheerfully to co-operate with his excellency" in every step tending to "restore harmony" and "extricate the province from their present embarrassments," which, in their estimation, were attributable to the conduct of his "two immediate predecessors." they at the same time affirmed that "the inhabitants of the colony claimed no more than the rights of englishmen, without diminution or abridgment;" and that these, "as it was their indispensable duty, so would it be their constant endeavour to maintain to the utmost of their power, in perfect consistence with the truest loyalty to the crown, the just prerogatives of which they should ever be zealous to support." to this address the governor replied in the following bitter words: "i cannot receive this address, which contains indecent reflections on my predecessors, who have been tried and honourably acquitted by[pg 400] the lords of the privy council, and their conduct approved by the king. i consider this address as an insult upon his majesty and the lords of the privy council, and an affront to myself."

the answer of the assembly was very courteous, but equally decided with that of the council. they congratulated his excellency on his safe arrival, and declared that they "honoured him in the most exalted station of the province, and confided in him to make the known constitution and charter the rule of his administration;" they "deprecated the removal of the court to salem," but expressed a hope that "the true state of the province, and the character of his majesty's subjects in it, their loyalty to their sovereign and their affection for the parent country,[337] as well as their invincible attachment to their just rights and liberties, would be laid before his majesty, and that he would be the happy instrument of removing his majesty's displeasure, and restoring harmony, which had been long interrupted by the artifices of interested and designing men."

the house of representatives, after much private consultation among its leading members, proceeded with closed doors to the consideration and adoption, by a majority of 92 to 12, of resolutions declaring the necessity of a general meeting of all the colonies in congress, "in order to consult together upon the present state of the colonies, and the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of certain acts of parliament respecting america; and to deliberate and determine upon wise and proper measures to be by them recommended to all the colonies for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between great britain and the colonies, most ardently to be desired by all good men." they elected[pg 401] five gentlemen to represent massachusetts to the proposed congress.

the house also proceeded with all expedition to draw up a declaration of their sentiments, to be published as a rule for the conduct of the people of massachusetts. "this declaration," says dr. andrews, "contained a repetition of grievances; the necessity they were now under of struggling against lawless power; the disregard of their petitions, though founded on the clearest and most equitable reasons; the evident intention of great britain to destroy the constitution transmitted to them from their ancestors, and to erect upon its ruins a system of absolute sway, incompatible with their disposition and subversive of the rights they had uninterruptedly enjoyed during the space of more than a century and a half. impelled by these motives, they thought it their duty to advise the inhabitants of massachusetts to throw every obstruction in their power in the way of such evil designs, and recommended as one of the most effectual, a total disuse of all importations from great britain until an entire redress had been obtained of every grievance.

"notwithstanding the secrecy with which this business was carried on," continues dr. andrews, "the governor was apprized of it; and on the very day it was completed, and the report of it made to the house (and adopted), he dissolved the assembly, which was the last that was held in that colony agreeably to the tenor of the charter."[338]

footnotes:

[325] "the discontents and disorders continue to prevail in a greater or less degree through all the old colonies on the continent. the same spirit pervades the whole. even those colonies which depended most upon the mother country for the consumption of their productions entered into similar associations with the others; and nothing was to be heard of but resolutions for the encouragement of their own manufactures, the consumption of home products, the discouragement of foreign articles, and the retrenchment of all superfluities." (english annual register for 1774, vol. xvii., p. 45.)

[326] holmes' annals, etc., vol. ii., pp. 185, 186. these three bills were followed by a fourth, legalizing the quartering of the troops on the inhabitants in the town of boston.

[327] bancroft's history of the united states, vol. vi., chap. lii, pp. 503-510. mr. bancroft says:

"the next day letters arrived from america, manifesting no change in the conduct of the colonies. calumny, with its hundred tongues, exaggerated the turbulence of the people, and invented wild tales of violence. it was said at the palace, and the king believed, that there was in boston a regular committee for tarring and feathering; and that they were next, to use the king's expression, 'to pitch and feather' governor hutchinson himself. the press was also employed to rouse the national pride, till the zeal of the english people for maintaining english supremacy became equal to the passions of the ministry. even the merchants and manufacturers were made to believe that their command of the american market depended on the enforcement of the british claim of authority."—ib., p. 511.

[328] annual register for 1774, vol. xvii., pp. 62, 63. "at the first introduction, the bill was received with very general applause. the cry raised against the americans, partly the natural effect of their own acts, and partly of the operations of government, was so strong as nearly to overbear the most resolute and determined in the opposition. several of those who had been the most sanguine favourers of the colonies now condemned their behaviour and applauded the measure as not only just but lenient (even colonel barré). he said: 'after having weighed the noble lord's proposition well, i cannot help giving it my hearty and determined approval.' others, indeed (as dowdeswill and edmund burke), stood firmly by their old ground. they contented themselves, in that stage of the business, with deprecating the bill; predicting the most fatal consequences from it, and lamenting the spirit of the house, which drove on or was driving on to the most violent measures, by the mischiefs produced by injudicious counsels; one seeming to render the other necessary. they declared that they would enter little into a debate which they saw would be fruitless, and only spoke to clear themselves from having any share in such fatal proceedings."—ib., pp. 164, 165.

[329] annual register for 1774, vol. xvii., p. 65, which adds: "this vote of rejection was heavily censured. the opposition cried out at the inconsistency of the house, who but a few days ago received a petition from this very man, in this very character; and now, only because they chose to exert their power in acts of injustice and contradiction, totally refuse to receive anything from him, as not duly qualified. but what, they asserted, made this conduct the more unnecessary and outrageous was, that at that time the house of lords were actually hearing mr. bollan on his petition, as a person duly qualified, at their bar. 'thus,' said they, 'this house is at once in contradiction to the other and to itself.' as to the reasons given against his qualifications, they are equally applicable to all american agents; none of whom are appointed as the minister now requires they should be, and thus this house cuts off communication between them and the colonies whom they are assisting by their acts."

[330] annual register for 1774, vol. xvii., pp. 65, 66.

[331] ib., p. 67.

the bill underwent a more full and fair discussion in the house of lords than in the house of commons. the amiable lord dartmouth, then secretary of state for the colonies, "a man that prayed," desired lenient measures, called what passed in boston "commotion," not open "rebellion." but lord mansfield said, "what passed in boston is the last overt act of high treason, proceeding from our own lenity and want of foresight. it is, however, the luckiest event that could befall this country, for all may now be recovered. compensation to the east india company i regard as no object of the bill. the sword is drawn, and you must throw away the scabbard. pass this act, and you will be past the rubicon. the americans will then know that we shall not temporize any longer; if it passes with a tolerable unanimity, boston will submit, and all will end in victory without carnage." the marquis of rockingham and the duke of richmond warmly opposed the measure, as did lords camden and shelburne, the latter of whom proved the tranquil and loyal condition in which he had left the colonies on giving up their administration.

[332] colonial history, vol. i., chap. iv., p. 379.

"the inhabitants of boston, distinguished for politeness and hospitality no less than for industry and opulence, were sentenced, on the short notice of twenty days, to a deprivation of the means of subsistence. the rents of landholders ceased, or were greatly diminished. the immense property in stores and wharves was rendered in a great measure useless. labourers and artificers, and many others employed in the numerous occupations created by an extensive trade, shared the general calamity. those of the people who depended on a regular income, and those who earned their subsistence by daily labour, were equally deprived of the means of support. animated, however, by the spirit of freedom, they endured their privations with inflexible fortitude. their sufferings were soon mitigated by the sympathy and relieved by the charity of the other colonists. contributions were everywhere raised for their relief. corporate bodies, town meetings, and provincial conventions sent them letters and addresses applauding their conduct and exhorting them to perseverance. the inhabitants of marblehead (which was to be the seaport instead of boston) generously offered the boston merchants the use of their harbour, wharves, warehouses, and their personal attendance, on the lading or unlading of their goods, free of all expense. the inhabitants of salem (the newly appointed capital) concluded an address to governor gage in a manner that reflected great honour on their virtue and patriotism. 'by shutting up the port of boston,' they said, 'some imagine that the course of trade might be turned hither, and to our benefit; but nature, in the formation of our harbour, forbids our becoming rivals in commerce with that convenient mart; and were it otherwise, we must be dead to every idea of justice, lost to all feelings of humanity, could we indulge one thought to seize on wealth and raise our fortunes on the ruins of our suffering neighbours.'" (holmes' annals, etc., vol. ii., pp. 187, 188.)

[333] history of the united states, vol. vi., chap. lii., pp. 525, 526.

[334] marshall's colonial history, chap. xiv., p. 405.

"as soon as the act was received, the boston committee of correspondence, by the hand of joseph warren, invited eight neighbouring towns to a conference 'on the critical state of public affairs.' on the 12th, at noon, metcalf bowler, the speaker of the assembly of rhode island, came before them with the cheering news that, in answer to a recent circular letter from the body over which he presided, all the thirteen governments were pledged to union. punctually at the hour of three in the afternoon of that day, the committees from the eight villages joined them in faneuil hall, the cradle of american liberty, where for ten years the freemen of the town had debated the great question of justifiable resistance. placing samuel adams at their head, and guided by a report prepared by joseph warren of boston, gardener of cambridge, and others, they agreed unanimously on the injustice and cruelty of the act by which parliament, without competent jurisdiction, and contrary as well to natural right as to the laws of all civilized states, had, without a hearing, set apart, accused, tried and condemmed the town of boston." (bancroft's history of the united states, vol. vii., chap, i., pp. 35, 36.)

[335] history of the united states, vol. vii., chap, x., pp. 38, 39.

referring to general gage's arrival at boston, as commander-in-chief of the continent as well as successor to hutchinson as governor of massachusetts, mr. bancroft says:

"on the 17th of may, gage, who had remained four days with hutchinson at castle william, landed at long wharf amidst salutes from ships and batteries. received by the council and civil officers, he was escorted by the boston cadets, under hancock, to the state house, where the council presented a loyal address, and his commission was proclaimed with three volleys of musketry and as many cheers. he then partook of a public dinner in faneuil hall. a hope still lingered that relief might come through his intercession. but gage was neither fit to reconcile nor to subdue. by his mild temper and love of society, he gained the good-will of his boon companions, and escaped personal enmities; but in earnest business he inspired neither confidence nor fear. though his disposition was far from being malignant, he was so poor in spirit and so weak of will, so dull in his perceptions and so unsettled in his opinions, that he was sure to follow the worst advice, and vacillate between smooth words of concession and merciless severity. he had promised the king that with four regiments he would play the lion, and troops beyond his requisition were hourly expected. his instructions enjoined upon him the seizure and condign punishment of samuel adams, hancock, joseph warren, and other leading patriots; but he stood in such dread of them that he never so much as attempted their arrest."—ib., pp. 37, 38.

[336] but before the prorogation, which took place the 28th of may, the assembly desired the governor to appoint the 1st day of june as a day of fasting and prayer; but he refused, assigning as a reason, in a letter to lord dartmouth, that "the request was only to give an opportunity for sedition to flow from the pulpit."

[337] "the people of massachusetts were almost exclusively of english origin. beyond any other colony they loved the land of their ancestors; but their fond attachment made them only the more sensitive to its tyranny. to subject them to taxation without their consent was robbing them of their birthright; they scorned the british parliament as a 'junta of the servants of the crown rather than the representatives of england.' not disguising to themselves their danger, but confident of victory, they were resolved to stand together as brothers for a life of liberty." (bancroft's history of the united states, vol. vii., chap. i., p. 38).

[338] history of the war with america, france and spain, and holland, commencing in 1775, and ending in 1783. by john andrews, ll.d., in four volumes, with maps and charts. london: published by his majesty's royal licence and authority, 1788. vol. i., pp. 137, 138.

a more minute and graphic account of the close of this session of the massachusetts court or legislature is as follows:

"on the appointed day the doors were closed and the subject was broached; but before any action could be taken in the premises, a loyalist member obtained leave of absence and immediately dispatched a messenger to gage, to inform him of what was passing. the governor, in great haste, sent the secretary to dissolve the court. finding the door locked, he knocked for admission, but was answered, that 'the house was upon very important business, which when they had finished, they would let him in.' failing to obtain an entrance, he stood upon the steps and read the proclamation in the hearing of several members and others, and after reading it in the council chamber, returned. the house took no notice of this message, but proceeded with their business; and, by a vote of 117 to 12, having determined that a committee should be appointed to meet, as soon as may be, the committees that are or shall be appointed by the several colonies on this continent to consult together upon the present state of the colonies, james bowdoin, thomas cushing, samuel adams, john adams, and robert treat paine were selected for that purpose, and funds were provided for defraying their expenses." (barry's history of massachusetts, second period, chap. xiv., pp. 484, 485.)